Obama’s Free Speech

by Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org

The White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told the Dominican government that during the presidential campaign they stringently controlled the information that was communicated to voters. “Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn. She also said, “ One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe (Obama’s campaign manager) videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get out message out without having to actually talk to reporters.” This would force a reporter to write only what Plouffe had said with no way to directly question him. According to Dunn, their media strategy was to make the press focus on what the campaign said and not why they said it.

All presidential campaigns attempt to manage, as best they can, the information that is given to the press. Ms. Dunn seems to be bragging on their ability to manipulate the media and thereby what the voters found out. It seems that this control of speech may not be limited to a presidential campaign.

Recently, the White House has attempted to discredit the top-rated news network, Fox News. On the October 18th edition of CNN’s “State of the Union with John King,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was the guest. King asked Emanuel about the administration’s conflict with Fox News. Emanuel said that Fox News “is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.” More importantly, the President does not want “legitimate news organizations” to follow the lead of Fox News.

ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the administration’s declaration that Fox News is not a news organization. To prove this assertion, Gibbs pointed to Fox News’ programming at 9 pm and 5 pm eastern time. These are, of course, opinion programs hosted by Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck respectively. When Tapper pointed this out to Gibbs, he held to his allegation but gave no further examples.

Obama and his FCC are said to support the idea of “Net Neutrality.” Under the provisions of this proposal, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be regulated as to what they could limit on their service, particularly from competitors. ISPs would be forced to act as simply “dumb pipes” with little or no say over their business. The fear is that private investors will pull capital from internet ventures as they see limited prospects for profit. Then the Obama administration steps in with billions of taxpayer dollars to fill the void. These funds could either prop-up “private” ISPs or how about funding a “public option ISP.” Regardless, once taxpayer dollars are funding the internet, the Obama administration will have the duty (as they see it) to control the content of the internet. After all, we can’t have those “loud, shrill voices” speaking out with nothing to balance them.

The failing health of our print newspapers is well documented. Just in the last few days the New York Times has laid off another one hundred newsroom staffers. Media experts say that a government bailout may be necessary because the print newspapers have been losing money for years as people are increasingly turning to the “alternative media” for information. President Obama told editors of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade in an interview that he would be willing to look at proposals like providing tax breaks or other incentives to the newspapers in exchange for them moving to a non-profit status.

Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland has proposed a bill that would grant newspapers 501c(3) status because, “the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken.” Now why would this be? Surely advertisers have not tired of buying ads in newspapers only to be beaten up in the paper for their profits the next day. Surely readers are not tired of having their intelligence insulted or needing to question the veracity of every story in the paper. As 501c(3) organizations, newspapers become charities able to receive tax exempt donations. Under Cardin’s bill, newspapers would be forbidden from endorsing political candidates, but that doesn’t mean they can’t shill for the Democrat party.

It seems that every time you shake a bush at the White House a Marxist or a Maoist runs out. A person is known by the company they keep. So what does this say about our President? One of the main techniques espoused by Marx or Mao was control what the people read or heard. One wonders if that is not the case with Obama.

Of God and Country

Humphrey Stevenson

Last night, I attended a great lecture put on by The USA Patriots. The title of the lecture series is “Of God and Country.” The two speakers were Associate Pastor Jeff Reed of Kirk Of The Hills in Tulsa, OK and Pastor Jason Murphy of New Life Church in Owasso, OK. Wonderful music was provided by The Hargroves. A group of Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts did a great job as the Color Guard for the evening. There was a huge assortment of delicious cakes, cookies and other snacks provided for intermission.

A full discussion of the content of the lectures is not possible here. However, Pastor Reed proved, with historical evidence, that the United States was founded as, is now and always has been a Christian nation. Pastor Murphy showed how the land mass that is now the United States was a special place, intentionally hidden away by God for hundreds of years until He was ready for it to be settled by a chosen group of people so that the greatest and most free nation in history could be formed.

I am terrible at estimating crowd size, so I will only say the there were several hundred in attendance. The large hall in which the event was held was filled to near standing room only.

I would like to thank The USA Patriots for sponsoring the event and all others involved in making the event possible. Also, a special thanks to the pastors and congregation of Kirk Of The Hills for opening their superb facilities for the evening.

There is another lecture in the series scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 7 pm at:
Kirk Of The Hills
4102 E. 61st Street
Tulsa, OK
So if you are in the Tulsa area, please come. You will learn much more about how God has influenced this great nation and have wonderful time while learning it.

The "Debunkers"

This quote was given to me at a meeting of The USA Patriots. It was made by Professor E. Merrill Root. Specifically he was speaking of history revisionists who were attempting to tarnish the fame of George Washington. However, I don’t think I ever heard a more spot-on description of the liberals of today.

"They are always working to deflect truth and shock men, to reverse and pull apart, to destroy by "debunking". They are not content with the truth, but lust for the trick; they seek fame by destroying fame.... The Greeks had an image for it: there was a man of no merit, who therefore burned down the most beautiful of buildings so that he might live in the fame of infamy. In the dawn of the twentieth century such men begin to multiply in the land, raising and training a guerilla army of smilers with a knife, hero mockers, vivisectors of value, haters of life, "debunkers", pint sized vandals of the mind, termites in the timbers of culture, who (having no greatness) resented all greatness.... who, since they could not create, lusted to destroy. Like the fungus of decay, like the rust that eats pure metal, like the moths that devour lustrous fabric (mere bellies with gray wings!), they lusted to devour and destroy and corrode and tarnish. They sought to shout a "No" to life and to love. And these "debunkers" were, and always are, of the Devil's party. They act as they do because they are little, and know it; because they are sick, and know it. They cannot endure that there should be greatness, because they are not great; they cannot endure that there should be goodness, for they are not good. They cannot revere a master, for they are not artists. If they could see George Washington as he (was and) is, they could not bear to see themselves as they are; therefore they hate him because he shames them".

Professor E. Merrill Root

The Leftist of the Year Award

The Leftist of the Year Award
by: Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org


All hail Obama the peacemaker! Yes, in a scant nine months, President Obama has done more than anyone else to bring peace in our time. That is at least the determination of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in awarding him this prize. President Obama was selected over two hundred and four other nominees. Because of Nobel committee rules, we will not know who the other nominees were, at least not for fifty years. But there is no way anyone can say with a straight face that there was no one on that list more accomplished in the area of promoting peace and more deserving of this award than Barack Obama.

Tim Marshall suggested in his SkyNews blog that the Nobel Peace Prize has lost much of its impact in recent years for awarding institutions and joint winners. Awarding it to Barack Obama guarantees headlines worldwide and the Nobel Committee may have hoped it would regain some of its luster. Marshall also suggested that such a stunt could cheapen the award.

Members of the Nobel committee attempted to justify their choice in the face of a fire-storm of criticism. Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP that the President was given the award because of “Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.” The problem with that statement is that prior to being nominated for an award, the nominee has usually accomplished something for which to be recognized. For example, before a singer is nominated for a Grammy, they have recorded a song. (Milli Vanilli notwithstanding) But the deadline for nominations for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was February 1. At that point, Barack Obama had been President all of eleven days and done neither of the things Jagland points to as accomplishments. So why was Obama even nominated?

Peace does not come because you hope for it. It does not come because you make speeches about it. Peace comes because you defeat those who would cause war. Given this, I would submit to you that George W. Bush has actually done more to promote peace than Carter, Gore and Obama combined.

During the eighties, President Reagan was called crazy and a warmonger because of his belief that the Soviet Union was a menace to peace and a danger to free people everywhere. The media cringed at the “bombing starts in five minutes” line. They said he was insane for challenging Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Ronald Reagan faced up to and defeated the greatest force for evil of his time (maybe of all time). He accomplished this without firing a shot. That is real peace. Alas, he did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize.

There have been many others who have brought peace to the world and did not receive the Peace Prize; Winston Churchill who stood against the murderous Nazi regime in the beginning, alone, Franklin D. Roosevelt who came to the aid of Churchill and entered the war once we were attacked by the Japanese or Harry Truman who finally brought an end to World War II. None of these men and so many others, who brought actual peace to the world by defeating those who would have war, ever received this so-called peace prize.

Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News program that we should be proud that President Obama won because it was a sign that the rest of the world likes this President. Several years back there was a push to promote soccer in this country and deemphasize the more traditional American sports. The main reason given was that soccer was the most popular sport in the world outside the U.S. Now I have nothing against soccer, but I could not and still do not understand how that fact made soccer more worthy of promotion than baseball or football. I don’t wish to sound rude but outside of a very few places I really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. The President of the United States is just that and not President of the world.

So, what are we to make of this award our President has received? Given President Obama’s accomplishments (or lack thereof) prior to receiving the prize and considering the last two American recipients Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, it would seem that the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than the Leftist of the Year Award.

Theater of the Absurd

Theater of the Absurd
by Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org


Welcome to Obama Theater, starring that master illusionist Barack Obama. No, not the sawing the woman in half illusion; the make $787 billion disappear before your very eyes illusion. (Wait, that was real.) It was the “thousands of shovel-ready jobs” or the “unemployment will not go above eight percent” that was the illusion. Obama and his cohorts are very good at crafting an image, but we’re starting to see that the image is the illusion.

Countless people are being exploited to help create the image of Obama. We remember the adoring crowds mechanically chanting “Yes we can” during the presidential campaign rallies. In the campaign and even now schoolchildren have been enlisted to sing praise songs about Obama. Most recently it has come to light that the White House pressured the National Endowment of the Arts to create propaganda in support of Obama and his agenda.

Even the First Lady attempts to create an image that may be an illusion. In the Obama’s failed attempt to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago, Michelle Obama made a speech to the IOC carefully crafted for effect. Mrs. Obama said she remembers sitting on her daddy’s lap watching Olga (Korbut), Nadia (Comaneci) and Carl Lewis compete in the Olympics. The problem with the First Lady’s statement is that she was born in 1964. OK, I’ll buy that maybe she sat on her daddy’s lap watching Olga Korbut compete in the 1972 Olympics when Mrs. Obama would have been eight years old. But saying she was sitting on his lap watching Nadia Comaneci compete in 1976 strains credibility and if she sat on his lap watching Carl Lewis in the 1984 Olympic Games, there was some kind of weird family dynamic I don’t even want to think about.

Obama’s constant dependence on a teleprompter is well documented. When he reads prepared speeches off of the teleprompter, Obama comes across as very smooth and polished. However, when he is off-the-cuff he stutters and stammers and appears to be in search of a coherent thought. When a person truly believes what they are saying and are passionate about it, it does not matter whether they are reading a prepared speech or speaking extemporaneously. Now I am no authority on the subject, but there are some that claim that Obama adds electronic reverb to his live speeches in order to make his voice sound more booming and authoritarian.

On October 5, Obama had one hundred fifty physicians from all fifty states at the White House for a meeting with the President on his health care plan. All the doctors had on white lab coats. It reminded me of career day in elementary school; the policeman in his neat blue uniform, the fireman wears his turnouts and the carpenter with his hard hat and tool belt. The image was more important than what these men said. That’s exactly the effect the administration wanted with this stunt. It’s as though we are all children and would never believe these people were doctors unless they wore white lab coats. Never mind the fact that physicians don’t routinely wear lab coats anymore.

According to the New York Times, the fact that they happened to bring their lab coats was no accident. They were instructed by the administration to do so. In fact many dressed in business suits or dresses and did not bring their lab coats. Those were provided white coats by the White House staff. The speech Obama made to these doctors was nothing new, same old rhetoric we’ve heard before. But what Obama said wasn’t important. It was the image of those white clad physicians sitting before the great Obama that was important.

Recently, Saturday Night Live did a spoof of President Obama’s campaign promises compared to his lack of accomplishments. SNL is no stranger to poking fun at presidents. One needs only to look at their treatment of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton during the 1990’s. SNL practically made a living trashing George W. Bush. It has been a staple of the show. But this time SNL made the mistake of turning their wit on The One. So desirous is the media to protect the Obama image that CNN actually did a “fact check” of the comedy skit.

All presidents desire to craft an image. So, it is not surprising that President Obama would seek to do the same. What is surprising is the lengths that he and his supporters will go to in order to build and protect that image. The image may be phony but the agenda is all too real.

Real Health Care Reform

Real Health Care Reform
by: Humphrey Stevenson
as published by: www.conservativetruth.org

Those of us who are against Obama style health care “reform” are portrayed as only being against it because of Obama, wishing only to deny him a political victory. We have been characterized as heartless and cruel and have even been called racist for our views. Mainly we are thought to have no ideas of our own; that we have no solutions for the problems that do exist in our health care industry.

One huge problem in our health care industry is frivolous lawsuits. Doctors pay thousands of dollars each year for malpractice insurance. They also order many unnecessary tests just to cover the bases in case they get sued. Therefore, we need tort reform. According to the Wall Street Journal, since Mississippi instituted its tort reform legislation, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has fallen by ninety percent and malpractice insurance premiums are down thirty to forty-five percent.

There is something the Federal government can do to help. They are empowered by the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce. They should remove all barriers so that health insurance companies can sell health insurance across state lines. This would increase competition in the health insurance market increasing quality and consumer choice and bringing the cost of policies down.

Many young people do not wish to pay premiums for a health insurance policy. They have other priorities and I would never be in favor of forcing anyone to buy something they do not want, but they need to understand the risk they are taking. If they are willing to accept the risk, so be it. But if they get seriously ill or injured, they must be made to pay for the health services they use.

This is one of the most important real reforms we could introduce to the health care industry; putting the consumer in charge of paying for health care services. Most people eat in restaurants and when they have finished their meals they expect a bill to be presented and they pay it. They don’t expect the bill to be sent to their “meal insurance company.” The Federal government has not introduced “DinerCare.” Although with this bunch you never know, so don’t give them any ideas.

Why has the concept of paying for the services you use been lost when it comes to health care? When confronted with the idea of the patient directly paying for their health care services, people seem to be afraid that if they are hurt or sick they will have to haggle a price with a doctor or run from doctor to doctor shopping for the best price. But when market forces are introduced, you won’t have to do this; the market will do it for you. How do I know this; because it already does.

Let’s look at an everyday example of the market functioning in this way. My wife calls me at work and says, “Honey, on your way home, please pick up a loaf of bread and a quart of milk.” Now, am I going to drive all over town looking for the absolute best price on these items? No, I’m going to stop at the grocery store I pass on my way home. Will I get the absolute lowest price on these items? No, probably not, there may be a store or two that charge a few pennies less. But the real question is: will I be charged a reasonable and fair price? Most likely, yes. Why, because every grocer in town knows the price range they must be in (in economic terms, the floor price and the ceiling price) to sell their goods (i.e. compete) in that market. In other words, the market sets the price.

When the health care consumer is directly paying for services, the health care market will function very similarly. A doctor will not be able to charge any price they want, because they are not the only doctor in the market. He is competing with the doctor down the hall, the doctor across the street, the doctor two blocks up the street, the doctor three blocks down the street and so on. As it is now, the doctor is not really competing. He knows what the government or an insurance company will pay for a given procedure and that is what he charges theses institutions.

We in the United States are blessed with the greatest health care industry in the world. What problems there are not going to be solved by a government takeover. That will only destroy the best of the industry. The only thing that will solve the problems in the health care industry is the same thing that has given us the highest standard of living in the history of the world; the free market.

Obama Heath Care Town Hall

A couple of points from Obama's Town Hall:



Obama says we spend $5 - $6K more on health care than anywhere else in the world. That is such a non-statistic it is in incredible. Of course we do. We also spend more on housing, food, clothing, cars, utilities, you name it. Because we have the money to spend on these things. If you live in a hut in Africa on $20 per month (like someone's brother) you don't spend any money on health care. You don't have the money to spend on it and therefore, you don't get the care.



Obama also says that if you get sick you should not go broke. His solution; if you get sick, you should die.

Governor to Feds – Please Tread On Me

Humphrey Stevenson

published by www.conservativetruth.org

On April 24th, Governor Brad Henry (D – OK) vetoed Oklahoma House Joint Resolution 1003. The resolution had passed the state House 83 – 13 and the state Senate 29 – 18. So, what kind of misguided resolution could have caused Governor Henry to take such action? HJR 1003 claimed the State of Oklahoma has “… sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

I’ll pause while you compose yourself.

That’s it. Plainly put, the simpletons in the state legislature had the audacity, the unmitigated gall to think that Oklahoma is a sovereign state having “… rights the federal government may not usurp;” (HJR 1003). Well this could not stand. I mean after all, what would Obama think? So, Governor Henry put a stop to that nonsense.

In his veto message, Henry said, “… there is no need to spend valuable legislative time on a resolution expressing support for any particular amendment or constitutional right.” However, the resolution had already passed in the House and Senate, so the “legislative time” was already spent by the time it reached the governor’s desk, seems to me, that argument should have been made earlier. No use crying over spilled milk. Nevertheless, I’m sure it is comforting to the citizens of the reddest of the Red States to know that we have a governor who believes that the sovereignty of this state or the defense of the rights thereof, is a waste of time. Anyway, the state legislators didn’t see it that way.

Henry continued, “Furthermore, HJR 1003 alleges, without offering any evidence or explanation, that past and current U.S. leaders may have violated the Constitution and committed crimes against the states and the country.” May have violated the Constitution? Oh no, permit me to be more direct; they have violated the Constitution. But if it’s evidence Governor Henry wants, allow me; how about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, ESEA, Bilingual Education Act, National Endowment of the Arts, EPA, CAFÉ, Community Reinvestment Act, TARP, bailout of the auto industry and on and on. All done by “U.S. leaders” and none of which can I find in the enumerated powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Henry further stated that the resolution implied that the state should reject federal tax money. He feared that this would prevent federal tax dollars paid by Oklahoma citizens to be used in the state to address “critical needs” and provide “vital services.” I can only imagine that he is referring to the so called stimulus money. However, HJR 1003 doesn’t specifically address the stimulus package. The relevant section merely demands, “THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or require states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.” Henry seems to be suggesting that the stimulus money comes with a hook in it.

“In short,” Henry said in closing, “HJR 1003 could be detrimental to Oklahoma and does not serve the state or its citizens in any positive manner.” I fail to see how any resolution that demands that the federal government retract its tentacles restrict its power to those enumerated in the Constitution could be detrimental to any state or its citizens. Governor Henry has obviously forgotten that the states created the federal government to act as their agent, not the other way around. HJR 1003 was to remind the federal government of that fact.

I know that several other states that have “Tenth Amendment” resolutions in various forms working through these states’ legislatures. If you are a citizen of such a state, call your legislator, call your governor. Tell them you want the resolution passed and signed into law. The only way we are going to get this monstrous federal government reigned in is for the states and the people to demand it.

My Father's Favorite Story

Humphrey Stevenson

This was my father’s favorite story and he told it often when I a little boy. At least it was one you could share in mixed company; he was a sailor after all. I thought you might enjoy the story and its message.

There was a very young bird in a nest high in an oak tree at in a small patch of woods at the edge of a pasture. The sun was shining bright on a bitterly cold morning with a biting wind blowing from the north. But the little bird was safe and warm in the nest while his mother was gone looking for food for him. The little bird was curious and poked his head above the edge of the nest and watched as the older birds jumped out of their nests and took off in glorious flight. The little bird wanted to fly so badly. He had been jumping around the nest lately and he was growing and getting stronger by the day, but was still too young to fly. The older birds made it look so easy and it looked like so much fun.

The little bird decided that he had waited just about long enough. So, he struggled his way up onto the edge of the nest, stood arrow straight, flapped his wings as hard as he could, leaped off the nest and … plummeted, like a rock, to the ground. Surprisingly, the little bird was unhurt, just very cold. He then started screaming in hopes that his mother would hear and come and put him back in the nest. But his mother had journeyed too far to hear him.

However, a cow grazing nearby did hear the little bird and came over to investigate. She found the little bird shivering on the ground and surmised what had happened. She looked up and saw that the nest was far too high for her to reach. But she knew that the little bird would freeze to death if she didn’t do something. So she turned around, carefully positioned herself and gently plopped a big, steaming pile of manure right on the little bird. When she turn around to inspect her handiwork, she found that while the little bird may not smell too good, he would be safe and warm until his mother returned. She then went to rejoin the rest of the heard which had moved to the far end of the pasture.

Once the little bird found that he could not free himself from his smelly cocoon, he began to scream even louder for his mother. Only this time it wasn’t his mother or a benevolent cow, but a fox, that that heard his protests. The fox found the little bird, pulled him from the manure pile, pick every bit of the manure from him and … ate him in one bite.

The moral of the story is; 1) those who dump crap on you aren’t always trying to hurt you, 2) those who clean crap off of you aren’t always trying to help you and 3) when you’re up to your neck in crap, keep your mouth closed.

She’s Miss USA in My Book

Humphrey Stevenson

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, during the Miss USA Pageant was asked a question by some far left goon about whether all states should recognize same-sex marriage. She had a decision to make. There were basically three ways she could answer the question. One, she could give this knucklehead what he wants and say, “Oh sure, everyone should have the right to marry anybody they want and all states should recognize it.” Or, option two, she could play the moderate, spew the pabulum and say something on the order of, “Well, that’s a decision that every individual and every state must make for themselves.” Either one of those answers and Carrie Prejean wins Miss USA.

But she didn’t do that. No, Miss Prejean, chose the third way, the hard way, and stuck to her convictions and said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Shock, Horror, and it cost her the crown. When a choice had to be made, Carrie Prejean chose the truth over the tiara.

Why? Does it really personally affect me if two men marry? Actually, no it doesn’t. I still love and am married to a woman. Just as I am sure that Miss Prejean will marry a man, no matter what anybody else does. But conservatives don’t think that way. It’s not just about us. Our lives are not lived in a vacuum.

Conservatives know that same-sex “marriage” damages and devalues the institution of marriage. Further, we know that the family has always been and will always be the bed rock of all great civilizations and one man joined with one woman in Holy matrimony is the nucleus of the family. Whenever, the institution of marriage is damaged, the family and therefore society is the lesser for it.

I heard today that Miss Prejean forgave that left-wing idiot for his disgraceful rant on his blog. So, Carrie Prejean has shown herself to not only be beautiful, smart and a person of moral values, but classy as well. We at Conservative Camel salute her.

Tea for All

by: Humphrey Stevenson

I attended the Tea Party held in downtown Tulsa on April 15. To tell the truth, driving to the event, I could envision myself standing around with five or six others trying to convince ourselves the turnout wasn’t as bad as it seemed. I guess that’s the way you feel after what happened on last November 4, you wonder if you are the only one who thinks and feels as you do. Has the whole nation lost its mind?

Well all those feelings were washed away as soon as I turned the corner onto Denver Avenue and got my first look at the crowd already assembled a half hour prior to the event start time. No! The whole nation hasn’t lost its mind. There are hundreds, thousands (maybe even millions) who feel as I do. This wasn’t a tax protest. It wasn’t a protest in the strictest sense of the word. I have listened to the main stream media dismissing the attendants of the Tea Parties as a bunch of racist red-necks. Regardless of what they say, it was a group of people gathering together to express their concern over the direction of the country.

Through the news media coverage of the Tea Parties around our nation, I noted many signs denouncing “taxation without representation.” While I agree wholeheartedly, we must face facts, we have representation, albeit shockingly bad representation. Of more concern, should be representation without taxation.

We have about 43% of the people in this country who pay absolutely no federal income tax whatsoever. I’m not going to fall into the trap of arguing payroll tax (FICA, Medicare, etc.); I’m talking about net income tax.

Why is this important? Many years ago, in this country, only property (i.e. land) owners could vote. I have heard this denounced as the government wanting only rich, white men to vote and perhaps to some extent that was true. However, if we can get beyond any racist or sexist overtones, we can see the wisdom of this idea. You see until 1913 there was no federal income tax. There was only property tax. This means that the only taxpayers were landowners. Our government, at that time, wanted to make sure that those who were paying the tax were electing the representatives. Now, we have a large number of people, who pay nothing, have no reason to be concerned about how their tax money is spent, but can participate in the electoral process nonetheless or, worse yet, have the ability to (through the representatives they elect) vote themselves a share of someone else’s income.

Now, am I advocating that those who do not pay income tax be barred from voting? Of course not. But we must be aware that a tax increase or cut means nothing to these people. Further, all citizens should have some stake, some “skin in the game” as our President has said. The income tax must be applied equally, a flat percentage rate of income applied to all citizens and residents or perhaps a national sales tax. However, I would never agree to a national sales tax without first a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment. Regardless of the means, the tax code should only be used to fund the legitimate, constitutional functions of the federal government, never for redistribution or any other idea of fairness.

Finally, I would like thank all the Americans who took the time to attend a Tea Party. Don’t worry that liberals and the main stream news media insulted or dismissed us as having no affect. They must do this because the alternative is too horrible for them to imagine, hundreds of thousands of conservative Americans taking to the streets, peacefully, in a grassroots movement to express their views.

But this must be a start, not an end. We must contact and stay in contact with our elected officials, republican or democrat, and let them know they are on notice. We must get involved. We must help conservative men and women running for local, state or federal office. We ourselves should run for office in some cases. We must have more Tea Parties and the largest Tea Party of all must take place at the polls in November 2010.

Welcome

Hello fellow conservatives, I am Humphrey Stevenson and welcome to Conservative Camel. I hope you will find the postings informative, thought provoking and sometimes fun. I can't, at the moment, tell you all that you might find here, there will be articles, photos, maybe book reviews, random thoughts, bad jokes and anything else that may pop into my head, all with a decidedly Reagan convervative slant.

By the way, you are welcome even if you are not conservative. Stop by anyway, maybe you'll learn something.