Test

Test to see if the archives are updated.

Roundup of Interesting Posts

Below is a roundup of some interesting posts from today...

- Polipundit discusses more Democrat shenanigans.

- Dave Friedman points out a potential modern day Robin Hood.

- I joined the Navy Reserve about a year after 9/11. I had always wanted to be a part of the military and I felt compelled to get off my butt after the terrorist attacks. It is a very rewarding feeling to put on the uniform (even if it's only one weekend a month and two weeks of annual training per year) and so I support this idea very much! Hat tip to The Moderate Voice

Open Letter to the United States Senate

Captain's Quarters has posted an open letter to the United States Senate to express outrage over the direction that the FEC has been forced to take in regulating political speech on the Internet. I have copied the entire letter below for your convenience.

To the honorable Senators McCain and Feingold, et al:

I have read with considerable dismay the effect that your recent lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, upheld by Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketelly, will have on political speech on the Internet. I write a political media-watchdog blog, Captain's Quarters, which enjoys a not-insubstantial daily readership. No one pays me to do this; I operate my site and write on topics purely from personal convictions and a deep desire to improve the world around me and make the nation stronger. I can unequivocally say the same about my many colleagues in the "blogosphere", both liberal and conservative.

Now we understand from Bradley Smith, one of the FEC commissioners, that your lawsuit forcing them to regulate speech on the Internet will have the effect of turning our efforts into in-kind contributions, especially when we provide hyperlinks back to candidate sites for referencing their positions and excerpt text from their on-line documents. Hyperlinks allow our readers to check our references to ensure our accuracy and context, and perform the hygienic task of holding our politicians accountable for their campaign practices. All of this not only should fall under the protection of the First Amendment, but it should be the primary reason for the First Amendment -- to protect and encourage free political speech and foster genuine debate.

Your legislation and the accompanying lawsuit that forced the FEC to regulate Internet political speech threaten all of that. If my links to political sites such as Georgewbush.com and Johnkerry.com counted as contributions and I was forced to accept responsibility for the cash value that the FEC designated to them, I would have been charged with several misdemeanors and possibly felonies, as I provided many such links during the past election cycle. During this cycle, my blog published over 680 essays on the presidential election. In fact, I linked to Senator Kerry's site four times as often as President Bush's site, which would have meant to the FEC that I was a major contributor to his campaign -- when in fact I opposed Senator Kerry and supported President Bush. These regulations would have forced me to retain the services of a full-time accountant and retain an attorney to understand when and where I overcontributed. At the very least, the burden of proof would be on me to make the FEC believe that my blog does not constitute in-kind contributions subject to the limits imposed on both hard and soft money contributions.

The effect of this would have been to force me to shut down my blog, or convert it to something else. In fact, it would have caused me less legal heartache to convert my site to a porn blog and do nothing but post hard-core pictures all day long. In the twisted environment of the McCain-Feingold Act, that kind of website would enjoy greater First Amendment protection than my political speech, a result for which every single Senator should feel shame and outrage.

Each of you should read the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend, and reflect on the unequivocal language of our forefathers:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We may debate about the effect of unregulated cash on our electoral system, but if this new FEC effort comes to pass, the only people debating will be the corporate-owned media and the politicians. The rest of us will have been effectively bound and gagged, unable to contribute in any way thanks to the efforts of those who fear their own constituents. You can be assured that none of us in the blogosphere will fail to recognize those who do not act to defend our rights to free and unfettered political speech, and regardless of political party, none of us will rest until those voices of repression are stripped of office by the voters they hold in such low regard.

I, for one, will not be daunted by your attempts to stifle us. My many friends and colleagues on both sides of the political aisle stand as ready as I to defend the Constitution. We demand a hearing on McCain-Feingold, with open testimony before the press and our colleagues, and we demand action to reform or repeal this dangerous and un-American muzzle on political speech.

We await your response, sirs.

Edward Morrissey

Captain's Quarters

As noted in the update at Captain's Quarters, most Senators will only accept letters from constituents within their own state. I am going to modify the letter above and send it to Senator Dole and Senator Burr. I encourage everyone interested in protecting free speech in this country to do the same with Senators in your own home state.

FEC to Regulate Blogging?

Evidently, big brother is trying to regulate blogging. Check out this post over at Red State.

Update: Here's an interesting response. This may get nasty!

House Backs Common Sense (barely)

Yesterday, the US House passed a job training bill (224-200) that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.

Opponents argued that allowing organizations to use such considerations in employment decisions amounted to government sponsored discrimination.

Our laws should and do provide a conceptual framework to determine whether or not discrimination has taken place based on age, race, religion or sex. But at some point, you must take this conceptual framework and put it to work in reality. When you place the framework into practice, it cannot ubiquitously cover all cases. The conceptual framework must be coupled with the context of what each individual organization is trying to achieve

Obviously, ninety nine percent of the time, the conceptual laws regarding discrimination are going to hold no matter the reality of the situation. But in the case where our conceptual discrimination laws are in conflict with the very foundation of what a certain organization is trying to achieve, we have to judge each case on an individual basis.

Would it be logical for a professional baseball team to be forced by law to hire someone based on something other then their skill at the game of baseball?

Or how about a doctor? Should anyone be considered for a job as a trauma surgeon, regardless of whether or not they attended medical school?

Of course not. Because we understand that baseball teams require baseball players and emergency rooms require licensed MDs. Even though this causes discrimination against people without baseball or medical skills, society accepts it because it's common sense.

But what happens to common sense, in the US House of Representatives, when the legitimate needs of an organization, conflict with society's conceptual discrimination laws? What happens when a faith based organization wants to hire individuals with that particular organization's faith? Evidently, 200 Representatives forget about common sense and instead get lost in an ideologic battle for "freedom for freedom's sake." The concept becomes more important than reality.

My Political Philosophy

Last night, I had a long conversation with a good friend about what it means to be a conservative. His opinions are very different than mine, and our debate prompted me to think hard about my own ideology. So, I decided to write this post, in an attempt to define what I believe.

I hope this post will accomplish two goals: one, to give you an idea of who I am and what values guide the decisions I make and the policies I support; and two, to force me to think logically about my positions and thereby ensure that I am being honest with myself, and that I'm not simply caught up in conservative rhetoric. Besides, I've been blogging for two weeks now, without having given you any information about me. So, for what it's worth...

My conservative ideology is made up of two parts. The first is a belief in "classical liberalism." Classical liberalism can be defined as the values that the founding fathers held in the highest esteem; the pillars of liberty if you will. These pillars of liberty are as follows:

• Political freedom
• Economic freedom
• Freedom of expression
• Freedom of religion

The second part of my conservative ideology is a belief in an external moral order that holds the following virtues:

• Patriotism
• Nationalism
• Discipline or strong work ethic
• Personal responsibility and responsibility to family

What this means in a comparative sense is that I believe in equality of rights versus equality of outcomes, personal responsibility versus social responsibility and moral standards versus personal autonomy.

One of my friend's biggest critiques of the conservative worldview is that you can't legislate morality. My response is that any law can be defined as a limit on freedom and any decision that a society makes to limit someone's freedom is ultimately based on an underlying moral conviction. So, all laws attempt to legislate morality!

However, I do believe that, too often, far right wing conservatives rely on government first and foremost to determine and regulate what is right or wrong. Empowering government to legislate every aspect of our society constrains the pillars of classical liberalism that I described above. Also, as this mentality progresses, people become more and more dependent on government and the result is a weakening of personal responsibility.

So, in summary, I would describe myself as an economic libertarian and a social conservative with the caveat that any legislation should avoid, to the best degree possible, mitigating personal responsibility. Clear as mud, huh? Hope this sheds a little light on who I am.

Republicans = Nazis (According to Byrd)

The Blogosphere is all over the story of Senator Robert Byrd comparing Republicans to Nazis. Check out Captain's Quarters post here. Where is the mainstream media on this?

Insurgent Attacks Backfiring?

Very rarely does the MSM report the good news coming out of Iraq. Poliblog has a great post on happenings in Hillah, the day after a suicide bomber kills 125 police and national guard recruits.


Protests in Hillah - Khalid Mohammed / AP

Memorable Quote

"The sad truth about a society that becomes increasingly politicized by the day is that the principal victim is integrity. Thoughtfulness and honesty count for less and less and appearance count for more and more."

Star Parker - Founder of CURE, Columnist and Author

Roadblock on the Roadmap

Barry Rubin identifies the fundamental roadblock in the Palestinian/Israeli peace process in his most recent article in the Jerusalem Post (you must register but it's free).

...the PA pretends that it governs a state, or at least provides the foundation for an independent country; but it combines this with a failure to actually rule. To avoid imposing his power, or even offending, any Palestinian faction, Abu Mazen has preferred a strategy of appeasement.

Abbas must begin to take action against terrorists amongst his people. Only when Israel is able to see tangible evidence, that the new Palestinian Authority can actually govern, will any progress be made. When Abbas finally does make a move, the reaction of his people will be the true test of whether or not peace is viable.

Democrats Suggest Politicization of the SSA

Earlier today, eight Democratic Representatives from the US House, including Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, released a report entitled The Politicization of the Social Security Administration.

The purpose of the report, as stated in a press release by the Government Reform Minority Office, is to show how the Social Security Administration has altered its publications, press releases, website content, etc. to foster the impression that Social Security is "unsustainable" and "must change." Read the press release here.

Let me sum this up in a slightly different way. Our tax dollars were spent by a partisan committee of Democrats to produce a report that says that the Social Security Administration has altered its publications, not because their is an actual problem, but because it has been corrupted by right leaning partisanship. Nevermind the most recent Trustees Report released by this very agency which says major problems lie ahead!

This whole episode is absolutely absurd. Imagine....tax money being spent on left wing propaganda which claims that right wing propaganda has infiltrated the Social Security Administration; all the while, the real problem of our system going to hell, sits in the background as if it were no big deal.

Here is the first sentence of the Executive Summary from the report:

"This report investigates whether the Social Security Administration has altered its communications to the public to build support for President Bush's Social Security proposals."

No it doesn't! It simply investigates whether or not the Social Security Administration's message has changed over the past several years. And guess what? As the system has moved closer to insolvency, it has!

Once again, the Democrats are focused on demonizing the Republicans as opposed to actually suggesting a solution to the problem. Frankly, this whole thing makes me sick.

Eminent Domain Part 2

Jeff Jacoby has written an excellent article discussing the stakes of the Kelo v. New London case, which I blogged about last week. Below is a quote from from the article, discussing a 1795 Supreme Court case:

"The despotic power . . . of taking private property when state necessity requires, exists in every government," Justice William Paterson wrote in a 1795 case, Vanhorn's Lessee v. Dorrance, but the state must not invoke that power "except in urgent cases." He could not imagine any situation that would justify "the seizing of landed property belonging to one citizen, and giving it to another citizen. . . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature . . . can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?"

The question is, how has our society moved so drastically from one side of the issue to the other? This country was founded on private property rights. To some degree, they are the very pillar of liberty and freedom and yet we seem to be tossing out these rights in favor of a government auction that places property in the hands of the highest taxpayer.

Lebanese Government Resigns!

Lebanon's pro-Syrian government has just resigned! CNN has the story here and Publius Pundit is tracking all the action here.

Check out Caveman in Beirut for a local perspective.