My burning question(s) for "Gay America"

I don't use drugs. I have never used a prostitute. I do not drink raw milk. I don't have six wives. I would never (willingly) take part in an abortion. I could go on and on. There are many things I don't participate in and in some cases find myself diametrically opposed to; but that doesn't give me, or the state, the right to dictate conformity to our beliefs. That's an arrogant and elitist's modus operandi. 

Propostion-8 is no different. 

I have heard many opposing views and with them some very passionate and articulate points (regarding insurance reasons and what not) but at the end of the day it comes down to one simple philosophy; live and let live. 

I understand this doesn't work for many of us. I understand for many, it goes against their faith. I also understand the culture we are embracing as time goes on, is less and less like the culture that this country was founded upon and how change from that could be the very undoing of our republic. As so many have said, America will never fall from the outside, it will crumble, like all empires, from within. This from Abraham Lincoln:

 "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

 At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

 
I get all that. 

But, our nation was founded on freedom and liberty for all men. The meaning is universal and authoritarian persecution is the archenemy to liberty. Denying another person their choice to do something because it doesn't fit into your view of how the country should live; is a contradiction to what being an American is. This is doing exactly what Lincoln warned us about because a freeman is free to live his life, with respect to others, as he sees fit. To be told that a man is lesser and cannot participate in his own free will because he chooses an alternative lifestyle is not free.

For too many years Blacks were slaves. Women weren't allowed to vote...These took changes as well. People will argue those are fundamental natural rights that had to be corrected. While this is true, it is also true that denying a persons right to live in peace, with the basic natural rights we heterosexuals enjoy, just because they are attracted to the same sex, is ridiculous.

I cannot speak for anyone else but as a man, no matter how many naked men you dangle in my face... there will be no temptation. I'm never going to want to "try it out". You can’t be infected gay by gay people. The media will never turn a straight person into a gay person. You can’t pray it away. There is no sinister plot to deride the species of fertility. Actually, I think it’s quite logical to liken being gay to Gatorade and its ad campaign: is it in YOU? For me it’s rather simple. Why no, no it is not. 

From a pure primal point of view, as a male, I never had any problems with homosexuals - especially gay men. And no, not because I had some closeted tendencies locked away either. It was because at an earlier age (in my teens) I began to understand a disproportionate amount of gay men were found to be attractive by women. In turn, it brought everyone up in the "pecking order". This is just simply the law of supply and demand. I guess I have always been a free market guy after-all?

So, "Gay America", as you can see, I respect your rights to your life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness to marry whomever you will. So you too can receive all the perks of being married: divorce, the decline in household income, a DVR full of Dancing with the Stars (pardon the semi-gay pun) etc, I do however have just a few questions for you and they all stem from this one:

Will you support MY rights that are already on the books, as in the Bill of Rights? The same rights that apply to all of us Americans; regardless of color, gender or sexual attraction.

Do I have faith you will be so vigilant against the PC Gestapo who wish to suppress the 1st Amendment? Protecting the freedom of speech with the same courage your small community displays standing up to those who seek to not allow your equal rights and marriages? To even stand up and protect the rights of those religious organizations that does not wish to marry you (homosexuals) in their churches?

Can I count on you to voice and stand against any encroachment on the 2nd amendment?

Will you stand with me against the tyranny of an executive office who's not only held in check the previous administrations assault on civil liberty's but has gone out of its way to expand this assault on freedom with their D.H.S bullet buying surge, their drone surveillance, National Defense Authorization Act etc? All measures that trample on my 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

I ask these questions not because my support for your freedom to marry comes with a clause or a condition of support. No, my support is based on a simple premise... as long as anyone isn't harming or encroaching on another person’s property or life; I support you. Again, live and let live, a simple premise. A premise that seems to have been lost amongst all the noise that permeates through the united states of division. Are you for liberty for all or for freedom that only promotes your self interests? Where do you stand?

Dereliction of duty: How Black America has been hijacked by "race hustling pimps".

Here is a disclaimer. I am not black, I am a white male. Some of you may find this contrived or think I have no place speaking about issues pertaining to a race that I don’t belong to. I can accept that. Some may even go as far as a call me a racist (it’s been done before) and that is your right to feel that way as well. However, facts are not racist. They are facts. I also think it’s very important that black folks receive a different message that they are accustomed to hearing from “the left’. That’s why I spend many posts on this subject and with that said, let’s begin.


This is a tale of two stories, literally. I read in the last two days, two separate articles written by black men regarding race and politics. Now, these stories are not on the same subject matter but I think you will see that they are connected nonetheless and its not a connection based solely on race but instead freedom and prosperity and how you go about achieving both.

This started by me reading a great piece at Investor.com last night regarding how being a black conservative author in today’s world gets you ignored. Or at least that is the claim made towards Ebony Magazine in this article. Now, I purposely led with that first statement because there are simply not enough conservative black voices in media & the political arena as well and it’s about time this becomes a discussion.

That is to not say there is a shortage of black conservatives, on the contrary, they do not exist. In fact conservative values were at the core of the civil rights movement; regardless how progressives try to spin otherwise.

Sure it was progressive in moving blacks forward to having equal rights, but that shouldn’t have been a fight in the first place. Equal rights for all are a tantamount to freedom and liberty. A true conservative/libertarian mindset does not allow for racism and collectivism. This lack of rights for all was a failure as a country from the very beginning. Now as these voices remain isolated, I find myself asking, why is this so?

From a writing point of view it’s probably a lack of readership. I don’t think its bad judgment on black media’s part as much is it is just bad business. Most blacks identify with progressive values or vote overwhelmingly democratically, thus reading about a conservative mindset would simply go unread. Politically, it’s no different but with a slight twist.

At the center of this twist is the Congressional Black Caucus. Nobody politically defines a race in US politics more so than the CBC. With now 42 members of congress, the CBC is not only the largest caucus racially it’s also incredibly strong because they are practically untouchable. Nobody in media wants to even poke, let alone tear a hole inside that bee hive’s nest for fear of being stung by the politically correct swarm that seem to have infiltrated every level of our lives.

But hey, I’m a blogger with such a low (but dedicated) readership; I am perfectly happy to do so. After all, it’s not like this is my first rodeo concerning the CBC anyway.

Now, getting back to the article written by Mr. Larry Elder, a quote by Congressman Cleaver, D-Mo., caught my eye.

"As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14% (black) unemployment, if we had a white president, we'd be marching around the White House. ... The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

This also isn’t the first time I have written about Mr Cleaver and his obvious double sided coin regarding race. This is just one in a long line of quotes that are obviously inflammatory yet it goes completely unnoticed or at least unchallenged by the masses. Double standard you say? You bet. But this notion that it’s acceptable for a black president to show high unemployment in the black community further drives home my point I have been making about the CBC. They are not concerned with the problems just the appearance that they are concerned.

As we usher in the 113th Congress and with it the CBC gaining more and with it more power and yet here Black America sits with unemployment almost double the national average. Prisons are filling up at all time highs. And what are the solutions that the Congressional Black Caucus has for these dire times in the black community? The same tired excuses & handouts they have been fighting for, for over 30 years and what has changed since in terms of results? Nothing. We have a black President but has Black America taken that next step with his re-election? No.

So what are the solutions? I don’t have the answers nor do I pretend to but I know two things regarding this subject for certain:

1. Freedom and liberty is a cure all because it encourages individual responsibility
2. Self proclaimed black leadership is not leading.

In separate piece written by Dr Wilmer Leon for Politic365.com, there is a slightly different take on this viewpoint. Dr Leon argues that with a new rising class of young educated workers who are settling for lower wages and multiple lower paying jobs, called the “Precariat Class”, this class will be so large that the future for Black America and its relation to employment will be “catastrophic”. This isn’t hyperbole; Dr Leon brings up accurate information that troubles the black community.

What I disagree with the Dr. is the assertion that the government should do more. Because when the government does more as we all know, it means taking from someone else. This happens through a seizure of either a right, freedom and/or their wealth. Dr Leons argument is that austerity measures should not be taken in this economy with many people struggling:

 “In challenging times such as these the government should be investing in the economy not cutting back.”

The problem is we have invested into this economy. We have overspent long before President Obama got into office and we have done so with no results, not only in the black community but the country as a whole. The standard of living for most Americans has remained stagnant for years and yet we continue to pump more liquidity in the market creating inflation that ultimately acts as a tax on those that rely most on cash. Nobody relies more on cash than the poor and destitute, black or white, red, blue or yellow; the poor all spend the green the same.

The question begs; why not try a different path to prosperity if the path that has been tried simply does not work? Why not reach out to the black population and drive home the point that over 70% of black children growing up in a single parent family home is the single biggest reason the black community faces so many challenges? This could also explain why "the wealth accumulation of the average European American family is 20 times that of the average African American family".

Why not try what China has done and encourage its population to buy gold & silver?

Why not encourage the 2nd amendment as a viable option to black on black crime statistics and show that legal gun ownership would be the biggest deterrent to black on black crime?

Why not come out and support an end to the racist drug war that puts so many black men in prison?

Are these guaranteed solutions? Of course not and I don’t know if they will solve all the problems but lets put an end to the patronization of the black community by the black leadership. Engage them like adults. Don’t just hand out a fish, show them how to fish. There is only one way to achieve prosperity and freedom and that cannot be given to you by a government; it comes from within.

'If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today."

With last weeks murder/suicide of Kansas City Chief Jovan Blecher and girlfriend Kassandra Perkins, people from all walks of life often found themselves involved in this discussion in some way shape or form. While many of the details and motives remain a mystery, one thing remains clear - guns, do not kill people, people kill people. Many in the last week that have used this tragedy as a vehicle for their own agenda regarding gun laws and gun control and to my surprise it wasnt just the usual suspects on the "left". NBC's Bob Costas used the quote in the title to lead into his viewpoints of gun ownership in the country in an NFL halftime segment in last weeks Sunday night broadcast; 24 hours after the tragedy occurred. 

Agree or disagree with Costas using a sporting event to tout his political beliefs isnt the issue i have. Anyone familiar with sports knows Costas isnt one that hates the sound of his own voice. So if anyone in sports would be ignorant or arrogant enough to wade into such a controversial issue as gun control; Costas would be the man for the job. My issue isnt with him doing so from a network that is pretty decidedly liberal when it comes to their news, after-all "Lean Forward" is not just a slogan - as a verb it quite literally means to "Progress" and "Progressive" is the new word for Liberal... thus there is no hiding that networks news affiliation.

No, my issue lies squarely on the back of this notion that taking guns out of the hands of individuals will have some type of magical impact on stopping murders. The liberal mind that is hell bent on gun control and this cockamamie idea that this tragic murder could have been prevented if Belcher did not own a firearm is absurd and its a mindset closer related to the book & movie: Minority Report, as opposed to reasoning and logic.

Jovan Belcher wasn't a felon, he wasn't known to be mentally unstable nor did he even have a record. There was nothing that could have been done to keep Mr. Belcher from owning a legal firearm and obviously there is nothing that could have been done to keep him from owning one illegally either. So the issue isnt gun control or tighter restrictions; it is obviously gun ownership... period. That is not only an attack on the 2nd amendment its also a mistake on those that advocate such; as its the road to tyranny. Taking guns out of the hands of the public will not reduce crime, if anything, it will only create more of it and a bigger black market that already exists to support it. Dont believe me, ask the government how the war on drugs is going? How did the prohibition of alcohol work out?


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report from the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Some nut can get a gun legally or illegally and nothing will stop him from executing his despicable act before it happens. Some law abiding citizen can become emotional and beat his or her significant other with a bat or use a knife or shoot them with a gun and nothing will change that, the means that are used are of ill consequence. Crimes of passion and fits of rage are human problems, its not the choice of the instrument used to carry it out that's at fault. Trying to isolate one weapon as a problem where 99% of its owners never have to use it is just plain irresponsible. Bottom line: its just not possible in an open and free society to protect everybody from themselves.  

You want to stamp out gun violence? Allow and encourage more people to carry one. Every time there is a tragedy concerning gun violence the knee jerk reaction is the guns and the access are the blame and it couldnt be any further from the truth. The reason that one gun in a crowd of people can do so much damage is that not enough law abiding citizens carry a weapon. An overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are involving one person being armed and another person not being armed. How do you make these situation less damaging? Again... allow and encourage more people to carry a firearm.

If Mr Belcher didnt own a firearm would it have prevented her death? No idea, who knows what he may have picked up or did to her with his hands... and NFL linebacker doesnt need a gun to cause bodily harm to a women. If she had been carrying would this have prevented the death of Kassandra Perkins? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is assured... it would at least bettered her odds, without question. And that is the point, its basic mathematics... guns are the great equalizer and ill use this Ronald Regan quote to kill (pardon the pun) two birds with one stone:

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all."

Department of Homeland Stasi or Security?

Lawmaker Demands DHS Cease Monitoring of Blogs, Social Media

 

Now this is rich. Here, we have a gigantic defense contractor getting a rather small (relativity 11 Million is small) contract to spy on ordinary Americans online activities regarding political topics on sites like Wired, Huffington Post, Drudge, Wikileaks etc etc. My first question after reading this was: if you are going to spy on us through an operation that focuses on social news media and blogs… why not someone from the NSA or some other agency where it could be hush hush? Well, according to the DHS director of office operations, Richard Chavez, General Dynamics possessed: “skilled technicians in surfing the web.”

Wow.

Not only has the Federal government been dumping 50+ billion dollars of year annually into DHS since 2003, it’s also the third largest cabinet department we have. You would think, that someone would be capable of “surfing the web” inside that bureaucratic wet dream, but apparently not so. That however, doesn’t surprise me. This rag tag assembly of departments is notorious for waste. Within its first five years of existence it had 15 Billion dollars worth of failed contracts; and that was by 2008! One shutters to think what that looks like now?

It is said that this program involves the monitoring of “publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards.” The most telling piece of this article however is the revelation that General Dynamics will be sifting people’s posts or words “containing anti-American sentiment and reaction to policy proposals”. I find it jaw dropping that this isn’t covered across the front page of every newspaper in the country, but privacy isnt in vogue anymore; this is why Facebook is so huge in the first place.

And with General Dynamics focusing in on the big boys (Twitter and Facebook), it appears that if SOPA and the House didn’t get the internet under the black boots; the Executive Office would do it themselves (through a sub contractor). I guess it’s only apropos then that the DHS would hire a killing machine like General Dynamics to do it.

Between Facebook and Twitter being blamed for using users personal info to sell to third partys (or "let" it just happen to be available) or having both social network sites software being used as a tool for espionage, it’s apparent that the walls are closing in on the Internets value. That, being mainly the free passage of information but a close second is/was the freedom of anonymity.

Not to be outdone, Google announced last week it will launch Screenwise, a mining tool built inside their Chrome browser that will track your every click, your every move on the net – for a handsome price (is the precursor for the RFID mass implantation or the mark of the beast?). If you choose to take part, you can receive up to $25 in a year from Amazon.com. I would be willing to bet there is a waiting list.  

I’d sell my soul, my self esteem a dollar at a time. - MJK

In defense of Obama (allow me to explain)

Let me start out by saying, that feels weird uttering out that title to myself. For those that don’t know me... I’m not a liberal, far from it. For those that do, know I would consider myself a Libertarian and Libertarianism is rooted in logic. Freedom across the board seems to be the "fairest" premise one can have in such an unfair game that is politics. With that said, I see a lot of venom spit at the President in terms of his economic approach that I don’t think is quite fair. Again, before you bitch slap your monitor - allow me to explain.

Much has been made recently about the Presidents accumulation debt. We have seen 5 Trillion added onto the 10 Trillion of national debt since he came into office in January 2009, that's no cheap date. So let there be no doubt that the spending is spiraling out of control going forward.  However, the attempt to put this on one man and his quest to outspend any president in history doesn't make him a Marxist as some would like to believe he is; it makes him a loyal solider. First a very crude and broad history.

A curious thing happened during the early 80's... GDP started to escalate as the country found itself in the midst of an economic growth period unlike anything it has seen in decades. One could point to Nixon ending Bretton Woods in the early 70's as a precursor to this expansion but that is another topic for another day. The reality was the country was booming. However, with that came enormous amounts of debt. So much so that the National debt ballooned from 1 Trillion in 1980 to 4 Trillion by 1988; so this explosion of growth came with a price tag (on a credit card).

Even though the debt was piling up as long as the economy kept building and building like it always has, there would be nothing to worry about. So the federal outlays began to climb and so did the deficits. Bill Clinton had his time to shine as being the only president in four decades to pass a balanced budget, although that was much to do because of the tech boom and the validation and explosion of a new business and platform: the Internet. Then the subsequent NASDAQ crash came in 2000, right when the economy was heading into recession.Ouch.

Then something changed. George Bush Jr was elected and began to rapidly increase spending on new entries to the budget like the Prescription drug plan (entitlements or votes) and Homeland Security (not sure what that still does to this day) while cutting taxes in the midst of a recession. Then we added two wars on two separate fronts and before you knew it we had doubled the debt from roughly 5 to 10 trillion in his eight years and oh yhea, the housing bubble bursts bringing on one of the worst financial calamities since the 30's.  And if that wasn't enough, right before his leaving of office the great recession came and wreaked havoc on our economy on all fronts (except for those at the very top) causing us to pass TARP while most taxpayers getting what amounts to a welfare check of 300-1200 Dollars from the Economic Stimulus Act.

Enter the "O" man. Right out of the gate, Mr Obama pushed through a 780+ Billion dollar stimulus bill which had much of the nation in an uproar based on the preconceived notions upon his entering of office. That stimulus act, like George Bush's before him, had large lump of tax credits worth 250 Billion, so it wasn't all spending parse. President Obama's budgets, although record setting high nominally; were in-line with the last budget of President Bush. The subsequent Obama budgets after his first were (and estimated) to be in the 3.5 to 3.7 Trillion dollar range. President Obama therefore is no bigger of a spender than President Bush if you account for the history seen below.

A large part of the deficit spending has to do with the walloping the middle class took as it affected the receipts. The last three years (2009-2011) receipts were roughly 400 billion lower then they were in all three years before (2006-2008). At the same time the outlays keep increasing. This creates tremendous deficits. But, it wasn’t like Obama came in with a blank check. In fact, Obama's first budget had actually less spending than Bush's last year in office. Obama's final budget is actually only 200 billion more than Bush's final budget (and Bush's biggest to be fair). 

So, if President Obama doubles the national debt, he will just be doing his part to continue the legacy that was put in place before him started in the early 80's by Ronald Regan. This is no disrespect to George Bush nor is this some type of vindication for Mr Obama; its simply setting the record straight. If anything, this points to a bigger problem, regardless of who sits in the oval office and its pretty straight forward. We have too many bills and not enough income. How we bridge this gap, will be the most vital national issue of the next decade. Keynesian economics appears to have reached its saturation point. We either slash spending or we dramatically raise taxes... or invent the internet again.

Dead on Arrival.. PIPA and SOPA are bleeding out before they even hit the floor

                                                        Graphic courtesy of Propublica

What a difference 24 hours makes? We are seeing firsthand just how powerful the internet has become. The petitions and blackouts virtually killed two pieces of legislation that was aimed at crimping the net's influence; in one day. It stands to reason why those in the power structure wish to blunt its effectiveness. Information is the internet. Information = Power. The powerful don't like competition, therefore we must not allow any attempts to discredit or regulate the ability for us all to have access to it.

If a man empties his purse in his head no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. - Benjamin Franklin

Black Power

Whether it was Google's black stripe across its logo or Wikipedia actually blacking out its website for 24 hours, it appears freedom has one a battle in a long war waged by the State and its "business interests" in a conquest who's prize lies in the regulating of the internet.

Many internet users were surprised to see many of the sites the come to rely on so much in their day to day activities be altered or in cases like Wikipedia - shut down in protest of the legislation on the hill that threatens one of the key caveats of the net: anonymity.

That surly led to outrage, as users were directed by sites like Wikipedia to their local elected leaders of the House and Senate via their zip codes. I myself couldn't pass up on the opportunity to tell Mike Kelly, my Representative to the House just what i thought about HR 3261 (SOPA); and i did just that (thank you Wikipedia).

His office was rather cagey when asked of the Congressman's support for SOPA. Just introduced on October 26 2011, and being that its only in Committee, I was not sure where Mr Kelly would weigh in either way. He was not a co-sponsor and there was no vote and a Google search turned up... nothing. That's what his office basically told me... nothing: "we have no comment either way".

According to SOPA Track, Mr Kelly has received $101K from Pro-SOPA interests compared to $29K from Anti-SOPA interests. There has been online petitions with millions of signatures...4.5 million in Googles alone according to Forbes. In just days, eighteen Senators have tucked tail and dropped support due to the public firestorm, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds on a national level and in my case with Mr Kelly; the local as well.

Its a view that usually goes unnoticed, being the people vs big business and the representatives caught in the middle with their pants down. I, like many sit in eager anticipation to see where loyalties and convictions lie.

Ron Paul surging in South Carolina

Kevin Kervick, Manchester Independent Examiner

You may not read about it in the manistream press or see it on television but Ron Paul is surging in South Carolina.

According to the statistical average at the New York Times poll crunching blog 538, compiled by analyst Nate Silver, Congressman Paul is running third in South Carolina. Of all the candidates, Congressman Paul has the greatest forward momentum. Paul is rallying in all of the South Carolina polls released after the New Hampshire Primary, in which Paul finished a strong second place. In one poll, from the American Research Group, Congressman Paul has gained eleven points since their last poll was taken on January 5th. In the PPP poll, Paul gained six points and former Senator Santorum dropped five points in one week. In the Rasmussen poll, Congressman Paul is up five points and Santorum is down eight points since last week.

Another factor that is contributing to the optimism of Ron Paul's supporters is his surprising over-performance relative to the polls taken right before the New Hampshire Primary. Congressman Paul had an average poll rating of 17.5 percent in New Hampshire on the morning of the Primary. He finished with almost 23 percent of the vote, a five percentage point discrepancy. Each of the other candidates finished close to his final polling average in New Hampshire. This suggests that some pollsters may be under-polling demographic groups that are coming out strong for Congressman Paul.

The weekend talk shows are focusing on the conflict between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, and Senator Santorum's endorsement from a group of Evangelical Christian leaders. As usual, mainstream writers and political commentators are ignoring a big story - Ron Paul is running a terrific campaign and is seeing his support grow significantly in South Carolina.

Republicans Money(ball) problem

Its often said that Ron Paul has no chance to capture the nomination, and its said so much by so many people in all types of media that there is no need to rehash it. We get it. He is too old, too kooky, to outside of the mainstream and his delivery and appearance isn’t presidential enough.

Every time I hear Ron Paul doesn’t have the appearance to become elected President much less elected the Republican nomination I always think of the quote from the book Moneyball. Right before the amateur draft the GM and his scouts are in a room debating players. Oakland A’s GM Billy Bean is squabbling back and forth with a typical player with an older scout, who finally just says the player doesn’t have the body to be a ballplayer.

Frustrated Beane tells his scouts: “ we're not selling jeans here”.

The book Moneyball is a lot like the current GOP. It’s a good ‘ol boy network of establishment brand names vetted by the press and by the power structure that’s calls itself the RNC. It’s the party of Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. It’s the party that panders to big business and social conservatives or basically anyone that will guarantee groups of people who will be pulling Republican levers down come election days. And lest not be confused, it’s not limited to Republicans. The Democrat’s establishment is just as guilty if not more. You see, the Republican establishment only has one network pandering to it.

Appearance is everything. Content is only credible if it is sellable. With that said, you can get people like Romney or Rick Perry to be in the spotlight. Rick Perry, much like Newt Gingrich is a career politician and both are without question RINO’s. Even Perry at one point was an elected Democrat before he “seen the light”, conveniently after he voted for a 5.7 Billion dollar tax increase in the Texas State legislature. But that doesn’t matter. They are egotistical maniacs who will do whatever a focus group tells them to do that make them look favorable in way or another. Perry might not be so much like this, but he has Jesus on his side, so that works too... that’s sellable.

What about Mitt Romney? If there is anyone that is more fallible to waffling, it’s the Mitt. Nobody has been for more after he was against it. Hes a wet dream for the RNC and Fox and whoever else likes a happy meal - Manchurian candidate. He is good looking, articulate, from Big business and has lots of well connected friends. Mitt has always and will continue to be the golden boy of the establishment Republicans and you cant fault them for that. He’s the ideal company man, the good - trusty servant. But he doesn’t serve your interests, he serves their interests.

That’s where this gets interesting. The book Moneyball was based around new versus old ideas. Modern technology versus the naked eye. That’s exactly what is happening in the Republican Party as we speak. We are seeing the old players; the Limbaughs and the Romneys and Bushes and John MCains of the country vehemently oppose the most conservative man not only in congress but in any federal branch of government for that matter. Because it petrifies them, they might not understand it, why they discount him but its simple. Their brand will be toast. They will not be as viable.

Ron Paul wants to put an end to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. He wants to shrink big government. Everything he wants to do is for freedom. That is republicanism at its core. With a limited government why raise taxes or fight endless wars? If you have a limited government how can you attempt to control and govern morality? You can’t. So if government has less control then that means someone has more and they don’t want that. Give the power back to the electorate; after all the work to strip them of that power? Dig in Mr Paul because if these tired, token and cyclical racists’ newsletters from the early 90’s are any indication; you’re going to get the kitchen sink.

(sigh) And the song remains the same...

Mark Sanford was becoming a lot of people’s dark horse candidate to run for the highest office in the land in 2012 and that was including myself (save Ron Paul of course). He was young; he was articulate, steadfast on his principals and just had the look of a president. He was the most fiscal conservative in any executive office in the country and he was also a guy with a proven track record and it was one that would be a good elixir for what not only plagues Washington, but government at every level in today’s world of easy credit and pay later (much later) climate. With all that said, last week’s revelation of his secret getaway has pretty much put the saber to the throat of his anticipated entrance into the 2012 election.

Now, if he was a Democrat, the result would be about the same, especially considering the unusual circumstances of his disappearing act. But it always stings a little more if you’re a Republican in this type of scandal, because they happen to be the party who wants to keep things as is, as opposed to how they are becoming. They are the ones who have a strict guideline on whom should and who should not be married.

It’s the Republicans that want to hold their ground on an issue that only pertains to less then 2% of the populous (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The same can be said about abortion and may other medical and social issues that have no place in the debate at the federal level.

The real problem here lies in this incessant urge for bureaucrats and politicians on either side of the isle to be involved with social engineering at the federal level. It is this behavior, more so then any other is what is responsible for the division that exists in the country today. You have the PC crowd on the left who attempts to strip down the individual thus concentrating more on the unit as a whole, as opposed to the right with their fire and brimstone and close-mindedness on behaviors and issues they simply cannot win on nor stop. This is a key reason why the politics of today and yesterday have ultimately buried the ideas we will need to mine for tomorrow.

Isn’t it about time the Conservatives take a good look at themselves as a whole and become a party of ideas rather then a party of hypocrisy and pettiness? Because when you’re the party that is supposed to represent the “moral majority” and be the one party with a “focus on the family” you better also be walking a tight rope when it comes to the very moral issues you so vehemently speak out against. This is clearly not the case for not only Mark Sanford but for many other Republicans with egg on their face.

Recent history has shown that being one party affiliation or another doesn't shield you away form the enemy that lies in all of us… and that is: to err is human.

This is not the party of Barry Goldwater, therefore something evolved and in doing so something naturally devolved. What has evolved is the social conservatives with their self appointed monopoly on morality. Its no coincidence with the forming of the Focus on the Family (1977) and the Christian Coalition (1987) things began to rapidly change as far as what pillars were worth building and which were worth letting crumble. As these voter driven organizations grew they became heavily intertwined into Republican politics often graying what republicanism actually was.

What had devolved was the commitment to limit spending/ cut taxes and keeping the states off the federal tit and allowing them to govern themselves. Look at NCLB, the Prescription health care plan, and the overall massive increases in spending over the last 30 years. These are hardly ideas that will limit spending.

Oh sure, Republicans still cut taxes, but when you spend as they have, all your really doing is pushing those savings from tax cuts onto future generations who will be required to pay the bills. This is done with all the borrowing which in turn created debt (and subsequent interest) needed to close the gaps on all the budget deficits they ran (I should also mention inflation, which is also taxation). Not Reagan nor Bush 1 or W can claim to be a fiscal conservative and outside of the Congress of ’94, neither can Congress during this time span.

And that is why Republicans find themselves in the mess they are in today. Sure, we could cherry pick names of Republicans involved in scandal over the last twenty years and they might have more cases the Democrats, but that isn’t what really the problem is. The problem lies in the rhetoric.

The Democrats aren’t using the badge of morality as a vehicle to garner votes. They are socially more progressive then their counterparts, and with that stark contrast, they don’t garner the headlines like Republicans when they do have scandal, because after all, they are supposed to be immoral, they are supposed to be the reason for the social decay on the country. They are also not cutting taxes and thus they are expanding government. Thus they are who they say they are. The Republicans, have a serious case of personality disorder, and its no easy fix.

If Republicans are the party of ideas and are really interested in freedom then they must rebuild the pillars of a small government. That means limiting spending and not when it politically convenient to do so (ie when a democrat holds the White House). This also means that freedom also comes with its warts. People are going to make mistakes and people are also not going to want to live exactly how you do or how you expect them to do.

Thus gay marriage or abortion or school prayer can’t be the cornerstone of your voting preference or the platform for election. It does nobody any good for someone to tell them what the sanctity of marriage is and who is allowed to play when they cant follow nor understand sanctity themselves. It also does nobody any good to abort a marriage 2 or 3 times then tell someone else they cant abort a fetus from their own body. Its not only hypocritical it’s also unwinnable. You can’t win votes with these types of debates. It’s a losing battle everytime. Now, if the goal is to NOT win and become a dated relic ala the wigs… then keep the continue.