FederalRepublic.net

Even though I don’t agree that Mike Huckabee should be President of the United States, his new campaign ad is still pretty darn funny. Take a look:

So a man in Michigan has been fined $400 and given 40 hours of community service for piggybacking off a coffee shop’s wireless network without actually going into the coffee shop:

He got on the Internet by tapping into the local coffee shop’s wireless network, but instead of going inside the shop to use the free Wi-Fi offered to paying customers, he chose to remain in his car and piggyback off the network, which he said didn’t require a password.

He used the system on his lunch breaks for more than a week, and then the police showed up.

“I was sitting there reading my e-mail and he came up and stuck his head inside my window and asked me who I was spying on,” Peterson told FOXNews.com.

Someone from a nearby barbershop had called cops after seeing Peterson’s car pull up every day and sit in front of the coffee shop without anybody getting out.

“I just curiously asked him, ‘Where are you getting the Internet connection?’, you know,” Sparta Police Chief Andrew Milanowski said. “And he said, ‘From the café.’”

Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken.

“We came back and we looked up the laws and we figured if we found one and thought, ‘Well, let’s run it by the prosecutor’s office and see what they want to do,’” Milanowski said.

Ok, so the guy broke the law and the police caught him. But there is something that just doesn’t sit well with me when I read this story. Instead of simply telling the man he’s not allowed to surf the Wi-Fi near the coffee shop, the police went looking for a law that was broken because they simply *had a feeling* a law had been broken:

Milanowski ruled out Peterson as a possible stalker of the attractive local hairdresser, but still felt that a law might have been broken.

So I feel like the police, in an effort to make the surrounding people feel “safe,” simply went law shopping until they actually found a law they could hit the guy with. For some reason, this does not sit well with me and feels so unjustified. It’s like the police used some type of “ex post facto” enforcement scheme. I mean, just because you have the feeling a law has been broken, doesn’t mean one actually has been. Yeah, the man was doing something illegal under the law, but the police went back and made sure they found a violation they could deliberately hit him with. This just doesn’t sit well.

Definately a surprise out of Harry Reid’s Senate:

Members of Congress convicted of serious crimes would lose their taxpayer-paid pensions, sometimes totaling more than $100,000 a year, under a measure unanimously approved by the Senate Friday.

The 87-0 vote to deprive lawbreaking lawmakers of their retirement benefits was part of a comprehensive ethics and lobbying bill that the Senate has taken up as its first piece of legislation in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

-Snip-

Currently, a lawmaker can lose his or her pension only if convicted of crimes such as treason or espionage. The Kerry provision would extend that to cases of bribery, conspiracy to defraud the United States and perjury.

Read more at Foxnews.com

This is a very good surprise out of the Senate, and even for liberal John Kerry. This is a small step to correct an enormous problem of corruption in Washington, but every little bit of corrective legislation helps. Props go out to the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to pass this bill. Let’s hope the House does the same.

A funny story from the beltway:

Chanting “de-escalate, investigate, troops home now,” the protesters disrupted a briefing aimed at outlining priority goals when Democrats take over the House and Senate on Thursday.

-Snip-

“We didn’t put you in power to work with the people that have been murdering hundreds of thousands of people since they have been in power,” Sheehan said. “We put you in power to be opposition to them finally and we’re the ones who put them in power.”

I find it hilarious when leftists start eating their own. Let’s hope this continues.

When I heard the Democrats had taken control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, I immediately lost my appetite. I couldn’t eat my breakfast and the headache I had earlier got worse. Now that Democrats have their “mandate” from the American public, not only will my appetite suffer, but so will my wallet.

Democrats propose the following:

A boost to the $5.15-an-hour federal minimum wage would be the first since 1997. Democratic leaders have proposed raising it in stages to $7.25 an hour.

The attempt to raise the minimum wage to help the poor is an absurd idea at best. Not only does this increase the amount of dollars employers must pay out to workers, but it takes away natural incentives to hire new employees, increases supply costs, and decreases capital to invest back into business. Price increases will then trickle through the market, triggering inflation and increased unemployment. Sooner or later, the market will hit equilibrium and the same problems Democrats tried to solve with a minimum wage increase will show its ugly head again. This isn’t a conservative scare tactic, it’s simple economics.

…Democrats eager to keep their promises to pass several pieces of legislation in the first 100 hours of business, including…stem cell research funding.

While I don’t see an inherent problem funding stem cell research, Democrats insist the stem cells of study should be embryonic in nature. There are other sources of stem cells besides dead fetuses, including bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. Democrats thus far have not shown they have the capacity to understand that killing a fetus is the same as killing a human life. It’s murder, plain and simple.

Nearly seven of 10 adults, 69 percent, favor the government taking steps to make it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from other countries, where some medicines cost significantly less than in the U.S.

Like many in the United States, I too wish prescription drugs cost less. However, a large cause for outrageous costs is too much government involvement. Instead of promoting market-based and private approaches to medical care, government bureaucrats tie the American public down with needless regulation and paperwork. The movement in Washington is not to give healthcare back to the people, but to strap the people with higher taxes to pay for universal coverage. Just look at John Edwards’ campaign. Anyway, healthcare is NOT a right and according to the U.S. Constitution, purely a state issue.

The Democratic Party agenda has been said to be centrist; its early attempts at legislation will be bills that most of the American public can support. While it may be true that many Americans can see a good side to Democrats’ agenda, the real truth is that their policies will leave nothing but a gap in real Congressional leadership and a hole in your pocketbook.

As the author of this site, I haven’t written my opinions in some time, but not without reason. As of September 17, 2006, I am stationed in Iraq to support Operation Iraqi Freedom and the War on Terror. I feel honored to be here, helping the United States of America keep its future interests in the Middle East safe from Islamic fascism. I am currently working in a communications unit somewhere in southern Iraq, often working with the sister services and coalition forces. As one with an active mind, I will be working to blog about my experiences in Iraq as much as I can, helping people back home in the states to understand the cause we fight for is worth every cost. We must keep America safe from the madmen in the night. More to come…

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — With Republicans facing a potential backlash at the polls in November, a renewed national debate over gay marriage can only boost the morale of the party’s religious conservative base, which for a variety of reasons is near mutiny, say sources in the movement.

“It could be an issue that may not necessarily bring them back, but it will bring them out, which is the key thing for the fall elections,” said Bill Greene, head of RightMarch.com, an Atlanta-based conservative activist organization.

He described the Republicans’ conservative base as “pretty ticked off” over the way GOP senators have handled illegal immigration reform, the budget and President Bush’s judicial nominations, many of whom are still stalled in the Senate. But Greene said a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage “may be one prong of a multifaceted attempt at re-energizing the base.”

On May 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Federal Marriage Amendment. And the Associated Press reported Thursday that Bush will lend support to the amendment in an announcement Monday.

Link

As much as I agree with most Americans that the ultimate definition of marriage should be a union between a man and a woman only, a constitutional amendment is not needed to regulate an issue which I believe, clearly lies with the states.

Republican leadership and the Bush Administration, attempting to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage, has turned the constitution into a catalyst for social change, something I fear could be harmful to our republic in the long run. I believe the proper place for such social change, like the definition of marriage, lies squarely on the shoulders of the states or the people. The attempt to socialize the constitution, in my opinion, is a cheap trick designed to win votes in the November election, a short term priority for the Republican Party. Passing an amendment to the constitution and changing the basis of our laws altogether is a permanent action, an action that will forever change legislation and hamper the struggle to renew states rights.

Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves and shows that officials in our federal government have no respect for a once thriving federalism, but only care about the power of the central government in Washington.

By Charles Hurt

The long-fought Senate immigration bill that opponents say grants amnesty to 10 million illegal aliens is unconstitutional and appears headed for certain demise, Senate Republicans now say.
 
A key feature of the Senate bill is that it would make illegals pay back taxes before applying for citizenship, a requirement that supporters say will raise billions of dollars in the next decade.
 
There’s just one problem: The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits revenue-raising legislation from originating in the Senate.
 
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” according to the “origination clause” in Article I, Section 7.

Republicans — including the bill’s supporters — say this will kill the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he’s offered a simple solution. He wants to attach the immigration bill to a tax bill that has already passed the House. It would then proceed as planned to a “conference committee,” where negotiators from the House and Senate hammer out differences between the two chambers’ immigration bills.

“This is a procedural issue that we could overcome,” said Carolyn Weyforth, spokeswoman for Mr. Frist.

But Minority Leader Harry Reid won’t go along with that fix. His office said yesterday that the concerns raised by Mr. Frist and House Republicans are “technical in nature” and can be ignored.

“If Republicans are serious about enacting comprehensive immigration reform, I’ve got a deal for them,” spokesman Jim Manley said. “All they have to do is nothing. Just let the House and Senate bills go to conference and let the conferees work their will.”

The bill as written, however, will never make it to conference, Republicans say. Under House rules, any member can introduce a “blue-slip resolution” to return the legislation to the Senate. And although there are plenty of House conservatives eager to kill the Senate bill any way they can, Hill staffers say it would likely be done based on “policy-blind constitutional issues.”

“If there is a blue-slip issue, it is not about policy,” said one House aide familiar with the matter. “It’s about procedure and the House’s prerogative to uphold the United States Constitution.”

Link

While most Americans agree that immigration reform is needed, the Senate bill raises serious issues about how much Congressional leadership favors following the U.S. Constitution, the basis of our republic.

Harry Reid may not think Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution is a big deal, but if the Senate leadership does not care about simple tax revenue rules in the constitution, how much more respect for the constitution could the leadership really have? The constitution is the basis of our republic, it is the base of our laws and our way of life. Even the simplest clause must be followed if we are to pass the freedom our constitution gives us to our grandchildren.

James Madison once said:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

I believe Madison is right. Attaching a tax revenue amendment to the Senate bill is in my opinion, a gradual and silent encroachment into unlawful territory forbidden by our constitution. If the tax bill is allowed to stay in the bill as originally created, the Congress will not only have shown the American people the constitution means nothing, but will have denounced the American way of life and everything the founding fathers stood for. This usurpation of government power must not be tolerated. Republican Party leadership must seize this opportunity to uphold the constitutional principles our nation was founded on.

Even though it’s passed Memorial Day, many patriotic Americans continue to support our troops day in and day out. I was recently clicking around the conservative blog world when I came across this picture, displayed by the official San Antonio, Texas website:

Pearl Harbor survivor Houston James of Dallas is overcome with emotion as he embraces Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during the Dallas Veterans Day Commemoration at Dallas City Hall on Thursday. Sgt Graunke, who was a member of a Marine ordnance-disposal team, lost a hand, leg and eye while defusing a bomb in Iraq in July of last year.

Even though it’s not Memorial Day or Veteran’s Day or any other holiday honoring our fallen brothers and fellow veterans, let us remember our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in this time of war. Their country has called for their service in this trying time in American and world history. Let us not forget their sacrifices or the honor they deserve.

By Peter Brown

As President Bush’s poll ratings hit historic lows, the answer to whether he can rehabilitate his image may be rooted in why he has lost the support of the American people in the first place.

Simply put, are Americans fed up with Bush’s brand of conservatism, or skeptical about the president’s competence, his ability to make the trains run on time?

With only a third of Americans approving of his job performance, even his most committed supporters, mainstream conservatives and evangelical Christians, are complaining.

If the dramatically lower numbers result from Americans souring on the president’s vision for the United States, then it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Bush to return to the point in the public’s mind where he was when re-elected 18 months ago.

Strange as it may seem, it would be easier for Bush to regain his popularity if his problems stem from a perceived lack of competence.

For example, if the president’s poor ratings stem primarily from Americans’ views that Bush & Co. has made too many mistakes in how they fought the war in Iraq and led the post-war reconstruction, rather than the decision to invade, that is another matter.

-Snip-

In general, any way back in the public opinion polls for this President Bush would require he and his administration to demonstrate their ability to deal with the nation’s problems in a way that satisfies the public. The public has so far found the record in dealing with Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, and implementation of the prescription drug plan, as unacceptable.

That is why, for instance, the president and his aides are so desperate to have Congress pass an immigration reform bill, among other measures.

And, of course, unforeseen events, such as the capture of Osama Bin Laden, could provide a political environment that could favor the president. However, an economic downturn would make his task that much more difficult.

Even at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a vocal minority of Americans opposed the decision as the embodiment of Bush’s overly aggressive and unilateral foreign policy. Democrats like to believe that many of the millions who voted for Bush, but now think he is a failed president, have also adopted their viewpoint.

Link

Public opinion and approval rating is something that is always considered important in American politics. According to polls, President Bush’s approval rating has been in the mid to low 30s for some time. Many political pundits blame mishappenings in Iraq, FEMA incompetence in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and sometimes undeniable Bush family evil and corruption.

However, I really don’t think that incompetence and unpopularity of the presidency solidly resides at the foot of Bush’s White House. Often times people and especially opposition politicians denounce President Bush’s character for not going it differently in Iraq. But I think if you asked people on the street what Bush should do differently, you’d get nothing more than rhetoric they have heard in 30 second segments in the mainstream media. Some would say “He should win the peace.” Those who disagree with Bush under the “he didn’t win the peace” pretext must realize it is difficult for a representative government to keep a peace while surrounded by a region of Islamo-fascist states and foreign influence. Even after WWII, Germany had holdouts and insurgent attacks that kept on for decades. I think many wouldn’t really know how Bush should go about it differently anyway, but instead quote their favorite party talking points while remembering what their local politicians have said. The sad reality is that many people today do not think for themselves or educate themselves in today’s pressing issues.

According to many conservatives, a liberal mainstream, network media is to blame for many aspects of Bush’s low approval rating. While focusing on everyday, negative news, I believe the media has lost touch with the positive aspects of Bush’s foreign policy and military pre-emption strategy. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have rid the world of tyrannical regimes while freeing 25 million people and have refocused the world on the dangers of Iran and nuclear proliferation. But these facts are not communicated to common citizens through the mainstream media. Fortunately, the Internet and reformed media outlets like Fox News are slowly changing that.

A third aspect of the Bush presidency that I think has reduced approval ratings is a lack of conservative leadership on important issues. The American people sent President Bush a mandate to govern another four years, giving him more votes than any other president in our nation’s history in the general election of 2004. However, reelection promises have not gone through as hoped, even with a Republican-led Congress and a right of center Supreme Court. Social Security reform never even got off the ground, federal spending is out of control, immigration reform has taken a turn toward amnesty, and the 2003 middle class tax cuts haven’t been made permanent. It’s not that the American people disagree with Republican conservativism, it’s that Bush has not offered leadership to push reforms through a liberal-minded Senate, even with the support of a right-leaning House of Representatives. Frankly, the Bush press office and the president himself have refused to forcefully denounce the chaotic, socialist ideals of the Democratic Party opposition.

There are many things that could provide a boost to President Bush’s approval ratings. A solid enforcement-first immigration policy and additional tax cuts would definately be a start, followed by a more efficient grassroots outreach program and positive news about the Iraq war. The American people aren’t stupid by any means, but I think the lack of education and a focus on looks and appearance instead of policy definately don’t help our country. As conservatives, we must stand firm with the President, while loyally disagreeing with his policy when incorrect. We must educate those who need educating and stand by our values and what we think is right - even if that means voting out liberal Republicans in November.