An Idea Whose Time has Come: #TeleCongress

I've seen this idea mentioned a few times on Twitter and ever so briefly discussed on TV: With today's technology, there is no good reason for Congress to gather in one geographic location. The fact that they still do leads to corruption, because they are generally away from the people who elected them, and away from their families, and can be more easily swayed by lobbyists and other influence-wielders.

I believe when the District of Columbia was established, it was never intended to have "residents". The whole idea of a "citizen Congress" is for a person to be elected, serve a term, then go back to work in his or her regular business. Where that went wrong is a subject for another post (or 12), though.

With the money it takes to get elected these days, the winner could easily buy a netbook computer and headset to participate in Congressional proceedings from home. I would even be pleased to see States to set up one or several meeting places for their elected Federal representatives to use for the purpose. At the very least, the lobbyists' resources would be spread much thinner.

Just think of it: when you want to call your Representative or Senator, you can dial a local number, and maybe even get a chance to speak to the officeholder! Also, people who aren't near a TV with C-SPAN could watch proceedings on their office computers, by Congress providing a public URL for read-only access.

The more I think about this, the more advantages I can see. I'd better stop now so I can post this. Let me know what you think!

Andrea Mitchell Asked a Great Question

I didn't read the article, but this headline was tweeted:

NBC's Mitchell to Republican: How Do You Justify a Tax Freedom for Those Who Don't Need It?

"I'm glad you used that phrase, Andrea. You've admitted that taxing is equivalent to enslaving. Freedom is always justified. Any more questions?"

How's that?

One Word

Thanks to Paige Worthy for making me aware of the #reverb10 project. Paige is a wonderful writer; check out her blog here. I have not formally enlisted to participate in #reverb10, because I'm not sure I can commit to writing a blog post for every one of their "prompts." Commitment--or lack thereof--notwithstanding, the first prompt immediately inspired me. Therefore I now present the first prompt, and what I was prompted to write.

December 1: One Word.
Encapsulate the year 2010 in one word. Explain why you chose that word. Now, imagine it's one year from today. What would you like the word to be that captures 2011 for you?
(Author: Gwen Bell)

2010: Reclamation
2010 was the year that Americans started to reclaim the policy direction of our cities, counties, states, and nation from the Marxists, statists, and collectivists. The various tea party activists and their fans nationwide made huge strides toward this end, and had huge effects on elections all over the country. Constitutionalists are even affecting the Republican Party leadership races that are now underway.

2011: Restoration
My hope is that with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, we can begin to restore some semblance of government of the people, by the people, for the people, rather than of the nation, by the ruling class, for the groups that got them elected. I don't expect everything to be done in a year--especially with the collectivists still in control of the Senate and the White House--but I'd like to see the repeal of some of the more heinous legislation of the past two years, and some talk about ending or privatizing social programs like SCHIP, Federal food stamps, Medicare Part D, Part C, and Part B, and Social Security.

I'll even go one word and one year farther, and give my hope for 2012: Rededication. I believe we need to rededicate our nation, by way of ourselves, to pursuing God, by pursuing the life he wants us to live. The founders recognized that a Republic such as is described by the Constitution cannot be maintained if its citizens have no moral compass. We must realize that we need not be compelled to do what the collective society demands, if we are by nature--or supernature--inclined to do what individual relationships require to succeed. Let us begin in 2011 to learn how to be our best to each other, so we may dedicate ourselves to the pursuit in 2012.

Weird, Wacky, Radical Tenthers Need Not Apply

(for Democrats' Approval)

Please read this very good post by Michael Tanner. I have a few comments:

1. In this post, "Democrats" = "Totalitarian Statists". They likely exist in every party, and certainly outside of any organized party.
2. Of course they want the courts to decide if any given piece of legislation should be enforced. They've packed most of the courts with Statists.
3. Rather than the phrase "federal government", we should call it what it is: the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA). Government is instituted to protect individuals so they may be free to produce and enjoy their value. The SBA's purpose is to control people and steal their production, so that people who choose to produce nothing of value can enjoy some of it. Of course, the redistributors--the "brokers" if you will--take their cut and enjoy much more than the average subject.
4. We have more to show for the SBA's growth than debt. We also have a culture of dependence. The American Declaration of Independence was written by revolutionaries 234 years ago. The American Foundation of Dependence was laid about 100 years ago, by "Progressive" evolutionaries.
5. I think Mr. Tanner is confusing Conservatives with Fascists. (More likely, he is using the term in the way he does in his book.) He alludes to a conservative's "idea of a good federal program." I can't think of one "program" that the SBA should run. If national defense is a program, then maybe that is a proper federal government role. I'm actually in favor of each state being able to defend itself, and the federal role being simply that of coordination. I am certainly not in favor of any government--federal, state, county, municipal, or home-owner's association--being empowered to enforce morality.

OK, look:

Now that the primary elections are over (as they are in most places), put your support behind the Republican candidate. Unless there is an insurmountable point of disagreement, just hold your nose and vote for that (R) candidate! This year especially, it is just too important to not let the Marxists win. No candidate is unelectable if we can get enough support behind him or her.


At the very least, don't be like some here in Nevada who just can't stand Sharron Angle and see Harry Reid as their only alternative. Vote for a libertarian if you must, or an "Independent". Please, please, don't vote (D) just because the others don't have a chance of winning!

A Patriot by Any Name Should Still be Free

I grow increasingly disturbed by discussion regarding "conservative" and "libertarian" as two different things. I see them as the same thing. We want maximum freedom for the individual, and the most limited government that can protect us and our freedom.

The distinction I see is between the secular libertarians (SL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, as long as I don't hurt anyone else", and the (for want of a better word) god-fearing libertarians (GL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and I want to never do anything that God would not want me to do." I was taught that God's direction for us is to have as our main motivation our love for him, and by extension for all other people.

Let's look at marijuana as an example. The SL says it is not wrong to use marijuana, even habitually, if it hurts no other people. The GL says that it does indeed hurt other people. If the user is married or has children, the spouse and children may not be getting the best from the user. Even if the user is unmarried, the effects of that use may hurt his parents or siblings, or in extreme cases the rest of society. In these cases, the motivation is clearly not love for others. Therefore, both the SL and the GL would argue against government proscription of marijuana use, but the GL would promote self-directed abstinence.

Of course, the same goes for alcohol, or video games, or involvement in social media, or any behavior that can become addictive.

It Stands to Reason (Part 1)

The Associated Press reports (via Breitbart.com) that lawyers for the nation of Mexico have submitted a brief in support of a lawsuit asking to declare the newest immigration law in Arizona unconstitutional.

I believe it is precisely because they know that the law will not lead to racial profiling that they don't like it. They know that most of the people who will be turned over to ICE by local law enforcement, and potentially deported (whether to Mexico or some other nation), are criminals. Because the law stipulates that only another legal incident will result in legal status verification, most of the people subject to that verification will have been involved in a crime of some sort. That's the whole reason they don't want this law to stand.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!™

The 28 Principles of Freedom

These principles were condensed from over 150 volumes of writings from the Founding Fathers. This list was prepared by the National Center for Constitutional Studies (www.nccs.net). NCCS is the publisher of The 5000 Year Leap, which is Part I of a 27-lesson course called "American Government and U.S. Constitution". Please visit their site. Again, I receive no compensation for this post.

1. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.
2. A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
3. The most promising method of securing a virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.
4. Without religion, the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
5. All things were created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.
6. All men are created equal. [My emphasis.]
7. The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not [to] provide equal things.
8. Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
9. To protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of Divine law.
10. The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
11. The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
12. The United States of America shall be a republic. [Not a democracy.]
13. A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers [I prefer "leaders"].
14. Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.
15. The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations.
16. The government should be separated into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
17. A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.
18. The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written constitution. [And that constitution is followed!]
19. Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained in the people.
20. Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
21. Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
22. A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.
23. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
24. A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.
25. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
26. The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity.
27. The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.
28. The United States has a manifest destiny to be an example and a blessing to the entire human race.

Smart Grid Features Available Now!

In Wednesday's mail (2010/05/25) was the scariest piece of literature I've seen in a long time. No, it was not a piece of political campaign literature, although our primary is less than two weeks away. (I voted early, as soon as the polling place opened on the first day of early voting, so I simply throw away all candidates' mailings I receive.)

No, this was an offer from the utility company to participate in the "Cool Share" program. Just for signing up, we would be supplied with a "web-programmable thermostat"! These thermostats "can cut your cooling and heating costs by as much as 10% annually", according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy. And they allow me--and who knows how many bureaucrats--to manage my home's energy use. Remotely. From the internet. Regardless of how I've set it.

Now, they are careful to point out--on the reverse side--that these thermostats "do NOT allow [the utility company] to 'control' your home temperature". They say nothing about other organizations, such as the Department of Energy.

Of course, one of the bullet point advantages of these thermostats is that they "help…Reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

In a sidebar on that side, there is an explanation that in the Cool Share program, when it is very hot (104°F and above), the air conditioning unit will be placed in "conservation mode" for generally no more than three hours. They claim that this would typically happen only on weekdays, not weekends or holidays, except in case of…wait for it…"emergency."

As an additional enticement, participants can get $1.00 for each of these "conservation period[s]", up to a maximum of $29.


UPDATE 2010/06/12 I received a card in the mail explaining that this program is available only in Southern Nevada. That explains the references to 104° temperatures.

Here (was) the Deal

If you got here by clicking "The Corner Office" at the bottom of one of my tweets, thank you! In order to get the free software to brand your own tweets, please visit my friend Kay Ballard's blog, New Media Martini.

Be aware that this software runs on Adobe AIR. I understand there is an AIR environment available for Windows, Mac, and Linux, so you should be covered. 

While the software itself is free of monetary charge, you will be asked for your email address twice: first by New Media International (they won't bug you much--just let you know when new products or websites are launching); then by the publisher of the software. I think it's worth it.

UPDATE 2010/06/23: I've been told the publisher of the free TweetBrand software has stopped supporting it. If you follow the steps, you may or may not be able to download and install it, but there will be no upgrades.

Wisdom from Carencro

Marc Broussard (@MarcBroussard) tweeted this: "The Left is better than the Right at the game of politics, or, commanding gov $'s with an ideological policy platform. Ask me why."

I did ask why. I haven't seen his response yet, but here's what I think (you knew that was coming).

Statists believe that society as a whole owns all the resources and products, and it's the State's responsibility to distribute (spend) them. They know that they can buy some people's support, so they want to spend those resources and products to gain more and more power. They have no compunction in doing so.

Liberty lovers, on the other hand, know that whatever I produce is mine, and they have no right or power to confiscate it to use for their own purposes. It goes against their grain to spend public funds for political ends.

So you see, it is true that the "Democratic Party" (their name) is the party of "Yes (as long as you will vote to reelect me and my kind)", and the Republicans (followers of the Constitution) are the party of "No, you can't be taken care of on the public's dime, you must earn your own."

Update: as Mr. Broussard puts it: Basically, the Left, "We'll take care of everything." The Right, "We'd like to protect you."

Social Security and Medicare in the 21st Century

If you're age 55 or over, nothing changes. You get full benefits and continue paying the Social Security and Medicare (SS&M) taxes as under the current contract, or law.

If you're age 40 to 55, you have an option:

• pay 67% of current SS&M taxes and receive 50% benefits, or
• pay no more SS&M taxes, get a one-time refundable tax credit of 50% of those paid so far, and receive no benefits

If you're under age 40, you get a one-time refundable tax credit of all the SS&M taxes you've paid, and you are released from the contract. No more SS&M taxes, no benefits.

The percentages can be tweaked, but these seem pretty fair to me, and we all know that, even now, the benefits payable under these programs bear no relationship to the revenues collected as payroll taxes.

Collectivists Live by Projection

I've touched on this idea in this space before. Here now are a couple of short posts I sent to Posterous, combined into one place for linking purposes.

---

Collectivists live by projection.

If they are violent, they accuse Constitutionalists of violence. If they are racist, they accuse me of racism. If they want to shut down free speech, they accuse me of wanting to shut them up. (I want them to say exactly what they believe.)

If they are blindly following some Marxist leader, like George Soros, John Podesta, or Andy Stern, they accuse me of having no intelligence of my own and blindly following someone like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. On the contrary: O'Reilly is not conservative enough for me; Rush and Glenn simply echo my beliefs. Sometimes, even they do not go far enough. (See my post with my "precinct card.")

I believe in the Constitution, and I will oppose you even if I don't hear one national voice with my viewpoint! In fact, if the current few voices are silenced, you will hear the voice of MILLIONS against you!

---

(Part 2)

As I write this, Rush Limbaugh is finishing up his coverage of the story of a woman with cancer who was on Medicaid, scheduled for a transplant. The Social Security Administration contacted her, offering disability benefits for her 3-year-old son. She accepted, and the disability payments caused her to be ineligible for Medicaid. They've canceled her coverage, and the hospital will not do the transplant because of liability issues.

Earlier this morning Fox News featured a short bit about effective tax rates going up in 2011, including a mention of the Death Tax phase-out (so that the estate tax rate is 0 this year) expiring at the end of the year. Estates of decedents who die in 2011 could face a tax rate of 55%--that is, the State Bureaucratic Apparatus will take OVER HALF of what someone has EARNED during his or her LIFETIME. That is on top of whatever taxes were paid on that money when it was earned.

All this reminds me of Alan Grayson's placard presentation, claiming the Republicans want you to die quickly. It's obvious that it is in fact the COLLECTIVISTS who want that. In effect they're saying, if you're going to die in the next couple of years, and you want to preserve your estate, you had better die in 2010--in a word, quickly. If you have a chance to get a transplant to extend your life a bit, but you're going to be on public assistance for the rest of your life, anyway, we'd rather you don't get the transplant, and die quickly.

When a collectivist accuses a conservative of something odious and despicable, it's nearly always projection.

An Interesting Opportunity for Nevada

A news story I just heard stated that my U. S. Representative, Dean Heller, expressed concern over Sen. John Ensign's behavioral issues, but stopped short of calling for him to resign.

That got me thinking. We know Harry Reid is in trouble, and may lose to a Republican challenger. But which one? I personally like Sharron Angle. I've heard noises of some opinions that she is "too conservative." (I say that's impossible.) Right now, Sue Lowden is the front-runner, and the young Danny Tarkanian seems very popular, too.

I don't know right now if Nevada has a Gubernatorial Appointment process or a Special Election process for replacing a U. S. Senator mid-term. I will do some research to see if I can determine what the process is. But in any case, I think it would be beneficial for Nevada to have one Senator from each of two major regions: North and South. According to Sen. Ensign's website, he was raised in the North up until high school, but now considers Las Vegas his home.

Even if Lowden or Tarkanian wins the Republican primary, I will fully support the GOP effort to defeat Harry Reid in November. I would then also love to see Angle chosen to replace Ensign should he resign. I have no problem with Ensign in the Senate. He seems to be conservative enough. But should he be pressured to resign, I believe Sharron Angle would be an outstanding choice to take his place.
 

That's No Extremist; That's My Accountant!*

During the week of 22 March 2010 (I think it was Tuesday the 23rd), Glenn Beck tried to explain on his television show why the radicals in and around the Obama administration--including their accomplices in the media--are trying to label the Tea Party supporters as extremists. He had a diagram something like this:

Johnson and Nixon Pictures?

American Family Picture

=========================================

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

Beck explained that during the radicals' youth in the 1960s and '70s, they felt the sting of ridicule because they were separated from mainstream America by their radical beliefs and actions. They perceived the people at the top as having sway over America, rather than their "superior" ideas ruling the day, because they were being marginalized.

Beck then took down "The Man's" pictures (as he called them), and put the radicals at the top, so it looked somewhat like this:

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

American Family Picture

=========================================

Tea Party Pictures

Beck explained that this is what the radicals are attempting to do by claiming the Tea Party folks are extremists, racists, violent usurpers, etc. But guess what? 

IT WON'T WORK! 

Why? Because I believe most of America sees the picture more like this:

Collectivist Radicals

=========================================

American Family

Tea Party

*With apologies to Michael Graham, author of "That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom".

Hunger is Inevitable

We just had a volunteerism promotion meeting at the office. The organization promoting it provided a sign to hang on the wall that reads:

Hunger is defined as, "The physical and mental condition that results from not eating enough food, due to insufficient economic, social, and community resources.["]

It doesn't say who defined hunger that way, but the inclusion of a "mental" component leads me to believe it involved some modern, non-religious, perhaps collective ideology.

Now remember that the collectivists' chief aim is to guarantee the same outcomes for all people. But look at that definition. What is "enough"? The same amount may be enough, or more than enough, for some, but not nearly enough for others. If every person has the same amount, there will still be some who have plenty, and others who are hungry. This applies in the figurative sense, as well as the literal, food-related sense.

Therefore, it is better to allow each individual to attempt to earn what he (or she) can. Those who earn more than they need, especially in America, are very likely to give willingly to those who need more than they earn.

On a side note, I am glad to see that whoever authored that sign used the serial comma.

It's So Simple

I call on conservative legislators at (at least) the Federal and State levels to introduce legislation to this effect:

It shall be unlawful for any agency of the Executive branch of government to establish or enforce policies and regulations not explicitly included in Acts passed by the Legislative branch.

This would stop, and even reverse, the power grabs and un-Constitutional social engineering by agencies like the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the BATFE, etc. The TSA might disappear overnight! The IRS's "rulings" and "opinions" would matter no more than mine.

Liberty vs. Anarchy, or, You Want to Legalize What?!

Glenn Beck recently asserted on his TV show that there are two branches of Libertarians: one that really advocates anarchy, or as close to it as we can get; one that advocates a return to the small, limited government as established by the Constitution. I'd like to suggest that this second branch really represents what I call Constitutional Republicans, like me.

I'm no Bible thumper, and I don't want to turn people off by making this blog sound preachy, but I believe that to follow the Constitution requires people of this nation to have the kind of firm morality that comes from training and practice of Judeo-Christian religion.

The first branch of Libertarianism often puts forth the argument that they should be able to do what they want at home--such as use marijuana--as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I submit this article for your consideration.

The main point of the article, in case you didn't read it all the way through, is that young people who have used cannabis longer have a much greater tendency to exhibit psychotic symptoms, or even fully develop psychotic disorders. While this study only covered young people, I think it's likely that it's the length of time of use--rather than beginning age--that is to blame for these ill effects.

So what if these young people now cannot complete a higher education, get a good job, support themselves and a family, and help to create wealth? How does that hurt the rest of society? Oh, and by the way, they won't be able to build up a good retirement savings, so they'll be depending on their children--and yours, and mine--to give them a pension.

So much for anarchy.

It is a Religion: More Evidence

"What is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."--Al Gore

Never mind the idea that God has provided for our redemption through Jesus Christ. It is environmental law--and socialized medicine, and all the other means of controlling the people of the world through laws and regulations, no doubt--that will provide redemption for humans.

It is the notion that man can be perfected if given the proper indoctrination and training by other men that drives these nutcases to their leftist ends. They have rejected the idea that man is imperfect by nature and can only be perfected by the Grace of God. So there must be something to fill the void, and they believe it is they and their rule that will do it.

Even if you don't subscribe to the Christian beliefs, do you really want these people prescribing your behavior? I certainly do not.

To Those Who Insist on Compromise

No!

The first memories I have of being told that compromise is the best way to get things done are from Sesame Street. The children's "educational" program. On public television. Run by progressives, I must assume.

Compromise is the best way for progressives to get bits of their agenda done. That's why they push it so much.

Now is not the time for compromise. Now is the time to stand up for what we believe; to defeat the progressive agenda; not to allow "a little bit more"; to insist on doing what's right.

This is Why Polar Bears Attack People

NewsBusters® posted an article with this video of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, along with the quote below it. Their quote is longer, and has emphasis on his conclusion. I wanted to emphasize a few words in his argument.



"Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature," Ratigan said.

He said first, "warmer", then "higher", then insists on it being "any temperature." Which is it? It can't be both.

This kind of inconsistency knows no bounds in progressive speech. If people were actually taught to think, like in the private school I attended, nobody would believe any of it.

Compromise? I Got Yer Compromise!

Tonight, the Governor of Nevada gave a State of the State address, and called for a special session of the legislature to address a nearly $900 million dollar deficit. Also tonight, Glenn Beck asked both Carly Fiorina and Chuck Devore what would be the first thing they'd cut spending on.

If I were asked that, I would answer without hesitation, "education!" Propose not just to cut, but to eliminate all public spending on education.

Gov. Gibbons said in his address that he wants to improve the quality of education  in Nevada. And how do conservatives maintain that the quality can be improved in any field? Get government out of it!

Besides, when you can no longer stand the yelling and screaming and whining and puling of people who mistakenly believe that education is an entitlement, you can always offer to trade. "Would you rather have your welfare check, or education for your children?" "Would you rather have the state provide habitat for the desert rat, or buildings and furniture for schools?" "OK, so you don't want to give up funding for education; what government agency money pit would you rather give up?"

Of course, the people may decide that education can be sacrificed for rats, and that would suit me just fine. Have the private sector provide real education, and stop funding progressive indoctrination centers with my money. We can always stop feeding the rats later. Or is it the same thing?

The End of Yucca Mountain Does Not Mean the End of Nuclear

Michelle Malkin has a recent piece on her blog, which seems to suggest that the fact that Obama's budget provides $0 funding for the Yucca Mtn Nevada nuclear waste dump means that his administration lied about wanting to pursue nuclear energy in America.

My first reaction is, "Good! The State Bureaucratic Apparatus is actually refusing to spend money on something!"

Furthermore, I have heard Gov. Jim Gibbons express on more than one occasion his belief that the Yucca Mtn project was conceived as a way to ensure the American nuclear industry was shut down once and for all. He is against the project not on environmental grounds--he's a trained geological engineer--but on the grounds that the spent fuel should not be simply dumped and sealed. Instead, he favors reprocessing the spent fuel into new fuel rods that can be used in even more efficient ways in new plants.

The best way the administration could support a growth in nuclear energy in the U.S. is to appoint judges who won't rule against new plants because of environmental law; better yet, propose the repeal of the legislation that allows environmental groups to bring suit after suit to retard or stop the construction of new nuclear plants. And that wouldn't cost a bit!


The fact that the administration is not proposing these changes, not the failure to fund a particular project, is what puts the lie to Obama's statement.

What are Conservatives For?

On the Sean Hannity TV show one night in January 2010, Bob Beckel said something to the effect, "Republicans [or conservatives] are against all these things Barack Obama is trying to do. What are you for?" They ran out of time on that show, but I believe that's a fair question and deserves to be answered. Here are just some of the things I am for:

• Reduction of the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA)--the "government"
  
• Elimination of programs that are tantamount to the transfer of money from earners to non-earners
• Lowering taxes, which should be a direct result of these first two items
• Ending the creation of, and in fact reducing or eliminating, the intrusive regulations created by the SBA
• Giving individuals the freedom, and allowing them to keep what they earn so they will have the means, to build their own success
• Ending the ridiculous notion that the State Agencies that we do have must not acknowledge any religions, or especially must avoid any references to Judaism or Christianity
  

I'm sure I've only touched on the highest profile things that I think conservatism stands for. Please leave a comment and let me know what else you advocate for as a conservative.

More Misdirection?

Article from the Washington Examiner:

Republican's bill killed last week, exact same bill passes unanimously today with Democrat sponsor

OK, so partisanship exists. OK, so a bill sponsored by one party fails, while the same legislation sponsored by another party passes.

SO WHAT?!

What does this legislation say? Why is the U. S. Congress passing any kind of legislation about the treatment of water rights completely within one state? It sounds to me like this legislation is un-Constitutional, and should never have been proposed at all.

UPDATE
I didn't mention this because of my haste to post this at first; but the first time around, there were 4 Republican Congressmen who voted against this (God bless 'em!): Kevin Brady (TX), John Linder (GA), Ron Paul (TX), and Joe Wilson (SC).

However, as the WE article states, Roll Call 22 for H.R. 4474 passed 415-0, with 18 members not voting. This bill authorizes expenditure of an unnamed amount of money for building a right-of-way across "non-Federal land", and for potential "reconstruction" of some sort of "facility". Sounds like a nice slab of spareribs, at the very least.

What Does Scott Brown's Victory Really Mean?

I suppose y'all must be wondering--the four of you who read me, thank you--where my post is celebrating the Republican win in Massachusetts? I have so many conflicting thoughts about it, it's hard to form a post. So here goes some rambling.

First, the candidate for the Republican party has won a U. S. Senate seat in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 3 to 1. Congratulations! It's a little surprising the Kennedy in the race didn't do better.

Second, in Mr. Brown's victory speech, Major Garrett noted that did not use the word "Republican" prominently, if at all. Perhaps that isn't surprising, given that much of his support came from voters who identify themselves as "independent." Just what does this indicate about how he will represent the Commonwealth in the Senate? The MOOP did point out that Mr. Brown voted along GOP lines 96% of the time; but did he introduce any measures that were actually conservative?

Next, I read somebody's claim that Mr. Brown actually supports a state-run, universal health care system. Does that mean he just doesn't like the one described in the current bills? Or if it gets the right amendments, he'd support it? Or was that person wrong?

Then there are the campaigns. Mr. Brown did an excellent job of getting his message heard, and got a lot--an awful lot--of help from social media. For the last week of the campaign, it seemed that 2/3 of the tweets in my stream were promoting him. Granted, I follow mostly conservatives, but that's still a pretty big proportion. And a large part of those folks were advocating (and giving) donations to his campaign from all over the nation, maybe even the world.

Mrs. Coakley, on the other hand, seemed to have a message mostly of blaming George W. Bush and trying to associate Mr. Brown with Bush's policies. I believe most independents reject that argument now. Also, she did not use the new media well. Some would argue that she didn't use the old media very well, either. I have not seen any reports of her war chest.

I was going to add more about the messages, but this is rambling too much already. I guess the bottom line is, Scott Brown is relatively conservative, for Massachusetts. He successfully campaigned to the idea of independence and against one-party control. We now have two years to see how he behaves in the Senate. I, for one, will be paying attention.

Update 2010-02-22: Apparently, Mr. Brown has disappointed many of those who didn't know much about him by voting for the so-called "jobs" bill, a.k.a. Stimulus II. Sounds like a Romney-like move to me.

Oh, and I now have 6 readers. Woo-hoo! Thank you all.

Who Does the Congress Think it is, Anyway?

I wrote a piece some time back about how I thought if the FCC started to impose tyrannical regulations (more than they already do?), that the best thing for the radio owners to do would be to ignore them. I guess that they would really need some legal authority to do that, though.


Well, it appears that others have thought the same thing before. American Thinker has a piece that says what I've been trying to say, just more eloquently. Please take the time to read it.

Case Closed

For those of you who've missed it, Glenn Beck has spent this first week of the new year showing how his, and his team's, research has produced enough evidence to settle the questions he's been asking for the past months. The self-styled "progressives" in America have been building their utopia for over a hundred years, and they are just about to cause the Republic to collapse so they can replace it with their centrally-planned, centrally-managed, all-controlling system--the State Bureaucratic Apparatus, or SBA, as I call it.

What I'm wondering is, will they really be able to force some measure of compliance like in the former Soviet Union? Or will the American people, to use a much-maligned phrase, just say no? And will the American military, true patriots to whom we owe so much, side with us, the people?

I, like Glenn, am very hopeful about our future. We are building a sense of community, with the tea party movement, and the grass-roots energizing of the Republican party getting back to Conservative principles. Let's keep it going strong throughout this election year, and all the way through 2012. We are fired up now!

How Did Fox Miss This?

From the World Wide Words newsletter, a "Sic!" item:

CNN's Political Ticker reported on 28 November 2009 about a basketball
game that President Obama attended in support of his brother-in-law
Craig Robinson: "Robinson, who coaches the Oregon State Beavers,
was cheered on by the President, who snacked on popcorn, the First
Lady, Sasha, Malia and the girls' grandmother Marian Robinson."
Thanks to Joel Gardner for that unsettling image.

With an appetite like that, one wonders how he stays so thin