Spring elections are near and new proposals requiring voter ID for future elections could possibly begin sooner than expected in Wisconsin.

Next week the Wisconsin State Senate Committee on Transportation and Elections is holding a public hearing on Senate Bill 6. This bill, as noted in the committee hearing notice, would require certain photo identification in order to vote in Wisconsin.  Currently, Wisconsin does not have this requirement. 

Groups are already lining up to testify in support or against Senate Bill 6.  If we want to have true participation in our government it is the responsibility of the people of Wisconsin, and across the country, to contact their elected officials and voice your opinion on bills before them. 

Take time to investigate what your elected officials are doing.  Use resources to see what is on the calendar for the State Assembly or Senate.  Information is also available on how to contact your State Representative or Senator.

Voter fraud is not a new phenomenon.  In fact, in Wisconsin the Attorney General has filed charges and sentenced individuals who were supposed to be registering new voters.  Voice your opinion about whether or not you believe voter ID should be passed in this state.

Our state needs to have an engaged citizenry that follows closely what its state and local governments are doing.  The elected officials need to hear from their constituents. It is time to hold them accountable and have your voice heard.

As one of my mentors, Dr. Larry Arnn, is fond of saying, “A thing is good when it performs the purpose for which it was made.” A chair you can’t sit in or a gun that won’t shoot straight fail that test. So does a guard dog that won’t bark at bad guys.

Being a guard dog is an interesting job. He stands apart from the world around him in a John Wayne-esqe manner. His demeanor is informed by a constant awareness of his primary purpose: alarm and defense. Any other role he may fill is secondary to that of guardianship. Failing to raise the alarm or defend his charge are not forgivable offenses.

Here’s the thing about being a being a guard dog: your decision to bark or defend isn’t based on pragmatism or the number of attackers; it is solely based on the presence of danger. I borrowed this metaphor from David Smith who went on to say that, “A K9 watchdog is never expected to be able to beat every enemy that comes to the house. If the robber has a gun the watchdog will lose — and become a family legend.”

As conservative activists we are political guard dogs. This means that we hold people accountable. Like canine guardians, we watch for danger and upon discovery we move to the offense, barking like hell is upon us. We won’t always win but the idea of remaining silent should revolt us.

In Texas we just finished the race for Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was one of those times when the barking dogs took a bullet. Not unlike the Democrats during the HCR debates, liberal Republicans thumbed their noses at their constituents’ clear demands. Whether a similar electoral judgment day is on the horizon stands as an open question.

While there was a decent degree of grassroots unity in calling for a more conservative Speaker, I have been sorely disappointed in the reaction from many individuals and groups since the vote was taken. It’s a chronic problem among conservatives when dealing with political leadership elections. We win elections then exert little weight in leadership fights and quickly forget about the outcome, when we bother to involve ourselves at all.

In the end, leadership elections are treated as inconsequential when in reality they stand among the most important votes cast during a legislative session.

So what do you do if the good guys lose a leadership fight? The answer has two words: Primary Elections. Am I saying that candidates should be running against the incumbents based on this one vote? Possibly. We sure thought one vote was enough to identify the bad guys when it came to TARP or HCR. One vote may be enough. We can say with certainty that it is a vote with enough import that recovery from it could be difficult.

The reaction that we should be seeing among conservatives is a redoubled dedication to hold their legislators accountable, letting them know they are on a short leash and an active search for primary election opponents. This should be a pretty standard response to any legislative setback we face.

A number of people have taken a much different path. Instead of enforcing accountability they are easily swallowing the milk toast excuses they are fed by their legislators. Excuses of, “but the Speaker won’t like me,” and, “my vote wouldn’t have made a difference,” are being accepted without question.

Too many Texans, even conservatives, have quickly announced that they are willing to accept this temporary defeat as permanent and fall into line behind the same legislators who have so recently voted against their interest. The about face is stunning. Instead of holding their elected officials accountable, they are in essence saying, “We were just kidding. We’re not THAT serious about holding you accountable.”

Does this mean that I won’t consider future votes in my appraisal of which Representatives should face primary opposition? No. This egregious violation of trust does, however, indicate that we can probably do better than many of our current Representatives have to offer. I’m confident that many good things will come out of this legislative session but my doubts remain high that conservative gains will be as significant as they could have been under the leadership of a solid conservative. If this is the case then accountability must be enforced against those who insisted on upholding the status quo.

Ever heard of the TEA Party? If you have been alive in the past two years you have.  TEA Parties across the nation are making a huge difference in American politics and for certain politics in Arkansas.

There are approximately 30 TEA Parties in our state. They range in size from hundreds of people to just a handful but regardless of size they are a force to be reckoned with because they are bursting with folks who have made conscious decisions to become informed and engaged.

The November elections in Arkansas were a clear demonstration of that force. Conservatives won 7 contested Senate and 16 House seats in the election. The Arkansas Republican Party now holds 45 State House seats, 15 Senate Seats, and 3 State Constitutional Offices. The largest freshman class since 1999 was sworn in on Monday fully demonstrating Arkansans want change.

The events of the first week of the Arkansas legislature were already riff with anticipation and enthusiasm. Unlike any other time in Arkansas politics this session is swarming with not just lobbyist, reporters and visitors but with citizens that are determined to make a change in politics as usual. I am sure the  whirly bird and chauffeured rides, huge spun yarns, and phone foolery would have made it beyond the doors of the capitol but something significant happened, and hopefully will continue to.

Here is a facebook note from David Crow, Chairman of the Faulkner Co TEA Party:

We won!

by David Crow on Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 10:28pm

We want fewer taxes, less spending and smaller government….that is our Tea Party position and we did not back down! AR state senate Joint Budget Com. passed HB 1063 giving raises to Judges and Prosecuting Attor….we said no and in less than 24 hours the House reversed itself and is now removing the raises from the original bill! How did it happen? One person attended the committee mtg and witnessed the vote…challenged the Faulkner Co Tea Party and others across the state to make calls to their reps, and the COL increases are history! The power rest with the people if we use it! This is proof that together we will and are making a difference! There are many other bills our spend, spend and spend progressives liberals want to push through we must have a Tea Party rep in every committee meeting. Keep it up folks….together we can restore fiscal sanity and reduce the size of government!

As a result of the actions of attentive engaged voters, Arkansans were saved half-a-million dollars in just the first week; and legislators are once again reminded that times are a changin and they are accountable to the people.

Once again I strongly encourage you to get plugged in, help broaden the network of responsive individuals by informing your sphere of influence and making sure you have your elected officials contact information.

There will be plenty more comin down the pike, as of today there have been over 160 bills filed that our legislators will deal with over the next several months.

Together we are making a difference, you are needed~

Setting The Precedent

As any remotely informed resident of Texas knows, the 82nd legislature convened for the first time this week. I spent the big day in Austin to support the various tea party groups present and to get a sense of where the conservative movement in Texas will be expending its energy this year.

The outcome of the Speakers race was weighing on the minds of many – and had been for some time, in Texas and beyond. An unusual amount of attention was paid to the matter, because this session marked the first instance of activist groups having the ability to get involved in the election of Speaker, as a judge ruled the ban on outside political activity connected to the race unconstitutional in 2008.

I ultimately agreed with many tea partiers and other conservative organizations that Rep. Paxton was the better choice. However, my concern at this juncture lies beyond the politics of what has already been determined. While I encouraged the civic activity surrounding the race, the more heated the rhetoric got, the greater my concern about the degree of some people’s focus on the issue grew.

When in Austin, one of the first things I did was stop in to chat with friends at a hospitality suite hosted by various tea party organizations throughout the state. Overwhelmingly, the theme was “Oust Straus”, and upon entering the room, activists were given a pro Ken Paxton t-shirt. Certainly, given the fact that the Speaker vote was that day, I found the focus poignant and sensible. I was, however, concerned with the notion that there’s a potential for tea partiers to become trapped by this issue if they stay focused on it in a longterm sense.

While chatting with activists in the suite, I heard many discussions about the need to hold any legislator who voted for Straus accountable. Empowered cries of, “we’ll just primary ‘em all our next year!” filled the air. And can you really blame tea party activists, so central to this unprecedented shift of power in Texas, for recognizing, and attempting to assert the power they worked so hard to garner? I certainly don’t – and am the first to encourage it. But the reason I’m concerned is that I foresee Texas tea partiers falling into a major trap if they continue to expend political capital on the already settled matter of the Speakers race. Especially when it’s highly possible that Straus will govern more conservatively now, given the near super majority Republicans have this session.

The tea party focus up to this point has been merited, but I’m extraordinarily worried that some activists aren’t properly distinguishing between their State Representatives as individuals, and the system all legislators face upon being elected to the Texas House. Failure to make this distinction has the potential to render the tea parties in Texas politically impotent – which would be a serious shame given all the good they’ve done; and the future potential they have.

Wherein The Problem Lies

A friend of mine who’s a leader of a great Tea Party organization here in Texas told me a story about how members of his group spent a great deal of time convincing their State Representative, who had pledged his support to Straus, to finally come to one of their meetings and explain himself. Not surprisingly, he had been hesitant to do so, knowing the members were quite pro Paxton, many of them considering his support of Straus tantamount to completely ignoring the concerns of the tea party.

The Representative explained that his support of Straus was rooted in his continued dedication to a certain policy priority, and that it was incumbent upon him to support the Speaker in order to retain his committee membership. Politically speaking, the worst place a Representative with an ambitious legislative agenda can be is on the wrong side of a Speakers race. That’s simply the reality of the system legislators are faced with. Sadly, I was told that this discussion with the Representative devolved into a screaming match among some – as people who are justifiably angry are taking what in reality, is disgust with the system and imparting it upon individual Representatives.

I’m extremely concerned that Texas tea partiers, if they do fall into this trap of basing their 2011 agenda on the outcome of this race, are setting themselves up for a disappointing amount of failure and alienation. Has a potentially good relationship with a State Representative who likely shares many of the concerns held by the tea party now irreparably damaged?

Of course, part of what makes the Tea Party such a force to be reckoned with is the fact that it’s largely comprised of people who are new to activism. This impressively high level of citizen participation is an incredible step in the right direction for our Republic, and anyone who knows me is well aware of the fact that I’ve been dedicated to the movement since day one, before any of us could even imagine national impact it would have.

However, if tea partiers in Texas, who are doing a great job of focusing on state level issues in 2011, are ignorant to the system their Representatives are faced with, and think the threat of “WE’LL VOTE YOU OUT!” is greater than the Speaker’s “You won’t be granted any committee positions and your policy priorities will be put on the backburner”, guess what? They’re going to take their chances on disappointing the grassroots with one vote – a vote that A: will give their legislative agenda priority if they’re on the right side of the race, and B: provide them with potential fundraising for their reelection campaign.

The Next Steps

What would happen, then, if tea partiers did follow the route of focusing heavily on primarying Reps who voted for Straus? Would they see results? Or in the instance of voting for the Speaker, are legislators simply pawns, facing a system that they as individuals can’t change, but must work within to actually accomplish anything? There are certain systemic variables that individual Representatives can’t control – and voting otherwise solidly conservative Representatives out every two years isn’t going to solve the problems that are perpetuated by the system itself.

This, of course, isn’t to excuse the system. I certainly won’t defend a process that requires Speakers strong-arm, and puts political pressure on Representatives to vote for someone who may not necessarily be the best candidate for the job, simply because they want an opportunity to move their agenda forward. But, if tea partiers aren’t able to distinguish between problems with the system, and problems with individual Representatives, they’re bound to expend political capital pounding their fists, but doing little to actually affect the change all movement conservatives, including many elected State Reps in Texas, agree upon.

As Representative Larry Taylor, Chair of the House Republican Caucus said, “We’re very sensitive to the outside groups, but I think it’s important for these groups to understand that you judge a legislative body by the end of the process.”

What then, is the solution in the meantime? To what extent should tea partiers focus on legislators themselves versus lobbying to actively reform the system? Anyone who has attended a basic American Majority training knows that we start with a presentation on “The System”.  While that particular discussion focuses on what we face federally, the same concept can be applied to state legislatures. To change the process on any level of government, it’s important to understand why we’re here, and how the system sustains itself. So often, legislators are merely variables within a well oiled machine. Switching them out does very little if the system itself isn’t reformed. To what degree tea partiers decide to take up the task of lobbying to reform either seniority rules, committee appointment procedure, the Speakers race, or term limits in Texas among other priorities is ultimately going to be a grassroots level decision.

No higher power does, nor should control these groups. But it’s clear that many of these activists, scores of whom are participating politically at this level for the first time in their lives due to the virtues of the tea party movement, need to be educated about the difference between what aspects of things they dislike about government are systemic, and which come from individual legislators. I’d hate to see tea partiers expending capital on primarying people who voted a certain way in a Speakers race when necessarily, the next person they vote for will be faced with the exact same system, and ultimately make a similar decision, weighing the importance of getting a seat at the legislative table versus considering what the grassroots ask of them. Because while at the end of the day, voters do control who gets elected, and a legislator is first responsible to his constituents, what’s the point of being a legislator if you’re not actually able to legislate?

Almost immediately after the awful tragedy in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday, people, particularly those on the left, tried to score political points. I was stunned at the total hypocrisy, and the asinine comments being made. Some were saying that the shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords must have been a tea partier incited to violence by Sarah Palin or others on the right. I think Erick Erickson over at RedState.com had a nice post touching on this subject, and I don’t want to dwell on that too long, because the point of this post is not about what whether the shooter was right or left wing, even whether his motivations for the shootings were political at all (though I must say, people who read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto are typically not tea party types).

The point is that sometimes crazy people do awful things, and what took place on Saturday was a seriously deranged young man committing a horrible act of murder. As the father of three young children, hearing the mother of Christina Greene, the nine year old girl who was shot and killed, describing what took place was gut-wrenching. We would be best served to pray for those who lost their lives, pray for their families, for Congresswoman Giffords as she fights for her life, and not debase ourselves with crass, hypocritical attempts to score points.

If you have ambitions of being a playwright I hope you are taking notes on the political happenings here in Arkansas. You could have a best-selling drama.

Remember the story of Tom Fite and Leslee Post from district 83? Mr. Fite was found ineligible to be an Arkansas Representative by Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Collins Kilgore because he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor bribery charge more than 26 years ago. (Read more here)

Yesterday afternoon members of the 2011 Arkansas House of Representatives voted to seat Leslee Milam Post (D-Ozark) who received only 41% of the vote.

Rep. John Burris (R-Harrison), the Minority Leader, made a motion to delay the seating of District 83 (Post’s seat) asking that the Claims Commission be able to review the case just as they had for Rep. Elect Fred Smith just days prior.  Burris explained that the wished of the people in district 83 need to be taken into account and their votes counted.”

His motion failed, 60-28.

Then there was a motion to seat Ms. Post to which Rep. Nate Bell (R-Mena) made a statement pointing out that the ruling to disqualify Tom Fite clearly usurped the Arkansas State Constitution and a ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court case in 2002, Magnus v Carr.

Here is a note from Rep. Bell explaining~

Today I spoke against the seating of Leslee Post in District 83.  My opposition was based on the need to preserve the constitutional separation of powers outlined in the Arkansas Constitution Article 4 sections 1 and 2  and Article 5 section 11 and was not intended to address the merits of the Post/Fite case which is pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court.  The Pulaski Circuit Court ruled in October that the ballots cast for Tom Fite were not be counted.  My argument today was based on the Arkansas Constitution as interpreted by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Magnus v Carr and numerous precedent cases.  The court held that the judicial branch does not have jurisdiction in election cases involving the legislative branch of government due to the separation of powers.  The court has repeatedly held that allowing the judicial branch to intervene in matters related to legislative elections would allow the judges to essentially choose members of another branch of government.  My viewpoint was defeated today 61-29.  I will always stand for constitutional principles even when it is politically unpopular.  6 Republicans voted with the Democrats to allow the judge to usurp the constitutional authority of the legislature.

The citizens of District 83 deserve to have their votes counted.  The votes would have been counted and Fite would have been declared the winner had the judge not intervened. The House would then have determined Fite’s eligibility as outlined in Arkansas law.  If he was deemed ineligible then a vacancy in election would have been declared and a special election held.  Instead, the house today voted to seat the person who lost the election garnering less than 42% of the votes cast.  We allowed a circuit judge to elect a person to the legislature who received less than a majority of the votes cast.  I believe we set a very dangerous precedent today.

Here’s a link to the case I cited:

http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2002b/20021024/02-604.html

The legislature voted 61-29 for Ms. Post to be sworn in and seated on Monday.

Anyone else see a problem here? The way I understand it ( and if I am wrong please let me know) according to the Arkansas Constitution and a case that was decided just 9yrs ago by the Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge Kilgore circumvented the Constitution of our state, ignored precedence, and did a huge disservice to the voters of Dist. 83.

The voters clearly voted for the more conservative candidate, as did the majority of voters in the state, and nation for that matter, and were smacked down. Was this a case of  over-reaching judge. Isn’t that the story?

P.S

THANK YOU!! to our 29 Arkansas State Representatives that held the line. Thank you to Representatives John Burris and Nate Bell for attempting to stop the circumvention of our Constitution. I look forward to working with these men and women to bring to Arkansas fiscal responsibility, limited government, and Constitutional soundness.

The Wisconsin political scene continues to be very busy.   The new Governor and Legislature were sworn in on Monday.   Discussions about redistricting are beginning to circulate.  Also, the Spring Elections filing deadline passed on Tuesday.  Campaign Season is here again.

Some races in Wisconsin will not have a primary, but for those races that have a primary, there is not much time remaining. The field will be narrowed down to the candidates who make the general ballot in just over five weeks.  Since these are nonpartisan elections, the candidates do not have a party label next to their names on the ballots.  There is no guarantee that a conservative will make it to the general election just because of their party affiliation. So it is critical that conservative candidates campaign well in the next few weeks.

Conservatives need to not only make the general ballot, but they need to perform well in the primary.  Perceptions influence voters greatly in elections.  Accordingly, if you barely make the general ballot, the voters are less likely to vote for you in the general election because you will not be viewed as a frontrunner.  Voters want to vote for those who they perceive have the best chance to win.  They want to be a part of the winning team.  Conservatives need to emerge from the primaries as the frontrunners.

To learn how to be a frontrunner, you should attend an American Majority training.  American Majority Wisconsin will be in the LaCrosse area on Saturday and is planning additional Micro-Candidate trainings in other parts of Wisconsin. Come learn how to put yourself in a position to be able to win your election.

Every now and again we like to pat ourselves on the back. Not so much because we need self-acclamation, rather it is imperative to shine a spotlight on how critical it is that we, the Tea Party, remain diligent as ever in our quest to identify constitutionally-minded leaders at the state and local levels who will run for office, win, and then move to reclaim our communities and states for accountable and transparent governance.

Enter American Majority alumnus Josh Brecheen. Brecheen is a twenty-something family-man and former field staffer for constitutional champion Sen. Tom Coburn. Early last year, Brecheen prayerfully took a leap of faith from a safe career by deciding instead to challenge a two-term incumbent state senator in what is pejoratively referred to in Oklahoma as “Little Dixie.” Given Oklahoma’s postbellum statehood in 1907, most of this rim-South state has been dominated by the Democrat Party for its entire history. And while post-WWII voters have increasingly trended to the GOP (especially in federal elections), the southeastern region of the state has remained a stronghold for the Democrats. It has been so dominated by one-party rule that several notorious political scandals and scoundrels have been birthed from the area without much ado from its electorate. Then in November, Josh Brecheen happened.

Josh came to one of our candidate training events in Oklahoma City last Spring declaring his novice at running for office but equally with a commitment to do whatever it takes. And so he did. As the general election churned on, polls continually reported the race to be a very close one. In a Tea Party wave that was sure to give Republicans a decent bump, this race in Little Dixie could have proved the exception. But before midnight on election day it was clear Brecheen would win in what must be considered a landslide for Southeast Oklahoma, easily by double-digits.

Now comes Senator Brecheen on the eve of his first session in the state’s legislature full of steam and ready to do good on his promise of principled leadership. Brecheen recently opined in Little Dixie’s Durant Daily Democrat:

“I will also be offering another bill concerning Medicaid fraud. During my years spent interviewing thousands of Oklahomans concerning ways to tackle welfare related fraud, I found a recurring theme. Many times I was told how DHS employees have encouraged prospective clients to quit a job or to not declare cash income in order to qualify for state aid (if the prospective client’s income surpassed the eligibility threshold). This is not just an isolated event. It occurs often. Many DHS employees do not engage in this but some do, and it must be addressed.”

This is precisely the effect we can have in the goings-on at state capitols around the nation. And on the heels of our historic November elections, it’s time to turn our attention to electing more Josh Brecheens to city councils and school boards in 2011. These folks will one day be our state legislators or perhaps our congressman…maybe even president. But we must find them now.

That time of year has come where everyone is vowing to do this or that.  Probably the most popular is to lose weight and get in shape or maybe quit some unhealthy vice or habit.  Other old standard resolutions are to de-clutter the house, clean out the closets, and reorganize the kitchen pantry.  All are quite logical resolutions to have and a couple just might last through January for those daring to make the pledge.

As I read an interview with Queen Latifah yesterday morning, I came to agree with her 2011 resolution – NO RESOLUTIONS!  Her reasoning made sense to me.  Why set yourself up to fail by making a list of so many things you want to change about yourself?  Her outlook made me think of the way I address the Lenten season, not by taking something away, but trying to do something that you don’t normally do often enough.  Anyway, Queen (We are on a first name basis now) had a great solution to the resolution problem.  She suggests to start earlier in the year to gradually make improvements upon yourself by the time your birthday rolls around.  This makes the pressure of quitting something or starting something new cold turkey on one specific day (along with the rest of the folks in your world) a thing of the past.  I think we all are familiar with the success rate of trying anything cold turkey…the statistics are not in your favor.  So instead, take it one day at a time and make every effort to be a better person without putting additional pressure on yourself. 

So, I have a few ideas for self-improvement up my sleeve for 2011 – and yes, some of these are the stereotypical resolutions previously mentioned.   However, one thing I pledge to do is to help these elected officials that are new to the political scene.  You see, we have a legislative session starting next Monday.  Plus, there are countless new justices of the peace and city council members that are trying this whole new accountability thing out.  Therefore, I am going to do my part to help them out in a friendly, got your back sort of way.  Personal phone calls, hand written letters (like thank you notes when they do something really great) and invitations for a quick cup of coffee are just a few of the ways I can encourage my new elected officials to stay on track.

In the same weekly periodical I found Queen Latifah’s article, I read an interview with Joe Scarborough, host of the Morning Joe on MSNBC.  He was asked what advice he would give the incoming elected officials who professed to be members of the Tea Party.  He mentioned that to keep conservatives from overreaching like they did in 1996, they should “focus but make sure they don’t scare little kids and pets.”  Which got me thinking.  I know, scary.  I need to help our local leaders focus.  Concentrate on what they can improve and not set themselves up for failure.  Let’s make those resolutions and do our very best to improve those things that we care about – one item at a time.  Here’s a novel idea, let’s start with the spending and go from there.

“Arkansas House Chief of Staff Bill Stovall says top officials in the chamber won’t commute any more in state vehicles.”How exciting! The decision was evidently made because of the latest brouhahas with the AGFC and AHD.There are only four vehicles in the mix here but this is a wonderful step in the RIGHT direction. Voters should be flooding the office of Mr. Stovall with affirming phone calls, emails and even perhaps a fruit basket!Thank You Bill for making one of the first steps of the new session in Arkansas politics to help Arkansas government become more fiscally responsible!

http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13753392

Bill H. Stovall, III
Chief of Staff
bill.stovall@arkansashouse.org

In Session Phone:
501-682-6211

Out of Session 
Phone:
501-682-7771

This past month I had an opportunity to visit several countries throughout Central and Eastern Europe and experience the rich cultural history that so many of these places have to offer.  Yes, if you are a friend on Facebook, you probably saw the countless photos that I posted of my trip.  It was my best attempt to put into perspective my experiences and provide a glimpse of the historical impact that these cities have had in the past century.

However, my iPhoto descriptions can’t do justice to the actions, some heroic, most despicable, and all unforgettable, that took place in such places as Berlin, Krakow, Auschwitz and Prague.  I understand that unless you actually visit, set foot on the grounds where some of these horrific events occurred, the lasting impressions aren’t quite as overpowering as what I experienced.

As I was posting my photos and thoughts on Facebook, I could only think to myself, “what if these social media tools were available during the Holocaust, or even in the later half of the past century?”  “Would those in charge of carrying out these terrible actions be in power as long as they were?”  “Would the actions carried out by the Czech student Jan Palach, who set himself on fire (and later died) in Prague’s Wenceslas Square in an act of political protest against the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, have happened?”

Yes, I dislike hypothetical questions as much as the next, and certainly understand that today’s technological innovations were but a pipe dream during this period.  But, needless to say, I think it is important that we ponder these questions, if for nothing else than to appreciate the significance that social media plays in today’s world.

We all understand that, in the world in which we live in, oppressive regimes still exist, implementing horrendous acts.  They make a point to crack down on social media usage by their citizens who attempt to speak out, doing so not because they don’t understand social media, but instead because they realize its power.

The positive impact that social media is having throughout our world is undeniable.  Let us not forget, particularly during this holiday season, that one of the things that we should be thankful for is the opportunity to express our political beliefs freely and openly through the use of social media.  We sometimes joke about it, but quite frankly, I can’t imagine our country and world without it.  It has been a force of change, all for the better.

As budget deficits continue to grow, 26 incoming Governors face tough choices of how to fill these voids.  How are the new governors going to decide on where and what to cut?

Many of these elected leaders campaigned on not raising taxes.  Raising taxes would be very unpopular in this economy. Nationally, we have just seen how our elected officials were unwilling to raise taxes in this economic recession. States would be wise to follow suit to avoid raising taxes especially if the officials ran for office on a platform of lower taxes. Wisconsin and other states need jobs and raising taxes makes it harder for businesses to hire more workers. Raising taxes should not be an option.

Wisconsin already has a deficit of $150 million in the current fiscal year and $3.3 billion in the next two-year state budget.  In order to address these staggering budget shortfalls, spending cuts will need to be made in many areas. Included in these cuts will be some that are less popular than others. Unpopular cuts will  have to be made across the nation.  However, polling suggests the public is not interested in cutting areas such as education and healthcare, which consume the largest portions of the state budgets.

The State Legislatures will need to work along-side the new Governors in trimming budgets and finding innovative ideas to pay the bills.  As electors, we need to hold our elected officials accountable to the principles on which they campaigned: limited government and fiscal responsibility.  Let the trimming begin!

.As with many things across our culture today the heritage and story behind the Twelve Days of Christmas has been mangled.

This particular Christian observance may have been hijacked by eggnog swillers and little elves who choose to rewrite those things that would bring glory and honor to celebrating the birth of the Savior of the world.

For months now I have committed to take nothing for granted, to start from scratch and research my values and traditions, to make sure what I believe is not based on lies or half-truths.

This journey, while time consuming and sometimes tedious, has helped solidify my foundational beliefs.

As with many of our Western “traditions” The Twelve Days of Christmas is actually an historical Church tradition that begins on Christmas day and ends on the beginning of Epiphany (the climax of the Advent/Christmas Season).
This is an occasion for feasting in some cultures, including the baking of a special King’s Cake as part of the festivities of Epiphany (a King’s Cake also is part of the observance of Mardi Gras in French Catholic culture of the Southern USA)).

The familiar “Twelve Days of Christmas” song is not just a nonsense version for children with secular origins; it is a song with hidden meanings steeped in traditional Christian instruction. It’s believed, but not proved, that it was used during the 16th century by the Catholic faith as a secret means of preserving Christian tenets.

There are those who have questioned the historical accuracy saying this version actually is a myth.
(http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp)

Although there is not “hard” evidence to prove it true there really is none to refute the Catholic story either. So, since there’s no “proof” either way and it certainly is not worthy of a “crusade” to prove one way or the other, I vote that those reading this make the choice for themselves how to perceive the classic song, realizing that many of the symbols we use for Christmas, even including the date, are not inherently religious.

What I believe is important for Christians to remember at Christmas is the reason for the season, Christ; that we encourage our friends, neighbors and families to rejoice the birth of the Light of the world.

Hopefully this writing will inspire you to search, pray and reflect on your beliefs this Christmas season and to share your findings with others as we step into the beginning of a new year, a chance to change our world for the better becoming informed, engaged and empowered.

With all this in mind, here’s what the research I’ve done says are the intended religious symbolism of the “Twelve Days of Christmas:”

1 True Love refers to God
2 Turtle Doves refers to the Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens refers to Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds refers to the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings refers to the first Five Books of the Old Testament, the “Pentateuch”, which gives the history of man’s fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying refers to the six days of creation
7 Swans A-swimming refers to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the sacraments
8 Maids A-milking refers to the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing refers to the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping refers to the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping refers to the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming refers to the points of doctrine in the Apostle’s Creed

P.S.  At American Majority we work a lot with Social Media, I was sent this video by a friend on facebook and it is truly AMAZING~ Enjoy~ http://www.ignitermedia.com/mini-movies/1905/A-Social-Network-Christmas

On the surface, it seems valid for conservatives to be concerned primarily with lowering taxes. After all, less taxation means that people are able to keep more of what they earn – incentivizing new wealth production, job creation, etc. Of course, it’s ideal for tax cuts to be implemented in conjunction with equal cuts in spending; a point most conservatives (at least those outside the beltway) agree on in theory. However, the focus always seems to be more on taxes than spending. Sometimes, especially within the soundbite culture of politics, it’s hard to tell if people are even distinguishing between the two extremely different matters – which is highly problematic in and of itself, because we really don’t actually PAY for much of what we get from our government as a nation.

I will always agree that it’s wrong to raise taxes during a recession. There’s no doubt in my mind that doing so will cause a great deal of suffering, and eventually lead to overall less wealth for the government to tax – sending us down the inevitable path to collapse that socialist policy necessarily leads to. However, unlike many fellow right-wingers, even including good libertarian friends of mine, I can’t get behind a compromise to extend current tax rates when the proposal contains new spending. While I wholeheartedly support the extension of current tax rates as a stand alone issue, at this point in time with a serious debt crisis looming, said extensions need to be, at the very least, deficit neutral. (And deficit neutral they would be if voted on alone).

On the politics of this matter, I agree with Ken Taylor at Red State in his analysis of the current tax rate deal, and what the GOP must do when new elects are sworn in:

(The GOP must) back away from (this) deal using earmarks as a legitimate deal busting reason, and state loudly that they will ONLY accept an up or down vote for JUST the extension of ALL rates and nothing else in the deal package. Democrats will balk at this, and the bill will die a quick death as the lame duck session runs out of time to deal with it in 2010. Once the GOP takes control, extend the rates permanently retroactive to January 1st, forcing Obama to either accept a permanent tax rate or VETO; allowing the largest tax hike in history, which will be his sole responsibility. A two year extension does nothing but make this a campaign issue in 2012, when Obama can claim he compromised, and the “tax cuts,” didn’t stimulate the economy, which they can’t because they change nothing – and claim Republicans sacrificed the middle class for the sake of the rich. Next, the GOP can create legislation that make rates even lower, combining this with real and drastic spending cuts that will reduce the size of government while stimulating the economy – as even lower rates will increase consumer spending and confidence while reducing the deficit; which too will stimulate the economy. Of course this is only a beginning but it will shut the left up as the economy improves due to REAL tax and spending cuts – and Obama and his cronies will not have a created issue that can be used to demonize “the rich” and the GOP in 2012.

Mr. Taylor makes his case well. I think he’s correct to say Democrats are tricking Republicans with this one, and that really, there’s no practical reason not to wait until the new elects are sworn in to deal with this issue in a manner that’s productive rather than damaging.

To add another dimension to the point, I firmly believe that when where we’re experiencing relative economic growth and have a manageable national debt, it’s comprehensible, even if I disagree as a deficit hawk, that conservatives might support trading an increase in spending for a deal that prevents taxes from going up. It’s a well taken point within the context of understanding that less taxation spurs economic growth, and therefore, aggregate availability of revenue to pay down the debt in the future. However, our national debt is currently at a record $13,848,017,156,749.09 – a truly incomprehensible number that realistically, can NEVER be paid back.  In fact, earlier this week:

Moody’s warned that it could move a step closer to cutting the U.S. Aaa rating if President Obama’s tax and unemployment benefit package becomes law. The plan agreed to by President Obama and Republican leaders last week could push up debt levels, increasing the likelihood of a negative outlook on the United States rating in the coming two years, the ratings agency said. A negative outlook, if adopted, would make a rating cut more likely over the following 12-to-18 months. For the United States, a loss of the top Aaa rating, reduce the appeal of U.S. Treasuries, which currently rank as among the world’s safest investments.

Clearly, the sobering truth of the situation we’re facing cannot be described honestly without utilizing the word crisis. And in Europe, where countries are just a bit further down the rabbit hole than we are, the situation has been referred to widely in such terms. Very real debt crises continue to plague European nations. The first to fall in a major way was Greece, when the country was bailed out in April of this year amidst violent protests to necessary tax increases foisted upon them in conjunction with spending cuts. Portugal and Spain are in similar economic positions, with Great Britain and others not far behind. Most recently, Ireland had its banks bailed out to “stabilize” the economy (IE: a European version of TARP on steroids). In light of this, we must pose a serious question: At what point does the bailout money (which is a product of private sector wealth creation – a phenomenon discouraged by “progressive” taxation) simply run out?

In the U.S., we have the Federal Reserve in crisis mode, diligently (ahem …) working to make sure that we don’t, in fact, “run out of money” – which is easy to do when you’re allowed legal counterfeiting privileges. Ok, sure, so we won’t run out of physical dollar bills – but let’s look at the wider implications of this behavior, and analyze it within the context of supporting more spending as a means to avoid tax increases – which is exactly what many conservatives, are advocating right now; despite both the political and economic shortsightedness of doing so.

Hopefully at this point, you’re familiar with the Fed’s “Quantitative Easing II” project, which, not so conincidentally, was rolled out the day after this year’s election – so naturally, it didn’t get the media coverage such a massive undertaking deserves. Clearly, given its moniker, the point is to make one assume that it’s a corollary to an earlier (failed) attempt at stabilizing the economy with “Quantitative Easing I”. My friend Arkady at Right Condition summarizes QE1 (and why it failed) perfectly:

“During QE1, Bernanke bailed out the banks by buying mortgage paper that nobody else wanted to purchase. He bought all this paper at unknown prices and saved the banks by providing them a mechanism to stay afloat without addressing the trillions in their bad purchases. They of course turned around and padded their pockets with it, bought commodities and created asset bubbles in the stock market. However QE1 was supposed to be more than just a life line for banks; it was also supposed to be a catalyst for inflation. Banks were supposed to generate loans and flood the economy with liquidity. They did not. They refused to and rightfully so. Because this is not 1987, or 1992 or even 2000. Economic activity is so dead that nobody is interested in lending and thus, Bernanke failed.”

Given that artificially lowering interest rates to zero and QE1, among other tinkering, didn’t spur growth or restart our lagging economy, Bernanke figured that more intervention was the next logical step, and despite prior promises, has moved toward the dangerous policy of debt monetization.

Per Congressman Jeb Hensarling in March of this year:

Without spending discipline, only one option is left — monetizing the debt, also known as inflation. Although Chairman Bernanke has repeatedly said that will not happen on his watch, many think it inevitable.

Sadly, when QE2 was announced on November 3rd of this year, only one member of the Fed’s Board of Governors had the foresight to vote against the measure – and for the right reasons:

“Voting against the policy was Thomas M. Hoenig. Mr. Hoenig believed the risks of additional securities purchases outweighed the benefits. Mr. Hoenig also was concerned that this continued high level of monetary accommodation (emphasis added) increased the risks of future financial imbalances and, over time, would cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations that could destabilize the economy.”

Anyone want to help translate from FedSpeak to English, “high level of monetary accommodation“? If you guessed inevitable debt monetization to sustain our addiction to deficit spending, IE, deliberate inflation, IE, steep increases in basic commodity prices and a devaluation of your savings, you’re correct. This is the point a complete and utter lack of fiscal discipline has brought us to – and it’s why at this point in our nation’s history, I can’t support any measure that add one cent to the deficit – because it’ll come back to haunt us in a much, much bigger way later.

My overall point in tying the debt monetization discussion into the debate over this tax deal is to suggest that my fellow conservatives consider the issue within a big picture context. While conventional wisdom might suggest that deficit spending is permissible within reason because tax cuts lead to economic growth and in turn more revenue, we’re living in rather extraordinary times, and I don’t think that reasoning applies right now. When Republican politicians have defended tax cuts without relative decreases in spending (which I’m not excusing, by the way), we weren’t facing an unprecedented debt crisis, nor was the Federal Reserve knee deep in fully implementing the kind of backhanded policies we’re seeing Bernanke undertake now.

What does an extension of current tax rates really do for anyone when our savings are being devalued through an inflation tax levied on us by an unelected “Board of Governors” in a last ditch effort to sustain our spending? Letting the current tax rates expire if Democrats aren’t willing to have an up or down vote on the issue alone is vastly preferable to continuing the policies that make the Federal Reserve resort to actions that have the very real potential of making Carter era inflation look like a joke. And please – keep in mind that Republicans, many of whom were backed by tea party activists, have the House. Let’s deal with tax rates on our own terms when the new elects are sworn in. It really believe that it’s politically untenable for President Obama to veto a tax rate extension given his current rhetoric – so why are we playing into his hands now? He knows the current tax rates need to be extended. He doesn’t want to shoulder the blame for increasing taxes during a recession, and Republicans are giving into his demands when they actually have the upper hand.

If newly elected conservatives don’t take serious action regarding spending cuts, debt monetization will continue – making this tax deal debacle look like a joke – especially because the legislation on the table now only extends the rates for two years – rendering the claim about creating stability for businesses moot. Take a cue from guys like Congressman Jason Chaffetz and Senator Jim DeMint, and recognize that our debt crisis is a far greater threat to our nation than something that’s really, nothing more than a temporary tax increase, which can be dealt with retroactively, and on its face, pales in comparison to the economic dangers inherent in debt monetization; a policy the tax deal perpetuates by adding significantly to the deficit.

As the nation chills with a massive cold front, the ’12 presidential speculation continues to heat up. Romney trashes the Obama tax deal that has so raised the ire of the Tea Party.