Found this great YouTube video on The Next Right.  If a 12-year-old girl isn't afraid to stand up and speak her mind, why should any of us be afraid?  Not only did she speak her mind, she won the speech contest she was entered in.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOR1wUqvJS4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOR1wUqvJS4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Just in case the embed didn't work, click here to see the video on YouTube. 

Has anyone else taken a look at the health care implications of the Spendulus, Porkulus bill?

Check out this story on Bloomberg.  If even half of this is right, we're already on the road to Big Brother controlling our health and deciding if we're "worthy" or treatment.

How Republicans (even RINOs), much less ANYONE can support this kind of government invasion in our lives is beyond me.  Next thing you know, we'll have limitations on the foods we are or are not allowed to eat.

Even though the Senate passed the bill 61-37 today, we can AND MUST contact our Senators and Congressmen and tell them not to support whatever unholy compromise comes out of the House/Senate Conference.  I think we can even count on the AARP to bring  pressure to bear as these health care portions of the bill will affect the elderly more than most.

In a news conference today, Nancy Pelosi was asked about the effect of not having a stimulus package.  Her response was incredible...

"For every month that we do not have an Economic Recovery package, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs."

What?  When did our workforce, much less our population, get that big?  Since we only have (roughly) 300 million people in the whole country, and only about 140 million in the workforce, it seems a little impossible to believe.

I can only assume that she meant to say 500 thousand people would lose their jobs.  Even if that's what she meant, how  many months have had 500,000 layoffs?  I know times are bad, but I think she's stretching it just a little.

Maybe Speaker Pelosi needs to take some refresher courses in math, economics and history before she opens her big pie hole again...

...and it's Michael Steele!

In the past few days, I thought his candidacy might be flagging a little.  Shows how much I know...

Now it's time for us to get behind Steele in working to make this party back into the conservative force that it once was and can be again.  We must each take the time to familiarize ourselves with Mr. Steele's agenda and find what we can do - personally - to help accomplish the goals he has outlined.

American first, conservative second, Republican third.

Of all the arrogant things I've seen...

I just saw a video organized by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher.  (see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0)  It has all kinds of Hollywood types telling what they pledge to do now that President Obama has been sworn in.  Things like, "I pledge to smile more," "I pledge to laugh more," "I pledge to love more," "I pledge to never give anyone the finger when driving again." You get the idea.  If that was as far as it went, I woudn't really have a problem.

It's when they start saying things like, "I pledge to help free 1 million people from slavery in the next 5 years" that I start to wonder where these pledges were for the past 8 years.  Was someone in the room with a gun to their heads telling them they weren't allowed to help out at all...on any problem...anywhere?  Did they only wake up this week to see that these problems even existed?  It's amazing to me that these self-righteous do-gooders think we won't notice that they've refused to do anything to help over the past decade - in fact, they've actually hurt things instead of helping.

That being said, there was something much more subtle and bothersome that I heard a couple of times in the video.  Anthony Kiedis (of Red Hot Chili Peppers) said this, "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama." (while kissing his tatooed biceps).  Demi and Ashton said it this way, "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind."

What I want to know is...since when did the American people (or any of us as individuals) serve the President?  Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?  Isn't he supposed to be serving us?  Didn't we (as a nation, not individually) elect him to do just that?  Now these self-serving, wanna-be-important people have the nerve to say they're going to serve, when they spent the past 8 years bad-mouthing our President and our country?

That just makes my blood boil...

Thanks to a Facebook post by my friend Doug Blackman, I recently viewed Ronald Reagan's inaugural address from 1981.  You can find it on C-SPAN (and a lot of other sites, most likely).

The themes he talked about in the address could easily have been given this past Tuesday...fighting terrorism, dealing with economic crisis, and personal responsibility.  Sound familiar?  Maybe the Messiah Obama should have taken his cue from his Veep and lifted a few paragraphs.

Seriuosly, though, my favorite part of Reagan's address came near the end.  He told the story of a fallen WWII soldier named Martin Treptow.  After Treptow died, his diary was found in his pocket.  Written on the fly leaf was his personal pledge - one which each of us should try to live up to.  I post it here as read by Reagan:

"America must win this war.  Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure.  I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone."

Not long, but so profound.  Substitute the word "crisis" for the word "war" in the first sentence and this could be a conservative call to arms in our coming conflicts with President Obama as he tries to take us down the path to socialism.  Each of us must work, save, sacrifice, endure, and fight for what is right.  Note that Treptow emphasized fighting cheerfully.  We should avoid shrill tones, but fight we must.  Make no mistake - the whole struggle does depend on each of us, both when we act alone and when we act in concert with each other.

Once again, the Great Communicator's words prove timely and timeless.  We could do worse than focusing on his messages of hope and renewal as we try to revitalize the conservative movement.

What a spectacle...overly expensive and over-hyped, but it's still amazing how we can transition power peacefully when very few other countries in the world do.

That being said, I have some reflections on the happenings of the day.

Rick Warren gave an excellent invocation.  I thought he was balanced in his approach.  I was also pleased that he used the name of Christ (several names actually...Yeshua, Issa, Jesus) in the face of liberal pressure not to.  Contrast that with Rev.Lowery's benediction that ended on a VERY racist note.  I thought this was supposed to be a celebration of post-partisanship where we left racial (and other) divides behind.  Guess nobody told Rev. Lowery.  Apparently I - and all other Caucasian folks - haven't yet embraced anything that's right.  Not only that, but no one of any other race has had any success.

You'd think that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and another Harvard educated lawyer would at least have memorized the 44 word oath of office.  If nothing else, you'd think they would have practiced a little.  Maybe it was just nerves, but they both managed to mangle it almost beyond recognition.

On the whole, I was impressed with President Obama's address.  I think there were several olive branches to conservatives.  I hope that he follows through on them...that they weren't just platitudes.  Some examples, in no particular order:

• He praised risk-takers, doers, and those who make things.  Seems to me that this is honoring those who work hard, not those who idle their lives away on welfare.  Sounds an awful lot like people who run small businesses, actually.
  
• He said that the market has the power to generate wealth and expand freedom.  This seems to be exactly the opposite of his socialist leanings evidenced during the primaries and general election.  Has he converted to the joys and wonders of capitalism?  We shall see.  I'd like to believe it could happen, but until I see proof, I'll withhold judgment.
  
• He said we shouldn't be talking about whether government is too big or too small, but rather whether or not it works.  Nice concept, but size of government DOES matter...smaller = good.  I did like how he said programs would be ended if they proved not to be working.  That shows me a willingness to shrink the size of government.  The problem is, he'll probably never judge a program to not be working.
• "We will not apologize for our way of life, we will defend it."  Sounds about right to me.  We should be unapologetic about the way we do things in America - the greatest, most powerful and prosperous nation the world has ever known.
  
• "You cannot outlast us - we will defeat you."  If only he really believed it.  He said later in the speech that he would be trying to "leave Iraq to its citizens."  Doesn't sound like trying to defeat the enemy or outlasting them to me.
• "Some talk about a false choice between our safety and our ideals."  Truer words were never spoken.  This is a false choice.  We can have both...and George W. Bush showed it in spades.
  
• "We need to end bitter partisanship."  See my comments about Rev. Lowery above.  If President Obama really believes this, maybe he should let the message trickle down a little...like maybe to the ones who were booing President Bush or chanting, "Nah, Nah, Hey, Hey Goodbye".  These are the same people who are demanding respect for President Obama?
• "...a new era of responsibility."  Never thought I'd hear those words from his mouth, unless he was talking about government's responsibility to take care of people's needs from cradle to grave.  Again, I hope he follows through on it.
  

Now for a couple of bad moments in the speech:

• "We need to remake America."  NO WE DON'T!!!  America is just fine as it has been built.  We just need to get more citizens actively involved.  Our form of government is just fine as it is outlined in the Constitution.  If anything needs to be remade, it is focusing back on what the Constitution actually says, not what liberals and activist judges have interpreted to be there.
  
• "We need to roll back the spectre of a warming planet."  Where has he been over the past few months?  Record cold snaps all over the country, if not the world.  Scientists have begun to say that we may be on the brink of another Ice Age.  Maybe we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere instead of less...

As I said, overall I think the speech might just be a foundation for bipartisan effort.  There were definitely som things conservatives can grab onto...IF Obama follows through on them and wasn't just blowing smoke.  We know he's eloquent - he can definitely talk the talk.  We'll see in the next four years whether or not he can walk the post-partisan, can't-we-all-just-get-along walk.

Wow...the Respect-o-Meter for one Tom Hanks just sank into oblivion.

Earlier this week, Mr. Hanks said, "...the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen.  There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process."

While he's really good at pretending to be other people, Hanks' grasp on the truth is somewhat lacking.  I have found four problems with his short statement.

First, no Mormons gave money to the church to make Proposition 8 happen.  In reality, the church urged its members to financially support the ballot measure, which many did by donating to pro-8 groups directly.  The church had no hand in the transfer of cash from any member's wallet to the pro-8 coffers.

Second, as pointed out by Bill McKeever, a rep for the Mormonism Research Ministry, "Hanks said he doesn’t 'like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.' Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees."  Isn't it also discriminatory to call someone - or in this case, a large group of someones - un-American?  Hanks may not agree with Mormons and their moral stance on this issue, but they have a right - just like any American - to voice their opinion with their money and their votes.  You can't get much more American than that.

Third, since when did any of today's Hollywood ultra-libs go in for naming names?  That's what Hanks is suggesting when he says "a little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible."  Wonder how Elia Kazan would feel about that little chestnut...wasn't he one of the ones responsible for naming Hollywood Communists to the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 50's?  And wasn't he one of those blacklisted for doing so?  Since names of Prop. 8 supporters have been listed online, there have been numerous cases of discrimination (there's that word again) against them and their places of work...some have even lost their jobs.

Finally, Hanks says we have a "self-correcting Constitution."  Funny, last time I read it, Article V says that some combination of Congress, state legislatures, and state ratifying conventions had to act in order for the Constitution to be changed or, as Hanks puts it, corrected.  It doesn't do so on its own.  In the case of the California State Constitution, the people can be involved in the process through direct vote, as happened with Prop. 8.  The people spoke...just because Hanks doesn't like the result doesn't mean the Constitution now needs "correction."

I for one am looking forward to Mr. Hanks' next movie coming out so I can urge all fair-minded Americans to stay away in droves.

Wow, I didn't realize how long it's been since I posted...chalk it up to the holidays and holiday hangover, I guess.

Lots of ideas running through my head, so here goes...

1. Looks like the RNC chair vote will come down to Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell.  I think either will be a credible choice, but neither will be a home run.  Problem is, I don;t think there's a home run hitter in the race.  Time will tell...

2. Read an incredible article this morning from Chuck Norris about the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  First, the bill will be an unmitigated disaster if it passes - abortion on demand at any time.  Second, the more I read his stuff, the better I like Chuck and his thinking.  I know the kids have a lot of jokes going on about how invincible Chuck Norris is, but we shouldn't let that box him in.  Unlike most of his Hollyweird peers, Chuck has something to say that's worth listening to.  I suggest giving him a read, whether it be here on Townhall, or his expanded artciles on World Net Daily.

3. Israel and Gaza...'bout time the Isrealis stood up for themselves a little.  It's been a while sine the last time they kicked some Arab/Palestinian/Syrian/Jordanian/Egyptian butt...and nobody deserves a beat down more than Hamas.  It's ironic how they cry about Israel using their own tactics against them..."How can they just lob rockets into our territory and not worry about the poor civilians - you know, the ones we try to hide behind."  And that's the difference...Israel never tries to hide behind their civilians, but rather try to protect them.

4. If you want a good, entertaining read, check out just about anything by Vince Flynn.  We could use a few men like Mitch Rapp about now...

5. Why is it that Chrysler was the only one of the Big Three to acknowledge the huge welfare check they got in their presentation at the Detroit Auto Show?  Funny how they seem to be the one of the three that's also doing the worst at coming back.  First, don't thank us 'cuz we conservatives didn't want to give you the cash to begin with.  Second, don't thank us, just focus on your business and get it back to profitability so you can pay us back sooner rather than later.

6. Speaking of the auto show, has anyone seen anything inspiring?  I didn't...

That should do it for now...but I'll try to make it less time until the next one.  Have a great one!

Wow, what a tough choice...there are some really good people with really good ideas in line to be the next RNC chair.  How does one go about choosing in such a talented field?

First off, I have to completely remove Mike Duncan from any consideration.  Why should we re-elect the guy who presided over the debacle on November 4?  I haven't seen anything worthwhile come out to even try to convince me that he deserves another term at the head of the GOP.

In my mind, that leaves only three serious candidates (in no particular order) - Michael Steele, Saul Anuzis and Ken Blackwell.  For me this is where the choice gets tough. All three seem to have some really good positives, but there are some negative with each as well.

Let's start with Michael Steele - former Lt. Gov. of Maryland and the current chair of GOPAC.  The good: Obviously, he has name recognition.  He's well-spoken and telegenic.  He succeeded in getting elected to statewide office in one of the bluest states there is.  He's not afraid to venture into hostile territory - witness his appearances on Bill Maher's show.  He seems to have some really good ideas.  He's a successful fundraiser.  He was endorsed by Bill Bennett.  The not-so-good: One of my main problems with him is that he's putting out his plan piecemeal.  His website (www.steeleforchairman.com) now includes only 2 chapters of his "Blueprint for Tomorrow."  I need a fuller picture of what he thinks before I can actively endorse him.  Also, there are some who aren't quite sure that he's as conservative as he would like us to think.  He was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans.  Finally, as a believer in the technology plan put forth on RebuildtheParty.com, it concerns me that he hasn't endorsed that plan.

Next up is Saul Anuzis - head of the Michigan GOP.  The good:  He's endorsed the RebuildtheParty.com plan.  He has a very detailed plan for the RNC posted on his website (www.anuzisforchair.com).  From what little I've seen of him, he seems able to get his message across clearly and succinctly.  The not-so-good: Who is he?  Seriously.  He's a pretty unknown quantity.  I do have to say that as I get to know more about him, this is less of an issue, but how effective will he be on the (new to him) national stage?

Finally, Ken Blackwell - former Ohio Secretary of State.  The good:  He has national name recognition - he's a known factor.  He's also well-spoken and telegenic.  He's endorsed the RebuildtheParty.com plan.  He's a good fundraiser.  He's on the boards of the NRA and the Club for Growth.  He has the foresight to have connected with a running mate (for RNC co-chair) Tina Benkiser, Texas GOP Chair.  The not-so-good: Doesn't even have a partial plan out there.  Is website (www.blackwell2009.com) only says to check back in early January - if he doesnt have a plan, why is he in the race?  He managed the Steve Forces presidential campaign - is that the model of "success" we want?

Which man will get my unofficial, doesn't-count-in-any-way-sahoe-or-form vote?  I just don't know yet...maybe some of you can give me some good comments to help me make my choice...

Either way, we've got to get someone that can hit the ground running and get things ready for the coming battles as well as the overall war!

Have a great day!

I stumbled across a website today that intrigued me - rebuildtheparty.com.

It's got a sort of blueprint for using technology as a basis for rebuilding the GOP and making it strong AND conservative again.  I think they have some pretty good ideas.  I suggest you check it out.

They've also started a related social networking site in an attempt to start a grassroots movement across the country by getting ideas out there and sharing them with other, similarly-minded conservatives.

The site is relatively new...there are only about 6500 members so far.

Check it out!

Found a great essay online this morning at the carolinianonline website written by Jamie Freeze.  Imagin something like this coming out of a university these days.  I've pasted the essay in its entirety below.  Great reading...ENJOY!

Pop Quiz: Tell me where the phrase "separation of church and state" is found. How many of you guessed the Constitution? Many people are surprised to learn that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found anywhere in the Constitution. They are surprised because the phrase is often bandied about these days. Want to say a prayer at a football game? No way…there is a separation of church and state. Want to wear a religious T-shirt to school? Sorry, there is a separation of church and state. Want to display the Ten Commandments in a court of law? You can't because of separation of church and state. If this phrase is nowhere to be found in the highest law of the land (the Constitution) then why is it cited when a town wants to display a nativity scene?

Many legal scholars would tell you that the First Amendment prohibits the mixing of church and state, but I beg to differ. The First Amendment, which guarantees all American citizens the freedoms of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly, has this to say about religious practice: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The government cannot mandate a religious practice, nor can they forbid religious practice. Unfortunately, in the last 60 years we have seen many judicial rulings that reveal a desire to uphold the establishment clause of the First Amendment at the expense of the free exercise clause. This is a smack in the face to the idea of the First Amendment and a violation of it as well.

For those of you who are still wondering where the phrase "separation of church and state" is found, it was found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danville Baptist Association in Virginia in 1802. This letter was used in a 1947 Supreme Court ruling (Everson v. Board of Education) to justify the invention of the court's "constitutional duty" to separate church and state. The Supreme Court actually had the guts to use a letter written by one of the foremost champions of liberty to restrict liberty. Where is the outrage that the Supreme Court would use a letter to decide constitutional law? Maybe it's just me, but I thought you should use the Constitution to decide constitutional law. But what do I know, right?

It took the Supreme Court almost 40 years to see the error of its ways. In 1984, they held in Lynch v. Donnelly that the phrase in Jefferson's letter was a "euphemism," not constitutional law. But, alas, the damage had already been done. References to the Judeo-Christian God and religion were systematically struck from our schools and our towns. Today, if a court wants to display the Ten Commandments (which contain really good advice for criminals) they will probably be faced with a lawsuit brought by the ACLU. Today, if a child brings a banned book (the Bible) to school, he will be suspended. Yes. It actually happens. Today, if a store clerk wants to say "Merry Christmas" they are told to say "Happy Holidays" in order not to offend someone. Today if a teacher dares to pray, he or she will be fired. God forbid someone freely exercises his or her religion… at least if it is the Christian faith.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for religious tolerance. After all, our country was founded to be a haven for the religious oppressed and persecuted. However, G.K. Chesterton said it best when he said, "These are the days when a Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." I would argue that it is a double standard to prohibit a child from reading a Bible in a classroom while a teacher leads the class in recitations of the Koran. I have no problem with children learning about other religions. However, I do have a problem with double standards. However, it seems that our country is obsessed with obliterating references to the Judeo-Christian faith while insisting that other religions be recognized. If you want to practice Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, atheism, etc. that is fine. I don't care. But why is it necessary to erase our country's history in order to do it? I don't know how displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse interferes with anyone's religion. I don't see how a child reading the Bible interferes with anyone's religion. Where is the tolerance?

I know many people believe that if government-run institutions like schools and courthouses have Judeo-Christian references then it automatically means that the government is establishing a religion. However, the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If Congress were to make Christianity the official religion of America, they'd be violating the Constitution. However, by infringing on the free exercise of people's religion, they are violating the Constitution. In an effort to preserve a constitutional right, we've destroyed one. In an effort to promote diversity and tolerance, we've done the exact opposite-we've stifled the expression of Christianity. You may feel that I am over-exaggerating the problem, but trust me-it's quite real and quite big. All I ask is that we return to the framer's intent of the Constitution's First Amendment-to extend liberty to all American citizens.

It's been a while since I've written, but that's because I haven't found anything worth writing about...until this morning.

Mark Sanford of South Carolina wrote an excellent article on Politico.com yesterday (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15980.html), explaining what we as conservatives need to do to get back on the electoral horse, so to speak.

He outlines 3 core principles:

1. Get back to saying what we mean and meaning what we say - how can we expect independents and moderates to support us an our principles if we don't govern according to how we campaign?  As conservatives, we need to act as conservative as we talk.
2. Be loyal to ideas, not individuals - Sanford uses Ted Stevens as a prime example of this concept.  In competitive campaign climates, we could also use the argument against some of the most liberal, out-of-touch people in DC.  I'm thinking Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy here, among others.
3. Look to the states for answers, not to DC - Sanford gives a lot of good examples of progress being made by Republican governors getting things done by enacting policy according to conservative principles.  If it's working at the state level, why can't it work at the national level.

If we really want to come out of the electoral wilderness with a reinvigorated message in 2010, I can't think of a better way to do it than by acting according to Sanford's three principles STARTING RIGHT NOW.  If we can prove over the next 2 years that we can act according to the conservative ideals held by the majority in our center-right country - if we can walk the walk instead of just talking the talk - then we'll have a much better chance of taking back some of the seats we lost this year because of the RINOs in our midst.  I'm not sure we can take back control of either house completely, but we can gain back the momentum and set the stage for great things in 2012.

I heard a sermon in church yesterday called "Good, Better, Best."  The main point was that sometimes we get so caught up in doing good things that we miss out on things that may have been better or best for us and our families.  It reminded me of the concept of opportunity cost that I learned about in high school economics class.  What have I given up or missed out on by making the choices I've made?

This is not to say that we should paralyze ourselves by over-analyzing every decision we make.  Rather, we need to decide on a set of principles to live by and let those principles guide or day-by-day decision making process.

Upon further reflection, I wondered why this couldn't be applied at the government level.  Can't our leaders - both the bureaucrats and the public faces - try to focus on what's better or best for the country, instead of just looking for what's good?

As we conservatives face at least 2 years in opposition, I think we need to try to apply the "Good, Better, Best" way of thinking to what we do and how we approach things.  We need to get back to a basic set of principles that will help us to decide what's best - or even just better - for America, instead of settling for just what's good.

Think about it...and have a great day!

Welcome to One Man's Trash...!

Obviously, the title of this blog refers to the fact that the things I think are important enough to write about may or may not appeal to anyone else.  I hope they'll be entertaining, informative, funny, and thought-provoking.  (Probably not, though...)

The posts will be random in a couple of ways.  First is frequency...could be daily, could be a month between.  Depends on when I get the urge to vent or if I feel I have something important to say on a given day.  Second is subject matter...topics could range from sports to politics to my kids to...well, just about anything.  Finally, is the length of the posts...some things I'll expound on in-depth, while others will just be a line or two.

All that having been said, please enjoy One Man's Trash..., it could turn into a treasure of knowledge!