Pay Close Attention Sarah

Conservative Digest highlighted this blog linked below.

-----link-----
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/100122
--------------

Renew American blogger/columnist; Tim Duncan was making the point that the Republican Party needed the Tea Party. Also that the Tea Party needed the Republican Party apparatus to help get Conservative candidates elected.

In the blog Mr. Duncan said the following about the Tea Party

-----quote-----
(it) is a re-energized mass movement of conservatives who are getting active again after having gone dormant for a while. The Tea Party movement is, in essence, the rebuilding of the Reagan coalition of conservatives — Republicans, Independents, "Reagan" Democrats, libertarians — people who want fiscal discipline from their government and less intrusion into their own lives. -------------------

Tim Duncan went on further to say this about John McCain.

-----quote-----
If the Republican Party follows the John McCain route — trying to pawn off more big-government establishment insiders onto us — then it deserves to lose, and lose big.
-----------------

All of this rumbling lately, from John McCain acting as if he is the leader of the Republicans makes me cringe. Well I guess I have company in my cringing that probably goes on with the other side when Kerry jumps up and puts in his two cents. Recently to compound the misery, at least on the face of it; Sarah Palin announced she will campaign for Senator McCain.

I hope she is doing it out of a sense of common sense duty to a man who took her out of obscurity and put her on the National Stage. I hope she does not however campaign in ideological lockstep with him.

From all I’ve read, it is still baffling to me that Sarah Palin made that move. She could be the face of, if not a leader in the Tea Party movement. She already without trying is a leader to many of that group.

Steve Flesher in the American Thinker has written as good a piece as I’ve read about the illogic of her decision in the following link.

-----link-----
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/john_mccain_palins_political_b.html
--------------

I truly hope Sarah will show us by her actions what she really thinks. I still have hopes for that lady.

As for McCain he is the poster child for the progressive Republicans and Democrats; they love to call him a maverick etc. Kind of reminds me of the movie “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner”. In the movie Sydney Poitier seems more like the parents than their daughter. He is now the epitome of “Token-ness”. Well McCain is the Liberal’s Token Republican; not because he is so different but because he is so much the same.

I still hope that a good conservative candidate comes out to challenge him in the Az primary. In my opinion, Hayworth is not a real conservative. His 6 years in the state house don’t spell conservative to me, or leadership for that matter. Maybe Sarah Palin sees this, I have no clue. She is on her own and I will let her actions speak for themselves, now and in the future.

When she quit the Governorship, MSM and a lot of progressive Republicans were calling her career over. She seems now to have made the right decision and for the right reasons. I’m biased and that is why I’m hoping that her campaigning for McCain will prove to be right also. We'll see who gets the last laugh.



To put Tim Duncan and Steve Fisher together, I think it is the Tea Party’s game to win or lose. Their credibility will be determined by the choices they make about the candidates in the 2010 elections. Those decisions will be many and have to be made fast, by many groups up and down the line. If they are made well the “shot heard around the world” in Boston really could be the revolution it is hyped to be.

I’ve gone to the meetings and rallies. The Tea Party-ers are serious down to earth everyday folk. How a national movement can be molded from a, by definition “grass roots” movement without losing the grass root excitement and vitality will be the challenge. In their defense, we did it in 1776 and it lasted awhile perhaps we can do it again.

The encouraging thing is that the Tea Party Movement is still growing and on the ascendency, and that the enthusiasm is still there. I hope Sarah is paying close attention.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

What Do I Want ???

Not this.

"Do I want voters to think that Republicans do nothing but go to beach resorts in January?

Hey, I didn’t say it, but I sure agree with Eric Cantor who did say it about Michael Steele’s decision to hold an RNC strategy confab in Hawaii.

-----link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31834.html
--------------

Wow.

Remember the pic of President Obama body surfing in the Hawaiian surf while a plane was almost blown up by a terrorist on its approach to Detroit? He looked pretty silly although he got a pass from the MSM. Just when the Republicans were making some hay, up steps Michael with a match.



Mr. Steele would do well to keep his shoes on at least.

Wonder how many extra photographers will be sent there, and you can guess why. Wonder how many would be sent to Allentown or Philly for example. After all not just spoiled pampered out of touch politicos like Hawaii, so do journalists. That’s appealing to the grass roots for ya.

I remember talking with a Republican National Committee Woman who was all excited about Mr. Steele’s ability to attract grass roots. She was working hard to get Steele elected head of the NRC. She was positively gushing. She had me pretty much convinced. OOOPS. One of me is born every minute.

Well I guess there are grass roots in Hawaii; maybe he found that one stealth Tea Party group that remains so well hidden in Hawaii. I wonder too if this will help or hurt the Governor there. She definitely knows her people to get elected as a Republican there, so maybe I’m just blowing smoke. In my defense, all the smoke Mr. Steele is blowing defending his decisions, makes it hard for me to tell.

I’m starting to get tired of hearing his reasons for doing stupid stuff; because then I get mad and have to waste time writing a blog like this. I mean his equivalent in the other party is pretty stupid too, but you don’t hear him constantly having to explain why he does what he does. Well outside of that little “Scream Tantrum” thing.

Wonder what I’ll hear him explain about which was really a smart thing he did next week. Like that sentence, he seems to make things convoluted and full of drama.

I’m still trying to figure out what office he’s running for; because he sure looks like a candidate instead of the head of the RNC. Well at least he’s backing some great candidates like Scozzafava or Crist, well I give up. My money is staying in local or state politics or directly to the candidate.

There is always next week to look forward to, if you like delayed pain.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

Leave Us Alone

According to Jim Meyers and an article he wrote for Newsmax. After it was decided by the inner circle of the Obama administration to go to war with Fox News and talk radio conservative icons; even some of the Democrats thought Obama had gone too far. These Dems in the media were saying that Obama had started acting “Nixonian”. Wow that ranks right up there on the liberal hate scale with being Bush like. Below is the quote from Meyer’s Newsmax article.

“That argument won out and ultimately what they did, they went after Fox, they went after some others in the press, and then they found out the press kind of joined in and said, 'Hey stop this. This is outrageous.' This is Nixonian actually was the argument that was made. And the White House has sort of backed off.”

-----link-----
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/kenauletta-obama-media-honeymoon/2010/01/19/id/346810?s=al&promo_code=95B1-1
--------------

That was telling me of a Bunker mentality, a disconnect; not only with the American People but with their base as well. The next thing I saw was an email from Washington News Alerts which seemed to back that up and show that there are indeed consequences for one’s actions, and that not even the President is above that law in a Democracy.

-----link-----
http://washingtonalert.org/?p=995
---------------

This alert backed up the conclusion I had reached around noon on election day.
From the New Jersey and Virginia larger than expected turnouts which resulted in Republican victories by larger than expected margins; I called Brown to win by 6 points. The other deciding factor was that Mass had an extremely high independent voter registration. 50% of the voters in fact were registered as Independents. I figured that a large turnout would be a turnout for change, and Brown was the candidate of change.

The point of writing this was to try to point out that I feel the voters were voting values, conservative values such as the values held by the new/old coalition from Citizens for Traditional Values and Americans for Prosperity, thru Right To Life, and the NRA and the Fair Tax people in short the Reagan coalition. That value is one of pride in the fact that individuals can govern their own life and in fact in our great American Experiment have the right to do just that. People crossed ideological lines to join in a group with different parameters. Those parameters were defined by values of Individual Responsibility and propelled through the idea of “We Have Had Enough, Leave Us Alone”.

The quote below from the link above gives a clue of that realignment.

“Meanwhile, in Ward 1, five registered Democrats stand on a street corner, two with Coakley signs, and three waving Brown signs. The men are catching up and sharing stories of past campaigns, when they all worked for the same candidates”

This was not “Nixonian” but rather refreshingly “Reaganesque”

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

PS Old song lyric mangled by me. Good buddies enjoying Freedom.
"You say you want a coalition. Well ell you know. we all want to change your head."

The Heart of a Conservative

The Heart of a Conservative

What do Victor Frankl and Newt Gingrich have in common? Seemingly not much but if you study their works you will find they do share a basic belief in the individual vs. the collective.

Frankl who was a survivor of a concentration camp in WWII started up a new school of psychology (Logotherapy) founded on what he learned from the camp experiences. It is based upon “Man’s Search for Meaning”; which is the title of his book. Here is a quote from that book.

-----quote-----
“I consider it a dangerous misconception of mental hygiene to assume that what man needs in the first place is equilibrium, or as it is called in biology, homeostasis. What man actually needs in not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task.”

In an article in Reason Grover Norquist quotes Newt Gingrich.

-----quote-----
There will be conflicts, and this is where Gingrich's observation is so critical. The majority governing party does not eliminate conflict, doesn’t resolve conflict. We agree to manage conflict.
-----------------

Victor Frankl would agree with Grover and Newt that managing conflict is the job of all.


Frankl’s logotherapy’s school is based on the notion that each individual has a meaning and the best a psychologist can do is to manage the individual’s path in finding that meaning and fulfilling it to the best of their ability. Further the struggle itself is the therapy in which an individual becomes whole.

Frankl, Grover and Newt again I think will agree on Frankl’s next quote.

-----quote-----
“Each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible. Thus, logotherapy sees in responsibleness the very essence of human existence.”
------------------

I highly recommend Frankl’s book “Man’s Search for Meaning” as it is a double edged sword. First it is a firsthand account of the concentration camp experience. Second it flushes out a very conservative message. That message is that man has a meaning to his life. Life is talking to him and it is the individual’s responsibility to listen and act upon what he hears. Individual man’s happiness is rooted in how well he handles his problems not the number of problems.

Thomas Sowell’s classic work, “Conflict of Visions” goes also to the heart of a conservative as it explains the two basic visions of man. One Vision (Conservative) is that man is not perfect and conflict and inequalities are and always will be with us; therefore it is up to the individual to decide which way they will go in life according to their own lights. The other Vision (Liberal) is that man was born perfect and only corrupted by their society or circumstances and that if we change society and make it perfect, man will again become perfect and happy.

Frankl seems to say along with Newt that the first Vision is the correct one. Namely that we get our meaning in life by how we manage our tensions or conflicts which determines our state of happiness.

We have had plenty of efforts at making a perfect society that tries to create a tensionless homeostatic individual throughout history. None has worked. Our unique American Experiment in putting a premium on Individual freedom has worked for a few hundred years. Combined with the complimentary tool of “Free Markets” Individual exceptionalism has been rewarded and all the people in the American ship have floated higher and sailed more secure upon the troubled waters than the rest of the world.

This ideal of individual freedom is being challenged at its core by the socialistic manifestations of the liberal administration. The attack on the Free Market system is an attack on the one way individuals have of making themselves and their families better.

Will we as individuals get further ahead by going on welfare and letting the government take care of our problems for us; or will we be further ahead by seeking our life’s meaning by defining our own problems and how we will react to the tensions and conflict that arise?

The heart of a conservative is warmed through the use of their freedoms. There is a certain sense of fulfillment in actually using freedom, a sense of well being. The real control over one’s own life is what that often quoted phrase “The Pursuit of Happiness” is all about.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

“Gross National Happiness” - Revisited

“Gross National Happiness” - Revisited



I have been reading for the second time “Gross National Happiness” by Arthur C. Brooks. I first read it before anybody heard of Obama and wealth redistribution was just a glimmer in Hillary’s eye. The first time I read it, I ended up skimming thru it. Arthur Brooks filled the book with scores of ideas all based on a myriad of surveys; and unless truly motivated (which I wasn’t) seemed like overkill.

This time however after the election and the advent of projected exponential expansion of government and deficits, the facts and ideas of Mr. Brooks started to make sense.

Keep in mind as you read this also that the loss of individual freedom we are facing will lower our constitutional right to pursue our happiness. As the title suggests, the book is all about that constitutional right; “the Pursuit of Happiness”. While everybody seems to know what makes them happy, Mr. Brooks seems to have gathered all the source material on happiness ever published and studied them. The conclusions he draws are all based upon looking at public policy through the lens of making people happy. He came up with the term “Gross National Happiness” as a way to measure our happiness. Much as we use Gross National Product to measure money.

The first part of the book deals with defining happiness and he does that by looking at the results of a lot of various surveys and tests performed over the years and then he goes further by trying to find what groups of people seem happier and why.
What I really found interesting along with the author were some of the conclusions which seemed counter intuitive.

One overriding phrase I picked up on in regards to Wealth Redistribution was; “association-causation fallacy”. What this meant was that something associated with something may not be the cause. Take the example he uses. Height of children is associated with intelligence in developing countries. The height however is not the cause of intelligence it is merely the result of better nutrition; it is the nutrition which causes both increased height and intelligence.

He applies that “association-causation Fallacy” idea to happiness not being increased by not working or the amount of money you get.

Brook’s book is replete with this kind of myth breaking research. All is footnoted and sources are listed in the back. Also he honestly seems to not twist the facts to his benefit. He continually gives both sides and when possible corrects the survey results for age, wealth, and all the other possible variables. He seems obsessed with the idea of comparing apples to apples. I might add it is refreshing to see that, as compared to the slanted stuff from both sides I see every day that is supposed to pass as unbiased facts.

The book also exposes the myth that work is unpleasant vs. no work. Study after study show how work is a necessary aspect of our lives, without which we cannot be happy. I truly enjoy how he takes that apart and tries to get at the “cause” again, and not the simple association fallacy.

What I’m carrying away from the second reading is the importance to happiness of personal freedom. This Freedom is seen not so much in what we do, but as to whether we chose to do it ourselves or are told to do it. Brooks states facts and figures to prove out the idea that when people stop what he calls, “creating value” they become less happy and start to become miserable. This leads to the idea that the Nanny state takes the creative control out of the people’s hands, while providing for their sustenance actually makes the people depressed. Dave Ramsey the radio financial guru who is “Hell on Credit Cards” has a saying. “The borrower is slave to the lender”. I think Arthur and Dave are on the same page as far as the idea that what you lose by accepting someone else’s help can be more costly than doing it yourself.

Mr. Brooks is decidedly not against government or people helping people. He just seems to show that less government and people willingly helping people and themselves is more conducive to happiness than bigger government helping people.

He explains things like “Income Mobility”. He states that the amount of “Income Mobility” is the prime indicator to measure the happiness of people or a society. The idea that a person can start out at the bottom and work to get to the top is an empowering and motivating force that gives people happiness.

I know I’m rambling but the book is that good and deserves a thoughtful read.
His other book, “Who Really Cares” is also well worth a read.

My best compliment would be to say that I look at Capitalism and Wealth Redistribution in a basically different way after reading Arthur C. Brooks’ book. “Gross National Happiness”. In fact the more I think about it, I will look at other things with a different perspective after reading his book.

It is my assumption that this books helps prove that we as conservatives have a basis in law to repeal the Nanny State regulations legislated upon us. All law must have their basis in the Constitution, and while Mr. Brooks doesn’t make that connection directly, he leads us toward that seemingly obvious conclusion. This book is also chuck full of useful anecdotes to help make our case against this “Nanny State” takeover of our Freedoms. This book will help me talk Conservateeze better to my friends and neighbors.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

May the Force be With Us.

May the Force be With Us.



Politico ran the following article.

-----link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31128.html
--------------

The real battle in 2010 for the primaries and the general election will be fought over whether the public wants Liberal or Conservative ideologies to prevail.
This battle will be culminated in the Republican Party and starting anew (think Blue Dogs) in the Democrat party.

Ironically the Democrat Party due to its sweeping victories in 2008 is stuck in the trap of not daring to be too critical of the Democrat leadership of Obama Reid and Pelosi. Those Dems unwilling to take a stand against the Liberal wing will pay the price in the upcoming elections. Some like Parker Griffith made the change legal. Others candidates are feeling the heat and deciding 2010 may not be the time to run. The recruitment of candidates for the Democrat ticket is falling apart.

The real civil war now being waged is for the control of the Republican Party. The attraction of the Conservatives is that they offer the public a clear vision of how they want to govern – a clear choice. That vision is the opposite that resides in the Liberal ruling wing of the Democrat government.

For a Republican in a state race not to make this an issue tells me that candidate is in the moderate wing of the Republican Party and stands for the status quo.
The state candidate that makes the point that he or she is against the Liberal wing of the Democrat party is offering the same clear choice to the voter not only in the primary but in the general as well. If a candidate is for transparency in the Obama administration should he not be for transparency in the state, county, village and school system?

If a state candidate is against the Obama administrations attempt to mandate state spending should he not feel the same in their state and be in favor of state rights?
Should not one action necessitate a similar action on the other level?
Should a candidate’s principle change with what level of government they are talking about?

As always, the people in the middle of the spectrum are the ones that will decide the general election. They did in the NJ and VA governor races earlier. The public have seen the end result and is well aware of how the Liberal vision tries to cure the problems of mankind. In Michigan for example a quick look at Detroit will showcase failed Liberal policies. They were elected to cure education, to fix the economy, get jobs and make life easier. They tried to do that through National Policies. The Federal approach hasn’t worked; way too many middlemen to be corrupted. The people knew it.

The middle wants a clear choice to help cure the problem. If the problem is the Federal Government telling States what to do, and forcing them to do unpopular and hurtful things, a state wide candidate better offer the voters a clear choice. The voters want a choice that can fix the problem, a choice they see that fixes the root of the problem. Not another gimmick and they are damned well sure they need not another government bureaucracy to fix it.

Both National parties have fallen under the spell of the Federal approach. The battle being waged within the Republican Party is between the conservatives who want to decentralize the Federal government, and the Moderate wing who likes things the way they are.

The Conservatives were stymied and broken because they tried to fix the party from within. They too fell under the Beltway spell and most of the leaders of the movement and the party act like the elites they claim to be against. They too forgot the people.

Then the Tea Party thing erupted. Finally there was a chance for real everyday Conservatives to voice their opinions. Well they did and they did it loudly. In my Michigan, Republican County group as we were struggling to get 20-30 people to attend a meeting, the Tea Party protest last April greeted hundreds. A county north of us has regularly by a large margin higher attendance at the monthly Tea Party meeting than the Republican meeting. In their County they have basically merged in all but name. A lot of the members of the County Republican Executive Committee are Tea Partiers.

The Republicans Nationally to their discredit have just now started to wake up to the idea that maybe the Tea Party people actually stand stronger behind basic Republican ideals than most Republicans in office do. The Tea Party to their credit hasn’t tried to form their own Party even though polls indicate they could beat both parties.

The middle is getting enthused and is making a statement. The question is who will listen. The middle too is making their heroes. They tried and nearly succeeded in NY 23. They helped elect Jason Chaffetz in Utah who unseated a popular incumbent in the primary. Chaffetz won not by money, he was outspent 6-1, but by volunteers – he had 1,000 of them. He offered a clear choice from the other incumbent Republican to the voters and they backed him. Now that is real grass roots action. That is attracting the angst out there and directing it to a constructive purpose.

When a State Candidate can show how his or her policies tend to fight the corrupting influence of Washington at the state level people will follow. If the Candidate can show how their policies will help the economy and the voters, they will pick up their banner.

When Rep. Pete Hoekstra used his power on the national stage to keep GITMO detainees out of Michigan and berated the President’s policy of closing GITMO in the first place. That not only resonated with state voters but made them proud to see their own standing up to the Federal government protecting them.

When Mike Cox, Michigan’s Attorney General signed on to a petition to sue the Fed because Obama’s health care would give Nebraska money at the expense of Michigan. He was fighting a National Issue and related it to the State and the people admired the effort. He stood up to a national pay to play scheme.

Both Pete Hoekstra and Mike Cox are in the Michigan Gubernatorial Republican Primary. Both are using their state positions to show that they are consistent in their philosophy of the place of government in our lives. I see nothing wrong with that.

The real battle is better exemplified in the California Race. A Florida Senate Seat is open in 2010. Republican player and Governor of Florida Charlie Crist was thought to have a lock on the race. He was even mentioned in 2008 as a possible Republican choice to run for the Presidency. But Marco Rubio with impressive State Republican credentials of his own is running in the primary against Crist. The Tea Party Political PAC has teeth and is endorsing Rubio. The main negative to the PAC, Crist was for health care reform and Cap and Trade.

Rubio is no political novice. He is young but a seasoned political fighter learning his trade in the Florida State House as Whip and Majority Leader. As the article said “the goal of the PAC is to promote liberty-minded candidates in their election bids and to expose and defeat corrupt politicians”

-----link-----
http://www.examiner.com/x-33619-Denver-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m1d1-Tea-Party-PAC-endorses-Rubio-for-US-Senate-in-Florida
--------------

The battle ground will be tested before all this happens. As in NY23 where a “nobody” candidate Doug Hoffman, with Tea Party Support forced Republican Party backed Scozzafava out of the race and came close to winning the general special election; there are two more special elections coming up in Jan 2010 that will test the ability of the Tea Party and Republican Party to work things out.

-----link-----
http://www.examiner.com/x-/x-33619-Denver-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d26-Two-special-elections-getting-Tea-Party-attention
---------------

Reading through the article I got the sense that at the state level the GOP is learning to adapt and that the Tea Partiers also are using some common sense in their deliberations. The individual Candidates and local politics are still the driving force in both parties. In an off year, it is rare to see the National Party move until after the election. Notice too how there is a battle for the “grass roots” support.

Those two national elections will, depending upon the outcome tremendously hurt or help the Tea Party cause. The special elections, then the primaries can shape the Republican Party for years to come.

2010 will be an interesting and exciting year. What will determine things is the question independents have to ask themselves; will I decide to get off the fence and do something?

Regarding the National Party and the independents, Newton’s first law of physics stating an object at rest remains at rest…. comes into play. Well the Republican Party is at rest that much seems certain. But take heart the physics is on our side in regards to moving that object; the force needed is relative to the size or mass of the object to be moved. The Republican Party has and is proving to be large but filled with hot air and hot air has little mass. The force of the Tea Party is getting bigger and more massive.

Then see the third principle of Newton’s law.

The Tea Party is the Equal and Opposite Reaction to the current wave of BIG Government.

Newton’s First Law of Motion:
An object at rest remains at rest and an object in
motion remains in motion in a straight line at
constant speed unless acted upon by an
unbalanced force.
Called Inertia Law.

Newton’s Second Law of Motion:
F = ma
For a given mass, the greater the force applied,
the greater the acceleration produced. for a given
force, the greater the mass of the object, the less
the acceleration produced.
Stated in a different way:
For a given force, the smaller mass receives the
greater acceleration.

Newton’s Third Law of Motion:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction.
Called the Action-Reaction Law.

Another bit of Science claims Nature abhors a vacuum. Well the Tea Party is filling it. Hope the Republicans come along.

May the Force be with us.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

What Republicans Need in 2010 and Beyond

Balls and grit !!!



The people at PJTV in their Trifecta segment diagnosed the Republican problem in their own way. They claim the Leadership and major Candidates need to be taken out; they are not giving all those people screaming for help what they want - they are not talking to the Tea Party people.

-----link-----
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2883
---------------

What the leaders are happens to be what they are, game players. What the people want are Candidates who will stand up for common sense; and not allow themselves to be influenced by the subtle devious arguments of rich lawyers that corrupt the meaning of a policy or law. The people want some candidates and leaders who first are consistent with a conservative message, and second act with integrity in pursuing that message.

As in the case of law enforcement they want someone to read the law as it is written and enforce it as such. This approach allows citizens to understand the law and follow it. It hinders slick lawyers of the well off to bend the meaning of the law for their clients. ie no one is above the law.

The next link again is from PJTV and is an interview by Joe Hicks of LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley about his decision to go after the some 800 dispensaries of medical marijuana in the city.

-----link-----
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/steve-cooley-attorney-general-1/
--------------

This segment is a good look at the misuse of the law which was to allow people suffering in pain from certain diseases to use marijuana as a pain killer.

The corruption of the law for the financial benefit of organized crime whether the Mexican cartels or local LA gangs; or of crooked doctors etc, seemed pretty obvious. The part that I enjoyed was DA Cooley’s shedding light on the way the LA City Commission was treating the law as if they could make it anyway they wanted, regardless of the wording of the law.

The thrust of the first link to Trifecta was about how upset people have become with government and bureaucracy. The idea that governments tend to think they are above the law. The LA Commission seems a perfect of example of people unfamiliar with the law deciding all the aspects of the law – regardless of the law.

This LA County District Attorney got me interested. I started digging.

In the link below we see how in response to criminals wearing body armour (bullet proof vests), police were put in danger. This was starting to become wide spread and a law written to ban and criminalize that behavior wasn’t up held by the court because it was badly written. The Common sense and the integrity I have mentioned was shown by DA Cooley when he realized that a law was needed so he wrote his own law and is pushing to get someone in the legislature to put it forward.

-----link-----
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/cooley-pushes-body-armor-law/
---------------

Cooley started making waves in 2005 when he read a nice sounding law with a big loophole. The law made it a federal crime for cop killers to flea jurisdiction. The loop hole gives the killer a chance at parole under Federal law, which he wouldn’t get in California. Again a nice, probably well meant law with bad consequences.

Cooley saw the problem and stood up with integrity and common sense to let people know.

-----link-----
http://www.escapingjustice.com/051605a.htm
---------------

Note also that the person who put forward the bill in the US House was a fellow Republican. Cooley had knowledge of this bill as it was first proposed in LA County.
That is the kind of person that the Republican party needs to put forth as a candidate.

Gladly 2010 is not a Presidential election year, and hopefully from the 2010 elections a leader will emerge from the Tea Party people or someone who is sympathetic and resonant with them that can lead the party to victory in 2012. Time will tell.

Either way the Republican party needs to let the people into the decision making of the elite RNC, we need a big tent alright but some pretty mighty poles or planks to support it.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

PS This just in about Steve Cooley.

-----link-----
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/steve-cooley-attorney-general-1/
--------------

I hope he does and I wish him luck.

Happy New Year