I was talking to a friend today (a black conservative in New Jersey) who reminded me that the current scandals don't really register with many people in the United States. This is particularly true here in the Northeast. It got me to wondering why and what it means to this president.

First, Benghazi. Benghazi was and is a travesty. We didn't protect our consulate, we told our defenders to stand down during the attack, and we refused to admit that the attack was done by Islamic extremists. (By the way, I refuse to call this a terrorist attack since the only people who might've been terrorized for the people who were actually in the consulate. It was an act of war, but the people in Washington refused to admit that). Why don't people in the United States care?

First, they have not been told about the incident by those to whom they listen. It's not only the mainstream media, is also the local media, there churches, pastors, and other trusted people. They just don't care. It's something happens overseas, happens all of time, and it has "virtually no impact on our life in the United States". Why bother, why care? The Republicans can complain about all they want but nobody will really listen.

I do believe that we should continue to investigate and do whatever is necessary but don't expect it to resonate overtly with the American public. It may help to create a feeling of insecurity, but that's about it.

Second, the IRS. Everybody knows (except for the great masses of uninformed) that it was wrong to target conservative groups. However, everybody "knows" that it is okay to target conservative groups. The president, his acolytes, the news media, churches, and trusted leaders have all said that tea party organizations are racist bigots who should be suppressed. Now it comes out that they are being suppressed so who cares? They are getting what they deserve.

In addition, many of the great uninformed, don't worry about the IRS. The IRS is one of the most feared organizations in the government, but the impact on those who don't pay any taxes is minimal. So why should they worry? Without somebody helping to analyze what it means to the great uninformed, who will not worry about tyranny until it happens to them, they will remain ignorant. We have to rely on the news media and their surrogates to accurately interpret what this IRS mess means to them.

Thirdly, the AP scandal. We know that the government has now spied on many reporters from the Associated Press. The president says that it is because of a national security investigation, but he knows nothing else. No one really cares, since they are either in bed with the national security people, or they don't see how it impacts them. The true impact is that it discourages the press from reporting stuff that goes against the government narrative. Thus, they don't and won't help the public understand what the meaning of Benghazi really is. Also, they don't and won't help the public understand the meaning of the IRS scandal. Without the involvement of the press, the great uninformed will not become informed and these scandals will remain non-scandals.

This is why the Associated Press scandal is so important. We can only hope that the remaining reporters, and even the AP reporters, have the guts to tell the truth, regardless of who it hurts. I'm waiting, but so far haven't seen anything to build my hope, except for (sometimes) Fox News and Glenn Beck.

So, will the current scandals hurt the president and the Democrats for the future election? Other than creating a condition of general malaise, I don't think that there will be a substantial impact. The president will have an opportunity to consolidate his power and continue to press for a tyranny. It might be a last time we have an elected president in the traditional sense of the word.

So what do we do? One is to press the great uninformed on issues that are important to them, but are underreported. Illegal immigration is certainly one of these. Jobs is another. The terrible state of our urban areas, controlled by the Democrats for 30 years or more, is a third. The unfairness of the criminal justice system is another.  We can discuss the current scandals with those who are aware, but in most cases they will either be unconvinced or part of problem. We should do this but we also need to get to the "masses" who don't understand and don't care. 

We can't rely on the press.  We must get into the churches, the civic associations, the schools, and the street corners.  We must talk to people face to face and let them spread the word.  We can't rely solely on TV because people don't watch.  The right radio stations, if we can find them, will be a good choice (but be prepared for severe pushback and retribution).

As conservatives, this is what our mission must be. We must do it before it's too late.

When I attended the US Army's infantry school at Fort Benning (long ago but still embedded in my memory). I learned on the first day that their motto was "follow me". Every day I knew that if I led troops into battle that my military superiors and my organization would have my back. I knew, that every effort would be made to rescue me in a precarious situation or, at a minimum, a bring my body home. We left no man behind. The entire chain of command knew this and said this.

There are a lot of things wrong with the military back in the Vietnam days but this is not one of them. It has remained the mantra to this day. We saw in Vietnam, we saw in Lebanon, we saw it in Bosnia, and we have seen it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do not follow this principle was to not have honor. A person who violated this was rightfully shunned.

We have now undergone a fundamental transformation of America. Obama has chosen to dishonor America, dishonor the military, and dishonor himself. We do not have the backs of our military and intelligence operatives. Rather, we stabbed them in the back.

This blog post appearing in Blackfive says it better than I could have. I echo his remarks. It is about time that the military, both active and retired, spoke out. This about time that the American public became proud, not ashamed, of our country. It is about time that our adversaries respected us.

George

The following comes from Blackfive....

Today's Democrat Party views the United States military as nothing more than a political tool to further their agenda. And after Benghazi we see that our troops and intelligence operators are expendable if Democrats think sacrificing them is in their best political interests.

But don't take it from me; just look at what they do.

Instead of preserving the world's most effective combat force, the Democrat Party views the U.S. military as a massive source of funding (defense budget cuts), an opportunity to shore up political support through social engineering (allowing openly gay service members), and a means to further their liberal internationalist agenda (so-called “Responsibility to Protect” operations like Libya). They know that the military community tends to vote strongly Republican, which partly explains their open contempt of the men and women that serve in the Armed Forces – whether falsely labeling them cold-blooded murderers (Rep. John Murtha), comparing them to Nazis, KGB, and the Khmer Rouge (Sen. Dick Durbin), joking about their intelligence (Sec. John Kerry)... the examples of the Democrat Party's distaste for the military could easily fill an entire article.

But throughout American history, our troops knew at least if they were wounded, in danger of being overrun, or even killed, our military will do everything in its power to get rescue or recover you. No one gets left behind. At least that's how it used to be.

That is, until Benghazi, which has become one of the most dishonorable events in American history. When our consulate was attacked and overran, President Obama left Americans to die. Any rescue attempt was cut off – not by our enemies, but by the Obama administration.

Even worse than the tragic and preventable deaths of four Americans, Washington's reaction over the last eight months shows the utter disregard the Democrat Party and media have for not only the fallen, but for all of our troops and operators.

I am not saying that each and every Democrat politician wanted those men to die. But can you name any Democrat politician that has said we need to get to the bottom of Benghazi? Has any Democrat even so much as distanced themselves from their party's callous disregard for the fallen? Washington can say they support the troops all day, it's time they show us how they support our troops.

Since day one, the Democrat Party – primarily the Obama administration – and their media allies have sought to make the story go away. Since that didn't work, they have resorted to distracting the American people and redirecting the focus by claiming Republicans are only making this an issue for political gain. Just imagine if your son or daughter was kill.

via BLACKFIVE: Expendable.

While it's easy to get caught up in keeping score, we must not forget that Americans died while carrying out official duties for the US. They served their government and were deployed by the President of the United States. Unfortunately, it looks like these Americans were also betrayed by their government and president at a time when their very lives depended on their support.

The truly revolting part about Benghazi, aside from the tragedy of dead Americans, is that we still do not know the official story on what happened that night at our American consulate. It became evident during the election and since afterwards, the media had no interest in finding out what happened. Equally evident is the fact that the Obama administration has remained tight lipped and when they do choose to speak, they purposely mislead the public.

Benghazi represents a monumental failure to our political system. It is unfathomable in today's age of media and technology that a president and his administration have for so long gone unchallenged and held unaccountable.

Have the people been so far removed from their government that they cannot even hold their elected leaders accountable?

Fortunately, there are brave Americans who know the real story and are finally speaking out on what has heretofore been kept hidden. Let's pray their story gets out without hindrance or threats from the same government they swore to protect.

Hat tip to The Hot Gates 480BC:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/01/jay-carneys-response-when-asked-benghazi-whistleblowers-those-attacks-were-a-long-time-ago/

That’s in the past.

This is what the White House, through the medium of its * Goebbels-esque Liar-in-Chief of a Press Secretary Jay Carney, wants us to think about an event that happened less than eight months ago. In his words:

” ‘Let’s be clear,” Carney said in response to a question from Ed Henry. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.’ ”

By saying that the White House is unaware of any “blocking” of people from providing information to Congress about the lack of response to the pleas for help from the besieged, Carney must be trying to avoid admitting that individuals, not agencies, do the thug work. The State Department is obviously not going to go on record as making threats; that is the job of selected members who have been assigned the task. By using the specific word blocking, Carney must mean that no one has been physically restrained from driving or walking to the earlier hearings, the press, or any Congressman’s office. To him, threatening them with the losses of their jobs or promotions or possible prosecution for divulging information that has conveniently been classified Secret would not count as “blocking”.

To paraphrase what regular guys in New York City would say in answer to Carney’s assertion, “I got news for you Jay, everything that has ever happened in the history of the world is in the past. If it wasn’t then it didn’t happen yet.”

I guess that we are supposed to apply a Monty Python and the Holy Grail line of thinking to Benghazi – “Well then, I suppose it was a long time ago. Let’s forget about the whole thing – it was silly after all”.

Unless period specified by a Statute of Limitations for a particular crime has passed, then I believe that dismissing an event as having occurred “a long time ago” (Which also factually false as the attack was less than two-thirds of a year ago) does not get one off the hook. As an aside, I once had an officer who was assigned to my section try the ‘That’s in the past” defense when he was being counselled for a years-long pattern for abuse of sick time (He has been bounced from supervisor to supervisor over a period of time and I saw that his performance failures had not been addressed. My answer was that, if his attendance issues were not in the past, then I would not be counseling him about it because it would not have occurred.

The bulk of our media will do all in their power to ignore the picture that is

via The Hot Gates 480BC: Jay Carney – Benghazi Was “a long time ago”.

After the Presidential Election, when the rooms cleared, the confetti bagged and trashed, and the high-dollar Republicans consultants deposited their last check, conservatives were left asking just what in the world happened. How could a country embrace the same man who authored Obamacare, created historical debt, resided over an anemic economy for four years, and did nothing to fix the nation's unemployment while in office?

Good political sense suggested that President Obama was headed toward sure defeat. After all, he was facing a man who was just as intelligent, politically vigorous, and held a successful resume of accomplishments shared by few others. Still Mitt Romney lost -- rejected in key states such as Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

The immediate reaction was that demographics had changed the political landscape. A terrible circumstance for conservatives if it were true. It's not true, however.

Following our recent election, I was quite discouraged—by the inadequacies of both mainstream candidates, the level of rancor in the public discourse on the election, the capture of American politics by so many single-issue activists, and by the results…

Only after a search that included the Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party did I come across the American Conservative Party website; I promptly joined, since I share all of the core values described on the site (and since I found the two larger parties not acceptable for various reasons). I also agree with the approach the ACP is taking in its early stages, specifically the focus on starting locally rather than putting all the effort into a forlorn third party national candidacy. Maybe later, but we're not ready yet.

I decided to call my blog "The American Exceptionalist" because I deeply believe that the United States is still a unique kind of country, and still represents something of the aspirations that motivated the Framers of the Constitution. I believe our country can and should remain great, and I believe we can strengthen our position as an example to the world. We can do this not by being policeman to the world, but by avoiding the radical experiments and defeatism that are so common these days.

But I also like the contrarian double entendre of the term "exceptionalist". Because someone who takes exception to commonly held myths (usually understood by those holding them as truths), particularly when they don't hold up as "real" truths, is in effect a contrarian. And sometimes, these myths are held as much by conservatives as by anyone else (since conservatives have no particular skill in avoiding human nature). But even better, these days the notion of embracing American exceptionalism as a good thing seems to be a contrarian view, and one which I believe needs to be kept alive.

For example, the idea behind the Defense of Marriage Act seems at least plausibly acceptable to one with conservative social views, but unfortunately the act was driven by strong religious views that trumped our Constitutional order. The Federal government should have essentially NOTHING to do with marriage at all. Nor should the Federal government have a Department of Education, or one of Energy, or… The Framers explicitly intended issues not specifically granted to Congress to be handled by states or by individuals, as appropriate. When one bends the Constitutional order to get what one wants, even if it is a good conservative outcome, it is no better than a liberal judicial activist's legislating from the bench.

We can't have it both ways. If we want the separation of powers to be strong, and the Constitutional order to be reinforced, we shouldn't subvert it when it's convenient. And it is hypocrisy to do so and then to denounce attempts by others to do the same thing (but with goals of which we disapprove).

Social issues like marriage, abortion, pornography, etc., should be dealt with at the state level according to the police power. As an exceptional nation, we win when this occurs, because then we have 50 republics to examine when we consider policy, and because we can choose to move among the states if we like. This is a core strength of the exceptional American constitutional experiment, and as conservatives we should reinforce this whenever we can.

And we should fight the social issues locally…

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE FREE MAN?

From The Desk of The Exceptional Conservative

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!!" - Samuel Adams

Thursday, June 28, 2012, was a dark day for the United States of America—a day when American freedom and liberty again came under assault from tyrannical forces determined to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” For freedom loving people, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the “Affordable Care Act” can only be viewed as an exemplar of “Supreme” judicial activism. I have looked closely at the Supreme Court’s decision since it was announced Thursday morning. Sadly, I can see nothing good coming from this decision. Regardless of one’s position, pro, con, or indifferent on the ACA, the claim that the Act is justified under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution we now see was specious from at least two perspectives: First, it was, and remains unconstitutional on that basis; second, supporters tried to sell it to the people under a false pretense.

After the passage of the ACA, the ensuing litigation produced clear indications of how far progressive, left-leaning judicial activists would go to uphold the law as constitutional; yet, in the end, the claim of constitutionality under the Commerce Clause was rejected by the Supreme Court. But, rather than do what was right and proper in accordance with the Court’s constitutionally allocated powers, the Court itself went too far, taking unto itself powers never intended for the Judicial Branch. To arrive at a decision upholding the constitutionality of the ACA, the Court, resorted to nothing less than linguistic contortionism to “rewrite” the law; thus, the Court changed the very essence of the premise under which Congress passed the bill. In so doing, Chief Justice Roberts “lurched left” compromising his judicial integrity and distorting the role of the Supreme Court in order to concoct a twisted and perverted interpretation of the language in the Act to fabricate rationale supporting a majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of the ACA under the guise of Congressional “taxing authority”.

Ironically, the Administration didn’t use the taxing power argument as it tried to sell the American people on its zealously proclaimed merits of the ACA; nor did Congress claim its ‘’taxing power” as the basis for its authority to pass the bill. Chief Justice Roberts’ actions, and by definition the Court’s action, is blatant usurpation of powers reserved to the Congress; more specifically, to the House of Representatives where all appropriations bills are to be originated.

Congress’ claim of constitutionality for the ACA rested squarely on its claim that the powers assigned to Congress under the Commerce Clause justified the Congress’ passage of the bill. It did not invoke the claim of constitutionality on the basis of its taxing authority; had it done so, it is highly likely that the ACA would never been have passed by Congress in the first place. In fact, the Congress and the Executive Branch both have gone to great lengths to assert that the penalties and fines associated with non-compliance with the mandate were not taxes. A proper decision was surely reached by the dissenting Justices: Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia. In this case, these four jurists showed the proper respect for, and correct understanding of, the role of the Supreme Court noting: “…the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.” Conversely, the majority opinion could only be supported by legislating from the bench. The actions of the five Justices’ supporting the majority opinion both demean and dishonor the institution of the Supreme Court while continuing the left’s assault on the Constitutional protections our founders intended. Instead of working within the duly constituted powers allotted to the Court, Chief Justice Roberts effectively “rewrote” the law in contravention of the Court’s limited powers, usurping power reserved only to Congress.

On reconsideration, I do believe some good may result from the Court’s ill-conceived majority opinion. The decision may well be the trigger for a voter ‘tsunami’ in November. Preservation of freedom and liberty ultimately rests squarely on “We the People...” If you’re not registered to vote, get registered. If you’ve been sitting on the sidelines, get active. If you haven’t been voting, vote! November will be upon us in a short four months; let’s make certain we exercise the authority vested in each of us— the power to VOTE. Our freedom and liberty is under attack and we must act. Together, and with God’s help, we can prevail. Make no mistake though; the November election is the most important election in our lifetime; it will literally determine the future of our nation.

...An Open Letter to American Conservatives

FROM THE DESK OF THE EXCEPTIONAL CONSERVATIVE

I asked a question.  I did not yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.   I did not propose adding more speed cameras in low income areas of Washington, DC or demand that Obama Care be implemented even if the Supreme Court rules it un-Constitutional.  I merely asked a question.  Yet, the response was awe-striking.  It was as if I'd unlatched the box upon which all evil was held.  Indeed, it is a thought provoking one.  However, I believe more people are afraid of the answers than the question itself.  These answers lead me to one stark conclusion: Stop Blaming the Republican Establishment for the Futility of the American Conservative Movement.

The Establishment GOP Asserted Itself in 2008. We Got John McCain. The Establishment GOP Asserted Itself in 2012. We Got Mitt Romney. If Conservatives Are So Powerful and Represent 40% of the Electorate, Why Is There No Competitive Conservative Party in American Politics?

Political Commentator and Mitt Romney Endorser Ann Coulter defines the "actual Republican Establishment" as "political consultants, The Wall Street Journal, corporate America, former Bush advisers and television pundits."  New York Times columnist David Brooks had a new, and specific, definition of “Republican establishment” — “anybody who knows what Newt Gingrich is really like.”  Rush Limbaugh refers to the Republican establishment as the "elites" that want to redefine conservatism.  Rush contends:

You and I know that the establishment Republicans don't like conservatives. They didn't like Reagan. They were embarrassed of Reagan. They were embarrassed of us. They didn't like the Moral Majority, they didn't like the Christian right, they don't like the pro-lifers. They don't like the social conservatives at all. They're embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats -- which combined gives us the Washington establishment, and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours. But they know that it doesn't help them to be called "establishment Republicans." So they're trying to take the term "conservative" and co-opt it and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics.

Do Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney fit within the fabric of the "Establishment" or Washington Politboro that seeks its own sufficiency?  Based on the definers, the answer is clearly, "YES!" Simply, those that preserve their interests of excessive government rule and intervention into the daily lives of Americans fit the bill of the "Establishment".  Those that resist the excesses of governance and imposition of state and federal taxation into the lives of individuals, families and private organizations are "conservatives".  Talitha McEachin, in her essay The Black Community's Distrust of the Government, provokes her readers with this question, ‎"How can some of us say we don’t trust the government, yet vote for more of it in our lives?"  Blogger Dan McLaughlinwrote a seminal piece about the separation of Establishment and Conservatives entitled, What The Republican “Establishment” Really Means.  In it he advised that a key matter separtes us:  "it’s almost entirely about spending."  For those following along at home, the analysis is clear.  There are three groups that empower politicians in general elections: Conservatives, the Establishment (Republicans and Democrats) and Liberals.  Conservatives believe that Americans are better stewards of their finances than government and that spending should be reduced as austerely as possible.  The Establishment believe that you could not possibly build a home, receive medical care or  flush a toilet with out some form of government intervention.  The Establishment may not want all of your money but a goodly sum of 50 - 60% would go a long way towards a civil society.  The liberals do not believe that you have to vote as a central planning agency will give you what you need and cover all of the costs.  The State becomes the provider and protector of the individual and family.  A simple 100% of your wealth and commitment would improve the quality of everyone's life. I guess we can never change the outcomes of our political lives.  Surly the liberals and the Establishment outnumber us.  Right?!  Wrong!  According to a 2007 Associate Press (AP) Poll,  36 to 42% (Average: 38%) of the Nation is Conservative and 19 to 26% (Average:  22%) of the Nation is Liberal.  Let us deduce that 30% of the Nation is a part of the Establishment or shares a Pro-Government bent towards public policy.  These are individuals that believe we can make it with out government but won't ask government to stop providing security for their erroneous unbelief.  Amazingly, Pew Research Center  asserts that 62% of Pro-Government Conservatives are women.  Hmmmmm!  I wonder why the War on Women?   Here, in a nutshell, is the oxymoron: Pro-Government Conservative.  Listen, we, in individual battle, outnumber liberals and The Establishment on everyday of the year.  Even collectively, we could pull enough from the Establishment group out of shame or fear to garner a majority.   So hear is the ultimate question, "If Conservatives Are So Powerful and Represent 40% of the Electorate, Why Is There No Competitive Conservative Party in American Politics?" The Establishment GOP asserted itself in 1996 and we got Bob Dole.  In 2000, People had had enough of Bill Clinton and The Establishment GOP gave us George Bush.  The Establishment GOP Asserted Itself in 2008.  We Got John McCain.  The Establishment GOP Asserted Itself in 2012.  We Got Mitt Romney.  Let me be clear!  In these unprecedented times, any vote for a GOPer is certainly better than one for the Urban Leninist Barack Obama.  However, there must be a time in GOP History when the Message of Conservatism was equally matched by a Conservative Messenger.  There had to be a day when ideology was etched from the fires of the US Constitution and the King James Bible.  Indeed, the crossroad was filled by Ronald Wilson Reagan.  The Message and the Messenger were One.  Is this a "We just gotta have someone that is Reaganesque!" essay.  NO!  However, perfect unity of effort and efficiency in action comes when one is not deciding on whether to be a liberal, moderate or conservative depending on what state he s in or what group he is talking up.  So why do conservatives entrust their power to an organization that has a worst won-loss percentage than the early Tampa Bay Buccaneers?  I believe that my question reveals the most prudent answers.

DAVID BROOKS may be right!  I want to eliminate any pretense that from here on we will be singing the Sesame Street theme song.  I am as faithful to conservatism as any.  However, we must examine why so many have choose to follow the Establishment GOP rather than BUILD a conservative brand.  I know, I know!  Third parties will only produce liberal candidates.  No.  People produce liberal candidates as their only options.  Sure, you can point to 1992 when George H W Bush, William Jefferson Clinton and Ross Perot slugged it out as a reason against.  However, the two party system gave us bot Jimmy Carter nad Obama within four (4) decades of each other.  So I ain't buying that only a three party fight will result in a liberal victor.  The second answer is that the GOP will eventually let conservatives have a candidate.  How weak does that sound to you?  Conservative, you are the real elephant in the room and yet, you have been trained by harsh rhetoric and propaganda over the years that your social agenda and call or fiscal restraint are offensive to the electorate.  I suppose a 9% unemployment rate and $16 trillion deficit are more inviting words of wisdom.  We do not believe that because the Establishment has told us that such efforts are feeble.  You need money to make this happen.  Amazing how tons of money can be raised for a liberal GOP Governor of a Northern state but the GOP would have had a difficult time raising money for a conservative GOP Governor of a Western state.  How weak conservatives must be if they must wait another forty (40) years for a conservative candidate and you represent more than 60% of the GOP.  Here's another brilliant response to the question:  We would just produce a Do-Nothing Congress!  Somehow, stern conservatives would ave to work with liberal and moderate coalitions to get bills passed. That would be almost impossible as there is no willingness to work together.  Yeah, that only would happen in a three party system.  Are you kidding me?  Holding someone accountable does not begin after you vote but before.  The person that desires to represent you should not be figuring out their political ideology and belief system while completing the GOP Nomination Form.  They should have core principles that allow you to discern whether a person is liberal, moderate or conservative in their political beliefs.  A Conservative Coalition, out of numerical power, would certainly have greater influence on collaborating with Moderates than Liberals coalescing with Moderates.  Saving multiple coalitions slows down poor legislation and focuses greater attenion to the voting records of each group.

Not the best question to ask, Ken. And one has to learn that a conservative from the East, Midwest, South, and West will not see 'eye to eye' on every issue. You also have to deal with local influences that create movements that produce different candidates for others to vote for. If you even look within the libertarian ranks, you don't even have unity there; which causes some - who are more conservative - to run in the Republican party; and those who are more liberal - to run independent, or Democrat. And the major issue with the selection process is: having few states decide who the party's nominee is going to be; as they all change their dates for caucuses/primaries. This needs to be reformed. That, and the 'winner takes all' delegates; along with unbound and 'super' delegates. It disenfranchises voters from participating -- and when voters don't engage the candidates, while PAC's hand money to them, you see what you have as a result.   ~~C.A. of Illinois

Finally, the latter answer speaks to the heart of a people with great potential but little motivation.  Starting a conservative party would be too much of a hassle.  Wow! we can thrill millions with a speech in Tampa tat says we can solve a $16 trillion deficit, overturn Obama  Care and return us to the Values of the US Constitution but, we can not dream and even dare creating an alternative party.  Have we become so lazy as conservatives that we won't someone to gives us a Party and Power and Wealth to exploit our new Party and Power without sweat upon brow or pen pressed to paper?  Our Nation is at its greatest risks, domestic and foreign.  Our Constitution is a laughingstock to our own Supreme Court Justices.  The Establishment and the Liberals want to accelerate the onset of the socialism cancer and, because there is no ease, we choose to avoid necessary to save our Nation.  Listen, I pray that this Nation Rallies to Common Sense.  However, I pray even more that people that deign the title Conservative will come to the understanding that the Reagan that they seek is them and them alone.  In you, Mr. and Ms. Conservative, the Message and the Messenger are One.  Now your answer becomes more important to the generations that will follow you than the question I asked.

  FROM THE DESK OF THE EXCEPTIONAL CONSERVATIVE

It is written that Sun-Tzu once said, "Warfare is a great matter to a nation; it is the ground of death and of life it is the way of survival and destruction, and must be examined."  Coming after the celebration of the High Holy Days of Spring--Passover and Resurrection, a private examination of liberal public warfare in America seems an essential matter, especially in the District of Columbia.  Why the Nation's Capital?  Well, two names illuminated the pathways of survival and destruction in the Metro Voting Scene prior to the High Holy Days--Council Member and Mayor for Life Marion "Dmitri Shepilov" Barry and Attorney General Eric "I'll Be Back Faster than You Can Say Furious" Holder.  In the life and death battle of maintaining the most oppressive and poverty resistant tactics in Urban Polity, Barry represents the survivor and Holder the destroyer.  Each is vital to the installation of public policies and laws that defile the political liberties of Constitutional governance in lieu of those that solidify the Utopian financial security of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Economic Bill of Rights.

These are men esteemed by their peers for their judicial and political sophistry.  In variant circles, they are lauded for their past accomplishments.  They are different men sharing the same political ideology.  They are men of the "Democrat Civil Rights Generation"  [1966 - 2008].  Each found a home for their radical beliefs within President Andrew Jackson's Party.  Each believes that their racial justice and racial politics will reward "the least, the last and the lost" while incriminating those that, by acts of conscience or acts of their descendants, have oppressed such a great multitude.  One operates at the federal level.  The other at the state level.  Yet, their paths mysteriously crossed at the corner of Racism and Voter Fraud in the Nation's Capitol on Primary Election Day 2012.  

The Great DC Voter Fraud Caper

Attorney General Holder had made his determination plain many months ago about Voter Identification.  For those following along at home, his answer to Texas, South Carolina and especially, Arizona was consistent: NO!  By golly, there must be a succinct and logical reasoning for such hardened resistance.  Maybe it was the fact that most government programs do not require proof of identification. Wow!  Maybe these agencies do not know that I do not need ID to cash a payroll check or to obtain food stamps or to even get an abortion.  

Wait a minute!  You DO need ID for all of those.  So it can not be that. Maybe it's because ID costs too much.  Yeah, State ID is too damn high!  Well, the states had worked out a plan to give free voting ID to eligible citizens.  Wow, Republican States giving away Free Voter's ID!  Maybe minorities will respond as Haitians did when they were offered free ID.  No this is a definite ploy to suppress the minority vote.  Fortunately, in Georgia, where Voting ID has been required since 2006, minority voting participation increased from 513,700 to 741,000 in 2010.  Well, what could it be?  Racism.  In the words of the Great Negro South Carolina Representative in the US House Jim Clyburn, "Jim Crow!"  Yes, free voting ID is the equivalent of the poll tax, literacy tests and burning a cross in someone's front yard.  Free Voting ID is a weapon of intimidation equivalent to New Black Panther Soldiers standing outside of a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania voting precinct with a billy club.  According to Holder, in person voting fraud is rare.  So our Republic should not require ID.  

“You don’t need it; it’s all right,” the poll worker says. “As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.”

Enter James O'Keefe.  It seems that when this David enters the Coliseum of Nonsense, many Giants fall.  ACORN.  PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  The next challenger: ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER.

Literally, James brought down the house by having an individual go undercover to show that in the Nation's capital, Voter Fraud occurs.  The individual asked a DC Poll Worker if he could vote as "Eric Holder" without ID.  The Poll Worker consented.  This did not happen once but on several occasions at various precincts. He even interviewed a Security Officer at the Department of Justice that advised him to ascertain ID prior to entering the building.  In fact, without ID, he could not.  What is the liberal media's reaction.  Of course, this means nothing.  Susan Milligan wants you to pay attention to the 619,000 disenfranchised voters in the District of Columbia.  Yeah, we are kept here by force, as the Japenese Americans were kept in detention camps during World War II.  We are unaware that DC was carved out as a federal city where its citizens would have no voting privileges in the House or Senate unless duly granted.  US Constitution Article 1 and Section 8 for my worthy challengers.  Kevin Drum would like you to believe that voting is an air tight effort without any threat because "no one in their right mind would cast an illegal vote."  Sanity is certainly not a requirement to perform an illicit activity.  However, this Administration is counting on you avoiding the pages regarding ACORN and voting coincidences surrounding the election of Minnesota Senator Al Franken.

I suppose all of Minnesota was coo-koo for cocoa puffs when it came to SNL Al.  

This Board of Elections will grant zero tolerance to anyone tampering with the vital processes and standards by which District of Columbia voters exercise their franchise, including identifying themselves as a registered voter, affirming their qualifications to vote, and receiving and casting a ballot. The falsification or attempted falsification of any of the above is a criminal offense.”

  Whoah, Nelly!  Don't get your dander up, Board Member Stephen Danzansky.  You are acting like voting fraud happens all of the time.  I surmise that it does not because of teh stealth and vigilant actions of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics.  Your zero-tolerance  response is certainly not a political one.  Yes, avoid talking to Attorney general Eric Holder or the naive poll worker.  They know that DC BOEE will not cease its investigations until James O'Keefe is arrested, does a perp walk and is declared guilty by the Court of Public Opinion.  You certainly did not want voting identification or perpetrators of voter fraud to slow down the hundreds of thousands that voted in the Democrat laden election in April 2012.  What's that?  Only 68,000 people came out to vote.  The poll workers must certainly be overloaded with names and ID's.  No.  Then, it must have been racial discrimination that a white man was offered to sign "the book" without ID.  

It’s unclear if the poll worker followed procedure, although it comports to my personal experiences voting in the District. I’ve often showed up at a polling place with my ID out, to help poll workers with the spelling of my name, only to be told that it wasn’t necessary.

Yeah!  Definitely a white thing.  This could not possibly happen in the minority communities of the Nation's Capitol.  

It seems that the High Holiday Election gave cause for pause at the corner of Voter Fraud and Racism. Marion Barry, fresh from a political briefing on racial harmony with "Bull" Connor, let go the basic requirement to be registered as a Democrat: You must despise another race of people overtly and covertly.  Should you despise them because they support an Unconstitutional health care reform like Obama Care?  No.  Should you despise them because they are great entrepreneurs and uniquely outperform all races academically?  No.  You should despise them because they are Asian!  

“We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops,” he said in the course of laying out his vision for the ward. “They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.”

Even the best politicians screw up a point.  Especially when you have won a third successive term in office with a whopping 72% of the vote in his Ward 8.  You are overwhelmed with emotion.

Suddenly, your heart speaks for what your mind persistently withheld in good company.  (In all reality, unofficially, he received 5,116 votes out of 7,036 votes cast.  Ward 8 has 54,000 voters!)

Yes, my friends, Barry's Economic Platform is simple: Replace 'em.  We have not heard such an Economic Plan since the building of the Trans-Continental Railroad.  I suppose when offering summer jobs to unemployed men and women with children is deemed ineffectual then, you just have to go with Plan B.  Remember, it was the Asians that caused you to live on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Electronics Benefit Transfer (EBT) Funds.  Could not have been that Mr. Barry voted for the Living Wage legislation that requires employers to pay $10 per hour to unskilled workers.  Guess DC Businesses need fewer unskilled workers.  What do you have to say to your racist brothers and sisters that voted you into office tonight:  

beekay@BeeBlanco_:

Marion Barry's trending... That's the illest nigga.

Certainly, as a non-bigotted, non-homophobic renaisance man of the Afro-American community, you would publicly apologize the next morning.  Right?  No.  

Barry ends up calling Cho a “good Asian” — you know, as opposed to all those bad ones — and telling him that he only regretted failing to use a “better set of words.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not concerned about Marion Barry.  He is long beyond the Road to Recovery.  I am concerned because the audience that he spoke with at his celebration APPLAUDED him.  The same persons that will spend $25 for a "Remember Trayvon" T-Shirt and March to the Wilson Building to protest Racism in America's justice system give a standing O to Barry after his racists comments.   The Barry-Holder Syndrome gives cover to those that have been empowered by years of racist vitriol, inaccurate cultural perceptions of conservatism, a gold spoon of entitlement and sense that only an elite group of individuals can govern, educate, employ and lead.  Yes, what you hear from Barry and Holder are years of liberation theology, public school indoctrination and a social preference to "Miseducate the Negro".  At the intersection of voter fraud and racism, the Black community is always the "victim".

How shall the talented few encourage the masses to achieve economic power: steal it.  Whether through the redistribution of wealth or a Socio-Economic Plan that calls for the elimination of the Asian business owner, the prophets of oppression, having amassed their personal fortunes and securities, have only the desire to promote bigotry, chaos and theft.  Urban America must review its unadulterated faith in the religion of separatist party politics and "government solution oriented" poverty policy.  Barry represents the "Survival" that years of charisma and patronage have yielded a Carte Blanche seat at the Table of the DC Government's Politburo.  No one at the polls can point to any specificity that warrants a return to office.  No one can isolate the golden nugget in his latter service that equals the worthy hallmarks of his former service.  However, too many have been "bought off" to consider challenging or even replacing one of America's Great Soldiers of Socialism.  Too many have become affixed upon their building project, government contract or special friends license plate to seek a prudent and more profitable remedy.  There seems an almost mystical acceptance of his place in spite of his inability to lead a small community out of the grips of neglect and economic decay.  You are certainly to hear more about Barry's private failures than his public legislative successes on the City Council.  Holder represents the "Destruction" that comes when Men of Justice must stand before the Courts of Public and Political opinions to receive their just due.  Holder, President Ronald Reagan's appointee to Judgeship on the DC Superior Court, has been around the block a few times as a hired hand of the law.  I believe to say his recent tenure as Attorney General has been cataclysmic is to say that Mr. Hillary Rosen merely misspoke. Their universal efforts have resulted in bias of justice and despair within the human condition. Barry and Holder have been true ministers of the religion of Party and Poverty to a fallen generation.

Placing Blinders on the Absurd.

FROM THE DESK OF THE EXCEPTIONAL CONSERVATIVE (and mirrored at the Urban Initiative, D.C. Chapter)

What A Day! You could easily draw the sword of the pen from its sheath to attack or defend a multitude of topics. I could easily press my blade against the flesh of Governor Mitt Romney's inability to knock out his opponents thus, causing a Brokered Grand Ol' Party (GOP) Convention in Tampa this August. Romney beaten so badly that even the Media wept at his great loss. The FOX All-Star Team was at a great loss to explain how Conservatives in Alabama and Mississippi were not fawning over the Beloved "Front Runner". Romney beaten so badly by Conservatives in the South that he came out this morning proclaiming his disdain for Planned Parenthood. Clutch the pearls, this is better than him eating "cheesy grits". One could easily press the mighty lead across multiple sheets, ceasing the moment to discuss, ad nausea, the great accomplishments of Rick Santorum and his sidekick, Newt Gingrich. However, I will save that for the more accurate and witty striker of note of the esteemed analyst Kirsten Powell, ever captivating, attractive, in spite of the minutiae that spills from her lips or submit to the "well-researched drivel" of Stanley Fish. Carrying on such sensations about the GOP Presidential Proceedings truly bore me. It is called a campaign! Yes, an organized process by which combatants choose various hostile strategies to achieve a singular objective. If these men were not gladiators then, we would be worthy of five (5) to six (6) hours of Brett Brier and Meghan Kelly. No, my fingers delight this moment in a more captivating prose.

Perusing the latest edition of the most Far Left, racist circular remaining in the Nation's Capitol, I took preeminent note of its Front Page Story. Surely, its Editors had designed the headline in such an ornate manner apart from all other such stories. As Editors do, in parlaying to the noble reader relevance and striking symbolism, the headlines served as the community's taking point, judge and jury of the enforcement actions of a federal agency investigating the multiple campaign fraud allegations against the District of Columbia's Mayor and City Council Members. The Headline:

Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio Stands Strong in Wake of Raid

Co-Founder: 'Firm's Good Works Overlooked'

Why do I cling to this? I shall illuminate some and bring to remembrance for others the plenteous and harmful reasons for the absence of alternative narrative in the local world of politics. It is the control of the narrative that separates truth and its liberating spirit from the vices and deceits of oppressive ideologies. Republicans, those that harbor their influences from the Heartland of America to the docks of their Capitol Hill offices, often ask, "Why can we not get Minorities to join us?" Local Urban Conservatives, seemingly separated by Iron Curtain, seem satisfied with the prevailing winds of punditry. Offered the wine of "most Black Republicans have moved to the Suburbs" and the bread of "Nobody in the Inner City likes the Republicans", many return to their pew of despair acknowledging once again that, while we have communed at distance with the One that shares our passion, we shall never know the power of the liberation that comes with communion. Each, the Republican Party and Urban Conservatives, seem to pass in the night while our inner cities falter like the Titanic. There must be a moment when each discovers that "It's the Narrative, Stupid!" and begin to control the message that is received from our messengers. In this series, I will alight many to the fact that "All Corruption Is Local". This message is essential to establishing the foundation of power acquisition within Urban America. To understand the absence of power sharing in Urban America, you have to study the phrase, "It speaks". A Walt Carr drawn cartoon, entitled "WHEN YOU'VE NEVER BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE", appears in the aforementioned circular. It distinguishes two characters: O'Reilly (representing the oppressive white folk) and Black Folk (representing All of Black Folk). O'Reilly portends, "I heard what he said and I don't sense any racial overtones." Emboldened, the Black Folk responds, "You know what...You Don't Sense It, You Don't See It, You Don't Feel It, You Don't Hear It, You Don't Smell It, You Don't Live It and You Sure As Hell Don't Get It!" The stark revelations emitted from this 'toon would energize a slug to investigate the best methodologies to tear down the Iron Curtain. Let's Play CSI: Conservative. The Racist, Far Left Black Press has made itself folly to those of reason and hero to those blinded by the absurd. The Racist, Far Left Black Press purports a symbolism of unity in both of the characters. It is far better for those that are too lazy to investigate beyond the handiest, historical stereotypes to explore the varied insights of a community. The Racist, Far Left Black Press never relents from the tired exposition of WHITE CONSERVATIVE is the oppressor and BLACK LIBERAL is the freedom fighter. When comparing periods of economic expansion, educational achievement and overall quality of life during times when "oppressors" and "freedom fighters" controlled the thrones of power, BLACK FOLK seemed to excel during periods of "oppression". During periods when freedom fighters held power, BLACK FOLK seemed to pale in economic comparison. The Racist, Far Left portends that such comparisons are anomalies and that "token" conservatives that make such comparisons feed the lies of the O'Reilly. The strength of the Racist, Far Left hence, represents the weakness of the freedom fighters. The Bunker Buster of Truth can not be distorted with reason. The hole exists. You can sense it. You can see it. You feel it. You heard the blast. You smell roil of sulfur and clay. You have experienced it momentary liberation. You have a sliver of comprehension. Hurry, Racist, Far Left Press before the reality becomes actualized.

The man said he hates the witch-hunt quality of the allegations, adding that he hoped the media would give Thompson a fair shake. He also blamed Sulaimon Brown for the city's political unrest.

When challenged to employ reason to the hallmarks of truth, the Racist, Far Left Black Press must explain it away with propaganda. Hopefully after years of muffling freedom fighters realities with sensational zeal, the people shall surely not rise up against those in power. They will verily slumber. Even pass this off as a result of their plight as a city that has no Voting Congressional Representation. The people will not see it all for what it is. How can a man point out the unrighteousness of Far Left freedom fighter causing such dramatic unrest? Does he know how much "good" has been done too such noble causes as Planned Parenthood and the NAACP? We must remember that this pursuit of justice is not fair. Certainly, if the mayor and city council were WHITE then, the "oppressors" would not be investigated, have their homes raided and their good name smeared! Placing Blinders on the Absurd is essential to restoring those to the balance of victim-hood and powerlessness. To the Far Left, race really is not a problem. It is a solution. A means of dividing, conquering and imprisoning. The Racist, Far Left Black Press are the guardsmen of the sensational narrative that employs the strategy of elevating people, personalities and propaganda above principles, prudence and personal pursuit. As the Informer opines that "War Is Hell", it is essential that those of strong will guard their narrative as sternly as they guard their hearts. Before we conquest the people, personalities and propaganda of the Racist, Far Left Black Press, we must begin to chip away at the "Iron Curtain" that separates Conservatives from liberating Urban America. Our success is directly attributed to our ability to comprehend the culture and influence the issues of Urban America. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil succinctly advised, "All politics is local." I submit, "All corruption is local." Corruption is defined as:

1. Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
2. The action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so.

...Part 1. 

[Mirrored at Logipundit.com]

Many thanks to Butch Porter for sending the following to me.  Over the years, Butch and I have had many conversations concerning the nature and substance of 'conservative' and how it applies here in the activities and philosophy that underpin our Party. My own efforts and defining certain aspects can be found in my book, but there are many other sources that do quite a grand job also.  This short essay, A Conservative Case for Freedom is from M. Stanton Evans in 1960 (ht to Jay Casale for sending it Butch's way first).  This is the link to the essay and I am going to excerpt a little of it. 

The authoritarian believes in the objective order, and is generally ready to
limit individual freedom to follow its prescriptions. He prefers a hierarchical to a
fluid society, conceiving some men as destined to rule, others to obey-all ordained by the objective order.

This is in fact the argument Edmund Burke makes while stating his positions on ordered liberty - something many conservatives approve of.  I do not agree with either ordered liberty as a concept or certainly the idea that I need an hierarchy above me to guide me:

The Manchesterians allege that man’s self-interest, which flourishes
under a regime of freedom, is sufficient sanction to keep liberty intact. But that
calculus of desires is too subtle for most of mankind. It is the immemorial habit of man to be unable to see his long-term interest when a short-term one looms before him.

I acknowledge that FOR ME, this:

...man’s self-interest, which flourishes under a regime of freedom, is sufficient sanction to keep liberty intact...

...is correct. However, one issue that I bring up often -Tracyism Rule #1: always act in your own best interest - is so seldom actually done by the majority that the second part of above:

It is the immemorial habit of man to be unable to see his long-term interest when a short-term one looms before him.

is the more common outcome.  I require moral people because most people are 'human nature being what it is, is short term, sole benefit at the expense of others' oriented.

I want to tie this to the current political/primary.  Our short term interests and what is in our long term interests are reaching a point of breaking.  Many of us want a conservative to run against Obama, but that is more and more looking unlikely (yea for the ACP!! ok, short term interest...) and yet, how do we vote for someone that we feel is least likely to hold to the banner of conservative principle and still defeat Obama, who most certainly is not in our long term interest.

Four years ago, I and many of the founders of this party faced that question with the effort to build this party. Some voted for McCain, many did not vote at all (I didn't). In many regards we are facing a similar situation again.  I have decided I will NOT vote for a candidate that fails to meet even the basic concepts of conservatism even if the result is Obama getting a second term. For me, my long term interest is in the liberty and freedom we were endowed with and voting against it, even for a short term benefit, just doesn't fit with my idea of Conservative.

How can the Republican party leadership, and the Presidential candidates, be such fools when it comes to these seemingly endless debates? There have been 20 of them, 20 !

How many of those debates dealt with actual issues facing this nation now, like gas prices, Iran, North Korea, middle east wars, things like that? Oh, no, that’s not going to happen. What do we get from these debates? The class clown, George Stephanopolis, asking if states should have the right to ban contraceptives. George was a key member of the Clinton administration, a true left wing hack, and he gets to ask the questions of Republicans in a debate? Or Diane Sawyer, or John King, liberals all? What is wrong with the Republican party that they allow themselves to fall into the media trap?

Everyone knows that the media’s job in elections is to select the Republican candidate in order to ensure that the Democrat wins more easily. That’s their job. There’s no objectivity to it.

In the last debate, John King of CNN never brought up any of the hot topics. No, he wanted to manipulate the candidates into fighting with each other, over who voted for this, who wants contraceptives, who doesn’t, and on and on. Why didn’t the candidates just tell John King to take the next hour off, and the candidates would discuss the topics that needed discussion?

Three suggestions for the Republican party, and I’m assuming they can read and comprehend. First, only do three to four debates. Second, never agree to a debate on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN. They are all loyal liberals (Democrats), and will attempt to manipulate the debate questions. Third, get neutral or conservative organizations to host debates, and make the debate available to any network that wants to broadcast it. Those debates will be moderated by people known for neutrality and objectivity.

If the Republicans do those three things, they’ll be able to discuss really important things. If they don’t do those three things, they’ll demonstrate that they’re just too stupid to be doing any debates.

The Obama administration shows a remarkable disdain for the Constitution. From the unconstitutional individual mandate to unconstitutional political appointments, no clause seems sacred to President Barack Obama. Sadly, that now includes even the freedom of religion — the first right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

... Obama argued in 2006 that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.” Yet he is now asking believers to do just that. All those that work to help others in the public square and to assist those in need are now being told to “leave their religion at the door.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72617.html

In November of 2011, four out of the five expert witnesses before the Subcommittee agreed that a Medicare price control policy has disincentivized the production of certain drugs and is at least part of the reason we now have the drug shortages that are killing Americans. An exchange between Congressman Bret Guthie (R-KY) and Dr. Howard Koh (Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services) went like this:

Congressman Guthrie: "I had a group of oncologists in the other day … and they say they literally have to make choices about who they take care of because they don’t have the drugs available.  So I asked kind of the question, “I can’t believe a company won’t make them if you have the demand for them.”  And they told me that this particular type of drug–a generic—[is] priced differently in the federal government.  So Medicare actually prices these drugs different than other drugs. Is what they were saying true?"

Dr. Koh: "… We have a role of Medicare here that reimburses according to what’s called the average sales price.  So that is one factor here but we don’t view that as a significant issue in driving the shortages we’re seeing here."

Uh oh... don't tell Greece. Bloomberg is reporting that for patients and pharmacists in financially stricken Greece, even finding Aspirin has turned into a headache. The major cause is the Greek government, which sets prices for medicines. As part of an effort to cut its own costs, Greece has mandated lower drug prices in the past year. So how is that working out? Mina Mavrou, who runs a pharmacy in a middle-class Athens suburb, spends hours each day pleading with drug makers, wholesalers and colleagues to hunt down medicines for clients. Life-saving drugs such as Sanofi’s blood-thinner Clexane and GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s asthma inhaler Flixotide often appear as lines of crimson data on pharmacists’ computer screens, meaning the products aren’t in stock or that pharmacists can’t order as many units as they need.

The reason? Price capping has fed a secondary market. Drug manufacturers as well wholesalers sell their shipments outside the country at higher prices than they can get within Greece. Strained government finances only make matters worse. Wholesalers and pharmacists say the system suffers from a lack of liquidity, as public insurers delay payments to pharmacies, which in turn can’t pay suppliers on time. “They’re saying you pay me now, and then you’ll get the money from your social security fund,” said Ioannis Theodorakis, chairman of the Association of Persons with Multiple Sclerosis he said in an interview in his office in Athens, a few steps from where protesters lob Molotov cocktails and pelt police with rocks at Syntagma Square.

Welcome to price to controls, where fire bombs are plentiful but life saving drugs, even aspirin, are not. But remember, the Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services testifies the Greeceification of America is a good outcome.

From the Desk of the Exceptional Conservative

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.--Psalm 1:1

The State if Illinois requires that foster agencies must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. Impacted by this decision is Catholic Charities and it's affiliates that believes that their religious principles dictate that adoptions occur only by married heterosexual couples. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, who referred refer same-sex couples to other agencies (as they had been doing for unmarried couples), but that was not acceptable to the state. Read it all, and ask yourself, is this social engineering by the state, an intrusion into religious practice and consciousness, or simply ending discrimination.

     A recent editorial in my local newspaper was touting the need for a graduated tax to insure the rich pay their fair share. The author claims that from 1979 to 2007, the "real income" for the poorest 20 percent of Americans grew at 16 percent while the top 1 percent grew at 281 percent. How does one get to this top of this financial mountain? They climb faster than others. Different rates of climb create the top, middle and bottom. While our Declaration of Independence may claim that all men are created equal, it doesn’t guarantee anyone anything after they’ve been created. As a nation we have strived to insure that all Americans have an equal chance to climb that ladder but there’s no guarantee that any one person will make it. Some people don’t have the will, some don’t have the ability and some simply are lacking in a bit of luck. Is it unfair for one set of people to have more than others? If so, how should we treat the economic inequity that exists in our society?

     Let’s apply this principle of inequality in success to another area. The Chicago Cubs haven’t won a world series in over 100 years while just down the road, the St. Louis Cardinals have won 11 titles in the last 85 years. Is it fair for the Cards to have so much success while the Cubs have so little? Maybe we should make the Cards turn over some of those trophies, rings and playoff money to help those poor Cubs. Sound ridiculous? Of course it is. If the Cubs want a world series trophy, they have to go win one like anybody else. Major League Baseball has rules which are designed to level the playing field as much as possible but in the end, if all the competitive nature, the thrill of victory and agony of defeat so to speak, were removed, the game would no longer be worth playing. Life in America is no different.

     So why, when it comes to the world of business and taxes, do we want to punish success and reward failure? Sadly, in this "keep up with the Jones" America we seem to have built, we define poor as a condition relative to what others have rather than what the "poor" person actually has. There are nations on this planet where our "poor" would be considered well off. Poverty isn’t a static concept in America. It’s based on how far one is behind those at the front of the pack. But being labeled "poor" carries a negative image which tends to make people angry and jealous. John Q Public seems to feel that there is no legitimate way John Doe could be that far ahead of him. If the competition were a 10 mile distance run and Mr. Doe was a world class distance runner, John Q would expect to be behind after 1 mile, even further behind after 5 miles and far behind at the end of the race. But for some reason, John Q doesn’t recognize that reality when it comes to economics. As a result, John Q surmises that Mr. Doe must have cheated or stolen all that money and thus John Q is justified in simply taking what Mr. Doe has and confiscating it for himself. In the private section, we call that stealing. In the world of politics, it’s referred to by many names but it is what it is - socialism, redistribution of wealth, etc. It is a mind set that promotes class warfare.

     It is important to note that the numbers provided by the author of the original article which motivated this writing are based on real income. That means today’s poor person is 16% "richer" than the 1979 poor American or there would be no "real" growth at all. The successful are still climbing faster than the unsuccessful ones. There’s no conspiracy or evilness to that concept. It’s what happens when John Q continues to run competition against John Doe. So how do we solve this problem? It isn’t a political problem at all and politicians cannot solve it anymore than Major League Baseball can create rules that guarantees the Cubs will win as many games as the Cards. It is a cultural problem that only the people can solve. Americans need to concentrate on their own dreams and desires. They need to quit defining their success and failure by what others do. If I have the things I need in life, who cares if my neighbor has 80 zillion dollars? Does the fact that my neighbor has a Rolls Royce while I drive a Chevy make me a failure? Of course it doesn’t. To be honest, I never wanted a Rolls in the first place so why should I begrudge him his? Until we learn to define our own personal goals, take responsibility for our own decisions and measure our personal success in accordance with those goals rather than the achievements of others, this problem will persist and even escalate. America needs a mental reboot.

Credit in advance to The KraalSpace. I can't help but think how similarly governments in Canada and the US function - and why we need a huge shake-up in DC. Be sure to read it all.

I sent this local Ottawa story to Mark Steyn, in the hope he might write about it on his site or put it on his sidebar. It's similar to a story he's written about a few times, regarding a bridge near his little New Hampshire town that needed to be replaced.

This story, I think, is even a bit better, because it shows how government health care leads us on and on to more and more government dependence, even as the growing government does less and less for us.

A local man in poor health had to have his leg amputated this past year, and he required a ramp to be built at his house before he could go home. Not being related to a cabinet minister or a hockey player, he joined the line of supplicants for government funds to build the $4,800 ramp, and was turned down at every turn (with the encouraging promise that he could always reapply month after month until he finally succeeded). With no ramp, he couldn't leave the hospital, so he's been languishing in a hospital bed since August, at a cost to the government of over $90,000.

The story came to mercifully happy end, though, and, just as in Steyn's bridge case, it was no thanks to the multi-million dollar government do-gooder ministries. I'll quote the Citizen article, because it has that tell-tale ring of good common sense, practicality and neighbourliness that's becoming all too rare these days:

After I left him the details on a phone message Thursday, (local Conservative MP Jack) MacLaren called Friday morning to tell me what he was working on with Tom Black, president of the Ontario Landowners Association.

In addition to promoting property rights, MacLaren, a former president of the association, says the group helps people in need whenever it can.

As MacLaren sees it, it's almost Christmas, and what a "real nice Christmas event" this would be if Larry is reunited with his wife for the holidays without having to worry about returning to hospital afterward.

"I'm sure this man would be much happier, and much healthier, at home," he said. "Everyone wants to be home, right? He needs a ramp and it needs to be built. We have the people and the resources to do that, and we will do that."

The work could start as early as tomorrow and be completed by midweek. The ramp is going to be built in Black's barn and then assembled at Larry's house. MacLaren said the ramp will be built by volunteers who the association can call on. One building supplier has already offered a price discount on lumber.

Today's paper had a followup:

The people who promised to build Larry Torrington a wheelchair ramp so he could finally be released from Saint-Vincent Hospital obviously don't fool around.

The ramp was designed Saturday, built Sunday and assembled outside Larry's Stittsville house Monday.

With the ramp in place, Larry - who had surgery in March to remove the lower part of his right leg because of complications from diabetes - was expected to leave hospital and arrive home early this afternoon.

So to recap: Local newspaper alerts local MP of situation on Thursday; by Friday MP has contacted local community leaders and they have assessed problem and are figuring out how to solve it. Tuesday: wheelchair ramp is built and installed and Larry returns home.

This contrasts with 4 months of fruitless petitioning to several government sources of funding, resulting in nothing, and coincidentally costing over $93,000 in hospital expenses, covered by government health insurance.

Now, I don't want to be a Grinch; this is a genuine feelgood story, the good guys came to the rescue and everything worked out the way we would hope it should. But there's still something about this story that bugs me. It's not the insane difference between the money saved by one stingy government bureaucracy versus the amount squandered as a result by a different government bureaucracy, or how nobody could seem to line up those two items into one mind and decide, "This is ridiculous! Give the poor guy his ramp, and let's free up that hospital bed!"

No, it's the way things happened in such an unnatural order. Why was the simplest, most direct course of action the LAST resort? Why did Larry have to spend 4 months wasting his time entreating the government to take pity on him when help was just around the corner? Why do we resign ourselves to filling out endless little bits of paper to feed into an anonymous machine in the hope of getting what we need eventually, instead of speaking directly to the people nearest us, who know us best?

It's not just Larry - we all do this. I think Steyn is right when he warns about how government medical care changes the nature of our relationship with the government. We don't think it will, but we find ourselves just sliding into this supplicant position without even thinking about it.

What's even worse, it seems that as the government takes over the provision of more and more of our needs, it inevitably takes over bits of our life that we never willingly agreed to assign to them. Think about it: this whole story concerned the building of a wooden platform outside a man's house. If Larry's wife had wanted a clothesline erected at the back door, he would have just built it himself or hired a handyman to do it in an afternoon. But somehow because government medical care has gotten involved, a little bit of carpentry has suddenly become "government business", and we slump resignedly as we wait our turn for the government to get to us and take care of the business that we no longer even imagine can be done any other way.

Why do we do this? It isn't because we're getting better service from the government; look at Larry - he never got anything at all, at least, not what he wanted. There was plenty of what he didn't want - moping in a hospital, but nothing at all of what he, his doctors and everyone who knew him knew he needed. Maybe we have all decided that it's too hard to make personal appeals to people we know - it's shameful to reveal that we have needs we can't take care of ourself. And we worry too much about being a burden and a bother to people around us. But a government doesn't have a personality we have to worry about interacting with. We never really think "If I get this, then someone else can't have what they need" because it's never presented that way to us individually. We know that one department loses funding while another one gains it, but it's never personalized. Whereas, with real human beings, we might think "My son's family had to give up their vacation this year to help me to pay for my new furnace" and the resulting discomfort makes us unhappy.

Of course, by eliminating the possibility of getting personal help from someone, we also eliminate the other person's ability to be generous and experience the happiness of helping. Instead, we get our "stuff" - not very good, and maybe extremely late - and there are no messy human interactions to worry about. Even without intending to, letting government help us all the time ends up creating a distant, alienated society of people who don't know each other and don't know how to deal with each other.

Emergencies can still override this numbing effect, but in everyday life we seem to be slumping into a poorer, lonelier existence.