How the Elephants Died - an Essay on the Broken Republican Party

In 2008, after eight years of George W. Bush, after having lost the House and the Senate, after having lost many State houses and Governorships, the Republican Party teetered on the edge of becoming a long term minority party in the United States. It was not because the Democratic Party had necessarily done anything special to change themselves, nor had they damaged the GOP in some manner as to deal a death blow. Quite the opposite, actually. It was the Republican Party that had been faltering from within.

After the crushing losses of 2008 the pundits began to ask the question, “What now for the GOP?” What they were asking had less to do with strategy and more to do with message. What did the GOP stand for? Who were the GOP leaders? The horrible primary set-up a GOP ticket which fronted a liberal Arizona Senator and a half-term unknown Governor from the 3rd least populated State. The GOP was deeply divided after the primary, and there was a large lack of enthusiasm for McCain as the leader of the party, or the nation. During the election, the GOP ticket seemed to be splitting as well, with the Governor of Alaska “Going Rogue” in defiance of the leadership of the Arizona Senator. After the election the depth and breadth of the divide was so obvious that to ask the question about the future of the GOP was not uncalled for.

The state of the Party at that time was one where the party leader and outgoing President, backed by the Party itself, had drastically veered from the “small government/limited government” doctrine which defined its surging success in recent years. No, the Party had lurched so far to the left that figure heads within the party defended the constant erosion of liberties and the perpetual borrowing and bail-outs as staples to the values of the party itself. Perpetual war, Patriot Act, wireless taps, bail-outs, federal healthcare/prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind. The party of limited government was responsible for the largest growth of the (non-essential) government in the history of the United States. After losing power in the executive and legislative branches, the party was at war with itself for what it had done, suffering from a crisis of identity.

During this crisis, however, there was a splinter group within the party which had laid the groundwork for the coming election cycle. The energetic and overly enthusiastic supporters of Ron Paul in 2008 had effected a tone within the party discussion, raising the issue of liberty. The big government GOP leaders were so put off by this message that Paul and his supporters were actually blocked from the national GOP convention. This group of the small Libertarian wing of the ‘Big Tent Party’ splintered from the GOP, holding their own Liberty Convention, where they put in place a long term strategy to retake the Republican Party.

As the Republican establishment selected new leadership and tried to scrape together a message, there was a movement already underfoot, planning Liberty Rallies on Tax day. The general message of the rallies was Liberty, low taxes, and a change to the monetary system. It was the Tea Party. The newly elected left was so afraid of the quick organization and the multitude of rallies across the nation that they immediately went into panic mode, claiming that the Liberty minded rallies were racist or terrorist in nature. The GOP establishment was so disconnected that they did not claim affiliation with the organizations spreading their message across America on Tax Day. This “radical element” was the organization of the Libertarian movement, the Campaign for Liberty. The success of the ‘Tax Day Tea Parties’ did not belong to the established GOP, however, after the movement began to swell in numbers the GOP began to approach the rag-tag leadership with an offer to take the Liberty movement under the wing of the Republican Establishment. As such, the GOP rested its momentum heading into the 2010 elections on the Tea Party. The strength of the Tea Party was brought into question on primary election day, and overwhelmingly the GOP establishment candidates were ousted in favor of the Libertarian Tea Party Conservatives. The narrative of 2010 was, then, that the GOP was now being led by the Tea Party, and as such the Republican Party could only retain the established leadership under the banner of this liberty movement.

After the unprecedented resurgence of the once dead GOP in 2010, the strategy of the established Republican leadership was to retain the talking points of the movement while dismantling the structure and ability of the Tea Party to splinter from the ‘Big Tent’. It was, after all, floated as an idea that the Tea Party itself could actually become a formidable third party, challenging the Republicans for top-tier status against a unified Democratic Party. Such a move, of course, would have ensured Democratic majority in 2012 and beyond. So the GOP establishment took the Tea Party congressmen and senators into their fold, and moved quickly to marginalize the Tea Party movement itself. By mid-2011 it was clear that the Tea Party had been so over-run by the mainstream GOP that the movement was dead under the moniker “Tea Party”. What began as a liberty movement quickly became a social conservative movement with no clear message of opposition. The message of small government, lower taxes, and individual liberty which defined the Tea Party became talking points for established moderate Republicans. The waters were so muddied that the mention of the Tea Party no longer represents a sect of the GOP, rather some ambiguous affiliation from within the Republican Party. You no longer hear about Tea Party candidates heading into the 2012 election cycle, rather you hear about whether voters identify with the Tea party. But I ask you, what does it mean to identify with the Tea Party in 2012? What is the party’s message? You are unable to answer because the GOP successfully dismantled the movement while simultaneously absorbing their talking points. The movement was no longer deemed a threat.

The fractures of 2008 began to reappear in the GOP during the selection of the presidential candidates in 2011. As the party began the process of identifying the next generation of leadership, so returned the animosity of the 2008 election cycle. The media scrambled to identify the leader of the Tea Party movement while the GOP establishment held their breath hoping none would arise. Sarah Palin was the media darling, mostly because of her atypical moves after losing the election in 2008. Michelle Bachmann was a very vocal member of the Tea Party, but lacked the excitement of Sarah Palin, and who could not get her endorsement for the ‘female amongst the males’ spot in the 2012 run. Other first term names were favored by the media, such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. It was becoming clear that the incorporation of the Tea party into the GOP had so diluted the movement that when the time came for the Tea Party to front their leader as a challenger to the GOP establishment candidate, the movement found it had been so love-struck with the recognition of the GOP that it was no longer a movement unto itself. It had no leadership. It had no message.

Seeing a sign of weakness from the Tea Party movement, who had developed into an active staging ground for the social conservative wing of the GOP and less of a true liberty movement, the Conservatives began their quest to identify and run a “True Conservative” candidate. Large bands of Conservative Republicans attempted grassroots draft campaigns for Governors from Indiana, Texas, New Jersey, as well as a fleet of Senators and Congressmen. Each draft campaign attempted to sway opinion in favor of their candidate as the Truest “True Conservative”. As the field winnowed, however, even the definition of a “True Conservative” was sullied, tarnished by conservative talking points that do not actually resemble the left-moderate actions which they were being used to describe. The Conservatives, as well, had been marginalized.

Then there are the 2008 hold-overs. Most notably Mitt Romney, who made a calculated decision to yield the 2008 race to McCain after South Carolina, and go directly into 2012 campaign mode. Mitt Romney, who maintained the campaign presence in the early voting states, was identified as one of those who was expected to run and was identified as an early front-runner. His campaign represents the ideas of the moderate-left lurch of the established GOP, and a continuation of those ideals of the ‘Neo Conservative’ era of the Republican Party.

The second hold-over is Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the Libertarian who was blacklisted from the GOP in 2008. Paul’s brand of Republicanism is the Goldwater/Jeffersonian Libertarianism. His strategy was much the same as Romney’s: stay in the early voting states and build a movement with which to roll through them in 2012. He was hated by GOP establishment and feared by the media. His followers were branded, as he was, as being out of touch. But then came the economic collapse. Then came the continued wars under Obama. Then came the financial disasters of the fiat currency system. And the media turned to the one man who had not only predicted the downfall, but was actively building a movement of educating the public to the extent of the failings. His movement, the Campaign for Liberty, gave life to the Tea Party and the GOP wins in 2010. Paul’s decision to enter the Presidential race gave the Liberty Movement a validated and tested leader, and this put fear back into the heart of the GOP. Paul’s early numbers and successes were dismissed as ‘Paul-bot anomalies’, and he was written off as a candidate out-of-touch (again) and unelectable. He was targeted by the media for blacklisting, and painted as outside of the party norm by the GOP. But Paul’s numbers continue to grow, his Campaign for Liberty continues to reach the voting bloc in charge of the future of the party – the youth vote. Where the Tea party movement failed, the original campaign for liberty strategy devised by Paul in 2008 had succeeded, and the Libertarian’s have a movement underway within the GOP.

We turned the calendar to 2012, the election year. We are under the thumb of an unpopular President, a Democrat who is easily beaten should an organized opposition show itself. Herein lies the rub. The fractures made visible in 2008 were never truly fixed, and now we see a Republican party so broken that it is becoming ever impossible to repair, re-establish, and retake the battlefield. The GOP is not organized. It has no leadership. The Tea Party has failed, and the message marginalized. The Social Conservative movement has failed, and the message marginalized. So what is left is a bloody power struggle between the Neo-Conservative elements of the establishment, both sides fighting so viciously to implement their brand of moderate leftism under the brand “Republican”. We see a Republican battle in which the majority has been fooled by the talking points, by the stolen message of the Liberty movement and the Conservative movement. The leaders of the GOP promote a continued growing of the government, increased erosion of liberties (such as the NDAA, SOPA, etc), increased spending, and perpetual war while at the same time using talking points about increasing liberty, reducing debt, cutting spending, and securing Americans by not backing down from saber rattling. The message is unorganized, it does not make sense. The Republican brand has somehow become no different from the Democratic brand, save a few minor means to the ends – but in both cases the end is the same.

When Republicans act like Republicans we win. When we act like Democrats, they win.

As the infighting intensifies, all eyes are on Ron Paul and his growing Campaign for Liberty. There is daily talk about Paul’s brand of Libertarianism splintering from the GOP. With it, Paul will take a national 10-15% of the GOP – those who learned the lesson from his movement and those who are simply tired of the heated divide in the Party. A Ron Paul third party run is the Tea Party splinter nightmare held by the GOP after the 2010 groundswell. But this time the GOP has no control. The movement has a leader. The leader has a brand. The brand has a following that transcends party lines, drawing support from the fiscal right and the anti-war left as well as liberty minded independents. The big story of the 2012 election is going to be the political landscape left behind by the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty and the lasting effects of a movement within the GOP or established as a third party.

The GOP cannot contain the core of this movement, the Libertarians.The atmosphere is ripe for a fracture of the party. The stress of an undefined party to define itself, a party who is historically on the conservative-right but who has recently lurched moderate-left, a party who has largely gone without a notable figurehead, without any true leadership for too long is the stress that continue to fracture the party from within. The squelching of the conservative right and the ignoring of the libertarian movement threaten a party so divided against itself that it will not beat this sitting President nor will it retain control of the either chamber of congress, no matter which Moderate-Leftist you prop up on Election Day. What we are witnessing may be the end of the ‘Big Tent’ GOP, where libertarians and social conservatives need not apply, where they are catered to during elections but ignored while in power. The minority blocs of the GOP are growing wise to the new Republican brand. They are growing less patient with the lurch and less tolerant of the lip-service. The Party has moved past the crossroads and is heading full-speed toward the political cliff. This may very well be the narrative on how the mighty elephant died.

The Price of the "Big Tent" Revealed

If I wasn't clear before, let me be perfectly clear now: SUPPORTING LIBERAL REPUBLICANS (aka RINO's or "Moderates") FOR 'BIG TENT' STRATEGY IS ABSOLUTE INSANITY.

Gingrich, Steele, and many others backed the NY Congressional House District 23 Republican Scozzafava, a self proclaimed Moderate Republican. On the surface this seems harmless enough, but once one delves into her true colors, it is any wonder why she is a Republican at all.

HD23 in New York has been held by Republicans for 120 years. It is a conservative stronghold in a liberal state. To win in HD23, you must be a Republican. In this case, democrats are disguising themselves as republicans in order to win votes, and even using party rules and assemblies to win support of the party without the electorate's support of the values which they represent.

Scozzafava the "Republican" was anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-govt. healthcare, pro-Obama... which is no wonder why Charles Schumer and Rahm Emanuel successfully counseled her to support THE DEMOCRAT in the race after withdrawing over the weekend. That is right, the "moderate" Scozzafava endorsed the very liberal Democrat Bill Owens over the NY Conservative Party candidate Douglas Hoffman.

I reject the argument that we should embrace moderates where conservatives can't win to "build a big tent"...lest we end up with liberals where a conservative best represents the republican values.

To be a Liberty Republican is not to be a radical Right Wing Extremist. Rather it is to embrace the radical concept of freedom from government, freedom of self determination, freedom of property protection, and freedom of personal protection.

A "moderate" social conservative may be an acceptable candidate if they can adequately build a case based on liberty and limited government. To show an understanding of the principles of Liberty and the backbone to defend them at all costs makes you a liberty republican... Not just because you place an "R" behind your name on a ballot.

Enough is Enough. 2009 elections are going to reflect the anti-big-government sentiment in the US, and will fan the flames for Tea Party progress moving forward into 2010.

Goldwater reminded us that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Is it so extreme to ask our Republican Leadership to listen to the grassroots Liberty Movement and help give Liberty a Second Chance in America?

Or, shall we be so resigned as to accept that even the Republican Party believes that Big Government, more taxes, and more regulation are the only answer to America's future.

If so, I offer you an America with one party rule. The price of the Big Tent, indeed.

Why Jindal may not be the Answer for the GOP

The Southern Avenger hits the nail on the head with this latest commentary... I have been skeptical about Bobby Jindal for some time, in that he is not yet proven to be Libertarian enough (small government, lower taxes, anti-imperialistic)... The GOP, as the SA puts it, does not need to decide on "More Moderate vs. More Conservative"... The decision is "More Libertarian vs. More Authoritarian"

So perhaps it will take more than 2-4 years for a GOP star to rise... on who is truly representative of Libertarian values, which as Regan said, are the Heart and Soul of the Republican Party.

h/t to the Southern Avenger.

Democrats Can't Turn it Off! Propose ANOTHER $150 Billion "Economic Bail-out"

In January I posted a blog ripping the United States for the "entitlement" bail-out, and the Fed's answer of simply "printing more money" to stimulate the economy.

The $500 Billion was distributed. The gas prices continued to rise and the economy continued to teeter. The debt incurred did nothing to save the economy, just buy off the Plebs.

In March, I complained about Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson's, plan to "streamline" the economy by turning over the US treasury to the Federal Reserve. I stated:

"What Paulson has done here is set a dangerous precedent, in that the failure of private industry is no longer going to be allowed to happen. What is going to happen instead is that the government will subsidize failing businesses to keep them open, and keep their employees working... on an indirect government salary.
THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE COLLAPSE OF THE FREE MARKET."

The government was intended to be inneficient, so as to protect the people from spontaneous and bad legislature, which would lead to heavy burdens of Tyranny. Streamlining the government is an overt attempt to sidestep the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

In June I warned about Socialists in the Democratic Party, and their intentions to nationalize the oil industry - following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez. I suppose I should have also warned of the Socialists in the Republican Party, and their overall intention of seizing absolute power over the United States, and ultimately the world through markets, then politics.

In July I angrily declared my wavering allegiance to a socialist tending government, led by the most liberal Big Government President in the History of the United States, GW Bush.

"The treasury is being plundered to the thunderous applause of the masses. The burden to bail-out the vain and covetous leeches of our society is being placed on our own pocketbooks... We are being given marching orders by a government that won the vote, but represents no more than 1/4 of the population respectively - that marching order is "On to the Gallows!" - for in this day we are seeing the death of the last best hope in the world."

In September, I warned of the dangerous parallel between the recent actions of the United States and the death of the Roman Republic in favor of the Roman Empire. It should also be noted that the same process was followed, legally, in Germany, leading to the rise of the Nationalist Socialist party. Extreme Debt, National Pride, Government Hand-outs and Bail-outs buying allegiance - then the rise of Socialist Hitler to cap it all off.

"The value of the US dollar has decreased by 96% since the inception of the
Federal Reserve, the Federal Debt has gone from $0 to nearly $10 Trillion in the
same amount of time (and has continued to increase an average of $2.32 billion per day since September 28, 2007!) , and the Federal Government is making no plans to stop spending (especially under Obama). The taxpayers of the United States seems not too concerned about this debt, as we have been cultured into a "credit" state of mind, and distracted by commercialism and reality TV constantly demanding that we "watch and vote" - as if it made some sort of a difference in the world! The burden of the debt is over $30,000 per US citizen - more than a years pay for most Americans. Such a burden forces the citizenry into a state of "constant work" in order to survive - thus removing the mind of the masses."

This month, I have discussed the increased occurrence of violation of the Federal Government's contract with America, the Constitution. The people's liberties are being cast aside in favor of consumerism. Consumerism, of course, is the rally cry for a one-world government supporting perpetual production, consumption, and taxes for political power.

And NOW, the Democrats are proposing ANOTHER $150 Billion in bail-out moneys to be paid to the states in order to continue funding failed social programs within those states. Luckily, House Republicans are fighting this additional bail-out - but we have seen how easily these clowns buckle if tax breaks are offered to archery shops and bicycle commuters.

Look, readers - I am going to be blunt. This crap has GOT to stop!

The federal budget last year was $2.6 Trillion - and next year's budget is over $3 Trillion. This DOES NOT include the $1.5 Trillion in bail-outs that the Federal Government has raped from the "treasury" in the name of "fairness" or "stabilization". This maneuvering has nothing to do with security or stability... it has everything to do with circumventing the Constitution, creating an expedient government, and granting that new government unlimited power - see Paulson's new role.

Our government has failed, and we are losing our liberties. The government is mired with corruption, greed, and incompetence - and they are using their skills to imprison us in debt - ensuring continued subjugation under this government take-over.

What power do we have to stop these actions?

We have a vote in November, but I fail to see an end with a new Congress. Many incumbents will come back to hen house, foxes all. And the new Congressmen in races across the United States show no drive and no ability to stop this monster.

We have the ability to petition our government for redress of grievances. Alas, no court would uphold a fight against what the government is doing.

And we have the right to take powers from the federal government, granting them to the states in special elections and state constitutional changes - challenging the federal government on their authority over state's sovereignty.

There is a dangerous trend. There seems to be no stop in sight.

So I ask, what are YOU willing to do to secure freedom?

Martin Luther King Jr, while detained in the Birmingham Jail:

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."

I would draw on the spirit of this rebellious attitude. I would use this quote to declare:

We are living in a New Socialist Society, where certain principles dear to freedom loving individuals, such as our civil liberties, are being suppressed - and I am openly advocating disobeying this countries coming anti-freedom laws! There will come a time when we all must chose - do what is right, or do what is easy. The Declaration of Independence reads: all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Are you willing to stand up for this country, or live by the new "laws"? Is the loss of freedom so sufferable that you will openly applaud the actions of this federal government in your silence?

Are there no true patriots left in this nation?

Is there no-one willing to do something?

McCain and the Bail-Out

On July 17, 2007 I wrote a short article about John McCain's failure as his campaign seemingly fell apart. It was an article no more than two-three sentences that left me eating crow when his campaign rallied back to win the nomination. It was inspired by the following cartoon:


So now we are seeing the second crumbling of the McCain campaign - and I am left wondering if the strong finishing maverick has what it takes to turn it around?

As early voting is already underway in the battleground state of Ohio, it is necessary to look at McCain's failures and what he must do to turn them around NOW!

1. McCain saw his biggest bump when he picked Sarah Palin, but has spent the last month trying too hard to conform her to McCain Jr. What he needs to do is let the tiger out of her cage! Sarah Palin works best when she is allowed to lead - not when she is being micromanaged and shielded from being the hardball player that she naturally is. Hopefully tomorrow's debate will be the beginning of the Palin rally, and she will come out swinging against Joe Biden.

2. McCain has stayed negative. John's constant attacks of Obama are failing to succeed. This is a time when McCain needs to lay out his economic plan, his energy plan, his tax plan, etc. No more attack ads. Everyone knows WHO John McCain is, but he has failed to say what he stands to do - besides making the authors of earmark legislation famous... Unfortunately Earmarks are not the source of the problem right now!

3. Focus on leadership. John McCain gathered 60 votes in support of the failed bailout plan - there were 4 House votes originally - McCain brought over 60 additional. McCain has the ability to lead the party and the country - He just needs to do it in a way that is not supporting a growing government and bad policy!

4. Come out against Bush. McCain needs to run an ad, or give a speech that hits Bush hard on the size of government. He needs to say that bush was distracted from his role as a conservative leader, and caused the government to grow - and then lay out a plan to shrink the size and the authoritarian nature of this government. Bush has not campaigned for McCain, and endorses him only as a Republican - so why not send a Conservative/Libertarian message that enough is enough on government growth, and He is the only candidate pledging to reduce the size and spending of the government by ~25% in four years.

5. Buy a two minute spot before the Vice Presidential debate on all channels in which he can make a case for his presidency. Everyone is going to be watching the VP debate to see Palin perform, so this is the perfect time to catch the attention of America. He needs to spell out his plan, and lay it all on the line then. Early voting is already under way in some states, and Mail-in ballots are a week away in Colorado. Now is the time!

If John McCain is going to make a move, it needs to be done NOW. The general election is one month away, but a majority of ALL voting will be complete within the next two weeks. Americans have been encouraged to become a "mail-in" ballot country - what is more patriotic than staying home and voting in your pajamas? If McCain intends on finishing first, all cards need to be laid on the table, all bluffs need to be called, and he needs to go all-in... This is it, folks... all or nothing!

The Bold and the Beautiful… and the Pitbull!

Consider Sarah Palin officially introduced to the nation! Now the voters of America know what I have been trying to explain for nearly a year – Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party, and the Democrats’ worst nightmare!

Her speech last night was feminine, but firm; showing that a Hockey Mom from small town America truly does have what it takes to lead this nation. For all the slander and slime that the liberal left has attempted to throw her way over the last five days, Sarah Palin delivered a bold “Shame On You!” with her cheeky yet inspiring address at the RNC.

"I think Sarah Palin can do a one-two punch better than Muhammad Ali," Kansas state Sen. Karin Brownlee said after the speech. "And I think she delivered it just square on the opponents' face. I think she has energized the Republican Party like we haven't seen in a long time."

Where the GOP was left with cracks and concerns after a John McCain nomination – a general level of unease in selecting a centrist maverick who openly toyed with the thought of appointing an Independent Democrat to share the ticket – Sarah Palin has repaired those cracks. Sarah Palin stood with the grace of royalty and celebrity, but delivered a speech with the strength of a no-holds-barred hitman ready to take on the media and the left. Sarah Palin has successfully united the GOP – and now she is reaching out to independents and inviting them back into the large tent of the Republican Party.

And for all the inspiration and energy she brings to the Republican Ticket, she is instilling the same amount of fear in the hearts of the Democrats. Left wingers in the blogosphere are attacking her speech now for lack of substance and mean-spiritedness, not realizing that it was a shot across the bow of the national press and DC insiders – warning them to back off of her and her family. Her strength and poise are inspiring to the GOP, and drawing attacks from the left. The GOP has a shiny beacon on the hill, and her name is Sarah Palin. She has the power to ensure that the change in America is a conservative one, and that we get back to being Americans – not Socialist European wannabees.

The left have got their hands full now! The Republicans are ready to fight, ready to reform, and ready to lead!

Eurofication of the American Left

The left is afraid to let the United States fight the war that needs to be fought. I have written about my frustration in this war against Islamic Totalitarianism, in that our goal is to make everyone love us instead of doing what is right.

I blame the left. I blame the weak politicians on the right for giving in to the left.

I was at my graduation ceremony last night for the LPR (Leadership Program of the Rockies), and our keynote speaker was Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager said something that inspired my column today: "Instead of learning from the Great Wars that it is our job to Fight Evil, Europeans learned that it is Evil to Fight." (this in response to a report that German soldiers are ordered not to fire on Taliban troops, despite their actions, unless fired upon first)

The Europeans became pacifists in world and internal affairs, in hopes of a unification of Europe. They have their unification, but at the cost of the downfall of all that is and ever was Europe. There is no spine in Europe, no one to stand up for values that have shaped Europe over the last 2000 years... and no desire to act as the same atrocities that occurred in Germany and Poland in the second World War are taking place throughout Africa, Pacific Island Nations, and throughout the Middle East... as such, America is left to do what is right... and be the police to the world.

Prager also said that it is better to do what is right and be hated for it, than to do what is wrong and be loved. If you are loved by all, then you have done something wrong... you have sacrificed your principles... This is true for the military intervention in the case of genocide... Rwanda, Congo, and other African Countries have seen more sheer numbers of dead due to Genocide than all military and civilian deaths in World War Two worldwide... yet the world, and namely Europe, does nothing.

They do nothing because they refuse to be hated as the United States has been seen as being hated around the world... and in their silence, they sin. Their very inaction is a crime against Humanity.

And the American left is under the same spell... it is more important to them to be loved around the world than to stand up and do what is right. Send aid to Darfur, but not the military necessary to stop the Genocide. What good is aid when you are murdered by a machete, raped, and burned in your home with your entire family?

No... the left is more interested in appearing to be doing the right thing... but no action is taken for fear of being hated... because they, much like the European Pacifists, have learned that to Fight is Evil.

Deep in the gut of every man, woman, and child around the world is a feeling... a pinch... you know the difference between right and wrong.

If you see someone committing a crime against humanity, you know it is wrong. And if you get that pinch, but do nothing, you too have committed a crime. You are at fault for not doing all you could to help... to stop the rape, to stop the killing, to stop the violence... even if it means giving your life to save another. That is the American Way... not Pacifism... not sitting by and watching as the world burns around us.

I don't care how the conflicts started... All I care about is how they are ended.

If you went in to a doctor to cure your lung cancer, and instead of curing you he continually blamed you for smoking... you should find another doctor!

So if it is our job to stop genocide in Africa, and prevent it in Iraq by up and leaving, we should do the job, not obsess on how we got there in the first place.

How do we save as many lives as possible?

By doing what is right.

The left, somewhere along the way, have learned that it is evil to fight.

The truth is that it is our duty, our moral authority, to stop killing, raping, and inhumane acts around the world... all things that we can consider evil... it is our obligation as a free and enlightened society to fight evil. That is real change!

"THE NEW CONSERVATIVE" TURNS 200!

The New Conservative has cleared a hurdle of 200 posts! This is no large task, but something that is surely worth celebrating.

From here, I plan to continue posting topics that are general interest, but may consider a week by week "theme" to encourage continued readership. One thing is certain, I want to refrain (as much as possible) from being a sounding board for News stories. My hope is that The New Conservative can continue to grow into a site for activism and special interest topics with widespread interest.

Some upcoming ideas: The return of Wild Buffalo to the US, continued coverage of the Lakota with a potential visit to Pine Ridge Reservation to report first-hand, The new definition of Eminent Domain and it's reflection of Statism in the US... of course with some great political posts as they become more relevant.

So thank you to my readers. It has been a great journey thus far! Stay tuned for more great content as we head towards 500 posts!

Doing the Right Thing - Being Human

Politics is a battlefield... That goes without saying. It is the most vicious game that one can participate in. There seem to be little rules, no clear fouls, and the out-of-bounds seems non-existent.

So why do we do it... why do we blog on political issues? Why do we run for office, or why are we involved in political parties?

Each and every person can provide a very different answer. Some seek glory, some seek social change, some seek to simply protect the constitution. There are some who see it as their civic duty, some who see it as a career.

No matter what your motivation, there seems to be an aspect that has gone missing... that is the human element.


It is widely understood that we (the masses) are no longer considered citizens, rather consumers. We are no longer concerned citizens, we are poll results. We are seen as mindless drones in need of political ads to sway us, or commentating to change our vote.

Wake up, readers... we are not mindless drones, and we cannot allow ourselves to be 'led out to pasture' by media, political ads, etc. We must demand that our politicians NOT consider politics as "business as usual"... we must demand the human element!

Take the time, as a political leader, to reach out to me as a human being... I am not talking about making a political ad about living with your mother in an attempt to SEEM more human, I am talking about reaching out in a different way... a way that is off the beaten path of politics... engage the people on a personal level...

Treating every "voter" as a human being... what a concept.

Reaching out to us means showing your soft underbelly... it is hard as a politician... but it is real. And that is what the people crave... real change, real ideas, real emotion, real heart, and real people... people from their own ranks... A candidate with something that the others are missing... the human element.

Oh, Christmas Feud... and the effects of Negative Campaigning

As I have said in previous posts, there is little time to make big gains in Iowa and the other early states. The front-loading of the process has made Christmas time the prime time to campaign... however, it is the one time of the year that the Iowans are not interested in campaigns... they have made up their minds... or they just want to be left alone for the time being.

So why has the campaign of Romney released two new ads attacking Huckabee, to be aired during the campaigning cease-fire? And how does that make the people of Iowa view him?

Mike Huckabee also released an ad to be aired in the early states over the Christmas cease-fire. How might this ad make voters view him?

When it comes down to it, I have to ask myself which candidate is acting more presidential, taking the higher road, and trying to better define himself instead of running negative ads against someone else. When it comes down to judgement, who is making the better choice? Think of what Christmas means to you, and then imagine sitting down to watch a re-run of "The Christmas Story" with your family... Then both of these ads pop up during a commercial break... which one do you want to share with your family? Which one makes you listen, and say, "Oh... thanks for the Christmas message".

And now, the effects of Negative Campaigning... I will keep this short...

For starters, There has been one candidate who has consistently used negative advertising in their campaign. I am not going to name names, I will let you figure that out. So what does that tell you about the candidate? Perhaps it implies that their record or message is not strong enough to support itself, so they must try to tear down the other campaigns.

But what else does it do? It puts hate into the heart of that candidates supporters. They begin attacking, sometimes viciously, the other candidates. It invokes negative emotions, and the people are left to act on these sometimes strong emotions... It destroys the base support, and distracts from the candidates ability to distinguish themselves in a positive light.

It also should be noted that this is the Primary season... this is not the time to be filling the hearts of the party's base with hate and anger in an attempt to build up one candidate over another. Once the primary season is over, and the negative candidate has lost (for example), their supporters are so angry at the other candidates that they refuse to be part of the party, and they refuse to vote, refuse to support the party and vote third party, or worse: they support the opposing party just out of spite.

Negative campaigning is a poison, and we have a personal responsibility to insist that candidates maintain campaigns that stick to the moral high ground. We don't need politics as usual... we complain about it year after year. So do something about it, and demand that the candidates STOP negative ads, stop negative campaigns, and run on their merits and records.

What are your thoughts?

Change to blog name...focus remains the same

I have changed the name of the Blog from "Conservative Issues, Conservative Guy" to "The New Conservative"...

The previous title, I thought, limited the scope of my articles, and/or gave a preconceived notion as to what my thought process was: as a "conservative".

But as I have been continuing my education as a leader, in the Leadership Program of the Rockies, I have determined that labelling myself as THE Conservative Guy discussing Conservative issues was not entirely accurate.

In our last class, we discussed a model of the political field that was split into five categories, shown below with the percentage of Americans who also fit into the categories...

The left to right resembles the apparent location on the political spectrum. The first category is the one in which your belief is that regardless of work in, the output should be the same for everyone (i.e. socialism). Care & Fair represents the fundamental belief that everyone should have the same opportunity, and believes in social progress. Economy voters are pocketbook voters, and will vote on the basis of Jobs, taxes, and the economy first. The Order group are those who will vote on social order first (i.e. immigration, national defense, anti-crime). And the Faith group are those who vote based on faith related issues, and as such, are the very social conservatives.

We were then asked to fit ourselves into one of the categories...

I struggled with my decision, because my stance (politically) is an issues based stance... and as such, I had to select the "Care & Fair" category... Because I care about the issues, as well as the people that the issues effect. But that does not mean that I do not care about issues such as Life and Marriage, that are key to the Faith group... or that Immigration and National Security are not very important to me... or the Economy for that matter... I believe that all these issues are important, and can be handled in a way that is RIGHT, morally not just politically. And that is where the Care and Fair comes into play... doing what is right is to do what is not easily defined, sometimes...

As such, I began to think about the shifting political field, from the SOCON and FICON stances, into the Care and Fair group... I believe that there are those of us who fully embraced George W. Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" stance... And the compassionate conservative is one who doesn't fit easily into one of the above categories, but spans the spectrum of the four on the right... We are complicated, motivated, and changing the way the political game is being played.

I am a New Conservative... Compassionate yet Logical... Caring and able to Reason past Emotion. And I am looking for answers to the problems of the world, in a way that heals this nation's divide. I believe in personal responsibility and moral obligation... obligation to ourselves, our fellow man, and our planet... But obligation that is not to be forced by government, rather led by Divinity, and free will. I believe that government is not the answer to our problems, rather the source... and the only solution is the moral high-ground...

I say, "Let's do what is RIGHT... let's think vertically"... and that makes me a New Conservative.

Is Huckabee surge REALLY a Problem for Conservatives?

As I was reading through my blogroll, I came across an article discussing the problems with a Huckabee nod from the GOP. As a former pro-Huckabee blogger (now officially neutral due to circumstances), I still like discussing the viability of candidates, and enjoy discussing such with fellow bloggers. Though our friends make good points about Mike's lack of foreign policy, and the troubles he will face as his dirty laundry is finally aired nationally, I wonder if there is a blind-rage factor, as seen by Hugh Hewitt. Now, to be fair, the blogger does state that they do not officially have a horse in the race, but I wonder who their favorite is... it is definitely NOT Mike Huckabee.

I decided to post my response to his article below. Because I cannot officially support or endorse any candidate, I like to take a step back and think of the issue not in a pro/anti candidate light, but rather an electability light... and I challenge all my readers to do the same. I have made a couple points about it below.

(let me start by stating that on-the-record I am unable to support or endorse any candidate before the primary)

When selecting a president, and a presidential candidate, there are a few things to consider. National appeal is surely one, but Electoral appeal is more important in winning. Prior races and prior opponents surely matter. And of course, the ability to serve all citizens.
The biggest issue I have with President Bush is that he became so wrapped up in his own agenda that he isolated a good number of citizens (or allowed the left to isolate themselves), thus furthering the political divide. When I look at a candidate, I look at a candidate that has a wide base appeal, because this country needs a leader who can bring the nation together and heal the political divide. Fred Thompson (to mention someone directly) has come out and all but stated that he is going to continue the butt-kicking of the democrats (and independents, I presume). He is a continuation of the "Cowboy Republican" image that has further isolated the GOP from the rest of the nation. National appeal wins elections... and we need a candidate that can do more than 49.5% of the vote... else we run the risk of a deeper political divide.

Regarding Electoral appeal... Looking at the 2004 electoral map, one must consider which candidates are capable of holding ALL the Bush states. A candidate like Rudy, where many have voiced SOCON concerns, may cause a series of undervotes or 3rd party votes, thus tipping the tables and handing over entire states to the Democratic contender (most likely Clinton). The base, as a whole, is more concerned with SOCON issues than FICON issues... So the base is more likely to get out and vote on behalf of a SOCON, especially against Clinton... This puts Rudy and Mitt in question... and McCain and Huckabee if you consider past stances on immigration a part of the SOCON agenda.

The ability to serve all, as I hinted at above, is a HUGE factor. You specifically mentioned Huckabee above, so I will here as well. Mike Huckabee's recent endorsement of the Teacher's union in NH and the Machinist Union in Florida are not signs of liberalism, but rather as the ONLY Republican candidate who went out to speak to them! He is reaching out to all citizens, where others are ignoring those votes as they traditionally go to Democrats. I already discussed Thompson's view of anyone other than a Republican... and I don't see the other candidate's ability to reach out, or their efforts at all... especially in this campaign.
And past races are very important. Rudy was losing to the Clinton machine in his NY bid for the Senate. NY is a tough state for a GOP contender, but losing to a carpet-bagger? This doesn't bode well... as well, there was a LOT of dirt that the Clinton's had that they never got to use on him... so he will be faced with a tough battle, especially when so many Republicans have all but sworn not to support him even if he gets the nomination. Mitt went up against the Kennedy machine, which might as well have been the Clinton machine, and lost in MA. To win, he had to take even more liberal stances, all of which he has now changed as he is seeking a higher office. Remember Kerry in 2004... we will see the exact same thing by the Clinton's against Mitt... even if it is not true, the perception is there, and the masses will hear about it. Huckabee has faced the Clinton machine time and again in Arkansas, and the people chose him over the Clintons. Of course, the same old mud is going to be news to the rest of America, but I can guarantee that Huckabee, having been faced with all the same mud before, has canned responses to all of it.

I think that Huckabee is capable of taking on the Clintons and winning...Electorally, and nationally... It is pitting a uniter against a polarizing figure... and we will come out on top. Electorally, what states do you see switching their 2004 votes in favor of Clinton over Huckabee? I cannot think of one!

Now... If Clinton happens to NOT get the nomination... well, we will surely have a WHOLE NEW discussion about electoral strategy! An Obama or Edwards nomination on the left will change things drastically...

The key will be if Huckabee can maintain his high numbers in the face of all the old mud coming out for the nation to see... if he can, and he can answer the questions, I do not see why you suggest he is not viable. Is he not as established a politician as all the rest?

One additional comment about Huck - notice that his support is not from the Independents (Paul) or the center-left Republicans (Rudy). His support is the SOCON base. The same base that Fred had, and squandered... So I don't think that the Clinton "positive" comments effect the SOCON vote.

Commentary for my Liberal Readers

I recently had a discussion regarding a previous post, with a dear friend who took exception to the wording of my post. A message to my friend, first, thanks for reading my thoughts and opinions of world affairs, and for continuing the discussion and debate. It is this communication that betters the world in which we live, enabling multiple ideals to meet at a common goal (and hopefully a common good). Secondly, this post is for you...

I am going to spell out my feelings on certain issues very plainly, so there is no confusion:

• I am against amnesty for illegal immigrants who come to a free land and disgrace the very institution and sanctity of that freedom. I am very much against anyone who supports race-based and ignorant movements like La Raza, who believe that they are entitled to that which they did not earn, solely based on ethnicity / skin color / primary language. These are violent and vulgar establishments that I equate with hate groups like the KKK, Radical Islam, etc. They have no place in a free society, and work only to tear down a free and just society. Anyone, ANYONE, who supports these movements will find a very harsh word from me in person and in writing on this blog.
  


• I whole-heartedly support the existence of a Jewish Nation in Israel. The Islamic movement to destroy a nation based on religion is a movement that will surely perpetuate war for all of time. The land is Holy to all religions, and all religions are allowed to freely worship in Israel. There was a time where that was not so. The existence of Israel is the existence of sanity in the Chaos of the Middle East. There is no place in a just world for radical religions. Anyone who disagrees will have much to debate with me in person and via this blog.
  


• I firmly believe in the founding principles... There is a moral compass that guided the US into existence. I right to be free, granted not by government, but by the Creator of nature... whomever you believe that to be. Every Man, Woman, and Child (including the unborn) have a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness... We all deserve to live. We all deserve to live freely, free from Tyranny. And we all deserve the right to follow our dreams, our ambitions, as long as we do not hinder the rights of others. The existence of socialized programs run by governments and funded by increasingly high taxes is a direct threat to the Pursuit of Happiness... it is attempting to re-write the pursuit into the "RIGHT of Happiness". This leads me to Marxism....
  


• I am adamantly against the Marxist belief of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In a principle of charity, I believe that this is a great compass... but when this is the government agenda, you lose your rights to choose happiness... instead you are obligated by the government to help... Forced Charity, if you will...
  


• I strongly support gun ownership. I believe that the first line of defense is the self, and the first line of societal protection is the armed citizen. What hope do we have if we cannot, in the least, defend our very right to Life? Guns are more than a means with which to hunt. Guns are the extension of the will to remain free. The very existence of the Bill of Rights is protected by the 2nd amendment... without it, the others seem to fade with time.
  


• And I believe in honest and even debate. I will surely admit that I am being attacked when a debate begins by my having to defend my very belonging to a political party, or to an ideology. Attacking an individual's belief system is the very core of bashing... and is used, successfully, by those (IMHO) on the left to keep the debate off of the topic, and more on the opponent attempting to prove negatives... It should be known that I am a conservative. Don't question my reasoning for being a conservative... rather, let's discuss the issues... you offer your opinions and facts, and I will do likewise... let us then meet somewhere in between with a common understanding, and we both leave as better individuals... better thinkers!

So to my friend... Your comments, your thoughts, your feelings... they are all welcome... Just know that in the world of political debate the temperatures can run red hot... especially when venting after an attack... ummm... I mean a debate... And know that I always try to reply... I live for the debate... as we all should! I take nothing on the issues personally... unless it is made personal... then what choice do I have?

Thank you for reading! You are a dear friend!

The Problem with National Polls

First and foremost, let it be known that I LOVE polls! It is a pulse of the living and breathing free republican democracy in which we live! Knowing that there are so many people free and willing to give their opinion on how our government and way of life should be molded... well, it is all a sign that freedom is still alive and well in the US.

But recently I have been plagued by the national presidential polls. I keep hearing about the almost certain general election showdown between Rudy and Hillary. National polls show one edging out the other on any given day. And it is right time that we all shake off the results of these polls and understand that the United States does not elect a President in the General election based on a national popularity vote... we use the amazing Electoral College System.



The great thing about the Electoral College system is that it forces candidates to campaign in the "flyover states" as well as in the big cities of New York and Los Angeles. It ensures that the "little guys" have power via delegates that takes away from the sheer quantity of citizens (and sometimes illegally voting non-citizens) found in the big cities.

So the question that I have for these poll takers is this: Where are you making your phone calls? Do they call Farmer Henry in Nowhere Kansas and Forest Ranger Steve in Montana, or do they make calls to Tom, Dick, and Harry living in St.Louis, New York, and San Francisco?

The problem with the National Polls is that when Hillary loses the General election, there is going to be a huge outcry because she was leading the national polls, and further calls for the elimination of the Electoral College System of voting in favor of Mob Rule.

The question is going to be this: Which candidate can pick up, for their respective parties, states that traditionally have supported one party over the other? Consider the 2004 results map:
The national polls, as fun as they are, should be replaced with a poll facing the candidates off in a state by state match-up, and determining which gains can be made.

In a Rudy/Clinton match up, there has been much discussion about a third party contender taking a large split of the votes... this is not a new concept. Consider the Bull Moose party of Teddy Roosevelt, splitting the Republican vote and delivering electoral victory to Woodrow Wilson. This was a case where a third party candidate actually received electoral votes... the cause? The Republican party had shifted too far from it's platform.

What states could Clinton steal? Perhaps Florida is in play... Perhaps Nevada and New Mexico... and Ohio is always a key player... But if she were head to head with a Liberal candidate like Rudy, who knows where the states would go.

What about Rudy... could he take New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania? Perhaps...

But what if a conservative third party candidate were to take the stage? This could throw the "fly-over states" into a Democratic win overall, as these states may give their electoral votes to the third party candidate, or split the Republican ticket so badly that Hillary wins the state.

But if the GOP elects a conservative candidate that rallies the base, one could expect that the electoral map would not vary much from the above image, and the Republicans would continue to hold on to the White House.

So, I say, enough with the attention on the National Polls... what are the state by state results, and how do the match-ups in those states relate to electoral votes? Who, then, will the victor be?

Can Democracy Survive in America?

An interesting e-mail has been going around for about 7 years now, in which it discusses the Scottish Historian, Lord Woodhouselee Alexander Frasier Tytler's, research into the phases of a democracy. As I do with all chain e-mails, I ran it by the snopes webpage, and found that the research is real but the rest of the e-mail has inaccuracies related to the 2000 presidential election.

So I am going to post the accurate information, in hopes that it will spark some discussion.

Alexander Tytler concluded the following:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every
democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always
followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history, has been about 200 years'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'

It is suggested that we are in the 6th phase of the Democracy, in the Apathy phase... and quickly moving into dependence.

Don't believe me?

Look at the Katrina refugees, unable to help themselves... some died due to lack of water, food, shelter... all the while they had the means to band together and help themselves.

Look at Hillary Care. This is a further plan to ensure dependence on the government for healthcare, rather than personal responsibility in ensuring self and family health while demanding a fair market price.

And look at Social Security. Originally planned as a protection against starvation, it has become a government controlled retirement plan, mandating savings, and leaving no room for personal savings. Hell, with taxes and inflation it is hard to save anything above and beyond my current costs of living! The perfect situation where one becomes dependent on the government structure and handouts.

Is the sun setting in the West? Is the great experiment coming to a close? What can we do to return us to phase 3/4?

Comment if you have some ideas... otherwise, check in later... I will surely be expanding on how to save America!

How Free Men Squandered a Free Society

This blog was inspired by a BBC documentary call The Century of the Self

As a modern day conservative, it is expected of you to embrace the modern model of progressive capitalism. The Republican Party is clearly the party of business, and operates under the banner of a "free market society".

In fact, I am currently going through training on the free market system and the fundamentals of the conservative principles, called the Leadership Program of the Rockies. An excellent training course for future leaders, indeed.

However, I find myself observing a conflict with the fundamental founding principles and the concept of modern capitalism. Let me explain...

A free market, in it's simplest form, works when one person has a need and this person is able to freely choose how to fill the need... without government involvement. Where we are with the current form of progressive capitalism, is in an entanglement of government over-regulation of business and industry, and thus an alliance/power-share of government and business. The more government involvement in business, the less of a truly free market society we have.

As well, the founding principles discuss an endowment of natural rights, allowing the pursuit of happiness. Understanding that the original intent of the word "happiness" was property, one has to question why the word was changed to a broader term "happiness" and question if it was because the founders understood that property does not equal happiness. And I would go further to argue that today's society has confused capitalism with gluttony and greed, and as such the economy is crumbling under the hammer of credit and over-consumption. Therefore the pursuit of happiness is being hampered by the exit ramp of over-consumption and over-credit.

This is where the above video comes into play. The video discusses the surge of emotional marketing, and how it started a consumer nation in the US. It is a very interesting video, and to fully understand the state of the nation, and of the world, you should take a moment and watch it.

Now that you understand the original intent of the founding of this society, and understand the new consumer nation that has replaced the free society, you may understand my next argument.

I am surmising that the combination of government over-regulation of the businesses and the consumer crazed populous has created a situation in which we have freely offered up our fundamental freedoms in exchange for goods.

There is a reason that the approval rating of our congress, the freely elected "representatives", is in the 9% - 11% area. The reason is that the citizens of this great nation are being sold "success of the society" by economic and consumer reports. And the leadership of the country uses the same consumer based mindset to sell the people a bad product... themselves.

We have become trained to react to our emotional instincts... and marketing continues to reinforce these emotional responses.

And politicians have learned the same techniques. This is why you hear "vote for me, I can win", instead of "vote for me, I am a man of principles"... And thus we are left with the "lesser of two evils" vote. In doing so, we are continually perpetuating a strengthening ruling class who's ultimate goal is to, by keeping the people subdued with consumerism, change the face of the free society into a government protectorate, government dictatorship that intends to have ultimate control over the world citizenry.

I am not a conspiracy theorist... consider the following source: Video on Globalism.

Ask yourself... how free are you? Is this freedom perceived, or does it exist?

As a conservative, should you support a free market society, or a consumer nation masked as a free market society?

And, does Capitalism have borders? More importantly, SHOULD capitalism have borders? For instance, how free of a market is it if I want to enter the textile industry when all other textiles are produced in nations where free market is a pipe dream (China, Pakistan, Indonesia).

So to answer my heading, Free Men have Squandered a Free Society by submitting to their baser emotional instincts, and have submitted that as long as they have items to consume, and thus appear happy/content, the government can continue to increase in size and reach, reducing our liberties. By keeping the people Fat, Dumb, and "Happy", the leaders have succeeded in squandering our society around us.

The State of the World *Amended for a friend

Firstly, I apologize to my two loyal readers for my long absence. Life has been so busy that I shan't even start down that path!

I wanted to discuss the state of the world. As a brief overview, these are the things that are really sticking out in my mind:

US/Russo relations are further strained by Russian response to European missile shield, and begin Soviet sorties over the Arctic ocean. They are also laying claim to the North Pole, dissolving their government, and instilling a strong sense of national pride in "youth camps". Sounds like the cold war isn't over... but I have to admit, Bush's foreign policies regarding Russia have been the protagonist in this epic play.

Iran is really being a pain in the rear... which is a double edged sword. The PEOPLE of Iran are unhappy with their leadership, like the US is with theirs... but the two governments are locking in to a war of words, and per Iran, a Final Answer (similar to the Final Solution of Hitler?) on October 12th. And the huevos that the Iranian President has, wanting to lay a wreath at the WTC Ground Zero site... really... like you would expect the US president to be allowed to lay a wreath at the old US embassy in Tehran in remembrance of the Marines killed and the hostage situation of the early 80's. PLUS, Iran has been working with Syria to mount chemical weapons onto missiles, pushing for nuclear weapons, and most likely trading nukes with North Korea. I was a little concerned about Iran before, but now I fear that war with them is inevitable... which is going to bulk up support for the government and eliminate any hope for change from the people.

Syria was just bombed by Israel for trying to smuggle nukes in from Iran. Of course Syria was the country of least concern, until the Nancy Pelosis of the world began visiting them and giving them any sort of legitimacy... now we are seeing assassinations by Pro-Syrians in Lebanon, inevitable war with Israel, and more problems in Iraq from the increasingly rogue country.

And I had a discussion with a liberal friend up in Washington State as I was visiting over the weekend. She was touting the Bush/McCain immigration "reform", i.e. amnesty plan. She was talking about how she was having construction done on her house, and the first group of union workers were crap, so they fired them and brought in (what were potentially) illegals, who worked longer hours for cheaper pay with better quality. My first thought was that the union guys are a product of the union environment... where you don't have to work long and/or hard to keep your job... you have strength in numbers and that trumps any working standard (I've seen this in action... ). Then she argued that we should work to build up Mexico so we don't have them running across the border. I told her that the problem with "world government mentality" is that the US becomes some sort of a nanny to the other countries. Our country ends at the borders, therefore our constitution ends at the borders, and our involvement should end at the borders. IF the Mexicans want a better living situation, go home and fix the problem. Please come back when, and only when, you plan to accept American culture and American Loyalty... but of course the liberal agenda has worked wonders in destroying American Culture... and expanding it around the world... so now borders are blurred, and it makes no sense that governments fight because "we are the people of one world"... well... needless to say it was an interesting conversation, and as I was discussing the issues I was being bashed for my views... a common liberal tactic. Of course if you try the same tactic you can expect a lawsuit or some crap like that. (In my humblest opinion)

Anyway... I have been gone, but I have not been uninvolved! I look forward to sharing some more ideas with you all more regularly now!

God Bless!

When widom is needed...

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the
liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He
therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to
promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not
suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise
and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams

"The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and
virtuous." - Frederick Douglas

"The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government." - Francis Grund

Problems Mount for the GOP in 2008

In 2006, the GOP lost a lot of ground in the Senate, the House, Governorships, Local elections... the list goes on and on. The reason? First and foremost, anything associated with GW (i.e. the war in Iraq) got the opposition out in droves in an off-cycle year. Secondly, though, is corruption in our leadership combined with no motivation to support our leaders...

With leaders like Sen. Craig trying to rebuke his own guilty plea... well, this is going to haunt us as we move ever so closer to 2008.

Perhaps the biggest problem that we are going to face is this: Incumbents usually win seats... so with Republican leaders announcing retirement left and right, as Sen. Hagel did today, it is looking more and more like the GOP is going to have an uphill battle in 2008.

Who do I blame? Well, I blame the conservative base. We have not been vocal and active in our civic leadership, and therefore our leadership has been able to run amok. I blame our party leaders, and our elected officials for bending to the pressures of the lobbyists, the big government industries, and the special interests. I blame our party members, leaders and all, for not recognizing the need to reach out to the younger generation and give the youth a reason to embrace values like personal responsibility, personal freedoms, small government, and an American culture.

In fact, our leadership seems to lack these traits themselves, so it is no wonder that the younger generation is embracing the "if it makes you happy it can't be that bad" lifestyle.

We have leaders who back big oil, and put their friends over loyalty to their country. We have leaders who preach small government but support laws that put the very constitution in jeopardy. We have leaders who are leading our social and moral values the way of the ultra left, and no one willing to stop them.

We have leaders who are living the Democratic Party lifestyle, but being held to Republican standards... at it is tearing the party apart.

The opposition is rallying their base as we speak for the 2008 election... Our candidate is still "Undecided".

What do we stand for? Do we care that this is the moment in history where the United States will be judged... The turning point.

The United States can go one of two ways... a virtually suspended constitution where a ruling class takes complete control of the government, on almost every level, turning the USA into a Federalist Socialist Republic. Or the people can rise up and say NO to a ruling class. Say NO to trampling the constitution. Say NO to a cultural invasion. Say NO to a Federalist centered government continuing to overstep their bounds, continuing a power grab. Say NO to living in a land of the ruled, home of the monitored.

We are at the brink of a civil war. I would actually argue that the war has already begun.

Either we win by solidifying our base... what do we stand for?

Or we lose... and we lose the United States with it...

A free people, A limited federal government, A pipedream?

What IS the definition of a free person?

Has freedom in America been reduced to the freedom to select between Comcast or Qwest? McDonalds or Wendy's? K-Mart or Walmart?

Has our freedom been reduced to a limit of consumer choices?

Even with politicians... Which President do you want to buy? The inexperienced African American, the Battle-Ax Ex-First Wife, or the Cross Dressing Mayor from NYC?

Why is it that I hear less and less about local governments? About 18 people vying for the spot of Governor in the state of Colorado?

I will tell you why... The federal government is taking steps to reduce the power of the local and state government, and turn everything (literally) into a federal case. Imagine a federal government that works to limit itself, reducing it's own power back to a more constitutionally appropriate role... and letting the states be free?!?

Imagine if the Federal government said "This is not a federal issue, please handle in the states"... This would take care of marriage, abortion, education, transportation, etc, etc...

If there were no income tax breaks on a federal level, then there would be no marriage tax benefit, and thus no need for the federal government to "recognize" marriage. Families can form within the accordance of the local lifestyle... and what makes sense in San Francisco would not have to make sense in St Louis.

If privacy rights were regulated on a state level, then folks who are pro-abortion or anti-abortion could choose to live within communities or states that felt the same way...

Education would be a local issue... and "My two mommies" would not have to be mandatory classroom study for a Des Moines first grader, as it may be in Seattle or New York.

People live in America because we have the freedom to choose... We choose to live in certain communities because we want a certain lifestyle for our families. Why then is EVERY issue a federal issue? Why is EVERY special interest group pressing a federal agenda? What role does our new federal government play with respect to the constitution?

I will tell you, they overstep the constitution on just about every issue... We are in a constitutional crisis... where our freedoms are being peeled back one by one... and the federal government is to blame. It has made itself an overseer of the people... not a vessel for communication, but for ruling.

So at what point do we, as the last vestige of freedom, say that enough is enough, and demand that the federal government withdraw from the states... limiting itself to it's constitutional boundaries?

My guess is that we will not see an outcry on the level that is needed until it is too late...