What should the President do if he finds himself in the midst of wrapping up a war that has claimed the lives of many and divided a country; presiding over an Economy that has generally prospered despite the war and finds himself at odds with international partners because of the war?

If you are Abraham Lincoln you issue a proclamation of Thanksgiving. Let me be clear. You issue a proclamation of Thanksgiving not merely for the blessings you enjoy, but you pointedly name and offer homage to the Source of that blessing, "... The Most High God ... our beneficent Father ..." Whose " ... Almighty hand ... works in human history to accomplish ... the Divine purposes ...." If you are Abraham Lincoln you gratefully acknowledge God's gifts while beseeching Him for His mercy for "... our sins ... [and] ... for our national perversenenss and disobedience ...."

But of course, as is widely recognized by many of today's Republican intelligentsia, such public displays of religion and Christianity should be returned to the privacy of one's heart where they speak to no one; they should be avoided because of the damage such expressions of faith do to the Party's efforts to be about The People's business; they cannot help but push thinking and rational people away from the Party and towards the other side which has sensibly removed God from every last public place. A Party and a President who does such a thing deserves to be in the minority and will be seen by history as presiding over the destruction of the Party and its principles.

For the rest of Lincoln's proclamation which, as some historians have discovered, contributed to the healing of a nation; the unifying of a nation and the ascending of a Party to power and prominence, read on. Or you can just go back to your Turkey and dressing and shake your head at those Right Wing Religious nuts and their silly ideas about human dignity and worth, the nature of man, the struggle between Good and Evil and other interesting but irrelevant things ...

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the field of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than theretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.

In testimony wherof I have herunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Thank you to Bobbie Patray of the Tennessee Eagle Forum for reminding me of all of this, and ...

From my family to yours,

A Blessed and Joyous Thanksgiving ...

Blue Collar Muse

For millions of Americans, the results on November 4th were sad but not surprising. They signaled the failure of an ideology which held power for years, promised much and delivered little.

To some, the failure was due to problems inherent in Free Markets, Capitalism, Limited Government, Social Conservatism and the rest of the foundations of Conservative thought. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama's message was electing John McCain meant "4 more years" of George Bush. He was right. Unsaid was that electing him would be worse! Apart from the War on Terror and SCOTUS picks, what Bush accomplishments would Obama have problems with?

Bush has grown Government with a GOP controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years. Obama is unhappy about that? Congress passed the Medicaid spending increase. Obama is unhappy about that? Congress passed Kennedy's Education Bill. Obama is unhappy about that? Social Security Privatization failed. Obama is unhappy about that? Immigration? The Bailout? Obama is even talking about Welfare disguised as Tax Cuts for heaven's sake! One could go on and on.

On too many issues and at too many levels, Conservative principles did not fail, Conservative principles failed to be upheld!

There were bright spots. The defeats of Harriet Meiers' nomination, the Immigration Reform bill and the Dubai Port Deal come to mind. Common to these successes was the grassroots involvement of everyday Americans refusing to allow Government to take the nation in the wrong direction. We did it then, we can do it again.

This morning, the #dontgo Movement gives us that opportunity! #dontgo was founded by Eric Odom and Allen Fuller on a Friday in August when Nancy Pelosi and Democrats turned off the lights in the People's House and went home. Big Government and Democrats didn't have time for you. But many GOP House members believed different! They stayed and told Democrats, "Don't Go! Come back and finish the People's business!" With no cameras or microphones, those voices went basically unheard.

Until Odom and Fuller put up a Twitter hashtag - #dontgo. The word started trickling out. Until Odom and Fuller put up a website #dontgomovement.com so cellphone video, pictures and blog posts could get out. Until the MSM picked up what grassroots, New Media activists were doing and for the next month, the message "Don't Go!" followed Nancy Pelosi from book signing to book signing! Better, tens of thousands of people rallied to one of the most successful grassroots efforts on the Right in years.

That was 2 months ago. While the issue birthing #dontgo is no longer a rally point, people are still looking for a voice to speak to Big Government to foster change! Good news. Odom and #dontgo didn't stop working and growing when the microphones moved on to the next issue. This morning brings us this:

“Center Right Movement Heats up the Internet”
Conservative Bloggers See Netroots As Key To Advancing Policy

On Monday, November 10th www.dontgomovement.com will host an e-launch party to celebrate its fully-functional website and new online radio show devoted to advancing conservative netroots activism.

#dontgo originally began as a simple internet tag that the founders would put on their blog posts while tracking the energy debate by the US Congress on August 1st, quickly it became used by hundreds of activists including members of Congress not just to track the energy bill, but to energize and push conservative values. Soon thereafter the site was created and to date has 30,000 opt-in email subscribers.

The #dontgo Revolution takes web-based strategies and tactics that Democrats used in the last election cycle to advance conservative views and values. The mission is to develop a fifty state strategy of blogs and internet social networks that would get more conservatives active in their communities leading into the 2010 elections.

Communications Director Juliana Johnson states, “As we witnessed in the 2008 elections web-based strategies are imperative. Conservatives have time and time again failed to use the internet to attract voters and get more people active. We hope that with the launch of this website we will be able to effectively wage the battle of ideas with the left in cyberspace.”

Monday’s radio show (online) will air at 5pm CST. In order to listen please go to www.dontgomovement.com and on the right there is a button “listen to #dontgo radio”.

CONTACT: Juliana Johnson, Director of Communications
(312) 575-9500 (office)
(847) 691-9278 (cell)
julianatjohnson@gmail.com

If you're a an eActivist - a blogger, vlogger, podcaster, internet radio host or wiki editor - head to dontgomovement.com and sign up. If you're a traditional activist - a door knocker, phone caller, envelope stuffer, poll watcher or election day driver - head to dontgomovement.com and get involved. You'll be building the state-by-state, city-by-city, block-by-block structure needed to rein in Liberals regardless of Party. And you'll enable the election of politicians who won't just campaign to the Right, they'll govern that way, too!

This is not just a hope! We've seen people work together, they can bring real change. Your passion has moved you in the past. #dontgo gives that passion an effective outlet. Come join us!

Blue Collar Muse

Tuesday night, Barack Obama spoke to a waiting country and a wondering world. Found in his words are a myriad reasons to reject what he stands for. The election is over and Obama is President.  Some say the healing must now begin and we must unite behind Barack. Obama himself appealed “…to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn — I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.”

I say, Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots.  As he ran, so will he govern. I will not be a party to that.

Obama’s speech text is here. The video is here.   Please read it before reading my comments.

When Obama “wonders if the dream of our founders is alive”, I remember what those Founders wrote. They were “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Obama believes some men are more equal than others. When advocating for nonexisent rights or for granting more rights to some than to me, he will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama says he wants to “… renew this nation’s promise … to restore prosperity … to reclaim the American Dream …”; when he speaks of “remaking this nation” I must ask, when was the promise broken and by whom; who stole our prosperity; who moved the American Dream out of reach of everyday Americans and who pulled down our nation that it needs to be remade? For a century, it has been the ideological allies of Barack Obama who have done so. When raising our taxes, curtailing our liberty, weakening the defense of our country and bankrupting our businesses and Economy - Obama will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama says his Presidency was launched in “the living rooms of Concord” and financed “by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give … to this cause” I marvel at his deception. When he enters the Oval Office it will complete a journey begun in the living room of William Ayers’ and which traveled a path financed by thousands of people Obama will not identify, many of whom are not even Americans. He will enter the office of the President, but not my President.

When Obama says “… the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime …” and references our military and families worried about tomorrow, I recoil in horror from the cavalier exploitation of those about whom he is ignorant. My son is in the military he will command and I have four more children at home to care for. When he sends my son into harm’s way but threatens not to support him while there; when he takes money for which I labor and which I need to support my family to give to families he decides need it more he will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama calls for “a new spirit of patriotism”, I struggle to find something wrong with the old one. When Obama gives away our sovereignty and national interests to our enemies and those who would weaken us he will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama calls for us to “look after not only ourselves, but each other” and to believe “that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers” I marvel at his hypocrisy. Under the old spirit of “service and responsibility” he would replace, Americans were the most generous and industrious people on earth. When Obama decides who it is I must sacrifice for and brings suffering to Main Street via higher taxes for the Wall Street Bailout he will be the President, but not my President.

Obama’s words are empty. His promise is hollow. His dreams are nightmares. To be my President, he must deny everything he confesses to believe in. He must repudiate his stated policies. He must realize the paradise he seeks is found in the principles and promises of others. As the President, he may invoke the imagery of Lincoln, King and Kennedy but his appeal to their memory defiles their legacy.

He says he will be my President.  But he will not because he cannot.  To expect me to believe otherwise insults me.  And that, too, is something my President would not do.

Blue Collar Muse

While I’m unwilling to concede just yet that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, it would be foolish to deny that possibility. Even if John McCain wins, the status of Conservatism in the GOP and politics generally is troubling at best.

Politicians and The People, with few exceptions, seem determined to abandon sound, proven truths for the warm, fuzzy rhetoric of the Economic and Social policies of “Hope!” and “Change!” It’s difficult to blame The People. They gave the GOP a shot at letting Conservative ideology work it’s magic on the country for years.  Turns out the Pols weren’t as Conservative as advertised.

The years after the Reagan era are defined by a GOP wanting more to breed and less to lead. GOP strategy was “What must we do to increase our power and get re-elected?” instead of “What must we do to serve the people and earn our re-election?”

The nominations of Bob Dole,  W and now John McCain coupled with the strategy of many GOP House and Senate candidates has reinforced that approach. A notable exception, AZ Representative John Shadegg, says even at the height of 1994’s Republican Revolution the GOP’s advice was his most important job wasn’t to represent his district or promote his constituents’ values; it was to get re-elected.

This approach has tainted Conservatism in the minds of the people. It has become identical to, or at least wed to the GOP.  Thus the sins of the Party become the sins of the Principled.  Even if Conservatives object, pointing out they never countenanced bad behavior by the GOP (The Bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform) The People still see them as part of the problem and not the solution. How else to understand what happened to Rick Santorum, George Allen and others?

Such losses make the Democrats’ job easier. Each defeated Conservative frees up time, energy and money to defeat those remaining. Squishy GOP members voted with Democrats enough to permit them to establish portions of their agenda and to regain solid Congressional majorities. Two things will follow: those who believe the Left can be reasoned with and appeased will be rudely awakened and the country will suffer. To date, only the second is happening.

GOP snubbing of Conservatives has produced much soul searching. The choices are stay in the GOP and work internally for change or leave to found or join a third party. I’m not advocating either choice. But enabling the status quo is not an option. We each must decide what the best use is of our time and talents. To decide, regardless of who wins the White House, a few things should be influential.

Christopher Arledge at Red County has written ‘The End of American Conservatism?’ and at The Minority Report, Civil Truth has penned ‘A Time for Choosing: Even Truer 44 Years Later’. They are as good a starting place as any for Conservatives asking where they go from here. I commend them to you. If you find, or if you have written, posts with similar themes, let me know and I’ll aggregate them here as a resource.

It is impossible to predict the consequences of next week’s election. It is, however, quite possible to predict what will happen if Conservatives do nothing. Surrender and chains being unacceptable options, regrouping and fighting on will have to do for now …

Blue Collar Muse

Sitting in airports most of yesterday, I got an earful of CNN's coverage of Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama.

It effectively undercut two of the most damning truths about Obama. Particularly galling was the interview with Claire McCaskill. Grinning like the Cheshire cat, she gushed Obama must be the best choice since Powell, a military man, would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists. This despite the fact Powell's endorsement included nothing addressing the validity of those two points. Even afterward, General Powell did not address with specificity his rationale for endorsing Obama.

By far, however, the most disappointing aspect of Powell's endorsement was his contention that, despite his decision, he still considers himself a Republican. I do not know the General nor have I ever spoken to him. I believe he is a good man and his skilled service to our country as a military man is beyond exemplary. But I cannot accept his contention that he is a Republican. It is not because he endorsed the nominee from the other side. It is his stated reasons for doing so.

Over the last 8 years, three prominent Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee; Zell Miller, Democratic Senator from Georgia; Ed Koch, former Democratic Mayor of NYC and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from CT and 2000 Democratic VP nominee. When these Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee, they did so deliberately and with specificity. They did so while remaining Democrats. With the exception of Zell Miller, they did so while disagreeing with Republicans on almost every other point except the War on Terror. Concluding aggression against the US was the greatest threat to the nation and that Democrats could not or would not see that, these men broke with their party to support a GOP nominee. Miller's endorsement followed in the well established DixieCrat tradition of Conservative southern Democrats. There was nothing that demanded these men be excluded from the Democratic Party.

There was a fair amount of criticism from the Left directed at these men for their decision. Like Powell, however, they maintained they were still Democrats while breaking with the party on the war. That break cost them. While Miller retired shortly after his endorsement, he was villified by Leftists. Lieberman was actively opposed by the Democratic Party in his bid for reelection to the Senate. These men remain Democrats in all things except for their endorsements. Ed Koch is supporting Obama and thinks Palin is scary. Joe Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats and votes with them on virtually all matters not related to the war. It is clear, whether or not you agree with their assessment of the war, that was the reason they supported the nominee from the GOP.

Colin Powell's rationale isn't even close to as specific. It's filled with nebulous and meaningless platitudes. Obama brings a fresh set of eyes to the problem. Well, so does Sarah Palin. Obama is inclusive. This is simply laughable as there is literally zero evidence for that. If inclusiveness is the criteria by which we are to judge, McCain is the hands down winner. Powell is uncomfortable with the rhetoric coming out of the McCain camp regarding Obama's association with terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Evidently he is OK with the rhetoric coming from the camps of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, that support the Illinois Senator.

In short, Powell's objections to McCain aren't policy based. They aren't ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. That is not to say personality has nothing to do with how to evaluate a candidate. But it ought to be last on the list and certainly not a basis for abandoning party policy and ideology. Unless, of course, your policy and ideology is more akin to the other guy's than to the one you are generally associated with.

Colin Powell, when asked if he was still a Republican, responded that he was. With all respect to the General, I must disagree. There is little evidence from his speech that he is. His endorsement of Obama ignores that Obama is for bigger Government, higher Taxes, decreased personal Liberty, weaker national Defense and a host of other anti-GOP notions. Powell does not list a single issue or policy with which Obama is at odds with the GOP and which he considers paramount beyond all considerations for the safety and security of our nation. Instead, he gives a general and sweeping endorsement of the man and his policies which are unquestionably Left of center.

If you can explain to me how this is a Republican view, I'm willing to listen. But from here it sounds like a Democrat in GOP clothing standing up for what he believes in. I have no issue with the good General if he wants to hold Democratic views. I would appreciate, however, the intellectual honesty to admit the same and make the announcement that he cannot, in good conscience, remain in the GOP any longer and that he was endorsing the Democratic agenda.

That's an endorsement I could respect.

Blue Collar Muse

Tuesday, my post ‘ACORN’s 15 State Strategy for Voter Fraud’ provoked a great deal of response across the Interwebz. I don’t believe it alone was responsible for the Left’s development of talking points but said points were clearly in evidence. Discussion at The Next Right was most brisk with Leftist memes posted in abundance.

The short version? ACORN is the victim, not the criminal, so it can’t be involved in vote fraud! ACORN has never been convicted of vote fraud so it can’t be involved! ACORN reported its own fraudulent registrations so it can’t be involved! ACORN cooperated with the investigations so it can’t be involved! Real vote fraud only happens while casting a vote at the polls so ACORN can’t be involved. Statements to the contrary are based on isolated incidents so ACORN can’t be involved! ACORN isn’t responsible for the actions of a few bad eggs who make them look bad so it can’t be involved. It’s the start of a multi-state victim strategy.

Of course this only works if the protests are legitimate. Let’s take a look.

“Vote fraud can only happen at the polls!” would seem the most exonerating objection. But this is a straw man. After all, ACORN is an organization, not a person, so it cannot vote at all, fraudulently or otherwise. Yet ACORN is being investigated for vote fraud. How can that be? Because the law does not confine vote fraud to merely voting behavior.

While I’ve not spoken with all of them, I called election officials for the 13 states from Tuesday’s post asking about vote fraud definitions. Those I spoke with agreed “vote fraud” was best seen as a single, general term covering several, specific crimes. Actually voting fraudulently is vote fraud as are any number of actions, including fraudulently registering voters, fraudulently registering to vote and more. Investigations of such behavior by ACORN, its employees or agents are vote fraud investigations.

Ditto for convictions. One ACORN apologist, Timothy, has continually asked me to produce a single conviction of ACORN for vote fraud. The Wall Street Journal says it happened in Wisconsin and Colorado. Timothy says he followed my links. Perhaps he missed the one for Washington state. Rotten Acorn notes in this case, “Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history.” ACORN settled the case. The settlement agreement is here. It’s all about what ACORN agrees to in order to avoid getting hammered.

ACORN’s agreement addresses the next objection: ACORN isn’t the bad guy; their self-policing makes them a good guy!. As with any such claim, the devil’s in the details. King County gave ACORN a pass if they self-reported problem registrations within 14 days. Self-reporting from 15-30 days earned them a $250 fine per incident. Over 30 days brought a $1,000 per incident fine. The question isn’t so much does ACORN self police as when. The WSJ’s John Fund has some insight into the answer out of Kansas City.

Finally, in the King County settlement ACORN agreed (as did all the election officials I asked about this) they can be held liable for the actions of their employees. No longer can they hide, as they have before, behind the excuse a few bad eggs ruined their reputation. Prosecutors may, for reasons of their own, choose not to prosecute the organization, but it’s a real option.

Washington state found ACORN’s personnel oversight to be “virtually nonexistant.” Their training seemed little better. King County demanded the same solution to the problem I suggested; change your business practices! Train and supervise your employees well. Tell them what breaking election law can mean. The King County case was last year, 2007. Why, then, is ACORN still having problems if all they are really committed to is, as Timothy says, conducting “… a very successful effort to register voters.”

There are major elections every two years and scores of lesser ones every year. With all that’s at stake, there will always be charges of fraud. But when one group routinely attracts accusations of wrongdoing, perhaps it’s time to look at them. Regarding ACORN, I say, “Democrats, perhaps it’s time to wash your hands of them.” No voter registration organization has a track record even remotely close to ACORN’s. And a rotten acorn can’t produce a healthy tree.

It really is as serious as I make it out to be. Including the 13 states with ACORN problems this year, since 1998, the following states have had problems with ACORN. Beyond their 15 state vote fraud strategy, ACORN now has a 19 state victim strategy. And ACORN only operates in 38 states. This is big and getting bigger. If mighty oaks truly grow from little acorns, there’s no surer proof than this. I think a call to the arborist is in order!

Arkansas / Colorado / Connecticut / Florida / Indiana / Louisiana / Michigan / Minnesota / Missouri / Nevada / New Mexico / North Carolina / Ohio / Pennsylvania / Texas / Virginia / Washington / Wisconsin.

Blue Collar Muse

Much has been made of the Democrats 50 state strategy to win the election.  Who knew there was a fall back 15 state strategy to steal it if they couldn’t win it?

Americans who haven’t heard about ACORN and voter fraud haven’t been paying attention. Some have been hearing about it for years. Others are just now hearing after waking up to find elections upon us once again. Seems like every couple of years there’s an election and whenever there is, there’s talk about people trying to steal it.

This year is no different. But for the first time, the fraud seems massive and everywhere.  And most all the fingers are pointing at ACORN.  They are political activists, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. According to Wikipedia, ACORN ” … is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care and other social issues.” Wikipedia has frozen further edits to ACORN’s page because people can’t agree; according to others, ACORN is a Liberal group committed to electing Democrats by any means possible, legal and illegal.

Prior to 2008, while ACORN was a player in terms of voter fraud, there wasn’t much to report.  My first memory is South Dakota from 2002. This year ACORN is under scrutiny in over a fourth of America’s 50 states.

According to the New York Post and numerous other sources, 15 states are looking into ACORN for possible voter fraud. There’s just one problem, I can’t find 15 from this election cycle.  I can only find 13!  I looked but no one reporting the 15 state figure backed it up.  A bit of light was shed when I found a comment making the tally 15 “since 2004″.  Not quite the felonious total first reported, but why quibble over a couple of states.  A count of 13 still means in 2/3 of the states in which ACORN ran registration drives this cycle, there were problems.  If anyone knows the other two states, let me know and I’ll issue an update.  If problems turn up in any of other states, let me know as well.

The 13 instances noted below are all from this election cycle.  All but the Washington case are from 2008.

Connecticut - falsifying/forging voter registration cards;

Florida - falsifying voter registration;

Indiana - falsifying/forging voter registration cards;

Michigan - dozens of fraudulent forms;

Missouri - falsifying voter registration applications;

Nevada - fraudulent registrations including two for Tony Romo and Terrell Owens of the Dallas Cowboys;

New Mexico - hiring felons to work on registration drives;

North Carolina - fraudulent registrations submitted;

Ohio -  one man ACORN registered to vote over 70 times;

Pennsylvania - $2k reward offered for ACORN temp charged with perjury, identity theft and vote fraud;

Texas - 40% of 27K registrations from Houston rejected;

Washington - worst case of registration fraud in state history;

Wisconsin - hiring felons as “special registration deputies” and falsifying registration forms.

The links above are just one link to the state’s story.  In several instances there are multiple reports on the same case and in a few instances, there are multiple cases of fraud in a single state.  The point is, this isn’t made up.  ACORN’s standard response seems to be the “We can’t be made to pay for what others do!” defense.  But they don’t seem to mind if we pay in their place.

With the news out the Obama campaign hired ACORN, paying them $800k for voter registration it seems likely the heat is not going to do anything but increase.  Stay tuned and stay informed.  Alert and knowledgeable citizens outflank 15 state strategies every time!

Blue Collar Muse

I don't remember first hearing the term "9/11 Conservatives" to describe those with post 9/11 epiphanies. Realizing Liberal degradation of the US was destroying it in people's minds, 9/11 Conservatives abandoned the Left in droves. I do remember I didn't need the term explained to me. Its meaning was instantly grasped. The concept has been applied to different specifics over the years but it's still clear. A big enough event can break through indifference, and even opposition, forcing us to deal with it and its consequences. Given that, perhaps it's possible to learn something from attacks on other American institutions.

Free Market Capitalism is clearly under attack in the wake of recent financial woes. Listening to Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, Capitalism and Free Markets produced those problems. They were so bad, Government had to put Socialist bandages on Capitalist wounds. The Truth is otherwise. An objective evaluation show Government Market meddling and Watergate style Government cover-ups behind the current financial ravaging. The same is true of the subsequent bailout.

People are not as stupid as the Left needs them to be. Citizens will see Big Government, not Free Markets, caused the problem. They'll understand the Government's solution, as in 1929, made the situation far worse than it would have been had it let the Market work. They'll recognize a prime Government weakness is needing to be seen doing something, even something bad! And they'll realize one can't eliminate Bear Markets if one also wants Bull Markets. Uninterrupted growth is unrealistic. There will be Market corrections and they are healthy. Public understanding of Governmental responsibility for the problem as evidenced by the bailout, the Community Reinvestment Act and more will ultimately push more people towards fiscal conservatism than towards centrally planned Socialism. Call them CRA FisCons.

Equally large is the assault on the sanctity of the voting process. We have peaceful transitions of power due to public confidence in the electoral process. While there have been many charges of vote fraud over the years, in the last decade, Democrats have stepped up efforts to destroy confidence in the system in order to acquire legislative power. In 2000 Al Gore retracted his concession, forcing the Florida recount nightmare on the country. Eight years later I still see "Bush was selected, not elected!" bumper stickers. The Left refused to accept a certified vote because it showed them losing. This obsession fueled efforts to ensure it never happens again, even if they need to cheat.

Ask Democrats if the GOP engages in vote fraud and twenty minutes later you might get a word in to ask for evidence. There is, no doubt, evidence of GOP vote fraud available if one looks hard enough. But the truth is the GOP behaves better than Dems in respecting the sanctity of the process. John Ashcroft didn't demand the special election to which he was entitled following his loss to a dead man in 2000. In 2002, John Thune refused a recount to which he was entitled by South Dakota's Constitution despite significant evidence of vote fraud by Democrats.

Ask Democrats about New Jersey illegally putting Frank Lautenberg on the ballot in 2002. Ask them about ACORN being investigated and charged with vote fraud across the country. Ask them about ACORN execs fired, resigned in disgraced or fined for vote fraud. And if you ask why Democrats continue to support such a tainted and disgraced organization, you'll get non-answers delivered with a straight face.

Reliance on and allegiance to ACORN will ultimately cost them. The Democratic Party and individual Democrats should denounce ACORN. They should demand investigations to produce confidence in the process. They should vote to end public funding accounting for 40% of ACORN's budget and advise private donors putting up the other 60% to cut ACORN off. Democrats should call for trials and harsh sentences for those convicted of manipulating the voting process to disenfranchise others. But they don't and they won't. ACORN is doing exactly what Democrats want them to do. They want distrust of the process in the public mind.

Once again, Americans are not that stupid. The Left cannot spin ACORN as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or even the Right in general. ACORN is clearly both intentionally engaged in vote fraud and an obvious Democratic tool. As Americans grasp this truth, look for ACORN Republicans to make themselves known.

Finally, it never ceases to amaze how Democrats spin relationships. GWB was in the oil business so he must be a shill for Big Oil. Dick Cheney served on Haliburton's board so the GOP must be funneling no-bid contracts their way. Yes, some Government decisions benefit Big Oil. Yes, Haliburton gets some Government contracts. But are these events in the natural course of business or is the GOP linked to them in nefarious ways? No evidence exists that it is anything other than the simple natural course of things.

Democratic relationships and connections are, however, demonstrably contaminated. Bill Clinton had more than a little baggage heading into the White House. There were bimbo eruptions; Whitewater and his wife's part time day-trading job; questions about misuse and abuse of state troopers under his authority and more. This was all known before Clinton was elected. It either didn't matter to Democrats or it didn't get enough press to make a difference before election day. After the election, even more misdeeds came to light and it got worse. 16 years later, it's happening again.

Well before election day, Barack Obama's association with terrorists, foreign and domestic, is being revealed more clearly. Obama's connection to ACORN and its crimes is being reported more widely. His support for Socialist regulation is becoming more widely known. The questions about Obama have been answered.  He's a known quantity.  If demonstrable past performance is an indicator, Barack Obama will damage this country in ways my worst nightmares can't foresee. Fraternizing with our enemies, championing destructive economic plans and ignoring illegal acts for personal benefit combine to make Barack Obama more than dagerous to our country. He could destroy it altogether.

Obama dismisses these truths. He even paints them as positive. I'm not in bed with terrorists! But what's wrong with talking to people? I didn't push ACORN's radical agenda, I was a community organizer trying to involve more people in the political process! I'm not a Socialist! But shouldn't everyone be able to own in a house? Can't a nation as great as America make that happen?

For Bill Clinton to be right, scores of people had to be branded as liars. Democrats took up that challenge. For Barack Obama to be the President Democrats claim he'll be, thousands must deny they saw what they saw and heard what they heard during the campaign. Thousands more must suffer from Obama policies as disastrous tomorrow as they were in a thousand yesterdays. No matter, Democrats still rally behind him.

However, sooner or later, just as 9/11 moved folks from Liberal to Conservative, the CRA will move folks from Socialism to Free Markets, ACORN will move folks from Democrats to Republicans. Like Jimmy Carter gave the country Ronald Reagan, an Obama presidency will illustrate the lie and curse that is Liberalism and reveal the Truth and the blessing, howevermuch discomfort it produces at times, that is Conservatism. The Left may argue things like Individual Liberty, Free Markets, Conservatism and the like aren't perfect. I agree. But they are also far superior to any other option available.

Remember this when you step into that booth over the next few weeks.  There's no need to wait until 2012 to show you've made the move from Left to Right.

Blue Collar Muse

New technology overcomes old challenges. It also raises new ones. Nuclear plants generate the most electricity but have cleanup questions. The Internet has overcome and created challenges, too. Howard Dean used the internet to raise money at unheard of levels. Ken Timmerman reports Barack Obama’s campaign raised $427 million dollars, much of it coming via the internet.

Almost half of the $427 million came from donations of less than $200. Campaigns don’t have to identify donors until their aggregate giving exceeds $200. When giving was by check or cash, it was harder to cheat; cash deposits had to be accounted for and checks left paper trails. Credit card internet giving is the new way around the law.

Timmerman writes about an Obama donor, “Good Will”, who gave $17,375 in over 1,000 donations under $200, far exceeding the limit for individuals. The FEC has ordered the campaign to return the excess money, and they’ve started to. They’ve got thousands to go! Warner Todd Huston writes of testing the foreign donation firewalls of both Obama and McCain. Only one campaign had any checks on the process in place.

Complicating matters, current monitoring and regulating mechanisms are outpaced by technology. The FEC didn’t find “Good Will”. Activists did. Giving is at T1 speeds. Enforcement is stuck on dialup.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

If Presidential campaigns have these issues, what of lesser publicized and scrutinized down-ticket races?

Tennessee has a potential problem. According to the Democrats themselves, Jim Hawkins, a state Senate challenger raised $87,000 in the second quarter of 2008. , $22,725 of it came from ActBlue, a PAC exclusively supporting Democrats.

While a great example of new tech making new opportunities, it raises new problems, too. Per Drew Rawlins, Executive Director of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, in Tennessee a PAC  cannot give a Senate candidate over $15,000; half in the primary and half in the general. ActBlue is clearly over that limit.

But are they violating a law? The answer may come down to applying offline laws to online issues. As with applying 1st Amendment’s rights to traditional media and New Media, how do we apply campaign Finance law crafted for yesterday’s offline campaigns to today’s online efforts?

While agreeing ActBlue was a PAC, Rawlins said ActBlue wasn’t Hawkins’ donor; the 74 people giving to ActBlue to give to Hawkins were. ActBlue served as an “intermediary” under Tennessee law. Rawlins compared them to other “intermediaries” like PayPal or traditional bundlers and doesn’t believe ActBlue violated the law. Had ActBlue given Hawkins that much in undesignated funds, they’d have broken the law. Contributions designated to Hawkins are OK.

I’m not sure. I don’t suggest ActBlue willfully broke a law. I’m suggesting old laws may be insufficient to address ActBlue’s actions. I’m suggesting we address this now and suspend this sort of campaign donation until we decide.

I’m unsure about classifying ActBlue as an intermediary. Drew Rawlins observed anyone could be an intermediary because the money didn’t come from them, but the individual donors. Given that, I asked if churches and corporations could be intermediaries. Rawlins said “No;” churches and corporations were legally forbidden to make campaign donations. But PACs have legal restrictions, too. If churches or corporations can’t go beyond their legal restrictions, why can PACs?

I’m uncomfortable with ActBlue’s processes. Bundlers don’t hold donations, they pass them on right away. Checks are payable to specific entities. Cash isn’t deposited by a bundler who then cuts a check to the campaign. Even online money transfers via PayPal are immediate. The money goes from my account to the recipient’s. But donations made via ActBlue are often held by ActBlue before being disbursed. Where is that money in the meantime? If it stops in an ActBlue account, how is the final payment not from ActBlue? What would happen if an offline bundler were to operate like this?

It comes down to murky law. Campaigns are operating under the premise “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission!” While perhaps valid for dealing with a child’s mistakes, it makes for dangerous election finance law. With what’s at stake, it seems just a matter of time before someone sues to resolve this. So why not look at it now and speak to it definitively and without the pressure of lawsuits?

I’m going to keep looking into this. I want to speak to Drew Rawlins again and a few more folks as well. In the meantime, what do you think? Is this real or no big deal? What arguments, for or against, am I missing? To help keep the election process clean, let’s deal with this now. It’ll bring us into the 21st century and keep us up to date, at least until the next idea comes along …

Blue Collar Muse

You'd think after Chuck Schumer's ignorance was plastered all over the news for leaking his letter to the Office of Thrift Supervision and personally creating the run on IndyMac Bank that destroyed IndyMac in just 3 business days that Democrats would learn to keep their mouths shut.

You would think after reports on tight credit, volatile markets and rest of the panic and doom-and-gloom scenarios for which Democrats bill themselves as the saviors of the Country and the Economy, they might realize people pay attention to what they say, however ignorant it is.

You would think one of the biggest providers of stupid Senatorial sound bites, Harry "The War is Lost" Reid (D-NV), would have learned to keep his pie-hole closed when asked about things he has no knowledge of. You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

Reid stated in a recent news conference that he had heard a major insurance company with a household name was on the verge of insolvency. Today, news is out that three different insurance companies fitting this description, "... a major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows ..." had major stock selloffs following comments by Harry Reid that can only be described as "Look at me, I'm important and have insider information!!!!"

The LA Times reports the following on Harry Reid's foolish pronouncement,

But with investors already on high alert after the Federal Reserve's rescue of insurance titan American International Group Inc. on Sept. 16, and with the credit crunch still making funding difficult for even the largest U.S. financial companies, Reid's comments were the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a grease fire.

MetLife plunged $7.19, or 15%, to $40.96; Hartford dived $12.20, or 32%, to $25.91; and Prudential slid $7.15, or 11%, to $57.65.

And no one can blame short sellers, because all three of the stocks are covered by the Securities and Exchange Commission's temporary ban on short sales of financial issues.

Investors are so skittish that even a reference to an industry, let alone a specific company is enough to trigger volatile trading. Harry Reid doesn't understand that. That he later backtracked with these words,

A statement from his office said that Reid was "not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy" and that "he has no special knowledge about nor has he talked to any insurance company officials."

reveals his ignorance even further.

In the midst of a financial crisis, the Senate Majority leader repeats a rumor he heard and for which he admits he has absolutely no basis for believing. This fantasy, created and employed to make himself and his position more authoritative, results in a sell-off which majorly impacts 3 of the largest companies in the country, threatens the jobs and investments of perhaps millions of ordinary Americans. But we're supposed to have faith and confidence in Senator Reid and the rest of his Democratic (and more than a few ignorant Republicans) associates in the Senate.

Harry Reid doesn't understand even "throw-away" comments in this financial atmosphere can ignite firestorms. Yet he expects a $700 billion bailout, quickly cobbled together, haphazardly grafted onto unrelated legislation and then passed through a Democrat controlled Senate so Senators could look authoritative and responsive - this is safe? Reid and Company don't understand how today's minor words impact tomorrow's Market. But their major overhauls of Constitutional strictures and Economic reality are going to be just fine? See for yourself how small a spark can set off such a huge fire in this 18 second video.

Democrats caused our current financial mess with ill-advised but well-intentioned legislation like "The Community Reinvestment Act". Their bailout solution is just as well-intentioned and just as ill-advised. There is a reason the Founders put incredible limits on the scope and power of the Federal Government's authority. Not the least of which is that the Government should not have the power to destroy a company or an Economy with a throw away comment in a press conference. Only the people intimately involved with that company should have that authority; those working there and who invest in it.

Someone please inform Democrats, in DC and all across the US, of this. It's too bad Nancy Pelosi couldn't turn off Harry Reid's microphone and shut off the power to the media's gear for this press conference like she did to her House colleagues a while back. Somebody needs to get control of out of control Democratic, self serving blathering before it does more than savage a company or three and wreak havoc on the citizen's finances. Next time around, Democrats might find the right words to destroy the entire Economy.

Blue Collar Muse

Jim Cooper, Democrat from Tennessee's 5th District, recently got his ears pinned back in a formal committee hearing. Cooper held up a sheaf of papers and went for the kill while questioning Glenn English, CEO of the NRECA, a national coalition of electricity providing cooperatives. Cooper stated the material he was talking about came from the NRECA's private, password protected site which he had accessed. At that point, English said he regretted Cooper's introduction of the topic and noted that NRECA counsel had advised him Cooper was under investigation for criminal violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

As expected, Cooper denies any wrongdoing. He first asked the NRECA for the information and was refused. He later obtained the username and password from an NRECA employee which he used to access the site and get the information he was previously denied access to. In a Clintonesque distortion of language, Cooper now equates using the login information of another with being personally authorized to view the site. Would Jim object if someone with a key to his office, say the cleaning woman, gave her key to someone who used it to enter his office and rifle his files? Exactly! But one man's authorized entry is another man's breaking and entering. Cooper further justified his actions by saying NRECA's customers had the right to know what was going on.

While opinions vary as to the law in these cases, the statute mentioned seems pretty straightforward. It appears there are a couple of places which may provide Cooper some legal problems. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act states in part,

a) Whoever-- ...

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-- ...

(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, ...

C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

and,

a) Whoever-- ...

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--

(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce;

have broken the law. The definitions of the terms "exceeds authorized access", "financial record" and more are provided later in the document. They don't help the Congressman's cause.

Whether Jim Cooper's actions were criminal would seem to boil down to: 1) Did Congressman Jim Cooper access the site in question? 2) Was he authorized to do so?; 3) Does the site contain any financial records?; 4) Do any site records pertain to either interstate communication, commerce or both?; 5) Did Cooper obtain the password via any means definable as "trafficking"?

#1 -The video records Cooper's admission he was on the site. Check! #2 - Having been denied access to the information previously, Cooper knew he was not authorized. That he bypassed that denial in the way he did further demonstrates he knew he was not authorized. Check! #3 - Also per the video, Mr. English testified the site contained both 401K and retirement records for NRECA associates. It is not unreasonable to assume those records related to financial institutions as the NRECA is not itself a financial institution. Check! #4 - The NRECA is a national coop with 900 members in 47 states. That settles the question of do the affairs of the NRECA include interstate commerce and might their site contain interstate communication. Check! #5 - This would depend on the definition of the term "Traffic". What did Cooper do to get the login information? Must money change hands? Could providing something non-monetary, but valuable, such as promising to take care of the leaker if discovered and find him work elsewhere be considered trafficking? If so, perhaps a final - Check! - is in order.

As mentioned, Cooper denies knowledge of any FBI investigation. Of course he does. The situation definitely could produce one. Is it happening? We'll have to wait and see. Cooper gets cover from the FBI itself as they don't comment on ongoing investigations. Cooper could be lying through his teeth and we wouldn't know until the FBI goes on the record. Of course, the Congressman could always "authorize" the FBI to "release information we've been denied access to previously" on the premise that, especially in an election year "the citizens of Tennessee's 5th District have the right to know if their Congressman engaged in illegal activities" punishable by either 5 or 10 years in the slammer for a first offense and possible fines on top of that. Those of you with some time on your hands, stop by and enjoy the shades of blue I can turn while holding my breath waiting.

Cooper, by any estimation, is not a powerful or influential member of Congress. He merely fills a seat and the "D" after his name provides power for those who are. Just another career politician who knows nothing of life outside the Beltway. Despite being a Rhodes Scholar, he isn't even bright enough not to confess to a crime on video. Is this the sort of politician we want in Washington? Do we really want someone making laws for the rest of us who cannot be bothered to obey them himself? There's an election coming where we can decide exactly that. See you at the polls.

Blue Collar Muse

The powers permitted to Government ought to be few and well defined. So believed James Madison. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of "police power". It should be noted the Constitution only extends police powers to the federal government in case of "counterfeiting, treason, piracy and offenses against the laws of nations." Which makes for disturbing news from Homeland Security. Seems citizens need to be aware of yet more when flying. Walter Williams illuminates. There is a new federal offense for air passengers. Called "nonphysical interference", it carries up to $1,500 in fines for distracting a Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) screener's attention from what he is doing. Williams writes the definition of

... nonphysical interference is solely up to the discretion of a TSA screener since it isn't defined in the regulations. TSA agents can levy fines for a passenger disagreeing with the behavior or arrogance of a screener.

Williams reports hundreds of accounts of rudeness by TSA employees. In March, 2004 alone there were almost 3,000 formal complaints about TSA behavior, none of which resulted in disciplinary action. This from folks who now have authority to fine and arrest you for "interfering" with their duties! This doesn't inspire confidence in the proper exercise of power. Even worse, Williams also reports TSA has an entirely new position. Behavior Detection Officers (BDO) are now examining body language, facial expressions and other behavior to determine which passengers exhibit behavior warranting a more detailed screening. Bob, a trained BDO blogging at TSA's 'Evolutions in Security' blog, defends the practice. He notes,

The program was designed by Paul Ekman (PhD), ... He’s been studying behavioral analysis for the past 40 years and has taught the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, CIA, FBI and other federal agencies to watch for suspicious facial expressions of tension, fear or deception. ... After passing along his skills to US Customs, their “hit rate” for finding drugs during passenger searches rose to 22.5 percent from 4.2 percent in 1998.

and further relates

Between July 1, 2007 and February 7, 2008, 514 people were arrested after being referred for additional screening or directly to law enforcement officers by behavior detection officers. The arrests include unlawfully carrying concealed firearms or other weapons, possession of fraudulent documents, transporting undeclared currency, possessing illegal drugs, immigration law violations, and outstanding warrants.

I'll admit the technique increased US Customs' hit rates over 500%. I'll also note it still failed over 75% of the time. That hardly seems a scientific result to brag about. Bob says BDOs might have flagged some of the 9/11 terrorists and "subjected them to secondary screening and questioning." That might have saved lives. And it sounds low key. Citizens are singled out for searching and a few questions and bad guys get busted. However, the WSJ reports BDOs are "agents ... trained to watch what [citizens] ... do and ask pointed questions to raise their stress levels ... to conduct rapid-fire questioning to find inconsistent stories." That's a different scenario and the potential for abuse is obvious. If we apply Customs' 75% failure rate to Bob's 514 arrests, over 2,000 innocent passengers were intentionally upset, provoked and abused in producing that result. Of the list Bob touts, only "firearms and other weapons" impact air travel safety, the real job of TSA. How many of the 514 busts were weapon related? 5? 25? 100? Allowing 25 undetected weapons through would be a 1% failure rate. Doing nothing would have vastly improved TSA performance. This is an apples-to-apples comparison. Because a 75% failure rate detecting bad guys by behavior equals TSA's rate for detecting bombs at the airport! Publishing figures USA Today says "stunned security experts", the TSA itself admitted failing to detect 75% of bomb components it tried to sneak past screeners at Los Angeles International Airport. At Chicago's O'Hare, the failure rate was 60%. These figures are from 2007. But the paper also reports "Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs ..." In what should have been a highly touted result, the best screening results came from private screening companies. In 2007, "San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows." In 2002, "... screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies." TSA could immediately improve results by over 200% if they simply privatize the process! Something needs to change. The figures paint a dangerous and unflattering portrait. TSA has had a 150% turnover in personnel in just over 6 years. This means inexperienced employees, often with only basic training, are on the job. There is little in the way of technology to make up for the inexperience. This produces pressure on frontline TSA personnel. Top that off by allowing an agency without police powers to increasingly look like police and act like police and we create what 'Consumer Reports' calls "A 'facade of security'". We also have the real threat of creating the very environment terrorists desire; innocents victimized by authority in response to terrorism. I wish I had solutions. I don't. But it seems our current solution is becoming worse than what it seeks to prevent. Increasing TSA authority is the wrong response. We need less confrontational, more successful and, dare I say, non-governmental options. The goal is not safety at any price or even merely safety. It is safety within the constitutional bounds of smaller government and undiminished personal liberty. We're at another one of those crossroads. Choose wisely. Blue Collar Muse

Near the beginning of The Declaration of Independence, these words appear.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is here, a 30 second read into the birth of our nation, we find the most important right which government is to secure, the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration establishes three foundational rights. The Constitution generally amplifies them, outlining ways government may not prevent us from exercising them. Our Right to Life is partially expressed in our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to defend that Life if threatened. Our Right to Liberty is partially expressed in our Right to Due Process to ensure any restraint on that Liberty is just.

One Right listed in the Declaration is different. It has no amplification in the Bill of Rights. The least discussed, it is the most important - the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Pursuit of Happiness is different in that it guarantees nothing. Other Rights we enjoy enumerate a concrete something. We have Freedom of Speech. Speech is a “something” that is mine. Just so with Life, Liberty, to Bear Arms, the Press - at the end of each we find something tangible. Not so with the Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuing Happiness is the only Right which does not define an outcome. We are not guaranteed Happiness, just the Pursuit of it. We are not assured the road will not be difficult or poorly maintained, merely that it is there to be traveled. Because of this, the Pursuit of Happiness is our most precious Right. Because phrased another way, it guarantees our Right to Fail.

Happiness is different for every man. Our dreams are as individual as we are. It would have been folly to try to define Happiness; folly to determine the best path to Pursue it. Pursuits may be long or short; easy or difficult; straightforward or complicated. While I am grateful for the straightforward, short and easy ones, it is the value in the complicated, long and difficult ones which the Declaration anticipated. Because the Pursuits teaching us the most, both building and revealing character; producing the most opportunity for us, are the difficult ones or the ones we fail to complete at all.

Thomas Edison tried over 4,000 different prototypes of the light bulb before realizing his goal. He is reported to have said, “I have not failed 4,000 times. I have discovered 4,000 ways not to create an incandescent light bulb!” Undaunted by failing in his Pursuit, Edison learned from each. It was because of, not in spite of, his failures, that he succeeded. Even the simplest Pursuits face obstacles. A man’s response to them determines not just his success in Pursuit of that specific Happiness. It determines his success for all future Pursuits as well.

Do we persist in adversity? Do we work as hard in anonymity as we do in the limelight? Do we collaborate or insist on solo Pursuits? There are a myriad lessons to be learned. Most of them are only learned through failure. As it is said, “Most good judgement comes from experience! Most experience comes from bad judgement!”

It is here where a man’s success or failure in his various Pursuits is determined. Because along with recognizing man’s Rights, the Declaration notes men institute government to secure them and that government does so only with the consent of the governed. It thus becomes vital for the governed to so value the Right to Fail they refuse to consent to any plan by government to take it from them. They must consent to striving in an environment, secured by government, in which failure is a valued result.

If We The People consent to government which takes away our Right to Fail, we consent to government which will take away our other Rights as well. Securing a government with power to eradicate our individual Pursuits, we secure a government with power to define our individual Happiness. When Happiness is defined for the many by government, individuals must surrender the rest of their Rights to facilitate the government’s Pursuit. Those refusing to do so are threats both to government and the governed. We all know how threats are dealt with.

This is the question Americans must answer. Will we be allowed to fail or not? The Left, and far too many on the Right, say, “No! No one must fail!” There remains, however, a minority which understands the value in failure. It understands the pain in little failures along the way are motivation to great Happiness at the end of the Pursuit! It understands failure is not an impediment to Happiness, it is a stepping stone to a successful Pursuit. It knows temporary suffering in a failure while Pursuing does not compare to the eternal suffering in failing to Pursue at all.

Celebrating your Independence today, understand what it means to be Independent! It means your success or failure in the Pursuit of Happiness depends on you, not the government. It means you not only can, but will, fail while in Pursuit. When your Rights are secured by government and not defined by it, you embrace failure as a blessing and not a curse, as a teacher and not a thief. You truly have Life, you are truly at Liberty, you have the best chance for a successful Pursuit!

In college, I hung a poster on my wall which read, “A ship in a harbor is safe. But that is not what ships were made for!” Enjoy your Pursuit! Godspeed!

Blue Collar Muse

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of "Under the Gold Dome — An Insider's Look at the Connecticut Legislature." He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don't want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state's constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it's a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn't even have that right. Mere citizens aren't qualified to speak to issues. Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he's right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it's a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around. When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

... are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he's arguing that's bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law? Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a "cottage industry". He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of "industry" is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I'll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn't provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it's more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter's worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The vote is yes or no, up or down. There is not the deliberation and accommodation of the legislative process in which bills are carefully scrutinized by committees of cognizance, subjected to a public hearing, debated in both chambers and ultimately signed by the governor. In that process, all sides of the issue are explored, its relationship to other matters of public policy considered, negotiations between opposing sides conducted, and compromises and changes of wording made. In lawmaking by plebiscite, people rarely read the exact language of the propositions. They vote their general impression of the issue.

Do only I&R campaigns use slogans and sound bites? Does Satter really believe every bill passed is carefully read, deliberated and analyzed before being voted on? Is Satter actually arguing amendments hung on bills at the last second are completely understood and their ramifications tested and deemed acceptable? Is he seriously arguing citizens are incapable evaluating the impact their proposed I&R will have? It is true citizens don't debate the possible impact of the law for a couple of weeks before passing it and hoping for the best as the legislature does. Citizens are forced to live with the actual results of those laws. Tens of thousands of hours of debate and analysis then take place in legislative chambers known as kitchen tables, water coolers, carpools and the like. By the time an I&R is proposed, the issue is well known. Usually because citizens have already asked the legislature to fix the problem and they have refused. In such cases, I&R is often the citizens last resort.

But Robert Satter thinks that's a bad thing. The people of Connecticut, or anywhere else, shouldn't be able to insist their lawmakers really represent them. Citizens are ignorant peasants without the requisite intelligence, interest, time or ability to understand the workings of government. That lofty pursuit is best left to better men. Satter's premise is flawed. His conclusions are wrong. His arrogant contempt for citizens he seems to believe should be ruled over as opposed to represented is offensive. I&R is precisely what Connecticut and every other state without it needs, including my state of Tennessee. Without it, we are at the mercy of elitists like Robert Satter. While he may consider that a good thing, I find the prospect terrifying.

Blue Collar Muse.