In the eyes of Renew America in order "to qualify to be president, an individual--at minimum--should:
- Understand that our country's most urgent and important problems are moral--not material--and that unless we as a nation address our moral challenges first and foremost, no physical or economic might will save us.
Me: agree wholeheartedly although probably not in a manner that they would anticipate. Running score: +1
- Recognize that our country's most critical moral need is to qualify for God's providence and intervention, without which we will be destroyed both from without and from within.
Me: not with them on this one. Running score: 0
- Appreciate that the single most immoral and catastrophic policy in our nation is tax-funded, government-supported abortion on demand--a policy that utterly disqualifies us from God's protection as a people.
Me: definitely not with them on this one. I have a list of probably a hundred things that I consider bigger moral issues started with unprovoked invasions of sovereign countries. Running score: -1
- Acknowledge that to merit God's blessings, we must also--as a nation--allow and encourage public forms of religious expression, as protected by our Constitution, and not limit religious expression merely to private or personal devotion. (In other words, a candidate must outwardly reject the unconstitutional notion of "separation of church and state.")
Me: still not with them. I wonder if they have read the Federalist papers or know anything about the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of our "Founding Fathers". Running score: -2
- Defend God-ordained traditional marriage against encroachment by the gay agenda--taking active measures to stem such encroachment and refusing to capitulate to pressure to do otherwise.
Me: I'm starting to get a bit discouraged. After all I started out so well! Running score: -3
- Make it clear that the Constitution--as written--is not just a "g--d--- piece of paper," but the very basis for all law in our republic, and that the Constitution, not the increasingly lawless judiciary, is our nation's ultimate legal authority.
Me: I'm crediting myself with partial agreement here as long as you add in the history of English Common Law to the mix; the Magna Carta et al. (A note to Alberto Gonzales: this is why the right to habeas corpus isn't actually in the Constitution. The Framers considered it a given). I'll just cancel out the "lawless judiciary" comment with a "lawless executive" of my own! Running score: -2
- Accept, as a corollary, that all three branches of government are equal in their right to interpret and apply the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court has no authority to create law, nor to dictate what the other branches must do.
Me: Again conditional agreement with some of this. The three branches of the government are, essentially equal, but precedent has established the right of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of actions of the other two. I give myself nul points on this one. Running score: -2
- Understand the importance of the Declaration of Independence in defining the proper role of government in general and identifying the broad principles of our nation's life in particular, principles the Constitution is intended to guarantee and preserve. (This means that a candidate must acknowledge that our most basic rights come from God, and that respect for God's existence and authority is vital to our nation's legal and moral framework.)
Me: Sorry. I can't credit myself on this one. The God thing gets in the way. I doubt that She really cares who's running things down here! However I will gladly put in a vote for the Declaration's devotion to the "pursuit of happiness" over the Constitution's "property" any day. Running score: -3
- Reject all forms of globalism, including its economic beginnings in the form of NAFTA, CAFTA, and the World Trade Organization--all of which undermine our nation's sovereignty, security, and financial stability, pushing our country toward third-world status, enriching the few at the expense of working Americans, and threatening to dismantle our Constitution.
Me: Why does this one feel like a trap. I'm with them at the start and then it becomes obvious that they feel that Americans have a right to wealth at the expense of the balance of mankind. They lose me there. Again I'm giving myself nul points. Running score: -3
- Reject all forms of socialism, or any other scheme or policy that requires Americans to subordinate their individual God-given rights to the collective will of society, except as necessary to ensure that all have equal right and opportunity within a framework of constitutional law.
Me: A big "NO" on this one. If they would simply replace "reject" with "support" or "accept" then I would be OK. Running score: -4
- Reject the whole notion of a federal income tax and the very real "tax slavery" it imposes on all Americans--including a so-called "flat tax," which merely simplifies an inherently corrupt tax system.
Me: What the fuck? Running score: -5
- Reject all proposals that amount to amnesty for illegal aliens (each of whom, by definition, has entered our country without regard for fairness under law), and seek instead to ensure the security of our nation's borders and the enforcement of existing immigration statutes, a stance that is imperative in view of today's threat of serious terrorism, as well as the long-term moral, political, and economic needs of our nation.
Me: As far as I am concerned anyone ought to be able to live wherever they wish. Running score: -6
- Reject the idea that governmental education should be required of all of America's children without respect for the preferences of parents, or parents' God-given and constitutional rights. (Hence, a candidate must support a workable means of empowering parents as the ultimate authority, resource, and decision-maker in the education of their children.)
Me: Sorry. No. Too many parents are idiots. I guess that makes me an elitist (and a socialist). A rather odd combination don't you think? Running score: -7
- Reject the notion that citizens (or their agents) should be prevented from fully exercising their First Amendment rights in the political arena--or otherwise be stifled by such unconstitutional measures as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law.
Me: If you drop the bit at the end I agree with what he says but quite obviously not what he means. I disagree with those activist judges who have said that money is equal to speech. I also would like to get rid of free speech zones. Again I am brazenly giving myself nul points. Running score: -7
- Not only profess support for such "conservative" positions when asked or pressed, but actively and consistently push for such ideals, policies, and outcomes in American public life. (In other words, a candidate must have a proven record of strong vocal leadership in all of the above areas--not just claim acceptance of them--to be considered a qualified presidential candidate.)
Me: Of course not! Running score: -8
- Have considerable experience, credentials, and principled background in the executive branch of the federal government, if possible--the branch the candidate will oversee if elected president. (Having such "inside" experience and perspective is increasingly vital in view of today's "constitutional crisis," as the Supreme Court continues to battle for supremacy, Congress continues to set bad policy and abdicate its responsibilities, and the executive branch itself continues to abuse--or misperceive--its leadership role.)
Me: I have absolutely no experience in this arena and that should be considered a plus. Also I am weigh more smarter than the current Oval Office occupant. Running score: -9
- Have significant firsthand experience, training, education, and background in foreign affairs and national security, given the critical challenges in these realms that our nation currently faces. The more such background, the better.
Me: Ditto. (Doesn't this one disqualify all of the current Republican and probably most of the Democratic candidates? Running score: -10
- Have an exemplary public and private record of personal morality and marital fidelity, of the sort that most Americans consider essential to living a God-centered life.
Me: again a tricky one. I certainly don't live, or wish to live, a "God centred life". I'm divorced but when I was married I was faithful except, like Jimmy Carter in my mind. How about one last nul points on this one then? Running score: -10
No comments:
Post a Comment