The President has released his long-form birth certificate, proving that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii as he has consistently said. You can find the (.pdf) here, and the press secretary’s statement here.

It was just a matter of time until this came out. For an explanation of the political expediency of releasing the certificate today, I point you to Erick Erickson at RedState.

This development, of course, means that thousands (and maybe millions) or birfers, including the ever-incendiary Donald Trump, must find a new pastime. As AM President Ned Ryun made clear last year, American Majority does not welcome or encourage discussion of the birth certificate issue (now non-issue). It is, and always has been, a waste of time, resources, and brainpower for otherwise clever and thoughtful would-be activists.

Now, thanks to the president (and I say that without sarcasm), thousands of former birfers can fully devote their efforts to recruiting, supporting, and electing conservative candidates at the local and state levels without concern for conspiracy theories or far-flung scenarios of the president’s birth.

Former birfers, welcome back. Let’s get to work.

With the current budget battle raging in Washington, many members of Congress have commented over the last several weeks (with all civility, of course) about how they should be fixing the problems facing our country.

The media has (fortunately or unfortunately) given ample time for many on both sides of the aisle to put in their two cents, and as crazy as it sounds, our representatives have not disappointed.

I, however, was especially pleased to see former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, have her time in the sun to tell us how horrible conservative members of Congress are.

Goodness, how I have missed you, Nancy.

As a matter of fact, her recent time in the spotlight reminded me about just how much I have missed her being Speaker of the House.  I even put together a list:

The Top 10 Things I Miss About Nancy Pelosi Being Speaker of the House

10. The historical transparency of Congress during her time as Speaker.

Oh, wait a minute.

9. The new tone of civility and honesty she helped create within Washington.

Okay, that didn’t happen either.

8. The way she “drained the swamp” of rampant corruption in Congress – especially within her own party.

Just kidding about that one, too.

7. Her beady eyes, maybe?

(No link provided…Thankfully)

6. Her unbelievable talent of winning Blink-Offs against Dick Cheney during State of the Union speeches?

No, really. Here’s the video proof.

5. How about the fiscal discipline and responsibility she oversaw?

Hahahah. Good one.

4. But, seriously, who suggested I cover this topic?

3. Ah, how about the patience and restraint she showed as she led the Healthcare battle even when she didn’t actually know what was in the bill?

What am I saying? This is just getting silly.

2. Um, the way she used children and the elderly to score political points?

Oh, never mind. She is STILL doing that.

1. Is there really anything I miss about her not being Speaker of the House?

Well, I do miss her having to say stuff like this after she lost the speakership.

That has to count for something, right?

What about you?  Anything you miss about Nancy Pelosi being speaker of the House?

You may never hear me say this again, but I am proud to proclaim that I am more progressive than my peers here at UVA.

When a group of twenty of us were asked whether it was worth making the effort to retain objectivity in the reporting of news, nineteen said yes: reporters and news organizations should strive for objectivity, and we should highly value reportage that we determine to be without bias.

The one dissenter was, as you may have guessed, yours truly.

And really, why should we continue the pursuit of this sham we call objectivity? By objectivity, I mean reporting news in such a way as to remove any preconceived notions or opinions from the selection or documentation of facts, conveying to the reader only the relevant information and allowing him or her to form an opinion.

I’ll say it as frankly as I can: objectivity in the media is a fruitless and unfulfillable pursuit that only the naive choose to perpetuate. The more realistic and – dare I say it – forward thinking among us have exchanged objectivity for transparency, and I submit to you that transparency is what we should begin looking for in our news. Call me a cynic if you will, but this is where the world is headed.

Why not value objectivity? The idea seems logical. We would love to have the facts packaged and delivered to us, allowing us to judge for ourselves what the best course of action would be in any given situation. For example, if any of us read a news story composed simply of the current federal budget, we would love to think for ourselves and conclude that cutting spending is the best way to go. Or, if you read a short news story telling you that millions of illegal immigrants come over our southern border every year, you would probably conclude that securing the border is the best first step toward solving the problem. Objective reporting sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

The problem is that no news outlet reports just the facts. If they did, we would be bored out of our minds. Take the budget example. Do you really want to read “just the facts” about the federal budget? Of course not. It is much more interesting to hear the two sides of the debate and cheer for whichever side has the best ideas. There is nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake: fair and balanced reporting is not objective. If we were given the option of “just the facts” objectivity, most of us would find it very unappealing.

In addition to being boring, objective reporting is a figment of news editors’ imaginations. If you watch any of the major network news outlets or read any of the major newspapers, all of which claim to be “objective,” “unbiased,” or even “no spin,” you know that unbiased reporting is not practiced anywhere and is, in fact, impossible. We have all heard about the New York Times‘ decline and slow, painful, impending death. I’ve got news for the Times: readers have realized that their claims of objectivity are hollow, and their subscriptions have been steadily cut off as a result.

What I encourage you all to do instead is to embrace and perpetuate a trend of transparency in the media rather than objectivity. Accept bias and subjectivity as par for the course. Watch Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or Neil Cavuto. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Mark Levin. And, in addition, watch Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, and Rachel Maddow. If you have some obscure cable package that enables you, find Keith Olbermann’s show and become one of his ten viewers. Read RedState.com, the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, or this very blog.

All of these news sources come with bias, preconceived notions, and opinions. What’s more, they wear their subjectivity on their sleeve. They are by no means objective in the way they report, but they are transparent. If you want conservative news aimed at grassroots activists, read the American Majority blog or RedState.com. If you want a conservative take on your national news, watch FoxNews. If you want to find out what the people on the other side of the debate are thinking, turn on MSNBC and grab some antacids. Regardless of what a reporter’s perspective is, we should value his or her transparency rather than objectivity in reporting.

If we know a news source’s bias before reading, we know how much credence to give it while consuming it. For decades before our current one, Americans bought into heinous stories and philosophies because they received them from what they thought were “objective” news networks reporting the “facts.” We know better now. In this world of new media, social media, blogs, and do-it-yourself reporting, we know that objectivity is impossible and fruitless. What we need is transparency and honesty. May we pursue it, and may we become better armed as a result.

This past Saturday the 14 Democratic Senators from Wisconsin who had brazenly shirked their responsibilities to the people of Wisconsin by opting for a cowardly month long escapade across the border in Illinois, finally came back to their rightful place – Wisconsin.

And while the labor union and other assorted leftists gave them a “hero’s welcome” when they “bravely” (think storming the beaches at Normandy) made their way back to the capital in Madison, evidently the welcome they received from their spouses at home was not so welcoming.

Here is just a sampling of what might have been said to them by their spouses:

(And for full disclosure, the list presented above is for entertainment – i.e. humor – purposes only.  None of the quotes or situations presented are true…as far as we know.)

14. “What’s that, Tim?  Did you just ask me what that smell was?  That’s the damn garbage I let pile up during the month you were not here to take it out!  It looked like to me that when you left you were running from all of your responsibilities – one of which is to take out our trash!”

13. “Why yes, Spencer, I did take the liberty to relocate you to the living room for an indefinite period seeing as how you decided a month ago to take the liberty to relocate to Illinois for an indefinite period.”

12. “Oh, no, Timothy, I did miss you.  But when you said you were leaving for a while and didn’t know when you would be back, I decided to move on.  You remember our pool boy, Kevin, right?”

11. “No, Jon, what that letter says is that we have 30 days to vacate the premises not vacation from the premises.  It’s called foreclosure, and it’s what happens in the real world when people massively overspend, miss work for a month, and can’t pay their bills, you idiot!”

10. “All your suits are at the dry cleaners, Dave.  Oh, wait, never mind.  They are all at Goodwill because I threw them out after you left me all alone for a month, you jerk.”

9. “Well, Jim, I couldn’t exactly let the Lego Millennium Falcon sit completed on the kitchen table for God knows how long after you ran off to Illinois.  But don’t cry.  You can put it back together, dear.  Surely it won’t take that long.”

8. “Were you not in Civics class that day, Robert?  A recall is when the people decide to remove or replace an elected official before their term is up because they were doing a crappy job.  Sound familiar?”

7. “You were gone for one month, Chris, and all you brought back was this shirt that says ‘I holed up in a motel just across the border from Wisconsin like a scared little girl for an entire month because I refused to do my job, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt’?  Really!?!?”

6. “Sure I ate out every night, Julie!  Did you really expect me to cook for the entire month you were gone?”

5. “No, Mark, those UAW fellas you know didn’t drop off an envelope full of cash while you were gone.  And even if they had, I wouldn’t tell you!  You left me all alone for a month and accomplished absolutely nothing with your stupid publicity stunt!”

4. “Yes, Fred, I saw you on the TV.  And I heard what you said about doing the right thing.  But let me tell you something, buster, the right thing was to come home, do the job you were elected to do, and take care of your damn family.”

3. “I have no idea how long it is going to take to do a month’s worth of laundry, Lena.  But you’ll have plenty of time to do it in the next couple of weeks while I am out partying with my buddies every night.”

2.  “It’s not like I can return it, Kathleen!  Do you know how many miles I have put on this Harley in the month you gone hanging out in Illinois and not doing your job?”

1. “Oh, are you looking for your Dom Perignon, Robert?  I’m so sorry but I drank it and replaced it with some Pabst Blue Ribbon now that you are all about representing the Working Man, you hypocrite fleebagger.”

What do you think of the list?  And what would you say to these men and women if you had the chance to meet them?

Conservatives won across the board in Wisconsin last night.  But the battle has just begun.  We cannot just assume that those who we elected will represent our conservative values because of their party identification.  We must now hold them accountable.  The liberals are not going to lie down and accept that Wisconsin is a conservative state.  They are going to fight back.  We cannot take time off or stop paying attention.   The battle continues on to the spring local elections and then to the 2012 elections.  Within 2 short months another important date will have arrived.

January 4, 2011 is the filing deadline for Wisconsin’s Spring 2011 nonpartisan elections.  The primaries will be held on February 15, 2011.  Then the General Election is April 5, 2011.

Among the races held in the spring are School Board, County Executive, County Supervisor, Mayor, Alderperson, Town and Village Board Member, Municipal Clerk and Treasurer, Municipal Judge, and WI Court of Appeals Judge.   These offices hold considerable sway over much of our daily lives in Wisconsin.  At a time when taxpayers have less money in their pockets, school boards across the state are ignoring this fact and are hiking property taxes.  In fact, the Northern Ozaukee School Board just raised property taxes by a whopping 20%! 

We must mobilize and be prepared for the spring elections.  The spring primaries in Wisconsin do not generate many voters. For instance, in Milwaukee County in 2009, only 4.3% of registered voters made it to the polls.  These low turnout numbers make it all the more important that conservatives are aware of these dates.  It also presents a great opportunity to get conservatives on the ballots.  We must take advantage of this opportunity!

Conservatives need to step up and run in these local races.  Since a near majority of Wisconsinites consider themselves to be conservatives, we need to ensure that we do our part to put conservatives on the ballots.  Conservatives must continue the fight for freedom.  Will you do your part?

Recent polls have shown that the number of likely voters in Wisconsin who identify themselves as “conservative” is far greater than those who would use “liberal” or “moderate” as a label.  It isn’t just one poll either.  A McClatchey-Marist Poll  (September 26-28, 2010) in Wisconsin found 47% of likely voters label themselves a conservative, compared to 20% for liberal and 33% for moderate.  A CNN/Time Poll (September 17-21, 2010)  showed 47% conservative, 19% liberal, and 32% moderate among Wisconsin likely voters.  A Gallup poll showed the percentage of conservatives at 43% of Wisconsin likely voters.  

These numbers show an increase from the electorates in 2004, 2006, and 2008.  The previous three electorates showed around 30% of Wisconsin voters to be conservative.  Times are changing in Wisconsin, and most voters are leaning right!

Why are more and more Wisconsinites considering themselves conservative? It seems that Wisconsin voters are fed up with liberal solutions to everyday problems facing this great state.  Liberal economic policies that offer higher taxes, a larger government, more government intervention into our daily lives, deficits, and massive wasted spending leave citizens crying out for a conservative alternative.  Common sense conservative economic principles including lower taxes, limited government, less government intervention, and free markets offer a better way forward for Wisconsin voters.  

With a near majority of likely voters in Wisconsin considering themselves conservative, America’s Dairyland is a conservative state.

My three year old daughter is awesome.  She’s got more energy than Lance Armstrong, she has an active and never ending imagination, and she is finally (God bless her) figuring out the difference between right and wrong.

More amazing than that, however, is that my daughter has taught me much in regards to advancing the Conservative cause.

(Quick editorial note from my daughter: “Daddy, I am almost four!”)

Thus, here are three lessons I have learned from my daughter that I want to share with fellow Conservatives:

1. Conservatives need to learn to share and play well with other Conservatives…

This is a constant battle at our home.   For some reason when my daughter has friends over she becomes territorial, greedy, and stubborn with her bounty of toys.  She goes from being a princess to being a total monster.

But if you think about it the conservative movement is much the same way.  Within our tent I have seen Tea Parties, 9/12 Groups, and especially our main political party ally be absolutely unwilling at times to share best practices, imaginative ideas, contact lists, and chances to work together.

Granted, in many cases there are certain laws we must be careful to abide by. 

However, if we fail to share key information and ideas with each other (in the proper time and place), we continue to lose the opportunity to unite under common ideas and banners for a common good.  The unfortunate consequence are missed strategic instances to advance our cause – all because of turf wars, information hoarding, and, (to put it bluntly) an unwillingness to share credit.

It is almost as frustrating as my daughter screaming about another kid playing with her Dora backpack.

2. Conservatives need to learn to make “Good Choices”…

The phrase “Good Choices” is the battle hymn of our household.  By this constant drumbeat we are doing our best to make our daughter realize that her choices (good or bad) have consequences.

Indeed, this too is something that all Conservatives need to learn.  Why?  Because as our movement grows and continues to prosper, all of us will increasingly be under the scrutiny of the Left.  At this very moment they are patiently waiting for us to say something “racist”, do something “extreme”, or make a choice that they can use to advance their narrative of us being “hate-mongers”. 

Folks, it is not enough to simply talk about integrity – we must also live lives of integrity.  We must focus on why our ideas and philosophies work better for more people.  On the flip side, we must avoid only talking about how horrible someone is or how much we don’t like them just because they believe and live differently than we do. 

Simply, we must stay above the fray of the nasty, dirty, and personal attacks from those who don’t agree with us.  Let them hate all they want.  This is who they are. 

As individuals and as groups we must make wise choices about how we go about changing our country and taking it back to what our Founders envisioned.  We must not become that which we despise.  Like my daughter, we must learn to make “good choices”.

3. Conservatives need to learn to “use our words”…

As crazy as it sounds, my daughter throws the occasional fit (yes, it’s true).  She starts screaming and crying and very quickly gets completely incoherent.  Thus, she fails to communicate to us what the problem is.

It is in these situations that my wife and I say to her, “It’s okay – use your words.”  What we are doing is trying to calm her down enough to effectively tell us what she is thinking and feeling and why she is so upset.

Why is this important for conservatives?  As people who truly believe in this movement, we must learn how to effectively communicate our views, our plans, the truth, and why our ideas are better for this country.  We must understand how to communicate as candidates for public office, as those who will hold our elected officials accountable, and to those who will increasingly want to fight this battle alongside us.

At the same time, we must use our words carefully and effectively in the midst of our righteous anger, an opponent that will do anything to win, and an electorate at large that is oftentimes apathetic and uneducated about the issues.

I truly believe in my heart that the ideas of the Conservative Movement are better, wiser, and add nothing but prosperity and freedom to our nation.  Thus, I am choosing to use my words to encourage, teach, and change this country through those ideas.

If we as the Conservative Movement can learn to do all of these things, we will be well on our way to winning the battle that lies ahead for our liberty and freedom.

And those are not bad lessons to learn from a three year old.

You might remember this post from last week, where I discussed the new “driveway tax” passed last week by the city council in Mission, KS.  This tax (assessed as a fee) will apply to nonprofits including churches, schools and governments, will charge homeowners $72 each year for having a driveway, while businesses will be charged a minimum of $3,558 per year.  Some businesses, such as a fast food franchise, would owe $12,200, while larger retailers such as Target will be charged $64,750 annually.

As discussed in that article, the city of Mission will spend more than $2 million on parks and recreation this year.  I just wanted to illustrate the types of programs that money provides…

Two days after the city council passed this monstrous tax increase, the city emailed this message to city residents:

Pool Party 4 Pooches

Tuesday, September 7

“Bring your dogs out and help them cool off!  The Pool Party for Pooches will be at the Mission Municipal Pool the day after the pool closes for the season.  We will have three sessions for you and your pooch to have a great time playing and getting wet.  We even have a kiddie pool for people with smaller dogs.”

Sponsored, of course, by the City of Mission Parks and Recreation Department.  Now look- I like pools and dogs as much as the next person.  But really?  We needed to increases taxes by such exorbitant amounts while we spend upwards of $2 million dollars on a department that (among other, more important things, yes) sponsors pools days for puppies?

For this, our founders sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor?

Special thanks to Currie Myers for passing along the news about the pooches’ day at the pool.

Working in politics sometimes overwhelms me.  Seriously, at times it absolutely drains me.

Granted, I love constantly being aware of what is happening both in Washington and in my local community, and yes, it is very exciting to work in the political world.

But to be honest, I go home every night and purposely avoid the major news networks.  I may talk to my wife about what is going on and check Twitter to get news updates, but for the most part, I turn politics off at my house.

I do my best to keep this same attitude on the weekends as well.  I work in my yard and watch sports and Sundays are for church and naps with my kids.

In fact, at my church (which I would characterize as “center-left”) I purposely avoid talking about politics if at all possible.  Fellow church members know what I do for a living, but for the most part politics is thankfully not a normal topic of conversation.

So you can imagine my surprise a few weeks ago when a guest speaker at our church said these things during his sermon*:

“The Pharisees in Jesus’ day, they were the first century Tea Party people.  On the issue of taxes they were the radical religious right and the Christian libertarians of their day.  The only system of government they cared to support was a biblical theocracy.  They were adamantly opposed to paying taxes to the Romans and their puppet government.”

And this:

“The men who wrote and approved the Declaration of Independence took it for granted that there was a god….Few of them were what fundamentalists and evangelicals and most Baptists would call ‘born again Christians’.

 The truth is Thomas Jefferson was a deist.  Most of the founding fathers were deists.  They lived in a world with a long history of Christians starting wars and killing each other trying to find a way to force everyone to believe the same things about God…

So despite all of the rhetoric from the religious right for the last 50 years, the founding fathers were not standing up against secular, atheistic humanism to announce their belief in the biblical God.  The God of the Bible is a God that intervenes in time and history.  The God of the bible is one who sent His son to die for the sins of the world and redeem us.  That is not the god of the Founding Fathers.  And it’s dishonest to pretend that it is.” (Emphasis mine)

Wait.  Did that guy just equate the Pharisees (the Jewish religious leaders that had Jesus killed) to Tea Party folks?  Did he just use the phrase “radical religious right”?  Twice?  Did he just say they founding fathers were all deists?

I always thought preachers were supposed to leave their politics at the door and not bring them behind the pulpit?  Isn’t that what liberals say about conservatives?

Well, first off, the man who delivered this sermon is neither our pastor nor a regular speaker at our church.  He is not on staff, but he is among those who started our church nearly 10 years ago. 

He is also very well known in the community and within our church as a liberal activist.  In fact, through his blog, a radio show, and as a public speaker, he is a leading advocate across the state on the issue of separation of church and state and religious liberty.

On top of that, our church also is very much in favor of the separation of church and state issue to the point that our pastor is adamant about politics and political causes not being preached from the pulpit under any circumstance.  He avoids it because he hates it when “fundamentalists” and “conservatives” do it, and thus it has no place at our church.

So it is that I cannot even begin to fathom is what the response would have been in our church if someone would have gone behind the pulpit and then proceeded to rip on war protestors or unions or pro-choice advocates or other “left wing” groups while equating them with the folks in Jesus’ day that hated him and were ultimately responsible for having him killed. 

What would have been the response if someone had labeled liberals…well, liberals?  Can you begin to imagine the outcry?

Unfortunately, then, what this story clearly illustrates once again is the prevailing liberal thought: Do as I say and not as I do.  It seems to me that this is a common attitude among those on the left. 

In fact, countless times I have seen this type of hypocritical attitude from liberal political leaders and activists.  By now that is my default expectation for those on the other side of the political spectrum. 

But to be honest, it is truly sad to me to see that this type of “do as I say and not as I do” behavior can even be seen from those on the left who make their living behind a pulpit or as an expert on separation of church and state. 

There is just no place for that as far as I am concerned.

*To listen to the entire sermon, go here.

I’m working on the final installment of my religious freedom series, but I just couldn’t pass this one up. Special thanks to the RVA Patriots (@RVAPatriots on Twitter) from my hometown of Richmond, Virginia for posting this story.

The National Institute of Health, in a surpassingly frivolous and mind bendingly irresponsible foray into the realm of the meaningless, gave a $181,000 grant to a scientist at the University of Kentucky studying the effect of cocaine on the sex drive of Japanese quail. This, according to CNSNews.com.

Now, I could understand this grant if the species of quail were American. But really? Exporting our tax dollars to determine how much more frisky a Japanese quail becomes after hitting the white stuff? Honestly.

The NIH justifies the study because drugs play a role in a sizable proportion of sexual encounters where HIV/AIDS is transmitted among humans. But given the difference in cultural customs between the Japanese and Americans, I have to question the prudence of testing on foreign animals. After all, courtship and marriage customs are noticeably different between the U.S. and Japan, so I cannot help but expect the results to be skewed.

Finally, after some basic math, I have determined that each taxpaying American (60 percent of the general population) will pay an average of one tenth of a cent for this study. That number is tiny, and it is inconsequential in the big scheme. What is important here is the absurdity of the expenditure.

Now, rather than continue ranting, I am pleased to open the floor for some good, old-fashioned, First Amendment-sanctioned free expression. What are some other expenditures that rival or top this one in ridiculousness? Can you possibly justify to me why I should care about the, um, “energy level” of Japanese quail after a little bit of cocaine? Something tells me that there are more cost-effective and worthwhile ways to study the transmission of HIV/AIDS.

That “something” is called common sense. Apparently our National Institute of Health misplaced theirs, along with their fiscal responsibility.

I love bacon cheeseburgers.  I honestly do.  Give me a solid bacon cheeseburger covered in ketchup and mayo with a side of fries drenched in salt along with a frosty beverage and then a strawberry shake for dessert, and you have the making of my “Death Row Meal”. 

The problem with those foods, however, is that they are not very healthy.  Trust me, my wife is a dietitian, and I am well aware of what is healthy and what is not.  The bun is lathered in butter, the burgers is more than likely not lean, the cheese is probably made from whole milk, the ketchup is basically red liquid salt, the mayo is just horrible, the fries are nothing but a side of salt and fried calories, my frosty beverage (whether a soda or a beer) is filled with carbohydrates and empty calories, and the strawberry shake is a sugar lover’s dream.  And don’t even get started on bacon’s role in the clogging of my arteries.

But you know what?  I will still gladly eat it all of it and love every minute of the experience.  Why?  Because I can. 

Do I understand the unhealthiness in foods like this?  Sure I do.  In reality, how can I not?  Not only does my spouse educate me about what I am eating, but the media, the government, and even the First Lady is concerned about how bad certain foods are for us.  Trust me, I get it.

However, I also get something else:  With the liberty to make my own choices comes the responsibility to choose wisely. 

With this understanding I know that if I am going to eat like this then I probably need to get up each and every morning, tie up the laces on my running shoes, and hit the pavement. 

In fact, it is no one’s responsibility but mine to choose wisely, and the converse is that the consequences of my choices will be of my own making.  Thus, I don’t need, or want, someone making my choices for me in regards to what I can eat.  Or where I can worship.  Or how I educate my children.

My choices are just that – my choices.

For some reason, though, the left and/or the government believe they can take away my right to choose in many different areas of life.  For example, recently a state assemblyman in New York proposed banning the use of salt in New York restaurants.  He claimed it was about “healthcare costs and death”. 

Really?  We can keep healthcare costs down and prevent death by simply banning salt?  What if I want nothing more to eat really salty foods all day?  Isn’t that my personal choice?

Additionally, many states and municipalities are regulating things like what types of food can be sold in school vending machines, laws are already on the books requiring that children must wear a helmet if riding their bike, and suggestions are being made about whether or not to ban smoking in public housing areas (i.e. apartment complexes) including personal units.

As an aside, do I think that kids need to be taught by parents to make better food choices while also encouraging them to wear helmets when on their bikes?  Absolutely.  Do I think smoking is harmful and a disgusting habit?  Of course I do.

In my mind, personal and parental responsibility are far more important than greater regulation and government mandates.

Along those lines, does the government really need to be the one to decide these types of things for me?  Do I need a nanny state to mandate my person choices or the choices of my children?  In the end, where does this stop?  Will it ever stop?

Yet this is not a new way of thinking – this type of control grab has been going on for decades.

Think about this: Liberals have long said a woman deserves a right to choose what happens to her baby while it is in the womb – reproductive (ahem, abortion) rights are a foundational plank in their platform.  It is all about choice for them. 

But yet the left is also all about public education – an area in which the government gives little or no choice to parents about what school a child can attend based solely upon where they live. 

In reality, liberals are against school choice solutions that could potentially help students achieve their dreams by having the opportunity to attend excellent charter or private schools that are sometimes right down the street.

Additionally, the left has long been against an individual’s choice to exercise their right to bear arms.  Yet they wholeheartedly think that the government should be able to mandate that every single person in this country be covered by health insurance.  Where is my choice then?

In the end, liberals want to take away many of our choices in many different areas of our lives, and elected government officials at every level are doing nothing to stop this from happening.  And there is seemingly no end to this trend.

So what do those who believe in a limited role of government and individual liberty and freedom do?  How do we slow this statist train down and eventually stop it?

Simply, I believe it comes down to identifying local folks who believe in personal responsibility, freedom, and limited government, electing them to public office, and then holding them to the principles they espouse.

This means electing school board members who are more concerned with test scores than schools taking over as parents.  It means electing city council people who are more concerned with encouraging local private sector growth over expanding the municipal code.  And it means electing state legislators who want to create jobs rather than take away freedom and choice from hard working Americans.

This process must start locally first.  Then it will gradually work its way to the state and national level.

And in reality, the road to decreasing the size and scope of government, while also limiting the reach of left-leaning groups that are intent on making our country a statist nation, is a long and hard one.  Until we have the right people in place to change they system, we must hold current elected officials accountable for the direction they are taking this country.

To that end, and to my knowledge, we still have the choice to exercise our right to make our voices heard.  If we don’t act now, however, even that choice may not be around much longer.

The success of a political party, organization, or candidate is greatly influenced by how they appeal to a young audience.  Unfortunately, it is something that followers and leaders in the liberty movement seem to be struggling with in comparison to those of the left.  Though you’ll never hear me say this in any other context but this – it’s time we take a small lesson from the left.  After suffering from the results of the 2008 elections, it’s time we, as conservative and liberty-minded individuals, make a serious effort to get online and make a change in the way we are perceived by the digital generation.

After analyzing some successful, yet liberal sites, it is easy to see that there are a few things the left is doing right, in terms of appealing to both the younger generation and those who frequent the internet:

Overall layout and visual appeal – When you ask anybody what first attracted them to their spouse, the smart ones will always say, “It was their personality.”  However, the cold hard truth is that most are first attracted to physical appearance.  Just as one doesn’t fall in love with someone’s personality at first site, individuals don’t fall in love with the content on a website at first site either. As much as we hate to admit it, looks do matter. Having an aesthetically pleasing color scheme and user-friendly layout can go a long way.

Social networking – Social networking sites are not solely being used for people to keep in touch with friends and family.  More and more they are being used as a search engine when trying to find out about candidates or organizations, especially by young audiences that want to be engaged in the political process.  They are becoming an essential part of the political process, and the left is using this to their advantage.  Not only do left leaning sites excel in making their content very easy to share on facebook, twitter, flickr, youtube, etc. via links on their site, but they seem to have a bigger active presence on facebook as well.  After searching through prominent left leaning organizations’ fan pages and groups, and comparing them to those of the liberty movement, it was easy to see that we have some work to do.  While some prominent conservative groups have fan pages with a few hundred members, many left leaning groups can boast numbers in the tens of thousands.  Don’t get me wrong – the liberty movement is making some fantastic strides; however, there is still much work to be done.

Extras – If you want to be able to influence the younger generation, you first have to understand them.  The left appears to fully understand this concept based on certain content that is offered on their websites.  Having been a college student during the 2008 presidential election, I saw first-hand the left’s success in influencing my peers.  It became trendy and fashionable for college students to walk around campus wearing t-shirts with a presidential candidate’s face on it and campaign buttons on their backpacks.  They did this by marketing it to an online audience. They understood the appeal of pop culture icons, for example the characters in the Twilight series.  (Which I believe to be a ridiculous craze) They used the commonly touted terminology “Team Edward” and “Team Jacob” to formulate “Team Obama” t-shirts and bumper stickers.  They even used college mascots to reach students.  At a nearby university, t-shirts with the words “Rock Chalk Barack” sold like hotcakes and were worn to class constantly, which I assure you, influenced many more than just the students that bought them.  Anyone who has ever walked into a college dorm room knows posters are practically essential to a young person’s room decor.  The left, having marketed “Hope” posters during the election, was able to reach a plethora of young individuals with their message simply by making these products available on left-leaning websites.  It’s much easier to appeal to a group of individuals when you understand them, and the left understands.

I’m not saying that we need to copy the left or change our message to something that could be summed up on a trendy t-shirt.  Our message needs to stay consistent; however, we need to make it easier for a younger generation to get involved and feel engaged.  Though not all of the digital generation is able to make an immediate difference in terms of voting now, recruiting them to the movement as early as possible will help shape them into the kind of active citizens that will make a positive impact on their country.  Changing our online appeal will not only help the movement in appealing to the younger and politically active generation, but will also be an investment in our future.

We always hear of the benefits, virtues, and civic duty (both economic and social) related to supporting our local community through patronage of local business: “Buy Local”.  I have no problem with that.  I support local business as much as the next guy, but what I don’t completely understand is why this principle of local responsibility does not translate to political participation: “Vote Local”.

Previously I had posted on the importance of winning locally and how political involvement and success at the local level directly translates to extended success at the state and national level.   Today’s post is devolution of this concept: to win locally, you must first vote locally.

Early voting has begun for the May 8th municipal elections in the vast majority of the towns and cities across Texas.  These elections represent the most direct and consequential control we have over the instruments of government that are closest to us.  Unfortunately, statistically speaking the results of these elections have traditionally been the least representative (or at best ambiguously indicative) of the people’s will simply due to woefully low voter turnout numbers.  Voter turnout in Travis County, Texas in last year’s local elections hovered at around 6% with several races and propositions being decided by 15 votes or less.
Mind you, that’s of registered voters.  Seriously think about that… theoretically it could break down like this:  In a community of 25k eligible voters where 75% of them are registered to vote and only 6% of those registered turn out to vote in their local election, only 1,125 citizens are actually participating in the process of selecting who will be making important local decisions on behalf of the entire community of over 25,000 people.

If you’re really looking to make a direct political impact in your community, educate yourself on the local issues and candidates and vote in your local election!  Relatively speaking, your vote as part of the 6% or 7% participating in a local election has far greater proportional impact than in a statewide or national election.  Additionally, by wielding your local vote, you exercise far more control over your immediate environment than you do by, say, voting for Congress… and for the most part, local elections occur every year allowing for a increasingly malleable political landscape.

Imagine if commonsense conservatives decided to take ownership of their local elections.  Encouraging good candidates to run for school board and city council, helping them campaign, and then turned out in mass to get them elected… How much of your tax dollars would be saved or spent more wisely?  How many useless ordinances would not come into existence?  How long would it be till this tradition of conservative values found its way to the State House… to Washington?

Bottom line:  Vote Local

Since the advent of the conservative resurgence I have attended a number of TEA Party events, interacted with tens of thousands of TEA Partiers, trained over a fifteen-hundred with American Majority and spoken at several rallies and protests. One behavior I have never observed at these events or exhibited by the patriots around me is racism.

For some of you this may be a surprising revelation, considering the uncountable charges of racism levied at TEA Partiers. As a matter of fact, if a person was to draw a caricature of a TEA Party attendee based just on the main stream media coverage of such events I wouldn’t be surprised if it came out looking like a KKK Grand Dragon.

While I’ve been offended by the baseless accusations of racism that so many conservatives have faced, it was not until this last week that one such charge was levied against my person and a group of patriots with which I proudly associate.

On Tax day, I attended and spoke at the Lone Star TEA Party, in Grand Prairie, TX. It was a coalition event put together by 24 area conservative organizations. Apparently, Charles Blow, columnist for the New York Times, heard about our gathering and came to join us. On Friday he published an article titled, “A Mighty Pale TEA,” in which he gave his impression of the event.

In his article, Mr. Blow alleged he felt physically threatened at one point, refers to the diversity of the speaker lineup as “a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad” and ended the article by saying that he “saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance.” It’s worth mentioning though that he at no point states that he was threatened (even in the most veiled of manners) and not once in his article does he mention interaction with another attendee. Never once does he mention any evidence of racism, although he continually purported that all those present were guilty of exactly that. Furthermore, only once does he give even a partial quote of a speaker, and only then to deride him for his lack of high-school degree.

Mr. Blow’s best efforts to prove racism on the part of TEA Party attendees did nothing more than expose his own lack of journalistic integrity. His column is one of the most egregious examples of a person fitting events to his preconceived notions I’ve ever seen. In an interview on the Laura Ingram Show, Blow further evidenced this point when he admitted that he didn’t even engage TEA Party attendees in conversation or interviews (to hear the interview Click Here.)

At the end of the day, we know that charges of racism will continue to be a theme among detractors of the conservative movement. The fact that the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary will not slow such accusations. Knowing this, conservatives must refuse to be distracted by such baseless claims and push forward trying to make this country a more free nation for each American, regardless of race, creed or gender. That is my goal. That is American Majority’s mission.

The best response I’ve seen to Mr. Blow’s article is a video from Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel, an African American conservative comedian. Zo spoke at the Lone Star TEA Party and was the speaker that Blow most specifically attacked. I’ve shared the stage with Zo twice now and know him to be an inspirational man. Check out his video response below:

On March 25^th in Iowa City, Iowa, President Obama said the following: “On Tuesday, after a year of debate and a century of trying, after so many of you shared your stories and your heartaches and your hopes, that promise was finally fulfilled.  And today, health insurance reform is the law of the land.”

In taking his victory lap (and in innumerable remarks made over the past year) President Obama once again turned to a tried and true weapon in his rhetorical arsenal: the 100 year argument for healthcare reform.

Many questions arise out of what the President has been saying about the past 100 years in regards to this battle for healthcare reform.  If the press were doing their job, they would ask questions like “Why would he use this argument time and time again in pushing for healthcare reform in 2010?”, or “Who exactly has been trying to get healthcare reform done for 100 years?”, or even “Why have these folks been trying so hard for so long?” 

But the best question, and the one I would ask, could be “If healthcare reform is so great, why has it taken 100 years to finally pass it?”

There could be many answers to this very complex question, but the most obvious answer is that the people of the United States have never overwhelmingly desired or called healthcare reform.  Thus our elected officials have never taken the extreme steps to force it upon us.

If this is true, then this gives us insight to the basic identity and desires of the American public as a whole.  And this knowledge better explains what guides the people who have pushed the ideals that are opposite of what Americans have consistently desired. 

This understanding also sheds light on how the American public will undoubtedly respond and react when their collective will is trampled upon by those in the minority who fall outside of this basic identity.

To this end it could very easily be said that in the republic we in which we live the will of the people is designed to reign supreme.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”

If this is the case, what relationship is there between a 100 year push for healthcare and the seemingly opposite will of the American public?

Well, according to this New York Times timeline, over those 100 years the following presidents have attempted to drastically overhaul of our healthcare system or have openly pushed for universal healthcare: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

Take a look at that list – not exactly a conservative dream team.

Okay, that tells us who has led the push.  But what about our country?

Most conservatives would call our country a “center-right” nation.  When you look over the entirety of the country (past the population centers and even certain geographical anomalies) it certainly appears as if this is the case.  We are not overwhelmingly conservative nor are we overwhelmingly liberal.  However, our historical inclination to the free market system, capitalism, and a limited form of government lead many people believe that the country leans at least somewhat to the right.

Identification studies back this up.  In October, 2009, Gallup released a poll where 40% of Americans say they consider themselves “conservative”, 36% consider themselves “moderate”, and 22% consider themselves “liberal”.

Yet as a country we do elect presidents who lean left.  In fact, we have done this on many occasions over the past 100 years.  However, this could be because of the popularity of the parties at certain times, how well campaigns are run or not run, or the political circumstances that surround hotly contested elections.

What is also true is that the current President was not swept into office by a massive popular vote margin as some on the left would have you believe.  In fact, the popular vote was a difference of roughly 9.5 million votes out of just over 131 million cast – this translated into a difference of 7.25% of the total number of votes.  To put that into perspective, in 1984 Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale by 16.9 million votes or 18.2%.  Where we that much different in 1984 than we were in 2008?

No.  Just as Reagan’s victory was a product of its time, the same can be true for Obama’s victory.

Furthermore, what these figures certainly do not signify is that those of us on the right are all of the sudden overwhelmingly outnumbered by those on the left.  But that is what the left would like you to believe.

On his Twitter account, Roger Ebert said this before the healthcare vote: “Not ONE Republican will depart from the Party Line. Suicidal. Out of touch with America, which WANTS this bill.”  Subsequently after the vote his reaction was much the same: “I feel kinda like I did on Nov. 4, 2008. The American people have good hearts, and democracy works. Lies and fear do not prevail.”   

What are the clear lessons we can learn from this outspoken liberal?  That the American people who voted for Obama have good hearts.  Democracy works even though no one on the opposite side of the aisle would vote for the bill.  And because no Republicans would vote for the bill, it is suicide for them politically because America WANTS this bill. 

I don’t think so, Roger.  If we are to believe public polls, America very clearly did not want the bill and still does not want the bill even as it has been signed into law.  Certain segments obviously desire this type of government intervention within healthcare (and every other aspect of their lives), and they are very passionate about their support.  But to make an overarching statement such as the entire country wants something this clearly partisan is just not very intelligent.  To me these kinds of statements born out of Roger’s liberal isolationism sound just plain silly. 

Additionally, If Roger’s assertions were true about the bill’s massive popularity, then the bill would have been passed the House by an overwhelming margin by members of both parties.  Instead, it only passed by a meager 4 votes; all of which were from the same political party.

All of this takes us back to the original question: Why did it take 100 years to pass major health reform? 

Again, could the answer simply be that because we are a center/right country, as a whole we have never truly supported massive healthcare reform?

If this is true, then the converse is also true: Only a certain liberal segment of society has always wanted massive healthcare reform and relentlessly worked toward it for 100 years.

So what is different about 2010?  If the country did not dramatically change, then what made the difference now?

This difference is that this certain liberal segment of society that has been fighting this war for the past 100 years also happens to currently lead the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  And it also holds the office of President of the United States.

Simply put, it was a perfect storm of liberal leadership imposing their will on not only a center/right American public but also the numerous centrist Democrats currently serving in the United States Congress.  We know this is true by the amount of arm-twisting, deal making, and parlimentarian tricks it took to get to the necessary 216 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. 

If we were to be honest, we could even go so far as to say that three people flexed their political muscle and overrode the will of the people of the United States of America.

And now they wonder why an overwhelming segment of the population is so angry?  Could it be that we are upset our collective will got trampled on?

So what do we do?  If we are a center/right country who is not pleased by their left leaning leadership both locally and in Washington, what is the plan?  How should we proceed from this point on?

The first thing we must do is unite under a center/right flag with those whom are willing to fight for a common purpose.  If we can humbly and effectively figure out the ideals and philosophies we share and focus on them, we can unite to build effective and long-term coalitions.

Secondly, we need to be trained as educated citizens how to re-take our country through information gathering and sharing, community changing elections, and through the persuasion of more sensible ideals.

And lastly, we need to identify and support solid candidates to run for office on the local level in preparation for national change.  Then we need to give these people the tools and resources to win.  This involves encouraging center/right folks to properly assist them and support them as campaign volunteers and voters on election day.

By following these few game-changing principles we can undo what’s been done.  But it will take time, patience, and the right people in office to do the job.  American Majority can help through our candidate and activist trainings, and other organizations can provide massive amounts of tools and resources to take us from an angry group of protesting citizens to a focused group of implementers of freedom.

It is up to us, folks.  We all need to help.  We must now flex our political muscles as free and proud Americans.

In the end, if we do it correctly, we will get back to where we have always been as a center/right nation – a nation dedicated to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.