Now, I’ll be honest. I’m not one to sympathize with Congress or Congresspersons very much, but even I can come to understand that we’ve started to demand a purist position that is really impossible, if not unworkable and problematic for the country. They may not understand us, but we sure as hell don’t understand them. I’m not saying I like the idea of throwing billions of dollars down the proverbial toilet, but if its going to happen, the least we can do is hope that some of that money goes to the right places and does the right things. It sounds defeatist and honestly, it feels defeatist, but I think, at this point, it may be the only hope we have left of making sure that, in practice, our ideals live to see another day.

How, I ask, can one compromise one’s ideals in order to preserve them? Is there a line past which Republicans will say, “No more?” And, if so, where is it? What must the Left propose before we demur, before we draw a line in the sand and dare them to pass it? We’re like the cartoon character who scratches a line in the sand and dares the other to cross it. Of course, the opponent casually steps across it and we draw another line. To make this analogy completely realistic imagine that each time we step back to draw a new line, we step toward the cliff edge which is behind us. At some point, stepping back again will be fatal.

Why do so-called conservatives find it so easy to retreat and retreat? I suspect it has something to do with complacence and fear. First, I suspect most conservatives are not really sold on the virtues of small government. Certainly, George W. Bush was not. And, his constant proposals for a “Compassionate Conservatism” were a transparent foreshadowing of a new era of “conservative”-sponsored Big Government. Unfortunately, after eight years of “Compassionate” “Conservatism,” the Republicans seem to have lost their stomach for the fight. They tasted the power which comes from handing out goodies to constituents. But, NEWS FLASH, Democrats are better at that. If that is how you intend to compete with the Democrats, you will lose. And, by simply playing their game, you encourage them to take larger steps. Indeed, President Obama’s $925 billion stimulus plan would have made FDR blush. For heaven’s sake, the stimulus package is almost as large as the entire government budget, and after one considers that it will have to be 100% financed with borrowed money, its size dwarfs this year’s budget.Second, I think Republicans are afraid if they hold the line on spending, they will be excoriated by the press, the Left, and ultimately the voters. Certainly the press and the Left will try to demonize the Right if they attempt to hold the line. In fact, the president has already taken to the airwaves to begin the attack. But, it’s not at all clear that voters would revolt against the Republicans if they were the grown-ups in the room and said this country cannot afford Obama’s wishlist.

Emily raises a good (if defeatist) point. Republicans will almost certainly cave; that is the nature of the Republicans. Even if they don’t, the Democrats have the votes to pass any legislation they want. Does this let conservatives off the hook? According to Emily, we should get on the gravy train and try to divert as much of that gravy as we can to our causes, constituents and projects. What the hell else could “the least we can do is hope that some of that money goes to the right places and does the right things” mean? But, her point is well taken, we are not discussing whether there should be some monstrous spending bill. Earlier this afternoon, Karl Rove was on Fox News saying that there should be a plan which is “targeted, temporary, and timely.” As Willmoore has pointed out, this is the new mantra. With a mantra like that, it is only a matter of time before a package of some sort is passed. It needs only the working out of the details at this point.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not ripping Emily. I mean, I am ripping Emily. But, it’s not just her. Her post is simply a symptom of a greater ailment from which the Republican Party suffers. Emily is a perfectly nice person and former law school classmate who generally thinks very clearly. Hers is just an example which caught my attention today; it sort of set me off (as though I haven’t been on this rampage all week).

My hands are not clean. I have had my dalliances with compromise and appeasement. After all, when McCain wrapped up the nomination, I argued strongly in favor of supporting him, chastising my fellow site mates and commenters for straying into thirdpartyland. I understand the impulse. I’ve walked in those shoes. Every man wants to think of himself as reasonable – the sort of bloke with whom you can do business. To the extent that my attempts to “be reasonable” have caused me to veer into appeasement and conciliation, I repudiate those former positions. Henceforth, I will strive to be unyielding in my defense of the principles of small government, brooking no compromise.

Earlier today, I briefly entertained the notion that I might run to represent my House District in Washington. I wondered how a person who stood in front of a group and said the following might be received:

It is nothing new to hear a politician promise that he will hold the line on spending. It would be new to encounter one who actually means it and will actually do it. That is my promise. America has approached the point where, if its spending is not reined in, it will never recover. One of the most pressing emergencies facing this nation today is our profligate ways.

And yet, our Constitution insists that the federal government is supposed to be limited. That means the federal government is not supposed to be involved in things like your local schools, providing policemen or firemen, or supporting our neighbors. It is supposed to be doing things like protecting this country from its enemies by maintaining the armed forces, building interstate roads and maintaining interstate waterways, providing a postal service (although one wonders if that job might not be better handled by private concerns), regulating immigration, and governing Washington D.C. That’s pretty much it. But, our federal government has spread its tentacles into every nook and cranny of American life.

It is time that the federal government be confined to its Constitutional limits and for States to jealously guard its prerogatives to govern in the space that remains.

If I am elected to Congress, I pledge to oppose any spending bill that exceeds the federal government’s mandate. I promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States, striving to eliminate programs that exceed its boundaries.

If you elect me, you are not electing a Republican or a Democrat. I am likely to vote with either side or with neither. I am not promising to be reasonable or to reach across the aisles. I promise to obstruct government’s growth and to do everything I can to make it smaller and less intrusive. People should make decisions for themselves. They should spend their money as they see fit. And, in those instances where government must decide issues, that should happen at the lowest level possible. Education decisions should be made in the community, not in Washington. Not even in the Indiana Statehouse. Parents, teachers, and those who live in the community should decide what should be taught in its schools, how those subjects should be taught, and how to make sure schools are effective in imparting knowledge to our children. The needy should be supported by his neighbors – those who care for his well-being far more than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington or even in our Statehouse. I do not seek to be the most popular congressman in Washington, currying favor with my colleagues by compromising my principles. Rather, I seek to be the most consistent congressman by striving to protect Americans from over-taxation, in arresting the growth of the federal government, and in cutting it down to size.

Western Civilization has drawn lines in the past. And there are instances where those who manned those lines were steadfast and repelled whatever the threat of their times might have been. One thinks of Lepanto, Poitiers, Little Round Top, and The Ardennes. But recently, the Republicans’ line drawing has more resembled the Maginot Line. No more. Let us be steadfast and, in so doing, preserve this Republic before the opportunity has passed.

If someone said something like that, would he stand a chance? If one looks at the last eight years, one would have to conclude that Big Government Conservatism has not gone over well – at least judging by the President’s approval numbers and Congress’. But, does that mean that the above message would fare any better? I know there was a candidate in the Republican primaries who espoused much of what I am talking about, but his naivete when it came to foreign policy ruled him out in my mind. Nonetheless, it is hard to deny that he sparked the imaginations of a large number of people.

LONDON, July 7 (UPI)—Toddlers who say “yuck” when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says. …

“…babies must also be included in the effort to eliminate racism because they have the ability to “recognize different people in their lives.”

It doesn’t get any better than this.

It turns out he wasn’t talking about law school at all, but rather the Cornell School of Law’s online compilation of federal statutes. In particular, he was talking about this one.

Now, I listen almost exclusively to talk radio these days. And, I’ve pretty much heard almost every national radio program in existence. It didn’t take me long to realize that I was listening to Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM (or whatever his show is called these days). Knowing the caliber and mentality of listener to that show, I thought to myself, “This ought to be interesting.” So, I continued to listen.

Side note: I realize that that is a VERY long way to go to alert our kind readers that I am not a regular listener to UFO/contrails/government conspiracy/remote viewing/paranormal-type shows. Although, the fact that I can string together the programming list I just did may say otherwise. But, please trust me, I don’t listen to it often. For the record, I got hooked on the Midnight Trucking Radio Network for my late-night, after-the-bars-close, talk radio when I lived in Ann Arbor (but, I can’t find it on any station in Indy). But, when your choice is Art Bell v. Alan Colmes, what are you supposed to do? I suppose I could have shoved a CD in the slot. But, he said “law school”…

As I listened, I realized that he was talking about a real-life, no kidding, this is no Bravo Sierra thing. He was talking about a federal statute that is actually verifiable. I arrived home and looked up the statute. I’ve linked to it above, but I’ll reproduce it here because I know there’s a certain population of people (I am often one) who will not click on the links in a blog post, but rather will try to ferret out what the link says from the context. If you are one of those people, don’t bother clicking the link, because here is what it says:

§ 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents

How Current is This?

(a) Prohibited activities

The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or

(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions

Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.

(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.

(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

(c) Informed consent required

The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

(d) Prior notice to Congress

Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.

(e) “Biological agent” defined

In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—

(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or

(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

Again, my apologies for not handling this situation better. Feel free to berate me in your comments to this thread. they are secure!

I will simply ask that our commenters, please confine your comments to the topic of the post. I will give a very recent example of what I consider a transgression. SM offered a post about a recent court case concerning abstinence. One of our commenters responded with a post about “the law.” Was he referring to United States law? No. He was referring to St. Augustine’s understanding of God’s law. Now, I am every bit as much of a believing and practicing Catholic as the next guy. But, when we discuss court cases on this website, it would seem that we are commenting on contemporary United States (or State) law and the culture which creates/tolerates/precipitates it. We are not talking about moral law that was “promulgated” 1600 or more years ago. Such a comment is completely unresponsive to the original post and drags the whole discussion off-topic. You may personally hold the view that contemporary law is divorced from our foundations as a Christian country; I may hold that view; and I’m pretty sure SM holds that view. But, that is not the topic of the post.

Please make sure if you are going to comment that the comment is pertinent to the original post.

Relatedly, let us all try to take each others posts and comments in the most charitable possible light. I make that pledge to anyone who posts here or comments here. I hope that all of the readers and contributors can find it in their hearts to start over and do the same.

On a slightly different note, I must note that something is working. Daily we are breaking records for visits. Already today at 6:37 Eastern Time, we have logged more visits than on any other single day in the history of Conservative Donnybrook. I attribute that first to excellent content. But, also to some extent to the readers and commenters that we have attracted to this site. I’d like to publicly congratulate all of the contributors to this site. And, I would also like to thank our readers and commenters.

Let us all try to start again.