Welcome to Jarrell!

Here is something unique I saw in my travels through the great state of Texas. This billboard acts as a welcome sign in Jarell Texas:

Welcome to Jarell

This is God's country

Please don't drive through it like hell.

This hasn't much to do with the holiday's, but hey, remeber, whether you live in Alaska or Florida, this is God's country. We get to live in His country as we celebrate His Son's birth; that's extremely special.  

Enjoy the holiday's and have a Merry, Merry Christmas!

Trent 

Brother Libertarian?

What do Tom Selleck, Kurt Russell, and Clint Eastwood have in common? Number one, they are all movie actors (and the roles they have played weren't always the best), number two, they're self professed libertarians. That, in and of itself, is scary, very, very scary.

According to one libertarian website the definition of libertarianism is this:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Notice the wording: "tolerate diverse lifestyles". Libertarians don't believe in legislating anything that comes close to morality. For example, they don't believe that goverment should make laws about "prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs". Now look at their definition of conservatives:

Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently

support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,

while endorsing government action to defend morality and the

traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong

military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market

economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

Notice that “tolerating diverse lifestyles” is not included.

Want to find out what you are? Check out this ten question (yep, just ten) online quiz to see! This quiz is not only quick it is also very interesting. When you get the results (right there on the website - no wait-for-an e-mail deal.) you will see how you were graded, 0% up to 100%. Zero percent means that you don’t agree with libertarians at all, 100% you are one of the strictest libertarians out there. The way it is presented it almost seems that getting zero percent on the test means that you got all of the answers wrong, whereas getting one hundred percent means that you were dead right.

Right or Wrong?

The question is who decides what is right and wrong? To the libertarian this is a hard question. A conservative, like me, says: "God decided what's wrong and what's right". Notice I said God decided; truth is always truth, two plus two makes four, not five, not some of the time, all of the time. It's all fun and games until someone looses an eye. Should we all be like the guys in judges, where: "every man did that which was right in his own eyes"? If you think this is the way to it should be, read the rest of the book of Judges in the Bible

Conclusion:

When you get to the core principles of libertarianism it’s pretty shocking. This group calls for self government, and yet, they don't seem to realize that human beings have never been able to govern themselves by themselves, at least not correctly. Living in a homosexual lifestyle is wrong because it spreads terrible diseases. Can we make laws to try and stop this? The libertarian I think would say no, I, on the other hand, say yes. Tolerating other people’s lifestyles is great, but limiting government to a point where it no longer protects people from other’s harmful lifestyles is not. Remember, we do have the right to life.

The Evangelism Connection

With any election you need the majority in order to win. The "religious right" (religious being used as a broad term including many religions) has been a sought after commodity for any election throughout the history of our nation. McCain didn't get it - the religious right that is. Statistics from a Pew Research poll show that...

Jewish

78% voted for Obama

Catholic

54% voted for Obama (45% for McCain)

Other Faiths 

73% voted for Obama (Strange... but the change to voting Democrat from 2004 to 2008 is -1. That means that those in the "Other Faiths" group voted for McCain more than they did for Bush!)

Unafilliated

75% for Obama

Whereas...

Protestant/Other Christian

55% for McCain

45% for Obama (Wow! Truly more Pastors need to preach some patriotic -  political - sermon.)

Evangelical/Born Again

73% for McCain 

23% for Obama (Somebody needs to explain things to these "Born Again Christians", that or they need to change there name. The change, from 2004, to voting democrat is +5!)

Non Evangelical

55% for McCain 

44% for Obama (Actually there is no change between democrat voting this year - it's is the same as '04). 

Conclusion:

More Christians need to take the time to research who they vote for. Also, we should never assume that anybody is "in the tank" for whichever candidate we support. This poll also shows that evangelism is an indirect key to winning elections! 

Do The Right Thing

I had sit in a car 30 minutes, stand in line 30 minutes - behind about 100 people, and pay around $14 for the book, but it was totally worth it. Actually, Mike Huckabee's new book Do The Right Thing was supposed to cost $24.95 (somehow it rang up as half price - I can't complain), but with his and his wife's signatures I figured it would work out. 

Since then I have read the entire book, even the appendixes, and am now trying to figure out if it's as true and good as it sounds. I will publish my findings here, which so far include that as far as taxation goes, Huckabee is as good, probably better, than any other candidate I have ever heard of. (In case your wondering if you heard something about this Governor raising taxes and not being a fiscal conservative you read this: Fiscally Flawed? -- A Rebuttal to the Club for Growth.)

Points from the book include:

• We either have Self-Government or we need Big Government.

• Libertarianism is bad, very, very bad. (Libertarianism in this instance is used to describe the idea that fixing the economy will fix everything else and that taxes, apparently all taxes, should be abolished.) 

• The Fair Tax is awesome!

•  Chuck Norris is great!

• Watch out for Huck, he isn't going anywhere. He won eight states with less than $65 million (I can't seem to find the exact number, I think it was $30 million - I know he got $11 million from online donations.) , fought opposition from religious and conservative leaders and the media (including Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh) and lived to tell the tale.  
  

This book is well rounded with great stories from the campaign to illustrate policy points and add some fun. I highly reccomend that you "Do The Right Thing" and buy this book!

2012: Part 2 - Lieberman and Feingold

Lieberman and Feingold in 2012

The next presidential campaign (really to far in the distance to even speculate about) is obviously of great importance. In the past conservatives have been no as involved as we could , and should, have been. While we work our primaries to get the result for the republican presidential nominee, the other side contributes a huge portion of the race by choosing an opponent. Why should we simply watch them create winning probabilities? Why not play both sides to get the best result? In looking at the following democratic candidates we could promote and influence to run in the 2012 primaries, we do just that, create unheard of possibilities that could lead to a more favorable outcome, win or lose, November, 2012.

Lieberman

While Lieberman is considered a nice guy by most of the senate, his actions for McCain and his position on the surge (which, by the way, worked) in the War on Terror (note that I did not say War in Iraq) have probably alienated him from the democrats who aren't aware of his personality. Although he is a democrat, he is one of the few noble senators who actually use their minds when voting, he votes for bills he thinks are good (especially if he thinks they are good for his state) and votes against bills that violate the principles he believes in. Joe doesn't seem to care if he is one of the only democrats voting for a bill, if he thinks it's the right thing to do, he does it. Unfortunately, the sixty-six year old Joseph Lieberman probably wouldn't get the liberal vote, upon which democrats depend on in the primaries, if he ran in 2012 (when it would be his last chance at the age of 70). He is one of the best democrats there is, but unfortunately that may cause his downfall.

Feingold

The democrats will have a unique primary if the senate's fiscal hawk Russ Feingold runs in 2012.

Unfortunately, Lieberman probably won't be able to win in the primaries. Feingold, on the other hand, could give Obama quite a run for his "money". All Feingold has to do is call Obama on the carpet for the national debt and Obama has another nightmare of a primary race. Obama will no doubt counter that he had to save the economy before focusing on the national debt, to which Feingold should say: “The national debt is the economy, stupid!” Here is another campaign line that would go over pretty well: "What President Obama did was outstanding he prepared America for change, now it's time to get that change. For four years we've heard the talk ...how about four years to see the walk? How about eight? You can see my record, you can see my promises to the people of Wisconsin and how I kept 'em. What about my promise to never take a pay raise while in the senate, not ever? I've kept that promise, you can ask your brother Americans, my neighbors, in Wisconsin. They'll tell you, go ahead and ask 'em. Four years is a long time, long enough to enact fiscal reform and positive change for America. Did President Obama do that? You can look at what I did and you can look at what Barack Obama did. There's a big difference in those four years - one politician from Chicago appointing his friends and political allies to positions better served by others who actually knew how to do those jobs, and one guy from Wisconsin fighting for your respect, your rights and your money!"

If you want to see the good looking, smooth talking, fiscally straight walking democrat from Wisconsin, click here to see a quick movie clip. Here is another, a clip of a Feingold speech. What about the very inspiring story of how he got to the senate, and all that he has done while there? Check this page. Now this guy is in no way perfect. He is not somebody I would normally like to see as president, but he's better than Obama. The hope here is to cause a division in the democrats and have ugly primary race that rattles President Obama, with all his powers of incumbency, to the bones. If Feingold wins the primaries, I won't support him in the general election (unless the republican nominee is completely terrible), but if he should win the general election, I wouldn't feel too bad.

Feingold 2012!

2012: Part 1

I know that 2012 is four years away. I know that first things come first. I know that we need to focus on rebuilding the conservative movement. At the same time, this movement needs a leader to rally behind. To borrow another popular leader's term: Hope.

So let's take a look at 2012:

1. Sarah Palin.

Obviously she's going to play some role in the future of the republican party. What exactly we don't know, but we could sure guess! To see more on this check out Adam Brickley's famous Draft Sarah Palin blog.

Should she run?

Some argue that she alienated the independents and democrat voters and therefore shouldn't run. That thought maybe worth looking into. Obviously she wasn't running the show. McCain was at the head of the ticket and all campaign decisions, including what talking points to stress and so on. Also to blame, are the staff working the McCain campaign (remember: Sarah Going Rogue?) and to some degree Sarah (remember the awful interview(s)? - Oh wait, their was what, one?). What about all the issues she had to bite her tongue on and say "Yes in a McCain/Palin administration that would happen"? She probably didn't think that was the best way to go about it, but when your number 2 on the ticket you've got work with your boss, at least somewhat (note : I made the previous quote up). I don't think Sarah is the problem; I think the fake Sarah character promoted by the media is.

In four years a lot could change, but if the media is still dating Obama, it will be tough for Sarah to pull off a win. Isn't she the best possibility? Who else could win? I know, I know it seems like she should run in 2012. I think she should remain a national figure and if she doesn't run in 2012, she should at least campaign for someone else, but maybe we should give her a little more time. It wouldn't hurt for people to forget all the lies being circulated around (yeah, I know they will probably be brought back up by the media anyway). It definitely won't help for her to be permanently branded as inexperienced after a nasty run against incumbent President Barrack Obama.

Conclusion:

If nothing extreme happens: Sarah 2016!


If you want to discuss this with some political minds, leave a comment at the Patriot Acadmey Blog. It wouldn't hurt to leave a comment here too!