Take a look at the GOP in Pennsylvania and you’ll see a microcosm of what plagues the GOP nationwide.  If I had to name the two worst actors in Washington representing PA, Murtha and Specter would be among the first to come to mind (though, with Specter now a DINO, may we get abundant mileage from the Specterenfreude factor alone). 

Now meet Pennsylvania’s Republican State Committee Chairman, Robert Gleason Jr.  Mr. Gleason was all set to support Specter before his ignoble defection.  However, that merely makes him a qualified candidate for the NRSC.  The real problem with Gleason is his support for Murtha.  No, he hasn’t publicly endorsed Murtha (at least not during an election) but the two have business ties going back a very long time (they both come from the same hometown of Johnstown, PA).  At best, their relationship occasionally embarrasses the GOP (see this for some overly-chummy words Gleason had for Murtha, which came even after his “killed in cold blood” charade), and at worst creates a conflict of interest.   

Gleason’s business insures companies that Murtha’s illicit pork funds – hence the incentive to keep Murtha in office and maintain the flow of federal dollars.  As such, Gleason is rumored to work behind the scenes during election campaigns to derail Republican opponents to Murtha.   Even if the rumors were to prove untrue, Gleason has demonstrated his willingness to place his friends and colleagues above the principles he was elected to defend.  He is yet another member of the old establishment who thinks that Murtha’s detestable antics have “done a wonderful job for our region”, and that is not acceptable.   

Gleason and a significant portion of the PAGOP need a wakeup call.  Our country is on the edge of an abyss and we need our representatives to stand for something besides their own reelection.  William Russell, who ran against Murtha last election, is still in the ring for 2010 and is as solid as they come.  Support Russell’s campaign.  Also, contact Mr. Gleason and the PAGOP and tell them to get behind candidates like Russell and Toomey, and that we expect them to do their jobs.  Contact Mr. Gleason’s at rgleasonjr@gleasonagency.com and contact the PAGOP at info@pagop.org. 

Pennsylvania’s House Resolution 95 uses the 10th Amendment to limit the federal government’s power over the state. 

According to Representative Glenn Grell, the resolution is currently in the House State Government Committe, chaired by Rep. Babette Josephs of Philadelphia, and noted that it will “probably languish in that Committee absent some extraordinary pressure from the public to consider the bill.”  This is a good opportunity to contact Rep Josephs office to get the resolution on the agenda, even though it could have enough Dem votes to kill it. 

Contact Chairman Josephs office at http://babette.org and let her know we are watching our elected officials.

Also contact your state rep if you’re interested in knowing who sponsored the resolution (50 GOP, 2 Dem).

As Philadelphia moves to ban the use of hand-held cell phones in cars, I heard commentary that all phones (including hands-free) should be banned.  The argument is that just talking directs attention away from driving.  If this is the case then I propose the following new measures to make driving even safer:

-      Ban passengers.  Normally that might be hard to enforce, but since Obama is running GM now, he can tell them to make some of these.

-      Ban the radio.  C’mon, everyone listens to Rush.  Love him or hate him, you’re always shouting something at the radio – how is that different from talking on a phone?

-      Ban heater, AC, other controls.  Messing with dashboard controls can also be a distraction.  Perhaps a heater automatically controlled from Washington (for those in colder climates) can be developed using ideas from Smartgrid and GPS.

Why not enforce an existing law, such as reckless driving?  Such a law appears to be based more on the principle, to drive safely, one must avoid excessive distractions, than on a specific rule that applies to a specific situation.

Rules and laws like the cell phone ban demonstrate the growing trend to replace principles with rules.  Principles can be broadly applied to a number of situations, whereas rules require a specific action for a specific situation.  Think about the principle, to be treated respectfully, it is necessary to respect others.   That principle, if followed, will cover a whole host of situations that have rules, such as not smoking in certain places, or talking and using phones in quiet places.  The downside to relying more on principles (and thus fewer and more general laws) is individuals must use judgment in applying those principles.   And I believe that is central to the problem:  it is just another manifestation of the desire to litigate away risk and uncertainty from life.  We can’t rely on people’s judgment, someone might get hurt.  We need to have that welfare “safety net”, people might not make it otherwise. 

We can continue to elect people who will create rules to the point where they govern every last detail of our lives, or we can rediscover the scary world of independence, where we can choose to live by principles.  Ultimately, the choice is ours.  As for me and driving, I am confident I will never have to type, OMGIJHAC.

Reminder from Erick: Post your Tea Party details so we can get the word out. I’ll front the posts.

Tax day tea party in Philly is Saturday April 18, Independence Hall.  Dom Giordano will speak.   See links below for details.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2204681/posts
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136720860393

ALSO, I came across even more ambitious plans for more rallies culminating in a “Capitalist March on Washington” in September.  Take a look at some of the events (info in below links). 

May 16 – Tea Party, Local and Larger

June 15-16 – National Act Like Obama Day (don’t contribute to the economy)

August 15 – March on your state capitol

September 11-14 – Capitalist March on Washington

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nIA_Oa36WM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGg0xXiyIY

http://www.cmcapitalist.com/

As conservatives and libertarians regroup, there has clearly been a focus on principles, and this is good.  As I review and reacquaint myself with the principles of individual rights, liberty, and freedom, I am simultaneously becoming more involved in local politics. 

Even at the local level, much effort has to be expended to ‘root out the bad guys’, those who have no principles and participate in the same types of political games as in Washington.  It gradually dawned on me that principles and integrity matter more for us (voting constituents) than they do for the politicians.  Were politicians more honest and competent in the early days of our country?  John Adams didn’t think so:

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.

I’m not saying principles shouldn’t be a consideration when choosing elected officials – after all we have to know who the worst of the worst are (e.g., Arlen Specter).  But it is the lack of principles on our part - not politicians - that allowed our government to grow in the first place to such a level of power and size that its founders would feel like failures today. 

When government is severely limited, the corruption and nonsense will still exist but its scope of influence will be miniscule.  The shenanigans that occurred at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, would have been inconceivable in the 19th century, much less the outright persecution of private entities (and citizens) as in the case of AIG. 

Hopefully it is not too late to reverse the rising tide of government power but we are starting in the right place.  We need to keep talking amongst ourselves and reinforcing these principles and worry less about whether a particular politician is honest.  

My fear lies more with the sheeple who are convinced they can vote themselves to prosperity than with the dishonesty in Washington.

Finally, some clarity on the cryptic remark made by Obama during the campaign.  Just its title, The Give Act, is disturbing enough for me. 

See Free Republic’s summary here, and the actual bill here. 

Required “volunteer” service?  Uniforms?  Summer Camps (now changed to campuses)?

from incompetent oaf to brazen miscreant.  The Pittsburgh Tribune is reporting that Arlen Specter is asking PA state pols to have an open primary next year (via grassrootspa). 

I don’t know what will happen in 2010.  A large turnaround won’t happen like it did in 1994.  The House Banking Scandal - not just Hillarycare and other Clinton nonsense - helped to create the backlash. 

But what we have now is a homegrown revolution in the making – the tea parties, people increasingly “going John Galt”, and more gatherings via initiatives like Beck’s We Surround Them campaign. 

Who knows if a critical mass has been reached to effect significant change, but I don’t think the movement could be off to a better start.  And Specter’s repulsive behavior is proof that we are making ourselves heard.

Spread the word about Specter and don’t let him get away without being held accountable for his misrepresentation of PA constituents.

The CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) mandate, introduced by the 110^th Congress, will outlaw incandescent light bulbs in an effort to force everyone to contribute to the fight against global warming. 

One can argue that having a government use its monopoly on force to criminalize the use of a light bulb might violate the principles of a country that calls itself free.  However, a new dimension has been added to the issue with the revelation of the potential health hazard of CFLs.  The presence of mercury in these light bulbs carries the risk of exposure if broken and at minimum requires special cleanup. 

The environmental movement was popularized with serious (at least serious looking) problems such as flammable rivers.  In that context, the movement seemed a sensible solution.  Unfortunately, it is a solution which champions a philosophy that resents human life and technology.  We can see this sentiment in the CFL mandate, which requires us to put ourselves at risk for the sake of the environment. 

Ayn Rand observed this sentiment as early as 1971:

Observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival.  Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears.

Additonally Peter Schwartz, another Randian author, observes the contempt environmentalism has for technology:

The nature of an ideology is not determined by majority vote—but by logic, by analyzing its essence and its necessary implications. The logic of environmentalism, for example, leads to a society without technology . . . even if various environmentalists . . . would deny this . . . The full implications of an ideology’s central principle are often evaded by its adherents.

(as an amusing sidebar, I didn’t know much about Schwartz and thought he was some libertarian.  After a little research, I discovered that was an insult.  Some objectivists and libertarians apparently don’t appreciate how the world sees little difference between the “Tweeddledee of libertarianism and the Tweedledum of Objectivism”)

While the foot soldiers of environmentalism may see it as a benevolent cause, those leading the movement know full well its implications.  Whatever environmental hazards exist today (man-made global warming not being one that can be classified as non-fiction), we can rest assured that the philosophy of environmentalism is not the answer and will only lead us to tyranny. 

I came across this blog (via my wife who works in media) by Jack Myers, suggesting Rush’s advertisers should consider pulling support for his program.  Let me be clear that whether or not anyone boycotts is irrelevant to me.  What needs to be addressed is Jack Myers’s disgraceful disregard for truth or integrity. 

First, we need start only as far as the third sentence:

Limbaugh’s lengthy Castro-like speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was his coming out party for a run for president of the United States

Even a casual listener of Rush’s show can see how ignorant this man is if he thinks this is Rush’s way of announcing a run for president – and his comparison to Castro doesn’t dignify a response.

It gets better with the very next sentence:

It is essential to question whether Limbaugh should continue to have access to the public airwaves and whether advertisers should continue to support him.

 Ok.  We should question whether Limbaugh should be allowed on the air?  If this is really the sentiment of a majority of the electorate – that people who say anything controversial should not be allowed to speak- then we really are in trouble. 

But I digress from my original point.  Myers is essentially claiming that since Rush spoke at CPAC, he is now a spokesman for Republicans and thus all advertisers are as well.  The implication is that Rush never advocated conservative principles until he showed up at CPAC.   Are advertisers stupid?  Do they suffer from some sort of cognitive dissonance such that they have no idea his principles might be the same as those of the Republican Party’s because he hadn’t previously spoken at a political function? If thats the case, they need not worry;  it is very clear that no one in politics is listening to Rush. 

In addition to encouraging boycotts, the column contains a lot of the usual conservative marginalizing (Limbaugh’s “small”, “far right” audience, etc).

I think this commentary by Myers needs to be addressed.  I encourage folks to contact him (jm@jackmyers.com) and let him know conservatives will not put up with trash like this and will defend our principles, even if our elected officials won’t.

I came across a plan brewing to give our politicians some feedback since they have not found our phonecalls and letters relevant or convincing.  On April 15, how about mailing teabags?  There was some discussion here that it is not legal to send teabags and so just the labels (or something else) would have to be sent.  I don’t see what the problem is with sending teabags but wanted to throw the idea out there.  I was thinking if folks from each state participate we could send one to the Dem Senators and RINOs, or maybe just to the RINOs who voted for the stimulus (Specter, Snowe, Collins). 

Any other ideas?  Has it already been done and I am just the last to find out?