Ron Paul Food Drive, Moneybomb Show Strength of Support

     Ron Paul supporters have once again shown support for their candidate with the Ron Paul Food Drive  and the Ron Paul Tea Party Moneybomb.

     The goal of the food drive was to gather over 10,000 lbs. of food to donate in time for the Holidays.  Ron Paul supporters donated over 12.000 lbs.

     As of this writing, the Moneybomb has raised nearly $5,000,000.

  

Conservative Book List --- What's Howard Reading?

When government has nothing to sell, bribery is useless.

--Dr. Ron Paul from End The Fed

I believe that this book is an instant classic.

This book is just plain classic.

Ron Paul Food Drive

http://ronpaulfooddrive.com/

      "We’ve seen what the power of grassroots action has done for Ron Paul’s campaign, despite mainstream opposition. Let’s combine that same grassroots action with voluntary charity to fight hunger and help those in need during these times of economic distress,"  says a passage on the Ron Paul Food Drive web site;  http://ronpaulfooddrive.com/

     The innovative people which support Ron Paul for President have again come up with a unique way to promote their candidate.    The latest plan is to donate 10,000 pounds of food to charity in the name of Ron Paul.  This promotion has the advantage of being just in time for the holidays, showing that the spirit of voluntary contribution is a viable alternative to government programs and multiplying the dollars spent by both supporting Dr. Paul and helping those in need.
     I plan on supporting my local Ron Paul Food Drive.  I hope you will visit the site listed above and donate some food also.

     

Conservative Rating System Part II

     In an earlier post, I outlined ten conservative principles that I turned into a 100 point scale.  By using this scale, I believe that Politicians, Pundits and Public Figures can be scored to determine their level of conservatism.

     I eventually plan to rate various people and use statistical analysis to determine a rating system that accurately identifies Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals.  Until that time, I suggest the following scale:

0-30 points         Liberal

35-65 points       Moderate

70-100 points     Conservative

    Rate yourself.  Look at the ten principles in the earlier post.  For each principle you agree with completely, give yourself 10 points.  For each one you agree with partially or are undecided about, give yourself 5 points. For each principle you disagree with, add zero points.  Compare your score to the scale above.  Go ahead, ask yourself, how conservative am I?

Conservative Book List --- What's Howard Reading?

What Howard's Reading This Week

     Rich Dad's Real Estate Advantages 

is a decent book that gives me some ideas of how to save taxes.  I just have to remember to check with my local CPA first.

Matt Jensen - Savage Territory 

is a good book from William Johnstone's "Last Mountain Man" Series. The link above is for the Kindle version.  

Conservative Rating System

           One of the things that attracted me to conservative thought was its staunch opposition to collectivism.  The Cold War was at its pinnacle as I was coming of age, so many Conservatives were leading the forces against communism.  I drew from this that to be conservative was to be anti-totalitarian and anti-communist.

           With this idea in mind, I have devised a quick rating system to score public figures, pundits and politicians.  I began by looking at the Communist Manifesto.  I first took the opposite of the ten "principles" of the Communist Manifesto to create a set of Conservative Principles. 

           By examining a public figure's, pundit's or politician's statements and actions on each of these principles, a person can be scored as either agreeing with the principle completely (10 points), agreeing with the principle partially (5 points), or not agreeing with the principle at all (0 points).  This creates an easy 100 point scale which can be used to give a "Conservative Rating" to each individual.

Conservative Principles: 

1.    Private property rights must be universal and strongly protected.  Government should control the minimal amount of property necessary to carry out good governance and protect citizens from forces that would do them harm, both foreign and domestic.

2.    There should be no income tax or other forms of direct taxation.

3.    The legal transfer of wealth from generation to generation must not be encumbered.

4.    The State should not be able to confiscate privately held property without due process of law; nor should private property be taken for public use.

5.    The function of banking and credit should be carried out by competing private interests.  No State sponsored bank or credit institution should be allowed to exist.

6.    All people should be allowed to freely speak, assemble, worship, communicate and travel without interference from the State.

7.    All lands, factories and instruments of production shall be owned by private entities and market forces should be trusted to assure the best possible allocation of all resources.

8.    Free people should be allowed to trade their labor for whatever ends they wish.  The State owns no person and should not direct any person as to how they use their skills, talents or intellect.

9.    Government should have no interest in where people choose to live.  Each person should be free to choose where they live with respect to other people.

10. Education of children is the responsibility of parents.  People should be free to raise their children according to their own background and culture, as long as to do so causes no tangible harm.

I plan to use this system in the near future to give a "Conservative Rating" to some candidates and other public figures.

Conservative Book List --- What's Howard Reading?

  I'm usually reading two books at once.  Or, more accurately, I usually read one book at home and have a recorded book in my vehicle.  I thought some Conscious Conservatives might be interested in books that will either broaden their education, be entertaining or both.  Here's what I'm reading.

Righteous Warrior:  Jesse Helms and the Rise of Modern Conservatism

by William A. Link 

The Real Book of Real Estate:  Real Experts.  Real Stories.  Real Life.

by Robert Kiyosaki

 Feel free to add your own reading suggestions in the comments section.

A Simple Tax and Social Services Plan

   

  I must start this post by writing that I believe that all direct taxes (income tax, etc.) are evil and actually a form of armed robbery or a "protection" scheme.  I also disagree with the concept of "redistribution of wealth," which means in reality stealing from one person, taking a healthy cut, and giving what is left over to another "more deserving" person.  Direct tax schemes are used in the United States as much to control the populace and enhance government power as they are to raise revenue and should be eliminated.  That being written, I believe that direct taxation, redistribution and economic extortion via tax code have become entrenched in the American system.   The people cannot rid themselves of these evils quickly.  Until we do get rid of them in favor of a more humane system, we should at least perform the functions of direct taxation and redistribution in a way that is efficient and that does the least to enhance government power via tax code extortion.
     I cannot take full credit for what I propose here, Milton Friedman and others have proposed similar programs.  I propose that we create a simple tax system that guarantees each person in the United States a minimum income and taxes people more evenly, based on their income.  After consulting the Federal Poverty guidelines, I believe that that we should set a minimum income of $10,000 per year for each adult and $7,500 a year for each child.  Each person who makes below this level would get a check from the government for the difference.  Each person who makes over that amount would pay 10% of the excess in taxes.  No long forms, no adjustments, no deductions, no loopholes are allowed.
   
     How would this look with three families of four, two adults and two children?

Family "A" has $20,000 a year in income.  Their minimum income is $35,000
( 2 adults X $10,000 = $20,000 plus 2 children X $ 7,500 = $15,000 = $35,000 total)
Since their income is only $20,000, they would receive a check for $15,000 after they file their tax return.

Family "B" has $35,000 a year in income.  Since they are at their minimum, they would not receive a check, but would not pay any taxes either.

Family "C" has $50,000 a year in income.  Since they make $15,000 annually over the minimum, they would pay $1500 in taxes.
($50,000 income-$35,000 minimum = $15,000,  $15,000 X 10% = $1500)

Another example:

An elderly couple who lives off of their savings (no income).  They would receive $20,000 per year to supplement that savings.  (2 adults X $10,000 = $20,000 total.  $20,000 - $0 income = $20,000)

   This simple tax system makes sure that every American would have a minimum standard of living and also that taxes are collected purely to raise revenue, not increase government power.  This simple method of taxation eliminates divisive programs such as TANF (welfare), SNAP (food stamps) and public housing.  It would also replace Social Security and corporate welfare in the form of "tax credits."  It would shrink the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to a level where they would no longer need to be cabinet level agencies.  It gets rid of the need for a minimum wage law.  The greatest benefit of this simple tax system is that it takes away the government's power to use economic coercion to make us eat more corn, buy solar panels, buy a bigger house than we can afford, build fast food restaurants in China or whatever other actions we can take to benefit politicians' friends and supporters at our expense.

Conscious Conservative Book Review--American Theocracy

     In the book American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, Kevin Phillips puts forward the proposition that the United States is headed for a perfect storm that may end the country as it currently exists.  He believes that the current peril is created by energy (especially oil) interests, undue influence of end times theologians and runaway personal and public debt.  He compares the United States to other empires (including the British, Dutch and Hapsburg empires) which he states failed for similar reasons.   
     American Theocracy gives a detailed description of the history of oil production.  It does a decent job of showing how energy supremacy relates to world supremacy by comparing Dutch wind technology to British coal technology to American oil technology.  The book also discusses how oil interests affect both military and economic policy in the United States and Britain.
     As the title American Theocracy suggests, a major part of the book concerns a turn towards dogmatic religious beliefs at the end of many empires.  Although the book provides plenty of data, it does not make a strong enough argument to show a causative effect.  It may be that people reach for their religion of choice when they sense a decline in lifestyle.  It may also be that when a country can no longer show superiority by economic or military might, politicians still try to assert that their government is superior because, "God said so."  One important point the book makes is how the peculiar breed of "end times theology" popular in the United States and Britain affects both  environmental policy and foreign policy decisions about the middle east.
     Mr. Phillips appears especially concerned about the Bush dynasty.  I like his references to "Bush the Elder" and "Bush the Younger."  I have the advantage of reading this book several years after it was published and of seeing how some of the books predictions have played out and how the world looks since Bush the Younger has left office.  America's credit problems actually turned out worse than predicted by Phillips.  As I write this, the credit crunch that American Theocracy warns about has happened and we are in the middle (hopefully) of a "lost decade" of economic stagnation.  However, there is still ever increasing public debt and the "lost decade" threatens to continue to 15 years or longer.  Bush the Younger has been replaced by Barack Obama.  President Obama has continued the economic and military policies of Bush despite Candidate Obama's campaign pledges.  Mr. Phillips may be correct that there are interests more powerful than the Presidency at work.
    American Theocracy is not light reading.  It is full of complex arguments and loaded with statistics to back those arguments.  It compares current conditions in the United States to those at the end of other empires.  I believe it is required reading for those who wish to go beyond the simple "Democrats vs. Republicans," or "Big Oil Bad," sound bite arguments and truly want to learn some of the subtle yet powerful forces and belief systems that guide policy decisions in the United States.  

Conservative Question -- Why Does the Department of Education Have a S.W.A.T. Team?

     

     KXTV, Sacramento, CA reported last week that the home of Kenneth Wright in Stockton was raided by a S.W.A.T. team from the United States Department of Education Office of the Inspector General (OIG).  KXTV Reporters followed all of the standard TV journalism procedures, such as interviewing Mr. Wright, and getting an official statement from U.S. Department of Education spokesman, Justin Hamilton.  In my mind, they missed one important question.  Why does the U.S. Department of Education have a S.W.A.T. team?  In fairness, I don't think the Department of Education calls their armed unit a "S.W.A.T." team but why have an armed unit at all?  

     The "mission statement' of the U.S. Department of Education is almost a full page long but the first statement is "Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual..."  In this line or any other in the mission statement is there any sentence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the Department needs a traveling armed unit to bust down the doors of United States citizens.
     How far have we come in the last hundred years?  When the FBI was established about 100 years ago, it was questioned as to whether the Federal Government was overstepping its authority.  In 1908, people worried that the Justice Department would have too much power if it had armed officers.  Now, trained journalists don't seem concerned that the Department of Education has and armed unit.  What other government agencies have this capability?  Does the Department of Agriculture have S.W.A.T. capabilities?  If I switch my ham radio to the wrong frequency, will FCC, S.W.A.T. attack my house?  Does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have S.W.A.T. Meteorologists?  It feels bizarre that I even have to ask these questions.  The main question still remains:

WHY DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAVE A S.W.A.T. TEAM?

Debt Limit -- A Conscious Conservative View

     

     In reality, the limit on United States debt obligations will have to be raised.  Conservatives like myself would love to see the Visa card of the United States cut up and thrown in the trash.  However, Congress and the President of the United States agreed to spend this money when they voted on the budget.  The full faith and credit of the United States must be maintained in all dealings.  John Boehner and his colleagues in the House of Representatives can refuse to raise the Debt Limit temporarily and use this time to educate the American public, but only if they do it wisely.  If standing firm on the Debt Limit has the image of a cheap political trick,  the American public will be less informed.  Republicans will end up looking like a political version of the Usual Suspects.   
     As I write this, the Debt Limit has not been raised and Boehner is saying it won't be raised without, "budget cuts."  Unfortunately, he is not being specific, so the Liberals among us say that "budget cuts" are a euphemism for taking away Medicare and other social programs.  On the face, the "budget cuts" seem to be those outlined in the Ryan budget proposal.  Republicans have done a poor job of educating the public on this proposal.  If you only read the popular press, it sounds like a "Medicare Voucher" proposal and nothing more.
     Boehner and his colleagues could remedy this situation if he drops the Republican politics and call for sweeping and equal budget cuts.  The United States is spending more than we can afford on Medicare, Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, but we also spending more than we can afford on Defense, Homeland Security and Farm Subsidies.  Boehner can seize this moment by shouting,
"No More Politics, Fair and Balanced Cuts Across the Board!!" and dare President Obama to justify another plan.  He can also pander to special interests, corporations and the military and end up being a Usual Suspect.

A Conscious Conservative Memorial Day

     Let's take a moment on this Memorial Day to celebrate the true meaning of the holiday.  Let's take a moment away from the cable TV marathons, the shopping mall sales and the BBQ parties and remember a fallen loved one or ancestor.  If you can, honor the tradition of placing flowers on the grave of one who gave their all for our country.  So many have given much so that we can live as we do today.  God Bless All of Them and God Bless The United States of America.

A Conservative Movie Review: Atlas Shrugged: Part I

     I once anticipated the release of The Informant!, a movie based on a book by Kurt Eichenwald (Serpent on the Rock, Conspiracy of Fools).  The book is a riveting story about how Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) colludes with other large agri-businesses to control the prices of corn, animal feed and basically everything we buy in grocery stores.  A funny thing happened during the making of the movie.  Somebody at the studio decided that the movie did not have enough action scenes.  They re-edited the movie, added light- hearted music, and turned a smart, complex drama into a comedy.  Luckily there was no big studio involved in the making of Atlas Shrugged:  Part I.

     My companion at the movie remarked about how the movie was "dark," both in tone and setting.  I don't know how intentional this was, but it matched how I envision Rand's work when I read it.  I think that the makers of this movie did a very good job of conveying Rand's tone.  That being said, although I find Rand thought provoking, I also find Rand wordy at times.  The movie also captured this feature well.  I am personally annoyed by the trend of stretching movies and creating unnecessary sequels to get more ticket money (Kill Bill, The Matrix, etc.).  Although I don't think more ticket money is Mr. Aglialoro’s motive, I feel that one good, long movie could have been more satisfying than a trilogy.  Gone With the Wind comes to mind.
     In Atlas Shrugged: Part I, Dagny Taggart runs the largest railroad company in America.  Her best and most competent workers start to disappear. She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden. Together, using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado.  Viewers are left wondering why all the best minds are disappearing and of course, Who Is John Galt?   
     I definitely enjoyed this movie and feel it was not the waste of time that most movies appear to be.  The people who made this movie definitely did more justice to Ayn Rand than the makers of The Informant! did to Kurt Eichenwald.  Atlas Shrugged is not an action movie, except for very fast trains.  It is not a comedy, either.  It is one of the most thought provoking movies of recent years.  I enjoyed the movie and my companion who is not a fan of Rand stated that they wished they didn't have to wait for Atlas Shrugged: Part II.  Be forewarned that the dialogue in this movie is reminiscent of the banter in 1940's films and that some of the characters will seem long winded by modern standards.  Conscious Conservatives, fans of Ayn Rand, libertarians and people who enjoy older movies like 12 Angry Men, Death of a Salesman or Double Indemnity should like Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Tax Day Reminder -- Income Taxes Are Evil

END TAXATION!!!

     At 7:00 am on a Tuesday morning, a woman and her ten year old daughter sit at a table enjoying breakfast.  A typical fall day in Midwestern America.  The mother thinks about work and the daughter eagerly awaits seeing her friends at school.

     Doors bust open as a dozen or more armed men wearing body armor fill the house.  "Where's the money!" a gunman shouts, "We want the money!"  The mother and daughter were terrorized.  The mother couldn't handle the trauma.  Three days later she was dead.  She became convinced that she attracted the gunmen, although there is no evidence of that.  She killed herself to keep her children out of harm's way.

     One would hope that local law enforcement would jump on this type of home invasion robbery.  One could hope that senior detectives would labor day and night to bring these perpetrators to justice.  They are not.  Why?  The gunmen that traumatized a family, eventually leading to the mother's death, worked for the Internal Revenue Service.  As of this time, the gunmen have received no known punishment.

     The father, who was away on business at the time of the invasion, filed a wrongful death suit.  The IRS gave it's usual response.  First, it denied all liability.  Then the IRS filed charges of tax fraud against the husband.  The husband now had to fight on two fronts.  One to preserve the memory of his wife and one to keep himself out of prison.

     As Tax Day approaches, we should remember that there was no income tax in the United States of America for the majority of its existence.  The government survived on luxury taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) and import and export tariffs.  The Founding Fathers did not put a general income tax into the Constitution because they were aware of the abuses to which an income tax would lead.  Politicians, whether well-meaning, corrupt or greedy cannot avoid the temptation of taking money from unpopular people to give to popular people.  If the unpopular people complain, they are greeted by gunmen at breakfast.  Why is it wrong for me and my friends to break into a neighbors house to steal their money, but perfectly acceptable for government agents to do it for me? 

     In the case described above, there were no allegations of failure to pay taxes until AFTER a woman was dead, a family was traumatized and a father had fought to get answers.  These incidents are inherent to any system of  Direct Taxation.  All Direct Taxes, including the Income Tax, should be abolished.

TAXES ARE EVIL!!

     

      

Conservatives Should Remember The Good Old Days

1960 Chevy Impala-One Sweet Ride

    One piece of false propaganda that seems to permeate the current federal budget talks is that programs cannot be cut because they have existed forever.  This view is spread by liberals and

conservatives alike.  Agency web sites give false histories that make them seem much older than they truly are.  The Department of Health and Human Services, established in 1980, tells its history as beginning in 1798 with "Passage of an act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen."  This false statement of antiquity is used to make the department seem more vital and indispensable.  In fact, many programs and cabinet level departments did not exist 50 years ago.  Although 50 years may seem like long ago, given that the United States is over 200 years old, it's really not that long ago and definitely not forever.

In 1960, the federal budget was about $92 Billion.  In 2010, the federal government spent about $3.46 Trillion.  Let's look at that.

1960          $92,000,000,000

2010     $3,460,000,000,000

That is a lot more money!!  More than $3.3 trillion more!!  


     The proposed 2012 budget for the Department of Transportation, established 1966, is larger than the ENTIRE federal budget in 1960.   Some programs that didn't exist in 1960 include Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Head Start, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Food Stamps and the DEA.  Some of the cabinet level departments that didn't exist are the Departments of Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development.  Just cutting these historically new departments will save about $1.2 Trillion from the 2012 budget.   

     Was the United States really that bad of place in 1960?  I don't think so.  We should remember the "Good Old Days" and dig into all of these new programs.  There are questions that should be asked.  Did a permanent problem exist? Does this program solve that problem?  Does this program not cause any other problems that are worse than the problem the program solves? Is this program constitutional?  If the answers to all these questions are not a resounding yes, we should abolish the program.
     Remember that almost every program that the politicians say is "sacred" is relatively new when looking at the history of the United States.  Many have not been in existence for 50 years and a lot of programs didn't even exist when you were young.  Life wasn't all that bad then and most government programs don't make things better now.  Remember the "good old days" and educate the Liberals who say,"It's been this way forever."    

A Conscious Conservative Book Review : 13 Bankers

13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown

BY SIMON JOHNSON and JAMES KWAK

In the book 13 bankers, Johnson and Kwak explain the relationship between Washington D.C. and Wall Street.  They also analyze the mortgage crisis and tie it to the United States' recent economic troubles.  In the end they state that nothing has fundamentally changed and may have gotten worse since TARP and other bailouts.  They then give their recommendations for what should happen to avert economic crises in the future.  

The title of this book is taken from a meeting held at the White House on March 27,  2009.  In attendance were the heads of thirteen major U.S. banks. A main theme of this book is how bureaucrats, executives of major banks and members of the Federal Reserve float in and out of positions at each others' organizations creating an impression of incestuous relationships and a good ol' boy network that determines much of the regulatory and financial structure of banks in the United States.  This book does a good job of showing how people move from the positions of executive to government official to cabinet member and back to executive again.

This book also does a good job of analyzing the mortgage mess.  A review of comments on Amazon.com shows that some said Johnson and Kwak's explanation was too complicated and some said it was too simple.  That makes me think it was just right.  I never quite understood credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations from reading the popular.press.  This book seemed to make it clear.  The only objection is that they overemphasized the effects of deregulation on the markets and did not talk enough about government programs designed to give loans to people who couldn't afford houses contributed to bank insolvency.

The authors state that for all of the chest beating done in Washington, D.C., several years has gone by and nothing has fundamentally changed.  President Obama is still meeting with bankers in the White House and certain banks are considered "too big to fail," no matter how much they mess up.  Johnson and Kwak emphasize more regulation and nationalization.  I disagree with this.  I believe what is needed is elimination of barriers to entry in the banking system, accountability for individual executives within the large banks and abolition of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve.

I recommend reading this book due to the good job which Johnson and Kwak do of explaining the mortgage mess and the relationship between Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.      

Congressional Conservative Tea Party Poopers

Will "tea party" supported Legislators make a Conscious Conservative difference?  I have examined Senators Ron Johnson,  Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, Jerry Moran, Patrick Toomey and Tom Coburn in earlier posts.  What I have seen is not encouraging.  There is not the number, seniority or commitment necessary to continue anything but legislative business as usual.  There appear to be only eight Senators that are regularly identified as "Tea Party" Senators.  Only four of those have Conscious Conservative leanings and one of those has already began to distance himself from the movement.  29 House members joined the House Tea Party Caucus.  It is unsure how many of these can truly be considered a Conscious Conservative.

Of the eight "Tea Party" Senators, Rand Paul (KY), Jim DeMint (SC), and Mike Lee (UT) appear to be Conscious Conservatives, strongly in favor of smaller government and individual rights.  Ron Johnson (WI) appears to be A Conscious Conservative, but has started distancing himself from the others by not joining the Senate Tea Party Caucus.  Jerry Moran (KS)  joined the Caucus, but appears to lean Unconscious Conservative or even Socialist/Liberal compared to the other members.  Marco Rubio (FL), Patrick Toomey (PA) and Tom Coburn (OK) all seem to be Unconscious Conservatives with Rubio leaning slightly Conscious Conservative and Toomey/Coburn leaning slightly Socialist/Liberal.

Similar results are expected from the 29 members of the House Tea Party Caucus.  One of the members, Mike Pence (IN), brags on his web site about helping to write the Patriot Act.  Michele Bachman (MN), a Tea Party Caucus Leader, states that the Patriot Act should be extended.  The Patriot Act is one of the most egregious laws ever written from the viewpoint of small government and Conscious Conservatism.
One or more of several factors must exist for making a real Conscious Conservative change in the legislative process.  Eight of 100 Senators and 29 of 435 Congress members are not enough to push an agenda.  This might be overcome if some Members were committed Senior Members and Committee Chairs.  That isn't happening.  A final chance for a Conscious Conservative change would be if  all Tea Party supported Legislators were staunchly Conscious Conservative.  That isn't happening, either.  Many are either Unconscious Conservative or Socialist/Liberal "RINO's" that jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon for votes and will ride it until they get kicked off or find more luxurious transportation. 

I began writing this series of articles before the current legislative session started.  Now that it has started, I find what I had worried about all along.  Republicans and Democrats are playing the old "he said," "she said" game while spending away the childrens' futures.  Unconscious Conservative Republicans are crowing about some grain of sand on the beach earmark they've been able to cut and pretending that they are protecting America.  Although the Tea Party movement sounds good in theory, in practice there are too many Party Poopers.

Conservative or Liberal? Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma

 

I have been examining if the "Tea Party" supported candidates will make a Conscious Conservative difference once they enter office.  So far, I have examined Senators Ron Johnson,  Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, Jerry Moran and PatToomey. 

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma chose not to attend the Senate Tea Party Caucus meeting and appears like he may be distancing himself from the Tea Party movement.  However, he did appear to have some Tea Party support during the 2010 election.  Let's see how he looks from a Conscious Conservative perspective.

Senator Coburn has served both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, which gives him a record to examine.  According to http://www.govtrack.us/, Senator Coburn is a "far-right Republican" and appears to be much more conservative than other Senators.  I looked at his record to see if there is a basis for this ranking.  A check of many of his votes on http://www.ontheissues.org/ reveals that he voted along standard Republican lines.  He appears to lean Conscious Conservative on many economic issues, voting for lower federal deficits and against bailouts.  However, he did vote for TARP when it was a Republican bill, which makes his credentials suspect.  He appears to lean Liberal/Socialist on social issues, voting to let the government interfere with what happens in businesses, schools, medical offices and homes across the country.

   It appears that Senator Coburn will do little to lean the Senate in a Conscious Conservative direction.  There may be some hope if he is influenced by others with a more Conscious Conservative bent but since he is senior to many of these individuals, there is little hope.

Conservative Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas?

 I have been examining if the "Tea Party" supported candidates will make a Conscious Conservative difference once they enter office.  So far, I have examined Senators Ron Johnson,  Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint and PatToomey. 

Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas chose to attend the Senate Tea Party Caucus meeting held recently.  Let's see how he looks from a Conscious Conservative perspective.

Like Senator Toomey, Senator Moran has served in the House of Representatives, which gives him a record to examine.  According to http://www.govtrack.us/, Senator Moran is a "rank-and-file Republican" who actually appears to be centrist compared to other Senators.  In this world of Spin Doctors and right is left, I looked at his record to see if there is a basis for this ranking.  A check of many of his votes on http://www.ontheissues.org/ reveals that he voted along standard Republican lines.  He showed the peculiar republican form of schizophrenia by voting to retrict the rights of common people, but voting yes to support corporations.  He appears to lean Liberal/Socialist on social issues, voting to let the government interfere with what happens in businesses, schools, medical offices and homes across the country.

   It appears that Senator Moran will do little to lean the Senate in a Conscious Conservative direction.  There may be some hope if he is influenced by others with a more Conscious Conservative bent.

Is Senator Patrick Toomey a Closet Liberal?

I have been examining if the new "Tea Party" supported candidates will make a Conscious Conservative difference once they enter office.  So far, I have examined Senators Ron Johnson,  Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint. 

But what about Patrick Toomey, the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Unlike many of the other Senators I have examined, Senator Toomey has served in the House of Representatives, which gives him a record to examine.  According to http://www.govtrack.us/, Senator Toomey is a "centrist Republican" who actually appears to lean slightly to the left compared to other Senators.  In this world of Spin Doctors and right is left, I looked at his record to see if there is a basis for this ranking.  A check of many of his votes on http://www.ontheissues.org/ reveals that he voted along standard Republican lines, leaning Conscious Conservative on economic issues like voting to support Free Trade and leaning Liberal/Socialist on social issues such as voting to ban same-sex marriage and supporting endless overseas wars.

   It appears that Pat Toomey will do little to lean the Senate in a Conscious Conservative direction on his own.  There may be some hope if he is influenced by others with a more Conscious Conservative bent.

How Conscious Conservative Is Senator Jim DeMint?

        





           After deviating from my review of  "Tea Party" legislators because of the holidays and because of the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, I believe it is now time to return to this issue by looking at Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina.  Senator DeMint is the only incumbent member of this group, so he will be expected to be a mentor to the Junior Senators.  It is more important that he champions Conscious Conservative issues than anyone else.  Let' see where he stands.


                                   Stance

Build a Border Fence                                                        Unconscious Conservative

Repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley Act                                         Conscience Conservative

Re-Structure Corporate Taxes                                           Unconscious Conservative

Eliminate Federal Education Mandates                               Conscious Conservative

Voted for Marriage Protection Act                                      Liberal/Socialist

Free Market Health Care Solutions                                    Conscious Conservative

   It is easier to see where Senator DeMint actually stands, because as an incumbent member of the Senate, he has actually introduced legislation or voted on some of these issues.  Senator DeMint appears to have some Conscious Conservative leanings, while being slightly unconscious when it comes to issues like immigration and national defense.  He follows the Republican party line of being liberal/socialist on social issues by advocating government control over personal lives.  It will be interesting to see what ideas are championed at the Senate Tea Party Caucus. 

Violence Is Not A Conscious Conservative Tactic

       I felt compelled to write about this earlier, but I must admit that I am still in shock regarding the recent events in Tucson, Arizona.  It saddens me that a violent individual would attack a crowd of innocent people.  It makes me angry that members of the press instantly blamed conservative principles and personalities for the attack.  There is only one person responsible for the attack.  That is the individual who committed the crime.

Violence is never a tool of social change in the conservative toolbox.  In the typical fashion of trying to convince people that up is down and black is white, certain writers attempted to ascribe violence to the conservative movement.  From Marx's "workers revolution," to the Bolsheviks and the Holocaust, violence has always been the province of socialism.  A look at United States history shows that all major wars were entered by "Progressive" Presidents, with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy being the most notable examples.


Rather than joining the fray and arguing with the liberal forces, I suggest that we show the true nature of Conscious Conservatism by showing compassion and sympathy for the victims of this unfortunate event.  If the perpetrator of this tragedy is indeed mentally ill,  he and his family deserve the utmost in compassion also.  The Conscious Conservative tools of social change include empathy, civil conduct and logical argument; never violence.  I wish the best for all of the victims and family members affected by the events on that horrible day.