*If you're at CPAC this weekend,make sure you stop by our booth and say hello! We've got lots of exciting info and opportunities you won't want to miss out on!
Seven New Ways to Experience CPAC in 2011 (From conservative.org)
CPAC :: New Media Team
1. Blog: The Inside Scoop 1. Receive the latest updates on the day’s events each morning of CPAC at the CPAC Director’s Blog. 2. Behind the Curtain 1. From the planning phase to backstage deliberations and candid speaker interviews - Find out how CPAC 2011 comes together! Videos will be launched nightly from February 9th to 12th at the CPAC Director’s Blog. 3. CPAC Backstage: Twitter & Facebook 1. Join CPAC Backstage! Exclusive access on Twitter @CPACNews and at the CPAC Facebook fan page. 2. Have your questions ready as Congressmen, Senators, and Political Celebrities come off the stage so they can respond to you in real time! 4. Speaker Guest Blogging 1. Special commentary from select CPAC Speakers immediately following their live remarks - Available for a limited time at the CPAC Director’s Blog. 5. The Student Experience: CPAC 2011 1. Never been to CPAC? Experience it is first-hand through the video diary of student attendees Rodney and Keith on Twitter @ACUConservative and at the ACU Facebook fan page. 2. Customize their experience! Log on to the above-mentioned social networks and let Rodney & Keith know what you want to see in real time. Be a part of The Student Experience: CPAC 2011. 6. CPAC Live 1. Watch CPAC 2011 from the comfort of your home! Visit CPACLive.org to watch the speeches in real time or to catch any part of CPAC you may have missed. 7. Social Networking Contests 1. Be rewarded for your use of Twitter and Foursquare regarding CPAC 2011 from February 10-12. Interact at home or on-site. 2. Contests Include: Best Insight on CPAC 2011- Tweeted; Best Speaker Quote of CPAC 2011 - Tweeted; Best Photo of CPAC 2011 - Tweeted; Most Check-Ins - Foursquare. 3. Eligible Tweets must include #CPAC11 or @CPACNews. 4. Eligible Foursquare Check-Ins must occur at the CPAC 2011 event page. 5. Winners will receive a free CPAC 2012 Conference Only Pass. 6. For official details please visit http://www.conservative.org/cpac/cpac-2011-social-networking-contests/.
Read More :: http://www.conservative.org/seven-new-ways-to-experience-cpac-in-2011/8405/#ixzz1Dau89CCU
Though
a government following such rules as mentioned earlier—going no further
into citizens’ lives than necessary to defend the freedoms of the
governed, and possessing no more rights than given to individuals—would
maximize freedom and diminish governmental involvement in society, it is
the very character of the law to overstep its bounds. Furthermore, the
law’s nature itself defines these intrusions as anything but
inconsequential. When it oversteps its bounds, it acts directly in
opposition to its purpose of defending freedom. According to Frederic
Bastiat, the law “destroy[s] its own objective: It has been applied to
annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting
and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect” (The Law). Instead of protecting liberty, person, and property, government then exploits and plunders them.
Concerning
this idea, Henry George—an American writer, politician, and political
economist—remarked, "It is not the business of government to make men
virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of
his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is
necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from
aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental
prohibitions extend beyond this line, they are in danger of defeating
the very ends they are intended to serve.
Government
extension of regulation into society necessitates the removal of
associated liberties. Thus, the instant government seeks to secure
liberties through governmental prohibitions and directives, it defeats
its very purpose by removing liberties.
Ultimately,
when man is given full responsibility for himself and his actions, and
that responsibility is not distributed to higher authorities but kept
within his own person, only then is freedom maximized and governmental
control diminished to its smallest extent. In addition, the state under
these conditions would see not need to intervene in citizens’ private
lives, and thus can fulfill its purpose as the simple punisher of any
intrusions upon liberty.
By Syndicated Blogs on December 17, 2010 5:10 AM
|Permalink
Any kind of talk about who should lead the RNC should include what kinds of candidates the RNC should and should not be supporting.
Why?
America's problems stem not from an inability to elect Republicans into office; history shows America can do that. (Note: we just did with Steele in charge of the RNC...)
The real question is: can we get the *right* kind of Republicans in Congress?
Has anyone noticed that Ann Wagner’s agenda doesn’t mention what *kinds* of Republicans the RNC, under her leadership, would help elect and raise money for?
Is Ann’s goal to get the *right* kind of Republicans in?
Now, I suppose it's unfair to pick on Ann Wagner because she is probably no different than the other candidates, including Steele. However, Saul Anuzis from MI, who is also running, is endorsed by Tea Party nation (last point). But like Ann Wagner, his "Why Support Saul" page does not mention the kinds of candidates he would support. At the same time, Ann Wagner has a history of supporting candidates like Rep. Roy Blunt, who led the way for using taxpayer money to bailout the "to big to fail" via TARP while Saul Anuzis has connections to Reps like Rep. McCotter (MI-R), who was one of the few disenting Republicans who voted not once, but twice against the big bill authorizing lots of stuff including TARP.
Thus, maybe it's notpolitically savvy to mention that you want to support the outsiders who will do the right thing on your website. Maybe it's up to conservatives to connect the dots to know which candidate is more likely to support truly conservative candidates.
Even more, the entire purpose of the RNC should be in question but those who have spent time fighting to end out-of-control government spending. The best candidate to support is one that can articulate why supporting Republicans who can win is not a legitimate long-term strategy for saving our country.
The goal should be limiting government not electing Republicans (without definition). I call this “sticking fingers in the leaks of the dam” to hold off the inevitable. But maybe this is the best we can do. Yet something inside of me says “give me liberty or give me death”!!!!
Side note:
This post is already too long, but...
At an RNC meeting in Hawaii last January, conservative members united to try to pass a resolution prohibiting RNC funding for candidates who don't support eight of ten key conservative issues, a proposal that Steele opposed. A compromise resolution was passed that was similar, but didn't really affect the types of candidates that the RNC supported, as there are plenty of examples of the RNC supporting incumbents who voted for deficit spending and earmarks. You would think this would go against the Republican National Platform, but the platform really isn't that great; no where can one link to principles the TEA Parties have spent over 1.5 years articulating. But then, that's why people people are TEA Partying.
What should be obvious is that while the RNC chair will say he or she is neutral and should support all Republican candidates; this isn't true. The RNC supports incumbents first, and follows what it is typical of politics: financial support is linked to how likely it is that you will win and able to raise money for the RNC in the future. The RNC is about it's own survival--not yours.
Healthcare:
Right or privilege? Though this topic remains in heavy dispute, the
problem persists: in declaring a right to healthcare, you ultimately
diminish genuine freedom and rights. When government declares an
open-ended “right” to something manmade, and strives to protect this
“right,” we end up losing our inalienable rights because such manmade
rights or enacting their protection as such usually conflicts with those
defined, God-given rights.
Government was created merely to protect our God-given rights—listed in the Constitution as life (personal life), liberty (individual freedoms not encroaching on the freedoms of others), and the pursuit of happiness (the right to work and to reap the rewards of your labor)—because these rights lend to genuine liberty in all situations.
Just
because America exists as a compassionate, wealthy nation does not mean
that we should provide healthcare for those without it. Following this
logic, government-mandated food, public housing, government-issued
vehicles or federally-distributed food would also be applause-worthy.
Yet these either would be considered ludicrous or have been proven
ineffectual through actual trial. Though food, shelter, and clothing are
necessary to life, we do not possess a right to them. Nowhere are they
considered in the Constitution, or in the Biblical conception of rights.
These are the fruits of labor, and must be earned.
The
infeasibility of government-mandated healthcare as a right lies in
this: in deeming that everyone has a “right” to healthcare, and assuming
that the government was instituted to protect our rights, then the
obligation would fall upon government to ensure everyone’s equal access
to healthcare, regardless of personal work ethic, desires, or income.
Essentially, this states that everyone deserves to possess healthcare,
whether or not they have earned it. Thus, in creating a program
encompassing an entire nation of people, our individual, inalienable
rights are violated: we no longer can freely choose the healthcare
program of our liking, or even, in a sense, deny healthcare completely.
It is a right to be protected, and the government will dutifully attempt
ensure that it’s protected for each individual. Under original
intentions, the Constitution grants us the right to pursue happiness,
leaving us to define such happiness and to pursue it. In
government-provided healthcare, the government defines that which is
believes is to bring us happiness, and then drops it before us and will
defend it, whether or not we want it.Robert
Samuelson once stated, “The trouble with casting medical-care as a
“right” is that this ignores how open-ended the “right” should be and
how fulfilling it might compromise other “rights” and needs. What makes
people healthy or unhealthy are personal habits, good or bad (diet,
exercise, alcohol, drug use); genetic makeup, lucky or unlucky, and age.
Health care, no matter how lavishly provided, can only partially
compensate for these individual differences.” When life is on the line,
or when perceived benefits can appear convincing in the short run,
potentially-harmful choices in the long-run become much easier to make.
However, principle, original intent, and common sense declare that
government healthcare, defined as a right, is not worth the cost.
How often do you attend a free "speaker series," panel, or seminar?
Yesterday morning (yes, even though I've graduated), I attended a free expert panel at Webster University in St. Louis on social media.
I often forget how many incredible opportunities lay within the doors
of the local colleges and universities around us… for free! If you’re overly busy as a student now, I still encourage you to make the time to attend the free seminars provided on your campus... and keep them in mind after you graduate! Take advantage of “speaker series," especially in areas you need to gain more insight. And you don't have to limit yourself to your own campus!
At a time when college credits are not cheap, I Iearned how to do my job better from a expert panel of media specialists, marketers, and networkers (some, from large companies like Monsanto and Scottrade)... for free!(Did you notice how many times I used the word free so far!?!)
A few things I took away from the panel this morning:
Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogging, etc) are all pieces of the overall conversation. To be effective, think about the specific uses and audiences of each medium, and craft messages that maximizes the strengths of each one.
If
you make your presence online with a regularly updated blog, and active
Twitter and Facebook accounts, people will come to you. When you are
googled, they will learn a bit about your organization before you even
have a chance to interact!
It doesn’t cost money to be a successful social networker. Listening is free! What are people already saying about you? How often your organization or business is being discussed online, and is it positive or negative? This is where you start.
Don’t
be terrified of “failing” or of criticism online. You have to start
somewhere! Whatever you perceive as “failure” is really just “real-time
feedback.” Take it and learn from it.
Stick with it… Gain followers. Create a solid presence. It takes time.
If you screw up somehow, correct your mistake publicly and quickly!
Good
luck with the end of semester, Collegians! And the next time you get
the chance to attend a panel or discussion, I encourage you to go for
it! You will graduate from school, but you’ll never graduate from
learning!
Van Jones, who worked with the Obama Admin to redistribute tax payer
money via "Green Jobs," talked to undergraduates and law students as
well as the public at Washington University today.
While I was only able to video tape the last 15 minutes of his speech, I can say two things about Van Jones:
1. He's an inspiring speaker who is motivated by a deep moral conviction
that it's important for the strong to stand up for the weak.
2. He believes the best way to stand up for the weak is through
government programs that implicitly require the redistribution of wealth
using a 21st-century code word for it: green jobs.
Watch Van Jones describe the three pay checks (from who??
YOU minus money to pay politicians and bureaucrats) that "Red-State
farmers" would get if his plan was enacted. Note: he is about real equality; he's not just giving taxpayer money to the inner city communities, he wants to give it to the rural communities too!
In sum:
1. Farmers would get paid by the government via subsidies needed to
support windfarms and turbine technology that require huge capital
investments
2. Farmers would get paid to grow "energy crops" via subsidies given to
business that can't support themselves without help because their
energy costs MORE than coal, gas or nuclear energy
3. Farmers could sell carbon from the ground to companies who need carbon credits if "Cap and Tax" passes!
Yes, there might be "Green Jobs" out there, but my question for Van Jones is: where's the pay check coming from?
October is Breast Cancer Awareness month. In light of this, take a few minutes to watch this video. The Komen Foundation gives money to Planned Parenthood... which is interesting, considering that there is a scientific link between abortion and breast cancer. Hmm.
