Why Liberty

I wanted to share this article. I won't pretend to have written it, but I will point out that, though written in 1927, it is ever true today as it was then.

Why Liberty?

By H. L. Mencken

These are dark and atrabilious days for liberty in the republic. No one seems to be in favor of it any more - no one, that is, save a few old fashioned members of the American Civil Liberties Union, hired for the hellish purpose by the executors of the late Lenin. Officially, ir is obviously under the ban. Congress takes frightful hacks at it at every session, the courts give the noble business their instantaneous imprimatur, and the chief energies of the executive department are consecrated to carrying it on.

To speak of liberty, indeed, becomes a kind of indecorum. In not a few states there are actually laws against it: in all states save one or two it is growing risky.All government, of course, is against liberty. It might almost be defined as a conspiracy against the very idea of the thing. The aim of three-fourths of the men engaged in governing the rest of us is to make us do what we don't want to do - in other words, to reduce and decrease our liberties. In certain fieldsthat endeavor meets with very little resistance, even from liberty loving men. Most of us are willing to obey the traffic policeman, if only to escape death at the hands of some other driver. Practically all of us consent readily to the laws against murder and robbery.

A few of us even consent to the laws regulating such things as marriage, radio, the carrying of pistols, and the keeping of dogs.But there are also fields in which resistance is very widespread, and the conflict between the government and the free citizen thus becomes plain.

Not many men, at least among the sane, pay taxes willingly. Not many men, save those who are conscientious teetotalers, view with much equanimity the current outrages of the blacklegs of prohibition. And not many men, save the illiterate, find themselves happy under the censorships which now rage everywhere.

It is precisely in these fields, as every one knows, that government tends to be the most enterprising and pugnacious. And it is precisely in these fields that liberty is most valuable to the citizen.

Its destruction has gone so far in America that the formal enthusiasm for it has begun to cool. That enthusiasm, indeed, survives only as a sheaf of hollow phrases. They are mouthed on the floor of congress by party hacks who no longer believe in them, and now and then they get into a presidential message, a newspaper editorial, or some other such exercise in buncombe, but they no longer have any living reality. No one expects any more to see them translated into concrete laws; they have become transcendental, and hence, meaningless.

Not long ago we fought a war in their name, but all the while that war was going on the American people submitted to such invasions of their everyday liberties as would have set their fathers to arson and murder.Among the powers that actually run the American government as distinguished from the agents who merely execute their decrees, there is heard no gabble about liberty. The Anti-Saloon league is frankly against it, and so is the Methodist board of temperance, prohibition and public morals, and so is every chamber of commerce in the land.

The learned periodicals that Mr. Babbitt reads do not argue that we ought to have more liberty; they argue that we ought to have less. When the thing actually rears its battered head, they denounce it as license, and shove it down again. It is now license in the United States for a free citizen to choose what he shall drink at his own table. It is license, in the view of the postoffice, for him to select the books for his own library. It is license, in many states, for him to protest against these oppressions.

By this new theory, already translated into practice, liberty is desired only by undesirable persons. The good citizen, it appears, is glad to be rid of it. He prefers to have his drinks chosen by the Hon. Wayne B. Wheeler and his books by the Hon. Horace J. Donnelly, the gifted solicitor to the postoffice. When his head begins to buzz with subversive ideas, he is glad to have a policeman come 'round and beat him back into normalcy.

I am not arguing that there is nothing in this new doctrine. The freeborn Americano, in truth, begins to show an immense and appalling capacity for submitting to such dragooning. He is taught in school that he has more liberty than any other man on earth, but as soon as he is graduated he forgets it. Once a gay and bellicose goat, leaping from crag to crag and emitting defiant cries, he is now a docile goosestepper, marching as the cops order. It would be as hard to imagine him taking up arms against his constituted herdsmen and exploiters as it would be to imagine him sprouting wings. He is well trained.Nevertheless, I have a feeling that his old love of liberty is not actually dead, but only sleeping. He submits like a worm today, but on some fair tomorrow, perhaps not far distant, he may rear up and begin to roar like a lion. After all, as Senator James A. Reed - the last surviving believer in genuine liberty! - once said, it is difficult to teach a people that they are free for a century and a half, and then convince them in a few years that they are and ought to be slaves.

Liberty is caged, but its shibboleths still circulate. Some day the plain folk of the republic may suddenly decide to take them seriously again. If they ever do, there will be catastrophic changes in our laws. The theory that the citizen is fair game for the government - that it is perfectly all right to squeze as much as possible out of him, and to tie him up as tightly as possible - will be abandoned, and there will be substitutedthe elder theory that the government is his servant. He will find himself wandering in a new and strange world. No one will have any authority to inferfere with his conduct, so long as it presents no dangers to other men. Not a dollar will be taken out of his pockets save what is absolutely necessary to serve him and protect him. No one will be told off to inspect him, cross-examine him, shadow him, pigeonhole him, rubber stamp him. He will cease to be a subject, and become a citizen again.

I dream, of course, of Utopia. It would be pleasant to see all these things happen, but no man living will ever do it. We are in the midst of a cycle of strong governments, and they will probably increase their strength before it begins to decline. The great wars that loom ahead will circumscribe and diminish liberty even more than the last one did. The movement to that end is going on even now, with peace still upon us. At the close of the last war the free citizen of the republic was at least at liberty to move about as he pleased.

But recent decisions of the Supreme court in prohibition cases have begun to condition that liberty, and legislation to take it away altogether is already proposed. It is my belief, here expressed with all due caution and humility, that all this is evil. I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air -- that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value.

I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.Liberty in itself, to be sure, cannot bring in the millennium. It cannot abolish the inherent weaknesses of man - an animal but lately escaped from the jungle. It cannot take the place of intelligence, courage, honor.

But the free man is at least able to be intelligent, courageous and honorable if the makings are in him. Nothing stands in the way of his highest functioning. He may go as far as nature intended him to go, and maybe a step or two beyond. Free, he may still be dull, timorous and untrustworthy. He may be shiftless and worthless. But it will not be against his will; it will not be in spite of himself. Free, he will be able to make the most of every virtue that is actually in him, and he will live and die under the kind of government that he wants and deserves.

The Chicago Sunday Tribune, 30 January 1927

Judicial Discretion

One of the often goaded yet often forgotten issues of campaigns for President revolve around the possibility of judicial appointments. What sort of judges will Senator Obama appoint? And what sort will Senator McCain?

Most Americans believe that the court system must protect all citizens from undue encroachement of laws. Courts strike down legislation that appears to violate our United States Constitution, and legal officials make due deference to the document when they make their arguments.

"It is unconstitutional..." we hear in reference to a multutude of issues. The DC Gun ban that was recently struck down. The ruling on the detainment of foreign prisoners in Gitmo.

These are only two very recent examples of the court declaring a law or action unconstitutional by referring to principles placed in our founding document, the constitution.

Arguments against often appeal to "our better angels" or the judge's own sense of fairness and justice. Gun laws exist to protect citizens and we must ask what will we do when guns are allowed to be in our nation's Capital at the doorstep of the White House? Without the capacity to hold and question our nation's enemies, how can we afford them access to our judicial system without guarantee that they will not be released on some judicial technicality with glaring evidence convicting them? (Hell, OJ got off, right?)

So, when looking for a judge, we must ask that they make due deference to our founding document and rely on our judicial system to make judgements based on the same principles - limited government, protection of the fundamental freedoms we so firmly believe in.

And yet...

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what
is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of
McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness,
while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

How is it acceptable to ignore the Constitution when making judgements on our laws and cases and defer instead to our Judge's sentiments? Isn't that the very thing Liberals rail against with Judicial appointments and how they suppose they would respond to a Roe v. Wade situation? What does it say about Republicans, who would encourage judicial authorities to use the constitution to determine their rulings and discourage legislating from the bench? What does it say when only 29% of Obama supporters would encourage that?

Legislating from the bench is when judges go further than determining a law violation - they create their own law. It's about setting a precedent that isn't simply appealing to a law, it creates a law in and of itself. When people defend abortion, they look to Roe v. Wade as upholding it - not a federal law, not even a state law.

This isn't to say that judicial precedent set my legislating from the bench is bad - sometimes it's ended up being very good for our country. See these cases below:

· Korematsu v. United States (1944) – the Court upheld the Japanese Internment under an Equal Protection Clause challenge. The Court’s decision was based upon Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), where the Court employed judicial deference toward the government’s judgments about the danger posed by Japanese-Americans and the necessity of the Internment.

· Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – the Court held that separate but equal school facilities violated the Equal Protection Clause. This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a precedent of nearly 60 years. It had a radical effect on the law in many states.

· Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – held that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment shall be excluded from evidence at trial. The “exclusionary rule,” originally devised by the Court in Weeks v. United States (1914), is now the primary way that the Fourth Amendment is enforced. It is not mentioned at all in the text of the Fourth Amendment.

· New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – the Court required that public officials suing others for defamation must prove actual malice – a requirement that was not previously in the defamation torts. This radically altered the defamation torts of libel and slander which had existed for centuries.

· Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – the Court struck down a law restricting contraceptives as violating the constitutional “right to privacy.” The right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but the Court held that it could be inferred by reading several of the rights in the Bill of Rights in combination.

· Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – the Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires that a defendant be informed of his rights before being subjected to custodial interrogation. The Fifth Amendment does not explicitly say this; the Court held that the clause prohibiting being forced to incriminate oneself required that defendants be warned about waiving their rights before being questioned.

· Katz v. United States (1967) – the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protected against electronic eavesdropping even though it was carried out without a physical trespass into the home, dramatically reversing Olmstead v. United States (1928), a case decided nearly 40 years before.

· New York Times v. United States (1971) – the Court held that the government could not impose a prior restraint upon the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The Court refused to defer to the government’s claim that the release of the Pentagon Papers would jeopardize national security.

Lest we forget, there's even the more recent decision involving Gitmo and the Bush Administration. These decisions can go both ways - both sides legislate from the bench!

The issue, for me at least, is truly about the role of each branch. Now perhaps the argument could be that there is no consensus in the legislative branch to come to a conclusive agreement on such an issue... and maybe that's valid. But is it constitutional?

Guess we'll wait. Pretty sure niether one of our candidates wouldn't pick judges who would defer to their "moral judgement" over the law.

Why They Hate Sarah's Pro-Life Stance

Liberals, and truly the social liberals and atheists of the Democratic party, simply can't stand Governor Sarah Palin. Their first attack was aimed at the most helpless of her family - little Trig Palin, barely five months old.

What they distrust is more than simple politics. I won't address their newest complaints here, some of which are valid, some of which are distorted, some of which are flat out lies. (Read as hiring a lobbyist for Wasilla, asking a librarian to remove certain books, and cutting special education spending. Valid, distortion, LIE.)

Pro-choice people don't understand a fundamental belief of many pro-lifers. I'm not talking the anti-abortion pro-lifers, who would typically cave in cases of incest, rape, or life-of-the-mother situations. I'm speaking to the true, core pro-lifers. What they see, and rail against, is the unyielding commitment to the lives of the unborn - regardless of health, method of conception, or potential for a normal standard of life.

What they don't see... is why.

Consider the issue from the no-holds-bar pro-lifer. They truly believe life begins at conception. They lament that "anyone who has bought a condom knows where life begins." (So said Peggy Noonan in her weekly WSJ Opinion Article.) And what would it mean, if you were told tomorrow that it had been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, no question at all, that life began at conception. In that situation, would you support abortion? If not, you see why pro-lifers of this sort are so adamant.

Truly believing life begins at conception means there is no middle ground. It means that the manner of conception cannot determine the value of a life. It means that aborting a baby on the basis of a mental or physical defect is not the condemnation pro-choicers would have you believe, and it means that the life you could have is invariably better than having no life at all. It stands for the ultimate commitment to the sanctity of life.

It is from this vantage point that pro-lifers who are truly angered at Roe v. Wade and other movements to allow for unlimited, or even limited, abortions view their challenge.

It is from this vantage point they see 40 million children murdered with the blessing of the state.

The beauty of Sarah Palin is she has lived her convictions of being unabashedly pro-life. She didn't abort a down syndrome child. And when her daughter became pregnant, despite her surely addressing the potential consequences of having sex before preparation to have a child to Bristol, she accepted it and swore to support her daughter throughout the following months. That is living your convictions. That is walking your talk.

Before you question the mental capacity of the pro-life crowd, realize why they believe what they do. And have some respect.

The "Real" Truth about Sarah Palin

The MSM is not happy.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/palin-ratings-s.html

Check out the viewership of Sarah Palin's speech! Almost reaches Obama's! Looks like America likes the new types.

Anyway, what I found most pertinent issue of which to inform my readership, small though it may be, was that the link in the article above attempting to challenge the "fact checking" of Sarah Palin's speech, links directly to:

http://perezhilton.com/2008-09-04-sarah-palins-speech-full-of-lies

That's right. Perez Hilton. Clearly a wonderful source. Well done, MSM!

I think the link the attempted to attach was the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

Ah, there we go.

The first complaint is that Sarah Palin disses the Bridge to Nowhere when she initially supported it and when Alaska has been the biggest pork state in the country. What they fail to mention is that Governor Palin has gone to extraordinary links to reduce state spending.

She spent a fifth of the travel expenses as her predecessor, who she deposed in the primary before dispensing of the Democratic candidate. (http://www.aksuperstation.com/home/17397909.html)

She asked Alaskans to have a say in the budget through her Voices Across Alaska initiative. (http://www.aksuperstation.com/home/11725896.html) Far be it for the federal government to ask you what priorities are when it comes to spending....

That's just the beginning.

Second, they refute her claim that he's authored two books on himself and no pieces of legislation by showing he "cosponsored" many pieces of legislation.

Well... yay? Try this for a fact check - how many did McCain sponsor and how many did he cosponsor? How about Biden even? And hey lookie there... how about Sarah Palin with her legislative initatives and leadership as Governor?

Really awful attempt at "refuting" her argument. The man has done nothing but speak and write books about his favorite subject - himself.

I love this one, so I need to quote it directly:

"PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise
income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise."

So what they're claiming, essentially, is that he's not raising taxes. Except it says right there he is. Do you know how many small businesses make more than $250,000 a year? Most small businesses are classified as S Corporations, partnerships, limited liability corporations (LLCs), or sole proprietorships, not as corporations. This means they report their businesses essentially under the individual tax rate. This hits 21.6 million people alone. And you think that won't matter to small businesses?

Obama IS planning on raising taxes - like the capital gains tax. Never mind that over half of the citizens of this great nation own stock and would see this tax rise on their earnings in the market. Apparently we'd rather discount that.

They then hit McCain for his claims about being the largest state and that she controls the largest oil supply. They're right to point out Alaska is only the largest geographically, and that it's technically second to Texas in oil production. Yet that counts offshore. Ground based drilling, Alaska definitely takes the cake.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in
charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary
responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge
of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called
to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which
means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's
national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest
of state guard organizations.

You know what's funny? She went to Kuwait and Iraq to visit the troops, the National Guard of Alaska who had been deployed. She did it before Obama and she's done it as many times as Obama.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's
election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden
dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes
in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the
2008 presidential primaries.

Ok, that's legit. Yay reporters! You got one! I still think its funny she has more constituents in Alaska who approve of her than Howard Dean had in Vermont who approved of his performance. Psh. And he's running the DNC!

Although, on this note, in his home state he only received 2, 863 votes. Not all that far off, actually. And fewer people turned out (cuz let's face it, hardly anyone votes anymore...)

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from
a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for
every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government
liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A
Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been
president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled
Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the
House and Senate.

What's not being said here is how liberal George W. Bush has been. His attempt at compassionate conservative used government when conservatives would have used private industry and igenuity. He increased spending on Education by 47%, on Healthcare by 42%, and on the economy by Lordy knows how much with his tax cuts, credits, and stimulus checks. Hello! It's not conservative to spend and nation build! That was the Democrats and then their own President Clinton. Problem is, we learned on multiple occasions how this doesn't work.

Sarah Palin and John McCain are much more thrifty and fiscally conscious than thos before them. I do worry about Sarah selling off Air Force Two. She cut her own salary as Mayor, fired the personal chef in the Governor's office, and sold the Alaskan state jet on ebay. Well done! Talk about putting the people first!

There's my two cents. You get what you pay for! ;)

Sarah Palin

First of all, let me say I'm appalled at the maturity of our political system and our media pundits right now. Absolutely disgraceful the way they are covering this campaign. Doesn't matter which side. From National Enquirer's Edwards story to the US Weekly cover on Sarah Palin this week.

Grow the EFF up.

On to more substantial matters...

I'm so tired of hearing the "she's not experienced enough" argument against Sarah Palin.

For one, let's chit chat in depth about this.

Her state of Alaska has been called too small to understand the vastness of the mainlaind United States.

In truth, Alaska has 50,000 more consitituents than Howard Dean's Vermont and only 180,000 fewer than Joseph Biden's Delware. All are considerably less than Arizona's 6.3 million who John McCain has served for 26 years (though only 20 as Senator), and Illinois' 12.8 million who Barack Obama has served for... are we on 3 now? Almost 4? Right.

Our nation is not made up of big cities. In fact, there are only 262 cities with populations over 100,000 (read as a bit less than 1/6th of Alaska's population). And there are far more Americans who will consider running a bureacracy of only 50 to be more difficult than serving as 1 of 100.

So can we get back to talking about her record? What bills were brought to her attention that she stated an opinion on rather than voting "present." Let's talk about the dedication to the Alaskan people by continuing her duties as Governor while dealing with the challenges of raising a special needs son and while watching her eldest son grow to be a man and leave for war in a foreign nation.

What strength and what character she shows doing that. Women can do it all.

We're told we can't. We're told we're sold a bill of goods that we simply can't achieve. Can everyone achieve it? No. Can some against all odds? Yes.

So why are we so skeptical when someone does?

Back to the larger point. Sarah Palin bucked her own party establishment. She ran as a small town mayor against an incumbent within her own party for the highest office in the state, and then went on to defeat a former governor from the other party in the general election. That takes more balls than most men out there could dream of having. To battle one's own party throughout an election and go on to win? Spectacular.

Secondly, Barack Obama has equated his leadership of his own campaign as better than Palin's experience as Mayor. Sigh. Sometimes naivete astounds me.

Running a campaign is nothing like running a government of any level. Period. Your campaign has run smooth as butter, like clockwork, and I certainly commend you, Mr. Obama, for that. That's wonderful and is a great testament to your ability to start an equivelent of a business, or perhaps even a brand new town!... but the White House? You actually think running a grassroots campaign will give you the skills you need, or prove you have what it takes, to run any type of government bureaucracy?

Let's remember that as a campaign "manager" or "head," whichever you prefer, you are leading a staff of 2,500 who are all working towards a common goal. They are working 80 hours a week to elect you and see you become President.

Cities, States, and certainly the Country itself, will not be so cooperative. Competing ideas, goals, ideologies are all at stake. The more pressing matter is priorities. On a campaign, the priority is to get someone elected... it can vary from cubicle to cubicle in a government office. Try running a campaign where half your people are supporting John McCain and you have a game. (Hillary doesn't count. She wants the same government control you do.)

Don't get me too wrong here. I like Barack Obama. I even kinda like Joe Biden. They're interesting and honorable characters. Not the same can be said about some of their buddies on Daily Kos or with MoveOn... but I digress. Good guys, but I disagree on major policy issues.

Education is one. I would like to see more discussion on School Choice and even more on teacher compensation (which he does favor and discuss based upon time teaching... not on quality or student performance.) Quite a big difference between teachers honestly. I went to a public school - a great one! But there were teachers who were older who I learned very little from, and some that were younger from whom I learned a great deal. It should be based on student performance - not teacher tenure. (That's the Teacher's Union talking in his "plan"...)

I'd like some more details on his $4,000 tax credit for college. I'm all for it if we can afford it. And I certainly like the idea to simplify the FAFSA. Thank goodness someone's sayin it!

But he doesn't talk about School Choice. What do we do in the meantime while he works on getting these done? What do we do as parents to get our children a good education while we wait for his "plans" to kick in or pass Congress?

On Energy. Why NOT use all options? Why not harness the oil industry to support things like natural gas exploration and domestic fuel production WHILE we invest in renewables so that we can also have RELIABLES in the meantime? Why will he not sit down with energy executives and try to understand the challenges the energy industry is facing and will face in the future? We need energy that is clean, cheap, and American. Unfortunately, right now, we get two at a time. I for one will go cheap and American on our way to clean, cheap and American.

Oh dear. This should be fun!

Tata for now.

The Democrats "Monopoly" Scam

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/153493.html

Howard Dean ought to be ashamed of himself. Absolutely disgraceful. And here I was beginning to think maybe the Dems COULD transcend the old politics. I was actually liking Obama and the Democratic party - certainly not all of them, and not without massive reservations on many of their policy proposals - but more than I like my own party right now.

I haven't been happy with how McCain and the RNC have been conducting campaigns. They're making the same mistakes I hated about the 2006 blowout.

We're missing something key. This campaign IS about President Bush and about the way the Republicans have run the government. We have not done it well. I won't even come close to pretending we have. Frivilous spending is up, the middle class is being eaten alive, companies are rapidly moving their workforces and products overseas, our energy supply falls victim to even the smallest of shocks, small businesses are struggling, our government has been running in the red for years, illegal immigrants are being defended instead of deported, and there really isn't an end in sight for us.

Don't get me wrong. I love this country and I have absolutely zero doubt in our ability as a people and a nation to rise again. I, like President Reagan, refuse to believe we can't survive all of this and be better off for it. Consider this:

"They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where — because of our past excesses — it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true. I don't believe that. And, I don't believe you do either. That is why I am seeking the presidency. I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself. "

-- Ronald Reagan

Nevertheless, I have lost a great deal of faith in my party to act conservatively. I think they have bastardized and hijacked my party towards all the wrong issues and stances. And then they act as though it was the Democrats who screwed them up.

The Dems have many issues, and they have been wrong on numerous occasions and I have never hestitated to point that out, but the GOP has done America wrong in many instances. We should not be defending the current healthcare system. We should not be defending companies who refuse to hire Americans - nor should we discourage foreign companies to come and hire the American worker. We have talented and thrifty people in this country. The best in the world. We should not be defending pharamceutical companies who spend the majority of their budget on advertising and then charge Americans twice as much for the drugs. We should be allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies for Medicare - in this case they would have to work within the market rather than the market within government. Isn't that the point??!?

WHERE did fiscal conservatism go? - Our spending is out of control for us to expect to cut revenue.

WHERE did individual responsibility go? - Our legislators should be held accountable.

WHERE did the strength of the American entrepreneur get thrown overboard? - Our small business owners need our help.

WHERE did the middle class go? - We have a problem.

And WHY are we ok with it?

Anyway, that's my rant on why I've become much more disheartened by the Republican party, but it does not excuse the actions of a Mr. Howard Dean.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

Key points you may not know:

1. "It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. "

2. "Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King."

3. "Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs."

4. "Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation."

5. "Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that N*gger preacher.""

So how DARE you Mr. Dean, claim that your party does more for minorities than Republicans.

Colin Powell - First black Secretary of State A REPUBLICAN
Condoleeza Rize - Second black Secretary of State A REPUBLICAN
Hiram Rhodes Revels - First black Senator (1870) A REPUBLICAN
Bobby Jindal - First Indian decent Governor - REPUBLICAN

And of course I could go on but I'm at work and I'm going to get in trouble but I was fired up and angry.

The Republicans screwed up, no doubt. But the sanctimonious lies from the Democratic party are just as dispicable.

Mr. Dean, you should be ashamed. I am DISGUSTED with you. You act as though supporting Barack Obama gets you political points and that makes you the "non-white" party, but who wouldn't like the man? He's eloquent, spotless, inexperienced, and didn't vote on contentious issues and has great policy ideas... though potentially no ability to put them in place.

If I were you Mr. Obama, I would tell Mr. Dean to shut the hell up. You're supposed to be above this. Might want to get your ducks in line behind you.

Jack A. Weil

Back in January, I wrote about Jack B. Weil, friend, mentor, and pseudo-grandfather. Today I have learned that Jack B.'s father, Jack A. Weil, has passed.

While there are many thoughts I can share - the mental acuity of the old man lasting well into his final weeks, the reckless abandon with which he pursued his business, and the dedication he showed to his friends and family - I don't know that I could ever properly capture the character or spunk of the old man. He was that incredible.

My favorite Papa Jack line:

“Papa Jack, what’s the key to living this long? I should probably ask before I spend too many years doing the wrong thing.”

“Well ... don’t die.”

Pretty sound advice if you ask me. He was certainly the icon Denver recognizes each year by renaming his street, but he was so much more.

Instead of sharing my own memories, I thought I'd put the links to a few stories in various papers from across the years of Jack. You'll enjoy it. I know.

http://www.westword.com/2001-03-15/news/true-romance/1
From Jack's 100th Birthday.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/14/oldest-working-ceo-jack-weil-dies-at-107/
Rocky Mountain News, August 14, 2008

http://cfapp2.rockymountainnews.com/photos/index.cfm?xml=/photos/slideshows/081308weil/081308weil.xml
Wonderful picture reel.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/multimedia/03282007_weil_45820/
106th Birthday Audio Slideshow

Wikipedia him, too. You know you've hit it big when Wikipedia knows you exist.

Miss you, Papa Jack! And thanks for teaching me how to live.