SIT-REP NY-26

I checked in with my buddy Charlie up in Rochester. He runs Rochester Conservative and is an Air Force vet.

He reports this tidbit:
The Republican Party bosses seemed to be siding with Jane L. Corwin as she's wealthy and can fund her own campaign. That was the deciding factor when they chose Lee back in 2008, when DB tried his first run at the seat.

So the party apparatchik is deciding who gets to represent the good folks up in NY-26? I think not. Time for some TEA Party action.

FreeRepublic

Well Written and Right On Point

Time to dial up the rhetoric

The right should be commended for responding vigorously to the baseless accusations that the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general inspired Jared Loughner to go on a shooting rampage that left six people dead and fourteen wounded. Yet the fact that this defense of conservatives had to occur at all is beyond disturbing.

There were two critical points that immediately sprang to my mind when I saw the left predictably blame the right for Loughner’s murderous rampage. I know that Rush Limbaugh has touched on these points and others may have as well. However, I want to offer my own take and explain why these points are so critical, and why it should be clear now that the differences between the left and right are irreconcilable.

The first critical point is that this is the latest example of a string of incidents over the past two years or so where someone who committed national-level violence (and who can more closely be identified with the left than the right) was said to be a conservative—or influenced by conservatives—and thus “proof” that conservatives are dangerous. Similar accusation were made about Joe Stack, John Patrick Bedell, James Von Brunn, Michael Enright, and Clay Duke.

The second critical point follows on the heels of the first. If the response to Loughner’s bloodbath is the kind of two-minute hate that the left drums up against the right when a leftist goes on a murderous rampage, what is going to happen once someone who truly can be identified with the right actually does do something violent that captures national attention? The answer is that the left will set in motion the process of complete criminalization of any opposition to the left.

Read more:

Hello My Name is Bob and I'm a Killer

Shamelessly re-posted, with minor edits, from AmericanThinker.

On the morning of January 8, 2011, I intentionally entered a gathering held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and shot her at near-point-blank range. I injured fourteen others, killing six -- among them a beautiful, curious, doe-eyed, nine-year-old girl. I didn't actually pull the trigger, but I'm as guilty as the psychopath who did.

Here are just a few of the charges against me:

I am a conservative.

On occasion, I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News.

I've been known to pick up a book or two by conservative authors: Thomas Sowell, Andrew McCarthy, or the Founding Fathers, for example!

I believe that the federal government is too large, far too intrusive, and dangerously powerful.

I believe in personal responsibility and the amazing generosity of Americans to aid those in need rather than permanent entitlements.

I believe that the private, not the public, sector is the backbone of our economy.

I believe that our progressive tax system is punitive. We are over-taxed, over-regulated, and over-lectured.

I believe in the power of the free market to correct itself, without government (taxpayer) intervention.

I believe that the Constitution is intended to limit government and empower the individual.

I believe in holding our elected officials' feet to the fire, be they Republican or Democrat (incendiary pun intended).

I believe that our sovereignty is at risk via unsecured borders, out-of-control spending, our crippling deficit, reckless abuses of the Constitution, and the moral decay of Washington.

In short, I'm a madman. Guilty as charged, and armed with the belief in my 1st-Amendment right to peaceably question those we elect to serve.

The only person who actually pulled the trigger on that terrible, fateful day was Jared Loughner -- by every account, a deeply troubled young man. But the real guilty walk among us: senior citizens in red, white, and blue, armed with signs saying "Taxed Enough Already"; flag-wavers clinging to guns and religion; doctors; the wealthy; business owners; talk radio; and any citizen -- particularly a conservative -- who dares exercise his or her right to free speech.

We're called greedy, stupid, and racist. We're ridiculed with snide "slurpee" innuendos and called lewd and malicious names, such as "teabaggers." Ordinary citizens are maligned by their own government while the pious, liberal elite get a free pass on reason and truth, while Islamists invoke their religious cloak, while the ideologue professes his moral superiority, while the media uses the power of spin, and while leftists, including Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama, employ their bully pulpit.

We defend conservatism by our very way of life: as self-reliant, taxpaying, moral citizens, and as faithful defenders of limited government and the power of the individual. We are violent inciters only insomuch as we threaten the current leftist, agenda-driven stranglehold on government. So alarming is our threat that the real inciters wasted no time in politicizing the tragic deaths of six innocent citizens, not to mention one revered congresswoman still fighting for her life. And they will waste no time in shamelessly exploiting a "crisis" at the hand of a lone psychopath to further enact gun control and squelch freedom of speech under cries of "civility."

Does the left really believe that the "rhetoric" of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox is incendiary? Do they fail to understand that the language of conservative "talk" is the echo of ordinary citizens calling for limited government and individual freedoms? Or do they silence us because we know our current leaders don't actually believe in their own limited power? Truth be told, even Jared Loughner undermines their agenda. And they know it. They know that their "transformation" of America is failing and that people like me are not afraid to say so.

My name is [Bob], and I'm a killer. They are determined to stop me before I kill again.

Conservatism As A Crime?

Watchdog: Left Exploiting Arizona Rampage to ‘Criminalize’ Conservatives
Monday, 10 Jan 2011 07:54 PM
By David A. Patten and Kathleen Walter

The left’s systematic ridicule of Sarah Palin and other conservatives following the Arizona shooting rampage reflects a deliberate campaign to “ultimately criminalize” conservative thought in America, according to media watchdog L. Brent Bozell.

Bozell’s comments in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview came as 22-year-old Jared Loughner appeared in federal court in Phoenix on Monday on charges of trying to assassinate U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. The shooting spree Saturday at a Safeway supermarket north of Tucson left six dead and 13 wounded. The judge ordered that Loughner be held without bail.

Bozell, founder and president of the conservative watchdog group Media Research Center, isn’t alone in his concern about the media coverage of the rampage.

Such efforts to blame the Tucson massacre on conservatives reflect a broader agenda, Bozell said.

“This is a part of a campaign to delegitimize, and ultimately criminalize, conservative thought in this country,” Bozell said. “Note how quickly The New York Times came out with an editorial calling for the Fairness Doctrine as a result of this.

“I mean, anything to pin to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or the tea party . . . anybody on the conservative side, to delegitimize them, that’s what they’re going to do. That’s the tactics of the far left.”

Palin’s antagonists are focusing on a Facebook post nine months ago that listed a number of Democrats the GOP hoped to defeat following the vote on healthcare reform. It used what some say appeared to be a cross hairs symbol to designate vulnerable districts, including Giffords.' Giffords later cautioned in a cable TV appearance that heated political rhetoric such as that could have serious consequences.

But evidence emerged Monday that Loughner’s fixation on Giffords may have predated both the rise of the tea parties and Palin’s emergence on the national political scene in 2008 as Sen. John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate.

Read more: Watchdog: Left Exploiting Rampage to ‘Criminalize’ Conservatives

Steele says GOP has been transformed during his tenure, defends rocky tenure

Steele says GOP has been transformed during his tenure, defends rocky tenure

He can defend all he wants. They can do better. They have to do better. I know half a dozen people I'd rather see running the RNC. The time to work this from the inside has come.

Bill Whittle Explains the Basics

10 minutes you won't mind spending.

A Message From The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Pledge
My fellow conservatives,
The stakes couldn’t be higher for our nation at this moment. In the coming months, Americans will help choose which direction our nation’s future will take. Will the federal government continue to spend more, tax more, control more, and defend our liberties less? Or will we choose a new and bolder direction that returns power to the people? All indications are that we are approaching one of those pivotal moments in our political history, a tipping point. It will be a test of our national character.

Like many Americans, we here at The Heritage Foundation are not concerned with party labels or affiliations. We are motivated by principles and by the best policies that will advance and defend those principles in the public square. We are unabashedly conservative, because we work to conserve an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.So whatever composition we see in our next Congress, we want to see majorities that represent the consent of the governed and that will take control of our presently unlimited government. We intend to leave to our children and grandchildren an America even better than the one we inherited from our forebears.

In its “Pledge to America,” the Republican Party last week offered its own vision for America’s future. The pledge is a step in the right direction and rightly frames the debate around our core first principles and the role of the state, popular consent and self-government.We have ourselves produced a set of recommendations that we think will heal much of what ails our country. We call them “Solutions for America.”

We’re happy that some proposals in the Pledge mirror proposals we have in Solutions for America. Both of these plans are headed in the right direction. But we want to be even bolder.Our Solutions for America is an overarching blueprint for governing. It’s designed to replace the failed policies of the liberal establishment with solid conservative solutions that will shrink government, reduce debt, keep taxes low, put Americans back to work and keep us safe.

Solutions for America identifies the nature and scope of our most pressing problems in 23 policy areas and recommends 128 specific policy solutions to guide the new Congress. Here are some of our ideas:

Cap Federal Spending:
President Obama’s proposed budget would increase the national debt from $13 trillion now to $20 trillion by 2020. This is an unsustainable trajectory. We propose a “binding cap” that forces lawmakers back to fiscal sanity.

Put Entitlement Programs Under the Budget:
We propose putting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid into the congressional budget process rather than continue to allow them to grow on auto-pilot without oversight. Lawmakers would establish a five-year budget for these programs and include triggers to keep spending with approved limits.

Reform Social Security:
We should raise the Social Security retirement age and encourage people to work longer by eliminating payroll taxes for those over the retirement age. This would lessen the burden on employers to keep people employed and lessen the burden on Medicare and other entitlements.

Revive Federalism:
We must reverse the current trend in which the federal government more and more usurps the traditional state role in areas such as transportation, education, health, homeland security and law enforcement.

Loan Welfare Money to Able Bodied Recipients:
Our plan advises treating welfare assistance to able-bodied adults as a loan to be repaid, rather than a free gift from taxpayers. This will reduce dependency while providing temporary help to those who need it.

Keep Taxes Low:
First, no tax increases, including the planned Obama Tax Hikes as well as the reintroduction of the Death Tax. Instead, cut taxes to spur economic growth.

Implement a Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs Strategy:
We must reduce the top tax rate on corporate earnings, which is currently the second highest among ALL industrial nations, and let businesses immediately deduct investments in new plants and equipment.

Peace Through Strength:
Defense spending is near historical lows. We must refurbish our armed forces, especially our depleted Navy fleet and vital missile defenses.

These are just some of the many policy recommendations we include in Solutions for America. Please go read the entire document at Heritage.org. Share it with your friends and encourage them to join the debate, whether it is by going to a Heritage event, liking us on Facebook, or signing up for The Morning Bell.

Every action you take towards a brighter future for America is – like the Pledge and Solutions for America – a step in the right direction.Now is the time to be bold, and to act as befits our character. That is what our parents and grandparents would expect of us, what future generations demand—and what The Heritage Foundation offers to America. Thank you.

Thank You Algore

The First Statement of Conservative Principles

"The Constitution, which at any time exists 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington

Back in 1996, a small group of Patriots deeply devoted to our Constitution, which we had pledged "to support and defend," endeavored to challenge the Leftmedia's stranglehold on public opinion, particularly as it pertained to the role of government and promotion of Leftist policies.

To provide sustenance for those endeavoring to restore our Constitution's rightful standing as the Supreme Rule of Law of the United States, we established The Federalist, an online grassroots journal providing constitutionally conservative analysis of news, policy and opinion, with the express mission of "advocating Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values."

Our objective was, and remains, "to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles."

Demand for The Federalist grew rapidly, to put it mildly. A few years later, we adopted the name The Patriot Post in keeping with the growing constituency we serve.

Now, I certainly do not suggest that we were the only folks back in '96 advocating for the restoration of constitutional Rule of Law. We took our inspiration from, and owe our success to, President Ronald Reagan and his Patriot team, many of whom were our earliest promoters and supporters. They sparked the flame to revitalize our Constitution's legal standing some two decades earlier, at the juncture of our nation's
bicentennial.

We also owe a great debt to conservative protagonists such as National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr., and the Heritage Foundation's Edwin J. Feulner, both of whom provided meaningful guidance and assistance to get us under way.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I failed also to credit Albert Arnold Gore, who "took the initiative in creating the Internet" for us, and then galvanized those of us interested in national sovereignty in opposition to his utopian scheme to socialize the world economy, ostensibly to thwart "global warming."

I believe the most important factor in our success has been our steadfast commitment to the Rule of Law, the supremacy of our national Constitution in all matters pertaining to the role and authority of our central government, and our analysis of the same.

We have endeavored to keep our eye on the prize, and we've thus avoided being co-opted by any political party or organization.

That will be the challenge for the independent Tea Party Patriots and other conservative movements -- to keep their eyes firmly affixed on the task of restoring our Constitution and its prescription for Rule of Law, and to avoid the risk of being swallowed up by large, centralized poli-wonks.

Last week, my friend Ed Feulner, and many other colleagues, released "The Mount ernon Statement," a document similar in substance to the "Sharon Statement" released in 1960 by a group of conservative intellectuals including Bill Buckley, M. Stanton Evans and Annette Kirk (widow of influential American conservative Russell Kirk).

Feulner and his staff at the Heritage Foundation have been uniformly resolute in their support for constitutional Rule of Law.

Ten years ago, I met with key staff members of the Heritage Foundation and encouraged them to adopt the practice of posting, in the introductory abstract of their papers, the specific constitutional authority for every policy position they advocate. Two years ago, Heritage launched their massive First Principles initiative, with the objective of asserting constitutional authority as the centerpiece of their mission.

While I applaud the entire Heritage team for their First Principles endeavor, I note that some of the principal signatories of the Mount Vernon Statement, though "conservative" by label, do not meet The Patriot standard of reliance upon the plain language of our Constitution, nor are many of those signatories representative of the "grassroots" movement they seek to unify around this statement.

With that in mind, I reiterate that any real movement to restore the integrity of our Constitution must be bottom-up, not top-down. Patriots need only subscribe to one mission statement, the first statement of conservative principles, our Constitution.

The GOP establishment squandered its opportunity to reassert First Principles when it held majorities under George W. Bush, and the party will have to demonstrate an authentic commitment to those principles if it is to gain the trust of a single American Patriot.

Real constitutional reform will come about only when Patriots across the nation demand the restoration of Essential Liberty as "endowed by their Creator," and they widely articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men.

If you have taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution, I invite you to revisit that venerable document and ask you to reaffirm your oath.

If you have not affirmed that commitment, I invite you to gain a full understanding of our Constitution and then take your oath -- and abide by it to your last breath, just as our Founding Fathers mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

In the words of George Washington, "Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?"

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

A Message From Our Friends at Family Foundation

Action Alert: E-Mail The General Assembly Tomorrow To Defund Planned Parenthood!

Tomorrow is The Family Foundation’s Annual Virtual Lobby Day and we have a great way for you to participate! You may have heard of “Money Bombs,” the latest technique for candidates to raise money quickly – they send an e-mail solicitation asking for a small donation from thousands of people to raise a substantial amount of cash to make a difference in their campaigns. We saw how Senator Scott Brown did this to counter all of the big liberal money raised against him in the special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts a few weeks ago. What a difference that made – it put the brakes on government-run healthcare!

We’re not asking your for money. But we are asking you to make a difference by e-mailing your senators and delegates tomorrow with a simple message: DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD in the Commonwealth’s new budget! Tomorrow also happens to be Planned Parenthood’s lobby day. Imagine the difference we can make if thousands of values voters e-mailed their legislators tomorrow with the same message about defunding Planned Parenthood before the pro-abortion lobbyists even stepped foot in the lawmakers’ offices!

If you attended Family Foundation Day At The Capitol in January, following up with an e-mail tomorrow with your delegates and senators is a great way to leverage the relationship you established with them. If you did not attend, now you have the opportunity, simultaneously, with likeminded, concerned citizens across Virginia, to have an impact with the ease of a few keystrokes.

Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar partisan behemoth that masquerades as a health organization. Inside its abortion center doors over a quarter of all abortions in the United States take place. Over the years it has received tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Virginia. Virginia’s taxpayers should never be forced to bailout this radical organization, especially while the Commonwealth faces a spending surplus of billions of dollars. It is time for this funding to stop!

In addition to the “Defunding Bomb,” tomorrow Lt. Governor Bill Bolling will conduct a live interview on our blog starting at 9:00 a.m. To leave a question for him, click on this link:
www.familyfoundationblog.com/2010/02/04/lt-governor-bill-bolling-to-do-live-blog-interview-here-february-11/

In addition, look for several other very special features we have lined up in the next several days, including interviews with noted political commentator Dr. Bob Holsworth and House Republican Caucus Chairman, Delegate Sam Nixon (R-27, Chesterfield).

ACTION: Tomorrow, Thursday, February 11, please email your legislator and urge them to end the taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood!!

A Note From Chris Dodd

“This seat represents more than Ted's progressive legacy,” Dodd wrote. “This seat is the tipping point between a Senate that can pass President Obama's agenda and one frozen into inaction by Republican obstruction. Scott Brown is the face of that obstruction, and that's why we must help Martha.”

Progressive legacy...Obama's agenda...Scott Brown will stop it.
He's driving the truck that is bearing down on the socialists and marxist wannabes.

"Purity" Test

The only thing missing is restoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As long as candidates will pledge to serve no more than 3 terms and place Constitutional requirements on legislation, they will get elected.

I really could care less what the party machine thinks or does. The grassroots will place into nomination the people we think will uphold our Founding Principles.

OneNewsNow
GOP purity test proposed
The vice chairman of the Republican National Committee is promoting a proposed resolution that would warn 2010 GOP candidates that if they do not respect the party's "conservative values," they will not receive the financial backing or endorsement of the RNC.

The ten conservative principles, as distributed by the RNC, are as follows:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.

(2) We support market-based healthcare reform and oppose Obama-style government-run healthcare.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation.

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing healthcare rationing and denial of healthcare and government funding of abortion.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

My Two Favorite Conservative Ladies

IMAO the former governor of Alaska is scaring the panties off the left, especially the men.

The Hammer on the so-called reviews on "Going Rogue" by The Barracuda

The Art of the Unintellectual Critique of Palin's 'Insufficient Intellectualism'

There are thoughtful arguments to be made against Sarah Palin's future as a national politician, her persona as a conservative folk hero, her political ideology. Relatively few liberals or critics in the media bother to make them.

It's a testament to how thoroughly they caricatured her the first time around, and how little respect she warrants in some circles, that all questions about her are presumed perfectly settled, and serious engagement about her is often treated as a nuisance to be avoided.

To them, Palin is audacious (not in that good, Obama way) and out-of-line to even write a book. Her criticisms of the McCain campaign leakers who anonymously bashed her while the campaign was still going on are "ungrateful." To venture to promote the book is more audacious still, and means she gets exactly what's coming to her in all interviews and coverage, no matter how unfair. The fact that the book she's daring to promote is selling extremely well means more license still to sully the woman from Alaska once again. I've heard each of these sentiments uttered or implied by pundits or reporters in print, on Twitter, or on TV this week.

The thoughtlessness of these critics, who never see the irony in attacking Palin's alleged anti-intellectualism using debunked doctored photos of the governor in a bikini, is crystallized in Ana Marie Cox's review of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue today. It is perhaps overly generous to call the Washington Post piece a review.

It reads like an off-the-cuff e-mail to a friend with very low standards in e-mail correspondence. It's atrocious, not in its assessments necessarily (of which there are few), but in its laziness. I hesitate to excerpt much of it, because at 379 words, I would quickly be dealing with questions of fair use, but here's a taste:

Rush Limbaugh last week proclaimed "Going Rogue" to be "truly one of the most substantive policy books I've read," though that certainly raises questions about what other policy books Rush has read and by what lights he considers the Palin book to be one. For all I know, it may be true.

There may truly be substantive discussion of policy, something that goes beyond the thudding "taxes bad"/"government small" rhetoric that characterizes the moments when Palin turns her personal narrative into a discussion of government workings.

I cannot claim to have completely read "Going Rogue" -- I had to skim the last 150 pages (or more than one-third). I only got the thing into my hands late Monday afternoon with a deadline of early evening. It's terrible, I know, but if I didn't read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.

One of the few surprises of the book: For a frontierswoman, Palin really
doesn't like smokers.

It's a Washington Post book review, for goodness' sake, not a note you pass in between classes before that book report you totz didn't prepare for. In the print version of the article, Cox is introduced as a national correspondent for Air America who has described Palin as "crazypants with arrogant sauce on top," right before she criticizes Palin's take on campaign strategy as unsophisticated. Feel free to click over and read her devastating, postcard-length critique of Palin's, ahem, lack of substance.
But if you're short on time, skip it, and read our own Matt Continetti's thoughtful review of the same book, also in the Washington Post today—a juxtaposition by which Cox's effort suffers all the more. Sure, I'm biased, so here's a taste of his review by which you can judge:

Through no fault of her own, Sarah Palin has become a sort of political lens, refracting the different ways conservatives and liberals see the world. To her supporters, she is, as she puts it, a "common-sense conservative" who isn't afraid to make moral judgments. To her detractors, she's a moronic zealot who has no place in American public life. The two interpretations are concrete. "Going Rogue" won't do much to change any minds. But for what it reveals about our current political culture, Hans Robert Jauss would say it can't be beat.

I was originally just going to use this post to tout Continetti's review, but Cox's review was so emblematic of the frequent laziness and lack of professionalism that characterizes media coverage of Palin, that I thought it important to point out.
For more from Matt on Palin for the Palinistas in the audience, try his book.

MyHeritage.org

November 6, 2009 By Amanda Reinecker
Conservative Comeback

Tuesday was a big day for conservatives. The landslide victories of gubernatorial candidates Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey, plus the Maine referendum upholding marriage as a union between a man and a woman, clearly illustrates that "the state of conservatism is strong," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll in Wednesday's Morning Bell.

But why would states that voted last year for President Barack Obama now vote against candidates the President himself campaigned for? Heritage Vice President Michael Franc explains that "it's all about taxes, debt, and too much government." In short, it's about the government's complete abandonment of conservative principles.

The results in Virginia, New Jersey and Maine confirm what has become increasingly evident over the past 10 months: conservative principles are very much alive and popular among most Americans.

Since taking office, President Obama has made it clear he is among the most progressive Presidents in our history. But he didn't win based on his progressive tendencies. In fact, Carroll explains that the President led a fairly moderate campaign:

Obama promised to address jobs, the economy, our national security and even hold teachers accountable for children's education. Obama promised that most of America would receive a tax cut. He promised to win a necessary war in Afghanistan. These are conservative principle.

Once elected, however, the President and his allies on the Left quickly abandoned these sound campaign promises in favor of big-government policies that increase taxes, kill jobs, raise the deficit and weaken our national security. As history has repeatedly revealed, there is an inherent conflict between these progressive policies and the "overwhelming conservative philosophy in America."

Tuesday's results exposed this conflict by demonstrating the broad support for conservative ideals. They reflect the same sentiments expressed at tea parties, protests and town hall meetings nationwide: enough is enough!
An even worse health care plan

On Thursday, over 10,000 people rallied on the steps of the Capitol to express their concerns about the harmful health care discussions currently under way in the House of Representatives. The House could vote on this proposal as early as Saturday, though this timeline could slip as moderates peel off.

"Look closely at the latest House bill," writes Heritage health policy analyst Bob Moffit in Human Events. "This 1,990 page beast contains all of the problematic issues Americans has with [the last proposal] -- and then adds more," all of which will adversely impact the lives of all Americans.

Moffit outlines a few of the major flaws with the House's "revised" bill:

1. The federal government will control the health insurance market, roughly one-sixth of the nation's economy;

2. A great deal of power will be granted to a newly appointed "Health Choices Commissioner," i.e. a health czar, who would define coverage and premiums for everyone;

3. Eligibility for Medicaid, a poorly functioning entitlement program in desperate need of reform, will expand, causing benefits to decrease for those who truly need them;

4. Federally mandated minimum benefits that will be subsidized by taxpayers, regardless of whether they need the benefits or not;

5. Individual mandates that will require everyone to purchase government-approved coverage or else pay an extra income tax of 2.5 percent; and

6. Employer mandates that will likely force small business owners to cut wages and lay off workers in order to meet the coverage requirements, or pay a heavy fine per employee by choosing not to provide coverage.

And all of this will be ours for a whopping $1.055 trillion over the next 10 years -- a price tag that will surely add more than "one dime to our deficits" and saddle future generations with massive debt. All of this is in the bill, but few will be able to see it, as Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) has rescinded her pledge to post the final language online for 72 hours before a vote.

This is not real health care reform. Instead, Moffit argues, "it is a new health care entitlement that will speed up our fiscal insolvency, push new taxes on Americans in all income brackets and have a greater say over our health decisions."

In an exclusive interview recorded at The Heritage Foundation, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) explains that the current health care bill reflects a big-government approach to problem-solving. "The most outrageous detail in the current House bill is the philosophy on which it is premised," he argues. "It is premised on the philosophy that the government knows best how to organize one-sixth of our economy."

Real reform should be a bi-partisan product, based on America's core principles, that empowers the individual to choose the coverage that best suits his specific needs and budget and those of his family.

Words of Wisdom I Wish I Had Said

"The Republican Party big tent is the United States of America. I don't know where these people get it in their thick heads that we are exclusionary. We are people of conservative principle and belief: Individual freedom and liberty, private property rights, a colorblind society, respect for life, the pursuit of happiness -- things that every American values or should." -Rush

Liberal Values vs Conservative Values

Since Anon opened the door, we're gonna walk right in, set right down and talk about them. This originally appeared on The Drudge Report, but the link to the NYPost article is dead. WABC scrubbed the arrest report. I found this on USBacklash.

Corzine Campaign Worker Arrested: ‘Intent To Distribute’ Ecstasy
31 October 2009, 1:14 pm
This is just icing on the going away cake for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine!Corzine and his deputy assistant director Jason Shih have got to go! Jason Shih should be going to jail for a while if he is found guilty of being a drug dealer, and will get a stiff sentence because he was probably selling drugs less than 100 feet from a school.

An official with New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s re-election campaign was arrested last night after cops found found ecstasy tablets wrapped and ready to be sold in his car, police said.

Jason Shih, 25, was pulled over by East Rutherford cops at about 11:30 p.m. last night because he was talking on his cell phone on Route 17, said Lt. Chris Conforti of the East Rutherford police.

Officers wound up finding 19 “blue star” ecstasy tablets in Shih’s car, each wrapped in its own little plastic bag.

Shih — who was stopped within 100 feet of Becton Regional High School — also had “several hundred” empty plastic bags in his car, Conforti said.

Shih told police he worked for Corzine’s campaign, and had several campaign-related items in his car, police said. A “Jason Shih” is listed online as a deputy assistant director of the campaign.

Shih was charged with possession of drugs, possession of drugs in a school zone, intent to distribute drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was also charged with two motor vehicle violations — driving while using a cell phone and having drugs in his car.

The RINO Has Given Up

The grassroots in New York has spoken.
Now will the NRCC and the Minority Whip endorse the candidate of choice? Will they acknowledge that consevative values and principles are more important than party affiliation?
I'm not holding my breath.

From Drudge:

BREAKING: Scozzafava suspends NY 23 campaign

Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesday’s NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents -- Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens. The decision to suspend her campaign is a boost for Hoffman, who already had the support of 50 percent of GOP voters, according to a newly-released Siena poll, and is now well-positioned to win over the 25 percent of Republicans who had been sticking with Scozzafava.
Scozzafava has “probably made her last campaign appearance between now and Election Day,” spokesman Matt Burns told POLITICO.
“She’s releasing her support to the two other candidates." "I had a discussion with her last night, and we made the decision after I spoke with her.
We talked about it, what this came down to was spending. It came down to the ability to defend herself from the get-go. And that’s the reality. She was unable to define herself where the people didn’t know her." POLITICO has the full story on Scozzafava's surprise decision here.

Doug Hoffman Leads In Poll; Where's Cantor?

When will our 7th District Congressman, the House Minority Whip, Eric Cantor, finally back the ony true conservative candidate in the NY-23 Special Election?

When the Republican machine tells him to? You waiting for Newt to give you marching orders?

Or when the citizens have made their choice and elected a true conservative to New York's 23rd Congressional District? Its easy to be a rebel among rebels. Not so easy to be the first one, it would seem.

Congressman Cantor, as a constitiuent of the 7th District, I call upon you to buck the party machine and endorse Doug Hoffman; just as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former Alaska Governor Sara Palin have done.

Its time for you to decide if you represent the people or the party.

Another One That Has To Go

Chavez comes to the FCC
FCC diversity officer sides with the dictator

If for a moment you thought the Obama administration was going to sit there placidly while some on talk radio were so bold as to criticize its actions, think again, because here comes Mark Lloyd, the new diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission and a man with a mission.

It's not a pretty mission, not if you value free speech, but it is a mission made clear by Mr. Lloyd's own words.

There he was in 2008, participating in a conference on "media reform," telling us what a wonderful leader Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was and wincing at an unpleasantness the dictator had to deal with, the uppity owners of media, people who had some objections in mind.

He spoke of Mr. Chavez's "incredible revolution, a democratic revolution," and of the "property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela" who "rebelled" and who "worked to oust him." Still, said Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Chavez "came back with another revolution, and then ... began to take very seriously the media in his country."

Dang those property owners. Aren't they a pain? Mr. Lloyd seems to think they are a pain in this country, too, at least those who own radio stations. As much becomes clear when you read a report he and some others produced for a left-wing think tank that said conservatives dominate talk radio, not because they are more popular than liberals, as the evidence clearly shows, but because most station owners are white men who apparently heed their monolithic ideology more than the marketplace and their pocketbooks.

Republican Party - Conservatives - Moderates- Who needs 'em

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House has a very interesting post about the future of the GOP and the importance of moderates and conservatives therein.....
Some excerpts:

What’s wrong with conservatism?

Philosphically, absolutely nothing. There is a family argument going on at the moment where some question how conservative principles can be translated into a set of issues and policies that would lead to actual conservative governance but beyond that, everything is just peachy, right?

Sarcasm aside, the question for the day is can political moderates be conservative too? Can you believe in conservative “First Principles” and believe in less ideological, realistic conservative governance at the same time?

...looking at the larger picture, conservatives should be asking themselves some hard questions about the future. The outpouring of “good riddance” wishes to Specter on the right included calls for other GOP moderates to join him. This “urge to purge” seems to be the fate of losing sides in elections as liberal activists made the same calls for ideological cleansing for two decades. The result: An electoral map that glowed in the dark it was so red. Not so today, of course, And while blame can be laid at the feet of Republicans more interested in their jobs than in advancing conservative governance, an equal amount of credit must go to the Democrats who put up more moderate, less ideological candidates...

In response to the section I emphasized about the Dems putting up more moderate candidates, another word for those candidates would be ........more Conservative.

Below is the comment I posted at his site. In my humble, unbiased opinion, it needed a home here. Go see the great article that prompted it.....

The GOP is in trouble. Self identified “conservatives” want to purge the “moderates.” The moderates, aka the GOP “elite” or the “stuck up crowd around George Will…” etc, depending upon who is commenting, want to purge the conservatives. All parts of the GOP are attacking each other to the benefit of the Democratic party.

All this talk of purging each other is a false premise. Snowe, etc, will not be purged. No one can be forced out. But, she and the other liberal Republicans have to accept that they are unpopular with the GOP base; the base that gets national figures elected.

On the other hand, conservatives HAVE to understand that Snowe, etc, cannot run as a staunch conservative. And I think most conservatives realize that. The conservative base has supported the GOP through numerous missteps. All that the conservatives ask is that the GOP candidates, at least, try to support the conservatives. When McCain disparaged the conservative base, and then picked Palin as running mate to pull them back in, conservatives knew why he did it. Our support of him was the hope that his win would provide Palin with “legs.” Moderates seem to delight in disparaging the conservative wing as “uneducated” and seem to be embarrassed by their religiosity. They have treated the conservative base as an embarrassment to the party since Reagan. Unlike some supporters of the Democrats, however,conservatives are showing that they don’t mind being in the wilderness. They already know that the culture is running to the liberal side due to the mainstream cultural biases put out by the media and education.

Conservatives have watched for years as actions have not suited words professed by many GOP representatives. And we are tire of it. Republicans are asking for our vote while acting as Democratic light. Where was the conservative action when the GOP was in total control? The GOP made deals with the Democrats. Why is it that it seems that only GOP members cross the aisle for “bi-partisanship?” Conservatives want to win elections. But, more importantly, we want our representatives to actually represent us. If we lose, so be it. That means that there are more liberals than conservatives voting. But there is no point in voting for a Republican that advocates the same politics as a Democrat except the Republican will only grow government more slowly.

For all the disparagement of the “uneducated” conservative base, the “Rush Limbaugh” listeners, (Glenn Beck is not a Republican. He can’t stand either party.) where is the conservative brain trust that is trying to educate the “masses?” Where are the principled voices and opposition to Obama? Buckeley is gone. Who is his replacement? Heck, his son voted for Obama. For all their talk, I see very little of the “First Principles” being espoused. Rush and Hannity are the only ones speaking to the populace of REPUBLICAN principles. Beck is the only one speaking of the Constituion and the ideas behind the Democrats. Where is the GOP’s opposition to progressive movement? When the presidential candidate is basically agreeing with the Democratic candidate, except in some details, why shouldn’t the conservatives reject him? The GOP conservatives do not seem to want to do the hard work of educating the public as to why conservatives ideals are the best choice and how those ideals will benefit the public. “Lower taxes” can only go so far. Perhaps its time to promote “more taxes” across the board at a flat rate. When 40% of the public does not pay income tax, the cry of “lower taxes” does nothing. Its time for big ideas based on First Principles.

Its understandable that those that enter politics don’t really want to reduce the size of government and thereby reduce their own power. But, since Reagan, the GOP’s platform has been that government is the problem, not the solution. And that platform has been anathema to many Republicans. They feel that they are doing good things in governmental service. And most conservatives probably feel, when pressed, that things such as Medicaid, Medicare, etc, have improved things. Safety nets are necessary. But! Where does it stop? It is the nature of government to grow and the only check we have on it seems to be the ideals of strict conservatives.

If the GOP wishes to continue to run “moderates”, so be it. If those same moderates refuse to support the conservative ideals they professed in order to be elected, don’t be surprised when the GOP as a whole loses support.

Perhaps its time for a new GOP. Perhaps its time for the GOP to get together and decide what they believe in and how they will achieve those goals. Maybe the social conservative platform will be dropped. Maybe the idea of smaller government is no longer possible to achieve. Perhaps the GOP needs to change its platform to a more libertarian outlook? Or return to the liberal “compassionate conservative” mantra that seems to have worked, oh so well….

Either way, all forms of conservatives in the GOP need to work together. None of the “flavors” of conservative in the party will get elected without the other….

However, the conservative Rush Limbaugh listeners have shown that they are willing to put their principles first, even if they can’t articulate the ideas that form them. Perhaps the rest of the party should do a better job of paying more than lip service to those principles.

Another commenter, Travis Monitor, who also has a blog, suggested that Mr. Moran and others get back to basics and supplied this link: Reagan 2020.

And here is the portion of that speech that says it best. Go read the rest and remember when conservatism had a hero.....

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, "Deal falsely with our God," we shall be made "a story and byword throughout the world."

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people's earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing -- adjusting the brackets to the cost of living -- so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government's share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

**UPDATE**A New Morning Routine**UPDATE**

Last night, (Friday 25 July) over the course of several hours, I had email exchanges with various members of the milblog community, including Matt Burden of Blackfive, regarding the original email.
The content, or subject matter, of the email is one Army officer's view of the events of the day.
True or not, the email itself is genuine and was sent by a member of the military.

Snopes has it listed as false, based on their investigations. However there is a final entry on the Snopes page that should be noted.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

Reading the Snopes page would leave one with the impression that the email is false, but the last few paragraphs on Snopes are the enigma.

The author of the email was contacted by Snopes.
He responded and asked that the email be removed because it was intended only for his family. (Good luck with that)

Based on that, the email itself is real.
It is the CONTENT of the email that Snopes is listing as false, not the fact that the email was sent.

When the text of the email was posted on Blackfive, Matt had removed all identifying references, including the Army officer's name, out of respect for his privacy.

When the email itself began its journey through the MAIL system, the person who forwarded it did not give the Army officer the same courtesy.

Here’s a tip for future events of this nature:
REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO IDENTITY.
We owe the members of our military at least that much and it will hinder Snopes investigations which will result in them being unable to give a definite true or false.
(Whether that’s a good or bad thing remains to be seen.)

I will respectfully ask that you backtrack and send this back up the line to your respective email loops.

S/F
**UPDATE ENDS**

Most of you know I spend my day in a pickup truck monitoring construction procedures at a power plant somewhere in central VA. I have my laptop, wireless card, a few books and the FM radio.

I am usually listening to country music, cause I love country music. However, with the current political climate, I have been scanning the dial for alternatives to the usual fare, until Glenn Beck comes on, and then Rush.

Yesterday, I hit the seek button and found 93.1 The Wolf, a country music station I had not heard before. The song playing was one of my favorites, "I Don't Even Know My Last Name" so I left it there and listened.

The song finished and over the airwaves came the voices of two of the most Southern individuals I have ever heard, besides my friend Tankerbabe.

The morning show on 93.1 is called Rick and Bubba. They are AWESOME. It's morning FM conservative talk radio. No games, no yuck it up, just straight talk from two Americans who absolutely get it, interspersed with great country music.

Today, imagine my surprise as I listened to these two fine individuals interview one of the smartest men in the country, none other than Dr Walter E Williams, Proffessor of Economics at George Mason University. It was great.

Then, in between doing some work stuff, I happened to hear Rick and Bubba talking about this piece of internet lore and wondering if it was genuine. Since it was posted on Blackfive by someone I know personally, I immediately called the show, spoke to a very nice young lady and encouraged her to visit Blackfive and verify the authenticity. I then sent them the link to that post and also this post, which is another report on the messiah's visit to our brave military fighting the War on Terror.

I offered to provide any information they needed to verify to their listeners that the stories are indeed actual emails from deployed military.

Since any information on the internet is susupect, any time you know for a fact that the story is true, every attempt should be made to spread the accurate information, with as much diligence as we provide to discounting stories that are not true.