A Republican Strategy For Victory?

Until the last four years since 2006, the conservatism of Reagan had built a majority Republican party. Somethings have changed in the world, such as the defeat of the Soviet Empire, that make some specific pillars of Reagan's platform irrelevant today. Other, more general principles, are still quite applicable to our current policy world.

What the Republican party needs, argues this article in Investors Business Daily, is a way to make those principles even more relevant to our present day's difficulties.

How to do that? The author argues:

"The Republican Party has to move from a pro-business strategy that defends the interests of existing companies to a pro-market strategy that fosters open competition and freedom of entry.

"A pro-market strategy rejects subsidies because they're a waste of taxpayers' money and because they prop up inefficient firms, delaying the entry of new and more efficient competitors.

"And a pro-market approach holds companies financially accountable for their mistakes — an essential policy if free markets are to produce sound decisions.

"A pro-market party will fight tirelessly against letting firms become so big that they cannot be allowed to fail, since such firms may take risks that ordinary companies would never dream of."

This advice echoes the words of older elements of a certain strand of conservatism, such as Wilhelm Roepke's strand of classical liberalism that calls for a "humane economy," who argued that mass and "largeness" is ultimately incompatible with free markets because of intrinsic attributes of human nature. It also sounds a lot like the No. 2 man in the 2008 GOP primaries by delegate count, Mike Huckabee, who attracted more support from young voters than any other Republican candidate in the primary race.

Undoubtably, free markets and economic freedom must be part of a real strategy to renew America. Should this freedom concentrate on reduce "largeness" and economic collectivism?

Don't Let Their Sacrifice Be In Vain

I have a prediction, I think. I don't know that the economy is going to be the big defining issue in 2010. It could be. But I think that the current war in which our nation is engaged is going to rise to the top issue.

Things aren't going so well for us in Afghanistan, such that our fighting men and women, as pointed out by this article in the Washington Times this morning, are starting to wonder if their sacrifices are in vain. That is shameful. America doesn't have to lose this war. We need a change in strategy, and one that comes from our commanders on the ground, not from Washington politicians. And if the current politicians won't listen, then we need to get more attentive leaders in 2010.

Great News in the Polls

There's great news for republicans in the polls. According to Rasmussen, likely American voters now trust the GOP more on all of the top ten "key issues," including abortion, health care, taxes, education, social security, and national security.

This just goes to show us that America hasn't fundamentally changed its republican ideals. If the GOP can just maintain unity around Americans' core common principles, they can win big in 2010 and start reversing many of the destructive progressive policies that have so beleaguered our great nation for nearly all of the past century.

Less exciting is this: while republicans are currently trusted more on government ethics, their lead on this issue is by only a 4% margin, and 38% of Americans are still undecided between the two major parties. That's a sad commentary on Republicans. If they want to win, they must prove that they indeed walk the walk as well as talk the talk. It has only been the GOP's failure to demonstrate that they truly stand for a transparent culture of honesty and integrity, social virtue, limited government, and prudent international leadership that has cost them the trust and the precious confidence of the American people.

But enough editorializing -- there is work to be done. If you at all available this week, join me in making calls to elect republican leaders this week Monday through Thursday in the Richard Reese conference room, next to the formal lounge, from 6-9pm.

Hate Crimes Bill: An affront to liberty

So congress finally passed the Hate Crimes bill ...

This is classic. Attach a bill that's controversial to a bill that's not controversial and pass it with "bipartisan support." Well, yeah, not passing the bill would mean that our soldiers wouldn't get needed defense funding. Passing the bill, however, means a both-barrels shotgun assault on first amendment rights.

Let be be clear: I am totally against anyone who commits a crime/violence against gays. That's wrong. They are people too, created in the image of God and deserving of dignity and respect.

However, this bill defines "crime" broadly as even SAYING anything that is subjectively offensive about gays. It could, and almost certainly will, be used to bar even religious speech by Christians, Muslims, or Jews, including denoting reading parts of religious texts that any gay person finds offensive as "hate speech" punishable by outrages fines and/or prison time.

For instance, if I were to read Leviticus 18:22 aloud, even in my church, if a gay person happens to feel offended, they could prosecute me on the same level as if I had been member of the KKK spewing threats of violence against racial minorities.

And that, my friends, is an affront to the first amendment and everything America is about. This bill is a shameful assault on free speech and freedom of religion.

This is why it is imperative that the republicans retake congress; so we can repeal this atrocity against our liberty.

We Have Seen the Enemy, and It Is FOX?

On Sunday, WH communications director told the NYT that they treat FOX News the way they treat an opponent. As is imaginable, this got many people over at FOX quite upset, especially Glenn Beck who made a point on his show today to try and take down the WH a few notches.

It's a bit disturbing when an administration begins to label groups in the media as opponents. Our First Amendment provides for the freedom of the press, and not just to the press that likes you. It's frustrating to see the President hand-picking news outlets, which ultimately takes away from their credibility, as if they are known to be supports of the administration, everything they say must be taken into perspective in regards to their bias.

The IgNobel Peace Prize

Yesterday morning we learned that Pres. Obama will receive the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

If this leaves you scratching your head, it gets worse. The deadline for nomination was less than two weeks after he took office.

You may wonder whether Obama has done anything to deserve this award. But according to the Nobel committee chairman, Obama won because of his efforts, not because of the results.

This is patently absurd. You don’t get a paycheck because of the work you might do, you get it for the work you did do. Professors don’t hand out grades for the papers their students might write, but for the ones they did write. Using the Peace Prize as an incentive devalues the award and shows that it's nothing but an ideological beauty contest.

However, through this Obama has finally said one thing I agree with. He does not believe he is worthy to be in the company of the people who have won the prize before him.

You’re right about that, Barry. You’re right about that.

Where Have I Heard That Before?

Exciting news! A new report says that the new health care plan won't raise our deficit. Isn't that awesome news? Are you sold yet? Unfortunately, as the Republican Senators who read the report saw, this doesn't stop the bill for adding a large cost to those of us in the country already paying for our insurance. So now, in addition to shelling out money for yourself, you get to support all your fellow citizens, many of whom don't have insurance because they don't want it.

So while I appreciate the time our Senator spent creating this report, (they could have been doing something really dangerous, like legislating), I'm going to pass on this one. Thanks though!

Terri Lynn Land

We had a great meeting tonight with Michigan SoS Terri Lynn Land. She provided us with a lot of insight into what goes into the job of the SoS. For instance, MI is the only state who puts motor vehicle registration under the SoS, making Mrs. Land responsible for the largest DoS in the nation. We also learned about the process of elections in MI and got some insight on the state's political future. Members had the opportunity to ask questions and interact with the highest-ranking Republican in the state.

A big thanks to Mrs. Land for coming down and to everyone who came out!

How To Lose A War

Check out this article I wrote here that covers the difficulties America is facing in Afghanistan. The latest polling data shows that Americans are starting to realize the nature of the uphill battle for our brave fighting men and women.

Like Carter, it seems Obama is botching our foreign policy in the middle east. That's why we need to keep up the political pressure spread the word....

Chapter Meeting

We're having our first chapter meeting this Tuesday!! 6:30 in the Formal Lounge in Grewcock. Terri Lynn Land, MI's Secretary of State, is coming to speak to us, so it's sure to be a great night.

And for a chance to get involved, come at 5:30 to make phone calls for the Fix-MI center. We'll be phone-banking using a list they've provided to make sure our time is used as effectively as possible to turn MI Red.

Get involved on your campus to make a difference for your country!

Comfort in Predictability

So the Dow Jones took a pretty decent tumble today, as seems to be the trend lately. Obama et al. keep telling us to find the illusive hope we were promised in a rising stock market, only to discover that the rise is very short term and never to the levels it achieved before the crash last fall. The market is simply erratic and generally poor.

Analogous proposition: Pretend we are playing poker and you have a straight flush while I have a pair of threes. You would declare that you win,no? But I, with politics on my side, declare that it's my house and my game and therefore the a pair of threes is the highest possible hand. As I take your money, throw you out, and say, "See you next week!" would you reply, "I'll be there!"?

Essentially, this is what's happening in the market. The government is changing the rules in unpredictable ways according to present circumstances. The market, however, is only as predictable as the policies that govern it. If the government runs around balancing and counterbalancing, bailing out and taking over, regulating and wreaking havoc with an ad hoc, completely unpredictable approach, the market will never improve or even stabilize. If you have money to invest, are you going to trust it to a company that might be absorbed with you crowded out (such as with GM stockholders) or hang on to it? Consumers are not sure what the government is going to do next and therefore do not want to chance their money in some of the most important areas of the market. This contributes to the concept of "consumer confidence" in that consumers can never be confident of the institution's ability to conduct itself as it has. While unpredictability is inherent within the system, the rules of the system itself should be nothing but predictable.