Political Gravitas!

The GOP State Convention from the eyes of a “newbie”

by BillWyldfyre on Political Gravitas Forums
As I write this, the day after the Minnesota State GOP Convention, I wonder, really, what was accomplished?  I am a newbie, driven by the need to get involved because I feel that conservatism has been left in the dust by the rinos of the Republican Party.
I hate to say that, I hate to put down a party that I have chosen, over the Democrat party.  I come from a diehard Democrat party, I am the only conservative in my family and I am constantly told how I am on the wrong side of politics.   These past few days, at the convention, at times, I wondered if I was on the wrong side.
This article will bring up three issues, which I feel need to be taken into consideration.  First I will discuss the selection of delegates to the national convention, then the treatment of the Ron Paul supporters, and then finally, the overall abrasiveness of the ruling body of the convention.
Issue One:
Election of delegates to the national convention is a challenging process.  It starts down in the BPOUs and then continues in the state.  What surprised me was that people put effort into running for the national delegate role, made signs, and followed the rules and then a “committee” made the decision to put the person they like the best on the ballot.
Now, I understand that there should be some ruling body that selects qualifications.  That is a given and should not be discussed.  However, once a person is seen as someone who is qualified their name should be on the ballot.  Does it matter if that person has given big cash to the party?  Donated hours and hours of time volunteering?  Stuffed a million envelopes?  Stroked this person’s ego or that person’s ego?  Since when does being a conservative republican mean that you have to work for a party that does not always follow conservative dictates?
A flier was given at the start of the convention on the “Minnesota Conservative Team Delegate” and Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman were listed as conservative.  Now, I have nothing but respect for Tim and Norm, but to call them conservative is not appropriate.  I will support both men and I believe that all who read this should as well, however, the fact is, they are on the wrong side of many issues.
There were 14 spots open.  We had a number of delegates to choose from, but many people who had conservative credentials were not allowed to speak, or even to be on the ballot due to the simple fact that they did not get to Rochester on Thursday the 29th and meet before the committee.  Some tried to call in their meeting.  I do not know the reasons for this, but when they protested at the microphones they expressed how telephone meetings were adamantly forbidden like the apple in the Garden of Eden by members of the committee.  I can accept this, it seems logical right?  However, Tim Pawlenty, and Norm Coleman did not meet with the committee face to face according to committee rules.  Ok, let’s take the names out of this a minute, I don’t care if it is Tim Pawlenty, Norm Coleman, or Tim Taylor and Norm from Cheers, rules are rules.  If some people are denied the chance to be on the ballot because of rules then so should others who have “special favor.”
I will not sit here and point out a major flaw in principal without giving a way this could have been handled.  If the committee before the ballot had made an announcement that stated that Tim Pawlenty was unable to attend the face to face meeting due to very important business which required his attention and it was the decision of the committee that due to his unique position he was given an exception to the rules, then I would be satisfied and the principals would not be in argument.
There was a lady, I forget her name, but she explained at the microphone why Tim Pawlenty was not able to make the personal meeting.  My heart goes to her, and I hope she and her husband get what they need.  Tim was 100% correct in working with them and solving their issue.
The same could have been said for Norm, although I do not know of why he did not attend the personal meeting.
The final word on this issue is we are a party of principal.  Once we give up principal to let someone special break the rules, then principal becomes worthless.  This is one of the many reasons why the elephant has changed into the rino.
Issue Two:
Before I talk about the Ron Paul supporters, let me first state that I am a Fred-Head.  I think we made a serious mistake and that Thompson would take us where we as a country need to be.  However, I have thrown my support, reluctantly to McCain as a firewall against Obama.
With that said, the Ron Paul movement has created excitement in the party.  Young people have gotten involved, money has been raised, principals have been challenged, and to be honest, the party has taken on life that it has not had in a long time.
So, why are the Republicans working so hard to “piss” and “dismiss” all Ron Paul supporters.  When there were challenges to the constitution at the microphone at the convention, people openly insulted and attacked people who support Ron Paul.  Ok, Ron Paul is wrong on some issues, ok, but come on; we are a party of ideas, of principal.  Give the Ron Paul supporters respect, just because they are not from the stuffy good old boys network.   Ladies and gentlemen, let me say that the stuffy old boys’ network, it cannot last forever.  We need these young people, we need these fresh new ideas and we need to look at the Republican party and what better way to look at it with people who are supporting a conservative ideal but who have the energy and the passion of a liberal radical!  If the enemy is fighting with machine guns, you cannot fight back with spears, you have to fight passion with passion and let’s face it, and the Ron Paul group has passion.
Now for you Ron Paul supporters you to need to make a few concessions.  I encourage you to continue with the party, don’t break away.  Get more involved, work within the BPOUs, and get involved.  Support McCain as much as possible but do not give up.  Although Ron Paul will not win, there will be other opportunities and other chances.  You all are the future of the party, we need you.
Issue Three:
The ruling body of the convention was abrasive.  I will not hide here, my apologies to those of you whom I might offend, and to be fair I will not mention names.
First off, literature.  It was made as a motion from the floor that all literature that did not meet the rules was to be removed and the people who distributed the literature removed from the convention.  Now, this was not the ruling body, but they endorsed the idea.
However, here is a little remembered fact.  The literature was distributed early in the morning; the rules were not adopted and accepted until about an hour and a half after the proposed convention starting time. Now I don’t know law, but I know a few things, like Ex Post Facto.   An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Basically, if the fliers were not violating the rules when they were distributed, and then the rules were adopted and approved of (which it is possible that they could have been turned down because they were voted upon) then the fliers get ex post facto status.
Of course, I have to admit, the fliers were against the Ron Paul people, which goes back to the second issue.  There were two fliers that came out against Ron Paul and his supporters that did not meet the rules.
Second, while debating the Constitution Committee Report, Article IV Delegation of Power, Section Two Organization, a change was proposed that would give the State Executive Committee (SEC) the right to determine that if a BPOU was not fulfilling its responsibilities the SEC has authority to take all actions it deems necessary or proper to fulfill the BPOU’s responsibilities.  This was met with great contention.
There were a number of BPOU leaders who did not like the idea of the SEC controlling via the change in the report.  One BPOU leader, again I do not want to give names, was adamant against the change.  It was then that the leader, one of the chairs of the convention (I do not want to mention names) came to the microphone on the floor and openly attacked the BPOU leader on a personal level, stating that he did not do this or he did not do that.  This argument was subjective and should have been ruled out of order, but it was allowed.  Again, if we do not stand by principal…
The abrasiveness was seen in many other examples, of shutting down discussion, debates, and points of information and so on and so forth.  We are Republicans; we are determined to live by a standard that needs to be maintained.  Our ruling bodies need to be shining examples of this.
To wrap this up, the convention was a success.  I do have faith in Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman; however, I have more faith in the candidates for congress:
Brian Davis 1st district:  Excellent credentials, strong leader and willing to fight.  I had the chance to meet him and he has tremendous potential.
Erik Paulsen 3rd district: He did not speak but I have seen him before, although he comes from the rino Ramstad camp, he has potential as well.
Ed Matthews 4th district: Excellent candidate a CPA and Lawyer!  His loud proclamation that he will DRILL IN ANWAR was all I needed to hear.
Glen Menze 7th district: He is going up against a 16 time incumbent who only does the minimum amount of work needed to get elected.  However, I feel that Glen has the ticked that will work.
Barb Davis White 5th district: She stole the show in my book.  This passionate woman will not only kick Keith Ellis in the pants, she will dismantle MoveOn and all the rest of the libs who back him.
When I give my contributions, I will give to Barb and Ed first, but then the rest of the ticket.   We have some good people, let’s get them in.
Well that ends my first State GOP convention.  I would write for hours, and maybe I will…in another article.

By BillWyldfyre

Dear Star Tribune,

I normally don’t write to you, I have found your paper and website to be extremely biased, however, this time I feel I need to say something. I am very concerned about a local group that wants to disrupt the Republican National Committee in September.

I am a law abiding citizen, and I am a Conservative Republican and yes one can be both. I read articles about a certain protest group, which I will not name because they do not deserve print space, buying taser weapons to attack citizens with at the RNC convention in September.

Being the kind of citizen who likes to be informed I went to their website and read the rhetoric and I found myself sick to my stomach. This group is “An anarchist / anti-authoritarian organizing body preparing for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.”

Their goal is to use their freedom to assemble in order to protest the Republicans, which is legal and appropriate. Where the danger here is, they want to harm other people from peacefully assembling, only under a different philosophy, in September, and that is not legal and not right. To put it simply, they want to use their rights to infringe on the rights of others, but yet, they call for anarchy?

“An anarchist/anti-authoritarian organizing body” I wonder if this group knows what that means? Anarchy is defined as “a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: utopian societies of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.”

I really wonder if this group that wants to disrupt the RNC Convention really wants anarchy? The government is what makes life possible in the USA, so to have complete anarchy means, we would be completely without government. This means that if someone wanted to dump pollution in Lake Calhoun, they could without penalty because there would be no government to stop them.

Let’s continue this line of thinking shall we?

If someone wanted to shoot people randomly on the street, they could because there would be no government to stop them.

If someone wanted to smoke in a public restaurant they could because there would be no government to stop them.

If you used your freedom of speech someone could kill you, harm you or imprison you without a trail or anything because, there are no laws in an anarchy.

If someone wanted to simply wanted to lock you away, they could in an anarchy.

If someone wanted to kill abortion doctors…well that is ok in anarchy.

If someone wanted to break into your home and rape you or a family member…that is ok in anarchy.

If someone wanted to oppress people because of race, sexual orientation or gender…that is ok in anarchy.

In true anarchy anything can happen at any time, or not happen, for example, without government, who would protect the environment? The government has ISO 14001 that governs the Environmental Management System “Organizations of all kinds are increasingly concerned with achieving and demonstrating sound environmental performance by controlling the impacts of their activities, products and services on the environment, consistent with their environmental policy and objectives. They do so in the context of increasingly stringent legislation, the development of economic policies and other measures that foster environmental protection, and increased concern expressed by interested parties about environmental matters and sustainable development.” (ISO 14001)

With anarchy, all regulations will be gone. Of course the corporations will be gone too, so things like, food, clothing, homes, electricity, heal care items, etc will also be gone.

Think about it, with true anarchy the government regulations that protect us with medical advances, like ISO 14385, or 21 CFR 820, which govern medical devices, like stints used for heart patients, or even machinery like CPAP machines, or even the common band aid, would not exist. You could not get flu shots, or even take an aspirin because the FDA would not exist either.

There would be no research of Stem Cells for example, of course, who cares right? With anarchy we could just simply kill people who got any disease because there would be no consequences if we did right?

With anarchy there would be no welfare, or social security because to be a true anarchy there would be no taxes, or money, or legal tender of any kind. You would have to either make your own stuff, or you would have to steal from others.

How about national healthcare? Well, with no regulations to keep health care honest, why even bother. Doctors could do anything they wanted, if you came in for a broken leg, you could find yourself missing a kidney because healthy kidneys are needed and could be sold, or traded. Doctors would not even want to do things like birth a baby, or maybe they would in order to sell the child into slavery, the possibilities are endless with anarchy.

Do you see the picture I am trying to paint here? These people who want to disrupt the RNC convention are mad; I understand, appreciate and respect their anger. They are against what the Republican Party is for…or are they? Truth is what they promote as a freedom of government or authority is very close to one of the many pillars of the Conservative movement. Conservatives want smaller government, we want less government interference, and we want government out of our daily lives, stealing our money and taking our property. We want government to be a necessity but not a burden on us. We want the freedom to live how we want to live, to say what we want to say and not to be condemned because we want to have a bar that smokers can go to without fear of a fine or penalty of the all powerful government.

Yet, these people, these anarchists, want tasers so they can add to the size of government and go further and further from anarchy. More tasers/weapons will mean more government policies, more government regulations, more restrictions, and of course more government people on hand during the RNC in St. Paul. Is that really what the anarchists want? Granted, they want to disrupt the Republican convention in St. Paul, they want to use their freedom to assemble to get out their message. However, isn’t the freedom of speech listed in the Constitution of the United States? Would this freedom be allowed in an anarchy.

So, before you donate money to the disrupt the RNC Convention cause, or show up in September with your taser and your anarchist idea think about what you have and enjoy in this country and remember that you are protected under the laws of this country…if there were no laws, nobody would be protected at all, and your voice could easily be silenced with no repercussions at all.

What is the cause for the rise in health care costs?

I have asked the same question for years. Without looking through a Google search and finding experts opinions, let’s ask ourselves why.

The median age of our population:

The baby boomer’s are getting older. It seems reasonable that an aging population would also consume more health care needs. The aged are more prone to cancer, diabetes, kidney disease and the pharmaceuticals that would palliate these conditions.

Our litigious society:

We hear on an almost daily basis, about some jury awarding fantastic amounts of money for some kind of lawsuit. We have created a great incentive for litigation. One of the biggest fields in this regard is the medical industry. It seems reasonable to assume that malpractice and litigation expenses to manufactures of drugs and medical devices also drive up costs and must be a huge factor in raising medical expenses.

This also contributes to over regulation by the FDA, which causes extensive research and development expenses and delays deployment of new drug therapies techniques and mechanisms, which in turn causes us to be more sick than we needed to be, and in turn, be a more expensive patient to treat. I won’t get into the over testing waste done to mitigate any possible litigation.

Picking up the tab for Socialism in other countries:

Most other governments around the world mandate the price of pharmaceuticals and cap the fees medical professionals can charge, leaving both with meager profits. So, in a capitalist market, we are charged more than we should be, to make up for the losses due to socialism around the world.

This also leads to less money for research and development of life saving products and drugs.

Illegal Aliens:

On a daily basis, an unknown number of illegal aliens enter our country from all parts of the world; unchecked for parasites and disease and having no money for health care.

Our collective altruistic response is to not only house them, feed them and employ them, but also take care of their medical needs by passing laws that say emergency rooms must take care of anyone regardless of ability to pay.

We pay a heavy price for illegals, not only socially with increased costs on our school, legal and social services systems, but also in unpaid medical expenses that have shut down hospitals on the souther border states.
Also the re-introduction of medical maladies long thought eradicated from our modern society. Such as increased tuberculosis, e coli breakouts in our food networks and bed bugs.

High Tech Medicine:

Our modern medicine is a combination of the best scientists, engineers and cutting edge high tech firms. We are able to do things this decade that only a few years ago was thought impossible, yet we complain when our insurance bill goes up a few bucks a month.

State and Federal Regulation:

It is almost impossible to capture the scope and depth of one of the largest expenses. Vast amounts of money is spent keeping up with the compliance of both state and federal laws.

Massive banks of lawyers hold down litigation. Research and development is hindered. FDA overview of new drugs, mechanisms and procedures cost countless lives and cost billions in lost revenue.

State and Federal laws mandates tying the hands of insurance companies to react to market forces, cost the all of use the ability to purchase cheaper more narrow insurance coverage.

With Dr. Jack Kevorkian back in the news, and the death of my Mother still fresh in my heart, I will tell you what I think. This maybe controversial, but I am going to put it out here.

I believe that I have not only the right to the pursuit of happiness, but also the right as part of my pursuit to choose to end my life when I see fit.

My Mother passed away in November and although she had a very good five years of fighting cancer, the last month on her life was frightening, painful, embarrassing and sad.

I had a long conversation with one of the hospice nurses that had been taking care of my Mom, for the last four months or so. I suggested to her that I thought society was barbaric, by not letting my Mom or you and I, have the option to end our lives mercifully, and with dignity. She agreed with me, but first said, “don’t tell anyone this but….”

Jack Kevorkian, may be a weirdo, a freak, maybe a ghoul, but he is the only one in America standing up for you and I having the ability for a planned end of our lives. I will not let a disease put me through some horrible end, I choose to end it myself thank you.

My kids saw Gramma Barb, one last time during her week on passing away. My daughter was pretty shaken by this, we all were. It also was a time for my brother and sister to spend time together. Anyway, I promised my daughter Caitlyn, that she would never see Dad (me), like that. I told her that if I got really bad, with a disease, I would put myself to sleep like we put our pets to sleep, and feel no pain. I think that made her feel better.

In case you are wondering, it would be from carbon monoxide poisoning. It’s the only thing that under our current law, I could do myself with dignity and without pain. And no I don’t have a death wish, and I am not suicidal.   

What do you think? Don’t be shy, you can please tell me what you really think.

Walking the Road that Buckley Built

By Michael Johns

It can be said that modern conservatism knows only two times. There was the time before him and there was the time after him, and those two times could not be more contrasting. In this stark contrast lies his larger-than-life legacy, and let there be no mistake: It is a legacy that will endure the ages.

As word of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s passing reached his many students, admirers and colleagues late last week, it seemed each had an account (some grand, some small) of how this intellectual giant memorably impacted and touched their lives, their vision, and their work. In the aggregate, they tell the story of a man whose immense collective qualities–genius, boldness, industriousness, persuasiveness, and (perhaps least appreciated) kindness and generosity–were without equal in modern American public life. Even in death, Buckley is bringing conservatives together more effectually than many conservative leaders are doing in life. It should surprise no one. To have had the good fortune to have brushed upon Buckley during this life was to leave impressed, inspired, and reinvigorated in the purpose-driven life that he lived admirably and which he cultivated in a whole generation of conservatives who, now in his absence, carry forward his torch.

It may be said too often of the recently deceased, but it must be said emphatically of Buckley: We will not likely see his type again.

So diverse and ultimately immense were Buckley’s accomplishments that it becomes dangerously easy to shortchange the vastness of his ultimate legacy. During the 82 years that God granted him to us, he was described as the most prolific conservative writer of modern times. No doubt. From the early 1950s until a few weeks ago, Buckley’s writings eloquently challenged liberalism’s false promises at every step and defined the intellectual and political alternative that was and still is contemporary conservatism. His books (35 non-fiction, 12 in the Blackford Oakes novel series, and another eight of fiction), his National Review columns and commentary (beginning with the magazine’s 1955 founding and continuing through early this year), and his syndicated column (published since 1962 in over 300 U.S. and global newspapers) represent nothing short of a library of modern conservative thought. In these writings lies not just Buckley’s persuasive case for conservative policies and principles but one of the best depictions of conservatism’s evolution from a nascent ideology to the most consequential intellectual and political force of modern times. What a literary treasure he has left us.

But Buckley’s impact is not constrained to his role as the most prolific conservative author and writer of our times. His role in the ultimate ascent of conservatism as a national and even global political force is less broadly recognized but equally undeniable and important. The conservative revolution may have materialized nationally with Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election, but that electoral victory was the result of over two decades of work in the trenches, pre-dating even Barry Goldwater’s unsuccessful 1964 challenge against Lyndon Johnson. What existed before Buckley was an ineffectual group (one cannot even really call it a political movement) of self-described conservatives whose relevance was largely negligible. Before Buckley, modern conservatism had no refined policy agenda (and if one existed at all, it would likely have been equated with Robert Taft’s dangerous isolationism at a moment when the global threat of communism was amassing). Conservatism then also had zero skill in communicating to, and connecting with, the hearts and minds of the American people. Add those two things up, and it’s not surprising that conservatives, pre-Buckley, also failed in the electoral process.

It was Buckley who, in 1960, quickly looked at this “movement,” and changed it forever. One of his first steps, the founding of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), formed the foundation that ultimately propelled Goldwater’s candidacy. On September 11, 1960, conservatives gathered in Buckley’s hometown of Sharon, Connecticut, where conservative author M. Stanton Evans, one of the first and greatest Buckley proteges, with input from Annette Kirk (wife of the late Russell Kirk), drafted the “Sharon Statement.” It is not an overstatement that it may well be one of the most important documents on the American purpose and conservative vision since the Declaration of Independence itself.

“In this time of moral and political crises,” the Sharon Document began, “it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.” It immediately and appropriately referenced the fact that it was only God’s gift of free will that permits man’s “rights to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force.” It followed with an unhesitating and accurate reference to the fact that political freedom, without economic freedom, cannot long endure. It defined the Constitutionally protected freedoms and national security interests that were incumbent on the American government to protect (including, if necessary, by military force). Consistent with this, it boldly called for victory over, not coexistence with, global communism, stating “that the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties” and “that the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace.” Invigorated at Sharon, conservatives left that conference with a clear cut vision of who and what they were and who and what they opposed. Modern conservatism was born.

As the years progressed, it was this Sharon-inspired movement that challenged the emerging opposition to the U.S. effort to help defend South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, urging intervention against North Vietnam’s aggression not just in the defense of South Vietnam but also in resisting North Vietnam’s destabilization efforts in neighboring Cambodia and Laos. While accepting many of the objectives of Johnson’s “Great Society,” the movement simultaneously and staunchly denounced the extraordinary expansion of federal government that Johnson used to achieve them. In 1964, it was this movement that urged and then supported Goldwater’s national candidacy. While unsuccessful electorally, it did succeed in giving birth to Reagan’s monumental speech, “A Time for Choosing,” which was hugely and transparently influenced by the Sharon Statement’s position on the importance of defending economic liberty. In this nationally-televised endorsement of Goldwater, Reagan said: “The founding fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.”

Reagan’s persuasive case for Goldwater was made too late to salvage the Arizona Senator’s Presidential candidacy, but it was this speech that gave birth to Reagan as a national political force. It was again Buckley and his allies that, following “A Time for Choosing,” led conservatism forward, championing Reagan as Goldwater’s conservative heir, first in his daring but unsuccessful 1976 challenge of Gerald Ford and then in his ultimately revolutionary 1980 victory. At each step, Buckley led these political advancements while carefully ensuring conservatism was kept on course and did not sacrifice its enduring principles in the name of political expediency. Buckley’s was always a long-term plan and a long-term vision, which makes it unsurprising that his will be a long-term legacy.

Still, to describe Buckley as the most prolific and politically consequential conservative of our time does not capture the totality of his contributions to American democracy. The reason is this: Even if one rejects every conservative idea that Buckley embraced and carefully and eloquently articulated in his six decades of public life–the importance of connectivity between God and democratic peoples, the correlation between free markets and economic growth, and the case for resisting and defeating (not merely containing) totalitarian threats–it was Buckley who recreated intellectual and political choice in America. As the conservative columnist Mona Charen observed in The Washington Post last week, before Buckley, the liberal intellectual Lionel Trilling was able to state without challenge that conservatism did not really have any ideas. It had, Trilling wrote in The Liberal Imagination, merely “irritable mental gestures.” When he died in 1975, Trilling probably still viewed conservatism in a similarly inconsequential light, but that’s only because he never lived to see the fruition of the revolution that Buckley brought us. With steady progress, those gestures that Trilling observed in 1949 turned to concepts, those concepts turned to ideas, those ideas turned to policies, and those policies, embraced fearlessly by a new generation of conservatives impacted at every turn by Buckley, ultimately transformed a political and ideological movement, then a nation, and finally the world.
But it’s equally important to remember that Buckley gave us conservatism as a choice, not as a guaranteed destination. That work falls to this and subsequent generations, and it is a job that, truth be told, will never be complete. Remembering one of his earliest Buckley-inspired influences, the conservative leader Bill Kristol recalled in The New York Times a few days ago that he proudly wore a lapel pin at his New York City high school in 1970. “Don’t let THEM immanentize the Eschaton,” it said, summarizing the philosophy of the early National Review contributor Eric Voegelin. “THEM,” of course, referred to those who sought (and still seek), outside of God, a governmentally-created and enforced, ideologically-inspired utopian social order here on Earth.

Tragically, while we fought THEM (Marx, Lenin and his successors, and Hitler) necessarily and successfully in World War II and then again (under Buckley’s urging and inspiration) in the Cold War, it may be easy to conclude that it is a victory fully won. I believe Buckley would urge restraint in such a conviction, especially when, in our own nation, Americans still pack indoor stadiums, some apparently fainting in awe, at the false promises of liberalism’s allure, now conveyed in a junior Senator’s promises to confiscate the income of one group of Americans and send it through the federal Treasury to others, while simultaneously leading America’s retreat in the global war on terror and “daring” to engage without condition those remaining totalitarians in Pyongyang, Tehran, Havana and elsewhere who will use America’s diplomatic engagement with them to validate their suppression of human liberties at home and to send a global signal that the best way to earn America’s attention is to hate it. Sadly, even after Buckley, there exist some Americans who actually view such a course of false promises as a “brave” one. Message: The Eschaton is still being immanetized.

All of these grand battles, some under way right now and some yet to be fought, will now be waged by a seasoned generation of American conservative warriors educated and trained on Buckley’s watch and in his tradition. This conservative generation is a centerpiece of Buckley’s ultimate enduring legacy. It is a legacy, however, that is not restricted to what he accomplished in this world, but also in how he handled himself while doing it. As Charen accurately observed last week: “It was always Bill who rushed to get a chair for the person left standing. It was always Bill who reached to fill your glass. It was always Bill who volunteered to give you a lift wherever you were going, insisting it was on his way.”

As he bravely and victoriously faced down the most dangerous ideological threats and temptations of his time, William F. Buckley, Jr., it should be remembered, always did it with a smile. In that smile was an eternal optimism that he held in the grand potential of the unleashed human spirit. As we honor his giant and enduring legacy, it is an optimism that must carry us forward. We now walk this road in Buckley’s physical absence. But he has paved it well with the promises of the purpose-driven life amidst freedom and liberty, and a broadly-accepted and educated wisdom that permits us–and calls us–to defend both.

Worried about free markets in the future.

Over the last few days, the free market has been in the spotlight. Tonights so-called second super Tuesday, has put NAFTA and the concept of free markets in sharp focus.

Some of you may remember Ross Perot, speaking about The North American Free Trade Agreement. Ross saying, that if it passes you would hear “a large sucking sound, heading south”.  At that time I was a big Ross guy, and thought that such a great businessman with his background could be the best thing for the country; turns out Bill Clinton was.

Anyone remember Mr. “Read My Lips”? I actually think that Bill did more for free trade than Herbert would have.  It was Bill, that signed a law saying that you could use the fax machine for signing legal documents!

Hey, don’t get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Bill’s… but when I look back at the free trade aspect of this, Bill did alright.

We have had so many years of free trade presidents. Starting with Ronny, who was a big Milton Friedman guy, as is George “W”. We all have profited by free trade. Some of us have lost jobs to it as well. One thing is certain, protectionist ideas are NOT, the way to go.

Let’s talk about it.

(My sincerest apologies to William Shakespeare) 

The Scene: Upon a lonely midsummer’s night our hero John McCain sits alone upon a grim sight.  We spy a grave, recently unearthed, and a skeleton torn asunder by the lies and destructiveness of the liberal media.   Our hero takes the skull in his hand, gazing into the skulls open gaping eye sockets, and remembering how the face that belonged on the pale white bone used to look into the heart of America as a loving leader, a true conservative and one hell of an actor.  Alas, his greatness is but dust upon the hands of time, and the damn people won’t let him go into history.  In his angst, John throws the skull into the grave, and turns to face the radiant nights moon sitting majestically within the open night sky.  John takes a deep breath and pauses before he finally speaks.

John McCain: To be McCain, or not to be McCain: that is the question:

 Whether ’tis nobler for me the “conservative liberal” to suffer…the slings and arrows of outrageous gossip, conservative blogs, and right-wing talk show hosts, or to take arms against a sea of conservative voters, and by opposing end them, stomp on them and befriend yon liberals in the New York Times? To die: to sleep; or to urinate on the legs of Republicans and tell them it is raining… 

No more; and by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache, the Iraq War hatred and the thousand emissions of carbon dioxide causing Global Warming; alas, if it were but true; that green technology is heir to, higher gas prices, food prices, and corn cobs shoved into orifices.  Global Warming is as a hunger for power, devoutly to be loved by econazis….As for me, a devoutly loved office, embrace thy green ideals tattooed in corn based ethanol upon my chest. 

To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream, to hope, to boldly go where no man has gone before and there’s the rub; for in that sleep of political death what votes may come to me?  When we have shuffled off this election coil, what will become of me, my history, my friendship with Ted Kennedy? 

I must give the conservatives pause: there’s the respect of not using our opponents full name, his age or his telephone number.  For that makes calamity of so long life, and 50 years of public service, and not be the president? For who would bear the whips, chains, shaved squirrels and scorns of time, wait, I seem to have misplaced my dosage of Enzyte, ahh there it is, where was I? 

The oppressor’s wrong, Limbaugh is wrong, eating a boat load of chocolate cover’d cherries while dueling with your mothers new husband is wrong…To be conservative is what I want it to be…but the Limbaugh, speaks so well, the proud man’s contumely.  The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the law of Reagan, I say thee nay, tis’ better, throw out the law, who needs law when I am president, I am the law, the word and the way! 

Alas, poor Hillary, how I wish we were the chosen ones.  I have such love for you, the insolence of office and the spurns of the ones who despise illegal immigration, high taxes, socialized healthcare, green technology, and gay marriage…The patient merit of the unworthy takes which is found in campaign finance reform, when he himself might his quietus make words saying one thing, but meaning something else, I shall be…With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,  Hey there Bill Clinton, get away from there!  Stay away from my interns!  This is my sololoquy damnit! 

Ah, but to grunt and sweat under a weary life, to call others nasty profanities in congressional chambers, those dumb @#$$! mother @#$%^&*! But that the dread of something after death, life back in the Senate, or as a greeter at Wal-Mart.  The undiscover’d country from whose bourn, or unborn whichever you call it, no traveller returns, puzzles the will, denies a fence, denounces tax cuts, and makes the tax payers bear those ills we have passed off with our liberal voting records, our tax and spend ideas, and our tasty creamed filled pastries.  

Than fly to others that we know not of in Iran, or Cuba, thus conscience does make cowards of us all; especially when Obama tells us we cannot use his full name, or call him liberal, or notice his tremendous ears that flap in the wind like giant vulture wings; and thus the native hue of resolution, transparent to all who aren’t blinded by the main stream media is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, or misdirection, flat out lies, and enterprises of great pith and moment…I’m a little tea pot shot and stout, here is my handle here is my spout. 

With this regard their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action. - Soft you now and confuse yon voters, should I be in office, am I better than Hillary or Obama, I can elect Supreme Court Judges, protect our troops and keep 911 from happening again…so pbbbbbbbbbbbtttttttttt!!!! 

The fair office of President! Nymph, in thy orisons.  Be all my sins remember’d I will be President….RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! 

MSNBC News Services

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Commission fined Microsoft a record $1.3 billion Wednesday for defying sanctions imposed on the software giant in 2004 for antitrust violations, far exceeding the original penalty.

EU regulators said the company charged “unreasonable prices” until last October to software developers who wanted to make products compatible with the Windows desktop operating system. MSNBC

America is under attack again. This time it’s the socialist EU. Now there is probably more than a few of you who think, “Good, those Microsoft bastards deserve this”. Shame on you. This is just an ongoing attack against everything America.

Apple computers itunes, was recently made to bend over by the EU on the same premises.

“The Commission is very much in favor of solutions which allow consumers to benefit from a truly Single Market for music downloads,“ commented EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.

January 9, 2008

 

What is next? Is the EU going to regulate the cost of our cars, the cost of loans the cost of food stuffs going to a European market? I guess the real problem is our products are too good. That’s right, TOO DAMN GOOD!

I personally think the price of a Mercedes needs to be more consumer friendly. Yes, many of the European auto manufacturers, should be sued by America for charging “unreasonable prices”. These egalitarian/Marxist ideas are not the last to come from the birthplace of communism. Unfortunately, Americans themselves are adopting these ideas as well. This entire election is based on egalitarian ideals. It’s a bad sign people.

by DougfromEagan

Campaign ads are for idiots that do not know what they themselves stand for .

If a candidate says he is going to make more jobs, ask your self: “How is this possible? Make more jobs? I thought only businessmen can “make” jobs.

If a politician say they will make them, it will be with the money from your wallet. Public works programs, like bridges and roads etc.. They make jobs alright but they also make more taxes or more loans against you, the tax payer. Don’t be suckered into believing that one.

If a candidate says “Im going to make the schools better”, you better grab your wallet. The teachers unions always back the socialist candidates, they are big believers in MORE TAXES!! Not better schools.

If you want to make better schools, then choice through vouchers or tax breaks for those who want to send their kids to private schools is the ONLY way. How many years do we hear candidates B.S. about making public schools better? Are they any better? No, but they always need more money don’t they.

To make an informed decision this election and next, you will have to educate yourself in Economics, Phylosophy and History. If you are going to vote for someone because he looks honest or has a great personality or is a good speaker. In other words if you vote based on how you feel, PLEASE STAY HOME THIS ELECTION.

By Doug from Eagan

Look at this photo. It’s great! The all American Dad and his wife and kids. We can’t beat that. This is another Camelot in the making.

America is racing to get past the whole Rodney King, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson funk.

A large portion of the voting population were not born yet, or just kids when the riots in Detroit happened. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., is ancient history. A whole new generation of white kids, grew up with Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby and Michael Jordan as their heroes. The time is now, and Barack is the new John F. Kennedy.

I dare you to look at this picture and say to yourself, “Nope, that is not for me”, if you do your lying to yourself.

Set aside the policy aspect of a Barack Obama presidency. We all know it’s another form of socialism, I wont dispute that. Barack is poised and ready to pass some really hideous laws that will destroy free markets and bring us back financially forty some years.

But look at what future he is portraying. A smart upscale, well dressed, church going, cheerful all American family - that happens to be black. There is nothing to be ashamed about here. This is what we wish for ourselves and for our neighbors and for that matter our country! I know I do. Darn, if he were only a conservative!

Let’s talk about it.www.politicalgravitas.com