BlogBlurb - The Definition of a Patriotic Citizen

All the talk by political leaders, most notably President Obama, keeps emphasizing America's citizens. I hear it especially on this day of recognizing patriotism... but every time they do it seems they keep talking about the RIGHTS of citizens, the PLIGHT of citizens, the culture, spirit, blah blah blah.

What about the OBLIGATION of a citizen?

Doesn't a citizen have an obligation to their community? Well, sure, but liberal thinkers believe that's only if you're making enough money to tax you and share your discretionary income with others who have no responsibility to speak of. The sure few that face obstacles at no fault of their own are dwarfed by the massive numbers of people who milk the system for all it's worth, appearing to have needs, needs in the least created by a life of irresponsibility. And usually those needs, legitimate or not, are worsened by the system that never holds them accountable. It facilitates a life of expectation, and breeds a generation of entitled brats.

The obligation of a citizen isn't to take care of his neighbor by government-compelled charity. The obligation of a citizen is to take care of his OWN life and his OWN responsibilities and hopefully to succeed enough that he finds himself in a place to help others. ...out of the kindness of his own heart and gratitide for a community that affords them the freedom to accomplish this ability. Private charity is far more effective, accountable and mobile than government molasses.

Obama wants to see Americans RISE to the occasion to serve their neighbor. Great. Good sound bite. Then call Americans to give. But also call Americans to LIVE.

Convict them of their selfish ways... not selfish because they won't hand a buck to an addict, or a gangster who got shot and is now a quad sitting in government housing requiring 4 times-a-day nursing care...

Convict them of their selfish ways - of living life for only themselves and taking whatever the government or their neighbors give them without the impulse that says "no, I have more pride than that - no handouts for me".The President has a unique opportunity right now in this economic climate to call all Americans to the conviction of living a productive, prosperous life that will reduce their dependency on government and produce solid citizens.

Hey, Mr President, just a heads up: Prosperous people create more tax revenue... to fund the programs that can legitimately help those in need.

Hey, Mr Biden: Pay your "patriotic" taxes and shut up, let me keep mine.

Mr whoever else is in charge these days: Tell the Americans with their hands out to live the life of a responsible citizen and stop telling me to open mine.

Stop redefining "citizenry" to those who already understand it, and start encouraging those that don't understand to start doing so... or receive nothing.

The rest that remain are the ones that really need it. Let's focus on those.

Reprint with credit as desired, share the fire!Footnote: I have a friend who has a cool new blog - check it out: http://independentprinciplesapplied.blogspot.com/

Misgiving #10 - Hypocrisy in Brutal Display... Does it Get More Pathetic Than THIS?!

Does indignation look more pathetic and fake than this?

Total Stimulus to pork ratio:
$787 billion vs $8 billion (1%)

Charles Schumer D-NY (2/16) wants "to say this to all the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny - yes, porky - amendments: The American people really don't care."




REEEEEALLY?! My poor HD LCD almost suffered abuse the day I saw this on TV.

AIG bailout to "Evil" Retention Bonuses ratio:
$185 billion vs $165 million (.09%)

Charles Schumer D-NY (3/15) said, "They should voluntarily return them. If they don't, we plan to tax virtually all of it... To those of you getting these bonuses: be forewarned, you will not be getting to keep them."

Hey Chuckie... newsflash: Americans don't really care that much. That is, when they understand that these bonuses were from contracts that had to be fulfilled and that conversly BILLIONS were sent to overseas banks and their executives too. There's greater travesties than this... if it is even a "travesty".

_________________________________________________________________

Tell me, America... if you were working at a company that went under, and you got out just in time, but managed to do a good job in your own department while you were there, wouldn't you be seriously ANGRY if the government said you were going to get that taken away from you? Why do so many millions fail to take their brains this far in the logical process?

_________________________________________________________________

Further nonsense:

"What is the highest excise tax we can impose that will stand up in court?" mused Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. "Let's find out."

"But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology." - Charles Grassley R-IA

What I find outrageous is the outright, pathetic and incredibly OBVIOUS hypocrisy by BOTH paties in Washington to this event. I was against the bailout, I am against the corporate welfare that has been fashioned in haste the last 9 months, and I think it's ridiculous that executives have continued to rake in their bonuses in light of current conditions for those they used to manage, and in some cases had to lay off. BUT, a free market that is free to fail, free to rebuild and free to prosper on proven business principles is a market that succeeds for everyone. In this case, the very people that took donations from these executives have now turned on them because it's politically expedient. Even further, they're guilty of self-indulgent taxpayer molestation themselves. I'm not letting AIG execs off the ethical hook, but I think these creeps in D.C. have no credibility and it all makes me sick to the stomach.

Christopher Dodd LYING in plain English to Greta Van Susteren on the AIG bonus flap:




Earmarks from respective Senators just in the $410 billion OMNIBUS BILL alone:

Sen. Charles Schumer earmarks: 209 earmarks for $238 million
Sen. Max Baucus earmarks: 16 earmarks for $8 million
Sen. Charles Grassley earmarks: 119 earmarks totaling nearly $199 million
Sen. Christopher Dodd earmarks: 61 earmarks totaling over $49 million

Senator base salaries in 2009: $169,300 (Schumer gets $193,000 as Senate leader)
Senator pay raise in the last 10 years: 24%
Senator pay raise during recession (started in Dec. 2007): 6.3%

By the way, today there are approximately 410 retired members of Congress currently receiving retirement benefits for life, for as little as 5 years of active service.
AIG screwed up, and screwed us too.
And the Government hasn't?__________________________________________________________________

hyp⋅o⋅crite - noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


Americans need to remember something very fundamental in all of this - anytime the government throws money at something to solve a problem, it ends up biting us in the butt, specifically, the rear pocket... right by my wallet.

So why is everyone acting shocked? So many are financially perverted and corrupted by power, we've simply replaced one out-of-control-spending political party with another... worse one.
___________________________________________________________________

Just a small sample of the "stimulus" to rescue our economy that was so desperately needed:

$44 million for construction, repair and improvements at US Department of Agriculture facilties
$209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
$50 million for “Watershed Rehabilitation”
$1.1 billion for rural community facilities direct loans
$2 billion for rural business and industry guaranteed loans
$2.7 billion for rural water and waste dispoal direct loans
$22.1 billion for rural housing insurance fund loans
$2.8 billion for loans to spur rural broadband
$150 million for emergency food assistance
$50 million for regional economic development commissions
$1 billion for “Periodic Censuses and Programs”
$350 million for State Broadband Data and Development Grants
$1.8 billion for Rural Broadband Deployment Grants
$1 billion for Rural Wireless Deployment Grants
$650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program
$100 million for “Scientific and Technical Research and Services” at the National Institute of Standards And Technology
$30 million for necessary expenses of the “Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership”
$300 million for a competitive construction grant program for research science buildings$400 million for “habitat restoration and mitigation activities” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
$600 million for “accelerating satellite development and acquisition”
$140 million for “climate data modeling”
$3 billion for state and local law enforcement grants
$1 billion for “Community Oriented Policing Services”
$250 million for “accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey.”
$50 million for repairs to NASA facilities from storm damage
$300 million for “Major Research Insrumentation program” (science)
$200 million for “academic research facilities modernization”
$100 million for “Education and Human Resources”
$400 million for “Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction”
$4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient
$1.5 billion for Army Operation and Maintenance fund
$624 million for Navy Operation and Maintenance
$128 million for Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance
$1.23 billion for Air Force Operation and Maintenance
$454 million to “Defense Health Program”
$110 million for Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$62 million for Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$45 million for Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$14 million for Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$302 million for National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$29 million for Air National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$350 million for military energy research and development programs
$2 billion for Army Corps of Engineers “Construction”
$250 million for “Mississippi River and Tributaries”
$2.2 billion for Army Corps “Operation and Maintenance”
$25 million for an Army Corps “Regulatory Program”
$126 million for Interior Department “water reclamation and reuse projects”
$80 million for “rural water projects”
$18.5 billion for “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” research in the Department of Energy. That money includes:
$2 billion for development of advanced batteries
$800 million of that is for biomass research and $400 million for geothermal technologies
$1 billion in grants to “institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency”
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
$3.4 billion for state energy programs
$200 million for expenses to implement energy independence programs
$300 million for expenses to implement Energy efficient appliance rebate programs including the Energy Star program
$400 million for expenses to implement Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Grants to States and Local Governments
$1 billion for expenses necessary for advanced battery manufacturing
$4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid
$1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program
$2.4 billion to demonstrate “carbon capture and sequestration technologies”
$400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Science)
$500 million for “Defense Environmental Cleanup”

$1 billion for construction and repair of border facilities and land ports of entry
$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings
$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles
$426 million in small business loans
$100 million for “non-intrusive detection technology to be deployed at sea ports of entry
$150 million for repair and construction at land border ports of entry
$500 million for explosive detection systems for aviation security
$150 million for alteration or removal of obstructive bridges
$200 million for FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program
$325 million for Interior Department road, bridge and trail repair projects
$300 million for road and bridge work in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
$1.7 billion for “critical deferred maintenance” in the National Park System
$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
$100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs
$200 million for repair of U.S. Geological Survey facilities
$500 million for repair and replacement of schools, jails, roads, bridges, housing and more for Bureau of Indian Affairs
$800 million for Superfund programs
$200 million for leaking underground storage tank cleanup
$8.4 billion in “State and Tribal Assistance Grants”
$650 million in “Capital Improvement and Maintenance” at the Agriculture Dept.
$850 million for “Wildland Fire Management”
$550 million for Indian Health facilties
$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums
$50 million in grants to fund “arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn” through the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.2 billion in grants to states for youth summer jobs programs and other activities
$1 billion for states in dislocated worker employment and training activities
$500 million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve
$80 million for the enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations related to infrastructure and unemployment insurance investments
$300 million for “construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of Job Corps Centers”
$250 million for public health centers
$1 billion for renovation and repair of health centers
$600 million for nurse, physician and dentist training
$462 million for renovation work at the Centers for Disease Control
$1.5 billion for “National Center for Research Resources”
$500 million for “Buildlings and Facilties” at the National Institutes of Health in suburban Washington, D.C.
$700 million for “comparative effectiveness research” on prescription drugs
$1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
$2 billion in Child Care and Development Block Grants for states
$1 billion for Head Start programs
$1.1 billion for Early Head Start programs
$100 million for Social Security research programs
$200 million for “Aging Services Programs”
$2 billion for “Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology”
$430 million for public health/social services emergency funds
$2.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control for a variety of programs
$5.5 billion in targeted education grants
$5.5 billion in “education finance incentive grants”
$2 billion in “school improvement grants”
$13.6 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
$250 million for statewide education data systems
$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair
$160 million for AmeriCorps grants
$400 million for the construction and costs to establish a new “National Computer Center” for the Social Security Administration
$500 million to improve processing of disability and retirement claims
$920 million for Army housing and child development centers
$350 million for Navy and Marine Corps housing and child development centers
$280 million in Air Force housing and child development centers
$3.75 billion in military hospital and surgery center construction$140 million in Army National Guard construction projects
$70 million in Air National Guard construction projects
$100 million in Army Reserve construction projects
$30 million in Navy Reserve construction projects
$60 million in Air Force Reserve construction projects
$950 million for VA Medical Facilities
$50 million for repairs for military cemeteries
$120 million for a backup information management facility for the State Department
$98 million for National Cybersecurity Initiative
$3 billion for “Grants-in-Aid for Airports”
$300 million for Indian Reservation roads
$300 million for Amtrak capital needs
$800 million for national railroad assets or infrastructure repairs, upgrades
$5.4 billion in federal transit grants
$2 billion in infrastructure development for subways and commuter railways
$5 billion for public housing capital
$1 billion in competitive housing grants
$2.5 billion for energy efficiency upgrades in public housing
$500 million in Native American Housing Block Grants
$4.1 billion to help communities deal with foreclosed homes
$1.5 billion in homeless prevention activities
$79 billion in education funds for states
$2.4 billion carbon capture products…
$4.19 billion for ACORN and other bogus “community organizing” groups…
$650 million digital tv conversion…
$79 billion to bail out the state education system…
$400 million global warming research…
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts…
$200 million to refurbish the National Mall…

BlogBlurb - Ben Stein at his Best!

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.

I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu If people want a crïeche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did.

But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein

Rant #17 - Back Off, Socialist Punks! Congress Tries to go Blackjack with the Same Failed Hand...

This week, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Washington Mutual inched closer to the cliff and AIG received an $85 billion bailout that gives the Federal Reserve an 80% stake in AIG’s equity funds. The credit crisis has reached a new level as relatively few bad mortgages are affecting normal, predictable, theoretically “safe” investments like money markets, bonds and pension funds.

In a previous article, I decried the Federal takeover of Fannie and Freddie, and I still stand by this on principle. But the problem goes much deeper than this. The problems have been mounting for many years and have been affected by many variables, but the largest factors that figure into today’s economic quagmire consist of a single bill, a single political Party and a single Senator that was shot down by his colleagues. While no single factor is solely to blame for these problems we’re suffering with today, there are significant benchmarks and individuals that factor into this:

In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and President Carter as a way to make low to middle income borrowers (LMI) qualify for the types of home financing good borrowers have access to. After years of criticism by both sides of the aisle for being too vague and not accomplishing what it was supposed to do, President Clinton finally led a charge to pass a “modernization” amendment to the Act that called on the Treasury to report within two years how to fix the loopholes and “insufficiencies” in the system, and make it easier for LMI borrowers to get home loans.

Finally, in 2001 Congress passed revisions to the actual act that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other banks (including much smaller banks, for the first time) to qualify for government support for these types of loans, by virtue of being able to dump these types of mortgages on obligated bankers at Fannie and Freddie. Meanwhile, through the 90's the seeds of corruption under the guise of good intentions were laid by a man named Franklin Raines. The result was the beginning of a housing boom, as tens of thousands of new homeowners poured into the homeownership market. The natural economic cycle combined with this regulatory change to fuel growth that was exacerbated by the Federal Reserve lowering the discount rate to 1% by 2005-2006. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie became the largest lobbyists in D.C., pushing for promotion of programs that helped to fuel their growth and their earnings. The CEO’s of these mortgage behemoths were being compensated based upon earnings, which led to falsely reported earnings for many years in a row. Risky loans abounded and banks were flush in hundreds of millions of cash (with no call for “windfall profits taxes”, by the way…), and only a select few saw the rising tide coming.

One of those people were Senator John McCain, of Arizona. In 2005, seeing the negative effects of these two loosely regulated banks and showing a distaste for the blatant lobbying habits of these same two, McCain sought to introduce a bill that would establish a separate, independent committee to oversee the two banks and recommend impartial changes, and strip governance of them from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and give it to this newly formed committee. The law passed the Republican-controlled House but faltered in the Senate, which was unable to pass it due to the inability of Republicans to overcome blockage by Senate Democrats. The bill died.

Sounding today like a prophet, McCain said the following in introducing the bill to the Senate Committee that oversees finance:

“Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.

The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems.

This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market.

OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Today, Congress failed to pass a bailout plan for financial markets, and the U.S. stock market responded with an 800 point drop followed by several other international markets doing the same as they opened later in the day.

We now face a serious crisis in credit and liquidity and Congress insists that the only solution is more oversight and government control of hundreds of thousands of bad mortgages.

Barack Obama is refusing to take a hard line on this proposal so he can claim plausible deniability later, but he comes from the same cloth of governing philosophy that believes Government can best serve the needs of the people in such affairs. As everything shakes out and new revelations come to light on how this mess began and strengthened, we are seeing that not only is Obama comfortable with the idea of a virtual government "takeover", but is surrounded by the very people who brought about this crisis to begin with. Barack Obama received over $126,000 in contributions and financial support from 2004-2008, second only in total receipts to Senator Christopher Dodd, who collected only a few thousand more dollars, but spread over 19 years. This means that Barack Obama received the support of Fannie and Freddie lobbyists and their appendages at a rate 4 times that of any other Senator. This is terrifying to realize that Fannie and Freddie (who have now been revealed to have literally broken the law and falsified documents and forged signatures to drive up earnings and bonuses for Execs) saw something in Senator Obama that would lead them to support him far and above any other legislator in the House OR the Senate.

The corrupt executive at Fannie Mae who began this culture of deception is now considered part of the inner circle of Barack Obama's economic advisory panel, as Barack seeks his advice in housing and finance.

Unless you want the government to be landlord to your neighbors and becoming the single largest investor in the world, using your money, then I suggest you apply all necessary and accessible pressure on your Congressmen to continue standing on the principle of truly free markets and taxpayer protection. It was Congress meddling in the natural affairs and time-tested mechanisms of the financial investment market that set the motion for this collapse, the last thing we need is another intervention by the very entity that screwed this up to begin with.

The problem today is a financial system crippled by the mistakes learned by private institutions 80 years ago. The reason we suffer today is because once again, socialists tried to hijack a free system for their own cause, whether legitimate or not. Let's not make the same mistake again by letting the fools get another crack at it.

BlogBlurb - Who I Am: My Definition of a Conservative Minarchist

A friend recently challenged me to identify my political philosophy as succinctly as I could by answering some basic questions.

What is your political philosophy?

How do you think government should be run, and why?

Do you identify with a particular brand of politics (i.e., Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, etc.)?

Why?

What's the issue that inspires you to hold your viewpoint and associate with that brand?

This is my political philosophy:

I have to identify myself as an idealist in principle, but pragmatic in philosophy. I am Conservative. But I jokingly refer to myself as a Conservative Minarchist, that is, minimalist in government control in almost anything other than infrastructure, policing of reasonable morality, and military protection.

The pragmatist in me recognizes the needs of a society with radical differences between Hartford, Connecticut and Mobile, Alabama. But in this respect, I still believe local needs should remain local, and the Constitution affords the powers and rights not given to the Federal Government to the individual States and to the people. If Massachusetts wishes to serve the poor through it’s varied tax base, New York shouldn’t have to pay for it. I believe government has a responsibility to equip and encourage, but not to facilitate or provide.

Through history I see countless examples of good intentions that end up replacing the original problem with a new one, or several. Welfare, unemployment and federal project grants are just a few of the examples I’ve seen gone awry.

The problem I have observed is that government programs inherently survive beyond their usefulness and perpetuate their intended audience rather than resolving the initial injustice once and for all.

Which serves another final point on my philosophy… government is to see to the defense of those suffering injustice. But natural, human tragedy is not the same as injustice. And in this regard, I believe private charity should always come before the compelled compassion of “government assistance”. Private enterprise, social services and charity have always been more successful than government attempts at the same.

So, in conclusion, I firmly, though sadly believe the society we have today is the result of a Church that has failed it’s other oft’ overlooked commission to both the world and to it’s own:

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” - James 1:27

Blogblurb - Your Call: So, is this "bias", or just typical "hard news"?

Tell me, if you were going to report on the convention of a major national political party and it's supporters came out raving and happy, and the ratings were through the roof, how would you report on the event? I would expect myself to interview attendees, highlight the positive momentum and give the public a picture of the energy the convention held for everyone there.

...Even if it were the Democrat National Convention.

But, MSNBC, in despair after falling in dead-last in the ratings game for BOTH conventions (FoxNews came in dead-first in the coverage of BOTH, by the way), and after demoting it's two lead anchors for the evening political news instead had this lead page in its programming department:

Though it is purely beside my point, it is notable that the same page shows a headlining video of Michelle Obama, with the title "Michelle Obama dances on 'Ellen'". But my observation centers on the "coverage" of the Republican National Convention. Or, that is, the "aftermath" of said Convention.

Now, it must be noted that these videos fall under "Countdown" which is hardly claiming these days to be "fair and balanced", as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow take their hour to pour the vitriol that leftist desire so much. Those disenchanted by the relative "balance" of CNN find their home on "Countdown" with Keith "Olderman" and Rachel "Mad-woman" as he they've taken on John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, George Bush and Karl Rove on a daily basis for years.

However, "editors" exist in this business for a reason, and they used to have the job of maintaining at least an APPEARANCE of balance and objectivity.

While on this page Michelle Obama is having an Arsenio Hall moment, the Republican Convention "coverage" was titled "The RNC Aftermath" and featured video clips with titles such as:

"Maddow - Let's call lies lies"
"McCain speech skips vets"

"Filling in the blanks on Palin"

I was astonished that Keith Older-man was placed as the ANCHOR for the RNC this last week... imagine if Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh were the Anchor for DNC coverage the week before. The Dems and Obama campaign would have been all over it, crying foul... especially since it appears America prefers FoxNews over any other cable network (they hit ratings near 10 million viewers last week, while their nearest competitor came in with about half that audience). Fox understands it's viewers appreciate their attempt to be "fair"... which in this world of media-immaturity means a "moderate" report would seem "right wing".

It's pathetic. And a lousy excuse for a network.

Unfortunately, Chris Matthews had to take the fall along with Keith. Sorry, Chris.

Misgiving #9 - U.S. Government Seizes Control of Nation's Two Largest Banks, FNMA and FHMLC

This morning the United States Treasury Department announced the Federal takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Department Secretary Henry Paulson made the declaration in the midst of significant uncertaintly on Wall Street regarding the solvency of the two banks to survive losses in excess of $3 billion resulting from defaulting loans.

Henry Allison and David Moffett were the CEO's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively. The Chief Executive Officers of both companies have been ousted and all portfolio loans under both agencies will be managed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae together control or insure over half of the nation's $12 trillion mortgage market.

With combined revenues of $84 billion and assets, they have lost more than $10 billion and sent major concerns through not only the secondary mortgage market, but now the public securities market as well.

Many Democrats adamantly support the Bush Administration's move, but the political fallout has yet to be seen as the government initiates one of the most significant takeovers in decades. As Government Sponsored Entities, the two corporations are private but loosely regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. However, this move will amount to a Federal buyout of investors and potentially billions in taxpayer dollars being needed to shore up the corporations in light of defaulting mortgages.

Fannie Mae was created in 1938 by the Roosevelt administration to help assure liquidity in the private and government-backed mortgage market for the sake of private banking institutions. It became a private corporation in 1968, and became a guarantor of private and commercial loans only, with government loans falling under the control of another new Federal agency, the Government National Mortgage Association. (Ginnie Mae)

When Fannie Mae was made private in 1968, the Congress realized that there needed to be a balance of corporate competition, and in 1970 they chartered the creation of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac for short), providing the services of bundling mortgages into securities to be sold as a package on the investment market.

It was the development in the 70's of the speculating market in mortgage securities that led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac finding themselves at the helm of nearly the entire U.S. mortgage market, yet under the whim of the stock market and it's idiosyncrasies.

The most recent credit crisis was initiated by many factors, but most significant of which was the insertion of loans issued under bad credit (sub prime, high-interest government loans and other riskier loans) into the same consolidated mortgage investment instruments as those with low-risk loans, then giving them the same investment rating as the higher value securities. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac as well as other large commercial banks bought and sold these instruments on the secondary mortgage market throughout the housing boom of the last decade without concern to the bad loans sitting within the securities they had built their equity upon. When the cards began to fall in 2004, some thought nothing of the ripples made by a temporary disruption in one or two banks that had failed to balance their sheets or invest wisely. However, when larger mortgage companies began revealing mounting foreclosures and losses, Wall Street began to take notice.

The housing market had exploded with a vengeance for over 5 years, and as home prices began to stabilize the sub prime and adjustable-rate mortgages that had become so prevalent began to weigh on the banks that had bought securities with these loans consolidated into them. As homeowners found themselves unable to refinance out of these loans because of a flat real estate market, foreclosures began to rise with an equal vengeance, causing a flat market to begin to pull backward. With foreclosures doubling and housing values (the last source of stability in a failed loan package) falling like a rock, many banks began to fail, or merge with other banks to cover their losses. Traditional banks and investment houses who had gambled on the rising real estate market suffered mightily in the mounting crisis, and the downturn claimed the lives of banks such as Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and event the stalwart Bear Stearns.

Understandably, the Federal Government feels an impulse to aid failing homeowners and inject some confidence into the market, but after hundreds of billions of dollars have been borrowed to shore up the industry the Treasury Department now sees it as necessary to take over the two largest corporations in the mortgage world, shielding investors from the consequences of a capitalist system that routinely corrects itself as necessary when the excesses of failed judgment come back to haunt those who looked idly by, including the Federal Reserve.

The Government does bear responsibility for some of this mess, but I believe the best course would have been better oversight (NOT meaning "regulation"), and the best course now is to allow the market to correct itself, which it is already doing. Banks fail when investors make mistakes in judgment, but the system fails when the government steps in to stop the necessary bleeding that allows the whole of the market to prosper over time. The stock of these two companies has fallen nearly 90% from their one-year highs, as of July of this year. However, as in every free market recovery, this only presents a lesson in discretion to those that lose, and an opportunity for reward for those who buy these devalued shares now.

Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama spoke at a campaign stop in Indiana and addressed his concerns about the takeover plan, but refused to pass judgment until he sees the Bush Administration's plan. Meanwhile, Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin were campaigning in Colorado Springs, CO and gave their take on the financial crisis and pending takeover. McCain said this is another clear example of the nation's economic woes, and lemented that "Today, we're looking at another federal bailout of our home loan agencies".

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin responded by saying, “They’ve gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

I am adamantly opposed to this "bailout" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and support the full disclosure of the manner in which these entities run their books. In addition, I believe future oversight can be accomplished by tightly regulating the manner in which mortgage securities are bundled together and graded, but much else would be a violation of our free market principles and would reward only those investors who made foolish decisions to begin with and deserve to suffer the consequences of their failure in prudence.

Misgiving #8 - Slime 101 / How to Smear a Politician

The media has not even attempted to hide their blatant disregard for common sense and general goodwill in their biased attacks on Sarah Palin since her selection was announced last Thursday as John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee. Armed with only a few days of investigative journalism, many news outlets have hit the stands and their internet pages with charges usually reserved for the National Inquirer for washed up celebrities that no one cares about.

A few examples:

The London Daily Telegraph: "How Good a 'Mom' Could Sarah Palin Be?"

The New York Times: "Vice in Go-Go Boots"

And the best of all...

US Weekly: "Babies, Lies and Scandal"

This story was found on FoxNews.com and written by Jana Winter:

On its most recent cover, due out on newsstands Friday, the magazine shows a picture of Palin with the headline, “Babies, Lies & Scandal” — a marked contrast from its gushing review of Barack and Michelle Obama that ran two months ago.

Critics say this cover, which was released a day ahead of Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, is a sucker punch aimed at the GOP ticket, and is a blatant attempt to influence the votes of the magazine’s 12 million mostly female readers.

Us Weekly publisher Jann Wenner is an outspoken supporter of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

“When you look at this Palin cover and contrast it with the super-friendly story on Obama, it’s hard not to see that they’re clearly biased,” said Jane Hall, associate professor at the American University School of Communication. “It’s not fair and it’s also offensive. I think that they are going to be offensive to many people regardless of whether you’re for Sarah Palin or not.”

Us Weekly’s June 19 cover featured a photo of the Obamas with the headline, “Michelle Obama: Why Barack Loves Her.” In smaller print: “She shops at Target, Loved Sex and the City, and never misses the girls’ recitals. The untold romance between the down-to-earth mom and the man who calls her ‘my rock.’”

In contrast, this week’s Palin cover shows the Alaskan governor cradling her baby Trig in her arms. The captions: “Under attack, admits her daughter, 17, is pregnant. Investigated for firing of sister’s ex-husband. Mom of five: New embarrassing surprises.”

An article inside the magazine focuses on a January 15 incident in which Palin laughed along with an Alaskan shock-jock DJ who called her political rival, a cancer survivor name Lyda Green, a “cancer” and a “bitch” and ridiculed her weight.

Wenner, the magazine’s publisher, has given $130,308 to Democratic causes and candidates since 1993 — and only $3,500 to Republicans, according to records. Wenner also runs Men’s Health Magazine and Rolling Stone Magazine. In March, Rolling Stone featured a glowing endorsement of Obama, “Barack Obama: A New Hope,” on its cover.

Hall said she found the Wenner-owned magazine’s coverage transparent and troubling. “I mean look at the Obama cover and look at this new one,” she said. “New embarrassing surprises? Really? You couldn’t have a stronger contrast, at least between these two covers,” Hall said.

Rumors about Palin’s personal life and public record have been swirling since John McCain named her to be his running mate last week.

On Monday, Palin released a statement confirming that her 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant, prompting the media spotlight. Despite calls from both Democrats and Republicans to leave Palin’s family out of the media, many political watchers say that it is contradictory for a public official who has a staunch stance against sex education and promotes abstinence-only programs to have a teenage daughter who is pregnant.

While Hall said McCain’s camp should have done more to vet Palin, she said this level of media depiction is unfair.

“Publications like this one are taking it too far. Calling it ‘Babies, Lies and Scandal’ looks out of bounds,” she said

____________________________________

In addition to the above smears, US Weekly also felt it necessary to make the Presidential election about Sarah's husband Todd's DUI charge from 21 years ago, adulterating on CBN's gracious report when he was 22, and even daughter Bristol's boyfriend Levi Johnston, publishing a story, libelously titled: "Father of Bristol Palin’s Baby: 'I Don’t Want Kids'" as if any of these details have anything to do with the election of a qualified woman as Vice President. These are the politics of personal destruction invented by Lee Atwater and perfected by the Clintons.

This is pathetic, disgusting, revolting and absolutely infuriating!

Barack Obama is, in the least, facilitating these digusting politics by not intervening (outside the spotlight) with the media that is VERY OBVIOUSLY at his beck and call.

BlogBlurb - The Definition of Sick Politics of the Lowest Regard!

Democrats Release Sarah Palin's Social Security Number and Home Phone Number!

This story was posted on RedState.com:

The Politico has received an opposition research file from the Alaska Democrats. You can read it in PDF here.

In the file, the Democrats have released Sarah Palin's social security number minus the last four digits. Also tied to the information are her various home addresses.

Back in 2005, Democrats used Michael Steele's social security number to get his credit record.
It is atrocious that the Democrats would not only seek out Sarah Palin's social security number, but release it in opposition research to the press.

We need to know who did this. We also need to know what happened. We also need to know if it was used to bolster the Democrats' opposition research.

When it happened to Michael Steele, it turns out the Democrats knew about it and did nothing.
They cannot not take action now.

UPDATE:

The Alaska Democratic Party says it did not release the information. From Ben Smith, at the Politico, I got this:

Our story doesn't say that "Alaska Democrats" gave us that document. It was a document prepared for Tony Knowles two years ago. We haven't revealed our source.

You should also note that it's a partially REDACTED social security number. That seems relevant. If less sensational. It's missing four digits.

Here is the key take away: Yes, the SSN is redacted and people can pay for themselves.

Now, here are additional points:

If the AK-Dems didn't do this, who did? Obama? The DNC? Who? They're releasing the whole thing now and letting the media make hay of it.

Why didn't the SSN get fully redacted?

It's ironic the party that thinks only Republicans invade privacy, invaded the privacy of Sarah Palin enough to learn her social security number and distribute it to the media.

Rave #9 - Obama ACTUALLY Said His Pursuit of the White House Qualifies Him to be President!!

In his own words, Obama said yesterday:

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years."

First of all, apparently Obama thinks that his campaign managers have done a great job handling the last 18 months of his pre-packaged life, and for that much I agree... they're the best liberal business universities have to offer, and I'm sure they're running a fantastic "corporation" using all the fundamentals of any reasonable firm: outsourcing where necessary, and hiring based upon merit, not skin color (how ironic).

But secondly, I am laughing at the notion that Barack's "handlers" mistakenly informed him only of the stats regarding her mayoral and city council years, which even a 5th grader could find by googling "Sarah Palin experience". Great job, Campaign Managers and Mr. Experience - Barack Obama.

But my amusement is this: Obamuhh used her Wasilla experience as a counterpoint, failing to mention her other experience:

Running a corporation (a.k.a. the state of Alaska)
Employer of over 25,000 people
Managing a budget of $10 billion
Facilitating the proper management of 18 different State departments

She is currently in charge of a state that borders and negotiates with two foreign countries (Canada and Russia), manages land that would stretch from Georgia to California and is currently negotiating a $40 billion pipeline to bring alternative fuels to the United States.

Obamuhh has experience managing a political campaign. ...and maybe a lemonade stand when he was a kid.

BTW, Obamuhh, she has 20 months of experience managing this one, 2 months more than your blessed campaign which started out a lot smaller than your little darling. THEN, you can add her Wasilla experience on top of that if you want. And for that matter, Wasilla isn't some podunk "town of 7,000". First of all, the city proper has nearly 10,000 residents drawn by it's access to Anchorage, spectacular growth, it's plentiful jobs, low sales taxes (less than 3%), low property taxes (down 60% during Palin's administration) and good schools. It is also the economic center of a larger borough that is home to over 65,000 residents.

But, even I digress... she still has more experience than Obama as GOVERNOR, not including her experience in any other capacity.

Its laughable that Obama thought his PURSUIT of the White House would qualify him as President. That's like saying the Freshman in High School who campaigns to be student body President is therefore qualified to be Principal of the school.

I can't believe Obamuhh actually said something so imbicile on the campaign trail - does he really think Americans are going to smile and nod on something as idiotic as this?

Not this one.

BlogBlurb - Barack Obama's OTHER Birth Certificate (out of three)

Hey, his sister Maya only has two Birth Certificates from two different countries, so she's only somewhat well-resourced. But here is an alleged Birth Certificate on file in Canada, but with a different birth date, August 23rd (his official birth date is reported to be August 8th)

Click here to see a current lawsuit by a disgruntled DEMOCRAT (albeit of course, a Hillary supporter) challenging the citizenship of "Obamuhh"...

Oh, and here's another little tidbit I found fascinating... Obama isn't even the first "African American" candidate... He has only one great great granparent that is African. The 7 others on his father's side are Arab. That makes him 50% white, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% black. 12.5% is the minimum required to legally claim any racial status in America. (sourced from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html )

So uh.... he'd be the first ARAB AMERICAN President. Now THERE'S a groundbreaking reason to vote for him! :)

Misgiving # 7 - What the HECK?! Obama's First Official Mis-step...

The official response from the Barack Obama campaign today came through his minion, Bill Burton who said:

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Are you kidding me?!

First of all, while I appreciate the implication in this statement that John McCain is in fact the next presumed President of the United States, I would like to point out my own observation of monumental hypocrisy:

"This week, the Democrat Party put the former 'present, but no vote' legislator of the State of Illionois with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency... if America is stupid enough to elect him."

That's all... I just wanted to point out the pot calling the kettle bla.... oh shoot, I can't say this can I? Ummm..... You know what I mean. ;)

Rant #16 - "Change That is Actually Believable!"

How the GOP has an opportunity to change the current tide of corruption and mis-directed policies into a tradition of ethical change that defends our liberty to succeed or fail on our own, without Daddy Obama's many promises.

Barack Obama’s campaign has been both praised and derided for the slogan “Change you can believe in!” and “Yes, We CAN!” and the even more elusive “the audacity of hope”. And up until today millions of voters have seized upon the media’s inferred malaise of the American Public by falling into line in an almost trance-ish submission… “change, we need chaaaaange. Not four more years of Bush, we need chaaaaaange”.

What is audacious – in my humble view – are the claims made by Barack Obama to change America, redefine what the American Dream is, promise us things that only a far leftist majority in both houses could accomplish and declare that the GOP has “ruined America’s prosperity and confidence”. With a stalemated Senate and an almost pointless majority in the House, Congress is the real policy setting body in D.C. and Obama can accomplish nothing unless he becomes what he adamantly denies he will be – just another politician.

As a Conservative Libertarian who usually votes GOP, occasionally votes Democrat, but ALWAYS votes my conscience I have been nauseated by the last 8-9 years of power obsession of the Republican Party, falling into an illusion of creating a “permanent majority” through intimidation, corrupt lobbying practices and a muscular foreign policy that has never made me comfortable, whether it was a Republican or Democratic President.

Barack Obama has built an entire campaign on vague principles, unsubstantiated promises and a cult of personality. Along with millions of other Americans, I want change too! I want to see my government do what it was commissioned to do in 1994 when we first sent them a majority in Congress, and a President in 2000. I want wasteful government spending to be taken on violently and with no mercy; I want lobbyist corruption to be rooted up and destroyed; I want immigration made a legitimate, efficient but SAFE option for anyone in the world; I want the entire judicial branch of Government to start acting according to its commission and stop setting policy and start interpreting original intent, not cultural relativity; I want public dependency upon the Government to end in a way that motivates individuals to help each other instead of dropping off our needy on the doorsteps of a victim-hungry political movement; I want a Government that refuses to think we are called to address every sad, bleeding-heart crisis in the world with military force, whether peaceful or otherwise.

These are all changes that Obama either cannot or will not deliver, and it leaves me to look for another option. John McCain is not my first choice, or my second, or my third, for that matter. But this fact does not diminish the significant difference between Obama and McCain in their ability to bring change to Washington, D.C. and potentially turn the tide of tradition that has flooded the Capital with arrogance for the better part of the last century. McCain and Palin together have forged careers built upon facing the challenges of bureaucracy with a stiff neck, even when it meant holding their own Party to the fire, and I respect the commitment to their nation and their principles. John McCain and I have differences of policy on many issues, but his leadership ability and his experience make him the most viable choice this November. Sarah Palin, first term Governor of Alaska only cements this formidable conviction even more.

So I believe the McCain campaign should take hold of this opportunity to spin Obama’s message on its head, pushing a philosophy of “change that is actually believable”, “yes, we actually WILL” and “the audacity to live free”… because every promise Barack assured us last night was our right to claim comes with a price, an estimated $1 trillion price, and only ensures us of further slavery to a dependency that develops millions into a guaranteed voting block, like employees of a benefactor who “writes the check that puts food on my table”.

And I, for one refuse to let someone or something make a submissive servant out of me.

McCain/Palin have all the right tools, the history and the momentum to change the Government in Washington… not just a speech they gave in 2002. :)

BlogBlurb - Palin (Pay-lin) is the "Hockey Mom" to Veep the GOP

Who is Sarah Palin? The GOP's pending choice as Vice-President as McCain prepares to make the announcement of his preferred running mate in the next 15 minutes while I write this Blurb.

A first term Governor in Alaska who has also served on her local city council and as mayor of the same city, serving two terms in each capacity with wide margins of reelection victories.

A former beauty queen and moderate personality, she has an aggressive position on Government accountability and transparency, reducing even her own salary to fulfill a campaign promise to reduce wasteful spending and taxes. (While mayor of Wasilla, she managed to reduce city property taxes by 60%)

Known for challenging corruption in her own Party, she has taken on the big wigs in Alaska and brought justice to members of her OWN Party while maintaining enough support to win landslide elections among the public. Elizabeth Arnold of NPR reported in December of 2007 that Sarah Palin is "also a moose-burger-eating, snow-mobile-riding maverick who's not afraid to take on fellow Republicans she disagrees with."

Fred Barnes wrote an excellent piece on Palin in 2007 that highlights her record against corruption and her ability to bridge the gap and excercise sound government.

She has a strong environmental record, balanced by her having served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation council and signing aggressive research and development legislation to increase oil and gas production. Her husband Todd also works for BP on the North Slope in Alaska.

A mother of five, adamantly pro-life (after genetic testing revealed her 5th child Trig had Down's Syndrome she refused to terminate the pregnancy, saying "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection") and a member of "Feminists for Life", she is reasonable but principled on social issues, rejecting the concept of gay marriage, but fighting for equality, not special rights, for gay and lesbian citizens.

I think this makes for a fascinating pick for the Vice Presidency, essentially equalizing the female force in this election and harnessing some of the lost momentum that was previously monopolized by the Democrat Party. More time will tell whether the American Public accept this woman as their endearing Veep choice in the Fall, but I think she has all the right elements to make her both invigorating (being a woman), empathizing (having a newborn with DS), fiscally respectable (lowering taxes, decreasing spending and making services more efficient), articulate and a stalwart of integrity (taking her own Party to task over ethics). Palin's only potential weakness - inexperience - is cancelled out by Barack's own inexperience, and furthermore, she is a VP candidate, not the Presidential candidate as Obama finds himself. What a brilliant choice.

Barack Obama's message has been one of "change, change, change", blah blah blah... Well, I want change too, as a conservative made nauseated by the behavior of unethical Republicans over the last 8 years. We don't need to elect another Party into power to change the direction of the country. McCain just made it clear that he too is an agent for change, and in fact, the only candidate who has the experience and the ability to get it done. As a spending hawk and virulent opponent of wasteful government programs himself, McCain has just selected a woman who went against her own Party in Alaska and cleaned up the Government's ranks of tree-stump politicians who had failed the people.

You want "change"? McCain/Palin, with their occasional faults and weaknesses, just made themselves the only authentic "change" in this election.

Oh and one more point... I think McCain's Campaign management staff showed shrewed brilliance in how they handled the media in this matter, effectively shutting down the news media's Obamagasm last night by 6am this morning with speculation over his choice. His campaign kept his name in the flow last night with his nationwide ad campaign and his non-leak news leak about a possible Veep selection yesterday. Those of us who are looking for "anyone but Obama" have increasingly more to be pleased with as McCain shapes his true image in the minds of Americans over the next 60 days.

Rant # 15 - Truth Can Be Adjusted

People of all races and backgrounds have an innate ability to rise above their circumstances and succeed based upon their own will and determination, as long as there are no societal or governmental barriers to them achieving this. The only force that can effectively keep people accountable to their actions and motivate them to succeed is the fear of failure, and the sense of self-worth that causes us to "pick up our bootstraps", so to speak, and do the responsible things that add up to a good community, a good government, a good culture. Governmnent "saftey nets" only add up to perpetual dependence and a generation of "entitled" brats.

Ours is a difficult philosophy to defend in a world where perception is reality based on truth that can be adjusted.

But the policies of a conservative pine for exactly those motivating, liberating changes that lead to a responsible and prosperous society. It was the Republican Party that was formed in Ripon, WI, 1854 as the "anti-slave" party, and successfully elected a the only third-party President to wage war on the societal assumptions of race superiority. They passed the first Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1871 and again in 1875. It was the Republican Party that insisted on empowering individuals in the midst of small recessions and the depression of the 1880's-90's. Champions like Gover Cleveland and William McKinley believed the strength of the American system was in allowing people to learn dependence on no one. They believed it was better to find your face in the dirt after you've fallen, than find your knees on the ground the rest of your life.

But again, this outlook on life is berated in the public media and painted as cruel and heartless by progressive liberals who preach "compassion" to the masses they look forward to victimizing and securing as a voting base.

But it was the Republican Party that lowered taxes from over 90%... YES! 90% on the richest Americans and the tax rates on every other taxpayer in the 1920's to ignite an economic boom that saw record unemployment, developed an overnight middle-class and initiated the most radical, positive changes in American Society since the Industrial Revolution. During the 1920's tax rates were savagely cut while tax revenue more than doubled. It was the Republican Party that helped foster the economic boom of the 1950's that saw low tax rates and little regulation encourage the development of something we call the "suburban life", lower-class Americans were moving up and moving out and were finding more freedom to pursue the American dream. But something still remained as a stain on American society: institutionalized racism. And by the way, it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower that sent troops to schools in the south to force the desegregation of blacks and whites. It was also Ike who appointed Chief Justice Warren to the Supreme Court, which ultimately did away with the hidden institutionalized racism that plagued our country. Finally, it was the Republican Party that pushed and passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 of 1964 against KKK Democrats like Roberty Byrd and then-Democrat Strom Thurmond. (Thurmond became a Republican in 1964, but ran as a segregationist Democrat in 1948.) Again, they pushed for another Act creating a means for enforement with additional legislation in 1968. Time after time, the Republican Party has been the champion of the "little guy"... but not by giving them a handout... rather they believe in their ability to fend for thsemselves when given the liberty to do so.

The Southern Democrats had a strangehold on blacks that were looking to take part in the same liberating, free will success everyone else was enjoying. From the time immediately following the Civil War, they had fought hard to keep Freemen from voting through a patchwork of ridiculous rules to keep them from being able to register. They wanted to ride the same busses, go to the same schools, shop in the same stores and vote in the same elections, but the Democratic Party, the champion of the poor WHITE masses would have nothing of it.

Meanwhile, many Democrats in the 1920's formed together to form the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states, and by the end of the decade their numbers had grown to nearly 5 million members.

Frances Rice, founder of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) points out that it was Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., who unleashed dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. And Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox who "brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. And Democrat Governor George Wallace who stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools. She asks, "Have most black Americans ever been taught any of this? Of course not."

Today the Democratic Party is seeing a new opportunity rise in the latino community in the form of illegal immigrants and their inherent dependency on something or someone. And if they can show them a door to "freedom", they know they can secure generations of dependent sops all over again. Another race of open-handed, entitled poor people who will come to depend on the government for everything from housing and food to job placement and health care. Of course, the conservatives within the Republican Party find themselves in an awkward position of having to explain their philosophy of independence and self-determination through a muted media that will not properly convey their true heart or intentions. Ironic, since it has been Republicans who have essentially shoved equality down the throats of Democrats for 150 years.

Much of the latino community is a family-protecting, hard-working, God-loving culture that has so much to offer the American Way, but instead Democrats tell them the Government is there to "help" them and "protect" them. And the Republican Party is trying to play both sides, avoiding the brand of race-haters all over again. Somehow we lost this fight in the 1960's, but we MUST avoid allowing big-government activists to falsely frame the argument against Conservatives again.

People live best when they are free. No one deserves the same starting point to achieve success - that is more the result of natural forces out of our control or the foolish decisions of previous generations. But EVERYONE deserves the same right to use their freedom uninhibited in pursuing the happiness the first "conservatives" wrote into the Declaration of 1776. And they WILL achieve it if we get out of the way, allow the hot stove principle to teach them discretion, and allow men to pass or fail the test of life as God intended it! If I make a mistake and face economic despair because of a decision I made in a free society than sobeit. I'd rather die standing dirt poor than be a slave on my knees groveling at the feet of another.

Liberal Democrats have a vision of an "equal" America that defies human nature and history by enslaving the poor and punishing the wealthy. Conservatives look to empower EVERYONE without any strings attached. And I'm ticked that we have allowed ourselves to be cast as the opposite.

Misgiving # 6 - Global Warming is Being Proven as The Folly We Thought It to Be

The following column was published today on foxnews.com by John Lott, and does an excellent job of properly framing the debate on global warming, and cutting out the rhetoric. He states concisely the practical measures of what global warming is, how it is caused, whether it can be mitigated by any human effort and if it is even still occurring.

(Significant links for footnotes on every major element of the article can be found on the Foxnews page where this story was sourced.)

_____________________________________

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all promise massive new regulations that will cost trillions of dollars to combat global warming. McCain says that it will be his first task if he wins the presidency. After consulting with Al Gore, Obama feels the problem is so imminent that it is not even really possible to wait until he becomes president.

Ironically, this political unanimity is occurring as global temperatures have been cooling dramatically over the last decade.

Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.

A conference in New York on Monday and Tuesday this week will bring 100 scientists together to warn that the there is no man-made global warming crisis.

Yet, we just keep on piling on more and more regulations without asking hard questions about whether they are justified.

New mileage per gallon regulations were signed into law last year that will mandate cars get 35 MPG. The rules will make us poorer, forcing people to buy products that aren’t otherwise the best suited for them. More people will die because lighter cars are less safe, but we are told this is all worth it largely because of global warming.

But much of what gets passed is arbitrary. Was there anything scientific about picking 35 MPG instead of, say, 30 MPG other than the desire to do more? And how do these regulations fit in with all the gasoline taxes we have that are already reducing gas use?
To see if all this makes any sense there are really four questions that all have to be answered "yes."

1) Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but "there has been no net global warming since 1998." Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling.

2) But supposing that the answer to the first question is "yes," is mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures? Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun).

Over 100 leading climate scientists from around the world signed a letter in December stating: "significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

In December a list was also released of another 400 scientists who questioned the general notion of significant manmade global warming.

3) If the answer to both preceding questions is "yes," is an increase temperature changes "bad"? That answer is hardly obvious.

Even the UN’s original draft stated that an increase in temperature of up to two degrees Celsius would be good for many regions of the globe. Higher temperatures could increase ocean levels by between seven inches and two feet over the next 100 years.

Although some blame global warming for seemingly everything, according to others higher temperatures will increase the amount of land that we can use to grow food, it will improve people's health, and increase biological diversity.

4) Finally, let's assume that the answer to all three previous questions is "yes." Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that is still not clear.

If we believe that man-made global warming is “bad,” we still don’t want to eliminate all carbon emissions. Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people are claiming from global warming.

You want to pick a tax that just discourages carbon emissions to the point where the cost of global warming is greater than that of cutting emissions.

Too little of a tax can be “bad” because we would produce greenhouse gases when their costs were greater than the benefits. But too much of a tax also makes us poorer because we won’t be getting the benefits from cars or electricity even when the benefits exceed the costs that they would produce from global warming.

What is often ignored in the debate over global warming is that we already have very substantial taxes on gasoline, averaging 46 cents per gallon in the US. Even if one believes that gasoline use should be restricted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the question is whether our taxes are already restricting use "too much" or "not enough.” But simply saying that carbon dioxide emissions are bad isn’t enough.

In fact, William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale and former member of President Carter’s Council of Economic Advisors, puts the “right” level of gasoline taxes at around 10 cents a gallon today, reaching 16 cents per gallon in 2015. Nordhaus’ analysis assumes that the answers to the first three questions are “yes.” If anything, while gasoline taxes are partially used for such things as building roads, it seems quite plausible that, even accepting Nordhaus’ assumptions, current gasoline taxes are much too high to deal with the harm from global warming.

However good the intentions, the debate over global warming is much more complicated than simply saying that the world is getting warmer. It is too bad that these questions won’t be getting a real debate this election. The irony is that those who sell themselves as being so caring aren't careful enough to investigate the impact of their regulations.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Rant # 14 - The Great Contradiction: Compelled Compassion?

I have found it amusing that the same ideologues who insist that “open-mindedness” and the questioning of authority are the duties of every American also insist that the Federal Government is the best agent of change and the ordained executor of force upon those who would resist this “compelled compassion".

In a recent conversation with a friend, I began to see why this apparent contradiction permeates among moderate and left-of center politicos. He believes that – by default – the government IS the people, therefore it must be that the will of the government is the will of the people. The logical conclusion is that government has the right to regulate, because this regulation is essentially self-imposed and as a result, involvement in the details of our lives cannot be questioned.

Programs like elderly welfare (Social Security), health care subsidization (Medicare), rental compensation for societal squatters (Section 8)… these are all elements that are intended (read: “sold”) as a means to help the poor, but end up enslaving multitudes of unsuspecting and open-handed young people who grow up never knowing the harsh realities of a life unlived. I don’t even question the basis of Government’s right to intervene if that is what the “people” call for, but I do question the fact that it will ever succeed. The entire 20th century was a monument to proving that these “well-intentioned” battles against poverty merely remove the responsibility and the consequences of decision from the individual and place them on a wandering “collective” that is neither equipped, nor capable of addressing needs on an individual basis. The system is so easy to abuse and we end up replacing one problem with another. Over time, the only resulting "compassion" is to those who have the the most influence on the weaker.

As Christians, my friend and I agree that we have a Biblical duty to see to the needs of the poor, the widows and orphans. The Church is charged with this duty, the Government is not. We are pathetically more interested in buying an HD flat-screen or saving for our futures more than helping our neighbors. We have marginalized “compassion” and charitable giving to being another expense in our budget, expendable when our waists are tightened. While we would be willing to sacrifice everything to provide for our family and protect them from failure and harm, we are unwilling to do the same for our fellowman; “love your neighbor as yourself” assumes we already love ourselves and has nothing to do with “loving yourself” first.

But now… we have allowed apathy to breed a passive attitude to liberal government philosophy, and it no longer thrives only in classrooms and universities, it has become the philosophy of Joe American. Because of the Church’s failure to serve, and the Christian’s selfish policies of economic “protectionism”, we have concluded that maybe the Federal Government IS a reasonable vehicle of change. After all, SOMEONE has to help the disenfranchised, right? The argument appeals to the best of human nature, to help someone in need. But giving this power to a centralized Government with endless lines of credit and little accountability allows the lesser side of human nature to take control and abuse the system for their OWN benefit. And this has occurred time and time again, even right here in America. On the other hand, when Americans are encouraged either indirectly through policy or directly by public pronouncement and example, the needs of the poor are met appropriately through the means of Biblical love and compassion.

Last year, Americans donated more than $150 billion to charitable causes in education, housing and sustenance programs. The Federal Government spent nearly $900 billion on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid in the same year. How much more would we as a community embrace each other in need with the power of more economic freedom if we simply trusted ourselves to do the same? Instead, we somehow have lied to ourselves for so long that we now believe the Government system is more trustworthy than we are on a local level.

The Great Contradiction has been borne out of our moral nature to help the underprivileged and down-trodden, but has been polluted by the wake of destruction left behind by countless failed policies and socialist agendas. Capitalism and representative republicanism thrives because it harnesses the worst of human nature (greed, individualism) and assures it is funneled back into the mutual benefit of the community (open market), providing employment, charitable practice and most of all the freedom to pursue dreams and learn from our personal mistakes quickly.

Studies by the Heritage Foundation (1, 2) and the Cato Institute (1, 2) have proven the case that when taxes and regulation are scaled back, charitable giving and common decency fills the void. And this result is entirely more efficient and accountable than a Government program raising voting blocks full of “entitled” lemmings, wouldn't you suppose?

Rave #8 - Romney Gives Memorable Speech as He Drops Out of Presidential Race at CPAC

In a speech that embued the best of conservative philosophy and being "Presidential", Mitt Romney saved his best speech until last. As he bows out of the race, he indirectly endorses McCain and underlines the importance of protecting America from the dangerous policies of the left.

This speech will be referenced and studied for years, as we have Reagan on so many occasions, to communicate what conservatism is and should be. I was a doubter of Romney's true "conversion" while in office, but these words are very obviously coming from the heart of a man who believes every single word.

Watch it, savor it, and spread it around to those who are spreading the lies that the Conservative Movement is dead.

BlogBlurb - Cut it out, Conservatives!

ABC News asks survey takers “do you think that Mitt Romney would be a good or a bad President?” and people respond by saying he’s “too corporate”. John McCain’s various compatriots throw out news bait questioning Romney’s ability to manage government because he hasn’t had enough time in the system. Online bloggers suggest that Romney’s “flip-flopping” makes him untrustworthy.

While Huckabee insists on staying in a race that only the delusional believe he has a chance of winning, the conservative vote is split between the only two men that hold a perception of being conservative. Romney is not a tried and true conservative in the mold many Republicans have been hoping for, but it seems that is not his biggest liability. Instead, countless evangelical and other protestant Christians have no intention of supporting a candidate who is not only a Mormon, but even held a leadership position within his church. Their most serious charge is that Mormonism is a “cult” and they just don’t trust a “cultist” to be President. But as a member of a very conservative Pentecostal denomination I have also had charges of “cult” hurled at me countless times by the moderate and agnostic.

The definition of a “cult” by the Random House Dictionary:
A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers.
A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

To all of my fellow evangelical die-hards, listen to me: while we believe that our faith and doctrine are the only correct interpretation of scripture, we are no more OR less a “cult” than Mormonism! Somehow it doesn’t bother these same detractors that 17 of our 43 presidents were Masons, as well as Ben Franklin, Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole, who are, at heart worshippers of humanity and Mother Nature. I don’t understand the aversion of some fellow Christians to voting for a man who has a spotless record of character, has been married happily for 38 years, loves his wife and children and has never had a single slimy scandal in his life simply because he believes another faith other than traditional Christianity? I personally believe Mormonism is false, but so is the faith of playboy and maverick John McCain. McCain on the other hand was such a rebel that he lost his first wife, was known for frequenting strip bars and drag races, dating models and exotic dancers and has done more harm to the largest of conservative causes in the last 10 years than any other high-profile Republican member of Congress.

It remains to be said that every other major candidate in this race is a career politician and has no real experience running a business with the principles of efficiency and high customer service. On the contrary, Mitt Romney has a leadership ability that attracts the right people, motivates the cynical and transforms mediocrity to levels of greatness. While I do not agree with every decision he made as Governor of Massachusetts, he is by far the most conservative candidate remaining in this primary race. Huckabee is at best a moderate in governmental and fiscal policy, and McCain is the definition of an opportunist that has literally lied about previous positions and votes, believing the media will simply overlook his "inaccuracies" out of allegiance for his "independent" spirit and flair.

Christians need to stop haranguing Romney for his faith, independents need to start seeing the pandering and legacy-hunting character of Playboy McCain, and they need to begin paying attention to the dynamic of this race with three dramatically polarizing candidates and vote with responsibility. Mitt Romney is not God’s gift to conservatism, but he’s the closest representation we have to choose from, and American conservatives will be miserable with 4 years of John McCain if voters continue looking for the perfect candidate. Mitt Romney is a strict insightful businessman who understands efficiency and creativity and knows how to keep his hands clean. Something we haven’t been able to say about our President in a long time.

BlogBlurb - Take your false facts and stuff 'em...

It is now the official Election Year nationally, I have been getting these reports sent to me. This one was particularly interesting ( I have included a link to the original report). Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the War on Terrorism, this report should open some eyes.

Military losses, 1980 through 2006

____________________________________________________________

These are some rather eye-opening facts.

Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through today, we have lost over 3,000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents.

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ........ 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
1990 ......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 ...........2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 ......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years @14,000 deaths
1997 ......... 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 ........ 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 ......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 .......... 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2006): 7,033 deaths
2005 ......... 919 (George W Year)
2006........... 920 (George W Year)

If you are confused when you look at these figures, so was I.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those "facts" which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race: European descent............................69.12%
Hispanic ....................................... 12.5%
Black...............................................12.3%
Asian ...............................................3.7%
Native American ............................1.0%
Other .............................................. 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) .............74.31%
Hispanic ...........................................10.74%
Black .................................................9.67%
Asian ................................................1.81%
Native American ............................1.09%
Other ...............................................0.33%

The point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for liberal political gain). Nothing more...its all about politics and the libs are famous for turning American against American for a vote. (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf ) Now ask yourself two questions:

"Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?"
and
"Why do the mainstream media hate the (world wide) web as much as they do?"

Ensure you do your homework before you place your vote. Because the media does their own, and they know how to manipulate those who don't.

Rant #13 - What's Going on with Ron Paul?

A recent article by Don Luskin on his evaluation on Ron Paul’s popularity reminded me about some conversation I had with a local radio talk show host recently on this subject. The host insisted that Ron Paul was a freak that shouldn’t be given a platform at all. But Luskin had it right when he said it is “time to take the TEN-TERM Texas congressman seriously”.

That’s right, ten-terms. I am not personally endorsing Ron Paul for reasons better left to another post, but I do recognize that he has a loyal following and appears to be gathering the support of lunatic fringe groups on both the right and left sides of the aisle, as well as those of us who are simply out of any political classification. He draws thousands of supporters from libertarian groups and anti-globalists in an almost cult-like following giving millions of dollars to his campaign to fight the “establishment”.

You cannot count this guy out. Luskin points out that Paul placed second in Nevada and beat all other candidates like Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani with 14% of the vote. Of course he only got ¼ the votes that Romney did, but nonetheless, he IS a formidable candidate in this race, and in fact, got 10% in Iowa, 6% in Michigan, 8% in New Hampshire and 4% in South Carolina where you’d think he’d get zero. Whether you think he’s a bit loony or you think he’s the savior of Federalism, it is quite a surprise that conservatives are throwing him such widespread support. And as other candidates are dropping out of the race because of a lack of funds or nationwide support, Paul is just heating up.

Think about it:

He raised $19.5 million in the final quarter of 2007 alone, from 130,000 individual donors. That makes him THIRD in fundraising behind the two top Democrats.

The average contribution was $150, leaving a massive amount of fundraising potential remaining among his current contributors alone. (…a potential $200 million)

He raised $6 million in one day in what many consider the record for single-day political fundraising in U.S. history, and raised $1.8 million YESTERDAY (1/21/08) as well.

In fact, “front-runner” Mitt Romney raised over $18 million in the same quarter, but $8 million of it was a loan from Romney himself.

Dr. Paul has the "mo" an independent needs – his campaign flaunts the fact that if he gains any more traction and can get a mere 200,000 people to donate a thousand dollars each, he will have nearly as much cash as both Hillary and Obama combined. He has nearly that many contributors on his speed-dial as I write this piece.

Now to some of us this is a scary thought, to others it is an awesome in-your-face to the diluted Republican Party we’ve watched sell itself off in pieces for the last 6-7 years. Ron Paul is about simplicity. Sure, he has skeletons in his closet but his supporters don’t care. And yes, he seems more like a Ralph Nader in a slightly newer suit than a Ronald Reagan-like leader.

But there is a growing rebellion among the political left and right that is increasingly frustrated with a government that believes it has the solution to problems, instead of removing itself from them. In fact, no one called Reagan “fringe” for believing the same thing when he said that “government IS the problem”, but it is in fact the same philosophy built on the history that Americans prosper most when government does not try to help them.

The talk-show host I mentioned earlier had also expressed skepticism that Ron Paul doesn’t seem to spend any of the money he has and maybe someone should investigate him. But could it be that Paul is bracing himself for a larger, national campaign and he’s holding the cash until he needs it most? Is it possible that Paul is actually preparing for a third or fourth party candidacy? If McCain wins the Republican nomination, expect this.

Some are skeptical about Ron Paul simply because of the company he attracts. They figure that if 9/11 conspirators and SK-toting long-beards can come together under the same tent there must be something fishy about him. Could it be that we have marginalized OURSELVES by forgetting that the other half of this country may have completely different political views but the same mothers and fathers and history as we do? Isn’t it possible that Americans are looking for a leader that appeals to the buried human nature in us all of self-preservation and independence?

We take a political position on myriad issues and determine that our favorite candidate is the one who can make it HAPPEN. But I think many of Ron Paul’s donors believe THAT is actually the problem – government should never be allowed to “make” anything happen. The greater good of society is borne out of the individual’s pursuit of their own liberty, not the collective majority vote in an election or the "vision" of a candidate of "change".

Maybe Ron Paul’s candidacy is reminding people of something that the rest of us should pay heed to: we all (liberal and conservative) have a God-given nature that desires the freedom to do what is right, and prosper with the dreams that define us. And the Government has tried for a hundred years to help us achieve our dreams and rid ourselves of the “primitive” side of humanity, not realizing that maybe that primitive nature is where greatness comes from… it’s where liberty finds it’s value. Don’t we WANT a leader that we can all unite under as he deconstructs the system that forces us all to either conform or resist? Maybe the Republican Party needs to get its’ act together and see what the rest of America is crying out for. Not a “New Conservatism”, not “reform”, but “retraction” and an elimination of “vision” for America. Just give me liberty and the freedom to make the most of it!

BlogBlurb - Oh Yeah, the Media Just Loves 'em... But Why? Hmm....

...imagine if he was the nominee. Let's just say Huck is a ratings DREAM.

BlogBlurb - Thompson is the Man for the Job...

Don't believe me, check out these videos. We have only a weeks before our own Presidential Primary here in Wisconsin on Tuesday, February 19th, and most of us are able to vote this year. Did you know that most people our age don't vote? But we don't back it up by voting to change things. Yet, your vote does count. Your perspective does matter! Fred Thompson has amazing support among young people who appreciate his vision, his clarity, his ability to communicate and his emphasis on de-centralized, smaller government. He believes government isn't the solution to the problem, but the source of the problems!

He has never CHASED the Presidency, he is not a career politician - this opportunity came to him because his supporters, me included encouraged him to run because we believe in him and his ideas. Watch and listen to his ideas to fix the health care system, tax issues, immigration issues, high college costs, energy costs, out of control judges, secularism in schools, etc.

Misgiving #5 - I Heart Huckabee? Uh.... no.

I began this year looking at the lot of Republican hopefuls with some disappointment... surely after 6-7 years of a slowly denigrated conservative party there would be a leader or two that would rise out of the ashes of Medicare prescription coverage, nationalized education, and a record number of earmarks. But those of us that are the unwavering conservatives, we were faced with an opportunistic Mitt Romney or a rock-solid, but pro-choice Giuliani.

Ah, so suddenly all of you have gotten so excited about one man, Mr. Mike Huckabee. Alas, some of you have been campaigning for him for nearly two years, long before he even declared his intent. I'm so glad that some of us have had the vision to look ahead and begin, literally, a grass roots movement to raise a leader you can believe in to national status... with almost no special interest money or compromise.

But I have had a hesitation in my gut since day one. Not just cuz the guy is from Arkansas... I mean, only two of the last three governors have been corrupt; it doesn't mean Huckabee had to be. In fact, he was a crusader! He came in to clean things up, right? He's pro-life, pro-family, a Baptist minister in his own right. It's almost too perfect!

Exactly.

I've learned to trust my gut, and so I decided to start digging for the truth long before conservative talk show hosts did. Those who know me and my past political adventures know I’m not one to shy away from voting my conscience. I don’t consider it a “wasted vote” to vote with your heart – with PRINCIPLE. It’s weakness at the ballot box that gives us weakness in leadership. So I really wanted to see if this Huckabee guy was all he was cracked up to be. I wanted someone to BELIEVE IN AGAIN! I began my journey about 8 months ago, just as the Republican list of nominees seemed set in stone. But conservative columnists like Ilana Mercer and Vox Day began chiding conservatives for the next several months because of their blind embrace of the pro-life minister. I wanted to know why.

Meanwhile, the mass-media has begun to notice Huckabee, and as our mutual distrust for the Arkansan Politico has matured, they have finally put into writing what I have been slowly discovering the last 4-5 months... Mike Huckabee is not a conservative. He is no more a conservative than Zell Miller. Yes, that's right. Of course, he supports gun rights. He's from the Ozarks man. Of course, he's pro-life – he IS a man of faith, and I DO respect that. But any man that raises taxes 47% during his governorship, pushes for government subsidies of tuition for illegal aliens and health benefits, criticizes the President for his veto of the Democratic increases in CHIP, grants pardons to criminals as often as he winks at the camera (more than 700, you know including 12 murderers), calls fellow conservative critics names, slanders his Republican brothers with flat-out lies (Club for Growth accusation on hidden donations), suffers 15 reprimands from the state ethics board, then SUES that ethics board (and loses), views global warming as a serious issue and that we have a "biblical duty" to address it… is NOT a conservative. He is a social conservative, to be sure... but he is NOT a fiscal conservative at all, and Lord knows, the Republican Party is not the same today because it lost sight of the other half of the two-edged sword, small-government vs. strong morals.

One of the most disturbing revelations I found about Huckabee was his reaction to the Club for Growth, a conservative, anti-tax, small government group because of their opposition of him. Rather than playing the gentleman and ignoring the critics, he slandered them as hiding their sources of money and called them "Club for Greed". Ironically, Huckabee founded a non-profit while governor and strangely, the non-profit's only expenditure was paying Mr. Huck himself for various speeches. Of course, these donors are not public either, and being a non-profit, allows the "conservative savior" to make thousands of dollars outside the realm of his public office.

My problem isn't so much his attempt to reach "across the aisle" to get things done, or even some of his positions... I can be pragmatic too. My problem is the fact that he represents NOTHING of my fiscally conservative values and has toed the line of ethics so long that no one in his past political circles respects him anymore. Even fellow Republicans.

To all conservatives out there, please heed these warnings... Mike Huckabee is NOT the best choice. Every frustration we've tried to ignore with our current President is magnified in this man. If you thought the last several Congressional sessions were a waste of time, Huckabee gives no reason to hope otherwise. Together, the Americans for Tax Reform, The Club for Growth and the revered Cato Institute have given us stern warnings about him and his economic philosophy. Huckabee supporters are out there in the audience of this post, and please, don’t take offense to this. But be honest with yourself. Don’t tell me he cut taxes… his tax increases outweighed his tax cuts by $500 million!! Who CARES about the tax cuts when you cancel every one with a hike somewhere else, and THEN som.

As governor, Mike Huckabee:
Signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission
and the Department of Parks and Tourism.
He supported an internet sales tax in 2001.
He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002.
He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax
on private nursing home patients in 2001.
He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements.
He opposed a Congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003.
In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law
Increased state spending over 60% from 1996 to 2004
Opposed school choice or open voucher programs

So let me ask you, is there any reason you want to support a man like Huckabee, other than he's funny, affable, smart, "experienced" and pro-life?! Is being Pro-life the only thing you care about? Then heck, let’s get Georgia’s Zell Miller to run for President! He’ll bankrupt us with nationalized health care and kill our nation with open borders, but he’s pro-life!! Come on, let’s be serious

If Huckabee gets your Republican primary vote, he really has pulled off one of the most impressive grass-roots uprisings I've seen in a long time. But I guess that's not too surprising for those who knew him back in Arkansas… they know their ole’ guv’ner well… there they affectionately call him, "the Huckster"... apropos.



Below are some of the many links I've gathered of articles exposing The "Huckster" for what he really is... another sleezy, fun-loving Arkansan. Don't hate me yet... just read these first. ESPECIALLY the Robert Novak piece in the Washington Post:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12205
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12394
http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_08_11_04/huckabee8.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501547_pf.html
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11/updated_huckabee_white_paper.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/media/uploads/071113-white-paper-huckabee-update.pdf