I have found a great website that helps resource bloggers or anyone who wants to know the facts surrounding the Climategate scandel.

At Heritage's Bloggers Breifing today, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) spoke regaurding the message he's been trying to get out for ten years - that the science used to support man made global warming is wrong. 

His minority website for the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was very helpful in finding the facts. It links you to research studies, press releases and other articles. 

Happy hunting. 

The Republican Party over the past 10 years has been in a very similar state to that of the 1970’s.

Today, much of the population would define themselves as conservative, but only a small portion would identify with being Republican.

“Back then it was very much the corporate party,” said Craig Shirley, author of Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronal Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America. The left is still using that argument against us in smear tactics that labels us corporate yes men. 

Our solution for today is the same one that Rendezvous With Destiny records. We need to communicate that the Republican Party is the party of the individual. We need to tap into peoples’ desires to be in control of their own destinies.

Shirley thinks we can take our country in a positive direction because we have the facts, sentiment and arguments to make the intellectual case that limited government works, and that countries are most productive when the power flows from bottom to top, not top down.

Rendezvous With Destiny shows how Reagan was against any monopolization of power which is the current American sentiment.

Deficit issues are also a high concern among the average American. Both today and in the 1980’s our country accumulated debt due to high spending. However, according to Tim Mooney, the National Coordinator of Deficit Free, the debt we accrued by out-spending the Soviets in the cold war was owed mostly to ourselves. Our current debt is owed to other nations, thus subordinating America in a way never seen before.

• You can be a part of the deficit solution by visiting http://www.deficitfree.com  

Some people get tired of iconizing Reagan, but I think after reading this book they will see how he was a man deeply influenced by Jefferson himself. Actually, a return to Reagan is a return to our founding, and that is exactly what I am hoping for.

For many November 9th will come and go with no special recognition. How sad.

This day marks the 20th year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and should most definitely be commemorated by Americans. Have we forgotten our triumph in declaring victory in the cold war, or of liberating Eastern Europeans?

You don't have to let this day go unnoticed. 

Take a trip to the Global Museum On Communism. This online Museum is dedicated to educating this generation and next on the history, philosophy, and legacy of communism and its victims.

The idea is rather clever, the site is set up to create an actual museum like experience complete with exhibits, a visitors guide, and different “halls” that you can virtually walk through.

I suggest you navigate the site like you would a real museum; watch the video intro, press “go,” begin reading through the visitors guide, then choose which exhibits you’d like to visit. This may prove difficult for those of you with self-proclaimed, 3-second attention spans, but really try. It’s a worthy cause.

• (side note: I wish Anita Dunn was on twitter so I could tweet her a link to the part of the website where Mao Tse Tung kills millions of his own people)

The reality is that the average time spent on the site is 3 minutes (stat from Lee Edwards at Heritage’s bloggers briefing today). I hope that number increases as more and more people visit the virtual Museum.

Here’s an idea, take a group trip to the museum on the 9th to commemorate the anniversary. Make an event out of it. Plug your computer into the T.V., turn down the lights, and gather round for a meaningful trip. You could even have someone who’s been to the site previously be the “tour guide.”

I promise it will be worth your time.

-------
A leading firm in Canada, Liefa Communications, developed the site. Liefa’s founder Marcus Kolga and family were forced to flee Estonia when Red Army troops attacked. His grandparents where prisoners in the Soviet Union labor camps.

Over 200 tweets per minute flew out today around the subject “no god.” During the conversation peak, I encountered at least 50 tweets per second.

I discovered this trending topic as I returned from The Heritage Foundation’s blogger’s briefing around 2pm. The subject interests me so I spent time reading the tweets.

I was encouraged to find that not all tweets were in favor of “no god.” It was about 60/40 in favor of the non-believers.

However, the battle was vicious. Self-proclaimed atheists were expressing excitement over “no god’s” popularity, while people of faith were trying their best to defend the existence of a higher power.

In all honesty, and not due to my particular position, most of the hostile tweets were on the side of “no god.” The atheists expressed they thought anyone ignorant who believed.

Others had come to the point of seeing no purpose or design in the universe, and thus concluded “no god.”

As a conservative blogger, I am fully aware that just because one is conservative doesn’t necessarily mean you are a person of faith, and vice versa. So my point here is not to be convincing.

My purpose is to postulate that our modern view of science contributes heavily to the conversation I experienced today.

I listened to David Berlinski, Ph.D. and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, speak today at The Heritage Foundation’s blogger’s briefing. (What a coincidence given the #1 trending topic).

Berlinski proposed that the scientific community’s desire to explain our world naturally to the exclusion and intolerance of the divine is the reason for the divorce of faith and reason in our culture.

Based on today’s observation, I’m taking it a step further. I suggest the separation of faith and reason permeates our culture so vastly, that one is looked at as a fool if they dare have faith. How often do we hear the term “blind faith” to suggest that any and all faith is somehow unintelligent?

While maybe not traditionally religious, didn’t Isaac Newton, Copernicus and Galileo all believe in the existence of a supreame being?

Whatever the case, it’s been an interesting day for the subject, over 5,000 tweets per half hour is worth mentioning.

I'd love feedback on this post! Does this subject interest you?

With my induction into the world of social media just a few months ago, I came upon the subject of net neutrality and tried to educate myself quickly. I became confused.

Most social media sites like Mashable or TechCrunch (which I was told to follow daily for my education) told me I should be for it. With a unified voice they proclaimed that net neutrality meant a more free and open Internet.

A September posting on the Mashable site read, “the web will not work if a few Internet providers control what can and cannot be streamed to your computer.” I definitely agreed with this anti-monopoly principle. ‘Freedom for all’ was their mantra. So I thought, “I guess I should be for net neutrality.”

However, my general hesitancy towards government regulation in any case prohibited me from jumping head first onto the bandwagon.

My sneaking suspicion turned out to be right. Thanks to the blogger’s briefing at the Heritage foundation today, I had a chance to hear firsthand FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell talk on the subject.

McDowell informed that 27 months ago the Federal Trade Commission examined the integrity of the whole broadband and determined that everything was fine, that there was no need for government regulation. So what is the shift that made the FCC want to regulate?

“There is not really a factual case being made. It’s mostly just opinions at this point,” McDowell said. He said the fact sheets that have been presented are about 10% fact 90% opinion.

In addition to that, Multichannel news reported that McDowell said “it would be a bad time to ‘heap new regulations’ on broadcasters already hurting. He pointed out he had just met with some of those broadcasters who told him that about half their ad revenue came from the decimated auto category.“

It seems to me that this issue of net neutrality is being fueled by the political climate of our day. Big Businesses equals danger and government equals our savior.

McDowell agreed with my sentiments by acknowledging that ‘discrimination’ is often seen as a dirty word in this debate, but to network engineers, it often just means prioritization, which is a large part of network management.

Can we please get off these catalytic words and look at what’s really going on here?

We’re talking about giving more power to the federal government to regulate what, you the consumer, will have access. I do not claim to be a computer engineer, so here is the issue in layman’s terms:
“Pipes” that deliver your computer information have limitations. Congestion can occur in those pipes and it is left to the network operators to work out their differences on what info gets through to you. Engineers got together to try and resolve this and used something called peer to peer software to help alleviate the congestion. What I learned today was that instead of encouraging innovation from these engineers and people who know most about these things “net neutrality” gives that power over to the government.

McDowell said he and the other FCC commissioners “don’t have engineering degrees, we’re liberal arts majors.” He wants to encourage private sector collaboration.

Ars Technica is another tech. site that labeled McDowell’s criticism of net neutrality a “crusade to define the Fairness Doctrine.” They called him a lone Republican and pointed to party politics as the reason for his disapproval. I wonder if Ars Technica knows that the Clinton administration’s policy was to encourage private sector innovation and not government regulatory “net neutrality?”

I’m tired of all logical opposition being labeled as party politics, it’s getting old.  

McDowell has done his research and he says that, “countries that regulate the Internet are less free, and countries that regulate the Internet less are more free.” This whole thing could lead to the government being one big service provider while smaller independent ones are crowded out. Even if that is not in the immediate future, why take a step in that direction if it’s not necessary?

So which option would you prefer? I say “we the people” will always come up with better ways to solve problems than the government’s regulation.  

I do not know the ins and outs of broadband, but I plead with anyone reading to think about this from an ideological standpoint. If your ideology is not in place, than any idea produced from it, no matter how clever, will lead in the wrong direction.

I could barely believe my ears today at the Heritage Foundation’s blogger briefing. I thought we had declared victory over the Acorn scandal, only to learn we are far from it.

Did you know that Acorn is only defunded through October 31st?

Since the Defund ACORN Act, introduced by Republican Leader John Boehner, passed mid-September, the rhetoric has led all to believe there needn’t be more action. Not so according to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). The IRS severed ties with ACORN and both the Senate and House voted to strip them of funding. However, according to Bachmann, “these votes haven’t stopped one dime from flowing to ACORN.”   

Apparently two votes on two entirely different bills from two separate
chambers don’t mean much. Bachmann says in order to get our promised
result of entirely disabling ACORN, “each chamber needs to pass the
same language and get it to the President’s desk--language intact--for
his signature into law.”

In fact the HuffingtonPost.com reports, “Obama, himself a former community organizer, has long-standing ties to the group, which he represented in 1995 in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois over the "motor-voter" law.”

Also, ACORN has received over $53 million dollars of federal money since 1994, and could be eligible for another $8.5 billion through the Obama endorsed stimulus package and other government programs.

For Obama to casually say he is unaware of these numbers is negligence of duty.

I am glad my fellow media friends were in attendance at the briefing today so we can push out this much needed message. You too can spread the word by sharing this and other similar blog posts, tweets and articles. Help continue putting pressure on Congress and our President to sign defunding ACORN into law!

It would be a tragedy for this truly inspiring, ACORN exposing, brilliant campaign of undercover journalism and grassroots communication to go to waste!

What if you couldn’t choose where you or your children went to school? What if you had only one option, and that option was a crime infested, low performing school?

Welcome to the reality of many low-income families in D.C. and around the country whose only option is public school. There is a light at the end of the tunnel though, or at least there was.

The Good News: The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) provides low-income D.C. families with opportunities to enroll their children in private schools. Each scholarship student receives up to $7,500 per year for tuition.  

The Bad News: The U.S. Department of Education closed the program to new applicants for the 2009-10 school year. The Obama administration pulled scholarships from 216 kids who could have gone to private school.

Why you might ask? Surely it's because the program isn’t working. Obama did say he was going to appropriate funds for programs based on their performance. Surprisingly however, “the program is really one of the only ones that work…kids who get vouchers do much better than kids who don’t,” said Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of the D.C. Black Alliance for Educational Options.
A study performed by The Institute for Education Sciences at the Department of Education shows, that after three years, the students who received scholarships had higher reading test scores than those who didn’t receive scholarships.

Walden-Ford told a crowd at the Heritage Foundation Blogger’s Briefing today that the effort to close the program is because of party politics. “How they want to close down the most successful program ever I just don’t know,” she said very passionately today. She also mentioned that the teachers unions are driving this fight against OSP.

City Council came out in support of the program along with D.C.’s Major Adrian Fenty. The support is not strictly partisan either. Senators Williams and Lieberman also do not want the program closed. In fact, they're speaking at the “Save School Choice” rally at the US Capitol tomorrow from 11:30-1pm. Walden-Ford said they expect over 1,800 attendees.

“We just want our voices heard,” Walden-Ford said. I don’t blame her. The Congressional Black Caucus hasn’t met with her once in her 15 year fight for School Choice. Neither will anyone call her back from the Department of Education.

If this program is not reauthorized it will have negative implications for programs like it nationwide. We need to provide hope for children who want to reach their potential.

President Obama attended private school on scholarships. He and more than half of congress send their children to private schools. Shouldn’t other parents have a choice too?

For more information on this program and how to help please see:
http://saveschoolchoice.com/stagesite/about.php

Today I encountered one of the most refreshing, down-to-earth politicians I have ever met. Jason Chaffetz (Rep. 3rd District, Utah) spoke completely transparent and without pretense at the Heritage Foundation today. He impressed me with his desire to have a tight budget and low spending during his campaign for Congress in 2008, even despite overwhelming odds against a winning campaign. Chaffetz ran against RNC-backed Chris Cannon and won while spending about 1/6 of the money. Chaffetz said he made the decision to run against Cannon because, "he failed us (Republicans) for not instituting conservative principles in campaign finance and sticking to limited spending."

Chaffets attributes his election to his online presence, use of social media and personal calls and visits. He told of a time he drove an hour and a half to visit with three people. "I was willing to do things most people weren't," Chaffetz said. 

In regards to social media, he says too many members in the House are afraid of Facebook and Twitter. That's what I appreciated most about Chaffetz today: He didn't seem to have much of a filter when talking. You could tell he wasn't thinking, "how is this going to sound?," or "is this politically correct?" He was raw, yet well spoken. "You have to be comfortable with who you are," Chaffetz said today in response to a question regarding his succesful popularity. 

He also commented that the managment of a politican's Twitter and Facebook accounts "are not staff jobs, once people recognize it's you, well, they like that." I agree, there's nothing more frustrating than having a conversation with a ghostwriter. Chaffetz personally sends his facebook fans happy birthday messages. He said it communicates care not only to the individual, but also to the 500 potential others who may see it.

His website www.Chaffetz.house.gov is extremely fun and interactive with many videos. There are chances to personally contact Chaffetz, follow him on Twitter  or become his facebook fan. (He expressed disappointment with facebook's policy of a 5,000 friend cap on a profile because he feels his fan page doesn't allow him the personal touch his profile once did). On his website there's even a mini-series called "The Freshman" that documents Chaffetz's first year in Congress.

If I lived in Utah I'd vote for him. In fact, I hope his honest grassroots efforts will proliferate in Congress and inspire more young and truly conservative politicians. 

With all this talk on the Democrat's HR 3200 proposed health care bill, many Republicans are left not knowing how to respond. One thing is for sure, we keep getting labeled as right wing radicals. What should the Republican response be?

Should we try to "reach across the aisle," a phrase that many politicians like John McCain have made popular, and compromise? Should we give in a little on health care to make everyone happy, so as not to be overly ardent? After all, in his speech Wednesday night Obama basically labeled all Republican congressional objection as "partisan spectacle" and "scare tactics."

I was encouraged to hear Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council (FRC), address this issue today at the Heritage Foundation's blogger's briefing. He confirmed my gut feeling that Rebulicans, instead of shrinking back in fear of being antithetical, need to be as vocal as we can about why we believe what we believe. 

The answer for our party is to not believe the lies the Democrats are intimidating us with. We need to stand for small government in all issues, including health care. Tony Perkins said today that the, "2010 election will be helped if republicans stick to siding with the American taxpayer. Republicans are treading on thin ice if all we do is trim it (the proposed HR 3200 health care bill) and do not oppose government health care completely."

This is a crucial time for our party, and more importantly, the ideals that shaped our country. Today, they are known as "conservative." But weren't we founded on principles of small responsible government? Tony Perkins reminded us of the need to hold republican members of congress to these principles.   

The FRC and The Heritage Foundation are two of the sponsors for this weekend's Value Voters Summit at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. Perkins said that the goal of the summit is for everyone to work together and send a message out for conservative values in all areas of government. "Americans are looking for conservative leadership," Perkins said this afternoon. I hope this conference gives the American people and members of congress the confidence to be unashamedly conservative. 

Today I went to my first Blogger’s Briefing organized by Robert Bluey at the Heritage foundation. Considering it was also my first day interning at DAG, I didn’t know what to expect. When I arrived I was pleasantly surprised to find a catered spread of Chick-Fil-A in the back of the room. The environment was friendly and everyone seemed connected to one another.

The Meeting began and we were briefed on a number of different topics. The briefing that most captured my attention was the announcement, given by Adrienne Royer, of the Leadership Institute’s launch of CampusReform.org. It’s a new social networking website for conservative student activists. My first thought was, “man I wish this was around when I was a student!” Unfortunately, as a 2005 graduate I am very familiar with the pains that conservative college students go through day to day under the oppression of a very liberal and anti-republican environment.

This website will help students to not feel alone and equip them to take action when they encounter leftist bias in their academic pursuits. Resources for students vary from networking capabilities, activism resources and even specific pages dedicated to their university. A student can go to CampusReform.org to read and write reviews that identify leftist abuses and bias in textbooks, classes and professors. Legal resources are waiting to equip students to action!

“CampusReform.org will help students break the left’s stranglehold on the ivory tower. Enough is enough, and its time for conservatives to stand up against liberal indoctrination on college campuses," said Tyler Millage who is a junior at UNC Wilmington and works with the Leadership Institute. Tyler, I couldn’t have said it better myself. My hope is that students really utilize the full potential of this social community. Maybe leaders of College Republican chapters could even educate their members with this tool? What a great place to start. I’ll see what I can do. One thing at a time though, after all it is my first day on the job. I wish I could go back to college better equipped to make a difference!