The New Progressive Conservative Movement

Great Content Like this at FreeRepublicans.com

Reasons Why: Part One

From now till the election, I will bring you "Reasons Why" Kent Conrad and/or Earl Pomeroy do not represent North Dakotans, American Ideals, or Freedom in general.

We begin our series by focusing on HR 1606, ﾓThe Online Freedom of Speech Act.ﾔ

This bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX], dealt with the FECﾒs interpretations of the term ﾓpublic communicationsﾔ within the McCain-Feingold law. Congress identified a large number of mass media that, as ﾓpublic communications,ﾔ would be subject to McCain-Feingold's many restrictions - including broadcast, cable and satellite communications, newspapers, magazines, mass mailings, telephone banks - even ﾓoutdoor advertising facilitiesﾔ are mentioned. The bottom line is that virtually every type of mass media in America was identified by Congress in the statute, except for one: the Internet.

Matt Mechtel, Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from North Dakota, told me via email: ﾓThe restrictions put in place by McCain Feingold have been disastrous for challenger races of either party. The bill has effectively locked the average citizen out of the political process, allowing only Millionaires to run for office against incumbents.ﾔ

Earl Pomeroy voted against this measure; as did 76% of Democrats; with 82% of Republicans voting in favor. Even though Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA], Rep. John Conyers [D-MI], and Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH] were full co-sponsors; Congressman Pomeroy still decided to tow the party line.

Regarding Pomeroyﾒs vote, Mechtel had this to say: ﾓThe fact that my opposition wants to tighten the stranglehold on free speech with these regulations shows his inability to distinguish what is truly the best interest of the people of this state. It seems curious that congress has no problem controlling what their challengers might say or print about them.ﾔ

Opposition to the bill was based in a belief contention that the bill, if passed, would open the floodgates to unlimited corporate and union money being spent on Internet activities to benefit federal candidates and in coordination with federal candidates. One specific charge is that the Hensarling bill, if passed, would allow federal candidates to coordinate with corporations and unions to spend soft money funds to purchase Internet banner and video ads on behalf of candidates.

The full text of the bill can be found here, but the simple fact of the matter is that Earl Pomeroy does not respect the 1st Amendment of the Constitution:

ﾓCongress shall make no lawﾅ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


The McCain-Feingold law was a regulation on the 1st Amendment, but even it left out the internet as being regulated. Representatives like Pomeroy had to go farther in regulating our liberties.

Reason #1 Why Earl Pomeroy doesn't represent North Dakotans - he supports limitations on Constitutional Protected rights. Even worse, he supports using his power as a sitting Congressman to prop himself up as an incumbent.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 8/08/2006 at 12:00 PM | Comments (8) | Permalink

New Front Page is Up

See it at FreeRepublicans.com

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 5/03/2006 at 4:57 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

The State of the Republican Party Today

The Republican Party has been hijacked. Hijacked by power hungry elitists who have ultra-conservative ideologies that disguise their real agenda; a new form of leftist thinking. This may seem like a strange statement, but if one compares the Machiavellian manner in which the Neo-Cons have taken control, the ideaﾒs that the promote, and the crowd that they surround themselves, one will see the similarities.

Like all elitist takeovers, it is a small majority who have supplanted themselves in the hierarchy of the party. Even if it does not go all the way to the top, surely that goal cannot be far off as well.

What has made this coup de taut possible? Good, honest, idealistic individuals looking to make thing better motivated by a sense of public service and personal advancement. Some seek out making a name for themselves within the party, often with the best of intentions. But as they say about good intentions, so too it is true here.

Many times, when these individuals do make it to positions of influence within the party, the corrupting influence of our nationﾒs capital takes over and good people turn into greedy, power hungry people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and zero accountability makes that corruption even worse.

From a historical stand point the Republican Party platform has stood upon the pillar of conservatism - balanced fiscal policy and where possible balanced budgets, leeriness of foreign wars and alliances, a non-interventionist stance to armed conflict, and a support of traditional values at home. The last bastion of the Reagan Revolution within the mainstream party resides within its tax policy, and even that has become yet another tool of social engineering. As Pat Buchanan has succinctly stated, the current state of the party could be summed up as follows -

ﾓTo hell with principle;
        what matters is power,
                and that we have it,
                        and that they donﾒt.ﾔ

Ronald Reagan said ﾓgovernment isnﾒt the solution, government is the problem.ﾔ George W. Bush says ﾓToo often, my party has confused the need for limited government with a disdain for government itself.ﾔ

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 2/22/2006 at 9:02 PM | Comments (16) | Permalink

Selling Americaﾒs Security

How should we measure how our leaders are protecting us?
Some would say that itﾒs based on the amount of money we spend.
Or is it based on how many armed troops or police they put on the streets?

I would contend that they should be judged by the legislation they draw up and support.

Such a case is currently reaching massive attention the Congress this week.

Some officials in the government have deemed it proper to allow the control of US Ports be sold to an investment group backed by the United Arab Emirates.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, already reviewed the transaction and did not object.

It is not often that I commend Democrats from putting out a roadblock; much less say that Hillary Clinton in right. ﾓ"I will be working [with Senator Menendez] to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments,*" Hillary said at some point, Bill wasnﾒt available for comment, he was ﾓbusyﾔ.

Dubai Ports World, a UAE quasi-corporation, is set to take control of operations in ports in the United States including the ports of New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and New Jersey.

Some members of the media have pointed this out; most notably, Lou Dobbs at CNN, who has always advocated protectionism at various levels. While he is generally more to the liberal side of things, he is one of the only commentators that are still watch able on cable TV. (FoxNews is all but unwatchable at this point.)

Any politician, regardless of party, who support foreign countries and corporations, should be defeated at election time.

"We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either*," Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said in a statement.

Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

Despite that review, some Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress urged the Bush administration to conduct a more rigorous review. They expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations.
The President has come out against those who wish to secure our borders by calling members of the Minuteman Project ﾓvigilantes.ﾔ

The President has supported amnesty, or work visas, for people who BREAK THE LAW.

I will even go so far as to say that if the President Bush supports this sale and works against a bill to block the sale, impeachment proceedings could legitimately occur.

P&O, the company Dubai Ports World plans to buy for $6.8 billion, is already foreign-owned, by the British, but the concern is that the purchaser is backed by the United Arab Emirates government*.

This case has the appearance that the Security of the Homeland is secondary to profits, in this case.


*Reuters

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 2/17/2006 at 6:22 PM | Comments (5) | Permalink

How to solve the Education Funding Problem in ND

Profit Sharing. Just like in sports. I don't know how it would work exactly, but if it works for the private sector, it can work for schools. More affluent districts forgo things like new gyms and football fields so that the state school system as a whole thrives. Then we get rid of Mayville State University, Lake Region College, and Williston State College to start with. Use the savings at the other universities to help keep down tuition increases. Then we make it law that no tax money and no student tuition can go to funding sports. Make that private booster donations only. At least its a start. At least its a plan.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 2/03/2006 at 5:39 PM | Comments (5) | Permalink

Can I get a Candidate?

Do you or someone you know want a career in politics? If so and you are 25 years of age or older (for House) Or 30 years old (for Senate) Apply now for the Republican Nomination Even if you are not a Republican, Apply now while Interest Rates are low! Apply now, and weﾒll explain how you can run for Congress Today!

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 2/02/2006 at 9:48 PM | Comments (3) | Permalink

North Dakota Bloggers Convention

The convention has been put on hold.

The current idea is to get a "Blogger's Row" going at the convention in Minot.


Right now, it is tentatively scheduled for March 31st in Bismarck.

Signed up So Far

Northern Conservative @K@ JMiller


Say Anything @K@ Rob

Open thread for ideas. Suggestions. Etc.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 1/20/2006 at 10:34 AM | Comments (9) | Permalink

Defining Progressive Conservatism

The Progressive Conservatism Movement follows the tradition of Jeffersonian liberalism and Teddy Roosevelt style Progressivism, without sacrificing Conservative principles for comprimise.

We believe every human being is endowed by nature with inherent rights to life, liberty and property that are properly secured by law. We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

We oppose all restrictions on free and honest expression, most critically those that infringe on political discourse. We oppose public financing of campaigns and any law that allows organizations to collect campaign donations against the wishes of the organization's individual members.


*This is the summary statement I wrote when I launched NPL2.org

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 1/18/2006 at 1:14 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink

Whose Who in North Dakota Youth Politics

If your involved and say, under 35, submit yourself. I will filter later.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 1/15/2006 at 9:45 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Theory of General Conservatism

Reagan said "Trust, but verify."

So anyone who follows Bush blindly is by definition NOT conservative because, for better or worse, nobody can deny that Reagan was a conservative.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/23/2005 at 4:58 PM | Comments (3) | Permalink

New Site

Domain is redirected.

The new site's XML feed is

http://freerepublicans.blogspot.com/atom.xml

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/23/2005 at 2:11 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Format Change

This AreaVoices will now become the North Dakota Only section.

The FreeRepublicans.com domain will be redirected to a blogspot address.

Please update your bookmarks to mirror this change.

Thank you for reading.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/23/2005 at 1:47 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Executive Order 12949

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
      February 9, 1995.


http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/21/2005 at 7:56 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Executive Order 12139

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
   104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
   1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
   chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
   foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

     1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
   Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
   is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
   intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
   Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

     1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
   of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
   approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
   103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
   surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
   information.

     1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
   Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
   officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
   security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
   required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
   to conduct electronic surveillance:

       (a) Secretary of State.

       (b) Secretary of Defense.

       (c) Director of Central Intelligence.

       (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

       (e) Deputy Secretary of State.

       (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

       (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

   None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
   capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
   certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
   President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

     1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
   section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
   the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
   in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
   conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

     1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
   section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
   the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
   electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
   Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
   Act as well as this Order.''.                          

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm                                                              Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/21/2005 at 7:54 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Are you kidding me?

KABUL, Afghanistan -- A human rights group is alleging the United States operated a secret prison near Afghanistan's capital as recently as last year.The group claims that music by Eminem and Dr. Dre were used as instruments of torture.

Thats just laugh-out-loud funny.  Eminem is torture?  I know he's not most people over 35's cup 'o' tea, but if its torture, I must be self-abusing.

Pulling fingernails ala Syriana is torture.  This is not.  And if John McCain says Eminem is torture, he's lost all creditability.

New York-based Human Rights Watch has issued a report saying the United States operated a secret prison in Afghanistan and tortured detainees. The report quoted an Ethiopian-born detainee as saying he was kept in a pitch-black prison and forced to listen to Eminem and Dr. Dreﾒs rap music for 20 days before the music was replaced by "horrible ghost laughter and Halloween sounds."
Oh no, they stopped playing Eminem and started playing Holloween sounds.

Are Haunted Houses that children goto every year torture too?

The report said detainees at the facility -- known as "Dark Prison" -- were deprived of sleep, chained to walls and forced to listen to loud music in total darkness for days.

Sounds like some wierd alternative lifestyle fetish to me.

The group said the allegations are credible enough to warrant an official investigation. American officials say the United States doesn't engage in torture. CIA officials have no commented on the allegations.

Of course they do.  Cause Rap is torture.  Maybe these people need to be investigated for being racist.


http://www.kcra.com/news/5577000/detail.html

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/19/2005 at 8:13 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Some questions that are un-answered?

1)  Is anyone actually reading this blog?

2) Does the sub-title of the site make sense based upon the pieces I am writing?


(*Too lazy to write on an actual topic right now)

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/19/2005 at 4:58 PM | Comments (14) | Permalink

Bush Loves Activists Judges



The idea that Bush is opposed to activist judges is a joke. Lets recall back to a time not so long ago when a group of activist judges interceded in a little thing called the 2000 Florida Election.

Of course the outcome was what was best for the nation. That is not the issue tackled here.

This is about the fact that if it werenﾒt for a group of activist judges, aka the Supreme Court, Bush would not be able to appoint so-called ﾓnot activist judges.ﾔ The media would have forced the issue and Gore would be president for badder and worst.

The Electoral College required that states submit certified results by December 18th. Instead, the Supreme Court sent down the biggest defeat for states-rights since Brown vs. Education; maybe even since the Civil War.

End Rant.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/17/2005 at 8:58 PM | Comments (3) | Permalink

Rewriting, make that, Clarifying History


Anyone who says that 9/11 was the start of the War on Terror is ignorant, uneducated and should be tested to find if he/she is clinically mentally retarded.

This is not another defending Bush piece; those arenﾒt fun anymore. More importantly they are ineffective and actually make things worse.

I wont even go back to Iran hostages, Beirut, WTC I, or Kobar Towers. No, the current War on Terror (which is redundant since ﾓwarﾔ is meant to cause terror) started in 1998 when One Man declared war on the Infidel, thatﾒs us by the way.

From a hideout in the mountains of one of the most backwards countries in the world launched a strike on American interests in the Sudan and Kenya. What was the U.S. Administrationﾒs answer? To launch 75 cruise missiles, at a cost of a million per, with the goal of killing One Man.

The greatest military power in the world, attempted to kill One Man by raining fire down from the sky. His response? Attack a Navy Destroyer that, fancy that, carried cruise missiles. This however was not responded upon.

Thomas Friedman calls this One Man a ﾓsuper-empowered angry individual.ﾔ

Before 9/11, Bush was pushing the missile defense shield to defend against a threat that did not yet exist. At the same time he did just as little towards the bin Laden threat that did exist as Clinton did. As strong as the ﾓClinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 monthsﾔ argument is, it is still fairly weak.

Just as weak is the argument that because Clinton dismantled the military, Bush was hamstrung when 9/11 happened. True, but if the Bush Administration realized when they entered office that the military was in trouble it should have acted starting Day 1.

I could go on, but you would probably wonder what my point has been this whole time.

My point is, when it seems that time lines and history are being rewritten maybe there is something else going on.

Consider for a moment that the people trying to rewrite what has happened are actually trying to tell us that they realize that they were wrong but are too thick-skulled to actually admit it outright.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/17/2005 at 3:29 PM | Comments (6) | Permalink

North Dakota's Air - Formerly Known as Clean Air

I've travelled the country. I've been to the the big cities. The air sucks. Goto a place like D.C. and its like a blanket over your face. North Dakota's air is still very clean by those standards.

That said, this state must stop selling its soul and whoring itself out to the energy producers that are pretty much the entire basis for our economy at this point.

We here in North Dakota have gotten to the point where we are dependent on  the money that the energy industry has pumped into the economy. This is great, I would never say anything bad about the fact that this industy has been good for the economy and the income levels in this state. But high paying jobs are not enough.

Teddy Roosevelt came to North Dakota for the clean and open air that was not in New York City and was literally killing him in NYC. Luckily there isn't much pollution out west, but in the Mercer County (where I grew up) and the Bismarck area the air is not nearly what it should be.

I am not a tree hugger. Typically, can't stand enviromentalist wacko's who think of everything in terms of 'enviromentally friendly.'

Rather, this issue should be looked at from the point of view of 'human friendliness.'

North Dakota is a conservative state, as am I a conservative person. But it has always been my feeling that there isn't nearly enough conservation within the conservative movement.

This state should make a concerted effort to not only be energy independent and self sustaining, but also a 'clean' or 'green' state, whichever your political leanings tell you is better.

North Dakota's economic success should not be at the cost of its clean air and its children's respiratory health.

Conservatism cannot be genuine without conservation; whether that is fiscal, social, or enviromental.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/14/2005 at 6:07 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Pomeroy makes Drudge at the top of the page

For telling Howard Dean to "shut up."

And you know what? I agree with what he said.  He actually made some sense.  We give props where props are deserved.


http://www.drudgereport.com
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2005/12/09/news/state/106702.prt

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/09/2005 at 2:10 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink

What Jim Gilchrist's 25% Really Means

Yesterday, California's 48th Congressional District had a special election.  The Republican John Campbell won with 44% - defeating the Democratic (28%) candidate as well as the founder of The Minuteman Project, Jim Gilchrist (25%) running under the American Independent Party label (part of the California Constitutional Party). 

3rd place may not seem that big, but 25% for a 3rd Party is huge in any Federal Election.  Could this be sign for '06 and '08?

Many, including myself have predicted that Border Security would be THE issue to divided the conservative base in upcoming elections.  After Bush declared The Minutemen on the Mexican border to be nothing more than Vigilantes, the tide turned and in the eyes of many conservatives who believe this to be the central issue today saw Bush as the enemy.

This will be the issue that splits the conservative vote in upcoming elections.  If an "America First" type neo-isolationist party can get a 25% showing, the Republican Party will be in trouble.  That is, unless it changes its ways and adopts the view of its base.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/07/2005 at 4:05 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

Kerry on the verge of Treason

I thought he was "For the Troops" but "against the war"? Now he says the troops are terrorists?

http://64.34.217.22/~politeen/video/kerrysaidwhat.wmv

Statement by Kerry spokesman David Wade: 'Ken Mehlmanﾒs filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful. Political hack Ken Mehlman and draft dodging, donut eating Rush Limbaugh have something in common. Neither of them know anything about how to make American troops safe. John Kerry will continue to speak out about how to succeed in Iraq and protect brave American troops'...

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/06/2005 at 3:24 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

Lieberman Gets It

Frankly, Joe Lieberman (whom I have always thought was the most practical Democrat and would probably have won in 2000 if the party hadn't casted him aside) makes a much better case for 'staying the course' than the President himself does. Of course just by saying the words 'stay the course' he doesn't give much supporting information or reasoning.

More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Logical. Solid. To the point.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Why isn't the administration able to put it in these succinct of terms?

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

This may be the best PR the administration has had in all of 2005.

...
If more Democrats thought the way that Lieberman does the NeoCon Republican Party as we know it would cease to exist because there is no need.

Not only that but Lieberman is also more fiscally conservative than Bush ever has been.


...
Read the entire piece. Its actually some of the best writing I've seen in a while.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 12/01/2005 at 4:40 PM | Comments (24) | Permalink

50 Cent feat. Dubya

50 Cent and Kanye West are the only ones selected to be GQ's "Men of the Year" who have no false modesty about it ﾗ both of the hip-hop stars justify their big egos in the mag's pages. But they also have more on their minds than just themselves. Like George W. Bush, for one. 50 thinks the president is "incredible ... a gangsta." "I wanna meet George Bush, just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him," 50 told GQ. If the rapper's felony conviction didn't prevent him from voting, 50 said he would have voted for Bush. Meanwhile, Kanye basically called Bush a racist on national television, and has since rethought his strategy for speaking out. "When NBC edited it out on the West Coast, that was a wakeup call," West told the magazine. "It let people know how censored we still are. This is supposed to be America, but you can't get your opinion out. There's all kinds of things I want to say, but I need to pace myself, to make sure my opportunities to say these things aren't taken away too abruptly." Kanye says after giving us entertainment, his next goal is to give us "inspiration." 50's next goal? He wants to market a condom. ...

I don't know if this funny, scary, or cool.  After seeing Get Rich or Die Trying its not shocking that he felt this way.  The movie was a "F*** the system/government/police" message, but it did have stong "pull yourself up by the boots straps" undertones. 


Funny how opponents of Bush call him a 'cowboy,' which is the term for the type of person that tamed the west, and its a bad thing.  Now when someone calls him a 'gangsta,' the type of person who has created a negative image of minorities, its concidered a good thing - at least by the person who says it.


Who says American culture isn't diverse?


And yes, I quoted MTV News.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1514482/20051123/50_cent.jhtml?headlines=true

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/30/2005 at 1:03 PM | Comments (5) | Permalink

Disgusting

Needs no comment at all, read for yourself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696,00.html

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/28/2005 at 2:02 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Whats wrong with people?

As I finish up my travels of the midwest political scene, I have found a few things to be true:

1. No matter how slick a politician is, they really don't know what they are talking about in a 1 on 1 conversation. Now, I am sure there are exceptions, but I didn't meet any.

2. The next generation of conservatives are completely different from those in currently in power. There is a strong, and growing, segment of the Republican-oriented base that are of the Libertarian mindset.

3. People who know what they are talking about but have no personal connections or deep pocket funding have no chance of getting into the game. This is bad.

4. People with degrees in Political Science have no been taught, and have no idea how to "get a foot in the door." I am currently working on a project to address this issue on the North Dakota level. Details to come.


As I have found, there are a lot of young, good conservatives that do not come from wealth. Unfortunately, this is a handicap in the field. This must be changed.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/16/2005 at 1:38 AM | Comments (13) | Permalink

Godwin's Law

Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely-recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful. See Quirk's exception below.

Origin

Godwin's law was named after Mike Godwin, an attorney who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation at the time the law was first popularized. He has since written a book about free speech and privacy online, called "Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age".

Godwin established the law as part of an experiment in memetics - the study of information transfer. On Usenet there was a trend toward demonizing opponents in arguments by comparing the position they held to that of Hitler or the Nazis, in Godwin's own words "a trivialization I found both illogical and offensive" [1]. So, in 1990, Godwin developed the law as a counter-meme and began posting it in Usenet discussions after such a comparison occurred.

Richard Sexton maintains that Godwin's law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post [2]

You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when a participent drags out Hitler and the Nazis.

Strictly speaking, however, the law is slightly different from Sexton's statement, since it does not claim that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a discussion is over.

[edit]

Objections and counter-arguments

One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy", one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true.

Some would argue, however, that Godwin's law applies especially to the situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotion as well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared, both of which are fallacious in irrelevant contexts. Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a valid comparison to anything besides other despotic dictators. Thus, Godwin's law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface, would seem to be a reasonable comparison.

Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.

[edit]

Notes

From a philosophical standpoint, Godwin's law could be said to exclude normative (emotional) considerations from a positivist (rational) discussion. Frequently, a reference to Hitler is used as an evocation of evil. Thus a discussion which is proceeding on a positivist examination of facts is considered terminated when this objective consideration is transformed into a normative discussion of subjective right and wrong. It is exacerbated by the frequent fallacy, "Hitler did A, therefore A is evil." (Reductio ad Hitlerum) However, as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law are when Hitler is invoked in a positivist manner that does not have a normative dimension.

[edit]

Other laws and corollaries

Various addenda to Godwin's law have been proposed by Internet users, though the original reference to Nazis remains the most popular. These include:

Newman's corollary as restated by Gordon
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
Morgan's corollary to Godwin's law
As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion thread on alt.censorship.
Case's corollary
If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to 1 (i.e. certainty)
Sircar's corollary
If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
This rule may seem identical to the previous, but they differ slightly in that the Case corollary states probability, while the Sircar corollary also includes a time limit. These two rules are sometimes incorrectly cited as the same and attributed to both authors.
Guy's corollary
If a Usenet discussion mentions Godwin's law as a conterrebuttal to a mention of Hitler/Nazis, then the probability of Godwin's law being disputed is equal to 1.
Van der Leun's corollary
As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches 1.
Miller's paradox
As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's law converges to zero.
Quirk's exception
Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.

It's so true!

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/12/2005 at 9:25 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Conversations with a soldier

As I was talking to a recent returnee from Iraq he said something that stuck with me.

He said that 9/11 to him, was like what the JFK assination was to his/our parent's generation.

I have often made this comparison, but not quite the way he did.

His explaination for why so many young people signed up for the service after 9/11 was that the terrorists were like "the men on the grassy knoll." The unseen gunman.

This comparison is quite true. Just as to this day we have not killed bin Laden, we do not know what really happened on that day in Dallas.

The difference is the psychology of the generation coming to age during the events. Our parents were generally too young to do anything about it at the time, and when they did become active politically, some of them spit on the memories of the soldiers coming home.

Our generation was raise in an enviroment that says that when you see something wrong, it is your duty to stand up and do something about it.

This soldier, who is an African American - not that it matters, compared what he did in enlisting to what Rosa Parks did. She was tired of being wronged and decided to take a stand.

In this same vein, the people that signed up after 9/11 saw that there was a long standing problem that the previous generation had failed to resolve.

For 25 years America was under attack.

1979 Tehran.
1983 Beruit. - doing UN "Peacekeeping"
1993 WTC.
1996 Kobar Towers.
1999 USS Cole.
2001 - 9/11.


This soldier said that the men and women that joined after 9/11 share this belief that they are cleaning up the mess of the previous generations.

The same generation that spit on the soldiers coming back from Vietnam are now members of Congress and the Senate. And while their Commander in Chief may have gotten out of being deployed, he still got in a cockpit. Which is more than the previous did when he went to England to get stoned, but he he didn't inhale.

The soldiers believe in what they are doing. They don't care if the CIA was wrong. They saw wrong being done in the world and they decided they wanted to do something about it.


Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/12/2005 at 2:14 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Jordanian Revolt

Syria also condemned the attacks and reminded Jordan of its solidarity. "We have painfully learned the news that attacks aimed at hotels lead to the deaths of innocent people," a Syrian foreign affairs official was quoted as saying by the official SANA news agency.

"Syria vigorously condemns these attacks and expresses its total solidarity with Jordan."

No group immediately came forward to claim responsibility for the bombings.

Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood strongly condemned the terrorist attacks that it said went against Islam.

"These are criminal and terrorist acts which no Muslim can accept and which go against our religion," the head of the Brotherhood, Abdel Majid Zuneibat said after the attacks.

"The enemies of the nation will only profit from this crime," Zuneibat said in a statement carried on state-run Petra news agency.

Palestinian flags were lowered to half mast on official buildings on Thursday as leader Mahmud Abbas denounced the blasts as a "crime against humanity and Arab security".

Hundreds of Jordanians have taken part in street protests denouncing terrorism in the wake of Wednesday's triple hotel bombings in the capital Amman. Chants such as "Burn in hell, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi" were heard from the demonstrators, referring to claims the leader of the al-Qaida in [ed. note: appears to be referring to al-Qaida in Iraq] group to have carried out the attacks...

..."Death to al-Zarqawi, the villain and the traitor," shouted the angry crowd comprising Jordanians of all backgrounds, including women and children.

Drivers of vehicles decorated with the colourful Jordanian flags and posters of Jordan's King Abdullah II honked their horns...

...Other rallies were held across the kingdom, including one in the Red Sea port of Aqaba, where attackers using Katyusha rockets narrowly missed a US ship and killed a Jordanian soldier in August.

Others were in al-Zarqawi's hometown of Zarqa and the southern city of Maan which is known to be a hub of Muslim fundamentalists.

The Amman protest was organised by Jordan's 14 professional and trade unions, made up of both hardline Islamic groups and leftist political organisations, traditionally a vocal critic of King Abdullah's moderate and pro-western policies.

"We're here to demonstrate our support of our government and express our love to our country and condemn in the strongest terms the heinous crime committed against Jordan by a group of terrorists," said Abdul-Fatah Kilani, president of the veterinary union.

Businessman Mohammed Daoud Mheirat said: "This rotten group and those killers have nothing to do with our religion."

Could this be the start of the revolution? Will Jordanians start flooding into Iraq to fight the al-Zarqawi forces?

We can only hope.


http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/010799.php

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/11/2005 at 3:43 PM | Comments (3) | Permalink

What an absurd story

Poll: Most Americans Say Bush Not Honest

Almost six in 10 ﾗ 57 percent ﾗ said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says
President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

Always about race with 'these people.'

If evangelicals are more likely to believe, does this means that those who don't believe are Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or Satanists?

Concern about the administration's ethics has been fueled by the controversy over flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the recent indictment of Vice President
Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name.

I know a lot of dishonest people too. Many in positions of power. Does that make me the center of evil in the universe?


These stories and polls are worthless. Having studied how they are conducted, they are barely less than a complete joke.

1st a nation wide poll with 1000 people being asked means than maybe 4 people in North Dakota are called. And of the 4 that are called, 3 are in Fargo and the 4th is in Castleton. Hardly a represenative sample.

Next, when they call people where the population is they calculate who they call by how that district voted. So Washington DC went 91% Democrat in 2004, so 9 in 10 are Democrat.

You get the idea.

I'm surprised that even 10% by this method believe Bush.

And I hate Bush apoligists.


Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/11/2005 at 2:29 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Dorgan in the Media

Is it just me or is Dorgan all of a sudden everywhere in the media?

First O'Reilly basicly endorses his windfall tax.
Then on Chris Wallaces show. 
And now Lou Dobbs (which is the most watchable thing on news tv) is hoisting him up on his comments about the $700+ billion trade deficit.

Whats worse.  I agree with that.

Dorgan must have gotten a new PR person.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/10/2005 at 6:00 PM | Comments (8) | Permalink

Listen to this

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/05/11/111005_4_senate.asx

And forget for 5 minutes whose speaking.


Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/10/2005 at 5:34 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

What are we trying to conserve?

I've addressed this issue before but I came to a clearer realization.

What is it that we are trying to do?

We are trying to change things. Things that we feel are not good or in the best intrests of the country.

We want lower taxes.
We want less government.
We want a better education system.
We want more jobs here in America.
We want less babies murdered.

Now you may say "you right wingers just want to turn back the clock."

That couldn't be farther from the truth.

What is in the past?

Abuse and exploitation of workers, children, women, and minorities.
Blatant destruction of the enviroment without penalty.
Stagnant economies.
Basicly all the bad things of the past.

The idea that the ole days were good is completely false.
Sure things were simplier back then, but that doesn't mean things were better.
All that means is that people we ignorant of what was happening.

What does all this mean?
We who call ourselves conservative are not trying to roll things back or keep things the same.
We are looking to the long term.

Our definition of Progress is Less Government.
Our view of the better life is more money and finacial security for EVERY social class, not just the elite classes.
Our idea of freedom is less dependence on the government.

The people rather than disconnected officials 2000 miles away should be making the choices for themselves.

In other words, self-determination.
It used to be a very liberal concept.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/10/2005 at 11:52 AM | Comments (14) | Permalink

North Dakota's Job Market Sucks

Theres a shocker.

Lets come up with a plan.

And lets find me a job, yes I'm employed, which will be over soon, but as I previously stated, North Dakota's job market sucks.

So if your looking for someone who can do anything from working on cars to working on political campaigns shoot me an email at director@npl2.org or leave a comment.

Lets get working on this. I think both sides can come together on this most pressing issue.

Thank you for your support.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/10/2005 at 1:02 AM | Comments (4) | Permalink

More Muslims killing fellow Muslims

This time in Jordan, at American hotels of course.  

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/09/2005 at 1:52 PM | Comments (17) | Permalink

Unfortunately, O'Reilly is right on oil companies

Bill O'Reilly has made it his mission to prove that the oil companies have been gouging the American public.

As much as I dislike O'Reilly's style and personality he is right.

As a fan of Ben Stein, it hurts me just as much to say he is wrong.

There was no economic support of the $3.00+ gas prices.  At best the $70 oil would lead to $2.70 by many calculations. 

Just the same, I do not think that O'Reilly's hope for an anti-trust investigation goes far enough.

If the rational that price gouging is that it hurt the working people, as it did and still does.  Then the investigation must go further and look into how the high gas taxes on the federal and state level effect the working people.

As a stated position previously, I maintain that the gas tax is a tax on the poor and effect the lowest income levels at a higher importance than it does the Hummer owner.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/08/2005 at 7:56 PM | Comments (14) | Permalink

Jon Stewart once again is right

His analysis of the French unrest is dead on:

"Why go all the way to the Middle East fight angry Muslims when you can do it in your own suburbs?"
He went on to say:
"Burning cars may not be best resume builder for unemployed youths."
And the most important question in the whole situation:
"When will the French government surrender?"

And best of all:
"The French can't pin this one on us."

Why is the best news and commentary on Commedy Central? We'd love to hear from you!



Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/08/2005 at 7:06 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink

Dorgan makes a Fool of Himself, as usual

He went on the floor of the Senate and said NPR is fair and balanced.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/08/2005 at 1:23 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Paris Burns as the Euros Twiddle

"We hate the police," cried one teenager. "It's the start of war," yelled another. "Put this in your notebook ... ," said a third, rattling off a string of obscenities about France's tough-talking interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy.

All French-born children of Arab and black African immigrants, this group of a dozen or so teens at Les Tilleuls housing project north of Paris complained of being marginalized by French society.

Years ago, France welcomed their parents as labor, often to do menial jobs most French did not want, they noted. And now, there are no jobs _ or no one willing to give them one, they said.

As all signs of the violence point to some degree of civil war, once again it is youth who are at the helm.  This time it is not students with too much time on their hands; instead its immigrants with too much time on their hands, and government dole money.  Their parents came to work, but not them.  To say that they have not been incorporated into the French culture is wrong.  They are snooty and stuck up just fine.

"The 'elders' of the projects have tried to calm us down, but we don't care," said 20-year-old Karim, gesticulating wildly with his arms and then concentrating on rolling a joint.

Ahh yes.  Now we come to crux of the matter.  A bunch of kids, in a country where drugs are legal started torching everything.  Go figure huh?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/07/D8DNR5GG6.html

To understand why this is unlikely to solve Franceﾒs crisis, consider how America succeeded, and often failed, in solving her own racial crisis.
While, as late as the 1950s, black Americans were not integrated fully into our economy or society, they had been assimilated into American culture. 

They worshipped the same God, spoke the same language, had endured the same Depression and war, listened to the same music and radio, watched the same TV shows, laughed at the same comedians, went to the same movies, ate the same foods, read the same books, magazines and newspapers, and went to schools where, even when they were segregated, they learned the same history.

...

But no European nation has ever assimilated a large body of immigrant peoples, let alone people of color.  Moreover, the African and Islamic peoples pouring into Europeﾗthere are 20 million there nowﾗare, unlike black Americans, strangers in a new land, and millions wish to remain proud Algerians, Muslims, Moroccans.

These newcomers worship a different God and practice a faith historically hostile to Christianity, a traditionalist faith that is rising again and recoils violently from a secular culture saturated in sex.
...

Nor should Americans take comfort in Franceﾒs distress.  By 2050, there will be 100 million Hispanics in the United States, half of them of Mexican ancestry, heavily concentrated in a Southwest most Mexicans still believe by right belongs to them.

Colonization of the mother countries by subject peoples is the last chapter in the history of empiresﾗand the next chapter in the history of the Westﾗthat is now coming to a close.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10116






Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/08/2005 at 1:35 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink

Viva la Revolucion!

The oppressed Muslim people of France have risen up. They seek to overthrow their French overlords who fail to give them jobs, only to give them the social welfare programs that allow them to survive. How could such an enlightened culture such as the French be blinded by the fact that the people that are coming to their country for jobs, not handouts.

Some conservatives look at France and see vindication that surrendering to the jihadist is not the answer. This is true. But the the bigger lesson could be that it proves that people don't want the generous handouts that European Socialism provides; they just want to work.

As Europe slids into chaos, as this corrupt French culture collapses under the pressure of its own openness, we will see that freedom is more than a welfare check.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/07/2005 at 3:22 PM | Comments (6) | Permalink

More on HR 1606

The House Leadership has announced that it plans to bring back to the floor in the coming weeks the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606) sponsored by Rep. Hensarling. The Hensarling bill would codify the FEC's current regulation, which was struck down by a federal judge, that exempted the Internet from the many prohibitions of the McCain-Feingold law.

The FEC regulation was based on the plain meaning of the McCain-Feingold law, specifically the definition of ﾓpublic communications.ﾔ There, Congress identified a large number of mass media that, as ﾓpublic communications,ﾔ would be subject to McCain-Feingold's many restrictions --including broadcast, cable and satellite communications, newspapers, magazines, mass mailings, telephone banks -- even ﾓoutdoor advertising facilitiesﾔ are mentioned. The bottom line is that virtually every type of mass media in America was identified by Congress in the statute, except for one: the Internet.

In light of the plain meaning of the statute, the FEC properly exempted the Internet from the McCain-Feingold law. The FEC's action was based on the view that Congress's omission of the Internet from the definition of ﾓpublic communicationsﾔ was not an accident or oversight, but rather a conscious, informed judgment by Congress that the World Wide Web should not be subject to the many restrictions that McCain-Feingold applies to other types of mass communications, such as TV and radio. The Hensarling bill would accomplish by statute what the FEC sought to do by regulation, and I strongly support the legislation.

One of the primary objections to the Hensarling bill has been the contention that the bill, if passed, would open the floodgates to unlimited corporate and union money being spent on Internet activities to benefit federal candidates and in coordination with federal candidates. One specific charge is that the Hensarling bill, if passed, would allow federal candidates to coordinate with corporations and unions to spend soft money funds to purchase Internet banner and video ads on behalf of candidates. This charge has no legal foundation.

As noted above, the FEC's regulation exempting the Internet was based on its interpretation of the statutory definition of ﾓpublic communicationsﾔ in the McCain-Feingold law. However, neither the FEC's regulation, nor the Hensarling bill, in any way touches the broad statutory prohibition found at 2 U.S.C. Section 441b that bars corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections (with specific, enumerated exceptions, such as for communications to corporate and union ﾓrestricted classesﾔ).

***Taken from RedState.org  http://www.redstate.org/print/2005/11/4/21850/4447

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/06/2005 at 2:16 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Why did Polmery vote against Free Speech?

As I've reported, Congress failed to protect bloggers from the McCain-Fiengold Act.

As the voting record shows, Earl Pomeroy voted against Free Speech for Bloggers.

Clearly he is afraid of blogs. Or he doesn't know what a blog either.

So either he is afraid of 'the people' or he is ignorant.

Do we want someone like this as our lone voice in Congress?

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/05/2005 at 7:49 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

Online Freedom of Speech Act & Votes

Online Freedom of Speech Act (Introduced in House)

HR 1606 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

April 13, 2005

Mr. HENSARLING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/04/2005 at 3:10 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Are we criminals?

WASHINGTON - Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections. 
 

So this must mean the 1st Amendment doesn't exist anymore.  The 1st Amendment was created primarily for political expression.  Just because there was no internet back then doesn't mean anything.


The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the     Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

This Bill needed 2/3rds to pass.

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Meaning the FEC is no longer constrained by that peskey document known as the Bill of Rights.

Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.

"This is a major unraveling of the law," Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, "it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process."

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process.

Well duh, I mean it was pretty much why the country was founded.

"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," he said. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."

The 1st Amendment was written to protect "WE THE PEOPLE."  But now incumbants will be protected "from the people."

Without his legislation, Hensarling said, "I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list."

Fined for speaking our minds?  Hmmm, sounds like something that is intollerable.  Maybe these are the new Intollerable Acts.  Tea anyone?

Bloggers from liberal and conservative perspectives made similar predictions at a hearing on the subject in September. "Rather than deal with the red tape of regulation and the risk of legal problems, they will fall silent on all issues of politics," said Michael J. Krempasky, director of the Web site RedState.org.

Well at least all the bloggers are together on this one.  Probably the only issue we will all agree on.

House Speaker     Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., writing Wednesday on a blog he recently started, said the bill "is about all the folks out in the blogosphere. It's going to protect what you say. It keeps the hand of the federal government out of Internet speech."

Too bad it didn't pass.  Apparently the Speaker of the House has no power over that body, or even his own party.  So much for one party rule.

But Meehan said no one wants to regulate bloggers. He said he and Shays have an alternative that would protect the free speech rights of bloggers while closing the cyberspace loophole where a lawmaker could vote for a prescription drug bill and then ask pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to run on the Internet.

Right, no one wants to regulate bloggers.  But they were forced too.  Right.  I've got a bridge in Brooklyn and some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell ya.

FEC commissioner Scott E. Thomas said at the September hearing that some $14 million was spent on Internet ads in the 2004 campaign.

$14 million?  Thats nothing.  Something like $1.2 billion was spent for the presidential primaries and general elections.

A federal court last year, amid the escalation of political activity on the Internet, instructed the FEC to draw up regulations that would extend federal campaign finance and spending limits to the Web.

Since when is the FEC the most powerful body in town.  Used to be the FTC, but since they said price gouging is ok they lost their power.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has introduced a companion bill to the Hensarling measure, but the Senate has yet to take it up.

___

The bill is H.R. 1606.

I will be posting the list of who voted for/against this.  It should be the goal of all bloggers, regardless of political leanings to get those who voted against this bill defeated at the ballot box.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_go_co/political_blogs;_ylt=AhL0bENDtRjlLIzpX2NxP3ys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/04/2005 at 1:37 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

The Franco-Islamic Riots

The riots started last Thursday after the electrocution deaths of two teenagers who ran from a soccer game and hid in a power station in the northeastern suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois after they saw police enter the area. Youths in the neighborhood said police chased the boys to their death.

Investigators said the boys Mauritania-born Traore Bouna, 15, and Zyed Benna, 17, of Tunisia knew of the dangers of hiding in an electric substation as they sought to evade police. The report also cites two witnesses saying they did not see the boys being chased. A third boy, Muttin Altun, 17, was badly burned.

French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said Thursday that the riots in several Paris suburbs over the previous night were "not spontaneous" but rather "well organized."

"What we saw in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis overnight was not spontaneous, it was perfectly organized. We are looking into by whom and how," Sarkozy told French news channel i-tele.

The interior minister also said the government would not allow "troublemakers, a bunch of hoodlums, think they can do whatever they want" in the country.

A force of 1,000 police were assigned late Thursday to Seine-Saint-Denis, following the previous night of violence which affected about half of the 40 towns in the department, mostly communities of immigrants from Africa, officials said.

This situation is not being reported much on the mainstream media.  I suppose it frames Muslims unfairly to point out that they are rioting against the biggest opponent to the Iraq war. 

When the French learn that surrendering doesn't stop the enemy?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1277921&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4402618.stm

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/03/2005 at 3:04 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink

...but by the content of their character.

"Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.  Party trumps race, especially on the national level," State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat said. If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
    Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black. "

 "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."

Apparently equality means that minorities can now lynch one another over their beliefs rather than skin color. 

Didn't someone once say that he wanted his four little children to one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?

I guess that only goes as far as a persons political beliefs.  At least thats the view of the NAACP, the Democratic Party, and others.

"In July, however, Mr. Mfume noted how Republicans were rallying for Mr. Steele but his party had ignored his historic candidacy. "More voters in Maryland are carrying the impression that the Democratic Party talks the talk, but doesn't always walk the walk. People may find a way to cross over in the fall," he said. "

Thats not suprising since conservatives look at how people think rather than what color they are.  For the most part.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/02/2005 at 2:49 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

You heard it here first

The Democrats are going to attempt to impeach Vice President Cheney.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/01/2005 at 11:49 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink

IEDs in Iraq

I just heard the dumbest thing ever on Lou Dobbs.  The reporter said that there are new, more advanced explosives being used in Iraq against our troops.  She went on to say that these explosives are avalible on the internet. 

Excuse me?  Either this is poor reporting and the reporter meant to say there are instructions on the internet, or the terrorists are actually buying stuff on the internet.  Either way, its messed up.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/01/2005 at 5:16 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

The Democratic Takeover of the Senate

Sitting here watching this thing with the Senate being taken over merely by Harry Reid motioning to invoke Rule 21 and it being seconded is amazing. 

It is amazing that two members Democratic Party in the Senate can shut the doors to the American people.

It is amazing that 2% of the Senate can control the other 98%.

They say that it is to debate the Pre-War Intelligence leading up to the War in Iraq. 

Whats there to debate?  The Intel that Bush had was the same that Clinton used to bomb Iraq from afar numerous times over his tenure.

What is the goal with all this?  Many think that the Democrats are looking to impeach Cheney if not Bush himself.

Stay tuned!

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 11/01/2005 at 2:33 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

Axis of Evil RoundUp - October 2005

As these important issues have been overshadowed by rather petty issues, it is time to revisit them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700719_pf.html

In a speech Wednesday (Oct. 26th, 2005), Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

More proof that negociating with iran is not an option.  Thats not to say that preemptive attacks are either.  Just let Israel take care of their own issues.

Israel's deputy ambassador to Britain, Zvi Rav-Ner, said it was unheard of for a U.N. member state to call "for genocide and wiping off of another member state of the U.N."

"This is a clear contravention and breach of the U.N. charter and it should be dealt with by the international community," he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Ahmadinejad's comment was "completely and totally unacceptable" and underscored the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Its nice to see that  Blair is being more consistent than a lot of Republicans in the Senate are being.

"I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to ... wipe out another country," Blair said.

Clearly, no country until now has wanted to sound like Hitler.

"Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue, it isn't acceptable. ... Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?" he said.

That pretty much sums it up.

Elsewhere in the world of bad guys...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453671.0770833334.html

After 18 years of on-again off-again work, South Korea finished constructing the large dam last week. The dam is designed to prevent a flood attack from the North should Pyongyang deliberately collapse a dam farther upstream.

In September, North Korea released a massive amount of water from a dam just north of the border without warning, causing massive flooding in the South's border area, reminding residents of the perils of living next to the communist neighbor that invaded the South five decades ago.

Floods caused by the North occurred in October 2001 and in September 2002 causing hundred of thousands dollars in damages.

Its amazing how we didn't hear about this.  Releasing that much water to unsuspecting civillians downstream is clearly a weapon of mass destruction.

North Korea was "secretly" building the Imnam Dam to hold as much as 20 billion tons of water, which could be used to engulf South Korea, the government said at the time. Construction began in February 1987, initially funded at 63 billion Won ($60 million).

Nothing like washing away a country as a prelude to war.  Ethnic cleansing anyone?

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 10/28/2005 at 7:57 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink

The FairTax

I finally bought the book and am just getting around to reading it.  So I will be editorializing it as I go.  This may get messy but I intend to clean it up and republish it later when I finish.

***I will divide my commentary to match the layout of the book.

I have to say up front I have always been a fan of the concept of a fair tax.  Not this FairTax, but a fair tax ala Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party during his 2000 "campaign."

All I really know is what I have heard on FoxNews. (See previous blog about FoxNews)

A Word from Congressman John Linder

Right off the bat I have to take issue with something; maybe its just the phrasing that is a little off but:

"I have known Neal Boortz for 35 years.  I knew him when he was poor.  I knew him when his tax liability was barely 4 figures."

Now I couldn't find the tax liability charts for 1970, but if you had $1000 in tax liability you couldn't be doing that bad.  Even by 2004 rates, to have $1000 in liability you would have $9000 in taxable income, which means somewhere around $16,000 in gross income. 

Now sure $16,000 in yearly income is poor today, never made that much myself yet but thats another story.  But $16,000 in 1970 went a long way.  A Ford Mustang was $3200.  A year of collge at a good North Dakota school was around $600.  And most importantly, gas was less than 26 cents.

Like I said, I don't know if its just written funny, or if he's being serious because he's that out of touch.

 

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 10/26/2005 at 1:45 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

The Conservative Civil War is On

It truely has become a Civil War.  Most people hadn't heard of the Coburn Amendments to the Transportation, Housing, & Urban Development appropriations bill (HR 3058), but now that its a dead amendment, it is clear that the GOP is a House Divided.

The amendment (http://instapundit.com/lawrev/Coburn2085.pdf) would have:

"This amendment will transfer funding from the wasteful pork project, the ﾓBridge to Nowhereﾔ in Alaska, to the repair and reconstruction of the ﾓTwin Spansﾔ bridge in Louisiana. According to published reports, the Alaskan pork project costs $220 million for a 5.9-mile bridge connecting Gravina Island (population 50) to the Alaskan mainland. The cost of the bridge alone would be enough to buy every island resident his own personal Lear jet."

Coburn had written a letter to his colleagues at http://instapundit.com/lawrev/Coburnltr.pdf

The Meirs pick sparked this Civil War between the self-proclaimed True Conservatives and the kabal of the Neo-Cons and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).  Being a part of the former myself I tend to agree with the principle that its better to know whose on your side than to be in the majority filled with fakes.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/026323.php

http://www.redstate.org/section/GOP

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200510210828.asp

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 10/21/2005 at 9:37 AM | Comments (4) | Permalink

Will Congressional Republicans stop the Liberal Bush?

Nearly five years without a veto, where exactly is the 'conservative' in the term "compassionate conservatives"? 

"The federal budget has gone up by a third to $2.47 trillion since he came to power. This summerﾒs $286 billion Transportation Bill was an exercise in indulgence, including 6,371 special favours, known as ﾓporkﾔ and worth $24 billion. A surplus has turned into a record deficit. "

At least the Brits have their facts and figure right. 

"This week, some Republicans in the House of Representatives will draw up a list of up to $50 billion (ﾣ28 million) of cuts in next yearﾒs budget. Their target is programmes that have until now been sacrosanct ﾗ healthcare for the poor, food stamps and farm support. "

Nothing like cutting a drop in the bucket from an area that is assured to be unpopular.

"The unpopularity of Newt Gingrichﾒs ﾓRepublican Revolutionﾔ in 1994, with its plans to slash the size of government, has made budget-cutting taboo. "

What?  Excuse me? 

"At present, the budget rebellion is confined to a largeish minority who have always called themselves fiscal conservatives. That is a long way from saying that these cuts will actually be made in the run-up to the mid-terms. Many other Republicans are nervous of earning again the label of the party that cuts social programmes."

Very true, as most social conservatives put little weigh on being fiscal/economic conservatives.  Bush himself shows little intrest in the matter beyond tax cuts.  This leads most of us who put priority on economic conservatism to view Bush as an outright liberal on the matter.

Of course, as far as the British or European media is concerned no form of conservatism is any good. 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1830387,00.html

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 10/18/2005 at 9:16 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

US security chief strives to expel all illegal immigrants

Well someone in power is finally saying what we all have been thinking for years.

"Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions.  It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year," Chertoff told a Senate hearing.

Clearly this is an attempt to stop the revolt by the Buchanonite faction of the Republican Party.  Hopefully these are not just words.  Lets see if theres an actual plan to back up what he is saying.

Chertoff's remarks in favor of returning "every illegal entrant, no exceptions" appeared to conflict directly with the US policy toward illegal Cuban migrants.

So that policy needs changed too.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/18/051018154752.u9fj2ynj.html

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 10/18/2005 at 11:22 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Read My Lips - Part Deux

Several months ago Bush commissioned a panel on tax reform.
At the time there had been talk of scraping the IRS completely, we can dream.
Now the panel has come to "agreements."

The panel also tentatively recommended taxing some employer-provided health benefits and is considering recommending an expansion in the deduction for charitable contributions.

The article isn't clear as to who is paying the tax on the employer-provided benefits.
I think its a fair bet that the employee will be footing the bill.

I have no problem with increasing the charitable deductions, but shouldn't they be using the money to pay their employees better? Howabout some supply-side?

Bush asked his tax reform panel to propose ways to make the Tax Code simpler and more conducive to economic growth. He also stipulated that its recommendations should not cost the Treasury any money. Making that task more difficult is the panel's determination to abolish the alternative minimum tax, a provision that was designed to prevent a handful of the wealthiest taxpayers from sheltering most of their income. Since its creation in 1969, the tax, which disallows many deductions and credits, has snared increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers as their incomes have risen with inflation.

Sounds like Bush can't keep his people in line.
They must not agree with his economic philosophy.
The revenue neutral stipulation is a request to keep the status quo, not a conservative statement.



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tax12oct12,0,5995816.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 10/13/2005 at 11:15 AM | Comments (8) | Permalink

What is it we are trying to conserve?

We call ourselves conservatives.
We say the country is being run into the ground by the liberal agenda.
Yet, so called 'conservatives' have been in power for five years now.

Of course, we all know these 'conservatives' really aren't so.
But if they were, what is it that we want them to conserve?
Conservation implies that there is something from the current system that we want to keep.

Is it the massive Federal Government that leaches into people's lives more and more each day?
Is it the ever increasing Budget/Debt/Deficit?
Or maybe its the growing interventionist policy?

If the definision of conservatism is a return to traditional values, maybe we need a new term.
Logically, you can only conserve something that still remains.
It seems that what we are trying to conserve no longer exists in any meaningful quantity.

For that, it would seem we do need a new term to label our ideology.
To often it seems that conservatives just want to push the status quo.
Should we not be progressing towards a greater ideal?

What that is remains to be written.

Posted by: FreeRepublicans on 10/12/2005 at 11:15 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

While I was out

As some of you know I am currently on the road as Field Rep for The Leadership Institut