The rift that exists within the Republican party is one not related to spending but instead social issues. Not all conservatives see eye to eye on traditionally Republican issues such as Federal marriage amendments, and the proper use of Military power. The marxist and marginalized  news media is starting to understand how to argue against logic when it comes to spending, and instead it going to continue to attack government reduction proponents on social issues where they intersect with spending. It was only this evening that Rachel Maddow’s stand in stooge proclaimed that defense is the largest piece of the federal government, while quoting Ron Paul who believes we should pull out of all foreign wars and stick to protecting American interests within the country. Then pointing out that Palin is in support of defense spending, tried to make the disagreement out to be the beginnings of a Republican civil war. Only in Rachel Maddows dreams would such a reality exist, and while conservatives do disagree on military deployment and spending, it has little to no bearing on where the federal budget is actually spent.

I would first note that we are in a time of war. Defense spending is always going to be higher when a country is fighting a war. This puts a burden on the tax payers to pay for such a war, and I have to say personally I think we should bring the troops home and leave the sand box to the nomads that live in it. Regardless, the same liberal nut jobs that will try and justify hundreds of billions of dollars in new government entitlement spending agree if it means taking money from the military?

Is the military really the problem with our budget? lets take a closer look at where our money goes, so we can decide what programs should be cut in a time when the economy is in recession, and we are at war.

Out of all the federal spending which part of the government creates the most jobs? This is hard to measure as you can not simply count the employees of the departments. More job creation is done at the level of contractors. When money is spent on contractors that money leaves Federal hands and gets put to use giving non-government people jobs and wages. This money is also spent on companies that are publicly traded, so it could be stated that every American who wants to own a share of these endeavors can. Not all of the companies are public mind you, but many of the big ones are especially when it comes to National Defense. In essence much of the contract money gets circulated back into the business community who continues to create new jobs and use it to its greatest effect (something wasteful government agencies can not do).

The defense department spends $371 Billion in contracts over the course of a year. When compared to literally every other department, they spend more on contracts than most of the other departments combined. This is actually a very good thing as general public is exposed to the benefits of the spending.

Now lets look at actual government spending of different departments.

The Social Security Administration is the largest single department of the federal government when it comes to dollars. With $710 Billion in direct spending, it is the most wasteful government enterprise in all of recorded human history. A system which is broke, and robs Peter to pay Paul, it is a scam plain and simple. We can do without this spending altogether by removing social security. This is a program which will default and bankrupt the country in a matter of years, its ti me to kill this program.

The second largest waste of human energy in the world is the Department of Homeland Security. When liberals talk they often like to combine this department with the Defense department. This is simply a lie, they are two separate entities. One has a value and a place in the world, but the other one should go back to the halls of over-spending intrusive government from which it came. This department spends $460 Billion to take our freedoms and replace them with the illusion of security.

The third largest agency is the Department of Health and Human Services. With $384 Billion in spending, nearly all of this money is given out in Grants. Is is possible any of this money is wasted? This department spends billions of dollars more than the department of defense, and yet most people probably could not tell you what they do exactly? Welcome to the land of pork, and we didn’t fire any soldiers yet!

Then comes the Department of Defense with $377 Billion in spending. Don’t get me wrong, I agree there is waste in this agency as well, but it is one of the few things the government is actually supposed to do according to the constitution, so I suggest we take from other piles and then revisit this one when we have saved a trillion dollars from our budget on other waste. Please note, three other agencies, two of which can be dropped immediately with no ill effects have larger budgets than the department of defense. Sorry Rachel Maddow, guess your research department is not the brightest.

The list continues with a dozen smaller agencies which take in far less money in comparison. However I would note that we should get rid of the next one on the list as well. The Department of Education. Where in the United States Constitution does the federal government have the authority to regulate education of our children? Mark off another $143 Billion dollars in wasted spending on programs that should be illegal to begin with.

By simply eliminating the three departments I mentioned before we could reduce spending by $1313 Billion dollars without touching defense or any of the other wasteful programs spending out tax money like they can print it (Oh I forget at times that they can).

Lets not let the liberal commentators frame the debate. Cutting military spending should be the least of the issues keeping us separated. Once we again have a constitutional government in our nation, then we can duke it out over the social issues, and the issues of wartime and military spending and alike. Claiming that we should eliminate defense spending is a diversion to keep our eyes of all the real pork in the budget that should be the easy low hanging fruit for conservative representatives.

Even when you combine the liberal perspective on defense spending by including the state department, homeland security, nasa, and a couple hundred billion for wartime spending on the war on terror, it is hard to judge a dollar of this spending vs other programs like Social Security which are completely wasted.

I agree with many conservatives that think Iraq and Afghanistan were and are a mistake.. but make no mistake about it, I do believe in protecting the United States. While we are wasting time in a sand box with no purpose North Korea is becoming a nuclear power and Iran is approaching that place as well. Like it or not, this is not the time to cut our military strength by one iota.

Our nation was in the grips of a Tyrant when it was formed. The oligarchy that ruled the American settlements in the new world imposed regulations and taxes on the hard working people while ignoring their basic human right to self determination. Those who were awake enough to understand that they were enslaved finally could not take it anymore. On the 4th of July 1776 Thomas Jefferson and many others signed the document that would make them targets to the empire, and mark the beginning of a long struggle for freedom and liberty.

It is not uncommon to see television commercials depicting our founders in a way that is comical and trite. Apparently all we can do as Americans to keep the founders vision alive is make them into talking heads and people in funny hats that lived a long time ago.

It is far to easy for the progressive movement to talk about the constitution as a rust old tome with little relevance for today. Often a logical persons response to such an attack is to quote the founders in a witty response. This does not hold any weight with the youth, I mean after all who really cares what people like Jefferson thought? That guy died 184 years ago yesterday, what could he teach us today that would be of any value?

The other response historians have made to discredit the founders of this country is focus on their flaws and humanity. As I spent the 4th at Jefferson’s home at Monticello I was not surprised to see the vast array of displays about the slaves he owned. This only makes sense as 110 slaves lived on the plantation with him they did play a large role in the home itself. It is also true that after his wife died Jefferson probably fathered several more children with one of his slaves. For a man that wrote all men are created equal, Jefferson was duplicitous in his nature.

Jefferson is not the only flawed founder, in fact many of the founders had human traits as well, and made big mistakes. While it si interesting to look at these men through the lens of history and dissect their flawed decisions it plays no bearing on their relevance to our history or our current political climate.

The flaws of the founders simply do not matter when you understand the primary reason that one should study them. Jefferson was highly interesting and is worth study for that reason alone, but even he is worthy of study more for the reasons he acted in 1776, than any flaw or scandal he was a part of.

The reason to study the founders

The founders acted out against tyrany and established the greatest nation the world has ever known. We should study them because the nation they created is a lesson for all those who would form governments, and we should study them because we need to understand why they did what they did.

I am far more interested in knowing WHY a piece of our constitution exists, than knowing about who the author had an affair with. If you have not noticed, public schools spend plenty of time talking about Jefferson’s mistress and no time what soever talking about his views on the constitution. Our current school education system does not teach our children the most valuable thing they can know as members of a Republic.

We as a nation need to understand why the founders of our government designed it the way they did. The constitution may not be perfect, and it may need some revision for modern times.. but to even know if that is the case, we must first learn why it exists in the form it does today.

How many Americans know what the 17th Amendment is? Why was the constitution revised? I personally think that should be removed from our constitution because it takes power away from the states and gives it to the wealthy. However, this is only one of the many amendments and court rulings on the constitution.

How can we even begin to build a better nation and a better government when we do not understand the government we have! How many US Senators understand the constitution? They all swore to uphold it, and yet they make regular statements that would lead anyone to believe they never read it.

My challenge to you is to read the constitution cover to cover. I don’t care if you have done it before, do it again. Keep a pocket copy with you at all times, that way you can read it during bathroom breaks or while waiting for something boring like a doctors visit. Then get on wikipedia and learn about the amendments, its free and it won’t take you a full afternoon. Understanding the foundation of our government is a requirement for any education, and to be a rounded person. Once you understand the basics of the Constitution you can list yourself amongst those who better understand our Nation than even our own congress. Once armed with that knowledge it is time to understand WHY it says what it does. Who authored what part? What was left out of the constitution? What is your state constitution? Ever read it?

To understand where we must go, you must first understand where we are, and that is why understanding our founders is so very important. The point of a Republic is not to worship the government we have established, but to celebrate the freedoms we were born with, and keep a watchful eye that the government setup to help us does not become to powerful for its own good.

I was angry when they said the depression was a result of American’s over embrace of capitalism and consumerism. According to the history channel they “came back to bite us in the butt”. I was also astonished when they started talking about the run on the banks, citing, “Unlike today the government did not bail out the banks” while failing to mention the fact that the run on the banks was a result of the liberal press combined with poor government regulation of the banking industry. It was not in fact a lack of regulation over the banks as the history channel would have you believe, but it was the over-regulation that kept all the banks small and lead to the closing of 600 banks nation wide. If the government had kept its nose out of the banking industry the great depression would have been far less likely to happen.

When you top this all off with liberal newscasters talking about “America was ready for a change and it wanted to fight back” when describing the largest public works projects of the day, it becomes clear the producers at the History Channel are liberal bafoons.

It makes me wonder how many other programs they make are liberally biased, I think I will watch with my eyes a bit more open from here on out.

The first great lie that is so often believed in this country is that the Democrats are the party of civil rights. When Nancy Pelosi walked arm in arm with Civil Rights hero’s as though the health care reform bill was just another good thing the democrats had done, implying that they were the party of civil rights I nearly lost my lunch.

Lets look at history for a moment and see who exactly changed this country to give Blacks the same rights as everyone else.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and he freed the slaves. Out of all the civil rights votes since 1933, including the Civil Rights Act it was Republicans who carried the legislation through and made it happen. Republicans voted by majority for civil rights bills 90% of the time, while Democrats voted by majority against them.

Even now as I sit and watch Senator KKK Byrd’s memorial service I can only think to the facts that the man personally tried everything possible to stop the Civil Rights act of 1964. Democrats have fought hard over the years, but not to protect civil rights, but to destroy liberty.

Conservatives should stop letting these people pretend they have been the party of equality, when in fact they are the party of segregation, and the party who does not care what the people of the United States want. In December of last year the Senate Majority leader had the insane notion to compare GOP opposition to Health Care to those who tried to block civil rights.

The other lie that is being told is that partisan laws is business as usual for historic social reforms. This could not be further from the truth told to us by the history books. Health Care reform is nothing like other large social reforms that have been passed into law. Not only do the vast majority of Americans oppose it, not a single Republican voted for it.

Here is this wonderful illustration from the Political Math Blog

The numbers speak volumes.

This is insane nonsense. Robert Hurt may not be your favorite from the primary, but he is a far better candidate than Parriello for the job. That’s exactly what this is about, a job. Today we have a liar and a scumbag in office who is failing to represent us. Forget not his votes on Cap and Trade and Obamacare. If you are to vote for Parriello to send a message you are voting for the Obama agenda, and the destruction of all that is good about this country.

People who say Hurt is not a conservative have not looked at his record, and are speaking out of ignorance. Robert Hurt was far from my first choice, but I will line up behind him from now until the day we send him to Washington because its the best thing for Lynchburg, the best thing for Virginia, and the best thing for the nation.

How did this happen, why didn’t everything change?

The current predicament we find the 5th district in is a direct result of the lack of organization amongst reformers like the tea party. When half a dozen reformer candidates all selfishly decide to run against the establishment at the same time, we get more establishment. This is not rocket science, its just simple truth. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, as we are all to blame for letting this happen. However, today is not the time to lick our wounds and complain, but to move forward as a unified front against the monster that represents us in Washington. Our driving motivation should not be our love of the establishment, but the duty to our country to end the Obama agenda and change the direction our nation is headed. Each and every one of the candidates who ran should stand up and support Hurt to unify conservatives in the 5th. We should all individually send hurt a clear message, we will help you, and we are behind you, but our support has strings attached!

What was actually accomplished

The voters in the 5th sent a clear message to the establishment by all of the messaging that was pushed forward during the campaigns. It is also clear if we had a single non-establishment candidate we would have beaten Hurt! This is a great lesson for us all, and for many an introduction to congressional races. This is not the time to give up! To form a cohesive change great efforts must be taken over long periods of time by many individuals. What would have happened if Dr King gave up during the civil rights movement? Where would we be if the great communicator had decided that it was to much effort and pain? Will we give up now and allow the establishment to continue with business as usual? Today marks just another milestone on the road to building a better nation, and not all battles are all or nothing.

We have the opportunity in front of us to remove a vote that the Obama counts on. We have the chance to continue to revolutionize the GOP from the inside. We should be writing Hurt letters and letting him know that we will hold him accountable to us when he goes to Washington.

If you want to change the status quo you must never believe it will be easy. Nothing worth fighting for is easy. Did you think the establishment was just going to roll over and hand the reigns of power to a group of people who can not even line up behind a single newcomer? The 5th district is only one of many around the nation that will fail to buck the establishment. This is a simple case of a movement in its infancy, and November is not our final say.

Don’t back down, stick to principles.. voting for Hurt is your best way to send a message to Obama before the 2012 elections.. don’t throw that away because of selfish pride and hurt feelings.

Even in this conservative town I live in Liberty University would have their students believe they can protect them all with their police force. How insane must one be to believe that any police force can protect unarmed people from armed attackers. How many seconds do you think you can wait for police before they arrive to protect you? In reality the wait is minutes.. how many times do you think a person can pull a trigger in a minute?

Think for a moment about your police and their ability to help you. Even if you live in a city with an amazing response time of two minutes that is an eternity in a gun fight. 30 seconds is an eternity in a gun fight, or any violent situation. Where did you learn that the police would protect you? When did people start believing that, even for a moment? Don’t get me wrong we need police, and I think they do a good job in most cases… but how are they supposed to be everywhere all of the time?

Talking with a police officer I told him it was legal to open carry in my state. He said “how do the police tell the difference between felons and ordinary people.” This made me laugh for a moment because he should have said “How do the felons know who is going to be a victim and who is going to shoot back?” Sadly not enough people carry their guns in this country. Not enough people even really know how to use them. Get the average gun owner in an active shooter situation and you would find them urinating, not shooting.

Gun Control

Gun control is the foolish belief that criminals obey laws, and that somehow more laws will limit the number and type of guns criminals have access to. Time and world history have proven that the only people effected by gun control laws are law abiding citizens who become stripped of their god given rights to defend life and liberty.

Gun control advocates also stand on the foolish assumption that police will protect people, and that self defense is not a personal responsibility. Time and world history has shown that no police force in history has been able to protect the public from violent acts. In a violent confrontation the only person likely to be able to react quickly is the person who is about to become the victim of the act, or another citizen nearby.

I think every adult reading this should purchase a gun, learn how to use it, and carry it. Its our responsibility as citizens to look out for the common good of society and to defend against criminal and violent acts. Stop relying on the illusion of government to protect you. How is our nations current climate any different than a welfare nanny state?

Mommy government will protect you

If we have a fire, the fire department will save us. (imagine I said that in a whiny voice) Tell that to all those that die in fires every year. If we have a natural disaster the government will save us. Tell that to the people on the roofs of New Orleans after Katrina, or the shop owners who lost everything to looters. If we have a break in the police will come and save me. Tell that to the helpless people who die every year unprotected because of an illogical belief in police protection.

How is believing in police protection any different than socialized medicine? If you get sick the government will pay for a doctors visit. Tell that to the people in Cuba.

People learn to dress for work, drive cars, pay bills, and hold jobs. Compared to any of those, gun ownership should be a no-brainer.

I am going to make a new frame to hang on my wall and it will read:

As for me and my house, we will learn to use and carry concealed weapons on or about our persons wherever we go. The government is not our mommy, and we love the liberty and opportunity we were born with in this great nation. We are responsible for our own welfare, and will take no government handouts, or promises of security.

Most people have a natural tendency to adhere to the social norms of our society. As a law abiding citizen it is hard to imagine hurting another person. The kind of violence committed by criminals on a regular basis is hard to grasp for people who have never considered such a thing.

This is the root cause for most people’s failed approach at self defense. We all have a tendency to approach self defense from the perspective of social interaction. We imagine getting in a fight in a bar, or having some person try and start a fight with us in public. This should not even be considered in the realm of self defense as it both examples are cases of social interaction where simply leaving the situation, or backing down would result in safety.

The problem is that we approach real criminal acts the same way. When we consider rape, robbery, or assaults, we think these will happen in much the same way. We imagine a duel where body stance, skill, technique, and athleticism are the key players in our survival. We fail to recognize that no amount of skill, technique, or training will help us if we are the victim of a violent act.

What is a violent act?

A violent act reaches outside the norms of society into the realm of the criminal. In the case of a violent act there is always the same scenario. Person A is injured, and had the act performed on them. Person B performed the act, and was not the victim.

This is actually a simple equation, the best way to survive a violent act is to be the one using the violence! How backwards does that sound as a non-criminal? It sounds very foreign to me, but it is simple and true.

Dispelling the myth of martial arts

Martial arts is a very neat and interesting practice, that may have value when dueling against an opponent, but has little value in a violent encounter.

Wait a second.. little value? Yes. In reality people who plan to take a knife away from an attacker using some disarm technique will most often end up getting stabbed a lot in the actual situation. People who believe they can take a gun away will usually get shot. People who believe they can block a blow will have another thing coming when they are hit when least expecting it. Beyond all of this, the truth is that injury is the common denominator. A black belt with his eyes out of socket is not going to do much to his attacker. The same could be said if his neck were collapsed, his legs broken, or his testicles bursted. These sound terrible, but they are exactly the kinds of things that an un-trained violent criminal could do to bruce lee if given the right circumstances and opportunity. Martial arts are very cool, but they don’t stop bullets, blades, and surprise.

Survival Self Defense

Fighting for survival is not the same as social interaction where no one intends on killing anyone else. In the realm of actual rape, robbery, or murder violence is committed against a person.

The best defense in a situation where you believe you are about to become the victim of violence is to become more violent than the person attacking you. How long do you think a rapist will continue when your thumb is in the back of his eye socket? How will a murderer stab you when you just put 10 rounds in his chest? This may sound extreme but its actually very logical.

Watch prison fights on the internet and you will notice they are never a duel between two equals, they are always one person committing a violent act against another. The same could be said of riot police beating protesters, or even Rodney King back in the day. The illusion of dueling where you must potect yourself and guard against your opponents blows is something that could actually kill you. In the same split second an act of overt violence could have saved your life.

Shooting as an example

In war it is stunning how many people do not actually shoot at the enemy. When we go to war studies are done on how many soldiers fake shooting at the enemy, and the truth is that more will fake it than actually shoot another human being. Our morals and values have made us good people who are unwilling to kill another person.

How many times have you heard the phrase “Kill or be killed” in reference to war. Stop and actually consider that phrase for a moment because it is justification for violence. Men in war often must tell themselves that they will die unless they kill because that fear is the only thing that can drive them to be violent.

As citizens we must have the same understanding of violent confrontation. By in large the police advise people to do anything a criminal tells them because they know most people would only hurt themselves if they tried to stand up to an attacker. If you are a concealed carry holder that does carry a gun you must come to grips with this fact.

You must be willing to do great harm, and in fact kill another human being before you wear that gun. Once you wear it you are taking on the responsibility of protecting yourself and your family. I would say bravo, and that you are a stand up individual.. BUT

Have you really considered what it really means to defend yourself?

There is rarely a case where a person is shot by a permit holder and the holder is found to be in error. It is far more often that people hesitate and end up getting killed. If you have the legal reason to pull it out of its holster you have the legal right to kill with it!

If you know a person has the intent, opportunity, and ability to do violence against you the barrier for violent and lethal response has already been crossed.

It should be noted that if you were a part of causing the outburst that lead to that point you have no legal recourse for defending yourself. Lets think that through.. because if you have no right to use lethal force, you have no real right to defend yourself in any meaningful way.

A few guidelines to remember for personal defense.

1. Always be willing to back down from a fight. This means that you should back down from a fight every single time. When you get in their face you lost your right to defend your life.. no argument is worth losing that right.  This does not mean you should back down from protecting your family or others, just don’t start anything .

2. Every fight is to the death, until someone can’t fight anymore. Neither I nor you are psychics that can read the minds of our attackers. This means that you should have every reason to believe they guy with a gun in your face is going to pull the trigger. That rapist is going to kill you when he is done. This is one of the biggest reasons to keep item number one in mind. It also does not justify walking up to the guy you just shot in the chest who is bleeding out through a sucking chest wound and cutting his head off even though he is no longer a threat.

3. Be Committed 100%. When you do decide its time to take violent action in self defense make sure you have fully committed yourself. There is never a reason to “square off’ with a bad guy, quick decisive action with no regret or concern for life is the only way to defend your life. There is no such thing as a fair fight, only victims and survivors of violence.

4. Be Vocal. Unless your trying to sneak out of a cage, yelling and screaming are a good idea. Yelling “Stop, back off, leave me alone” while you are will help others in the area understand you were the one being attacked. This can be very valuable in getting help from others as well, just always be aware every bystander is not an ally. You may find one of his buddies come running up just as quickly as one of yours.

5. Ruthlessness of action could save your life. There are not to many bullets to fire at a person trying to kill you, but there are instances where lack of ruthlessness is a weakness that can get you killed. Don’t be a victim, be the aggressor when your life is at risk. No violent act is unjustified when deadly force is justified. Always remember criminals are ruthless, and if they are going to hurt you, they don’t care about your feelings.

6. Injury not pain, death before revenge. If you must do something violent to anther person your goal should be to produce injury, not pain. You don’t want to hurt them, you want to change the way their body works in a negative way. You want to cause for instance: the inability to walk, lack of ability to balance, ruptured organs, gouged out eyes, broken limbs, crushed windpipe, severe bleeding etc.. Injury is a sure way to stop further attacks, pain is just something that makes people mad. You would be better off shooting a criminal in the head than spending one punch to get your revenge. Revenge is a social interaction, and has no place in the realm of self defense.

Lastly I would recommend:

Magpul Dynamics

Target Focus Training

In thinking about this I have been pondering questions about gun rights, and the rights of the individuals to protect themselves and others. I personally have issues attending a tea party debate at a University that does not support individual gun rights on its campus when they actually matter.

I think the school went a long way when they decided to provide a handgun shooting range for students on their local university police range. I think this was a great idea, and long overdue from the school that has one of the United States first all weather ski slopes.

I am unsure as to why this logic did not carry through when the university decided not to allow students with concealed carry permits to carry on campus. Traditionally school grounds have been “no gun” zones around the country, but with tragedies like the  Virginia Tech massacre, one would think that the need to protect students should be seen at an all time high.

At what point in time on Liberty University’s campus does a legal carry permit holder become a threat to security of others instead of an asset to overall security of everyone they stand next to?

Lets examine why I personally choose to carry a gun much of the time, and why I should be allowed to carry every single place I go. (Yes even on airplanes and school grounds).

The purpose for me to carry my hand gun is to protect my life and property. It is the right of all humans to protect their lives and property from threats that would take them away. I believe like many others that this is a basic human right, and not a power given to me by the government or any elected office. I do not require the “ok” from congress, or any law to protect my life and the lives of those around me. This is a right I was born with, and you were to.

So how then in a day and age where the knife and sword have been replaced by guns should I defend myself where I am not allowed the right to carry one. Please bear in mind I had an FBI background check and now hold a document issued from a judge that gives me the right to carry a gun 95% of the places I go in concealment. I was already allowed by my state laws to carry openly in even more locations just because I am an adult with no criminal history that would prevent my ownership of guns.

So I find myself trying to understand why Liberty University does not believe in my right to protect myself? I am a law abiding adult that regularly carries my gun into public places with the intent to protect myself if I am ever in a situation that requires it.

I personally think every law abiding adult person in this country should take it upon themselves to provide for the protection of their family. For one to rely on the police, which will arrive in a deadly situation far to late to do any good, is to be negligent of their personal responsibility. The police are a luxury, and should not provide people with a false sense of security. The millions of times Americans defend themselves legally with guns every year is clear evidence I am not saying anything that is “out there” or “radical”.

The personal right to defend life and liberty on the grounds of Liberty University is greatly handicapped because as every logical person knows criminals do not obey laws. I can guarantee without a doubt that criminals have and will continue to bring guns into every university in the country because they bring their guns regardless of the rules against them. Once again.. Criminals do not obey laws by definition. Rules against legal citizens carrying hand guns on private property is paramount to liberal gun control, and spits in the face of logical freedom loving gun owners.

Liberty University would do better to teach its young persons the benefits and values of defending themselves in an emergency, and the honor associated with standing up for those who can not defend themselves. This would be a practice worthy of the university’s namesake.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that every 17 year old should be armed, but restricting legal permit holding adults from protecting themselves, and the Univeristy while they are on the grounds is not clear thinking.

I do not shop in places that do not support my right to carry, and I will not attend debates on the future of our freedom in a University that does not value my personal freedoms in respect to the safety of my life.

I had a disagreement with a family member on this issue, which gave me time to think it through.. I had previously said “Liberty University does not support my second amendment rights”.. I was wrong.. I now correctly believe “Liberty University does not respect my individual liberty, nor my personal right to defend myself on its campus”

1. Today’s homes are outdated.

Even with all the talk of green building techniques and energy conservation there is a simple hard truth about the world of modern building. It’s old fashioned. We may have replace the materials we are using to build homes, but in reality the kinds of homes we construct are still based on the ideas used in the 1600’s and 1700’s in Europe. We may have become more sophisticated in our methods and our materials, but this is not really as inventive as one might think. The reality is that our modern homes do not last very long. With all the talk of green building people are still building structures that are going to last just a few decades outside of human intervention. In today’s world a 100 year old home is falling apart and needs to be reconstructed again and again over time. This is not really a smart way of building, nor is it green because we have to do it over and over again. We still build homes out of paper thin materials like those who settled this continent. Lumber has great uses, but why should it be the primary material for the structure of a home? Why not dirt, concrete, or even straw bales?

2. Privacy

When you buy a home in a neighborhood you do not get to choose who lives within a few hundred feet of you. There is virtually no privacy as we continue to build concrete jungles that are sanitized from nature, and lewd in their proximity to others. The simple answer to this on the west coast is the fence. Here on the East Coast no one has any privacy in their backyard, unless provided by trees and forest. In the open spaces of the west everyone lives in a little box inside of a bigger box which is generally made of wood and 8 feet tall. Even this ugly blight on the countryside is no privacy in terms of sound, and the fact that everyone around you is still close by. Ask someone who has lived near a methlab about the privacy of what one smells in their own yard! Oh and when the jerks at the home owners association decide to change the rules you have to abide by them even though they don’t make your mortgage payments!

3. Security

Many would sat that living on your own land makes you further from help, but I would say that a couple dobermans can fix that issue very quickly. When you live in the soup of the masses you are going to have to deal with what society brings. Home invasions, robberies, rapes, murders, and theft can all happen when you live on your own private piece of land.. but there are a lot of measures you can take to avoid them that are unavailable when living in close proximity to others. Beside that, when you buy a home there is a 99% chance no thought of security was intended in its design beyond the security system, which may or may not help you. When you build your own type of dwelling you can design it in such a way that provides excellent security while still being attractive to the eyes.

4. Art

When you buy a modern home you are unlikely to find anything creative or unique about it. Yours will be just like the rest. When you decide to build something different you can actually get very creative. Ever considered having a living roof? Ever wanted round hobbit doors? Good luck working that into your city neighborhood. This is even more true when you think about the economics of a space. Thomas Jefferson spent a great deal of time working out how to make every corner of his home useful. If you like this idea, an ordinary house is limited from the beginning. If you like art, why not live in a creation of your own design? Most people only build their dream home once, and lots of people never get to. The ability to be really out of the box will never exist in a modern home you currently find on the market.You might spend as much renovating your newly purchased home as you could have spent building the first half of your own creation.

5 Cost and Character

When I think about the home I am going to build I start thinking about building into a hillside. Why not save myself on my electric and heating bills by building directly into the side of a hill and let mother nature take care of the temperature. Modern homes are terribly insulated, and I don’t care how fancy your insulation is.. a wall filled with packed dirt, or straw bales is going to be far more insulated.. much less the side of a hill.  I want to build a home that appears to be so rustic it drifts into the landscape, and I am going to use cheap, and sometimes even free materials to do it. Everything you need to build a shelter is on your property, and some of that can be included in the construction of a modern dwelling that will last far longer than a wooden matchbox. While the exterior will look like something from a forgotten time, the inside will be far more modern than any home you can find on the market. For the money I will save in heating and air I can make my home talk to me. I can set lighting panels to create artistic moods, doors to unlock with my fingerprint, televisions  and computers literally build into the wall, sound that appears to come from no where, and everywhere. Beyond this I do not have to stick with the idea of squares, I can play with rounded walls and surfaces in ways lumber would never work. When you have complete creative control you can build something that would make Ikea’s designers drool.

The cost of my dream home is quite modest in comparison. I won’t have to purchase recycled wood (what a bad idea!) in an attempt to be green because I will be using materials that will last hundreds of years. This is actually being green.. not the pretend green movement that puts on television shows about the horrors of land fills.

Today’s homes are ugly, crowded next to strangers, look alien to the land they are built on, waste energy (even the pretend green ones), cost far to much to maintain, degrade far to quickly, waste 20% + in materials when they are built, and cost way to much for what they are.

To me the decision is easy.. spend 200K on a modest home that looks like the rest, has no artistic value, and becomes less valuable with age, OR take half that money and build something completely unique to the earth, and live in a home of my creation to which there is no comparison. Designed to the square foot around my own hobbies, interests, and tastes. If I am forced to buy an ordinary home, its long term future will be as a rental.

If this peaks your interested I suggest you look into Used Tires, Straw Bales, etc.. There are so many amazing ways to build a home, why stick with the same old garbage?

After taking a peek at the congressional finance reports for the local candidates campaigns I am lead to draw some conclusions.

Tom Parriello has already raised 1.6 MIllion dollars for this campaign. Its only May, which means he could raise another Million, or more before the general election depending on PAC contributions, his current fund-raising efforts etc… Looking at his 2008 Campaign numbers he spent just under 2 million dollars on his last campaign. More than 200k was provided through PAC funding, and to date he has already received 400K from PAC funding this go around.  It is not unthinkable he could find more PAC money with his close relationship with the President. It is also not unlikely that he could get some big support from other campaigns in return for his unpopular  health care vote. Lets also remember that he spent 100k less than our last congressman to win the election by a tight margin. We can only hope much of that was due to the Presidential election cycle and the millions spent on trying to bring “change”. With any luck many of his supporters last time around will not be voting in this election. This could also play out for a republican candidate in much the same way, people do not get rid of their congressman between presidential elections.. it just doesn’t happen very often.

So no matter how angry and upset we all are about who we have in office, we have a long road ahead of us if we are going to stand a chance at changing the tide in our favor.

Before I jump into the basket of potential opponents lets remember a couple things about campaign finances. 70% or more of the money spent in a campaign is spent on voter contact. Most congressional candidates will need six or more contacts with the entire field of voters in order to get enough name recognition to win. This is in all reality a game of Branding, not of winning minds.

That being said, those with larger budgets often win elections because they can afford more contact and higher quality contact with the voters. A yard sign does not tell people who you are. A mailer only tells a small percentage of the recipients anything about you.. for those that even open the letters in many cases they will end up in the wrong hands, or in the garbage in 10 seconds flat. The same can be said of post cards, and even telephone calls. In the end the higher quality mediums to reaching people like events, interviews, radio, television, etc.. are very expensive. Those with more money will get more contact, and more branded name recognition. More money = easier to win.

As a business owner that helps people spend their advertising dollars I would also remind all of us that in reality most people don’t know who you are or what your about until they have seen or heard your name 10 times. In this case even five or seven contact points will not be enough for average people to know a single thing about a candidate. Campaigning is like trying to catch a fly in mid flight with a pair of chopsticks. Even when someone learns who you are, they are often going to make up their mind by means of simple issues, or an idea they had from an advertisement. Most people know very little about who they are voting for. Thats why slander and name calling can actually be effective.. most people won’t know any different.

So it is clear that a larger budget and better fund-raising is the key to winning elections because it allows for more voter contact and people learn who you are.The other fact people need to know is that campaigns must be planned backwards.. If you run out of money two weeks before the election you are dead in the water.. so candidates usually plan from election day backwards.

Because we have so many candidates in the pool it is actually very easy to find out who we should be voting for, because losing races will stand out in the financial department.

As of March 31

Robert Hurt has roughly 200k on hand and has spent half of his money on his campaign. He has received 45k in PAC funding and raised the rest. He has not spent any of his own money on his campaign. So far he has rasied 1/4 of what it will take to compete with Parriello.. Notice I said compete, not win. Last time Goode spent 100k more and lost.

Verga has raised 320k and spend just over a third of it. He has even more ground to make up to compete with Tom.Over 85% of this came from his own pocket. That does not show fund-raising skill, and unless he has another 1.5 million in cash he can donate, he better learn how the raise money.

McPadden has raised 250k, but an even higher percentage came from his own pocket. Once again no fund-raising.

Boyd has only managed to raise 70k and has already spent all but 20k of it. I am not sure how he expects to even compete with the last three candidates I mentioned.

Feda Morton has raised only 50k and only has around 7k left. (I remind everyone these numbers are more than a month old). She did manage to bring in some PAC money, but a campaign could spend 2k in a single letter to a part of the 5th district.

McKelvey has spent twice as much as he has raised yet still reports to have another half million on hand for the rest of the campaign.

I can’t talk about Ferrin or Clark because I would need to do more digging in government websites which are no fun to use.. But I can not imagine the picture is any different.

So what is going to change once one of these people wins the nomination. Well first off they are going to get support from the local republican party groups, PAC money might appear from interested parties, and new donors are going to show up because their dollars will be spent on a person who is going to run.. not just against other republicans.

After reading these numbers and giving it some thought I am a bit disturbed. I hope someone out there has a good fund-raising plan to bring in another million dollars or more to the campaign, because without it we are not going to make it very far. I don’t even know what else to say.. Its great there are some people who want to run on their own dime, but they better learn how to raise funds. Hurt is the only one in the race who has not spent his own money, and will probably be able to raise the funds required to compete at his current rate.

Once again I can see a clear reason for several candidates to turn in the hat and let this district elect a Republican to congress. Right now the bottom candidates are actually doing more damage than good, and it strikes me as selfish. Anyone who runs for congress has to have an ego the size of texas, but people should realize that their own needs need to come after the needs of the people of the district. For that reason alone I could never vote for Feda, Boyd, Ferrin, etc..

I am sad because I think people in this district are about to learn a hard lesson.. Politicians like Hurt who run time and time again can raise funds, already have lots of connections, and can more easily win a race. I don’t like Hurt because he is a politician, but if a half dozen people are going to crowd the field and ruin it for the rest of us, I am not sure I like them either.

I will vote for McPadden myself.. but even voting for Ferrin, Feda, Boyd is not going to hurt this race as much as the candidates crowding the field.

For the bottom three: When are you going to wake up and get it? You are actually working against our common goals because you think you need to run, even when you have shown no skill at running a race, raising money, or reaching enough people to make a difference. Its time to gracefully end this nonsense. We are in a battleground district, but you are going to hand it to either another career politician, or a democrat!