Part-Time Pundit: Politics Archives

August 17, 2006

Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional

The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear.

Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of "warrantless wiretapping" despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a "police state" and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.

The judge in this case, an appointee of Jimmy Carter, doesn't seem to understand the difference between overseas surveillance and domestic surveillance. Will the CIA start needing warrant the next time the spy on a terrorist overseas?

According to the ruling:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

Let's skip past the FISA court idea, one that is still in dispute publicly and in the courts (other district courts either ruled for the government or declined to rule at all) and discuss the First Amendment issue. Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?

Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the "warrantless wiretapping" programs as an attempt to establish an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights", however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.

Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 16, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Tom Kean for US Senate

This week, Wictory Wednesday present Thomas Kean for the US Senate for the state of New Jersey. Tom is a known conservative supporting sound economic and political policies that will keep America going in the right direction.

Much has been said about the "culture of corruption" that permeates both parties nationally as well as in New Jersey. Recently, the New Jersey Attorney General resigned over ethical violations. Kean is no stranger to the destruction a corrupt government causes and is committed to the cause of reform to clean up not only corrupt politicans, but wasteful bureaucratic spending and expansive government agencies.

Kean understands that funding education is essential but that it must come with accountability. Projects and organizations that are achieving results should be funded and expanded. Bureaucracies and programs that are failing students and parents should be defunded and discarded. Throwing money at a problem without taking the time to ensure results just wastes money and condemns American youth to second-class status in the global economy.

As a supporter of lower taxes, Kean understands that this must come with lower spending. While the economy is growing and reducing the impact that the budget deficit has on the economy, much greater gains would be made if wasteful spending never took place to begin with. Ending absurd taxes such as the marriage penalty and the ever-expansive alternative minumum tax would not shackle the middle class. The best way to create jobs is to keep the cost of running and expanding businesses economical.

Kean would be a solid voice for conservative values in the United States Senate where it seems to be needed the most. Please consider contributing to the Kean campaign.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

Posted by John Bambenek at 9:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 9, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Steve Laffey for US Senate

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Steve Laffey for the US Senate for Rhode Island. Steve is running against well-known *insert appropriate adjective here* Republican incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee. The reasons to vote against Chafee are many, but as a rule, we should casts votes for something.

A vote cast for Laffey is a vote cast for fiscal restraint. Laffey understands that the federal government spends other people's money and that pork projects are an egregarious example of government waste and corruption. He also is against raiding the Social Security Trust fund (yeah, I know, it's a joke) and corporate welfare. It is a national disgrace that our tax system cannot be understood by even the enforcers of that system, the IRS, and that such a system is an oppression and shackle against the American family. He supports simplifying the system so that the average person doesn't need to hire a team of professionals to figure out what their "fair share" of taxes is.

Laffey is a strong economic growth candidate supporting policies that will keep the economy moving forward. He supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent and will work to introduce additional tax cuts. He understands that tax cuts also need to come with spending cuts. Laffey is an experienced politician who, as mayor, lead his town from having a near junk-bond rating to financial solvency and has overseen some of the greatest economic renewal Cranston has seen in decades. The Club for Growth has endorsed his campaign recognizing that he will move the nation forward and avoid the recession-prone policies of the Democrats.

Please consider contributing or volunteering for Steve Laffey's campaign for the Senate.

Posted by John Bambenek at 2:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Book Review: Conservatives Betrayed by Richard Viguerie

The marriage between the Republicans and conservatives has been a loveless and unsatisfying marriage. The Republicans keep "stumbling home after midnight, smelling of booze and cheap perfume." And it is time for the marriage to come to an end.

Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause by Richard Viguerie thoroughly lists, more than any other resource I can think of, the balance of indiscretions the Republicans have visited upon conservatism under the Presidency of George W. Bush (and even before that election). The days of the Contract With America are long gone and replaced with what can only appear to be a very similar spending philosophy of Democrats.

Viguerie systematically dissects the policies of the George W. Bush administration in the key areas of foreign policy, immigration, the right to life, the culture of life, the courts, and taxation. He shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the canard that this is one of the most extreme right-wing administrations in history is absolutely absurd. Sure, Bush has thrown conservatives some carrots, but he has shown that he's more than willing to grow the federal government and not buck the system. He, after all, has only recently cast his first veto and has used no rescissions to block pork barrel spending.

Chart after chart, figure after figure, the book painstakingly reveals what is apparent to most conservatives, George Bush isn't one of them.

This disaffection has been brewing for some time and came to a head with the immigration debate. While the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the UAE ports deal resulted in acquiescing to the grassroots conservatives, immigration showed the GOP literally telling conservatives to go to hell. The argument was that by leaving the Republican plantation, we got eight years of Clinton, so now we had to suck it down. If that statement seems like it is defecating on conservatives, that is because it is exactly what it is doing. Conservatives should shut up and keep sending money to the GOP. We should leave the governing to the elites.

This book is a challenge to that accepted logic and presents a game plan to attempt to bring principles back into politics. The central premise is that conservatives should stop being wedded to the GOP and start being a movement that hopefully brings both parties into line or at least gives us an occasional chance to vote against the GOP candidate without implicitly supporting a repugnant alternative.

The status quo will lead to the situation we have here in Illinois -- party insider Rod Blagojevich running against party insider Judy Baar-Topinka with both having approval ratings on a good day rivaling President Bush. Not even party loyalists like their candidate. The state is on the verge of bankruptcy, in the worst financial shape of any other state, and there is no discernable difference (quite literally) between the policies of either party. Lastly, both are corrupt to the core having fair numbers of high-level staffers in both parties under federal indictment or conviction. That is the future of national politics if we do nothing… a bankrupt government, corrupt politicians, and sham elections between candidates no one likes.

One of the more scandalous, but most insightful, suggestions is dropping support for the death penalty. This stand, more than others, directly contradicts the general conservative support for a culture of life and undermines the moral authority that would otherwise be present if that stand was not there. Controversial, yes, but spot on.

The missing piece of the puzzle, however, is a social justice component (and I don't mean that term in the typical regressive way). Only one sentence of the book makes mention of communities supporting their members but the fact is, there are times where people will need a helping hand from others. Disasters strike, illnesses drain life savings, people die, and so on. A political ideology that does not explicitly have a plan on how to handle those situations is one that leaves a large portion of the population as a captive audience to the left and big government. Big government may not effectively meet people's needs, however many view it as "better than nothing". Arguing against minimum wage laws makes good economic sense, but is politically meaningless when there is no response to the fact some people simply don't earn enough for their families. The argument must seek to address this, and that comes by creating a living wage by reducing the cost of living (most of which comes in the form of taxation or increased cost of regulations passed down to the consumer).

Further, if an effective conservative movement is to be founded and empowered, it will take more than focusing on politics. Liberty is impossible unless it includes both political and economic liberty. Likewise, reform is impossible unless it includes both political and economic aspects. The book mentions Google and Yahoo as regressive-supporting companies. There needs to be conservative equivalents so people can vote with their pocketbooks. Arguing for conservative principles while supporting regressive causes (by using companies that are in the tank with regressive causes) is self-defeating, or at least self-impeding.

The book is exactly what it purports itself to be, a starting point and a moment to reflect. It is a quick read and should have nothing foreign for anyone moderately informed about politics. The disaffection of conservatives is a growing one and now, more than ever, is the opportunity to fight for the principles we believe in. Viguerie includes several steps to take to the field of battle which involves common people to run for office, or at least take effort to support conservatives over Republicans. It won't be until common people run for office that we'll have any real reform, or at least a return to some attempt at representing common people instead of the enfranchised elites.

In 2006, when only Congressional seats are up for grabs, conservatives have the chance to make it clear to Republicans that conservatism will win or lose elections for them, just as MoveOn has just proved that moderate and sensible Democrats like Joe Lieberman are not welcome in the Democratic Party. If conservatives engage the political system now, we can win. If we fall silent, we will become like Illinois, where all the potential leaders and talent flee the state and surrender it to the left. For now, Republicans have won only because of the incompetence of the Democrats; that will not be the case forever.

The question is: can we put principle above partisanship?

Posted by John Bambenek at 1:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 4, 2006

DI Column Up: Iconoclastic Reactionaries

You can read my latest and last DI column for the summer here.

Enjoy.

P.S. Yes they mispelled my name. Again.
---

The problem with the battle of the iconoclastic reactionaries
Jon Bambenek
Posted: 8/4/06
If society is "a group of reasonable beings united among themselves by a love having the same object" as St. Augustine suggested, we are witnessing the very violent murder of American society in our day and age. Political discussion has become so unreasonable, and the public mind so small, that we can no longer discuss ideas or events, we can only discuss people. We have become so fractured that in no way can Americans be described as having a love for the same object. This campus, a place of supposed open discussion, is no exception.

It is on the twenty-four hour news channels and the blogs, which have done little but to exacerbate the problem, where people can no longer challenge ideas, they must attack the people behind those ideas as absolute moral evils to be annihilated.

Likewise, instead of presenting messages, we present messengers. Cindy Sheehan lost a son in Iraq; therefore, her ideas are beyond reproach. Ann Coulter is right because she sells lots of books. Yet neither advance ideas; they are defined by what they are against.

When people talk about privatizing Social Security, the voices that challenge the policy on economic grounds are drowned out by the voices who claim that it is a sinister plot to kill off old people. For those who discuss immigration reform, those who disagree with amnesty are not people with a different perspective, but xenophobes who are stirring anti-immigrant furor. Individuals who voice criticism of the war in Iraq, no matter how legitimate, are labeled as traitors and terrorist sympathizers.

Have we run out of ideas? Have we, as a country, become so superficial that we've bought into the idea of style over substance so completely?

The lines have not only been drawn with politics, but with race as well. There are African Americans, Caucasians, Latinos, and nowhere does anyone talk of simply "Americans" without qualifiers. We have black culture, white culture, and Latino culture, but nowhere do we have a common culture. We are not a society; we are several societies that by an accident of geography occupy that same chunk of dirt on a map. And like all divisions, we look upon the "other" with suspicion, disdain and fear.

There exist millions of little lobbying groups insisting that politicians give them what they want, or they'll declare that politician as a target to be destroyed. No one, at least those who show up on TV and command a small army of bobble heads, can fathom this simple idea: There are 300 million people in this nation, and sometimes their needs and wants matter too. Policy and politics are more than single issues considered in a vacuum.

In an arena where there is only good and evil with no middle ground, no real synthetic thought can take place. We are left with the Roman Colosseum, not a public square. It is the perennial battle of the iconoclastic reactionaries of all political stripes. The solution to bridge one warring faction with another is not moderate thought, but simply thought itself.

That leaves one of several options to us. We either learn to grow up and discuss ideas like adults, we retreat into our "communities" and the nation splinters, or we pick up guns and the last man standing wins. I'd prefer if we just grew up. © Copyright 2006 The Daily Illini

Posted by John Bambenek at 8:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 3, 2006

A Case of Double Standards

Compare and contrast these two cases:

The first, a scandal-ridden New Jersey Senator who was running for reelection abruptly resigns and drops out of the race 35 days before the election. Litigation ensues and the court decides that it should override the law under the concerns to ensure a "full and fair ballot choice" for the voters.

The second, a scandal-ridden Texas Congressman who was running for reelection resigns from office and drops out of the rice 5 months before the general election. Litigation ensures and the court decides that the candidate who no longer has residence in the district must remain on the ballot and there should be no exception to the law.

What is the difference between the two cases? The first was a Democrat, the second a Republican. Both were running for reelection for national office, however, the first was dealt with in state court, and the second, in federal court.

The inherent viewpoint of Democrats (and regressives in general) is that the written law means nothing when it conflicts with what is perceived to be the metaphysical intent of the law or what the law should be. This is why they can say with a straight-face that Bush should be impeached for crimes that amount to little more than not drinking deeply enough of the regressive Kool-aid.

Republicans generally believe the law should be upheld and if changes are needed the legislature (which exists entirely for this task) should be employed to modify those laws.

So when the Democrats ask for an exception, it is not inconsistent with what they believe, that namely, the law should reflect and advantage their policies, even when the written words of that law go clearly against them. When Republicans ask for an exception, they get denied outright.

In both cases, the misuse and abuse of the court system has lead to a schizophrenic application of the law, largely along partisan lines. The question of whether the law matters or not depends on which would most benefit the Democrats. An interesting thought exercise would be to imagine if George Bush stood accused of perjury in open court for lying about an affair during a lawsuit, and whether or not the Democrats would vote to impeach him on those groups. A fair amount of Republicans surely would.

It is tempting, then, for the Republicans to likewise abandon the written law and rely on tactics of jurisdiction shopping and court stacking to secure favorable outcomes, not based on the law, but on party loyalty. This temptation should be quickly dispatched. A law that means whatever those in power want, is not law, but tyranny projected through a black robe.

Citizens should take note at, yet again, the bipolar nature of the court system, and the routine differing application of the law depending on who is involved. If ever there was a case against judicial activism and reform of the courts, this episode would be it.

Posted by John Bambenek at 3:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ending Corporate Welfare

The ACLU is indignant that there are members of Congress pushing to pass a law that would bar awards of attorney fees when groups sue to get religion out of the public square. These award of legal fees are very directly responsible to a vast increase in the body of law that has gone so far to protect against the appearances of government endorsement of religion, that even private individuals have been sanctioned for daring to utter the unutterable name of Jesus Christ in public.

It has been the ACLU's influence that not only is the government (rightly) prevented from taking sides on the matter of religion, but when private individuals happen to be speaking on government property, the First Amendment is brought to bear against them. It is unthinkable in the highest degree that the Founders or anything in the Constitution intended to restrict the free expression rights of citizens. The First Amendment was designed to create institutional separation between the agencies of government and the houses of religion, not to be a pre-regulated restriction on what private people can or cannot say.

The ACLU has used attorney fees to bully schools into submission in questionable cases or in matters where no settled law exists. School budgets are already tight (mostly because of bloated bureaucracy, but that's not the point). Many schools will capitulate to avoid having to fork out money to defend a winning case. As in most areas of law, he who has the most money wins. With the award of legal fees, it only encourages entrepreneurial lawyers to build cases where none may exist. It also prevents the ACLU from browbeating agencies into avoiding situations where those agencies may be right.

However, the money schools have is not their own. The money sitting in government accounts is not their own. They are merely stewards of assets they have been given to perform tasks they have been assigned. Their masters are the citizens who fund those organizations and who elect their leaders.

There is something profoundly wrong when, because of the actions of a politician, the entire society that funds that politician's organization is made to pay. There is much talk about making politicians and bureaucrats accountable, awarding legal fees for cases like this don't make the politicians accountable, it makes society accountable. It is irresponsible in the extreme to make other people pay for someone's "bad" actions. I'd prefer courts punish those people who are actually doing the deeds, not finding someone who has big enough pockets and make them pay, no matter how peripheral they may be. We'll throw them out of office the next election if the case warrants it.

Preventing the default award of legal fees makes good economic sense and it is good policy. The First Amendment is a simple area of constitutional law that does not, nor should not, take millions of dollars to litigate. It is about time this case of corporate welfare comes to an end.

Posted by John Bambenek at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 2, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Thelma Drake

This week, Wictory Wednesday presents Thelma Drake for US Congress for the Second District of Virginia. Representative Drake is running for reelection for her second term in the Congress and is running against MoveOn backed candidate Phillip Kellam. Polls indicate this will be a tight race, and from the amount of money being poured in by MoveOn, a race of importance in 2006.

Rep. Drake has been a supporter of victory in Iraq, rejecting calls to surrender to terrorists and leave the region in chaos. By providing support that the troops need, it gives the military and administration the latitude needed to do the hard work of reconstruction.

Also a supporter of free trade, Rep. Drake has voted to create a free trade zone in South America to further economic development that is beneficial to all parties. Many protectionists keep railing against the trade deficit without realizing that the trade deficit does more for other countries developing their economies than humanitarian aid could ever do.

Lastly, in the light of the recent debate on immigration, Rep. Drake gets it. Regulating the flow of immigrants is not xenophobia, it is common sense. It is one thing to be generous in allowing immigrants to come here to build a better life. It is another to have no real border and allow anyone, including terrorists, free reign across the border. Immigration is healthy for a county, unregulated flaunting of a border is not.

Please consider supporting Thelma Drake in her race for reelection.

Posted by John Bambenek at 9:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 26, 2006

Wictory Wednesday: Doug Lamborn for Congress

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Doug Lamborn for Congress for the 5th District of Colorado.

Doug Lamborn is a solid conservative with a history of fiscal restraint. He supports reforming education to give more choices to parents instead of dumping more money into a bloated bureaucracy. He believes there should be little to no federal role in education as those decision should be best left up to local areas to determine their own needs. Education is the absolute key to continued economic development and sustainability and it is clear that school choice will once again produce schools and students who are representative of the greatness of this nation.

Senator Lamborn understands that the problem with health care in the United States is not because the government isn't in charge, but because the government has skewed the incentive system away from consumers. The solution isn't to remove the consumer even farther from the equation, but to put the consumer square in the middle and allow them to make flexible choices for their own health care.

The use of eminent domain to take property from the disenfranchised and give it to the enfranchised has left those on all parts of the political spectrum a sense of fear. It was only a matter of time when the Court gave local governments the right to kick people out of their homes that those governments would stop paying fair market value for the properties they seized. Senator Lamborn understands private property rights as a foundational aspect of our society, government, and nation. Our freedoms are not something granted by the government out if its magnimity, but these are rights inherent in our society that the government is not free to intrude upon.

Senator Lamborn has won endorsements from the NRA, the National Pro-Life Alliance, and the Club for Growth as well as many other conservative endorsements. Please consider helping Doug Lamborn win in November by contributing or volunteering for his campaign.

Posted by John Bambenek at 12:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 21, 2006

DI Column Up: How to End Catch-22 Voting

My latest column is up over at the DI. Basically on why Illinois needs an open primary system.

Column: How to end Catch-22 voting
John Bambenek
Posted: 7/21/06
Is anyone truly happy with their parties' candidate for governor this year? Both Rod Blagojevich and Judy Baar Topinka have approval ratings that rival the president's for the gutter. How these unpopular candidates got on the ballot deserves a good look. What's more disturbing is that the only difference between the candidates is the letter after their name. They are almost identical when it comes to policy and they are both just about as transparently corrupt.

One of the biggest reasons that low quality candidates end up on the ballot is because of the low turnout for primaries. Primary elections require voters to pick what party they belong to, then vote for which candidate should represent their party during the November elections. The problem is that most voters don't consider themselves as belonging to a political party.

This is further exacerbated by the fact that once you declare which party you are voting for, that fact becomes a public record. Some people do not vote in primaries for fear of public reprisal for picking up a ballot for an unpopular party. Others don't want to be harassed by that party for donations. The principle of private voting is violated by the primary system.

The result is that only the party-faithful vote in large enough numbers to matter during a primary, which generally means the party ends up anointing the victor before the election even takes place. Most Republicans despise Topinka, but her victory was a forgone conclusion, so they didn't bother.

The second problem is that there are only two parties to choice from. While third parties can get on the ballot, the system makes it much harder for them to do so. Many Democrats aren't fond of Blagojevich (or Governor Smith if you prefer) but they feared if they split ranks with him, they'd lose control in 2006. Party over principle.

While Topinka may be despised, she was viewed as the only "electable" candidate. As a result, the parties held their nose and picked those candidates, and now the voters get to choose between corrupt candidate A or corrupt candidate B.

Some view the solution as having a viable third party. The result, in a state that has brought political corruption to an art form, would likely be having three despised candidates to choose from. Having easy ballot access for third parties and independents is nevertheless a good step.

The solution begins with an open primary where voters can pick from the entire field of candidates regardless of party. This would keep what happens in the ballot box private and alleviate the concerns of those who don't want to show their political cards. Political party membership had relevancy about 50 years ago. It has no real practical implications anymore.

An open primary would allow candidates to have relatively free access to the ballot and with increased participation that would likely follow, two truly representative candidates would be chosen to compete against each other in November. Voters should never have to face the choice between bad and worse in general elections.

Posted by John Bambenek at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 14, 2006

Tin Foil Hats and Net Neutrality

My latest DI column is up on Network Neutrality.

Tin foil hats and net neutrality John Bambenek Posted: 7/14/06 Network neutrality is a sham issue that deserves to be put to the violent death of all such faux rallying cries. After a great deal of research and after interviewing Frannie Wellings, government relations manager of FreePress, I have found nothing to base the charge that evil big business is plotting the demise of the Internet and with it the free world.
What is clear from studying the issue is that the push for network neutrality is being driven by regressive politics and paranoia. These can be summarized by three components.

The first is the theory of the stupid consumer, the belief that the consumer lacks the motivation, intelligence, or moral wherewithal to advocate for their own interests in the marketplace. Basically, consumers are too stupid to realize they are getting the shaft and they need the benevolence of a federal agency to make sure consumer's values are respected (usually without even having to consult with consumers to know what those values are).

The second is that of perennial suspicion of any corporation. Usually when an entire group is generalized by the actions of a small minority, it is called stereotyping. When the group being stereotyped is corporations, it is called "progressive politics." Corporations are evil by definition, so they must not be allowed any freedom. In short, it's the legislative codification of rank bigotry.

The last is that corporations exist solely to stick it to consumers. Supply and demand is cast aside as an archaic concept. There is no such thing as a free exchange, there is only the continuous attempt by big business to pillage the countryside. The fact that Internet service providers have shown no inclination to start regulating what Web sites their consumers are seeing doesn't matter. They'll do it eventually because they hate society and their board members weren't loved enough by their mommies.

Never mind that it was corporations that built the Internet into what it is today. If it was left up to the government, we'd still be using Gopher. Ironically, up until about ten years ago Internet service providers exercised complete control over what services were available and what merchants you have access to online. That model was abandoned by the very same corporations that are now demonized. No consumer wanted it, advertisers stopped paying for it and it fell apart. The eminent return of a business model that was trashed a decade ago is absurd. It was Internet service providers that led the charge to open the floodgates, not the government and not partisan organizations.

The fact that the net neutrality debate is being driven by militant left-wing organizations makes the entire proposal suspect. Having attended FreePress events, I know their definition of a free media is one where society universally accepts and believes the regressive political agenda. If the Electronic Frontier Foundation were pushing this, or another organization that has some credentials in technology, the debate would have credibility. The fact that the organizations pushing this are purely partisan smacks of a political agenda.

The net neutrality debate is nothing more than the attempt to build a bogeyman and then demand the government do something about it. I'd prefer my congressmen deal with real problems instead of invented nightmares.

Posted by John Bambenek at 8:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 13, 2006

Crevical Cancer, Vaccines, and Deception

It's one thing to have reframing in political discourse where blind partisanship reigns. It is an entirely different matter when reframing starts affecting medical information presented to patients. The recent acclaim for the cervical cancer vaccine is one such case of reframing the debate going drastically wrong.

One important fact about the cervical cancer vaccine is that it is not designed to prevent cervical cancer. There is no medical study or information that will refute this point. What this vaccine prevents in human papillomavirus (HPV) or genital warts. It just so happens that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.

Saying this vaccine prevents cervical cancer is like saying prohibition prevented car accidents. Sure, less people got drunk and starting driving cars, but that's not quite the point. The vaccine does not attack cervical cancer directly.

Typically medical treatments are described by the condition they are directly treating. A polio vaccine prevents polio. The measles vaccine prevents measles. The question is why this HPV vaccine is being described as a cervical cancer vaccine.

HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, one that isn't effectively prevented from being spread by condoms or other birth control methods. As a result, tens of millions of people in the United States alone are carriers of the virus. This disease is in pandemic proportions. Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences.

In an attempt to downplay the significance of HPV and the rates people have been infected by it, the medical community refuses to describe this vaccine by what it actually does. What is even more disquieting is the attempt to have this vaccine administered to young girls as a requirement to attend school even before it has been established that there are no harmful effects that this vaccine will cause to girls of that age.

If the government is going to require children to congregate in schools, it has the obligation to make sure that those children do so in an environment that is healthy. This should not be confused with free license for the government to usurp the medical decision-making rights of parents.

Requiring vaccines for communicable diseases like polio, measles, mumps, and the like makes sense. Those diseases spread through no action of children who are in the same classroom with one another. HPV is in another class. In order to transmit HPV, one has to have sex with someone infected with it. While sex education is schools has the affect of encouraging premarital and promiscuous sex, schools still generally look down on children actually having sex at school. Therefore, schools have no stake whatsoever in whether students are vaccinated for HPV.

Describing this vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine makes it artificially "amenable" to parents when schools start requiring the vaccine. Who would be against preventing cancer? However, when one starts talking about preventing sexually transmitted diseases, other factors come into play.

For instance, the "conventional wisdom" of the school administrator and medical community elite is that abstinence education is harmful for children. Despite thousands of years of history that prove abstinence education works, these elites insist that children need to be taught not only the methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, but be provided with those methods in schools despite parental objections. Parents who object should be overruled as acting against the children's best interests. Elites are using schools as a means of power-projection over children attempting to influence matters far beyond the scope of education.

The fact that government bureaucrats and medical professionals are calling the HPV vaccine a cervical cancer vaccine, with a clear eye towards mandating the vaccine for school children, should cause parents to stand up and take notice. This latest provocation against the authority of parents shows a bureaucracy not focusing on what it was designed to do, educate children, but ever expanding its power over children and families. Just who is serving whom?

Posted by John Bambenek at 9:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 7, 2006

DI Column Up: Vote Yes To Help Champaign's Poor

My latest column is up. It's on a referendum to increase the township tax rate to increase the budget to for general assistance. It's also a swipe at the News Gazette.

Column: Vote yes to help Champaign's poor John Bambenek Posted: 7/7/06 Come November, a referendum on the ballot will ask voters if they support increasing the property tax rate levied to support Champaign Township. The increase will fund greater support and general assistance to the poorest members of our community. The News-Gazette editorial board has come out against this increase.
After interviewing Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy at length, I was unable to find any significant waste or misuse of spending. The township has only two functions - general assistance to the poor and property assessments.

The general assistance provided by the township is welfare of "last resort," meaning that it is available to only those who are getting no help anywhere else and have no assets to their name. In short, they are the poorest of the poor in the community, many of which are living on streets and under bridges.

While there has been an increase in spending under Abernathy, there was one fact that escaped the News-Gazette editorial board. The court had ordered the township, along with other government agencies, to spend the cash they had on hand instead of saving it in their general funds. In addition to the court-ordered draw down of funds, there has been an increase of the number of unemployed people seeking assistance. Somehow helping more poor people doesn't quite seem like rampant spending abuse.

The argument is that the township is a "relic of a bygone era" (much like one can describe the News-Gazette) and the functions should be assumed by the county government. One could argue that the states could be dissolved and the functions be assumed by the federal government, however, we constructed the U.S. system of government to include state governments. The same is true of townships. State law establishes townships and what functions they should perform and there is no movement to dissolve townships. Saying that the township should be deprived of needed funds because we can redo our governing structure is nonsensical.

It is true that the township operates largely invisibly to most voters; however, that is a sign that it is doing what it is supposed to do and not acting like an agency out of control. The township performs two functions and two functions alone. They haven't tried to expand their power or interfere with voters' lives. Ms. Abernathy was easy to reach and willing to spend about an hour on the phone for an unscheduled interview. That's hardly the behavior of an unaccountable bureaucrat. It is clear that those who think the township is unaccountable are just too lazy to pick up a phone.

While the city of Champaign is busy trying to figure out how to use eminent domain to take over utilities so that they can expand their base of power into areas they don't belong, the township is providing assistance to people who have no where else to turn. If providing help to these people is expensive, it is only because as a society we've pawned off our personal obligation to help those in our community on the government.

This is one of the very few tax increases that I support and find no fault with. Come November, join me in voting yes.

Posted by John Bambenek at 1:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 5, 2006

DI Column Up: Welcoming in our New Health Conscious Overlords

I'm also late on posting my latest column, "Welcoming in our new health conscious overlords" on the Champaign-Urbana smoking ban. I was on vacation, sue me.

Column: Welcoming in our new health conscious overlords John Bambenek Posted: 6/30/06 Capitalism has failed in Champaign. More than a hundred years of economic prosperity in the United States has proven to be a sham right here in the twin cities.
Generously, the elites from the Coalition to Protect People from Themselves (as the Champaign-Urbana Smoke Free Alliance was known before they apparently got a public relations consultant) have lobbied for city regulations because we can't trust evil mega-corporations and Big Liquor to meet the demands of their customers. That whole supply and demand thing is really a device by Big Business to keep us "sheeple" as little more than indentured servants pulled around by the whims of board room elites.

Using statistics only slightly cooked to make their point, they showed the city councils that more than 76 percent of people in Champaign-Urbana support governments taking control of all decision-making powers of consumers. Now, at long last, I can enjoy the local hookah bar without having to suffer through the evils of second-hand smoke.

Cigarette smoke is the only weapon of mass destruction that we have to fear. Patrons of campus bars need not worry about the alleged public health concerns of roofies, or for that matter, the entirely mythical raging venereal disease epidemic on campus. It is of critical importance that we fight to stop second-hand smoke so 18-year-old freshmen can binge drink in Kam's without having to worry about lung cancer when they are passed out in a pool of their own vomit.

The several smoke-free establishments already in Champaign-Urbana are not enough for the coalition. It is important that every establishment caters to the desires of clients who will never frequent them. We need to make C.O.'s as comfortable for 50 year-old townies as possible. We'd hate for them to be coughing while they are busy ogling at freshmen girls in tight, black bar pants.

During the intense lobbying, name calling and threats, the coalition refused to let the matter be considerded in a referendum. They're afraid that Big Liquor and Big Burger would hoodwink the 76 percent of people who allegedly support a ban. See, we just can't trust those lemmings, I mean voters, to be able to figure out a ballot. So not only has capitalism failed, democracy is a failed and antiquated concept here in our little patch of cornfield.

I look forward to the future campaigns of the coalition who will not stop with simply banning smoking. After all, consumers are too stupid to be able to make any economic and life decision for themselves. The brave new day when all restaurants and grocery stories only offer organic and vegan fare will soon be here. Soda will be banned from vending machines to be replaced with fair-trade lattes.

There is too much variety in life and too many choices to make. It is high time that government did something about this and set a "one size fits all" standard upon our private lives. Long live the new oligarchy.

Posted by John Bambenek at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Framing as Strawmen Politics

Has George Lakoff ever met a conservative? Read any conservative books? Actually sat down and talked over conservativism with someone who actually holds it? From his latest co-written article "Bush is not Incompetent" it appears the answer is no. Lakoff's latest "research" shows that reframing a discussion isn't about getting your points out, it's about changing the facts and definitions so you can demonize opponents who may have perfectly valid points of view. It's the politics of tyranny, not democracy.

Consider how Lakoff defines the three fundamental tenets of conservativism: individual initiative, the President is the moral authority, and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity. Focusing exclusively on the second tenet for a moment, where does this come from?

Certainly not any conservative books, politicians, or for that matter, any conservative church has ever or would ever say the President of the United States is the moral authority for the nation. If this were so, Bill Clinton would be doing crusades instead of Billy Graham. Or George H.W Bush. Or Jimmy Carter. No one is suggesting we supplant the Pope with George W. Bush. Not even dominionists believe this, and that's easy to verify because you can fit every real dominionist in this country in a phone book (despite hysterical claims that there are hundreds of millions of them about the wreak death and destruction on pagans, cross-dressers, and mixed-fabric clothing).

I challenge Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute to back up their "research" to prove that conservatives believe the President should be the moral authority. I have a veritable library of conservative books and articles in my office, and no where has this ever been suggested to my knowledge.

Moving to the third tenet, that free markets are enough to foster freedom, not only do conservatives not believe this, if they did believe it they'd be anarchists. When talking about the right to own property, absolutely, the free market is the answer. However, there are some areas that the free market is not sufficient and conservatives recognize that. If the free market where enough, there would be no need for government. Laissez-faire conservatives are by and large a thing of the past, or for that matter, they're called "libertarians" and even they would argue that government should enforce contracts.

Lakoff can say conservatives disregard stewardship of the commons all he likes, it still isn't true. If this were true, conservatives would be calling for disbanding (or at least privatizing) police departments, fire departments, and the like. Government should be the last resort when dealing with how to manage an asset, that doesn't mean it's completely off the table.

Lakoff further contents "where profits cannot be made – conservation, healthcare for the poor – charity is meant to replace justice". The horror at having a society that of its own initiative provides for those least fortunate and most in need! That's virtually putting the poor in boxcars to be gassed.

In regards to Katrina, one can argue that Bush (who is a moderate, not a conservative) failed to handle the situation appropriately. To blame conservativism for the failure is highly incongruous with the facts. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (D) and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) would be astounded to know that they are conservatives and they certainly share some blame in the fiasco. As far as planning in how to deal with hurricanes in New Orleans, it was entirely the effort of local officials, not federal ones. Lakoff engages in a radical rewriting of history in addition to his rewriting of conservative philosophy to construct a nice little strawman.

Lakoff demonstrates clearly the problem with framing, PR consultants, and politics in general. Instead of viewing the opposition as someone who may have reasonable disagreements with you, one portrays their opponents as demons, as evil incarnate that must be destroyed. Political discussion is impossible. Compromise is impossible. All that is left is the mud-wrestling that has become the norm on talk shows and blogs. No one wants to compromise or work with incarnate evil.

This is the beginning of the demise for democracy. As much as the left likes to claim that dissent is patriotic, with articles like this it is clear that dissent isn't what they want. Two sides arguing and presenting their ideas is one thing. One side insisting that an entire class of people, any iteration of ideology that disagrees with their own, is a demon to be destroyed isn't a free society. It's the politics of division. It's the founding blocks of tyranny.

It's time to lose the PR consultants, the focus group spin, and popular demonology of politics to realize that our political opponents may disagree with us, but generally they are sincere and honest people. Let's let the ideas do the talking and do battle and lose the politics of personal destruction that both sides use to devastating effects to democracy, to unity, and to freedom.

Posted by John Bambenek at 10:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 28, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Senator George Allen

This week Wictory Wednesday is supporting the reelection of Senator George Allen of Virginia. Sen. Allen has been a consistent supporter of conservative values in the Senate, earning a place in the ranks of the American Conservative Union's Best and Brightest.

Sen. Allen is a supporter of fiscal conservativism and introduced legislations to require a balanced budget. He also supported a law that would dock congressmen's paychecks if they failed to produce a budget by October 1st. The idea that legislators should be penalized for failure to do the few things they must do is one that should be whole-heartedly supported.

While Senator Allen does support accountability for school systems and supporting programs that succeed, support for school choice is notably lacking. There is no better accountability than allowing people to leave failing schools, taking tax dollars with them.

Illegal immigration is an issue many legislators are running away from while Senator Allen has the courage to take a stand. He understands what should be common-sense, immigrating legally is a good thing, immigrating illegally is a bad thing. It is obvious that decades of not enforcing immigration law hasn't worked and perhaps it's time we give law and order a chance. We don't need to demean the people who came here while the government basically said it wouldn't enforce the law, but that doesn't mean blanket amnesty… or for that matter, lavishing rewards on illegal immigrants.

Lastly, while it has become chic for members of Congress to suggest it's time to surrender to America's enemies and to proclaim that America is the cause of every world problem, Senator Allen understands that no victory came through surrender. The war on terror and Iraq are difficult problems that lesser men run away from by planting their heads in the sand. Winning the War in Iraq takes time and with plans for troop reductions under way, it's clear that "stay the course" is not only a strategy, but a strategy that's working.

Please considering donating to Sen. Allen's reelection campaign or volunteering your time.

Posted by John Bambenek at 12:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 20, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Diana Irey for Congress

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Diana Irey for US Congress. Diana is running against ex-Marine Rep. John Murtha from Pennsylvania who needs no explanation as to why he should be replaced. This race began as what seemed to be an uneventful race against an incumbent who not only didn't expect competition, but is planning on making a run to become House Minority Leader.

Diana Irey served for ten years as commissioner of Washington County and served on a number of boards and commissions bring jobs and fiscal discipline to the local government. She supports not only lower taxes but lower government spending. While Murtha's campaign seems to revolve around nothing else but the Iraq War (albeit an important issues), Irey is approaching running for office with a variety of stances on issues including supporting victory in Iraq and treating soldiers with respect, not as criminals.

Most importantly Diana is not a beltway bureaucrat and has served only in local offices until now. She will not only bring a local perspective to a seat that is held by an individual more concerned with his own national profile, she will support balanced budgets and intelligent policy-making to a Congress that has shown itself to be free with the money entrusted to it.

Please consider supporting the campaign of Diana Irey for the House of Representatives for the 12th District of Pennsylvania.

Posted by John Bambenek at 5:46 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 16, 2006

A New Direction for America... Backwards.

Today, after months of waiting, the Democrats have come up with an agenda for 2006. First, some noticeably missing items.

Iraq. For as much as the Democrats continue to criticize the President's mishandling of the war, the peace, or whatever you want to call it, their direction does not highlight any meaningful alternative. How do they believe a free and secure Iraq should be created? Well, if Murtha has his way, apparently by surrendering to Al Qaeda.

National security. Apparently terrorism is not a problem because the polar ice caps are melting. Perhaps we were mistaken, it wasn't planes that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11, it was chunks of ice from the North Pole. So while they are ignoring national security, they're stumping for Gore's movie.

Immigration. Millions of immigrants took to the streets in protest in recent months. Millions more legal residents have also made their views known. No matter where you stand, this is one of the most charged and important issues on the minds of the people, and on this issue the Democrats are silent.

Moving on to some of the core items of the Democrats platform from items that simply haven't been on the public radar to making current problems worse…

Raising minimum wage. Despite the fact that every time the minimum wage has been raised unemployment has gone up; they believe that having no job is better than being paid some less than some arbitrary number. There are more intelligent ways to get people earning enough to provide for their families, raising the minimum wage isn't one of them. There is a finite amount of money in circulation, those wage increases need to be paid for somehow. It ends up being either lay offs, cut benefits, higher prices (and cost of living), or a combination of all three.

Price gouging. Who isn't against price gouging? However, for as much as that legal term has been thrown around, there has not been any evidence provided to support that it is happening. After about two years of hearing that companies are breaking the law to stick it to Joe Consumer, I'd expect that someone would be able to prove it to nail their ass to the wall for it. However, after two years of complaining they haven't found any evidence, it is doubtful that giving them a majority will accomplish anything except more hearings with legislators bloviating on TV so it looks like they are "doing something".

Fiscal responsibility. One of the most appealing parts of the platform is restoring fiscal responsibility, however, the likely way of doing this will be to increase income to the treasury, not reducing spending. One of the key items to pay attention is that they specifically reference the fiscal discipline of the 90s… i.e. when Congress was run by Republicans. Cutting taxes is one thing, you have to cut spending along with it. At least on this point the Democrats are intellectually honest. They'll at least raise taxes to pay for their spending. If we want to talk about fiscal responsibility, let's start with earmark reform.

Slash student loan costs. This is pandering at its worst because student loans are almost essentially free. I know, because I have them. My wife's student loans are consolidated for an APR of 1.65%. In other words, I could take the money, put it in a savings account, and use the interest to pay off the loan and still turn a profit on the loan. I know students who take student loans for the express purpose of using that money and investing it earning 8%+. Student loans are an incredible deal. Inflation is about 3%, which makes those loans essentially trivial interest. The only thing that could be done to make those loans cheaper would be to pay students interest for taking them out.

Stop tax giveaways for outsourcing. If by tax-giveaways you mean that other countries don't tax the crap out of companies like we do, than you're right. However, how exactly are you going to start taxing companies that aren't in the US? Tariffs? Bring the entire world under the United States tax structure? No one is paying businesses to leave the US and outsource, it's simply far cheaper to hire labor overseas in some industries.

Stop wasteful subsidies, Support stem-cell research. These two items are directly at odds. If there are wasteful subsidies, by all means eliminate them. However, funding stem-cell research (particularly embryonic which is what they are talking about) is in itself a wasteful subsidy. Adult stem cell research is curing people, it works. Private money is coming in hand over fist for adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research does not work, which is why they have no investors and need a handout. While it might give the Democrats yet another chance to kill millions more babies and start treating people less as human beings and more as crops to be cultivated for parts, it remains that this science doesn't work.

The Democratic platform here doesn't address most of the issues important to Americans. The three top issues are Iraq, gas prices, and immigration for Congress. Health care is low on the list. Social security is absent. Stem cell research is absent. The minimum wage is absent.

Once again, we're faced with a party unwilling to tackle the big issues that Americans care about. It would be nice in 2006 to have a real choice between candidates, and it looks like the Democratic party has deprived us once again.

Posted by John Bambenek at 6:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 14, 2006

FairTax Blogburst: A Really Voluntary Tax Structure

Here's this week's FairTax blogburst.

by Terry of The Right Track

There are many reasons to support the FairTax. I managed to do a little research, and found some rather unique points of view that I had not previously considered, and was reminded of some previously-covered ideas that are still worth mentioning.

For the most part, the FairTax is voluntary. If you want to pay the tax, purchase a new house, car, motor home, etc. If you want to avoid the tax, purchase a used house, car, motor home, etc. The tax only applies to new items.

No one will ever need to take out a loan to pay taxes, interest, or penalties again, as can all too often happen under our current system.

Drug dealers and other criminals, as well as anyone else currently paid "under the table", will pay taxes if they purchase new items. Ever seen a drug dealer driving a used car? Ever seen a pimp shopping at Goodwill? I didn't think so.

Lower income families working multiple jobs get a fantastic incentive to work now, knowing that zero Federal taxes will be withheld from their paychecks. Most of the money from the second job can be applied to whatever previously unaffordable luxury they wish -- perhaps including, for the first time, a home of their own?

With the abolition of the death tax, homes, farms, and land which might previously have had to be sold to satisfy the government's unquenchable thirst for money can now be retained and kept in the family. In cases where the property has been in the family for multiple generations, can you imagine the gratitude of the family?

Friends and family can now actually help each other out with tax-free assistance, since the gift tax will be abolished.

Businesses can actually lower their cost of doing business since they won't be paying the current 7.65% matching FICA tax for each employee.

It's even a good deal for the environment -- think of all the paper we'll save by not having to file taxes!

But even with all this, we must remember that the FairTax initiative is a grassroots effort. If your Senator or Representative does not support the FairTax, find out why. Then let them know that you do support it. Make phone calls, write letters. Let your friends and family know the details of the FairTax, and why you believe it is such a good deal for Americans. Only through the diligent and concerned efforts of ordinary citizens will these bills ever make it through to the floors of the House and Senate.

The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

TD

Posted by John Bambenek at 10:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 13, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Rep. Jean Schmidt

This week Wictory Wednesday is supporting the reelection of Jean Schmidt to the House of Representatives.

Congresswoman Schmidt is a supporter of private property rights against the rising level of abuse of eminent domain by cities and states. Emiment domain is the widely criticized practice by which local governments kick you out of your home, pay you a (now very deflated) price for your house, and then hand it over to big business. Some of the rampant abuse of eminent domain has had governments pay only $1 for property worth over a million, and the City of New London charging "back rent" for citizens who exercise their legal rights and challenged the city's eminent domain action in court. Congresswoman Schmidt is commited to ending the abuse of local governments by curtailing eminent domain.

Representative Schmidt has been a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility and has cosponsored legislation to give the President a line-item veto to help curtail the abuse of earmarks tagged on to legislation. She also understands that part and parcel of cutting taxes is reducing spending, not increasing it.

Lastly, Representative Schmidt understands that a nation worthy of the title of nation must secure it's borders. This is not to say all legal immigration should be stopped, but it should be a matter of common sense that immigration should be regulated and orderly. While it may be difficult to craft a a solution to illegal immigration, it does not follow that an open-borders, full amnesty, and large payoff to illegals is the way to go.

Please consider donating to Representative Schmidt's campaign or volunteering your time.

Posted by John Bambenek at 7:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Frog-Marching Fantasies Are Over

Rove will not be charged for anything over the Plame game. So after 2 years investigation they have a shaky indictment on Libby and no one charged with leaking the identity of SooperSekret Special Agent 007 Valerie Plame.

It's shaping up to be a bad summer for the Left. Zarqawi dead, Rove exonerated....

UPDATE:
Apparently the link above no longer works, do this one... but you've heard the news by now anyway.

Posted by John Bambenek at 8:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 6, 2006

FairTax Blogburst: Tax Reform Still Alive

Here's the latest FairTax blogburst.

It's Still Alive! by Ms.Underestimated

Folks, I told you about the good news Congressman John Linder gave us about an impending face-to-face with President Bush about the Fair Tax, and now the word is out! The Gwinnett Daily Post catches us up on this great news:

FairTax still kicking
06/04/2006

By: Dave Williams

Many political observers were ready to bury U.S. Rep. John Linder’s FairTax bill last fall when President Bush’s tax reform commission gave the back of its hand to the proposed national sales tax.

The panel chose to recommend tweaking the current income tax system rather than such a dramatic overhaul of the way the federal government collects the revenue it needs to operate.

But the FairTax won’t go away. During a raucous public rally in Gwinnett County last month in support of the legislation, Linder, R-Duluth, announced that he is being offered an opportunity to present the bill to the president and House Republican leaders.

He will meet this week with the House GOP leadership, then head to the White House on a date yet to be set — accompanied by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. — to outline his bill to Bush.

So much for the demise of the FairTax.

“The national sales tax is very much like Freddy,’’ said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, referring to the main character in countless installments of the “Nightmare on Elm Street” horror movie series. “It just refuses to die.’’

See? I TOLD you so! It’s POSSIBLE! And that’s not all - the Gwinnett Rally was just the beginning:

A capacity crowd of 4,500 jammed the Gwinnett Convention Center for last month’s rally, which featured Linder, Atlanta-based syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity of the Fox Television Network.

“We think there were 3,000 people turned away,’’ Linder said. “I was amazed.’’

The event was so successful that Linder and Boortz are talking about following it up with a series of rallies. Linder said they’re looking at Orlando, Fla., as the next stop.

Okay you guys, here’s your next chance. We gotta stick together and make this happen. If you live in the southeast (or anywhere else, for that matter), I urge you to call your local radio talk shows and implore them to get Neal Boortz, John Linder, Sean Hannity, and whoever else is on board with the Fair Tax, to come hold a rally in YOUR area! If we keep up this momentum, this could truly be a present-day Boston Tea Party that we have on our hands. It’s time to get the government out of our lives, and as John Linder said that night “it’s none of the government’s business how much money I make.” YES!

We’ve got to be vigilant, though, as well all know there are those detractors out there who want to stop us:

The FairTax also faces competition from other proposals aimed at overhauling the current system, including the flat tax on incomes once championed on the presidential campaign trail by Republican Steve Forbes.

“The vast majority agree the tax code needs drastic revision,’’ Sabato said. “The problem is nobody agrees on what the revision should be. … There just isn’t a national consensus for it or anything close to it.’’

But Sabato gives Linder high marks for persistence.

“He is trying to plant the seed,’’ Sabato said. “Who knows whether the seed may sprout and even flower? On the other hand, the seed may die in the ground.’’

My friends, we can’t let that seed die in the ground. We must keep nourishing it with our voices. If we can get 1, 2, 4 or 50 more rallies like this going, we will send a loud and clear message to Washington: “I WANT MY FAIR TAX!”

Also, send these radio stations copies of the Fair Tax book. I know it has been previously called for us to send copies to our representatives, but I’m sure they’ve gotten their copies already. It’s the people of this country we need to change - the Congress is hopeless. If your local talk show hosts can believe in this, then this movement will carry forward. You can buy them here. The government cannot ignore an informed country. The time is now!

The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry or Jonathan. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

Posted by John Bambenek at 11:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Wictory Wednesday: Rep. Mark Kennedy for US Senate

This week, Wictory Wednesday presents US Rep. Mark Kenney for the Senate in Minnesota. Having served 3 terms in the US House of Representatives, he has the advantage of name recognition in the state.

Current the race is to replace retiring Senator Mike Dayton (D) and is considered to be a race where the Republicans stand a chance in picking up a seat in the Senate.

Mark Kennedy spent 20 years as a CPA before entering politics, which brings with it the hope that when he gets to the Senate he might help his fellow Senators on their problem of spending more than they have. He has come out against the spending habits, and the "earmark" process specifically. A particular reform he mentions which is unique is giving the President a line-item veto that allows the President to veto specific clauses in legislation instead of having only an up-or-down say. This increase in the accountablility of the Congress will only help the problem of a tax-and-spend Congress.

Rep. Kennedy understands that the best way to educate children is to put control of the schools in the hands on local officials and parents, not Washington or detached bureaucrats.

Lastly, he realizes that the path to a better health care system is not further detaching patients and doctors from the decision-making process. Our health care system is designed so that insurance companies don't have to meaningfully answer to their customers which results in what every economist would expect, a system that doesn't meet the consumer's needs.

With public opinion of Congress at an all-time low, Rep. Kennedy provides one of the few examples of someone who has some ideas and fights for them. Please see his website and donate or help his campaign.

Posted by John Bambenek at 10:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 30, 2006

Wictory Wednesday: Mike McGavick for United States Senate for the State of Washington

Mike McGavick has been running an insurgent campaign against incumbent Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. Bucking the trend against the GOP nationally, Mike has closed the gap between his Democratic competitor to within 5 percentage points in the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Last November, he was trailing by 15 percentage points.

Mike is a solid conservative who understands the necessity of fighting the war on terror and on regulating the flow of immigration at the border. There is a difference between welcoming immigrants in an orderly way and having a wide-open border that is open to exploitation by those who wish to harm the American way of life.

On health care, Mike realizes that the problem with health care is not that it is run by insurance companies, but that there are too many middlemen that leave the consumer out of the loop. Insurance companies are paid by companies who provide benefits to their employees. Those companies want to keep costs low so they pick one vendor and offer two plans to their employees: lower premium lower benefit plans with vendor A, or higher benefit higher benefit plans with vendor A. The needs of the consumer are only indirectly represented to the insurance company... if at all. The hospitals and doctors are paid by the insurance companies. Hospitals collect less than 30% of bills that are sent to consumers without insurance (or after their insurance has paid only part). Hospitals will therefore cater to the insurance companies that pay the bills. The solution is to put the consumer in the driver seat when dealing with their healthcare, not remove them even farther by having the government run the show.

Lastly, in an uncharacteristic position lately for a Republican, he's for fiscal conservativism. He knows that tax dollars isn't monopoly money, but money to which he is a steward, not an owner. We can count on him to support common-sense reforms to the tax-and-spend habits that have plagued Congress lately.

Please consider taking a look at Mick McGavick's website and supporting his campaign.

This was a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, a weekly posting by bloggers supporting solid Republican candidates for office (national office or governorship. If you are interesting in joining the Wictory Wednesday blogburst, please take a look at this post or e-mail John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog (at) gmail (dot) com.

Posted by John Bambenek at 9:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 29, 2006

FairTax Blogburst: The FairTax Rally

This week's Fair Tax Blogburst is written by fellow blogger and friend Ms. Underestimated.

by Ms.Underestimated

This is not just an idea anymore…it’s a movement! The Fair Tax movement.

What else do you call an event about something as dull and boring as the U.S. Tax Code that draws almost 7,000 to a rally? About 4,500 people got inside the doors, which had to be closed due to the 50,000 square foot Gwinnett Convention Center being at capacity at SIX THIRTY P.M.! The rally didn’t start for another hour, yet another almost 3,000 had to be turned away. People drove from Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and all over the southeast. Hindsight being 20/20, I’ve heard some of them express disappointment over radio because they only heard the broadcast en route to the rally, and at 6:30 they weren’t even in Georgia yet. They knew they had to turn around and go home, but every single one said that next time, they’ll come a day or two in advance! Some who were turned away simply went to their cars and “tail-gated” with fellow Fair Taxers so they could all listen to the rally as WSB Radio broadcast it live.

After all, who knew there would even be a thousand that would attend? Neal Boortz, the co-author of the Fair Tax Book, certainly didn’t think so himself. In fact, when Neal took the stage at about 8PM, the old curmudgeon was visibly moved. But that’s just where it all begins. Let me take you inside the event in my memory.

I left my office at 3PM, drove 35 miles through horrific Atlanta traffic, and was about the 1,500th person in line. You could feel the passion in the air as attendees clutched their books, displayed their buttons or signs, or signed petitions that were being passed around. We slowly made our way into the Convention Center, and it was packed already. The setup was fantastic, with huge screens dangling from the ceiling above just about every seating section, so everyone was guaranteed a good view of what was going on on the stage. Neal has some fantastic pictures at his site. Here’s a couple of them.

(Photos by Carrie Carden)

Here’s what the inside of the Convention Center looked like, and above is what a portion of the line looked like just to get inside. I am not even a SPECK at the end of this line!

These are just a few of the supporters waving their signs of support inside the center.

Once I got inside, I hunted down a t-shirt, but to no avail - sold out. I did get a signed book, well, two actually, and a “fairtax.org” stamp for money:

What the heck… I figure if I stamp all of my bills, at least ONE of them might prompt someone who knows nothing about HR25/S.25,HR5 to at least look at the bill they’ve just been given from the store clerk, go “what’s fair tax?” and then go to the internet to read about it. Oh, well... back to the rally...

Neal was first up, and spoke to a rousing applause. He told us of how awed he was by the turn-out, and that it spoke volumes to him of just what this had become. He was actually surprised because he thought people wouldn’t come because it was the night of the American Idol finale (oh, please!). He also let us know that not only did the Gwinnett Convention Center DONATE the facility and time, but the stage, lighting, sound equipment, video scree

Part-Time Pundit

by John C. A. Bambenek -- An Unfortunate Confluence of Ignorance and Arrogance - Dr. Ashtamurthy Pawate Glenn Reynolds says, "He's never seen a hornet's nest that he hasn't kicked over."