Upon reading my blog titled “What Network Neutrality is Really All About” a myspacer responded with the following:

 “Network neutrality is about keeping the huge media conglomerates like Fox, NBC/GE, ABC/Disney, etc. from setting up a many-tiered system which would put individual internet users on a slower system which we would have to pay extra to get off of and onto the fast track, which the giant media corporations would try to keep for themselves while charging more and more to the little guy to use. It's about keeping the internet from falling into total control of the mega-corporations. It's about maintaining the equality of access to the internet that now exists. If you want the internet to become the province of the rich, then keep fighting against net neutrality.”

Another replied,

“I do not agree with a single thing you said in your blog, and rather than waste time "debating" about it, I'd rather just say "have a nice day". I do not agree with a single thing you said (and this issue is not open for discussion) because I view "free markets" as one of the worst threats to the world. Since the basis of your blog is built upon the idea that "a truly free internet can take care of itself", we really have nothing more to discuss.  Have a nice day.”

A many tiered system is not possible.  Either the people who support Net Neutrality don’t understand the infrastructure of the internet or they don’t care about the truth.

For those who don’t know, below is as brief and concise a breakdown I can give of the incredibly diverse, complex and ever evolving internet and the reasoning why it cannot fall ’into total control of the mega-corporations’. 

The Internet for Dummies

First we must differentiate between the web, the internet, its providers and protocols and the infrastructure used for all of the above.

The Web

The World Wide Web is the data and the information we get on the internet.  This includes pictures, video, audio, web pages, etc.  Everything from the page we can read at the Library of Congress to the link to lasagna recipe that your aunt sends in an email.  If there is a link to it somewhere, it is part of the world wide web.  It is not physical.  It is the data on the internet, and the data that takes you to the data.  In short, the WWW is the content of the internet.

The Internet

The physical connections from node to node are what constitute the internet.  A network of computers at a college, a computer in a home, a laptop at Starbucks, a server used by a local internet provider, the servers used at the bank, the radio base stations your cell phone logs onto; these are what make up internet.  Satellites and the cables that run on the bottom of the ocean are part of the internet.

Protocols

The protocols used on the internet, or ‘modes’ are basically the computer languages and methods of operability and data transmit and exchange.  These obviously require appropriate equipment to operate.  Wireless frequencies, packet transferring, USBs; these all require language and protocols to be able to communicate with something else.  Whenever you turn on your computer or connect it to something, it sends out a query to see if it can communicate with something through the connection.  If it can’t communicate, your computer tells you that you have a problem.  In this case, what you are connected to is ‘not recognized’.  From connecting a memory strip to connecting to the internet, both ends must be able to communicate through an appropriate language and transfer protocol.

Protocols are often refined and upgraded.  These upgrades which add features or fix bugs are usually made to enhance existing equipment.  Makers of video processing cards or network adapters for example, often provide upgraded versions of the software needed for their products that can be downloaded from the internet.

Less often, but inevitably, public demands for greater speed, higher definition, expanded capability, etc. call for improvements that require new equipment to operate.   This may simply be a chip upgrade, a peripheral or whole system upgrade.  While for some this can be costly, requiring it of everyone is foolish.  Even though most consider Windows NT to be too problematic to maintain, still the upgraded versions of Windows will recognize it in connectivity and format.

And even less frequently, programmers and manufacturers determine that the present mode, language or a device’s approach to processing is insufficient to support required growth.  Such is the case with storage.  Originally, IBM desktop computers used true floppy disks that were 10” and then 5.25” and then came the 3.5” hard sleeve disk.  While these disks are still in use, they are of little use with modern programs because of their limited capacity.  The nine-pin serial port was widely used for desktop and laptop peripherals, but the USB has almost completely replaced them.  The benefits of this improvement were immediately recognized by manufacturers and programmers worldwide, and were literally adopted prior to the release of the innovation without any need of contracts. 

Whether local or omnipresent, whether through the internet or from your motherboard to your monitor, computers require thousands of different protocols to operate.  Without appropriate protocols, the world would not be connected.  Without advances in protocols, the internet stops growing.

Much of the internet modes and protocols are a result of interoperability and interconnectivity agreements between corporate networks, between manufacturers and internet providers.  Everyone agrees to a standard, often without written contracts.  These peer contracts establish the operational modes we use, and consist of mutually beneficial approaches to modes and protocols.

“The phrase "settlement-free peering" is sometimes used to reflect this reality and unambiguously describe the pure cost-free peering situation.” (2)

Operating systems have needed to perform radical changes to service demands by the public for more productivity.  Try connecting an IBM 8086 computer running on Windows 2.0 to the internet using a 300 bit Smartmodem.  The protocols may still function and you may be able to connect through your phone line, but with only 640 kilobytes of memory and only 4Mhz of power, a standard Myspace page would freeze your system after it tried for an hour to load it. 

Try running a DOS program on a modern Windows XP or MAC operating system.  It won’t work!  Net Neutrality calls to require protocols in all aspects of the net to still accommodate the slower and outdated technology to be “fair”.  How much will it cost and who will pay for it in the end?  What does that require of a myspacer who wants everything on their page?  It has to be able to be truncated so that it will load on the Fred Flintstone computer.  How much will that cost and how much will it slow down the system for the rest of us?  Only time will tell.

The Infrastructure

When connecting the computer in our home or office to a candle maker’s website in China, there follows a hierarchy of network hubs:

Point of Presence (POP)- wire service connected to your building (phonelines, cable etc.)  This may be AOL, NetZero, Verizon, Pacific Bell, etc.

Network Access Point (NAPs)– these are huge high capacity connectivity ports owned by corporations, government, universities and private entities.  This is the last strait line your internet connection may see.  In the NAP are the routers that send information throughout the world and back to your computer.

Backbone- The best description is that a backbone consists of the high-capacity trunk lines that make up an interstate or international highway for information, and the NAP routers are the onramps.  Once only colleges and government owned and maintained these, now corporations build them for their own and public use.

New technology allows us to bypass local POPs, NAPs and Backbones with service provided by direct satellite or cellular wireless connections.

Once on a backbone, our transmission goes back down another line of hubs until it reaches a site or network we are accessing whether that’s Google or jansvacationphotos.com.

As far as where they lie in the internet, websites we visit are no different than our computers.  They may be in a large building with lots of servers and routers, just as the website I may start at freewebsites.com, but they are outside the hub and are visited by going through the hubs.

All of this has been built without restriction and cannot grow any other way.

“Meanwhile, over the course of the decade, the Internet successfully accommodated the majority of previously existing public computer networks … This growth is often attributed to the lack of central administration, which allows organic growth of the network, as well as the non-proprietary open nature of the Internet protocols, which encourages vendor interoperability and prevents any one company from exerting too much control over the network”. (1)

Where Does It Go From Here?

Now I’m going to warn you.  If only a few entities gain control of the architecture of the internet, that is, the technology, protocols, POPs, NAPs, Backbones, and the content, then the world will be in trouble.  Especially if they see this control as a way to nickel and dime us to death.

The internet does not belong to anyone, it belongs to everyone.  Individuals and corporations develop technology and protocols which they incorporate into the internet by agreements and by the demands of the market.  Competition has invigorated these people to expand the internet at the exponential rate we have seen since its inception.  Chunks of the infrastructure are owned by thousands of entities.  Everyone Should Control the Internet.

The Market

Once “the premier entry point to the internet” with 30 million subscribers, AOL was the unstoppable IP.  Due to their aggressive advertising techniques, at one point 40% of their subscribers didn’t even have computers but believe they should be able to get online.  AOL discovered this and then deliberately advertised to these people even more.  AOL is guilty of extensively using the very site trapping techniques the Net Neutrality proponents keep warning us about.  But it was the competition of the free-market that brought more ethical, affordable and diverse IPs that took their market share from 24.3% in 1997 to about 13% in 2006.  (3,4)

An intelligent analyst that is interested in making money for his corporation is not going to recommend taking control of the internet.  An intelligent analyst would come up with Myspace.com, google.com, ebay.com, Voice-over-internet-protocol, wireless-internet-access, etc.  What the people want, that is what controls the internet.

Corporations

Corporations invest billions of dollars into research and development to expand the internet and make the best use of it.  Technology, the interactivity and user-friendliness of programs and web sites, the innovations of individuals are brought to world on a silver platter.  Corporations are what build the internet.

Government

Yes, I said “government”.  Government can promote the internet by enforcing existing monopoly laws.  Cracking down on internet trapping crimes, phishing, spam, etc.  Government is not what should run the internet, but it should protect it.

Conclusion

The many-tiered-system some are inarticulately posing is not possible.  Corporations cannot gain control of all of the physical aspects of the internet because some of them are government controlled and some are government subsidized and owned privately by entities that cannot sell them.  Some, such as satellites are governed by special communications laws that preclude them from being used for profit.  Much of the cable infrastructure is required by original contracts to be the property of local governments. 

Corporations cannot gain control of internet protocols because it is too vast and requires too many agreements.  Everyone on the internet is not going to wholly accept protocols that only benefit one corporation or one group.  And even if they did, everything would change the next day.

I warned about letting control of the internet fall into the hands of a few.  With the present freedom, the net has shown that it can take care of itself with relatively few stumbles.  But the more Net Neutrality is used to create the legislation it calls for, the more power government will have over technology, protocols, POPs, NAPs, Backbones, and web content.  Even if they drive the internet into the ground, just as they have shown with things like education (the average American public school student is being beaten out by kids in Belarus), they’ll never let go, ever.

Corporations cannot control the internet because the people will simply not buy into it.  They cannot control the internet because other corporations will simply provide a better, cheaper and freer product competitively.  They cannot control the internet because the federal government will break them up like they did Ma’ Bell.

Government control and taxation of the internet is not freedom.  It is a socialist utopia that will do nothing but shackle mankind.

While I personally don’t like seeing corporations having so much influence in our lives, I’m not willing to give up my freedom to those in government in order to stop them.  Even if that did occur, there are proven ways of dealing with it.

I could just as easily say that the affiliates to the progressive movement that are pushing for Net Neutrality (yes, there are a few Republicans) have not changed their stripes and are still only interested in placing absolute power over our entire lives into the hands of a few in the name of “the people”, and are determined to deny everyone a chance to prosper.

The internet is not one thing.  The only way to stop it is to regulate and tax it.  At first the infrastructure ran strictly through phone lines and through college server equipment.  Now it runs through fiber optics, cable, satellite and the cellular industry.  Soon AccessBPL (Broadband-over-power-lines) will bring the internet into every home, in every community, right through a house’s electrical system and out of every outlet.  This will occur because of legislation signed by congress that eases restrictions on corporations. 

Fewer restrictions on those who build the internet are what the government can do to help.  Restrictions on monopolistic power in the U.S. have been in place since 1890.  Government enforcement of the laws against fraud will keep the corporations on the internet honest.  Net Neutrality is about something completely different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering_agreement

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=164401

http://www.watleyreview.com/2004/111604-3.html

Network neutrality is a regulation principle for broadband.  It is the face being put on a much broader idea.

The public is being told that it is about keeping the internet free from service switching scams that might restrict users to certain providers or force them to use other providers, whether it is an Internet Provider or any subsequent providers. 

First, to address what everyone is constantly being told about Network Neutrality; it actually calls for broadband networks to have no equipment or mode restrictions.  That is a good thing because when new technology comes out that allows me to have 3D holographic interface games with 10,000 people around the world, I'm there.  However, there are no restrictions on this now.  Let me repeat that: THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS NOW!

So if Network Neutrality proposes to do something that is already being done, what else is it for?

The fact that there are no restrictions now can be seen in the rapidity with which we and the internet are growing together.  So Network Neutrality is like saying, we should pass laws that allow us to drive down the street, across town or across the nation.  We can already do this.  When I say that Network Neutrality is the face of a much broader idea, I mean it is being used to scare people with stories of provider switching and service manipulation.  In other words, to induce fear that we will be taken advantage of.  When these things happen now, they are already against the law or a law is simply tweaked to recognize it.

So since everyone is already free on the net to grow as we desire and are able to, and since we are already protected by laws from switching scams, what else does Network Neutrality do?  Glad you asked.

First, Network Neutrality will REQUIRE ISPs and other service providers to still support old equipment and modes.  So with the slogan of "Network Neutrality" Congress is attempting REGULATE the internet by bringing portions of it under the Telecommunication Service regulations. 

They plan to do what was done to the cellular industry.  At one point in the advancement of cell phone technology, everyone moved on to GSM (digital) and then UMTS (HiSpeed).  But the federal government required cell phone companies to maintain all the old TDMA (analog) so that those with analog phones can still use them.

So while the cell companies are willing to give digital phones away, they are still required to renew accounts with TDMA customers.

If you ever see a cell tower with it's antennas arrayed in three directions walk over and look inside the fence.  You'll see a bunch of metal cabinets that are bigger than refrigerators.  The biggest ones are usually TDMA.  As cell companies see this, the old technology takes up 10 times the space of the new technology, and they have to pay for the space and maintain the equipment that often only 1 person uses a month, while the new technology is handling everyone else's 200,000 calls a month. 

This would be equivalent to spending $1000 a month on a car that does not even run, while you spend $100 a month on the car you drive every day.

So what's the big deal?  So they maintain old equipment for a decade or so.  I have all the latest technology, let the slow people do their own thing.   Well, with only a few people using all that old stuff, guess where the cell company gets its money to maintain it all.  Yup, you and everyone else who is moving up the technology escalator!  Perhaps your cell plan could be costing $42 instead of $62. 

Network Neutrality – Strike one!

Network Neutrality also says to infrastructure companies like AT&T that even though Google uses far more bandwidth than most other internet companies, AT&T and other infrastructure providers cannot charge them for it at a rate proportional to their use.

For example; if I owned a woodshop and charge people $10 dollars to come in and use my tools.  Google comes in and stays there 24 hours a day, using my equipment to make a killing in the unfinished furniture industry.  Network Neutrality says I can only charge Google $10 dollars, just as if he were some guy who simply makes a birdhouse.

As AT&T must, I have to spend my own money to accommodate his increased production with a greater capacity and constantly upgraded equipment, forever.

Further, and more importantly, Network Neutrality support vlogs are not addressing its farthest reaching implications.  With the internet under federal regulation it is subject to further regulation.  Sort of like the FDA who regulates the processing and distribution of food in America.  The FDA has grown so much and people are so accustomed to it regulating the food we buy, it may one day tell us what we cannot put in our bodies.  Wait, it already does that. 

What have members of the congress been trying to do to the internet ever since Al Gore invented it?  That's right, TAX it! 

Like your telephone bill, what can be regulated can be taxed.

The first Internet Tax Freedom Act specifically put a moratorium on internet taxes for the purpose of holding off long enough so the internet could get strong.  Only after it grew into a monster did they intend to go after us, as though it is the right of government take money from us.  Personally, I'm amazed they had enough restraint and patience to pass such an act.  Although many have tried to let this bill expire, fortunately it has been extended and we are still free from most e-taxes.

A new bill has been introduced called (S.156) the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 that simply makes this ban on internet taxes permanent.  The bill has not been scheduled for debate and likely will not get even debated, let alone voted on.  The intention behind the ITFA was not to ban taxes on the internet, but to have a ban that would expire one day.

What keeps us from being taxed in the first place?  In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of revenue, decided in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the Federal Constitution prohibited a state from imposing a use tax collection obligation on a mail-order seller with no physical presence in the state.  In 1992, 25 years later, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the court reaffirmed the essential holding of the 1967 decision, that states may not require a mail-order seller to collect the use tax due with no physical presence.  This holds true for "all" types of out of state sellers regardless of the vehicle being used to sell.  (1)

Just look at the government fees and taxes on your home phone and your cell phone.  All justifications aside, it is still a bunch of taxes.  You can stay up to date with the following sites and others: 

http://www.cfif.org
http://www.nointernettax.org

Network Neutrality – Strike three!

And still there is more.  Ever heard of the Internet Society?  ISOC is an international organization consisting of 100 organizations and 20,000 members.  It's largely associated with the United Nations, and in close association with the UN World Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) which proposes a new form of government called e-Government.

WGIG conducted the World Summit on the Information Society with the stated aims of getting the internet to everyone in the world.But the answers in the two resulting reports were all about getting the internet under the control of an international government.  Their 2003 Digital Solidarity Agenda Plan of Action, and the resulting Tunis Agenda for the Information Society claims to assume governance of the internet for the common good.  But it claims governance of the internet nonetheless.

I'm not going to go into all the conspiracy theories.  Everyone knows the heart of the UN.  The Internet Society has commissioned reports for Congress and other nations to learn how the internet is functioning.  But while WGIG and ISOC may largely refer to problems associated with getting the internet to poor people, and protecting societies from fraud, all of the answers to these problems seem to involve methods of standardizing and controlling the internet and helping governments get money from its users.  While ISOC mostly reviews and reproves policies, information and opinions about the internet, its' recommendations involve constructing a legal framework around it. 

All one needs to do is read these organization's long winded reports.  ISOC released a statement on 30 October 2001, titled "ISOC RECOMMENDS EXTENSION OF US MORATORIUM ON INTERNET TAXATION" where it stated that ISOC "believes that taxation on use of the Internet would have a negative effect on its continued growth, and the Society opposes any form of taxation of this type."   

Let freedom ring brother!

But right in the same release they made clear that this is only a temporary plan until they have an appropriate structure that taxes the internet without destroying it; "Realistically, it will take time to reconcile the diverse range of potential and existing legislations and apply these to the "borderless" nature of Internet commerce. A continuing moratorium in the United States is a key factor in allowing time to balance the interests involved."

In other words -  a temporary moratorium on internet taxation.  Tax the internet, but not yet.

The American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) is one of the few organizations that has been warning us about these dangers.  They are obviously interested because ISOC has continually recommended that internet registry follows a global standardization under one international authority. 

ISOC refers to problems associated with electronic transfers of funds such as un-traceability in money laundering and other fraud, and potential problems with national and regional economic stability.  But the greatest affect of theirs and the WGIG's recommendations are fees and taxes.  How do they propose taxing a  Chinese retailer who avoiding taxation by going through America to sell to a Japanese customer?  A worldwide internet taxation authority.  Based where?  Switzerland of course!  What would this authority do?  It would require ALL internet transactions of THE WORLD to pass through it to finalize disbursement of all funds based on local, national and international laws.  The ultimate fraud prevention system?!

Obviously this blog does not address all the issues concerning Network Neutrality and internet freedom, but the main public debate is, I think, laid bare. 

I believe that a truly free internet can handle itself.  People and companies are solving transaction issues themselves on the net and the crimes that people commit on the net are still considered crimes and are still being prosecuted.  We don't need anyone, not corporations, congress or the UN to control the internet any more than we need them standing over our shoulder when we send a letter, walk down the street or buy a box of lemon drops.

Oh, and by the way, I still refuse to vote for any Republican who doesn't believe in all points of the Republican platform, no matter how much the compromised conservatives think he can win.

(1) http://www.ecominfocenter.com/index.html?page=/newsletter/issue8/issue8.html

The left have never met -

An unadmirable tyrant;

An inexcusable criminal;

An enemy that couldn't be cheered on;

A position of influence they couldn’t aspire to;

A life deserving innocent;

An unimpeachable family man;

A housewife that didn't need belittlement;

A dollar that couldn’t be nickled and dimed;

A parent with rights;

An animal with less value than a man;

A prosperity that wasn’t built on the backs of the oppressed;

A means of independence that didn’t ruin it for everyone;

A transaction that couldn’t be taxed;

A social experiment that needed to be shelved;

An unwanted art form that couldn’t subsidize;

A means of defense they couldn’t demonize;

A group they couldn’t pit against another;

A opponent that couldn’t be smeared;

A strength that wasn't selfish;

A value that couldn’t be called old fashioned and out-of-step;

A minority that can’t be called oppressed;

A tract of land that couldn’t be made off limits;

An unGodly scientific theory that wasn't gospel;

A doctrine that can’t be altered;

A perversion that couldn't be normalized;

A hallucinogen they couldn’t consume;

A founding father they could quote extensively from;

A truth that can’t be avoided;

Or a Moral person they could respect;

A public place they couldn't expose themselves in;

A good they couldn't call evil;

An evil they couldn't call good.

The left understands momentum and stumbling blocks better than anyone.  They understand that a firm, thoughtful and well articulated argument can cause them to completely lose the support of those they are trying to influence, or lose ground they have already gained.

 

For example; divorce rates in America are very high.  When arguing for normalization of some cultural taboo, the left will use these numbers to counter the claim that monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the ideal institution.  High divorce rates are a direct result of the selfish and irresponsible culture of the left itself.

 

Keeping the latter point unspoken is paramount to the left.  That is why liars and manipulators often filibuster an argument to put a stopper on reason and fact.

 

They know that cultural rightness must be shouted down and motives characterized and impugned.  Without countering the tactics of the left, and perhaps displaying the timid response to intimidation, being a virile and masculine man has been characterized as arrogant, domineering, barbaric and chauvinistic. 

The homosexual has been characterized as suffering oppression akin to slavery; a misunderstood underdog, loving and even wholesome.  Despite a number of psychologists and college professors telling us differently, the evidence shows this to be completely the opposite of the truth.

 

These types of misrepresentations have been built over several decades and could not have been done without the tremendous effort of leftists in the influential positions of media, entertainment and all levels of education.

 

This momentum, they use at the forefront of every word and deed.  They speak as though they presume everyone is as ‘enlightened’ about such things as they are.  Knowing full well that there are those who do not agree, they may even act shocked just before they condemn any questioning as the hateful speech of the ignorant few.

 

From time immemorial up until only about 40 years ago, Americans could look at history and see only suicidal cultures adopting and touting such positions.

 

Now, we don’t even look at those culture's deaths.  We just teach their precepts.

 

The label “One-Issue-Voter” implies that a person is what?  Not in touch with reality?  Unable to grasp the necessity of political needs?  Unwilling to calculate the greater need to vote for a lesser win over a greater loss?

 

Its called ‘compromise’.

 

Let’s change one little dynamic of the “issue”.  Let’s say that Roe v. Wade did not allow for the killing of people simply because they are without a Social Security Number, are nameless and don’t have to be looked in the face.  Let’s say it allows for the killing of anyone with a last name that starts with the same letter as yours.  All of you do not have a right to life because it has not yet been definitively determined that you are human beings.   Now, you also are a one-issue-voter.

 

The demand of aborters is for the “Freedom of Choice” to do with their own bodies what they want.  That is the way the issue is framed.  But since that is not the issue non-aborters have, it doesn’t matter what they call it.  ‘Freedom of Choice’ simply avoids the discussion of our true grievance.  We oppose abortion because we believe that there is another human being inside a pregnant woman’s body that not only has the same right to life that all Americans have, but requires in obligation, its mother’s protection.

 

We who call ourselves “Pro-Life” are completely aporetic about why there is even a question in this.

 

Hell, we’re standing stark, with mouths wide open wondering why none of the GOP’s Presidential hopefuls aren’t one-issue candidates.

There are two strains of religious belief in America -

God, Guns and Guts.

And the other-

Crotch, Government, and Pacifism.

There are 300 million Americans.


Elsewhere in the world there is a strain of religous belief-

Ignorance, Murder and Envy.

There are over 1 billion in this strain.  Their leaders have told the entire world that they intend to conquer and kill or convert every man, woman and child of us.  Extra heavy emphasis on the "kill" part.  This is taught in their schools, spoken in their temples, declared by their politicians, and chanted by their torture and suicide squads.

Exactly which of America's religions do they prefer to be dealing with?

Which of America's religions do they seem to have the most complaints about?

And which of America's religions do they hope will compromise their values the most?

Ok Republicans.  Still planning to vote for the Republican "who-can-win" over someone who actually stands for 90% of the Republican Party Platform?

I've stated before that the problem in conservatism is compromise on the part of the Republican leaders and party members.  It's also a lack of forward thinking.  Nothing truly bold is ever put forth by anyone in the party except by the shunned.  Those who are so naive as to believe in the actual party platform and live with the moral precepts behind each of them.

Perhaps this proposal is forward thinking enough to be entertained by Republicans, and its benefits and ideals high enough to mitigate the fears associated with being bold in the face of the shrill and the wiley-eyed.

I propose that the US should offer statehood to the various states of Mexico, to occur either through seceding from the Mexican Union or by Mexican consent and decree. 

Once agreed, a reasonable waiting period should be established for the purpose of governmental, judicial, educational (English, citizenship, etc.) and financial restructuring before borders are opened and citizenship granted to former-Mexicans.  Importantly, a diligent border containment policy would need to work hand in hand with a census and identification program.  Caution would of course be needed, as no doubt many social tinkerers would take this opportunity to attempt to institute some very un-American ideals.

This would need a very aggressive and expensive cultural and education program that may be characterized as national "shock and awe", to teach would-be citizens how to be Americans.

This would effectively free every Mexican who can make it (and not be rejected for a criminal past) to the new-states from the failed feudal systems of Mexico.  It would also provide the significant momentum needed for America to establish more strict policies for our border enforcement. 

The labor force so desired by American companies would be full to the brim with new red-blooded and happy Americans, helping catapult our economy ahead of so many of our world competitors today such as the EU and China.  This labor force would not be sending their dollars to another country, nor would they be receiving free healthcare and welfare benefits from the American taxpayer.  They would be paying into our unfair tax system just like the rest of us.  They would not remain an underclass of people but have every opportunity to advance and thrive in America.

The fact that Mexicans come to America for its bounty is ignored under the guilt lust of today's anti-Americans.  But the non-aggressive, voluntary nature of this border expansion could be bannered as the epitome of the superiority and desirability of American freedom.

With little need for governmentally established incentives, American companies would flock into the new states and invest dollars like never before, keeping the money at home and establishing new marketing and investing frontiers. 

Our borders would be expanded, our population exploded, resources accessed, people saved and given hope, our economy swelled, our national focus exhilarated, our illegal immigration problem addressed, the government of a corrupt neighbor diminished, and on and on.

Republicans, I know that something of this magnitude requires alot of exposure and backbone.  It would require a fervent coordinated effort and unanimity on the issue.  There would be debates and probably some finger pointing and name calling.  Imperialists and all its various synonyms I'm sure would be used.  Fear of accomplishment might set in.  Significant investment profits are likely to be traced back to you and then you would have to...   uh, uhn.

Does anyone know the website for the Constitution Party Headquarters?

Presumably because they can read the writing on the wall, commentators keep asking conservatives if we are willing to allow Hillary Clinton to be the next president for the sake of our one-issue stance, or to remain pure, as it keeps getting sarcastically put.  The left defines us as ignorant neanderthals, and these commentators insult us by talking to us as though it were true. 

Yes already!  Despite our public school educations, we understand the math.  “No vote Republican, Hillary get elected.” 

Many in the base blame the party for leaving their first love.  Commentators counter this with insult to the base.  Whose fault is it that Republicans love something else now?  The Republican algorithm declares - those left behind are guilty of leaving the leaver.   

The base blames Republican politicians for the loss of the house and senate.  The commentators have deduced that the base will abandon the party in the future and declare that any such future protest would be petty, selfish and reckless.  They demand recognition that the Republican party has made great strides for its base by passing legislation that outlaws partial-birth abortion, builds a fence on the border, puts God back in the Pledge, that they’ve confirmed two conservative Supreme Court justices and cut taxes.  The Democrats got that much done for their base in the first four years of Clinton.  (Crickets chirp)

What we who are still conservative believe is that these were only partial or hollow victories, and that they were achieved only because Republicans acted during public momentum.  Under no other circumstances do they seem capable. 

Under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, doctors who are already immoral enough to kill babies need only make a deceitful pen note that the mother’s life was in jeopardy.  The result is, this evil practice is now protected by law.  Further, condemning the murder of one child over another, renders these other legal abortions as “Not as bad” or more accurately, “Now ok”.  This legislation is not ineffectual, it makes abortion law worse.

How many of the more than 1 million illegal aliens per year will this fence catch and what will be done to keep them from trying again the next day?  Will this fence be able to detect radioactivity?  What about the 30 million illegal aliens in the country for whom compromise will not only excuse their immigration and tax crimes, it will reward them with citizenship?  Every seriously considered Republican answer to this question factors in the potential voter equation.  Thanks for looking out for our interests.

And I’m sure God appreciates congress putting Him back in the Pledge of Allegiance.  How many  public schools still says the Pledge?  This should certainly counter the 50% leftist social curriculum of our federally funded, failing public schools.

The Republican majority affirmed Judges Alito and Roberts.  Out of respect for the Presidency, they also affirmed most of Bill Clinton’s judges, who are now dictating leftist morals to the country, unopposed.  I thought Senate confirmation was a matter of checks and balances, not a formality.

With democrats winning so many campaigns by running as more conservative than Republicans, state and local taxes have gone through the roof.

The Left’s recent victories in the house and senate were, in no small part, due to their appearing more conservative than Republicans.  (Cricket’s chirp again)

Let’s talk of courage with courageous talk.

There is the dissolution-with-war factor.  Why do the minority Democrats rule the public debate on the war?  You could say it’s because they have the media on their side.  Or you could say it’s because the Republicans allow their boring, yet intelligent members to present their issues to the public with mono-toned, uninspiring and passionless speech, reminiscent of 9^th grade algebra teachers.  As a whole, the Republican party has come to believe that public debate is to consist only of meek defenses, and defines conciliation as its most important goal. 

With Republican speech continually designed to placate the aggressive finger pointers, they will ever lose the courage to use words like Socialist, Immoral, Anti-military, Anti-Christian, Anti-family, Leftist, Traitorous, Perverted, Evil, etc.  

When the Democrats lost in 1994 they demanded the Republicans share power.  The reason they did this?  (Jeopardy music)  Bwwaaaahh!   Wrong!  They demanded power because they knew Republicans would give it to them.

What would have happened if the Republicans had refused?  Hmmmm?  Correct!  The Democrats would have pointed their fingers at the Republicans and called them names.

Why did the Republicans give in to this demand?  (tic toc tic toc)  Correct again!  They were afraid they would be called names that would stick, eventually causing them to lose control of congress.

The commentator’s derision declares we must compromise our values again so that the country is effectively compromised at a slower rate.  You have the Fully Compromised Democrats, the Partially Compromised Republicans and the Formerly Compromised Conservative Base.  It’s not high math.

Republicans perceived that real conservatives were becoming a minority.  Knowing that 2 plus 2 equals 4, they decided to bring in more voters.  This eventually resulted in a permanent theme in Republican campaign strategies.  They called it “The Big Tent”.  Conservatives called it “Compromise”.  And Republicans calculated greater votes due to the unspoken, “It’s ok, the base has no alternative but to vote Republican.”   This theme resulted in real conservatives going unsupported by the party, leaving only the name to differentiate between Republican and Democrat candidates across the country.

Democrats recognize the weaknesses of our new system of course; their smear machine destroying Republicans at the shake of every liberal finger.  This compromise has effectively accelerated the marginalization of the true conservative American and labeled him an extreme right wing wacko.

So yes!  I’m taking my ball and going home.

Republicans did not win the big prize, but here are a few parting gifts of wisdom:

When asked to declare what you stand for, first stand up. 

When you say what you stand for, say it loud and say it clear.  Say it with passion and say it often.

If you get a majority once again, tell the Democrats daily to shut their mouths, pull up their pants and just cast their stinkin votes.  Then inform Americans what happened and who you are dealing with.

If you want to compromise yourself thinking it will get you more voters, remember, joining the other side makes you the enemy.  If the result is Hillary, it’s your fault not ours.

And remember, Rudy Giuliani is no Vertebrate Lincoln Republican.