wake up people!!!

running for u.s. president is NOT supposed to be like running for king (or queen) of the prom!

with the nearly 24/7 "news" coverage of the elections it has occurred to me that many of our fine citizens, nationwide, think this whole race is like reality t.v.  that we're just voting whomever we like better TODAY off the island because we think the others left standing will better help US to get what we want.

look, we all want the same things - well most of us want the same things.  i had to modify that statement because i know of at least one very liberal mother who believes in no discipline and letting our children "find their own way without boundaries imposed by parental units."  uh yeah, and i see how well that's working for her - and our country in general.

things we want our kids to know: working hard matters and it's what helps you get ahead in life.  integrity counts and we MUST each take full responsibility for our own actions.  the rules (laws) apply equally to everyone.  all of the rights delineated in the bill of rights are granted to each of us by god and not by government.  in america government is of the people, by the people for the people - it exists at our say so, not the other way around.  bigger government doesn't mean better government (in fact the opposite is true).  and finally, this is our piece of dirt and it's worth dying for.

we are not electing a mayor of the united states.  we are not electing governor of the united states.  and aren't appointing a ceo of the united states and we damn sure aren't appointing a motivational speaker for the united states.  we are electing a president for the united states.

i'm so sick of watching the infotainment babes (and boobs) discussing "top tier candidates", "do or die states", "frontrunners" and trying to redefine conservatism.  that's not what this is all about.  who cares if you're a black man.  or a woman.  or a charismatic former governor.  or even a slow-moving, no fire-in-the-belly, sometimes actor and former senator from tennessee.  not one of those things has anything, what-so-ever to do with being elected the president of the united states.

i would like to call on all of us, from this moment forward, to stop listening to the talking heads and to start to do some actual comparisons of the persons running for president - not against each other, but against what our founding fathers said about what our government is supposed to be - let's look at what both the constitution and the federalist papers say.

federalism is not some new, republican fad.  it is not subject to shifting and changing to fit "who we are as a people".  it is the very basis of our republic.  it is the process by which the powers of our government are [supposed to be] divided:

the federal government, including the executive branch (i.e. the president), has been granted - by our constitution - the primary responsibility of defending our country and her citizens from (within or without) attack or sedition.  additional responsibilities include the regulation of commerce - interstate and   foreign, and ensuring the rights of the people by enforcing the constitution.  that's pretty much it.  in every other matter, the people and the local governments - read that to mean your town and then your state - have primary responsibility.

now, compare the rules of federalism with your candidate and let's see where he stands - i'm ignoring the dems as i am not concerned with them.  here, i'll help.  human events has given their endorsement to fred thompson.  here's what their editors have to say about each of the candidates in how they came to make their decision on whom to back.

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.

To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards, and their positions on the top ten issues for conservatives determined in our reader survey. Some come close to meeting those conservative standards, and others clearly do not.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a war hero whose personal courage sustained many of the men imprisoned with him in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” We honor him, but he does not honor many conservative principles. His co-authorship of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation last summer ran directly against our  principles of American sovereignty and national security. His position has not been ameliorated by his more recent explanations of border-security measures he might support. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his support for economy-strangling measures to control “global warming” and his anti-torture legislation (which didn’t make torture illegal, it already was: McCain’s law only made a clear law vague to the point of unenforceability) all cut against the conservative grain. And so did his McCain-Feingold campaign finance law with its stifling of political free speech.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a charming and agreeable gentleman. But his support for the economically disastrous “cap-and-trade” fix for global warming is as bad as Sen. McCain’s position on the issue. The so-called “fair tax” he supports is unworkable. His tax-and-spend policies do not comport with conservative principles, but they do align all too well with Huckabee’s populist rhetoric on the injustice of corporate CEO salaries. His stance on granting special benefits to the children of illegal aliens is also very troubling. On the war, Gov. Huckabee’s understanding of the issues does not impress us. For example, he wants to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move the detainees there into U.S. prisons, which -- as Sen. Thompson schooled him on in a recent debate -- would result in the grant of constitutional rights to terrorist detainees even though they are enemy combatants. Gov. Huckabee’s grasp of foreign policy does not make us comfortable.

Rep. Ron Paul’s limited-government rhetoric is appealing to many conservatives, but his unyielding isolationism that might have been appropriate for another era is not realistic. He would withdraw from Iraq regardless of the consequences and then pull American forces out of every other country as well. He does not believe, as we do, that America must win the war against the terrorist-sponsoring nations. We find intolerable his repeated statements that we were attacked on 9/11 because we had a presence in the Middle East. That implies that we were, in whole or in part, to blame for the attacks.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did an admirable job bringing his city through the crisis of 9/11. Even before that terrible day, he did a commendable job cleaning up Gotham. But the mayor’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights social views are more liberal than conservative. And his foreign policy views are of considerable concern. His article in Foreign Affairs late last year seemed less conservative than neo-Wilsonian. Giuliani also said in the June 5, 2007, debate, “We need to look at nation-building as part of what we need to teach our military.” No, Mr. Mayor. We don’t.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a closer call. We believe his relatively new pro-life position is a sincere one, but examining his record and listening to his campaign rhetoric indicate to us that he is more a problem-solver than a gut conservative. His “RomneyCare” legislation made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to impose an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the state to have health coverage or face significant penalties. And we have concerns about the big-government approach he took as governor, raising state “fees,” according to the Cato Institute, by $500 million and proposing two corporate tax increases totaling close to $400 million a year.

Which brings us back to Sen. Fred Thompson.

We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.

In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.

On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”

Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.

We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.

i know it FEELS good to cast your vote for the person promising to "fix" everything.  a president (and congress as a matter-of-fact) should not be promising to end poverty, or boost the economy, or  to restore hope.  neither does the federal government have any authority to provide health care and/or education for all.  if the candidate you're supporting plans to make use of their presidential powers (including the appointment of judges) to run our states and to raise our families, they are out of line.

i am for fred.  i honestly don't know what i will do if fred doesn't get the nomination.  my good friend goat says i should throw behind mitt if fred fails in his bid.  but i have some big problems with mitt, as i do with every other person running for the republican nomination.

my issues with mitt aren't his change from democrat to republican or his change of heart in regards to abortion.  i know plenty of people who have thought they believed in "the women's right to choose" and when the rubber met the road they couldn't bring themselves to support it.  so that "flipflop" doesn't bother me.  it does bother me that he now, apparently, supports a federal ban on abortions, this is not something that should be addressed at the federal level as it is a state's rights issue.

no the things that bother me most about mitt are these:

1. his lying about his father having marched with mlk.  he says it wasn't lying, that he was speaking figuratively, but that's not how he presented it.  and no matter what pretty package you try to put it in now, a lie is a lie.  and let's not forget his claim that he was endorsed by the nra when he ran for governor in massachusetts.  turns out he wasn't.  another figurative speech?  come on, mitt, these are things our "first black president" would have done - what is the meaning of "is" anyhow?

2. his healthcare mandate in the state of massachusetts.  this is a plan with little to differentiate itself from hillary care.   gregg jackson over at human events did a great job in detailing the specifics here.  some of the more pertinent information is this:

Romney claims that "we worked to reduce the burdens of regulation." If only this were true. While Romney may have "worked to reduce" regulation, his plan significantly increased government regulation by mandating that every citizen purchase insurance either through their employer, the government, or on their own -- the first time ever that a state has mandated that citizens be forced to purchase a state defined product. The Congressional Budget Office noted that this level of government intervention and regulation was "unprecedented." Businesses with more than 10 employees were forced to provide health insurance or pay a "fee" of up to $295 per employee per year. Even though he vetoed this specific provision of the bill (which was over-ridden by the legislature), Romney still signed the bill. As a result, there are now calls for increasing the "fee" due to fund the growing costs of the subsidized programs.

Romney Care also significantly expanded government bureaucracy establishing at least a dozen new boards, commissions, and miscellaneous institutions. One of the commissions is charged with the responsibility of eliminating "racial and ethnic health disparities."

The former governor's plan did virtually nothing to reduce the burdensome and expensive state mandates that force insurance companies to cover about 40 very costly benefits such as in vitro fertilization and hair prostheses that have significantly increased the cost of insurance coverage.

The subsidies of his plan total over a billion dollars which have not only increased the cost of healthcare in Massachusetts but has made more citizens dependent upon the government for their healthcare in direct contradiction to Romney's assertion that his plan increased individual responsibility.

In a commentary in the Wall Street Journal on February 26, 2007 Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, described Romney Care as "an intensive care package" that only months after it was signed into law was already costing Massachusetts' taxpayers more than $150 million more than the public had been told the plan would cost. Furthermore, average premiums for unsubsidized healthcare coverage increased sharply to $380 per month (Romney had promised $200 average monthly premiums).

this is, btw, the same type of thing he hopes to put into place nationally, mandated by the federal government. 

3. his support of illogical, irrational gun control laws demonstrate to me that he is not a pro-freedom, limited government candidate.  romney seems to think gun owners should vote for him because he claims to be a hunter himself (which may or may not be true), and he's all about protecting american's right to hunt, etc. unfortunately, the second amendment doesn't guarantee a citizen's right to hunt, or to target shooting, or to antique gun collecting.

gun owners are apparently supposed to just overlook romney's lifelong advocacy for more gun control, his advocacy of renewing the assault weapons ban, and of repealing the tiahrt amendment making it easier for state and city governments to file junk lawsuits against the gun manufacturers.

4. he appointed more liberal activists than constitutional constructionists to the courts while he was governor of massachusetts.  and now we're supposed to believe that he will appoint supreme court judges who are somewhere to the right of robert bork?  i'm still trying to figure out why, when romney has embraced judicial activism so strongly bork endorsed him.  let's not forget that it was romney, in spite of the complete absence of any law or constitutional provision authorizing it, who used his executive power to implement the god-awful goodridge decision and implement gay marriage in massachusetts.

please, someone (anyone?), explain to me how this fits in with the model of limited government in the vein of ronald reagan.  it  doesn't. 

so, for the good of the nation and for the love of god and family, stop watching the race for 2008 as if it were reality t.v.  stop worrying who's done what in which state or who's campaign has the most money.   or who the talking heads say has a chance to win in november.

we all know that once the nomination is made we're going to have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.  now is NOT that time.  now is the time to not worry about electability, to ignore the polls and pundits and to vote for the best man for the job - regardless of who says what about him.

and remember, that just because a candidate claims to the be reincarnation of reagan, or associates himself with reagan because he worked in his administration, or knew someone else who did, does NOT make him a conservative.  even if you think you've already chosen, go back and revisit your guy and be certain that you're choosing your candidate in accordance with the criterion of the u.s. constitution.  look at what the candidate says his philosophy for government is, sure, but make certain his history backs up what he says his philosophy is.  remember what you mother told you, how "actions speak louder than words" - it's true and there's no getting around it.

it's our country and i know, with all my heart and soul, that we must nominate someone who is humbly willing to serve as our president as a true federalist - read conservative.  that is the only chance we will have to beat the dems in november.  we cannot beat the democrats by moving towards the left - we can only beat them by going back to our roots and the edicts of our founding fathers.  if we don't weed out the "moderates" and "neocons" among our ranks, we will have little different to offer our citizens than a merger between democrats and republicans.

Comments

[Goat]

#1 On MLK he could have seen his dad on TV marching with King,which he did and helped organize in Michigan. The NRA thing was a gaffe for sure but minor, it could have been a local chapter. He is not a gun-grabber.
#2 It was Mittcare or socialist care in Mass, the uber-liberals were about to pass state paid care. He had nothing to do with the abortion provision and does not want a federal mandate.
#3 Gun control, he was overridden by the uber-liberals. He understands assault weapon to mean a fully-automatic machine gun not a semi-auto deer rifle. He believes we have the right to protect our homes and families.
#4 On judges, he didn't have much choice in the way they were selected.
I believe there have been more lies told about Mitt than any other candidate that I can remember. I can spin Fred's record on the issues as well, he wrote McCain-Feingold and voted for it for one. Mitt has lived the most conservative life of any of the candidates in family, business, politics, action and deed. That is where I look to find out their first principals and how they deal with them not at well spoken words on the campaign trail. I have been looking hard at Mitt for years and while I disagree in places, overall he is our best candidate.

[Goat]

Oh and BTW, Robert Bork is backing Mitt and has made radio ads for him.

[Goat]

Remember politics is as much about emotion, energy and excitement as it is about policy and policy especially sound policy is none of those. SC is much more important to Fred than Michigan was for Mitt and losing to Ron Paul in three of the first four is not good. When do y'all vote? If Fred does not last, will you support Mitt or Rudy? If Mitt had left before 2/5 I would get behind Fred or Rudy and I would vote for Dr.Paul before Huckabee.

[heidianne jackson]

wow, goat, i believe i hit a nerve. however, let me address your comments

1. if he saw him on t.v. marching with mlk, why didn't he say so? in every source i've been able to find he has only said that he meant it figuratively. from the free press archives (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS07/712200442) there is this: Romney's campaign cited various historical articles, as well as a 1967 book written by Stephen Hess and Washington Post political columnist David Broder, as confirmation that George Romney marched with King in Grosse Pointe in 1963.

"He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb," Hess and Broder wrote in "The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the GOP.

"Free Press archives, however, showed no record of King marching in Grosse Pointe in 1963 or of then-Gov. Romney taking part in King's historic march down Woodward Avenue in June of that year.

George Romney told the Free Press at the time that he didn't take part because it was on a Sunday and he avoided public appearances on the Sabbath because of his religion.

Romney did participate in a civil rights march protesting housing bias in Grosse Pointe just six days after the King march. According to the Free Press account, however, King was not there."

if you have verifiable information to the contrary, please provide it to me so i can correct my post.

2. the point is, goat, that mittcare is not very different from hillarycare. if it was a forced situation that he didn't really agree with, then why does he tout it as his own? why does he state that this is what he will bring to the rest of the country? in fact, why did he sign it into law? if he disagreed with it so strongly than he should have vetoed it and let the legislature override him. the result would have been that the state would still have this horrible health care and he could say, in all honesty, that he didn't have anything to do with it.

i already said that i'm not concerned with the abortion thing. i get why it is what it is for abortion in massachusetts. don't look for an argument where i have none...

my only concern is that he, like huckabee, is in favor of a federal ban on abortion. don't get me wrong, i subscribe to the same thoughts about life as michael moriarty (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618241.shtml); i just don't agree with his (or anyone else's) stance that it should be done at the federal level.

3. on gun control - goat, i wrote only on what i could verify as having come from his mouth. there is plenty of video available to support everything that i typed on this (and every other topic i introduced). please point me to where, prior to deciding to run for president, mitt acknowledges the peoples' write to bear arms for things other than i mentioned. until very recently he publicly voiced his support to expand gun control.

and as for the nra thingy being a minor thing, i disagree. i believe it shows his character, again.

4. as for the judges, while it is true that there is a 9 person commission who have to sign off on the appointed judges, how is this different from having to get the nod from the senate? based on the fact that the majority of persons nominated for jugdehood during his tenure were libs why should i believe that he would behave any differently if the senate were [still] primarily liberal? additionally, his flaunting of the law in issuing the executive order for the allowance of homosexual marriages in massachusetts is a deal closer for me. it is just further indication of where his heart and mind tend to wander.

i'm not spinning mitt's record, goat, i am simply reporting only that which i have been able to verify. i did not print any innuendos or meanderings from the blogs. i painstakingly went through every charge i could find to make certain i presented as truthful a post as possible. but you're right, anyone can spin anything - but videos and state records aren't subject to spin when you watch the whole thing.

as for fred authoring mccain-feingold, source please. i have been unable to find anything from a reputable source to indicate there is any truth to this. i have found several bloggers for other candidates who are alluding to this, but none list their sources.

as near as i have been able to ascertain, fred was a sponsor of mccain-feingold. i don't like it and there is no way to spin that to a positive or change the record. however, it is something i can live with and i sincerely hope that someday it will be overturned. kind of the same view i have on roe v. wade.

i, too, have looked at mitt for years. more than half my family still lives in massachusetts, are registered republicans, all are politically active, all are gun owners and are also reagan conservatives. with the exception of one cousin, a law student, they all believe that mitt sold them out and have stated they will NOT be voting for romney even if he gets the nomination. that carries a lot of weight with me. i would hope you could understand that.

i too look at how people conduct their lives and in terms of being conservative, even in a liberal state, with the exception of abortion, mitt headed left way too often for my likes.

[heidianne jackson]

i know about bork, goat. i acknowledged it above: "i'm still trying to figure out why, when romney has embraced judicial activism so strongly bork endorsed him."

i have read all that bork has written on the subject and i have listened to everything i can find and i STILL don't get the endorsement and neither do a lot of others. no matter, bork DID endorse romney and that's that.

[heidianne jackson]

as i said above, goat, i honestly don't know what i'll do if fred doesn't get the nod. i may just sit it out, let the dems get in and hope that in 4 years people will be ready for a real grownup and a real conservative in the whitehouse. i can't see myself voting for rudy or huck for 100% - but between romney and paul, i just don't know at this point. i'll probably vote for romney if he gets the nomination, but if one of the others do, i just don't know.

[Patrick Joubert Conlon]

That was excellent, Heidianne. Mitt's got big faults but, if Fred picks him as VP, I will not be unhappy.

[Goat]

Hillary care is paid for by the government, Mitt's plan expanded private insurance to allow individuals and small businesses to group together for the smae rates as large buyers, a huge difference. He wants tort reform and investment in technology to lower costs not the single-payer gov;t plan that Hillary wants and he wants it to be state by state not federal.
I support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of responsible citizens as does he.
He has said he would love to see a day when abortions don't occur but acknowledges that is wishful thinking. Why would Bork support him if he didn't think Mitt had a solid constitutional conservative approach to the judiciary? Remember he had to deal with a legislature easily able to over ride his vetoes so he should not get blamed for that. Romney blasted judicial activism on the gay marriage issue and fought to get a measure on the ballot the uber-liberals blocked.
I will vote for whoever the GOP nominee is and support them because even Huckabee would not be as bad as a Clinton or Obama win in Nov. I consider myself a Constitutional Federalist and Fred is damn good on many issues but so are the rest except Paul and Huckabee. You said actions speak louder than words, look at Mitt's life, is there anything unconservative about it? I like Fred alot but his life story while darn good isn't as good as Mitt's. What other candidate has accomplished what Mitt has? A big happy robust family, a successful business career, and zero ethical problems not to mention taking a couple years out of his young life for missionary work, what other cadidate has done that?

[Goat]

Patrick, I think Fred and Mitt would make an excellent team. I will say this in that scenario I would prefer Fred to head the ticket on the age issue or we'd be back here in 8 yrs without a direct nominee.

[heidianne jackson]

just noticed one more thing, goat. you made the comment that paul has beat thompson in three of the four states - this is untrue. thompson beat paul in both iowa and wyoming. additionally, as far as delegates go is in 4th place and paul is fifth with 2, followed by giuliani and hunter with 1 each.

[heidianne jackson]

patrick, i couldn't agree more :-)

[Goat]

I will say alot of what I know about Mitt has come from long form radio interviews, mainly on Hugh's show, so I don't have direct quotes to back me up. I don't have time to dig through radio archives to find them.

[Karen]

Good post, Heidianne. I was going to remind you of the same as Goat, however, on Fred's participation with McCain/Feingold. It used to be called McCain/Feingold/Thompson when it was originally passed and Fred was on many tv interviews taking credit for it, too. I don't have a specific at my fingertips but until he began running for president, he was happy to claim participation.

No one is a 'true' conservative this time around and it's unrealistic to expect any candidate to meet all requirements for everyone. I also think Fred went negative first on the national stage - remember the debate where the candidates produced short videos? His went first and shocked everyone in the audience as it was a negative attack on Mitt, I think, when everyone else's spoke to the candidate's stong points. In the last few days, he has also been short with the interviewers on Fox. Just sayin'.

I've got no particular problem with Fred. I don't think, however, he's any better than the frontrunners. Just my two cents.

[Karen]

Did a quick research scan and find these two examples right off the bat. Reference to the 105th Congress, Jan. 21, 1997, text of S.25, lists Thompson as a sponsor of campaign finance reform with McCain/Feingold.

A lengthy article in the June 23, 2007 edition of the Washington Times listing Thompson's record as compared to other Republicans/conservatives. As the Senator from Tennessee, for example, he is consistently listed as more 'liberal' than the other Senator from Tennessee, Frist, on social issues and domestic issues.

It's an interesting article. I googled Thompson's senate career and found it. I knew his connection was out there but was too lazy to do the legwork. Hope this helps you.

[Robert (ConservativeCommentary)]

Fantastic post. I have linked it.

I am fully supportive of Thompson, but he isn't getting any traction. His campaign has been lackluster and I just don't even see a well reasoned strategy. At this point I still have him as my candidate, but I am looking for the alternate.

[Angel]

awesome work Heidi!..at least Romney can bump McCain!...thanks for the vis to my humble abode and yes u were number one!.Heh!:)

[heidianne jackson]

goat and karen, i'm writing a new post to address these remarks about fred and frist. goat another post is coming to explain my points with mittcare.

robert, thanks for the links, great to see you here again...

angel, yea me!!! and yea romney!!! i was so happy to see him beat out mccain.

[Jennifer]

Wow, Awesome post! I also support Fred completely. He is the only true conservative in my eyes, and I really dread what will happen if he doesn't get the nomination. Thanks for all the effort you put into this, it really shows and was very informative.

[Goat]

Remember Mitt had to work within the confines of an uber-liberal Mass. legislature when you write that on Mittcare. I am sure his personal approach would have been far more free-market and conservative if he had the choice. I am not anti-Fred just pro-Mitt and would love for Fred and Mitt to be the last two standing then we could get some real meat and potatoes policy debates. I could think of nothing better than a roundtable with them and Newt moderating either of them will make chopped liver of the Dems in a policy debate.

[Shaw Kenawe]

"...all of the rights delineated in the bill of rights are granted to each of us by god and not by government."

WRONG. Where exactly in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say we receive these rights and laws from god? Nowhere.

Now you may believe this country is blessed by god and god especially loves the US above all other countries--fine. But that's not what the Constitution states. And our laws are based on the Constitution, not the Bible.

You contradicted yourself in the very next sentence where you wrote "...in america government is of the people, by the people for the people. Nowhere does it say "of, by, or for god."

Another contradiction: Our government is elected by the people and it represents us, we the people. If government is the problem, then it is WE the people who elected it, who are the problem. It's not Them vs. Us. The government is US.