Freedom? Whazzat?

If you ask 100 different people what exactly freedom means to them, you'll probably get 100 different answers. To liberals, it may mean the right to marry whomever you wish (even a dolphin), smoke what you want, or the freedom to abort whatever you want (ignoring the right of the unborn to live)...but I can't think of many more pro-freedom positions they take. Progressive Democrats are very good about taking away your choices/freedoms. Another way to look at it is to look at what liberals consider rights. A right to Social Security, a right to health care, a right to food stamps, unemployment "benefits", etc. None of these are real rights, because to provide them you first must take from someone else, and who gets the goods is purely based on the benevolence of the government. AKA, we can get votes "providing" a right or a freedom we deem worthy. Conservatives do not believe that rights are granted by a chest-beating, power-hungry government to whomever they please; they are universal guarantees that apply to everyone equally without taking away another person's rights.

Conservatives offer something greater: economic freedom. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life was put first. Why? Well we certainly have the right to have our lives protected from harm, but I feel in this context it means a whole lot more. How would you define a good life? I define it as being financially able to live out your dreams. Being able to sleep at night because you easily paid your bills. To be able to see the sights you want to see. To work your dream job. To be able to feed your kids without having to worry about how. I interpret it as a right to a life as you see fit through your own efforts. To pursue your own definition of happiness.

Let me put it this way. Liberals will try to help the poor by taking from the rich and providing assistance to those in need in some form or another, which creates some dependence, rather than creating independence (freedom). They try to bring the bottom up, and those on top down, making us all some form of middle class. How is that really allowing/encouraging people to pursue their dreams? The message is that we'll raise you up just to where we want you, and then we'll hit you hard with taxes to bring you back down.

Shouldn't the goal be to get as many people as possible to the point where they can start to take advantage of compound interest and investing, freeing people from the 9-5 job cycle and putting them in better position to pursue their dreams? To live? Redistribution will not do that, it only disincentivizes ambition and promotes mediocrity. Only economic freedom and opportunity to fail/succeed based on one's own talents and to keep the money that you rightfully earned will guarantee the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as each individual sees fit.

Imagine you're walking head first into the wind toward a door. On the door is the phrase "financial independence". The closer you get to the door, the harder the wind blows, making it harder for you to walk and take another step. Harder and harder until you finally get your foot in the door and it's calm and peaceful. Wouldn't it be nice if the wind blew more gently as you worked your way to the door?

India vs. Hong Kong vs. U.S.A.

This is an excerpt from the book I'm currently reading, Give Me a Break by John Stossel. It really illustrates how free market capitalism makes life better for everyone--especially the poor--by raising all of society up.

Again, this is the work of John Stossel, not mine. Any typing errors, however, are mine.

Economic Freedom

You may doubt that a relatively free market is the prime reason America is prosperous. Isn't it our natural resources? Or democracy? Something unique about Americans' character?

No. If you look at societies that succeed at bettering the lives of their people, and compare them to those that fail, it's clear that what makes the difference is economic freedom.

India is desperately poor. When we were filming in Calcutta for the ABC special "Is America #1?", I was surrounded by kids begging. Yet India has democracy, and plenty of natural resources. Then why is India poor? The popular answer is overpopulation, but that's totally wrong. The population density of India is roughly equal to that of New Jersey. New Jersey does pretty well.

If overpopulation or lack of resources created poverty, then Hong Kong should be poor. Hong Kong has 20 times as many people per square mile as India, and no valuable natural resources. Yet Hong Kong is rich; the average income there is higher than in Great Britain or Canada. This is a recent development. In the 1920s, Hong Kong was as poor as India. But in a relatively short time it became rich because of one key ingredient: economic freedom.

Economic freedom prevailed because Hong Kong's British governors provided limited government. They built roads and schools, and enforced simple and understandable laws against murder and theft. But that was about it. Hong Kong thrived because its rulers didn't do too much. After keeping the peace, the British officials basically sat around and drank tea.

No Federal Trade Commission, no OSHA, no labor laws or minimum wage. "When you leave things alone, people just get on with it. It's very simple," said David Tang, who's made lots of money running an elegant club in Hong Kong and selling clothing at a chain of stores called Shanghai Tang.

Bretigne Schaffer, who worked in Hong Kong for the Asian Wall Street Journal, told us that without the "crutch" of government handouts, people in Hong Kong are inspired to create things. And thanks to Hong Kong's flat 15 percent tax, they get to keep more of what they create. "It's possible to save enough money that you can start your own business," says Schaffer, "and become very rich." Easier than in America, she says, "with all the different taxes, all the different employee benefits you have to pay out, and all the regulations."

To illustrate that on TV, I decided I would try to open a business in Hong Kong. I found out that I could, without a lawyer, set up a legal business in just one day. All I had to do was wait in one line and fill out one form. The next day I had a booth in a shopping mall selling ABC Frisbees. I failed, of course. ("Is America Number 1?" showed shoppers not buying anything from my store.) But the freedom I had to try, and fail, is what allowed Hong Kong to thrive. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman put it, Hong Kong is just a rock, but "on this rock people can produce for themselves a higher standard of living than they can produce in Britain with its centuries of history. Incredible. [It's] because of freedom."

This freedom may not endure. Communist China now runs Hong Kong. So far the island's stunning success has deterred the Communists from imposing their usual rules, but they may yet kill the goose that's been laying golden eggs.

By contrast, I dare you to try to start a business in India. We didn't even try to open one while I was in Calcutta, because the paperwork takes years. If you want to be an entrepreneur, you must submit reams of papers, and then wait for days, months, or even years while bureaucrats debate the merits of your application. When Kentucky Fried Chicken wanted to open outlets in India, Parliament spent months debating whether the request should be allowed. A government minister worried the chicken wasn't healthy enough.

The regulation is all well intended--to make sure the food's clean, the building's safe. But the result is that good ideas die in the piles of paper forms that we saw bundled on regulators' shelves.

Give Me A Break. Pages 233-235. Copywrite 2004 by John Stossel. HarperCollins Publishers Inc. New York. Used with permission per the reproduction allowances detailed with the copywrite information.

Real Leadership

Recently elected New Jersey governor Chris Christie answers a reporter's question quite bluntly. I think this is what a lot of people would prefer from politicians. One of the biggest elements of leadership is following through with what you said you were going to do. Telling people what they want to hear might get you reelected in the short term, but it's not leadership in the long run, and people catch on to that. The GOP has been struggling for leadership for a while now, and hopefully more people like Chris Christie can turn that around. I like this guy.

Four Ways to Spend Money

Economist Milton Friedman (may he rest in peace), on the four ways to spend money:

What Do Katrina and the Oil Spill Have in Common?

Ok. Regardless of how much you pay attention to the news, I'm pretty sure you're aware the worst oil accident in United States history is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, right?

Many are saying this is Obama's equivalent of George Bush's hurricane Katrina, where there was slow national/federal governmental response to the worse natural disaster in U.S. history. Both presidents, regardless of political affiliation, have been accused of a lax response to a huge disaster.

What has annoyed me, in conservative circles, has been the accusation of Obama of a slow response to the oil spill. Sure, his responses have been lame, such as skipping out on speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day in favor of vacationing in Chicago and getting serenaded by Paul McCartney while the disaster continues--but that's beside the point.

True conservatives, like myself, realize that the national/federal government simply by its nature is inept when dealing with problems, regardless of party. Not to say either Obama/Bush are disingenuous, lazy, or poor leaders; simply the nature of top-down government is inefficient, wrought with red tape and tied in how quickly needed resources get delivered. Local governments know what they need, when they need it, and in what quantities better than anybody. Bobby Gindal is begging for resources, but national governmental red tape delays what is needed and dictates what the locals can do. The same was true post-hurricane Katrina.

Both Gulf Coast situations are less of a statement about leadership, but rather case examples of how smaller government closer to the people is much more effective.

A License to Work?

John Stossel makes some great points. The most severe recession in history really puts into context how ridiculous it is to make someone pay $2000 dollars simply to get licensed to sell flowers. Government at its best ;-)

From FoxNews.com:

John Stossel - FOXNews.com - March 11, 2010
The Right to Work

Licensing everything from florists to lawyers interferes with the freedom to make a living and harms consumers by limiting competition and protecting established firms.

The people of Louisiana must sleep soundly knowing that their state protects them from ... unlicensed florists.

That's right. In Louisiana, you can't sell flower arrangements unless you have permission from the government. How do you get permission? You must pass a test that is graded by a board of florists who already have licenses. To prepare for the test, you might have to spend $2,000 on a special course.

The test requires knowledge of techniques that florists rarely use anymore. One question asks the name of the state's agriculture commissioner -- as though you can't be a good florist without knowing that piece of vital information.

The licensing board defends its test, claiming it protects consumers from florists who might sell them unhealthy flowers. I understand the established florists' wish to protect their profession's reputation, but in practice such licensing laws mainly serve to limit competition. Making it harder for newcomers to open florist shops lets established florists hog the business.

Other states are considering adopting Louisiana's licensing law, but before any do, I hope that the law will be stricken. The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, has challenged the licensing in court, saying it violates liberty and equal protection, and so is unconstitutional.

"One of the most fundamental tenets of the American dream is the right to earn an honest living without arbitrary government interference. What could be more arbitrary than saying who can and who cannot sell flowers?" IJ President Chip Mellor says.

Others states have their own sets of ridiculous licensing rules. In Virginia, you need a license to be a yoga instructor. Florida threatened an interior designer with a $25,000 fine if she didn't do a six-year apprenticeship and pass a test, at a cost of several thousand dollars. Fortunately, the Institute for Justice got that law overturned.

I'm rooting for IJ because licensing interferes with the freedom to make a living, harms consumers by limiting competition and protects established firms. By the way, this will be the subject of my Fox Business show on Thursday night.

It's an old story. Established businesses have always used government to handcuff competition. Years ago, small grocers tried to ban supermarkets. A&P was going to "destroy Main Street," the grocers cried. Minnesota legislators responded to their lobbying by passing a law that forbade supermarkets to hold sales. Consumers were hurt.

OK, while licensing of florists, interior designers and yoga teachers is ridiculous, what about more important professions, like law? Surely people need protection from people who would practice law without a license. Again, I say no. Lawyers' monopoly on helping people with wills, bankruptcies and divorces is just another expensive restraint of trade.

David Price recently spent six months in a Kansas jail because he wrote a letter on behalf of a man who was wrongly accused of practicing architecture without a license. When Price refused to promise never to "practice law" again, a judge sent him to jail.

All he did was write a letter. Price didn't misrepresent his credentials. However, he did save a man from paying $3,000 to a lawyer. Perhaps that was his real offense.

Some of the most famous lawyers in American history, including Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, had no license from the state. Their customers decided whether they were worthy of being hired.

Competition is better than government at protecting consumers from shoddy work. Furthermore, licensing creates a false sense of security. Consider this: When you move to a new community, do you ask neighbors or colleagues to recommend doctors, dentists and mechanics even though those jobs are licensed? Of course. Because you know that even with licensing laws, there is a wide range of quality and outright quackery in every occupation. You know that licensing doesn't really protect you.

A free competitive market for reputation protects consumers much more effectively than government can. Today, online services like Angie's List make it even easier for consumers to get better information about businesses than government licensing boards will ever provide. We do need protection from shoddy businesses. But it's freedom and competition that produce the best protection.

Give and Take

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

--Dr. Adrian Rogers

The Bill of Non-Rights

This is an email I recently received in my inbox and felt it was fairly true and entertaining:

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair..

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services o f other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all with no fear of persecution The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part ofour heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

100th Post!

In celebration of my 100th post on my blog, I decided to get a little patriotic. I really get sick of all the people who say "America has no culture" or "we need to be more like Europe" because they're cultured and proper and we're just a bunch of backward hicks who have yet to learn of dental hygiene. I BEG to differ.

Let's do a little comparison between Europe and America, as well as look at some things that are purely American/perfected by America.

Here's superior, progressive Europe for you: The smart car. Seats two with limited storage capacity and gets great mileage (roughtly 40 mpg). Isn't it cute?
Now I present to you the American "smart car":

Our version of alternative transportation also comfortably seats two, gets roughly 40-50 mpg (depending on model, mine gets 42) and has limited storage capacity, but is decidedly more Bad A%#. Pardon my French. In addition, it's road legal in sweet states like South Dakota.

How about our sports? We invented basketball and heavily modified the lackluster sport of cricket into the great American sport of baseball. Not to mention having the great idea of throwing pads on so we can hit harder and faster in another classic American sport: football.

European Sports:





American Sports:






We also have a ton of traditions that go along with these sports. Tailgating? Americans treasure friendship and laughter more than anything. I've been to many different countries, and one thing I've noticed staying with people in other countries is that they simply don't laugh and enjoy life as much as we do. Americans will look for any excuse to fire up a grill with a bunch of friends and have a good time, whether it be tailgating before a football game, a pep rally, Superbowl party, or simply just the weekend...we have a culture of fraternalism, as we are more free than most societies to do these things. That's why I get really irked when government tries to "protect" us from activities it deems too dangerous or risky...trying to save us from ourselves. I see it as a gradual process that builds upon itself, slowly leading to a overburdened, over regulated society where there are very few things that we are free to choose for ourselves to do. Americans have a culture of adventure, fun, daringness, and outrageousness (which probably has something to do with our higher health care costs maybe?) Don't like it? I don't mind...I enjoy being able to choose my own risks for myself.

They said we couldn't fly, we did.

They said we'd never go to the moon, we did....a few times. We even turned the failed mission of Apollo 13 into a success story.
Who would have thought electricity could think? We did. You can thank America for computers. For that matter, thank us for the light bulb, too. You rock Thomas Edison. Segways. Telephones. Sewing machines. Steam engines. Air conditioning. Revolvers. Combines, which increased our ability to provide food for billions. Vulcanized rubber. Steel. Rolled toilet paper. Motorcycles. Vacuum cleaners. Jeans. Keyboards. Electric dental drills. The Internet. Zippers. Hollywood. Water skiing. I could go on.

The point is, why did so many great, innovative things come from America? We didn't necessarily invent pizza or the internal combustion engine...but we perfected them. Pizza was not popular worldwide until we decided to cut it in slices, throw toppings on it, and sell it at every street corner in New York. The automobile was only for the super rich in Europe, but through our creativity and ingenuity, Henry Ford was able to create the assembly line and put a vehicle with an internal combustion engine within the price range of most Americans.

We were able to accomplish all these things because we had a government that did not promise everyone everything. Our country has a history and culture of independence, self-reliance, and economic freedom...conditions that require citizens to be creative, innovate, and work hard to become successful and survive. We are the most mobile society on the planet; rags to riches, if you prefer. There is no permanent, pompous upper class as they have in Europe. Eventually generations of unwise practices will bring the upper class down a notch if they are not wise in their economic decisions (*coughParisHiltoncough*). Lower class people have the opportunity to succeed if they try, work hard, and utilize their talents and we maintain a society that encourages and rewards success...incentives for effort.

How about our literary culture? Mark Twain. Edgar Allan Poe. Washington Irving. Ernest Hemingway. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Herman Melville. Stephen King. John Steinbeck. Sinclair Lewis. Walt Whitman. Emily Dickenson. F. Scott Fitzgerald. And tons more. They all represent unique American culture.

How about music? We invented jazz, rap, country, hip hop, blues, techno, bluegrass, gospel, ROCK AND ROLL. The world would be a dull place without a lot of our music, which is the biggest music industry in the world now.

Food. I'm not even going to name all the foods that I can think of that are purely American because I'll get hungry, but I'll name a few: apple pie of course needs to be mentioned, New England clam chowder, French fries, Philly cheesesteak, turkey, hotdish, venison (because our country still lets us hunt wild animals), and all our unique seafood species and cooking techniques on the coasts. We also have a unique ability to assimilate things from other countries and create unique tastes that quickly become popular and Americanized, in the unique tradition of the "melting pot." Creole cooking in the South, Germanic/Swedish/Norwegian variations around here in the Midwest, Tex-mex in the Southwest, and Hawaiian/Asian influences on the west coast. Very few of these dishes would be see as authentic by their home countries, because we modify and tinker too much in our culture.

What about our activities? Americans are willing to try anything and everything. The wing-walking, flag-sitting, etc. craze of the roaring 20's comes to mind. American Idol and similar shows, which allow for the every day people to pursue their talents and possibly become rich and famous. Fear Factor. Bungee jumping. Evil Knievel. I'd be willing to bet that most records that Guinness has in his Book of World Records are held by Americans. We like everything bigger, faster, and stronger. We like to have fun and push the envelope.

Americans also "invented" the Great Outdoors. Hunting, fishing, and camping are a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States. We have a deep appreciation for nature conservation and all it offers to us. America has some of the most beautiful landscapes in the world.

We are constantly busy with other activities as well. Volunteerism is one of the most important American traditions, and we have some of the highest rates of volunteerism in the world. It's estimated that American volunteerism represents roughly $150 billion worth of economic activity! Maybe we're just more generous, but I believe it has more to do with our culture of independence from government. We feel a bigger sense of compassion for our neighbor and have a higher level of civic responsibility for our communities when we have to rely on ourselves to solve problems.

The point is we most definitely have a culture. Don't let anyone tell you different, or that we should be more like Europe. Anyone who thinks that, you're free to move there...I may even buy your plane ticket.

We have a robust, brash, jovial, creative, innovative, accepting, entrepreneurial, original, and unique culture. Yes, we may seem to bully other nations at times, but almost every single war we have ever fought (which are few compared to many nations) has been in the name of defending freedom, whether our own or to liberate others. Our wars have been fought mainly over preserving individual freedom, individual liberty, and individual independence, and I'll die before I let that American ideal fade into the annals of history, only to become a distant memory as some try to passively merge our country's culture with the Western European collectivist, stagnate, nanny-state culture of despotism.

U.S. to Companies: We Hate You

Obama said today in a press conference that he's going to crack down on offshore tax loopholes and other forms of tax havens. Companies do this to avoid the taxation imposed on them by the government and are looking for the "path of least resistance": the location where tax code can be most beneficial to them. Why would they act in such shady ways?

Well, what would you do in their situation? Here's what companies face: a corporate tax rate of 39.3 percent. Our country says fine. You can work here, provide jobs here, expand here, pay your employees well, and reinvest...but only after we take OVER A THIRD of your money! What would you do? Take a look at the state income taxes, which vary from state to state. Say you're just over the border living in Minnesota. You would be looking at a state income tax rate of 5.35%, 7.05%, or 7.85%, depending on your income. A couple miles away in South Dakota, the state income tax is 0%. People are moving from around the country (voting with their feet) in droves to places like South Dakota to avoid high rates of taxation.

That's exactly what these companies are doing!

So, President Obama, why don't we look at the root cause as to why companies (jobs) are literally running away from the United States? Rather than trying to stop the hemorrhaging of companies out of the U.S. through new overseas tax rules, why not make incentive for companies to stay here?

Here's a "radical" idea. Some CHANGE, if you will.

Why not drop the U.S. corporate tax rate to ZERO percent? We will be the nation that foreign companies will flock to, thirsty for a friendly business environment. Millions of American jobs would be created, and ultimately more money would be brought into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. Industry will return to America. Sure labor may be cheaper overseas, but when companies aren't taxed at all here, that cost-saving measure might not really be a factor anymore!

One of the more common responses I'll get is that companies are big, rich, evil, and have a better ability to pay taxes than the little guy (me and you).

In response to that, I say that corporate taxes do nothing but HURT the little guy. Taking 40 percent of companies' profits inhibits a company's ability to grant pay raises and benefits to their workers and reduces how much the company can reinvest and build another wing on the factory (more jobs for little guys). Companies may compensate by raising their prices (so all us little guys have to pay more for all products). High company taxation also decreases the amount they are able to dish out in the form of dividends to their shareholders, which consist largely of 401k retirement accounts and similar things...accounts owned by the little guys like us that we rely on to create a sufficient retirement account for ourselves.

I would also mention that corporate taxes are double-taxation anyway...once companies are taxed, the remaining money dished out to all the workers and executives is again subject to personal income tax. And sales taxes. Excise taxes. Property taxes. Etc. Etc.

You want change? This is change that President Obama will never see through, yet would help you and me and all of America much more than any new overseas tax rules ever could.

Objective Media

Take a look at this video of a reporter "reporting" the tax day tea parties across the nation. She goes in to interview this guy with an incredibly vindictive attitude and literally fights with the protester, rather than asking questions and finding out what his point of view is.



Now watch another video, where we see how people really feel. This is the same reporter talking to people after that same interview, where it was insinuated that the tea party idea was only promoted by Fox. Let me just say that people wouldn't go if they didn't agree with it anyway. A network can't force people to go. I went to one and never actually watched any coverage of it on Fox or elsewhere. I heard about it through online social networking and email.



I think the worst part is when the reporter asked the guy, who was talking about freedom "what that has to do with taxation." Seriously? Our revolutionary cries for freedom from the British king had everything to do with just that: freedom. Specifically, economic freedom to do as we please with the fruits of our labor. Our EARNED money.

April 15th: The Democrats' Most Favorite Day of the Year

Today's tax day is unlike any in previous years past. This year, a citizen uprising over our current government's spending practices is happening all over the country, coming in the form of American Revolution-era Tea Parties.

Some out there are simply dismissing the nation-wide protest, saying that this is a far-right-wing political stunt motivated by Republican politicians trying to stir up trouble. No.... In fact, according to that Wall Street Journal article I linked to, the Chicago Tea Party declined a speaking opportunity offered by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. The tea parties are simply individual citizens organized through social networking that are fed up with our government.

In my mind, there is no reason this should be partisan. Democrats and Republicans alike criticized President Bush for his big government spending practices, and now President Obama is hosting Deficit Spending: Extreme Makeover.

The bottom line is this: deficit spending removes government accountability to the people. If a government is allowed to spend whatever it wants without paying for it with taxes, the people no longer have to supply the financial resources needed to fund government growth. When government no longer requires money from us to pay for its actions, less people care what the government does because it does not affect them financially. Thus, government is free to do whatever it pleases without limits and nobody cares.

And when that happens, as it is right now, the "limited government" that our founders believed so strongly in will be gone. That is why we're protesting. And you should be too.

A Storm Is Brewing

A great video, discussing the growing anger among those of us that want to see our country succeed and continue to be the beacon of light for the world:

What a Great Guy

I just want to make a comment about great guy who is a personal friend of my dad's. Former North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer is probably one of the more upstanding people out there. Not five months ago, he was Agriculture Secretary for the United States of America. He left that prestigious position once the new administration took over, yet here's a picture of him helping out with the flood relief efforts in North Dakota this spring. This is a man who held one of the higher positions in our nation, yet he does not feel he's above the task of being a simple truck driver delivering sand and dirt:


He also gives a great message for conservatism, which he detailed in a speech at a recent Republican Lincoln Day Dinner gathering:

My fellow Republicans. Legislators, state wide officials, party officers, fund raisers, volunteers, workers and cheerleaders all, we gather here to recognize the man--- Abraham Lincoln--- who envisioned our Republican party.

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty" he said. And he pursued a political organization that was committed to maintaining the principles of freedom.


* The freedom to create a life from individual endeavor and the reaping of its rewards.
* The freedom from government restraint.
* Freedom of the press.
* Freedom from oppressive taxes and government intrusion.
* Freedom to shape and nurture our government and the freedom to control it.
* The freedom of personal liberty.
* Freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, freedom of expression and opposition.


We are indeed blessed to live and work in a nation conceived in liberty.

That is why I champion so much our great state of North Dakota where the freedoms we are assured have generated hard working people -- honest, courageous, moral and just. We lend a helping hand to those in need and take pride in families and communities. We love God.

These are the principles of the Republican Party --- principles we must, must preserve and protect! These are the principles that made America great and allow the pursuit of what we call the American dream. The dream of individual responsibility, individual performance and individual reward.

I have lived that American dream. I started in the mail room and worked my way up to the President of a multinational consumer products company. Of course, having my dad own the company helped a bit!

But when I thought I could use my experience and background in business to help make our government better, I had the freedom to pursue that too. When I first ran for office, most people didn't think I had a chance. But we were able to convince the Republican Party that I stood for their principles---that was one of the toughest challenges! And then we were able to convince the voters to turn out those who had controlled the Capitol for over 30 years and accept new Republican leadership.

Our party was in a pretty sad state back then. I became the third statewide elected official. We enjoyed just a slim majority in the House, and the Dems owned the majority in the Senate.

But you all remained enthused, worked hard and gradually the citizens embraced our Republican principles. When I left office eight years later, our party had super majorities in both houses of the legislature and the opposition only held three statewide offices. A complete turnaround.

Now they only have one! And in the words of Howard Dean---Yee Haw!

How did this happen? It happened because Republicans gave the people a government they wanted. A government that was less intrusive, more efficient and less costly! We removed regulations, lowered taxes, encouraged investment and stood strong on our principles.

We delivered responsible and prudent budgets that held steady with economic growth.

We resisted the desire to spend money on budgets we could not sustain knowing that the cyclical nature of our economy will come to bear someday. We lowered the cost of government by cutting budgets even in times of prosperity and yet we increased spending for the principles Republicans stand for: the education, health and safety of our citizens!

I have to tell you, and legislators in the audience already know this, it was hard work. When public opinion polls and the media and special interest groups -- most of which depend on government--- drive the process, it is easy to veer off course, to bow to the pressures, to abandon what you believe in order to remain popular. But we were able to stand firm on our Republican principles.

I know this is a Lincoln Day dinner, but I just have to quote Theodore Roosevelt here.

He said of his Presidency, "I am not here to represent public opinion, I am here to represent the public, and there is a wide difference between the two."

During my time in office we were able to walk that fine line of balancing the wants with the needs of the population.

But you know, there is nothing so quiet as yesterday's applause.

President Lincoln put it best when he said, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew."

He also said, "Our important principles may, and must, be inflexible."

So now is the time, my fellow Republicans, for us to craft once again the government that people want -- one that meets the needs of today but remains steadfast in our principles of limited government and individual liberty.

When I left the Governor's office the party gave me a pair of running shoes. Drew Wrigley, then the Executive Director, encouraged me to keep running. Not running for office, I had already made that decision, but running to advance the Republican Party and its principles. And I have tried to do that.

Here they are. The heels are worn out, the cushioning is gone and the flex is stiff. And the smell? Well, we won't go there. But I brought them tonight because they tell a story.

Most of you know I use to run a lot. And when you log 70, 80 and sometimes 90 miles a week, shoes are very important. And they wear out pretty fast. After trying many different brands and models I found a great pair of running shoes. They fit my foot, enhanced my foot-strike and gave me good stability. These were the things I was looking for in a shoe.

After 12 or so pairs of this model, I saw an ad that piqued my interest and I tried a different one. I was surprised how much better I thought they were than my previous model, the ones I was "used to!" But something just wasn't quite right with the new fit.

And then I remembered that the principles of what I was looking for in a shoe hadn't changed, but over time, the quality of my favorite model had deteriorated. The manufacturer had looked internally and changed materials and procedures and the original design was changed. I hobbled along somewhat satisfied with the new model, but it wasn't until the original shoe was reinvented, that I went ahh, this is right! And I was comfortable again.

The moral of this story is that the principles of what I was seeking in a shoe hadn't changed, but over time, Nike had compromised their product. But somewhere along the line, they realized their customers weren't entirely satisfied---probably because sales were slipping! They needed to go back to the original-update the shoe to the original quality and design to satisfy me as a customer!

I share this story because I believe it illustrates where we are today as a political party and with delivery of government in this state and nation. We are content with what we have even though principles have gone a little soft. We have strayed from what made this party and its candidates attractive to voters. People are comfortable with what they are getting but are inherently uncomfortable with the direction in which our government is going. And I'm worried that an alternative is being developed that might be more attractive to the voters!

As we see people reject Republicans over and over today, don't you think it is time we turned back to our tried and true principles and craft a government that people are asking for?

Abraham Lincoln said, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." But he also told us the way to proceed. "What is conservatism?" he said; "Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"

We have only to look at the last election to see what happens to Republicans when we abandon what we are supposed to stand for!

Which party now controls the White House? Which party is directing Congress? We lost election after election all across this country---we lost our position of comfort with the electorate.

It pains me to hear Republicans champion confiscatory tax measures directed at people who are successful! And my heart sinks when I see Republicans project the theory that we can take our hard working men and women's taxes and spend our way into prosperity!

So I ask you all tonight to recommit to the tried and true principles of the Republican Party: limited government and individual liberty.

Liberty brings us freedom and freedom gives rise to prosperity.

Prosperity improves the lives of our people and when we improve the lives of our citizens, we strengthen our state and our nation.

Nancy and I had the opportunity to have a private, behind the scenes tour of the Lincoln Memorial in the District while we were there. As we stood in front of, underneath and beside this grand statutory, we were able to absorb the magnitude of the man Abraham Lincoln.How he believed in freedom and how he stood fast for what he believed.

He endured the tears and heartbreak of torn families, split communities and a divided nation. When others waivered, divided and separated, he remained true to our nation, true to our people. People hated him, spat on him and eventually took his life.

But he saved our nation and even today he stands as a rock for the principles of a limited government and individual freedom. We must remain steadfast in our efforts to continue President Abraham Lincoln's commitment to a better government. For as he said a "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

I want to thank God for leading me here tonight and as we go, let us reflect on Lincoln's words once again. "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

Glen Beck: On Ceding Our Feedoms to Unelected International Bureaucrats

For Facebook readers, click here

Midwestern Niceness

But I thought we were all intolerant, racist, sexist, redneck, ignorant, bigoted, inbred, fat, lazy, fascist, Nazi homophobes that hate everybody? Here's a couple letters to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader where out-of-state individuals took the time to express how good of impression they got from their time in South Dakota:

Apparently we're not pompus, deluded jerks after all. Maybe the rest of the country could take a note out of our book and try to be truly interested in the well being of our fellow men and women, rather than going through life with a contented disconnect. There's a pattern of thought around the country, where if you don't know a person personally, they don't matter as much and someone else will take care of them. Here, we truly care for others and genuinely care about what is going on with them. Once you leave the midwest, in my expericence that attitude disappears, and as these articles show, people are impressed when they come here to visit.

Freedom

My SDSU Collegian article on freedom:

Freedom. Such a simple word, yet one that has had such a resounding impact on the world. Wars have been fought over that word, and many men and women have died in the name of freedom. A simple word, yet near impossible to define.

How would you define freedom? Does it mean doing whatever you please without anyone stopping you? Does it mean being free to choose your own destiny for yourself? Being able to decide the fate of your pregnancy? Or maybe protecting an unborn child’s chance for a free life of its own? Perhaps having the freedom to make something of yourself by starting a small business free from mounds of paperwork and government interference?

Whatever your definition of freedom, a small government—as opposed to our newly elected administration and Congress—is a government that will maximize your freedoms. Sure the power shift in our country offers extended abortion freedoms, gay marriage freedoms, possibly some legalized drug freedoms…but say those of you who champion those issues get your way, then what? Aside from freedom in social issues, there is very little promise of additional freedoms…only more regulations, stipulations, lack of choice in medical care, reduced gun rights/self protection rights, more loopholes for lawyers to take advantage of and create more of the asinine lawsuits we hear about all the time, more tax burden reducing personal economic freedom, etc.

Our new administration promises to better all our lives and improve the human condition for all of us. Sounds great, but there are few actions of government that can pull us out of all our individual problems…only you can do that, and you should be free to do so! Government exists to protect us from each other and to help those who cannot help themselves. An increase in the ability of government to do things for you (through increased taxes, regulations) equals a decrease in your ability to do things for yourself and choose your own path (less freedom for you).

With a small and open government, it’s easier to trust government to do the right thing with the power they have, while at the same time maximizing our freedoms in most other aspects of our lives. Big government fears the people, because the more you tell people what to do, the more disgruntled individuals there will be. Small government is more responsible to you and me, because maximizing our individual freedoms with a small government leaves us free to keep watch over the government and call them out when they do not carry out properly or ethically the few responsibilities that we have entrusted to them.

There’s a famous quote: “the government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.” Keep that in mind, otherwise you may find yourself sacrificing your personal freedoms to a government that may or may not provide you with an acceptable equivalent.

Seatbelts Anyone?

I can't believe how stupid big government spending can be sometimes. Here's an article in the Rapid City Journal, and I became progressively more irritated the more I read.

First off, seat belts save lives, and that's a proven fact. But here's my gripe:

According to the article, if South Dakota simply makes a seat belt violation a primary offense (currently it's a secondary offense, and you can't be pulled over for just that), the Federal government will give us a five million dollar check. In times of a budget deficit, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

Not so much. Should South Dakota accept that check, there are strings attached that require the money to be directed toward seat belt campaigns (everyone's probably heard those stupid "click it or ticket" campaigns in Minnesota) and safety-related things. The article states that seat belt compliance in South Dakota without any laws forcing us to do so is at 72%.

So bottom line, accepting that five million dollars of taxpayer money basically goes toward making commercials to remind us to do something that 72% of the state does already.

In addition, why is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Why aren't we responsible for our own safety in our vehicles? We know it's smart to wear out seat belts and most of us do, so why not use five million dollars for more worthwhile causes or perhaps not even take it from us in the first place? Criminalizing not using a seat belt will do very little to increase the 72% compliance anyway, and I think it's ridiculous that this appropriation takes taxes from the entire country to pay for seat belt radio ads in South Dakota.

These kinds of stupid, redundant appropriations are why our spending is out of control and we have a trillion dollar budget deficit. You want to talk about change? Let's start paying attention to how dumb the government's spending practices are.

Conservatism Helps The Poor And Society In General

I think there are some serious misconceptions out there about the Republican Party and conservatism. One of the worst misinterpretations of conservative tenants is the perception that we could care less about the poor. Conventional wisdom out there in liberal land tells you that Republicans love stomping on the poor with the proverbial boot of big businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth, but our methodology is not as obvious as getting a check in the mail.

First, Republicans are pro-business for a reason: successful businesses help everyone out, including the poor. We have an economic system where all the businesses are fighting to give you what you want, when you want it, and at the lowest possible cost so more people buy their stuff over the competitor's. Having the necessities of life at a minimal price helps the poor greatly. If you're poor, Wal-Mart is your best friend. Dollars saved here and there add up quickly.

Second, companies provide tons of jobs for everyone to help poverty and unemployment at a minimum. I know many of you work at Daktronics. Having that big company right here in tiny Brookings is a great source of jobs for the poor (a.k.a. college students) to help them make ends meet. Liberals would have you think Daktronics is rich and evil and that they need to be taxed as much as possible. The corporate tax rate in the United States is 39 percent. Just think how many more jobs Daktronics could afford and provide if they could make 39 percent more? Companies expand and reap greater profits through hiring additional people to get more things done. Also, look what companies have been able to do for us. Through their millions of investors and customers, they have been able to accomplish unimaginable things for the benefit of all.

Take Verizon Wireless, for example. Last year they spent over a billion dollars on network improvements alone (or 14 dollars for each of their 70.8 million customers), allowing people to communicate from almost anywhere in America. If you get caught in a blizzard and call 911, your phone will communicate with a satellite in outer space, which can then tell dispatchers where you are within one foot. All that at the lowest possible cost to all of us. Taxing companies more hinders the ability for them to provide services like that and provide work for Americans.

Probably the most important way that conservatives care for the poor is how we choose to help them out. We actually like handouts to the needy just like our liberal friends; the difference is that we believe it's our responsibility as individuals to help our neighbors out. Sure it's easy to just raise taxes on the rich to help the poor, where we give the government ten dollars for one dollar worth of benefit. Let me keep that ten dollars and I'll go over and drop it in the Children's Miracle Network box in The Union. We know our neighbors and friends way better than any government entity, so who is best suited to help them out - the government or us? When I'm having a tough time, I talk to my friends and family instead of calling congressmen. If you're hit with hard times, what's going to give you a better, more positive outlook on life: a big check in the mail or a big spaghetti fundraiser with all of your friends and family there to help you pay for your chemotherapy? We need to help each other out, not look to a bloated, inefficient government to do it for us.

Real Change vs. Radical Change: What Would Conservatives Change?

Change. During this election, we’ve heard that word so many times we’re ready to puke. Obviously this country needs something different from what we currently have, what with a presidential approval in the low 30’s and a congress with an absolutely dismal approval rating of 9 percent. But in these rough times, I would ask you to think very carefully about what kind of change you want. There’s a difference between radical change and real change. I think most of America’s frustrations stem from the fact that the people we send to Washington to run our country don’t reflect what we believe. Let me throw some numbers at you:
-57 to 27 percent of the country would prefer less government services and lower taxes
-72 percent of Americans think that people moving to this country should adopt our culture
-69 percent of Americans feel the income tax system is unfair in that it taxes earnings rather than spending
-62 percent of Americans feel the country is fair and decent compared to 27 percent feeling it is unfair and discriminatory
Looking at these polls (all done by Rasmussen), I don’t see anything in Barack Obama’s liberal agenda that falls in with what mainstream America believes. Conservatives and Republicans stand with the country on those issues. Here are some areas where we Republicans and conservatives feel change is desperately needed.
Some high schools will spend a week teaching you how to put a condom on (the directions are on the wrapper), but will barely give 2 weeks to fiscal responsibility—God forbid an entire YEAR—teaching students incredibly important real-world things like how to do your taxes, manage a personal budget, and use credit responsibly? And everyone wonders why we have a 10 trillion dollar national debt and we’re in the middle of a financial crisis. Nobody knows how to manage money responsibly! I guess that English class semester on Greek mythology was more important. Speaking of fiscal responsibility, maybe we should send our bills to Washington D.C? Ridiculous suggestion, but where do we draw the line on bailouts? Oh wait; there shouldn’t be a line, because there’s no place in the constitution that says it is government’s responsibility to give money to companies when they’re having trouble. That would be liberal, activist lawyers/judges who have milked the “general welfare” clause of the constitution for all it’s worth.
Why is a picture of Jesus in a flask of urine (“P*ss Christ” by Andres Serrano) award-winning art, yet a political cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban is completely taboo? Both are figureheads of widely followed religions, but with the liberal agenda Jesus degradation equals free speech. Muhammad degradation equals offensive and divisive.
Education is key in our country. America spends the most money in the world on education, but with mediocre results. Why? I’ve had some incredible professors, and I want their pay to reflect that. Keeping lax educators in the system (thanks to Obama-supporting teachers’ unions) just drags down pay and incentives for quality educators and robs students of the best instructors they could possibly get. When did teachers’ job security and tenure become more important than student success and quality education?
I agree, this country does need change, but I believe us conservatives reflect the attitudes of the country as a whole and offer real solutions and the right change to get this country heading the right way.