I-Caucus in coordination with other grassroots organizations will be holding a protest, June 24, from 9pm to 11pm, outside the offices of First Coast News in Jacksonville. The purpose of this protest is to draw media attention to their opinion that ABC is doing a disservice to the American people by airing President Obama’s views on healthcare reform without presenting an opposing viewpoint, and by their alleged refusal to air commercials with an opposing viewpoint. This will be a part of a nationwide grassroots effort to boycott ABC and it’s affiliates ESPN and Disney.

I have no personal knowledge of ABC programming decisions or the motivations behind such decisions. I do know that healthcare reform is far too important an issue for Americans to hear only one side of the debate. I am especially concerned that there may be some who want to silence views which are in opposition to this agenda. The Service Employees International Union recently collected approximately 68,000 signatures in an attempt to prevent a "Conservatives for Patient’s Rights" documentary from being aired in Washington D.C.; I would imagine that they and other special interests have done a great deal of lobbying to a number of media outlets. It should also be noted that the FCC, the federal bureaucracy that regulates the airwaves, falls under the authority of President Obama. It could well be that media outlets feel pressure to promote one side of this debate and not the other. I feel this possibility is worthy of investigation.

Healthcare Reform is too expensive and sweeping a change for Americans to receive only spoon-fed information on a decision that will permanently affect all of our lives.

Travis Christensen

Member of the 912 Project

I finally watched the RNC candidate debate at:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-13924

Based on the debate alone, I think that Ken Blackwell might be the best pick.

The reason I say this is because Blackwell stands out. Each of those six candidates are qualified and at some point each of them said something I heartily agreed with. The problem is that 5 of them sounded like politicians that in many ways were just carbon copies of each other. In terms of presenting a leadership face to Republicans and all other Americans I think people will listen to Blackwell rather than writing him off as just another suit. Watch the debate, you’ll see what I mean.

Blackwell said a couple of things I think make him really stand out from his competition. I quoting from memory, so I might be a little off.

"I think that Bush spending opened the door to Obama’s big government."

I could not agree more, and I think Republicans are going to have to divorce themselves from Bush fiscal practices, not just to remain true to their principles, but also to clearly differentiate themselves from the democratic party.

"There is not one vote in one precinct that we shouldn’t be going after. Reagan was fond of saying that "status quo" is Latin for "the big mess we are in," and we are in a big mess."

I like Republicans who admit that we are completely messed up. There’s been too much sugar-coating

"The RNC can’t be a social club, it needs to be the premier Republican organization in America."

"We have got to stop saying one thing and then doing something else. Authenticity."

I’m a big fan of authenticity.

I’m going to have to take a good look at Blackwell.

The question is "what does it matter what I think, what does it matter what anyone thinks outside of the voting members of the RNC?"

That’s a hard question to answer. This is like many issues in life where you have no direct power but you can at least offer your opinion. The only thing that grassroots Republicans can do to have their voice heard is to phone, write, or e-mail RNC members and voice their opinion. There are three RNC members in each state, these being the state GOP Chairman and the RNC Committeeman and Committeewoman. They are most easily contacted through the website of the state GOP headquarters.

To the credit of all the RNC candidates, they seem in agreement that the party has a responsibility to oppose Republican candidates and legislation that go against Republican principles. That’s a new one to me, I’ll have to wait and see before I believe that.

Jim Greer is that guy...the one you’re not sure is running or not, and if he is, you’re not sure you want him to win or not.

To be honest, I believe the idea that Greer had a chance to be RNC Chair was born when it was felt that McCain might be President, and Crist Vice-President, and that by affiliation Greer would be top pick for the spot. Those things didn’t happen, but that doesn’t mean that Greer doesn’t still have a shot.

Greer has been one of many names floated for RNC chairman, but the fact is no one will know they actual nominees until the RNC meets. According to ""Fla GOP Chairman mulling bid for RNC chief" on from Media General News Service, Greer will decide whether or not to run for RNC chief until after it is determined whether or not he will be reelected as Florida GOP Chairman.

First, some of the things I like about Greer. One is that Florida Republicans more or less held their ground in the 2008 elections. Yes, Florida went to Obama and state Republicans lost a little ground, but for Republicans to only lose a little is good by 2008 standards.

Second, Greer can raise some money. According to campaignmoney.com, Greer raised $168,400 for his 2006 campaign for Florida Chairman. That’s more than Steele raised for all of GOPAC’s federal activities.

Third, Greer has a way with words. His printed statements are motivating, and I include some below.

"Putting the people back in politics"

Politico, 12/13/08

It was a perfect environment for Democrats in Florida. The nation wanted change. Florida Democrats were awash in cash and staff, with a never-before-seen-ground game. Yet the Florida Democrat Party defeated not one – not a single one – of our Republican incumbents in the Florida House and Senate. In Miami, an area Barack Obama carried, Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart both fended off credible, well-funded, DCCC-backed candidates. Republicans also picked up Congressional District 16 seat with Tom Rooney.

While Republicans have produced results for the people, we’ve also kept true to our pledge to reduce spending and return more tax dollars to the people, illustrated by the Cato Institute’s recent naming of Gov. Crist as the most fiscally conservative governor in the United States.

Our party’s future is bright, but we need a decisive vision. We need new energy, new ideas and an unwavering commitment to our party’s long-standing values and principles of less government, lower taxes and more freedom. We need leaders who aren’t afraid to stand up for what’s right with our Party and start a dialogue on what we can do to get it back to basics—back to the people.

We’ve done it right in Florida by putting the people back in politics, and that’s the only way we can re-energize the GOP on a national level. Ultimately, Americans don’t care if their leaders have an "R" or a "D" behind their name. Americans want more than a leader who represents conservative ideals…they want a leader who has something to show for it.

Now, some of the things I don’t like about Greer.

I have commented that outside of election time there is little effort by the Republican Party to engage Republican voters. I live in Florida and occasionally look at the Florida GOP website. Until I became interested in the RNC race I had no idea that he was considering running for Chairman; neither did I know that Greer was up for reelection in Florida, and neither did I know that there were two challengers for Florida Chairman. It’s almost like the Republican Party has nothing to do with Republicans.

My second concern is that if Greer is elected Chairman he might move the Republican Party in a more moderate direction. Crist is widely considered to be moderate, Greer is widely considered to be moderate, I will go with the crowd and call him a moderate.

Why do I believe Greer would lead the GOP in a moderate direction?

From the Palm Beach Post

"State GOP’s endorsement miffs locals"

George Bennet

In a party that extols the virtues of decentralized power, county GOP bosses aren't pleased by the involvement of Crist and his handpicked Florida GOP chairman, Jim Greer, in contested Republican primaries.

"The perception for the rank-and-file Republicans is that people are picking and choosing candidates and the grass-roots network will eventually erode because they feel they don't have a part in it," Martin County Republican Chairwoman Susan Auld said.

Palm Beach County Republican Chairman Sid Dinerstein said he's a "big fan" of Crist and Greer, but "clearly I'm more of a believer - when there's no incumbent involved - in letting it all play out in the primary

From a Greer Speech

I intend to create a bench building program whereby our party will identify quality Republican candidates on the local level who can successfully seek higher office when the time is right.

To me these indicate a man with an interest in promoting like-minded Republicans.

I don’t know Greer and can’t personally can’t say whether he really is moderate or not. The problem with using the internet to research people and issues is that the only things you can find out are those which people put on the internet. If you look at a candidate’s website you are only going to find the face that they want you to see. As for blogs and even newspapers, a lot of what you see are just opinions for or against.

Who is to say that one person is a moderate, and another a conservative? From what I have seen the vast majority of Republican candidates call themselves conservatives, and the few that admit their political ideology usually call themselves "traditional" or "mainstreet" Republicans rather than moderates. The fact is that Republicans will disagree on matters of policy, and what you will find is that some of the people who are called moderates are only moderate on one or two major issues but conservative on the majority of Republican issues.

The Republicans I have a problem with are the ideological moderates who want the entire Republican Party to be more centrist. Besides the ideological centrists, there are probably a lot of experts who think the GOP needs to more to the center and more away from social issues to appeal to a majority of voters. So, IF Greer is nominated and IF he is perceived as the moderate candidate for RNC chair, and IF a sizeable percentage RNC members want a moderate chairman, I think he could win it.

I’m not going to make any predictions for who will win RNC Chair, and at this point neither do I have a strong preference for any of them, but if you group the candidates you can see how some could split voting blocks. With one incumbent and so many challengers, Duncan might be reelected. If it comes down to purely a matter of race, Steele and Blackwell could split the votes of those who want a Black RNC Chairman, thus making it less likely that either would win. I can’t say which candidates are supposed to be conservatives, but two or more of them splitting the conservative vote would be at an overall disadvantage. If Greer is the only one perceived as a moderate, it is possible that he could win.

Really, I am surprised that there are no female candidates for RNC Chair, at least not yet. The Republican Party of every state and territory of the US sends three members to the RNC, these being the state Chairman, the state Committeeman, and the state Committeewoman. This being the case, over 1/3 of the RNC is female, you would think that one woman campaigning against 5 or 6 guys would have a huge advantage.

Michael Steele

Michael Steele is a contender for the RNC Chair. He has an extremely impressive resume and he is saying all the right things.

First, the resume. Steele is a lawyer in private life, specializing in business law. A former chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, Steele became Lt. Governor of Maryland in 2002. He made an unsuccessful run for US Senate in 2006, and in 2007 became the chairman of GOPAC. Other political activities include being a co-chair for the Republican Leadership Committee, and a senior advisor to GROWpac and a member of the RNC. He is also on the Administrative Board of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

When you look at Steele’s resume it is clear that he is definitely worthy of consideration for RNC chair. Business and law make up a large part of politics, he has the experience. He has the party experience, and he has worked with Republican PACS and been on the RNC, so he definitely has experience as far as promoting the Republican Party. He was a Lt. Governor and though he failed to gain a Senate seat he still had the experience of running, so he knows what goes into campaigning and governing.

All together you would say that Steele would be a good pick for RNC Chair. However, there is something that bother’s me about this guy.

I get the feeling that Steele is more about image than he is about substance. Don’t get me wrong, Steele obviously brings a great deal to the table, but I feel that in regards to his bid for RNC Chair Steele has crafted the image he thinks will gain him victory.

Why do I feel this way?

1)Steele’s GOPAC bio doesn’t mention his failed Senate campaign. Running for Senate is a big deal and something I feel is worthy of mention in a biography. I speculate that Steele thinks this defeat would be perceived as a negative, so he isn’t talking about it.

2)Steele’s bio fails to mention that he was a co-chair to the Republican Leadership Committee. The RLC is a PAC that promotes moderate Republicans. My belief is that Steele thinks his affiliation with the RLC would be perceived as a negative by conservatives, so he isn’t talking about it. I think this is a shame. Ideological conflicts between moderate and conservative Republicans need to be addressed for the overall good of the Republican Party.

3)In his bio on the GOPAC website, Steele is described as "An expert on political strategy, fund-raising, PACs, and election reform." While Steele might be considered an "expert" in that he is experienced, I’m not sure that in his PAC work he has really been exceptionally effective.

4)GROWPAC does not seem to exist anymore. I can’t find much information about this PAC, but it seems to have come into existence in 1998 and was originally called the "American Renewal Pac FKA-Black Congressional Fund. According to opensecrets.org it distributed $34,750 for House Republicans and $3000 for Senate Republicans in 2002, but by 2004 the organization had virtually no income or expenditures, and nothing at all by 2006. It’s receipts in 1998 were $320,000, in 2000 were $1, 037, 710, in 2002 were $847, 083, and 2004 were a measly $74.

I am going to assume that the purpose of this PAC was to support African American Republicans for Congress, that has not been a very successful effort. That this PAC no longer seems active also attests that while this PAC did very well for a while it was ultimately abandoned as unsuccessful.

I consider it to be a shame that GROWPAC failed. Steele is African-American, and I get the feeling that many people think that putting an African-American as head of the RNC would be a good move towards the GOP gaining more of the Black vote. They might be right. However, I think a better effort to win Black voters would be for their to be more Black Republican candidates overall, and making that happen seems to have been GROWPACs purpose. Putting one African-American in a high position would be seen as a token appointment, and I sincerely hope that people aren’t just supporting Steele because of his race. One appointment would be considered as token, but many Black candidates would be seen as the legitimate effort that it would be. The problem is that the RNC can’t support Black candidates over White candidates any more than it could get away with supporting White over Black. GROWPAC or something like it needs to be revived.

5)What exactly is GOPAC?

To be the Chairman of GOPAC sounds very prestigious, but that would depend upon what GOPAC is and what they do. Being in charge of GOPAC is only a big deal if GOPAC is a big deal.

Some raw information and opinion:

According to a wikipedia article, Steele said that regarding GOPAC, "it will soon be back as the powerful force it once was under Newt Gingrich."

GOPAC commissioned a post-election study from The Tarrance Group, a political consulting firm. The Tarrance Group also mentions GOPAC on the home page of their website.

Many of the Tarrance Group winning candidates were also endorsed candidates of the moderate Republican PAC, the Republican Leadership Committee.

Steele seems to be working with Gov. Tim Pawlenty. At the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty made an effort to steal the spotlight from Gov. Palin, presumably to promote himself for a bid for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

In a Nov. 7, 2008 piece by Jonathan Martin in the Politico, "GOPAC plans look back, look ahead," mentions that GOPAC commissioned the Tarrance Group to survey voters views of the GOP and release the findings to the media. The piece also mentions that the Tarrance Group worked for the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

In a Dec. 11, 2008 piece by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal, "How the GOP should prepare for a comeback," says regarding GOPAC, "It needs to be revitalized, or it’s original mission taken up by a fresh group." It’s a pretty inciteful piece, I include the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895587373896541.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

According to opensecrets.org, in 2008 GOPAC America had $151,375 in receipts and $126,678 in expenditures. I find these expenditures quite intriguing they are in part:

INFOCISION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION $40,696 These were for fundraising

phone calls. I don’t know what exactly they were raising funds for, but considering that this was GOPAC’s largest expense, I hope they took in more than they spent.

COMPLIANCE CONSULTING COMPANY OF VA LLC $11,231 This was for political consulting. The question is raised, if Steele is an expert, why the need for political consultants?

Not counting Steele, McCain, or Coleman, this is a record of 5 wins and 6 losses. That is nothing to brag about, and certainly nothing to base a campaign for RNC Chair. Also consider that in political terms the $151,375 is chicken feed, especially when it is spread out to different campaigns.

The very odd thing is that GOPAC isn’t supposed to focus on federal campaigns, it is supposed to focus on state and local campaigns, and on training Republican leaders. Looking at the GOPAC website, I’m not so sure that these efforts are going very well.

As far as candidates I see two candidates under "candidate spotlight," and 29 under "past candidate spotlight." I don’t care about past candidates, and 2 current candidates aren’t very many. As far as education, I don’t see anything the website that a candidate couldn’t get from their local Republican Party.

The data suggests some questions.

1)Steele and GOPAC have a great deal of interaction with political consultants, the experts who are paid to tell politicians what they should do to win votes. What if the "experts" are promoting Steele because he is the person they want rather than the right person for the job. Considering that the Tarrance Group also worked for McCain and Giuliani, can their expert opinion be considered to have much merit? Aside from GOPAC, the Tarrance Group has a very large number of Republican clients. How much influence do consultants have over the Republican Party as a whole, and considering that consulting is a business, can this influence be purchased?

2)Considering that Steele and Pawlenty seem to be in cahoots, and that Pawlenty seems to be a rival for Sarah Palin’s spotlight, and that the Tarrance Group seems to have many moderate Republican clients, it there an organized effort to exclude social/religious conservatives from influence in the Republican Party?

Now some speculation.

I think that GOPAC wasn’t a big deal before Steele took it over, and I don’t think it’s a big deal now.

I think that Steele took the Chairmanship of GOPAC primarily for self-promotion. It was once run by Newt Gingrich, that is a good name to be associated with.

I think that a lot of people know that GOPAC is no big deal, but they are giving Steele a pass and not objecting when he is continually referred to as the "Chairman of GOPAC."

I think that Steele has been getting so much exposure because he is the insider party pick to be RNC Chair. I think the decision has already been made and all we are waiting on is for the vote to make it official. I don’t know who made the decision, or why, or how they will be able to transform their desire into reality, but I feel like it’s coming.

I could be wrong. We’ll have to wait and see. Even if GOPAC is a minor PAC and Steele is being promoted by insiders, that does not mean that he wouldn’t be as good a Chairman as anyone else. The problem is that we just don’t know, and outside the 168 members of the RNC, Republican voters have no say in the process.

Mike Duncan is the current RNC Chair and is seeking reelection.

Duncan has an impressive resume: a former state university chairman, former President of the Kentucky Bankers Association and Director of the Cincinnati branch of the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, Assistant Director of Public Liaison at the White House, Treasurer of the RNC, General Counsel of the RNC, delegate at several Republican National Conventions, at party positions in all levels of the Republican Party.

Duncan has the experience and certainly is worthy of consideration for reelection, but I don’t think it will happen. The 2008 general election was a disaster for Republicans, it’s time for "out for the old and in with the new."

To highlight the need for change, take a look at this article. My comments are in italics.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

In Case You Missed It: RNC Chair Discloses Comeback Plan

From Politico

By Robert M. "Mike" Duncan

Op-Ed

December 4, 2008

Before we go any further, consider the concept of the "comeback plan" in the title of this article. I challenge the reader to find anything below that looks like a comeback plan.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss' reelection this week was a tremendous victory for the people of Georgia. Voters went to the polls on Tuesday and selected a strong leader prepared to deal with both the domestic and the foreign challenges our nation faces in the months and years to come. Chambliss won his election because he represents the core values of Georgians and voters recognized the very real differences between the candidates.

Georgians refuted any notion that the ideology of the country has shifted to the left. They supported the candidate who believes that people should keep their hard-earned dollars; that every American resource should be leveraged to address our energy crisis; that the role of judges is to interpret the Constitution; and that America must be vigilant against the very real threats to our nation and its citizens.

Notably, Chambliss won in spite of strong support by President-elect Obama and Democrat organizations for Jim Martin. Georgian's clearly sent a message that any rhetoric about a liberal mandate is nothing but hot air. Georgians -- and all Americans -- will be watching Washington closely and expecting policies that make government work for them and not against small businesses and entrepreneurs.

"Strong support" by President-elect Obama? While I am sure that Martin did have a great deal of support from Democrat organizations, I don’t remember Obama making any real efforts in Georgia."

In the first contest since the presidential election and what many believe is the first race of the 2010 cycle, Republicans won because we coupled a strong, conservative candidate in Saxby Chambliss with a solid ground game that reached out to millions of Georgians and turned out the vote. Chambliss' reelection sends a message to all those who believe the Republican Party and its core principles are anything less than strong and competitive.

The ground game that reelected Sen. Chambliss focused on the nuts-and-bolts of campaigning, enhanced by investments in technology that the RNC has made over the past two years. The Chambliss team, the Georgia Republican Party, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the RNC were full partners in a Victory plan that executed the basics flawlessly. With dozens of RNC staff and hundreds of volunteers in 11 regional Victory offices across the state, our team contacted nearly a half-million Georgians in the last five days alone.

The RNC's investment in technology over the past two years allowed our Republican team to maximize every volunteer's time and every contributor's donation on behalf of Chambliss, creating a get-out-the-vote effort that overwhelmed Democrats in the state. Through sophisticated online advertising techniques we reached hundreds of thousands of Republicans who requested absentee ballots, voted early, and found their polling station. Our investment in technology enabled our Victory program to significantly increase the Republican share of advance voters in the runoff election. We also provided volunteers the tools to make phone calls from home to likely supporters and/or send numerous e-mails to their neighbors engaging them in the reelection effort.

Without a doubt it was of vital important to get voters to the polls for the run-off election. However, I don’t consider it to be an exercise in state of the art technology.

And while we overcame challenges in reelecting Chambliss in Georgia, we have another Republican leader seeking a conclusion to his race in Minnesota. We must not lose sight of the significance and absolute importance in ensuring Norm Coleman returns to Washington in the 111th Congress as Minnesota's senior senator.

As I write, Coleman leads his opponent. Coleman won the election on Nov. 4, he won after the canvassing of votes had occurred, and he will be the winner at the end of the recount. These results only lead to one conclusion: Coleman will be reelected as a U.S. senator from Minnesota.

Unfortunately, it’s looking like Franken will win.

At the RNC, we have spent the past two years investing in programs, technology, and training staff and volunteers on the basic fundamentals of winning elections. Chambliss' victory yesterday demonstrates the value of those investments and proves that Republicans still know to win elections.

We loss the Presidency and we took big losses in the House and Senate. Whatever you claim to have done in the last two years, it did not work.

As Republicans, we must continue to take stock of the 2008 elections -- first and foremost, strengthening ourselves by listening to the American people. But that also means learning from our mistakes and acknowledging our successes. Our success in Georgia is a strong sign that reports of the GOP's demise have been greatly exaggerated, and I look forward to future Republican successes in 2009 and 2010.

Yes, listen to the American people. Start this effort by re-engaging the Republican base and seeking popular participation in the selection of RNC Chair

It took me a long time, but now as the GOP lies in defeat and tries to re-shuffle and re-brand itself, I realize what is it that I like and dislike about the Republican Party.

I like conservative principles and I like conservative people, and these are both to be found within the Republican Party, at least to a greater extent than they are found within the Democratic Party.

I identify with the GOP, but despite this identification I find I have no faith whatsoever in the leadership of the GOP. I feel that there is a vast divide between those voters registered as Republicans and those who are leaders in the Republican Party establishment.

With the seat of President lost, the Chair of the Republican National Committee is the leader of the Republican Party. the RNC. Most Republicans probably don’t know or care, but a new RNC Chair will be elected at the end of January. The contest for Chair is quiet, but it is becoming interesting, and it reflects some of my feelings about Republican leaders. The things I am not seeing are real attempts to move the GOP forward, what I am seeing is factional warfare, incredible disconnect between the voters and the establishment, and facile attempts put a good face on recent defeats.

Particularly onerous is the divide between the RNC and the Republican base. In the blog "RNC Member Tries to Sidestep GOP Activists"

http://townhall.com/blog/g/36430889-fa0e-423d-8d29-b424f0b8c7cd?comments=true#comments

blogger Amanda Carpenter describes efforts by the North Dakota Republican Party Chairman to cancel a debate for RNC candidates organized by Americans for Tax Reform. Of particular interest is a quote from the North Dakota Chairman, "At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the public thinks; it matters what 168 of us think."

The "168" are the members of the RNC who will vote for the RNC Chair. Yes, they will make that final decision, but the idea that "it doesn’t matter what the public thinks" is dead wrong.

It matter very much what the public thinks because every single American voter is a member of the public. Americans for Tax Reform are also a sector of the public, as our thousands of other grassroots organizations across our nation. Groups such as these can reach out to the voters and drum up support for the Republican Party. They could do so, if they were so motivated, but why should they be motivated when you see efforts to limit their participation in the Republican Party?

It has been bemoaned that there was little grassroots enthusiasm for the McCain campaign. Why would there be? Do conservative grassroots organizations owe something to the Republican Party that they should put special effort into electing Republicans? Consider that the Republican candidate was John McCain, and that he is one-half of McCain-Feingold, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The effort to "take the money out of politics" backfired and had the "unintended" effect of stifling the political speech of all sorts of grassroots organizations. Consider this quote of Supreme Court Justice Scalia regarding the case of Wisconsin Right to Life:

There is wondrous irony to be found in both the genesis and the consequences of BCRA. In the fact that the institutions it was designed to muzzle -- unions and nearly all manner of corporations -- for all the "corrosive and distorting effects" of their "immense aggregations of wealth," were utterly impotent to prevent the passage of this legislation that forbids them to criticize candidates (including incumbents). In the fact that the effect of BCRA has been to concentrate more political power in the hands of the country’s wealthiest individuals and their so-called 527 organizations, unregulated by §203. (In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142 million to 527s. …) And in the fact that while these wealthy individuals dominate political discourse, it is this small, grass-roots organization of Wisconsin Right to Life that is muzzled.

Conservative organizations muzzled by legislation that was sponsored by the candidate they are expected to support, an effort to exclude conservative organizations from the RNC Chair race, conservative voters who are expected to vote Republican, whose campaign contributions are welcomed, voters who are welcome in the crowd at Republican events but not on the stage. Every Republican politician calls themselves a conservative, but most conservative groups have to stay in the background because they are right-wingers that would scare moderate voters. Consider the case of Sarah Palin: a very large percentage of Republicans liked her more than they liked John McCain. This is a fact, but you wouldn’t think it ever happened. When the election was lost McCain aids try to blame the loss on her, ambitious Republicans tried to steal her celebrity at the Republican Governor’s Association, and she has generally been pushed out of the limelight as far as the Republican establishment is concerned.

It this what Republican voters want, that conservative organizations and popular conservative politicians be pushed out of view? No, it is what the RNC wants. My view of the RNC is that of people in suits circling the wagons, one in which they say "big tent" but the inner circle keeps control. Within that circle the different Republican interests bargain with each other to see which brand of Republicanism will prevail and whose candidate will be supported for election.

That is the Republican Party at the national level, what happens down at the county level?

I took a long break from going to meetings of the local county Republican Committee. One reason why is that the night before the Florida Presidential Preference Primary there was a speaker campaigning for John McCain. I feel that the party primaries are supposed to belong to the party voters, and while I expect people to campaign for their candidate I find it unethical for a Republican Party venue to feature a speaker for one Republican candidate unless they will be speakers for the other Republican candidates. Consider that Florida Governor Crist had endorsed McCain, and it starts to look like the state Republican establishment exerting an influence to sway the Republican voters. It could have just been an effort by one moderate Republican to promote another moderate Republican, it could have just been Governor Crist angling to be the vice-presidential pick; it doesn’t matter, it isn’t right. I wonder how many other county Republican meetings featured McCain supporters, and I wonder what else was going on behind the scenes.

The next time I went to a county meeting I had to stand in the hall. There was a legitimate reason for that: it was time to elect a new Republican Executive Committee, so all of the precinct Committee people were in attendance. They all had to be seated first and fire regulations dictated that the room capacity could not exceed 150, so me and another dozen people had to stand out in the hall. There was a legitimate reason I had to stay outside, but it is still a telling analogy: the important Republicans inside, picking the new Republican Party leaders, schnooks like me out in the hall.

Even at the county level, do Republican voters have anything at all to do with the selection of leaders in the local Republican Party? Not really. The REC is elected by the committee people and Republican voters select the committee people for their precinct, but how do the candidates for committee get on the ballot? A committee person told me that they had never wanted to be on the ballot, and had no idea why their name was on it. This leads me to believe that the selections put before the voters were placed on the ballot by the REC itself. In each precinct there were almost as many ballot choices as there were openings, so the majority of those on the ballot were selected for committee positions. I find this to be a very strange arrangements, in which the very important Republicans decide which of the important Republicans will be committee people, a process in which Republican voters are almost a formality. These committee people then elect the REC, and afterwards the REC makes all the decisions. Were is the voter participation in choosing Republican leaders? The voter get to choose 2 or 3 committee people from the 4 or 5 the REC puts before them, and once the REC is elected the committee people that the voters chose are pretty much out of the picture.

The opening passages of the 2008 Republican Party Platform state that it is a party of inclusion. Future GOP plans include outreach to minorities, the youth, and middle income voters. I find such plans to be disingenuous, because right now the party isn’t very inclusive to the people who are already in it.

Travis Christensen

Next time, a commentary on a statement by RNC Chairman Duncan

Here’s a piece about the mass media, from the Pew Research Center

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=830

Here’s a quote from the story, :

News people feel better about some elements of their work. But they fear more than ever that the economic behavior of their companies is eroding the quality of journalism.

In particular, they think business pressures are making the news they produce thinner and shallower. And they report more cases of advertisers and owners breaching the independence of the newsroom.

The story is from 2004, but if trends have continued from then the situation is worse today. For you six-inch gorillas who haven’t figured out that the drive-by media is biased, here is your clue. Pew is the place you go to when you want to know what is happening with the mass media. Not Media Matters, not Commondreams, not the London Times, Pew.

CONSTITUTION? WHAT’S THAT?

http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_courts_memo_obama_mandate_on_courts

Piece here from People for the American Way, called "Obama wins Mandate on the Courts."

CHARITY RUN AMOK/WHAT IS NATIONAL SERVICE?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29441

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/530

I have been trying to get my head around how a "community organizer" will govern as President. Some have called his plans "socialist," but I don’t think that is exactly correct, I think he is more of an activist, I’m just not sure yes what that means. These two articles show a little bit of what President-elect Obama has in mind.

FIRST 100 DAYS

http://www.aclu.org/transition/

Here’s some stuff the ACLU recommends for the first 100 days of the new administration.

THE NEW IMPROVED FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566

August 16, 2008, Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church hosted a political forum for the candidates of the two major political parties. It consisted of 50 minutes of Q and A for Barack Obama, followed by 50 minutes of Q and A for John McCain.

I learned a great deal from how the candidates answered these questions, and decided that I have not previously given John McCain the respect he deserves.

Q: What is worth dying for?

Obama answered this question referring to general principles, such as freedom, American lives, national interest, and alliances with other countries for common defense. McCains answer was much better.

McCain also spoke about freedom and national security, but he went on to describe that while America can’t right every wrong, it can be a beacon for freedom around the World. For President, I like a man that has a positive evaluation of America, and that is not a feeling I get from Obama. Moving beyond generalities McCain then spoke of specific examples of conflicts and genocide around the World and mentioned Saddleback Church’s involvement with aid to Rwanda. Some might say that McCain would entangle the American military in conflicts that are none of our business, but his answer shows that McCain knows a lot about what is going on in the World and he had done his homework regarding Saddleback Church, the forum at which he was speaking. Most important to me, McCain gave what sounded like an honest answer, while Obama just put out a sound bite.

Q: What is America’s greatest moral failing?

Obama said that America does not always adhere to the basic precept of Matthew, "that which you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me," and does not provide good opportunities for people to get to the middle class.

There is much more to Matthew than just this brief statement. I consider this statement as an act of pandering to the religious left, who have been using Biblical statements such as "welcome the stranger" to justify giving citizenship to illegal aliens, and using other quotes to justify a number of liberal political issues. As for economic opportunity, apparently Obama considers liberty to be equivalent to a welfare state.

McCain’s answer was that America, (and I suppose individual Americans), do not always look beyond their own self interests. He said that instead of telling Americans to shop after 911, they should have been urged to join the military and peace corps, or find some other way to serve a purpose beyond themselves.

He is absolutely right. Selfishness is the basic failing of most people, myself included. I liked the Bush response to 911, but I trouble swallowing the "keep shopping of the terrorists win" spiel.

Q: What opinion did you hold 10 years ago that you do not hold today?

Obama gave a vague answer about welfare reform under Clinton, that even though he though reform worked, you still had to ensure that people received the benefits they needed. I didn’t understand on what opinion he is supposed to have changed his mind. What I think is that he was trying to pander to everyone by being vague and appearing to be for welfare and for welfare reform.

McCain’s quick answer was "offshore drilling." He went on to enthusiastically describe how he was in favor of developing all kinds of alternate energy. Maybe he was just pandering to what Americans want to hear, but it is what I wanted to hear. Gas prices wouldn’t be where they are if we had started working on oil independence and alternate energy 30 years ago during the last oil crisis.

Q: Taxes, how would you define rich?

Obama stated that people with an income below $150,000 would get a tax cut, those above $150,000 would get a modest tax increase. I don’t believe it, this goes against everything I have ever heard about Obama and taxes. I would have to see the numbers in order to believe, and then I would have to have somebody explain the numbers to me to ensure that he wasn’t fooling me with a tax decrease in one area and then sneak up on me with a tax increase somewhere else. As for McCain, he said he wanted to lower everyone’s taxes. That is the standard Republican answer, if elected we will see what he does in office. However, he also spoke of lowering taxes by first lowering government spending. I like that.

Q: What judges on the Supreme Court would you not have appointed?

Obama listed all the conservative judges, McCain listed all the liberal judges, so no big surprise there. However, the reason each gave for his selection shows a great deal about differences in how the candidates think. Basically, Obama didn’t agree with the decisions of the judges he named, and my impression is he didn’t like those judges because their judgements did not agree with his politics. That is not how the judiciary is supposed to work. Justice is supposed to be blind, not for the poor or the rich, the weak or the strong, justice, justice shall you pursue. Obama also stated that those judges were too eager to allow expansion to Executive power. I don’t buy that. The expansions to executive power mostly pertain to surveillance and the right to detain; the expansions are very narrow and in American history have been common during times of war.

McCain said he opposed certain judges because he felt they were not adhering to the Constitution. While I sometimes feel that sentiments about "originalist interpretation" are sometimes just lip service, I do feel that it would be better for our country if our judiciary stayed closer to our Founders intent.

Q: abortion.

This is an issue in which the candidates are polar opposites. Obama evaded giving an answer about "when does life begin," and then went on to say he supported the right of women to choose because he knows that women agonize with their doctors and clergy over the decision to have an abortion.

Yeah right.

I know that any woman must agonize over such a decision, but that is not the way abortion is approached by abortion providing agencies. Some time ago I went on the website for "Catholics for Free Choice." Their approach is that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to have an abortion because of financial reasons, as a lifestyle choice, or just because it is not the right time. I believe that the "women agonize" concept is just the face they present to the general public, and Obama should know this.

McCain came out much more pro-life than I had expected, so much so that I wondered if he might be pandering to the pro-lifers that make up much of the religious vote. If he is elected, we will see what happens.

I have been dissatisfied with many Republicans regarding pro-life issues. I feel that many of them just give the issue lip service in order to get elected, and that most who do make pro-life a part of their agenda do nothing more than attempt to maintain the status quo. What I would like to see is a Republican work to turn back the tide, whether it be through action of law or redeeming the conscience of America.

Q:How do you define marriage?

It was on this answer that the candidates were most similar. Both opposed gay marriage, Obama supported civil unions, McCain supported just legal agreements between those in non-traditional relationships.

This shows that there has been a change in the platform of the Democratic Party. I feel that this change was made for political reasons. Back in 2004 Ohio was a key swing state that went to Bush. The Ohio ballot had a referendum on it regarding gay marriage, and some think that this referendum brought more conservatives to the polls than would normally be the case, and that this issue contributed to Ohio and ultimately the Presidency being won by Bush. I think Obama’s answer indicates that the Democrats are stepping back from an issue that has cost them elections in the past. It also gives me hope that Amendment 2 might just pass, because I can’t see Florida Democrats rallying very hard in favor of gay marriage when their own presidential candidate is opposed to it.

                                                                               Christian Right VS Christian Left:

Obama VS McCain?

The conservative and liberal power brokers of American Christianity each have specific political goals. One Christianity, but two different viewpoints and two different goals. This is not a matter of theology but instead a matter of sociology: conservative Christianity is of the Republicans and liberal Christianity is of the Democrats. Understand the matter in this simple and practical manner, and be at peace; leave the theology to the theologians, for any practical person who delves deeper finds there are problems with manifesting spirit in the voting booth, and this confusion harms both their spiritual and political judgements.

I would say that those who want a true separation of church and state are at heart spiritual libertarians; but as the libertarians are a minority political party so are spiritual libertarians a minority of the American faithful. We are a spiritual people and a political people, and so the matters are intertwined in our national understanding.

On the one hand we have Obama, definitely a leadership symbol to both the Christian and political left. A member of the United Church of Christ, formerly a member of Trinity Church, the most liberal member of the Senate, a charismatic figure who routinely engages in spiritual and liberal social rhetoric; his nature is clear to all who care to see it. He is a new and savvy type of politician who epitomizes the heart of the Christian and political left, but is able to send forth this message in a manner which is palatable to a mainstream, majority audience.

On the other side is McCain, but he has not been recognized as the standard bearer of the religious right, nor does he consider himself the champion of conservative Christianity. Yet, as the Republican candidate and opponent of Obama he is by default the hope of Christian, political conservatism. Leaders of the religious right have been foolish in failing to recognize how valuable McCain is to them.

To understand the matter we must examine it in purely political terms, and on this political basis define the goals of the Christian Right and the Christian Left.

Simply, the religious right wants to outlaw abortions and ban gay marriage. Certainly they are about much, much more than this, but their main agendas in the political arena have involved abortions and gay marriage. From a political viewpoint, both of these agendas involve denying people the freedom to perform these actions. In the simplest definition, you can say that the religious right wants to deny people the freedom to perform actions that the religious right finds objectionable because of their religious beliefs.

The religious left is much more complicated, but in simplest terms their political agenda is to make the World into a better place. This in itself is easy to understand, the complexity lies in the number of activities that go into improving the World. They want to help the poor of the World, they want to help the sick, they want to reduce war, provide universal health coverage, establish global equity, establish recompense for past racism and economic exploitation, protect us from global warming, and "welcome the stranger" through liberal immigration reform.

One may look at these list of goals and consider that most of them are positive and match well with the humanitarian and charitable aims of both secular and religious Americans. So what is the problem?

The key word is charity.

Charity is voluntary. Voluntary is also a key word.

It is a great thing when people and organizations voluntarily engage in charitable activities. It is a great thing when people voluntarily exercise social responsibility. It is an entirely different matter when these activities are forced upon people by the government.

Let us consider just the issue of global warming. The liberal Christian organizations have whole-heartedly signed on the same issues as the secular green movement, so their objectives may be seen as one-in-the-same. Green political goals consist of a broad and intrusive activity of regulation upon both business and private individuals. Government mandated restrictions on how you dispose of your trash, what kind of light-bulbs you can put in your home, and what kind of cars can be built. We see a crippling of American business through increased taxes and regulation, and we see the price of energy skyrocketing, partly because of green efforts to block domestic energy exploration and gasoline refining.

It is the individuals right if they want to take on the expense and trouble of adopting a green lifestyle; it approaches tyranny when the government mandates how you shall live. It is economically foolish to continually pile on extra expense to the operation of American business. It is economic coercion to engage in activities that raise the price of gasoline; the purpose is that in the long run it will encourage conservation and the development of alternative energy, but the immediate result is to empty American wallets.

When you examine the political goals of the religious left and the secular left you see that in their eyes the cause is always more important than the cost. Know that the cost is high: higher taxes for individuals, higher prices at the pump, lower returns for those whose retirement funds are based upon stocks, and of course the price that we pay when we lose the freedom to buy and live as we choose.

It adds up. It adds up to a lot.

Consider also the mindset of the green movement, that America is nothing except a filthy, consumptive nation. They do not take into account that which we have done. Industry is much cleaner than it once was, cars get much better mileage than they once did, auto emissions are cleaner, we’ve cleaned up many of our past problems related to pollution, and the EPA is already very restrictive. From the rhetoric of the greens you would think that America has done nothing. From this mindset we can establish three axioms regarding the political causes of the left:

Compare the religious right to the religious left: the banning of gay marriages affects relatively few people, the banning of abortions has a greater effect upon a larger number of people, but does so infrequently. The political goals of the religious right seek to place restrictions on a few without raising the cost that is paid by all. The green cause that is supported by the religious left would affect everyone all the time and everyone would foot the bill. That does not seem like the American way of doing things.

Let us consider the cause of global charity, that America must do more to eliminate global hunger, disease, and poverty. Consider that the American government already sends huge amounts overseas to fight hunger, disease, and poverty, and provide economic development, more over time than any other country. Consider that not only do many American businesses engage in charitable activities, the outsourcing of jobs has resulted in incomes for a multitude of workers in foreign lands. Consider all the foreign missions carried out by American churches and how much money is send overseas by secular American charities.

You would think that we have done nothing. If it becomes a government mandate that we do more, it will be the taxpayer who bears the cost for this cause.

The Christian reformer Martin Luther once said "it is enough that the poor live, it is not necessary that they live well." Is it not enough that we be a charitable nation, enough that we already extend a helping hand to so many across the globe? How much more can we be expected to do, how much more will we be expected to pay? When does America become a good nation rather than the scourge of the Earth?

Examine other goals of the religious and secular left regarding war and see that they involve degrading American sovereignty and military power. Examine their goals regarding immigration; if fully enacted they will ultimately result in dramatic changes in American society as we slowly transform into an Hispanic nation. In these things too, it will be the American taxpayer who will pay all bills and suffer all consequences.

Forget religious values; the religious left spits in the face of all secular values regarding freedom, representation, patriotism, and capitalism.

We see that Obama is the hope of the religious left, and that all on the left have endorsed him. What about McCain? Why hasn’t he been endorsed by the religious right?

The problems that McCain has with the religious right are partly a matter of personality conflicts with leaders of the religious right, and partly a matter of how McCain has presented himself. Much of it goes back to 2000, when McCain was running for the Republican nomination. Simply, the religious right backed Bush over McCain, and McCain made some negative comments about this. This has led to some deep wounds and lasting resentment on both sides. There has been a reluctance by leaders of the religious right to endorse McCain, and little effort by the McCain campaign to reach out to religious conservatives.

The matter was further complicated by the Huckabee campaign.

Mike Huckabee, former Baptist minister who won the Iowa Caucuses by marketing himself as a "Christian Leader." Mike Huckabee, the hope of so many evangelicals, who after a surprise victory in Iowa wasn’t able to win another state until Super Tuesday. Mike Huckabee, who many social conservatives credit with splitting the conservative vote and making McCain the inevitable winner of the Republican nomination.

I was never impressed by Mike Huckabee, neither do I understand how it can be that in a race where every candidate is a Christian that it makes much difference to anyone that one candidate is "more" Christian than the others. Yet, a significant number of evangelical voters did consider Huckabee to be their candidate.

How is it that Huckabee was never able to garner support from leaders of the Christian right, in particular the support of Dr. James Dobson?

I consider Dr. Dobson to be the most influential member of the Christian right. The reason I make such a judgment is that Focus on the Family has substance that goes beyond Christian beliefs in that is deals with basic issues of family and society. Dr. Dobson is one of the most well-known Christian leaders, and unlike many others he has not disqualified from public discourse by making outrageous statements. Perhaps most importantly, Focus on the Family has many offshoots that operate all across the nation as PACs promoting traditional American values.

Dobson has huge gravitas. Yet, for some reason he did not support Huckabee? Why not?

To give some background, back in 2007 there was a great deal of dissatisfaction among evangelical leaders regarding the Republican Presidential candidates; they just didn’t feel that any of their choices represented religious conservative voters, and there was some talk of the religious right building a campaign around an independent candidate. That was probably just talk; I haven’t heard of any viable independents running for president, so I guess that the grumbling came to nothing.

We will return to the subject of independent candidates and third party candidates in a moment.

In this environment of evangelical discontent emerged Mike Huckabee. He filled a void and a number of people voted for him, not all of them evangelicals. Yet, he did not immediately receive the Dobson endorsement.

I can only speculate as to why Dr. Dobson failed to endorse Huckabee. It could have been because, like myself, perhaps Dobson was not impressed with Huckabee and did not consider him to have any chance of winning the Presidency. He might also have considered Huckabee to be a little too liberal; this is pure speculation on my part, but I have seen Huckabee praised in the pages of Sojourners, this could be an indication that even though Huckabee is a Baptist, he might incline more towards the "emerging church" than towards old-line Baptist dogma.

Dobson withheld his endorsement until it became clear that McCain was going to win the Republican nomination. If I recall correctly, even at this point Dobson was reluctant to fully endorse Huckabee, and only did so after Romney dropped out of the race. At this current time there is still reluctance to fully support McCain, though there is some talk of leaders of the religious right talking to each other about the possibility of supporting McCain for president. There is also a movement among some evangelicals urging McCain to pick Huckabee as his vice-presidential candidate.

Oh, what to do?

I didn’t vote for McCain in the primary, but I will vote for him as president. Every vote for McCain is a vote against Obama. Conservative religious people need to buckle down and admit that if they don’t support McCain then they are more likely to get four years of Obama. That’s four years of plans to raise taxes, restructure American society around liberal values, dismantle our military, and support the Christian left through a restructuring of the Faith Based Initiative.

Is that what you really want? Is McCain so offensive to you that you that through pride you would allow someone more offensive to win the office of president?

It is not that McCain is anti-religious, or that he is a religious liberal, it is just that he is middle-of-the-road on issues that concern religious voters.

Isn’t that enough?

John McCain goes to church, he does not oppose any issues of the religious right, this should be enough for you. In a sense McCain is the average Christian in that while he has the right beliefs he does not constantly witness regarding his beliefs. He is running for President, not pastor, he is Christian enough. Vote for him. He is your only viable choice, and the more you waffle the more likely it is that you will get Obama.

Now a word about third-party candidates.

I am a registered Republican. Even though I don’t always agree with party leaders on all issues I have always voted Republican. This fall I am considering voting for some independents in the county elections, but in the national race I will always vote Republican because even the worse Republican candidate for President has been far superior to the Democratic alternative.

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama: the Republicans could run almost anyone and I would still give them my vote just to vote against the Democrats.

There are two major conservative third-parties in America, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. There are many similarities between these parties, and I generally consider the Constitution Party as being a Christian version of the Libertarians. As an example of this, the Constitution Party opposes abortions, while the Libertarians say government has no right to deal with a personal issue. I incline more towards the Constitution Party, but I find that disagree with them on too many issues, and while I am not always happy with the Republicans I agree with them on more points than I do the Constitution Party.

I mention this because there is a generalized split among Republicans in this election, and I feel that there will be a larger than normal number of votes for Libertarian and Constitution candidates. Neither of these third-party candidates have a chance of winning the Presidency, they can only take votes away from Republicans. As I have said before, if you don’t vote for McCain you are more likely to get Obama. It is the right of the American citizen to vote as they choose, but I would urge everyone who is considering a third-party vote to thoroughly examine not just the candidate they are considering, but also the platform of their party. If you are like me, you will find that while you might agree with the third-party on some issues, you are in greater agreement with the Republicans on a range of issues.

Don’t vote out of spite. Neither should you decline to vote; compare McCain to Obama, while you might dislike McCain you will find that you like him more than Obama.

Beyond all else, there is no doubt in my mind that John McCain loves America. I don’t feel this way about Obama. He began his campaign as a liberal, he now seems to be wandering towards the middle, but I think if elected he would be much more of a leftist than even moderate Democrats could stomach.

Vote Republican.

I am not against the conservative third-parties, I just know that they have no chance of winning a national election and every vote they receive is a vote taken away from Republicans, and in the end this only favors the Democrats.

If you want to vote third-party, do so locally, you have a much higher chance of winning and you won’t help put a Democrat in the Oval Office. However, there is a problem with casting a ballot for a third-party in a local election, the problem being that in most cases there is no third-party to vote for. I read of this problem recently on the Constitution Party website, that even though they do get a great deal of grass-root support, they don’t have many people step forward to be candidates for their party.

If you like a third-party, I suggest that you run as their local candidate. Don’t fret about a third-party president because that effort is only going to backfire. It’s not that hard to run as a candidate. In my county you have to either collect 1% of the electorate in signitures or pay a fee to be on the ballot; failing this you can be a write in candidate for a modest fee and filing the right papers. Considering how easy it is to run for office, I don’t understand why more people don’t do it. Your chances of winning as an independent or third-party might be pretty slim, but you can’t win if you don’t play. If independents start winning counties and states, it might have the effect of reforming the Republican party: instead of trying to be more liberal, more like the Democrats to appeal to a larger electorate, if they see great support for conservative third parties they might become more conservative.

Now a quick word regarding Huckabee.

In 2007 there was talk of the religious right backing and independent candidate. Huckabee stepped up to run for the Republican nomination, and all the talk about a Christian independent ceased.

The way I look at it, not only did Huckabee spoil Romney’s chance at the nomination, he spoiled the chance of the religious right to support a candidate that they found acceptable.

I have just finished saying that people should not vote for third-parties, and I know that a religious right candidate would virtually guarantee a Democrat win, yet I can’t help but feel that the addition of a Christian candidate in the elections would have opened up a new dialogue about conservative, American religious values. I would prefer that such a candidate attack Obama, then drop out of the race in October and endorse McCain, but that cannot be. What we are left with is Obama as the canndidate of the Christian left, McCain as a Republican candidate who would never dare attack someone on the basis of religious beliefs, and Dobson as the mouthpiece of the religious right who seems to be the only one willing to take Obama to the mat on religious issues.

What I would tell any conservative is that not only should they vote Republican, they need to take a good look at Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family. They also should examine the Focus on the Family affiliate that operates in their state. Conservatism starts at home, religious and social conservatism are very closely related on the matter of issues, and in this election the religious battle against the left is being waged by Dr. Dobson.

3 Thinks to worry about

Scary think #1:

On April 3, 2008, the Texas authorities used a military level of force to raid a compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; they searched everyone’s houses and they took everyone’s kids.

On April 18 the judge ruled that all 416 children seized would be kept in protective custody...for what has turned out to be an indeterminate time.

The phone call that initiated the raid seems to have been a hoax.

A May 22 ruling by an appeals court ruled that there was no evidence of the children being in immediate danger, and therefore no justification for seizing them or keeping them in state custody.

As far as I am aware only two people have been charged with any crime, and one of those charges related to impeding a police investigation.

Despite the ruling of the appeals court, only a handful of children have been returned to their mothers, and the state seems to have no intention of returning the remainder of the children until forced to do so.

What does this amount to?

On the basis of questionable evidence, that state took 416 children from their families: not from a cult, not from a compound, they took individual children from individual families. In many cases they did so even when the individual family was not practicing polygamy or under-age marriage. The raids and searches produced virtually nothing which could be pursued as a crime. The case has proven to be flawed, and was pursued under the thinnest of legal veneers, but even after the ruling of the appeals court the state seems to pursuing it’s own agenda rather than the ruling of the judiciary.

This is government out of control and a grave insult to civil rights. In most cases this would be recognized as an illegal and inhumane action, but the majority of Americans have supported this seizure of children on the basis that the FLDS are pedophiles and polygamists. This leads us to the next point.

Scary think #2

The American public receives it’s information from the media. The media has given overwhelming support to this seizure of children and has fostered in the American public the impression that the FLDS is nothing but pedophiles and polygamists. The reporting has been skewed and has given the public a false impression of the illegality of FLDS actions.

1)It is my understanding that polygamy is only illegal if a person obtains through fraud more than one legal license of marriage. Being married to more than one person is legal as long as the marriages are based only upon religious ceremony and not more than one state marriage license has been issued. Therefore, polygamy as it has been reported is not automatically illegal, and reports of polygamy are immaterial to indicating illegal actions.

2)It is my understanding that in Texas a 17 year old can consent to sex with an adult. Therefore, reports of pregnant 17 year olds are completely immaterial.

3)It is my understanding that in Texas a 16 year old can marry with parental consent. Therefore, reports of pregnant 16 years olds have to be qualified. If there is a legitimate state marriage license it is not illegal for a 16 year old to be married and pregnant.

The conclusion is that the media will report any issue in any way that they want to and we will believe them. We were shocked when we heard of all these teenage girls pregnant in polygamous marriages, but it was not explained by the mass media that under Texas law the vast majority of these marriages and pregnancies seem to be legal. This was an action that effectively increased the power of Child Protective Services, a type of social service, one of the many arms of the government which believes that it should have more power over our lives and the lives of our children than we do, and one of the organisms through which liberals exercise social power by establishing an entrenched buerocracy. What we have seen in Texas is a victory for expansion of government in the name of a liberal organization and a liberal World-view, and we accepted this because we were misled by the media.

Scary Think #3

May 22, 2008, the House Judiciary Committee grilled some oil executives to find out why gas costs so much. I find this to be absurd because it is an example of government approaching an economic issue in the manner of a criminal proceeding.

One of the executives from Exxon laid the blame for these high prices at the foot of the Congress, claiming that excessive government regulation has kept the oil industry drilling and building refineries domestically. (This is probably true, but the oil companies are making record profits and in the present time probably have no interest in domestic expansion)

Predictably, the New York Times article of these proceedings did not mention any culpability regarding the Congress or environmental regulation. It did however, mention a statement by Rep. Waters of California, which suggested that the government should nationalize the oil industry if prices rose high enough.

I find this statement extremely disturbing, and I find the way it was reported by the Times ot be extremely disturbing.

I have heard the audio recording of these statements. Simply, the Exxon executive blamed the Congress for over-regulation, and stated that in the future $5 a gallon might be considered a cheap price for gas. The response of the Congresswoman was simply that if this happened she would be in favor of the government taking over the oil industry.

The way that it was reported was that nationalizing might be necessary if "outsize profits and exorbitant gasoline prices continued." No mention of government culpability, just the impressing that the oil companies are criminally liable for overcharging.

I despise slanted reporting, but I despise even more the sentiments of Rep. Waters and the mentality behind them. America is not supposed to be in the business of seizing control of private industry. We are a capitalist nation and abuses are supposed to be regulated; we are not a communist nation in which all capital industries are to be held by the government in the name of the people. Yet, here we have an elected official stating that it would be in the public interest for the government to nationalize an industry when the right conditions are met.

You know what this reminds me of? The concept of the "reign of terror." This is a classic concept of totalitarian governments and states that when the state of society reaches a high enough level of desperation that the people will willingly give up their freedoms for safety and order. Classically, the "reign of terror" has referred to a period of anarchy or a communist scare, but this is 21^st century America: our "reign of terror" can very well be taking place right now, at the gas pump, and if the price goes high enough I believe the American people will concede to anything to make it come back down. The concepts of free market and personal property mean less and less as the price of gas goes higher and higher.

Even more troubling, what if the Exxon executive was telling the truth? What if the high price of gasoline is largely the fault of our government? Does this mean that at some level, by some parties, there has been a plan to intentionally drive up the price of gasoline? This is a definite yes in some cases: green-minded people must find the current situation ideal, because the higher the price of gas the less of it is used, and the more likely it is that we will devote effort to gasoline alternatives.

Could there be others who were willing for gas to become increasingly expensive because it would eventually allow them to take over oil companies? To believe so would seem the height of paranoia, but how else do you explain what has happened? After the energy crisis of the seventies you would have expected America to develop a coherent energy policy, and that today we would have abundant domestic oil production and abundant alternative energy sources. This has not been the case and by degrees we have arrived at a situation where the price of oil is at record highs and can be expected to go higher. The government response has been to blame the oil companies, and to threaten to nationalize the industry.

Conclusion: In the month of May we have seen an illegal seizure of 416 children, a threat by a Congresswoman to nationalize the oil industry, and in both cases the media is the propaganda tool to sell the public on diminishing their rights and increasing the power of government.

I hope June is better.

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement saying Bush has taken too long to come up with economic solutions.