Cottonmouth Conservative Blog : Home

Just read an article written by a former co-worker of my wife’s, and fellow libertarian Tim Brownlee.  You can read it here: The Prime Directive.  He makes a very good point about the responsibility of the government in the affairs of Israel, as well as the church’s responsibility.

While I think the use of the “prime directive” term from Star Trek might make some people dismiss the overall premise of his argument, it actually sums it up quite well.  To go even further, I would say “do to others what you would want them to do to you” (a paraphrase of the Golden Rule).  Our country would really be a lot better off if our elected officials bore that well in mind when deliberating on the next big increase in government or opting to go to war against an object or ideal (e.g. War on Drugs, Global War on Terrorism, etc.).

We need elected officials at all levels of government who practice a brand of patriotism and responsibility that seems to be lost on this generation of bureaucrats:  Do what’s right, regardless of the personal political cost, to improve the lives of those you’re responsible for by ensuring that they have a fair shot to succeed or fail on their own merits.  In other words give people the chance to succeed as well as the chance to fail and let them make their own choices and mistakes so long as they don’t infringe on another person’s inalienable (i.e. existing with or without a government) rights.

On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly — the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd’s agenda was wide-ranging, so it’s hard to be more specific. “End the Fed,” a sign read. A schoolboy’s placard denounced “Obama’s Nazi Youth Militia.” Another poster declared, “We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism.” If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic. Either way, you may not be inclined to believe what we say about numbers, according to a recent poll that found record-low levels of public trust of the mainstream media.

At any rate, what we can say with confidence is that Deanna Frankowski was there. A cheery woman of 49 from Leeds, Ala., Frankowski said she had come to Washington as part of a group of 100 or more protesters. They filled two buses. And they were motivated by a concern about runaway government spending — that, plus an outraged feeling that their views as citizens are not being heard. “We are sick and tired of being ignored,” she said. “There is too much money being spent.”

Frankowski has been hit hard by the economic turmoil of the past year. Short of funds to make the trip, she painted an American flag on a pane of glass and asked people at her church to chip in toward her expenses, with one of them taking home the flag. She would like to share a house with her soon-to-be husband, but first she must figure out how to get free of the house she has — the one with the underwater mortgage. Some left-leaning writers argue that people in her boat must be deluded to oppose Barack Obama, but Frankowski is skeptical that her interests are being served by trillions in new government interventions. So she said, “I’ve paid my mortgage every month. And I’m getting no help. I’m just saying, Let capitalism work.” Then she added, “We just want people to listen to us and care.”

One person listens, Frankowski believes, and that’s why back home in Alabama she arranged to have 10 large signs made on white foam board, nine of them marked with a big letter and the tenth with we and a heart. Raised aloft, the signs spelled out “We ♥ G-l-e-n-n B-e-c-k.”

Glenn Beck: the pudgy, buzz-cut, weeping phenomenon of radio, TV and books. Our hot summer of political combat is turning toward an autumn of showdowns over some of the biggest public-policy initiatives in decades. The creamy notions of postpartisan cooperation — poured abundantly over Obama’s presidential campaign a year ago — have curdled into suspicion and feelings of helplessness. Trust is a toxic asset, sitting valueless on the national books. Good faith is trading at pennies on the dollar. The old American mind-set that Richard Hofstadter famously called “the paranoid style” — the sense that Masons or the railroads or the Pope or the guys in black helicopters are in league to destroy the country — is aflame again, fanned from both right and left. Between the liberal fantasies about Brownshirts at town halls and the conservative concoctions of brainwashed children goose-stepping to school, you’d think the Palm in Washington had been replaced with a Munich beer hall.

The rest of the article can be found at Time.com here: Time’s Glenn Beck Article.

CNET article here:Alarming Senate bill to give president emergency powers over private sector networks

This article flat out scares me.  I understand that the Internet was created by the government but to basically hijack private networks or disconnect private networks from the Internet altogether in a so-called “cybersecurity emergency” is a scary proposition.  If it weren’t for the fact that I read this article on CNET, the fact that it’s flying so low under the radar as of yet would make me think it was a hoax drummed up by conspiracy theorists.  However it’s not science fiction, it’s political fact. (pun intended)

The ongoing public debate over universal healthcare is one which started many years ago and will likely continue for many years to come.  The key part of the debate now seems to be not whether government should do it or not, but rather how they’ll pay for it.  What freedom-loving Americans should understand and make their congressmen understand is that universal healthcare is too expensive to the American public no matter what the cost.

Proponents of universal healthcare use the figure of “46 to 50 million uninsured Americans” as their key sticking point.  They fail to mention how many of those people are uninsured by choice, or because of transitioning to new jobs and plan to renew coverage when their employer allows, or those who truly can’t afford health insurance (the group that is at the heart of the issue).  In order to really debate the need for a government solution over private options we need to have an idea of how big that last group is.

The numbers break down like this (data comes from the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau report¹, unless otherwise noted):

• 46 million (15.3% of US population of 300 million) total uninsured people in America.
• 9.7 million (21.0% of total uninsured people) are foreign nationals, some of which are here illegally but since the Census doesn’t ask if someone is here illegally that figure is unknown.
• Therefore, 36.3 million (78.9% of total uninsured; 12.1% of US pop.) are Americans.
• 17.04 million (46.9% of total uninsured Americans; 5.6% of US pop.) are those making at least $50,000 a year.  These people make above the US median household income, meaning they should be able to afford insurance but choose not to have any.²
• 8.3 to 13.9 million (22.8 – 38.2% of total uninsured Americans; 2.7 – 4.6% of US pop.), according to the liberal non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation are ineligible for “current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year”³.  A significant portion of this group are the chronically uninsured that are really the center of the issue.

¹CNSNews.com- Physician Disputes Obama’s Claim of 46 Million Uninsured Americans (Retrieved July 27, 2009 from http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49986)
²Business and Media Institute- Health Care Lie: ‘47 Million Uninsured Americans’ (Retrieved July 29, 2009 from http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx)
³Ibid. Note: Kaiser Family Foundation reference in the article.
Note: Mathematical errors in the figures above are due to rounding error.

Therefore at worst only 4.6% of the total US population, or 13.9 million people, are the true center of the insurance “crisis”.  More likely, the numbers sit somewhere in the middle at about 3.65%, or 11.1 million people.  That’s a far cry from the 15.3% (46 million) that Congress and the Administration quote daily.  In case you missed that, let me repeat: The multi-trillion dollar healthcare reform plan being debated at best will help 3.65% of the 300 million men, women and children Americans.  Less than four percent!

Because of this, another point that needs to be understood is that health care and health insurance are two entirely different things.  The president has equated 46 million uninsured as meaning 46 million people who aren’t getting any medical care whatsoever.  That is simply not true.  Clearly the 17 million people who willingly choose not to pay for health insurance do so because it’s cheaper to just write a check for their medical bills for their doctor’s visits and emergency room visits, than to pay the insurance premiums.  These people are getting health care, without having health insurance.

Ultimately, the cost is just too great to the American public in terms of actual money getting wasted and freedoms being taken.  If you use Slate.com’s⁴ very pro-reform figures, the plan will cost $24 billion a year.  This comes to $21,621 a year per person of the 11.1 million chronically uninsured.  In 2008, the average annual premium for an individual was $4,700.  For a family of four it was $12,700.  The government plan would cost almost seven times as much per person (not counting the percentage of the $4,700 the company reaps in net profit) than the current private sector solution.  That’s a lot of wasted money.
⁴Slate.com- Health Reform Can Pay for Itself (Retrieved July 29, 2009 from http://www.slate.com/id/2223213/)

Plus with all the care rationing the government wants to institute and will have to in order to meet plain-old supply and demand.  There are too many stories to reference here dealing with this issue but please take some time to read about what care rationing looks like in the universal healthcare systems in Canada and Great Britain.

In the end, the numbers just don’t add up to making universal healthcare reform an intelligent government program.  From the dollars and cents costs to the personal freedom costs the government’s solution will create, universal healthcare reform is too expensive at any cost.

Please contact me, if you wish to quote any of this or other articles for any research that you may be doing.  I’m more than willing to give permission, I’d just like to know who’s benefiting from my hard work.

Wanted to give just a brief update on where I’m at on the exploratory committee. I’m in need of all manner of staffers, from a campaign manager all the way down to people who can pass out fliers and write articles about libertarianism in local newspapers in an effort to increase the visibility of the state party as well as my campaign.

EDIT: I’ve found someone to be a campaign manager, in the event that our exploratory committee moves forward on deciding to start a campaign.

I’ve emailed the national party about this and hope to receive a response back within the next couple of days. I’ve already had several people call or email me offering their services in whatever way possible, outside of the state party officers and members who attended the state convention who’ve already pledged their support.

Here are some of the areas I’ll need volunteers for:
Campaign administration
Campaign Manager - The person, aside from me, who will be putting in the most work to make this campaign a success. I would really like to get someone who’s been a campaign manager before or part of campaign administration for a successful campaign (if not a manager for one).

Press, Media, and Public Relations
Communications Manager - The person who will be responsible for any and all official campaign materials that will be handed out to potential voters, coordinates New Media efforts (social networking sites, blogs, Twitter, etc.), coordinates official press releases and press meetings/interviews, advertisements, yard signs, bumper stickers, etc.
Collegiate Coordinator - Works with the state party volunteer coordinators (VC’s) to outreach to college campuses to establish, promote, revitalize, and educate student libertarian groups about the state party and my campaign.
County Campaign Contacts - Each county in the 4th district will have a contact person complete with phone number and email address that citizens of those counties can get ahold of if they have any questions about the campaign, i.e. where I stand on the issues, how they can help, etc.

Campaign finances
Fundraising Manager - The person who will be responsible for making sure our campaign obeys all state and federal election laws regarding fundraising and donations, coordinates fundraising events including but not limited to: dinners, meet & greets, online donations, etc.
Campaign Treasurer - Might be the same person as the fundraising manager; responsible for maintaining the accounts and receipts for the campaign and in conjunction with the Campaign Manager, myself, and maybe others, will authorize campaign expenditures. Needs to be someone who’s very good with math; accounting and/or finance background a major plus.

Miscellaneous
Grassroots Coordinator - Works with volunteers who wish to pass out campaign materials, work on phone banks, etc. but who would not be interested in a more full-time volunteer position with the campaign for whatever reason.
Party Liaison - Responsible for maintaining regular communication with state and national party officials about the campaign, and will liaise between campaign officers and said party officials on any campaign assistance.
Issues Researcher - Will look for and research information about key campaign issues in order to provide more evidence for why libertarianism is the best political ideology, and to research Gene Taylor’s congressional record and the records/experience of any of my fellow challengers.
Campaign Mom - Responsible for baking cookies, etc. to keep us all in tip-top campaigning shape.

I’m sure I’ve forgotten necessary and/or useful positions, so feel free to suggest any that you can think of.
If you’re interested in offering your services in any of these positions or elsewhere, give me a call at 601-466-3179. Or email me at southernmissdude@yahoo.com. I may not get back to you immediately but I will get back to you within a day.

I posted this article on the MS Libertarian Party’s Meetup group on meetup.com just a few moments ago.  I felt it was important to put it here too.

I read about this article on Twitter earlier today and was very encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision in this case.
Fox News: Supreme Court Gives Decision on Voting Rights

I’m even more encouraged that the court was aware of the possible need for further review of the VRA in the future regarding the constitutionality of the rest of the VRA. For once the court did something right lately, it seems. I’m concerned though about what the addition of Obama’s eventual nominee (if not Sotomayor) to the court will do to this decision and potential others.

Let’s make the most out of promoting the rightness of this decision and use it as a springboard in our discussions with non-libertarians about why the philosophy of libertarianism is the better choice.

It’s not the best outcome we would want, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Earlier today I attended the South Mississippi Campaign For Liberty’s (SMSC4L) monthly meeting, where Republican hopeful Joe Tegerdine spoke in a round table discussion with members and guests about his position and stances.  I went because I was interested in joining the group, but also because I wanted to hear what my potential campaign opponent had to say about his political leanings.

All in all I felt that Joe was a good candidate, but there were a few areas toward the end of the meeting where I felt he began to lose any support I would’ve given him were it not for the fact that I’m already planning to run in the 2010 race as the Libertarian candidate.  The area in particular: blue laws (i.e. moral-based laws and statutes).  The oft-quoted wedge issue of homosexual marriage was what turned the conversation in a direction that clearly showed Mr. Tegerdine as a weak candidate.

He believed that we should institute a law, constitutional amendment or similar decision for our government to affirm marriage as being between one man and one woman.  The Federal Marriage Amendment that gets talked about a lot lately would be an example of the legislation he seems to be in favor of.

As a former conservative Republican voter turned libertarian, then Libertarian (and yes there is a difference between the small “L” and the big “L” but not very much at all), I can understand his position.  But as a Libertarian, I’m of the belief that the issue is really a red herring because the issue we should really be addressing is getting government at all levels out of the business of declaring (by way of marriage licenses) whether someone is legally married or not.  If we deal with that and return that decision to the churches, synagogues, other places of worship, and/or to private civil contracts between two people (in case of not wanting a religious marriage or wanting a marriage that a given church may not authorize, i.e. homosexual marriages), taking the decision totally out of the hands of the government then we deal with the real illness (increased gov’t control in the private lives of citizens) instead of slapping a band-aid on a “boo-boo” then we’ll fix the problem.

The reason why Christian conservatives and similarly-minded conservatives tend to fall in line with everything libertarianism is about until the marriage issue gets brought to the fore, is simply: a lack of faith that God is bigger than any man-made plans and screwups and that no matter what we do God’s overall plan and will is still going to come about.  In the Garden of Eden, God told Adam and Eve that they could eat of any tree in the garden except for the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  The key thing is that He gave them a choice, regardless of the fact that He knew they were going to end up eating from the Tree anyway.

So if God is big enough to give humanity a choice to follow Him or to live apart from Him in sin, then where do we come off limiting people to make certain moral choices for themselves?
Answer: We can’t limit that ability to make that free choice, because who are we to say that our moral belief set is any more valid than someone else’s when it comes to creating the law.

It’s not a comfortable position to come to terms with at first, and I admit I struggled a lot over this issue because I wanted to be able to fully call myself a libertarian, but it is possible to come to terms with it and actually have a stronger faith come about as a result.

So my challenge to you, my fellow Christian conservatives, is this: Take a long hard look at yourself and decide if you were poor would you want someone imposing a law on you without your consent that kept you from rising out of your poverty, and that poverty was something worthy of being sent to jail for.  If you answer “no”, you’re probably already a libertarian and just didn’t realize it.  If you answer “yes”, know that I’ll be praying for you.  By the way, if you think my example of poverty being a jail-worthy offense is ludicrous, then you need to read this article: http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2009/04/false-democratic-saviors-woodrow-wilson.html (specifically, the quote from Record at the end of paragraph 19).

Here’s also a modern-day example to show this is something that still happens: http://www.inteldaily.com/news/173/ARTICLE/10449/2009-04-20.html.