The Truth in OH-2 CD

The voice of TRUTH for politics in the Second Congressional District of Ohio.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

What the liberals will never tell you: Illegal Immigration and how it impacts the Economy

Earlier today I was reviewing a blog from the dark side of the political spectrum (the progressive liberals of course) and there was what I believe a misguided and uninformed discussion claiming that the 2003 tax cuts could have somehow resulted in the “killing of wages and job growth.” One critical issue, that for some reason a majority of liberals tend to ignore, is the economical impact of massive illegal immigration.

This is not at all a complicated issue to explain. All economic models are based on the assumption of “all else being equal.” The models also assume that we have a natural unemployment rate around 3.5%. (Don’t let any of those Keynesian economists try to feed you any of that 6% nonsense they spew.) This unemployment rate assumes normal birth and death rates. However, this model does NOT assume massive ways of illegal aliens that come into this country, take a significant number of jobs, and send 80-85% of their wages back to their home countries. (The social problems that surround this issue are a topic for another day.)

Yes, I do have a degree in Economics so I can safely say that I know EXACTLY what I am talking about here. I have an Econ 101 primer on my website if anyone is interested:

I managed a restaurant for a year near East Gate Mall in OH-2. My employees from Mexico were the hardest working individuals by far. The culture in Mexico is one that installs a work ethic that a number of Americans are clearly lacking, especially those that grow up with a sense of entitlement that the government forces upon them. Every manger out there in the entire service industry would likely be happy with a staff full of Mexican employees (and yes they were ALL from Mexico and as Mexican’s they considered it an insult to be referred to as Latino.)

I speak from first hand knowledge on the issue of entitlement as well, I myself grew up on Food Stamps in Pike County and most of the people living in government housing around me had a mentality that the government owed them something whether they were going to work for it or not. Luckily a majority of the people in Pike County had the same work ethic that those from Mexico are taught. As do most residents in Adams, Brown, Clermont, Scioto and Warren Counties; (and the part of Hamilton County in OH-2.) So, I washed dishes, served food and took out the maximum in student loans to get myself through school because I understood what hard work and trusting in God can lead to. I also witnessed this same mindset of entitlement that “it wasn’t my fault” or “I didn’t do it” when I represented indigent defendants my final year of law school.

Karl Marx would be very happy with our situation today. However, we have ample evidence that his theories don’t work out all that well when put into practice. John Locke on the other hand knew exactly what the role of government is supposed to be. Give him a read if you don’t know what I’m talking about: the 2nd Treatise of Civil Government by Locke (which not only is the place I’ve been getting my ideologies it just happens to also be a little document that Jefferson and the boys were citing verbatim when they drafted a little something called the Declaration and the Constitution.)

It’s easy to sit back and discuss theory when you’ve never had to live something. By all conventional measures I should be a yellow dog D. I’ve never received anything from any political party or politician. However, I HAVE been there and done that. I know that the theory of supply side economics really does work when properly implemented (Ronald Reagan proved that.) I can also say with a high degree of certainty that John Locke got it right and President Reagan knew that as well.

As always I welcome all counter arguments.

Peace and God Bless,

Nate Noy

Saturday, July 15, 2006

How should one respond to hatemongers of Christians?

Recently I was attacked in a forum by the ever-so-popular Anonymous poster:

Post: "Oh boy, just what we all need. Another bible thumperthinking god has spoken to, only, them and now theyare the chosen one to save the 2nd district !!

We are not afraid of your god, we are afraid of what you might do in your gods name !!

God Bless, separation of church and state !! Those old time drafters knew we would end up in a bigpile of schmidt if the government legislated morality!! In germany it was not moral to have brown eyes !! I think the wRong wing wackos are confused and tryingto cleanse the world of all brown eye !!”

I tried to respond with the below; however, the administrator of the board has not allowed my response:

Dear Anonymous Friend,

It may behoove you to actually take a look at the platform of an individual prior to labeling them “bible thumper.” The following two bits of info are posted on my website:

I believe the Bible teaches us NOT to pass judgment onto others. There are a lot of different churches out there that I believe often miss this critical point. I feel joy in my heart because of my personal relationship with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit; I want others to feel this same joy; but I cannot dictate my beliefs onto them; that is between them and GOD Almighty.

FAQ 7 – Switching to your thoughts on the duty of government; where did you learn this concept?

Nate Noy: Our Founding Fathers relied heavily on the writings of John Locke and the 2nd Treatise of Civil Government when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I have spent a great deal of time studying Locke and I believe he was convicted with the Holy Spirit and provided a number of sound theories under which civil governments should operate.

Locke talked a lot about life, liberty and property. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration it is said that he initially wanted to quote Locke verbatim, but the concept of what Locke truly meant by “property” was not clearly understood by all. Property to Locke was not land per se, rather it is one’s self, and our property is everything about us not just the material possessions which we own.

I have no desire to pass my morals onto those that want no part of them. However, I will say a prayer for you.

I am curious how other Christians would address this type of attack if it happened to them?

Also I wanted to include the full text from my FAQ that I partially referenced above:

FAQ 3 – Can you expand a little further on each of the above “principles” starting with your take on GOD?

Nate Noy: I believe everyone should make a genuine effort to make GOD is the most important in their life. That really is life’s greatest challenge in my opinion. The good news is that GOD left us an instruction book on how to lead our lives, i.e., the Holy Bible.

The Bible teaches everything we truly need to know. I also believe that GOD sent his only begotten son JESUS CHRIST to earth to be a sacrifice for our sins and to provide us with a true message as how we should approach each other. I know that when JESUS ascended to heaven GOD sent us the Holy Spirit; this Spirit dwells within all true Christians. The Holy Spirit provides true believers with an overwhelming sense of peace and comfort, just as JESUS told us it would. The Holy Spirit also convicts us to seek truth and avoid evil and sins of the flesh.

I have accepted JESUS as my LORD and personal Savior. I wish everyone could feel the same sense of peace and true fulfillment that comes with this acceptance.

I also believe the Bible teaches us NOT to pass judgment onto others. There are a lot of different churches out there that I believe often miss this critical point. I feel joy in my heart because of my personal relationship with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit; I want others to feel this same joy; but I cannot dictate my beliefs onto them; that is between them and GOD Almighty.

Interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this topic.

As always: Peace and God Bless,

Nate Noy

Justice served in Jim Schifrin case – does Dusty Rhodes oppose the US Constitution? – And a guide to doing the right thing (in terms of loyalty etc.)

After running across Kimball Perry’s piece this morning regarding justice being served in a legal victory for Jim Schifrin (link below) I felt motivated to share some of my thoughts on this issue. I am posting the following to my blog: and on Blogger.

Props to Jim Schifrin and his team for brining justice to this case. Another great example of the true power wielded by those that have embraced and harnessed the maximum value (some may label it the exploitation) of this great medium of informational exchange aka the Internet. (I guess Al Gore himself would be proud, oh wait a minute…… (1) Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the WWW, the DOD started that back in the 1970’s or before and (2) Gore’s roots trace all the way back to daddy, a family tree that hasn’t exactly been an advocate for justice.)

Back to the point, transparency is a great thing in our society. It’s something we should all have more of and Jim’s website is based on that concept as far as I can tell (no, I’ve never met or even corresponded with Jim as of today.) The other thing that jumps off the page at me in this story is a lesson in loyalty: selling out a friend will generally come back to bite you. Loyalty of course is built on trust and we should all be able to trust our friends 100%. I firmly believe that this trust should only be violated in extreme circumstances and NEVER for pure self-gain. A true friend will “always have your back.” Those of us with a network of such support can lead very fulfilling lives, those that do not eventually are exposed as the frauds they really are.

You may ask: so what if your loyal friend is engaged in something dishonest or immoral? What should you as the friend do about this? In my opinion you need to provide your friend with straight and honest feedback and explain why you believe something is wrong. If you can’t respect your friend’s opinion, even if they don’t agree with you on an issue, then you don’t really have a friend at all, only a “yes man.” (Non-PC verbiage intended here, I went to a small liberal arts college where they tried to brainwash me into thinking the term “freshman” was sexist and it was not “right” to open a door for a woman, back at ya WOO. (I guess a story for another day.)) If you feel like you MUST expose your friend for the public good (e.g. if your friend tells you he’s going to kill someone and you drive with him to buy a gun,) you should always disclose your plans to your friend beforehand (unless of course this would put you in physical danger) thus creating some due process for your friend to make the “right” choice.

An example of the above could be the following: one of your friends who lives near Loveland claims that she ran her 59th marathon in Philadelphia on 11/20/05. A local radio host (let’s just call him Billy C ) conducts an interview with your friend seeking a little truth and asks her where she’s been over the weekend. She tells him “in Philly competing in my 59th marathon [sic] “ and she relies on this fact to head off an intense inquiry into her mysterious absence for the last several days. A few weeks later you are doing some unrelated research and happen upon the official results page for the race. You decide to see how your friend did, but for some reason the only person with her last name listed in the official results is her daughter. You realize the marathon is also cross-references by hometown, but you find the only residents from Loveland that competed were her daughter and sister.

You think back to the radio interview where your friend made it quite clear that she had actually “ran her 59th marathon” and talked about how tired it made her. This appears to be a blatant lie, then it dawns on you that you know of dozens of similar lies, wow, what should you do?

In the above somewhat hypothetical situation (the person is real but I cannot fathom she has any true friends) I would warn my friend to come clean. If her (remember if I were being gender neutral here I’d use “he” as another protest to PC language) lies don’t really break any laws or create harm and she refuses then you should make a stand not to support your friend until she starts telling the truth regarding ALL of her previous transgressions. If she continued to utilize deception as a means of getting ahead in life, say maybe get elected to office, then at some point you would have a moral obligation to society to go ahead and come clean. The Bible in Proverbs 20:17 states that “Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.” So the lie may be fun to live for awhile but eventually the truth will prevail, if you are aware of someone that continues to spew falsehoods from their mouth then you are setting yourself up for a little “gravel” in your mouth as well when the TRUTH sets the rest of us free.

The other thing to remember is that you should never sell-out a friend for personal gain.
The proverbial act of “throwing a friend under the bus” with the express purpose of advancing your own personal interests is something that is likely considered immoral in every school of thought (except maybe the Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton school.)
If you take the steps of giving ample warning to a friend that is not doing the right thing by doing the following: (1) let your friend know exactly what you morally feel obliged to do and why you feel this way and; (2) disclose to them the exact time-frame from which you will do this and be sure to follow through on your commitment to the rest of us.; If your friend was truly wrong, then at some point with the heat of the moment far-removed, he or she will likely come back to YOU someday and actually apologize to, and thank you for being a stand up enough person to do what is right.

Final note on this issue: is Dusty Rhodes a communist or something? In the article he states he supports creating a law that forces the seller of a home to disclose their personal thoughts. Full transparency of “how much a seller thought is was worth.” What the heck is that concept? Folks I am truly a champion for transparency ( but I would NEVER promote forcing someone to disclose their personal belief on something. There is no chance this law would survive a Constitutional Challenge if I were on the case! To me this is an obvious violation of the due process clause of Amendment V aka the 5th Amendment to our great Constitution. It also dips into a pretty good argument for violations of the 1st Amendment as well.

I’d love to be writing the copy for the next person running against Rhodes:

“Dusty Rhodes if he is willing to sell out his “friends” imagine what he’d be willing to do to you? In fact, Dusty recently advocated legislation that would force you to disclose your personal thoughts in direct violation of your 1st and 5th Amendment Rights. What’s next Dusty? Do you have a crystal ball in your office or have you conspired with aliens to read our thoughts?” ……..

Then you show your candidate with his friends, talk about how he vows to protect the Constitution and Rights of our legal citizens and how he does not believe in Crystal Balls or Aliens. This may cost you the extreme liberal and Al Gore vote (oops, one-in-the-same I guess) but it should be the marching ticket someone with the record of Dusty Rhodes has earned by kicking a friend to the curb. The more we all know about people like that, the better off we all are.

As always, all feedback is welcomed (even that of the pink-o progressive crowd.)

Peace and God Bless,

Nate Noy

Politics Extra: Whistleblower wins, house is worth less

Politics Extra: Whistleblower wins, house is worth less