DR. Magill says, "Defend CPAC from phony conservatives"

From the Washington Times, February 9, 2011, is this article written by local Republican activist and founder of Veterans in Defense of Liberty (VIDOL), Dr. Scott Magill. Magill is the executive director of Veterans in Defense of Liberty and a local OB/GYN doctor.

Defend CPAC from phony conservatives

Many conservative organizations have chosen to boycott this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), but Veterans in Defense of Liberty will be there in force. Our group is going to CPAC to fulfill our sworn and solemn oath to “defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Unfortunately, the nation’s pre-eminent grass-roots conservative gathering has become a showcase for the enemies of the American tradition.

The American Conservative Union‘s (ACU) board of directors, led byGrover Norquist, Suhail Khan and until he stepped down yesterday,David Keene, seems to have forgotten the constitutional grounding of American society. The board continues to espouse the ACU‘s founding conservative ideals of economic growth through smaller government, reduced taxation and lower government spending but has disconnected them from the funda- mental issues of liberty and the personal responsibility upon which that liberty rests. It likewise ignores the ACU‘s original principles of traditional religious values and national security based on peace through strength. In truth, without the traditional social foundation, the economic principles from which it is derived cannot survive.

The ACU has landed solidly behind the radical homosexual agenda. Veterans in Defense of Liberty does not oppose people who are homosexual, although we do object to their behavior. However, we forthrightly oppose the policy prescriptions expressed by GOProud. We recognize the truth in the words of John Adams in his address to the military in 1798: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” GOProud intends to be that whale. Adams continued, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” When traditional morals fade away, the Constitution is sure to follow.

Mr. Norquist serves on the GOProud advisory board and also has advocated legalization of drugs, open borders and amnesty for illegals; supported closing the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay; opposed aspects of the USA Patriot Act; and supports the construction of theGround Zero Mosque. He is actively promoting the Obama administration‘s “engagement plan” with Islam, which has the Muslim Brotherhood‘s seal of approval. He certainly has a right to hold those views, but it is false advertising to call them conservative.

The homosexual agenda of GOProud parallels that of other homosexual ideology, militantly demanding social approval and that homosexual principles assume the same moral high ground as heterosexual ideals. GOProud members use the Saul Alinsky-like strategy of seeking to subvert traditional morals: marginalization of their enemy and destruction of the traditional family. They favor repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment and seek to brainwash America’s youth through the school system by inserting favorable references to homosexuality in the curriculum as early as kindergarten. Religiously based moral objections to this approach are swept aside in the name of “separation of church and state.”

Church and family are the basis of the traditional values upon which our Constitution rests. Church and family have been the bedrock of American exceptionalism. Twentieth-century Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who inspired a generation of radicals, taught that leftist revolution is only possible if these hallowed institutions are first marginalized and then defeated. Any organization that works actively to undermine faith and family cannot by rights claim to be conservative.

Because we former members of the military have sworn to defend the Constitution, we have but two choices: Surrender and abdicate the CPAC battlefield or refuse to be pushed to the sidelines, stay on the moral high ground, fortify our defensive perimeter, roll up our collective shirt sleeves and return the ACU and CPAC to their original foundations of liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values and national security.

It would violate our organization’s mission statement, several of our general orders and the basic instincts of our members to abdicate the field and allow irreparable harm to be done to the conservative movement. If we pulled out of CPAC it would create a vacuum that other organizations would attempt to fill, claiming to speak for America’s veterans but supporting policies that the vast majority of those veterans abhor.

Veterans in Defense of Liberty will not neglect our oath by putting our heads in the sand and pretending that this is not a serious constitutional matter. We will defend the turf hard won by so many of our brothers who came before. We call upon all conservative groups to demand the resignation of any ACU board member who does not understand, advocate and live by the traditional conservative principles enshrined in the Constitution and sanctified by the blood of those who died to keep America free. They should be replaced by constitutional conservatives who understand the principles that have made America a “shining city on a hill” and are willing to fight to ensure that the concepts of conservatism, capitalism and American exceptionalism do not become servants to those who would destroy them. We are up for the fight. Bring it on.

Doctor John Lilly, State Representative Eric Burlison (136R) and Doctor Scott Magill in this undated photo on Burlison's website.

ps-- here is the privacy notice on Burlinson's website:

Eric Burlison for State Representative is committed to protecting your privacy and developing technology that gives you the most powerful and safe online experience. This Statement of Privacy applies to the Eric Burlison for State Representative Web site and governs data collection and usage. By using the Eric Burlison for State Representative website, you consent to the data practices described in this statement.

Collection of your Personal Information

Eric Burlison for State Representative collects personally identifiable information, such as your e-mail address, name, home or work address or telephone number. Eric Burlison for State Representative also collects anonymous demographic information, which is not unique to you, such as your ZIP code, age, gender, preferences, interests and favorites.

There is also information about your computer hardware and software that is automatically collected by Eric Burlison for State Representative. This information can include: your IP address, browser type, domain names, access times and referring Web site addresses. This information is used by Eric Burlison for State Representative for the operation of the service, to maintain quality of the service, and to provide general statistics regarding use of the Eric Burlison for State Representative Web site.

Please keep in mind that if you directly disclose personally identifiable information or personally sensitive data through Eric Burlison for State Representative public message boards, this information may be collected and used by others. Note: Eric Burlison for State Representative does not read any of your private online communications.

Eric Burlison for State Representative encourages you to review the privacy statements of Web sites you choose to link to from Eric Burlison for State Representative so that you can understand how those Web sites collect, use and share your information. Eric Burlison for State Representative is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content on Web sites outside of the Eric Burlison for State Representative and Eric Burlison for State Representative family of Web sites.

Use of your Personal Information

Eric Burlison for State Representative collects and uses your personal information to operate the Eric Burlison for State Representative Web site and deliver the services you have requested. Eric Burlison for State Representative also uses your personally identifiable information to inform you of other products or services available from Eric Burlison for State Representative and its affiliates. Eric Burlison for State Representative may also contact you via surveys to conduct research about your opinion of current services or of potential new services that may be offered.

Eric Burlison for State Representative does not sell, rent or lease its customer lists to third parties. Eric Burlison for State Representative may, from time to time, contact you on behalf of external business partners about a particular offering that may be of interest to you. In those cases, your unique personally identifiable information (e-mail, name, address, telephone number) is not transferred to the third party. In addition, Eric Burlison for State Representative may share data with trusted partners to help us perform statistical analysis, send you email or postal mail, provide customer support, or arrange for deliveries. All such third parties are prohibited from using your personal information except to provide these services to Eric Burlison for State Representative, and they are required to maintain the confidentiality of your information.

Eric Burlison for State Representative does not use or disclose sensitive personal information, such as race, religion, or political affiliations, without your explicit consent.

Eric Burlison for State Representative keeps track of the Web sites and pages our customers visit within Eric Burlison for State Representative, in order to determine what Eric Burlison for State Representative services are the most popular. This data is used to deliver customized content and advertising within Eric Burlison for State Representative to customers whose behavior indicates that they are interested in a particular subject area.

Eric Burlison for State Representative Web sites will disclose your personal information, without notice, only if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to: (a) conform to the edicts of the law or comply with legal process served on Eric Burlison for State Representative or the site; (b) protect and defend the rights or property of Eric Burlison for State Representative; and, (c) act under exigent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of Eric Burlison for State Representative, or the public.

Use of Cookies

The Eric Burlison for State Representative Web site use "cookies" to help you personalize your online experience. A cookie is a text file that is placed on your hard disk by a Web page server. Cookies cannot be used to run programs or deliver viruses to your computer. Cookies are uniquely assigned to you, and can only be read by a web server in the domain that issued the cookie to you.

One of the primary purposes of cookies is to provide a convenience feature to save you time. The purpose of a cookie is to tell the Web server that you have returned to a specific page. For example, if you personalize Eric Burlison for State Representative pages, or register with Eric Burlison for State Representative site or services, a cookie helps Eric Burlison for State Representative to recall your specific information on subsequent visits. This simplifies the process of recording your personal information, such as billing addresses, shipping addresses, and so on. When you return to the same Eric Burlison for State Representative Web site, the information you previously provided can be retrieved, so you can easily use the Eric Burlison for State Representative features that you customized.

You have the ability to accept or decline cookies. Most Web browsers automatically accept cookies, but you can usually modify your browser setting to decline cookies if you prefer. If you choose to decline cookies, you may not be able to fully experience the interactive features of the Eric Burlison for State Representative services or Web sites you visit.

Security of your Personal Information

Eric Burlison for State Representative secures your personal information from unauthorized access, use or disclosure. Eric Burlison for State Representative secures the personally identifiable information you provide on computer servers in a controlled, secure environment, protected from unauthorized access, use or disclosure. When personal information (such as a credit card number) is transmitted to other Web sites, it is protected through the use of encryption, such as the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protocol.

Changes to this Statement

Eric Burlison for State Representative will occasionally update this Statement of Privacy to reflect company and customer feedback. Eric Burlison for State Representative encourages you to periodically review this Statement to be informed of how Eric Burlison for State Representative is protecting your information.

Contact Information

Eric Burlison for State Representative welcomes your comments regarding this Statement of Privacy. If you believe that Eric Burlison for State Representative has not adhered to this Statement, please contact Eric Burlison for State Representative at Eric.Burlison@sbcglobal.net. We will use commercially reasonable efforts to promptly determine and remedy the problem.

ATTENTION Legislators, both state and federal:

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it." Stephen Colbert

Schweich gives a pass to Sinquefield petitions; Non-partisan analysists agree they will bankrupt the state and kill off the middleclass

"It's not fair, Daddy! These guys want to bankrupt the state and kill off the middleclass. I guess I expected more out of Tom. Why do they hate us so?"

Developing story out of the Auditor's office right now.

I called to express my concern with Auditor Schweich not identifying a fiscal impact on Sinquefield's petitions.

Scweich's phone number is 1-573-751-4213, Vanessa Chandler is his communications director. You will probably get her voice mail.

Firedup Missouri has this report:

Auditor Tom Schweich boldly announced today that he's not going to try to help Missouri voters understand the cost of Rex Sinquefield's sales tax hike proposals. The closest he came to providing an honest assessment of Rex's plans was to say that he can't "predict that the petitions will have little or no fiscal impact on the state." Impressive stuff, right there.

Sinquefield helped get Schweich elected and has made huge contributions the Republicans around Schweich, of course, so perhaps this isn't all that surprising. It's also not surprising that Sinquefield's hired guns in Jefferson City were quick to tweet out the news of Schweich's big punt.

Lobbyist Travis Brown, Sinquefield's top lobbyist and Speaker Steve Tilley business partner:

And unethical hack Carl Bearden, a Sinquefield lobbyist and director of the Sinquefield-funded "United for Missouri" organizations:

Any questions?

Despite Schweich's punt on the issue, Missourians have plenty of research to know how devastating Rex's plans would be. Last year, the General Assembly's Joint Committee on Tax Policy found that the 7% cap on sales taxes would be far from revenue neutral, and would have to be much higher if a prebate program was instituted.

We also have the recent analysis of Sinquefield's petitions by Jim Moody, a lobbyist who used to be Governor John Ashcroft's Commissioner of Administration, who found that Rex's plans would "bankrupt the state, or in the alternative, bankrupt the poor and the working lower and middle income classes." GOP gubernatorial candidate Peter Kinder cited Moody's research in his explanation for why he isn't endorsing Rex's plans (this year, any way).

And the Missouri Budget Project and Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy have determined that a sales tax rate with a prebate program would need to be close to 11% to be revenue neutral.

Charlie's plan hit a pothole....but Christmas is safe!

The talk a couple of days ago was about Charlie's plan to require drivers' license testing to be given in English only.

Well, that plan appears to have hit a bump in the road.

The Columbia Tribune's Rudi Keller reported yesterday that Charlie's "English-only driver test idea hits barriers".

The bill is popular among his constituents, Denison said.

But people who interact regularly with immigrants and insurance companies know it is a bad idea.

From Keller's story:

Richard Brownlee, a lobbyist who represents State Farm Insurance said the insurance industry doesn’t like the bill because it will mean more unlicensed drivers who have no insurance will be on the road.

“The idea that a person who doesn’t speak English wouldn’t understand road signs doesn’t make sense” because road safety signs have international designs, he said.

Other opponents saw it as a slap against hardworking immigrants.

“This bill would hurt refugees whom we, the state of Missouri, have promised we would welcome to build new lives in Missouri — they can’t do that without a driver’s license,” wrote the Rev. Chuck Tobin of St. Sabina Parish in Belton.

Tobin said he has done mission work abroad and knows how long it takes to learn a new language.

“In the meantime, to be successful, viable, healthy members of our community people need to be able to drive to church, to work, to school, to spend money in stores (grocery, malls, etc.), to doctors and hospitals etc.”

Attorney Angela Williams was more blunt.

“I am saddened by this bill and several others that have been introduced in the House and the undercurrent of hatred, intolerance and exclusion that seems to be sweeping our society. I fear if we do not take a stand against this type of blatant bigotry, one day we will wake up to find an America we do not recognize.”

Hear, hear.

Meanwhile, Charlie's bill, HB 198,

December twenty-fifth of each year shall be known and designated as "Christmas Day" in Missouri, and shall be set apart as a day in honor of the Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ.

seems to have found kindred spirits down here in Southwest Missouri.

When he's not shilling for killing the property tax and replacing it with a sales tax (remember when he said "I do not like the idea of increasing sales taxes to accomplish the elimination of the income tax." I do.), Representative Eric Burlison is co-sponsoring his own version of the Christmas bill, HB 424:

The day after Thanksgiving Day until midnight December twenty-sixth of each year shall be known and is designated as the "Christmas Season" in Missouri.

How long before Melissa Leach jumps on this bandwagon?

Does making Missouri more job-friendly always requrie screwing the working class?

This report just in from the Columbia Tribune's Rudi Keller:

JEFFERSON CITY — On a party-line vote with no debate, the House International Trade and Job Creation Committee voted to eliminate cost-of-living raises for people on minimum wage.

The 10-5 vote is the first step in this year's attempt to overturn a provision of the state minimum wage law voters approved in 2006. The measure is one of the six top priorities of business groups lobbying lawmakers this year.

After the vote, Rep. Jerry Nolte, R-Gladstone and the committee chairman, said the bill will help keep Missouri competitive. If the provision were allowed to stand, Missouri's minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would grow to exceed that of most states on its borders.

“We are in a recessionary period,” Nolte said. “We have got to poise ourselves so when the economy takes off, we are ready to ride the wave.”

Voters approved an initiative petition increasing the state's minimum wage to $6.50 an hour by passing an initiative measure. The proposal received 76 percent of the vote across the state. It included a provision increasing the minimum wage by the amount of inflation, calculated once a year in September. It also required that the state minimum match the federal minimum if the national minimum wage was higher than that set for the state.

The inflation adjustment has been implemented twice, at the beginning of 2008 and 2009, and the wage increased again in July 2009 when the federal minimum rose to $7.25 an hour. For the past two years, the lack of inflation has meant no increases in the state wage.

After the vote, Rep. Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City, said arguments that a lower minimum wage means more jobs can't be proved. “When we tie the minimum wage to the federal minimum, we are overriding the will of the people,” Holsman said.

Nolte said he didn't see it that way because the state law was passed by voters after nearly a decade with no increases in the federal minimum wage.

Earlier, this was discussed on The Erstwhile Conservative:

FiredUp!Missouri alerted us to an outstanding piece at the Riverfront Times by Chad Garrison. Provocatively but understandably titled, “Does Making Missouri More ‘Job Friendly’ Always Require Screwing the Working Class?” Mr. Garrison explores the consequences of our fanatically “pro business” anti-worker Republican legislature:

One of the proposals would repeal Missouri’s minimum wage law, allowing employers to pay low-wage employees even less. Another would make it easier to terminate employees. Also in the sights of Missouri legislators is an effort to eliminate the state income tax and replace it with a higher sales tax — a move that allows poorer Missourians to shoulder more of the state’s tax burden.

I recommend all readers go to the site and read the entire piece, which among other things discusses Missouri’s 2006 Proposition B. The initiative passed in every county in Missouri and statewide garnered 76% of the vote, in support of raising the state minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. Garrison points out that Darden Restaurants, which has two franchises in Joplin—Red Lobster and Olive Garden—donated $25,000 to an effort to kill the proposition. Various McDonald’s also donated money to stop the effort to raise the minimum wage.

As Garrison notes, the beef with the wage mandate is this:

Missouri law states that tipped employees must be paid half of the prevailing minimum wage (a.k.a. $3.63 per hour), which is more than the federal law for tipped employees of $2.13.

Oh my God. Pay them $3.63? Why, that’s outrageous.

All Missouri workers should read Garrison’s piece, especially those working stiffs tempted to support Republicans, who are doing everything they can to wage war on those who make the country what it is. Garrison links to an organized effort in Missouri to change Missouri’s labor laws—which are already heavily tilted in favor of employers—to make them even more anti-worker.

Is this why Billy flew to DC when he said, "They won't let me fly"?

From a February 4, 2010 story in the SN-L, Fractured Foot Hobbles Long:

Rep. Billy Long is hobbling around these days.

The new congressman, who met Friday afternoon in Springfield with parents and other relatives of people with juvenile diabetes, was quizzed on the walking cast on his right foot.

"I'm styling," Long said. "I went skiing, and I forgot to take my boots off."

It turns out Long has been walking around for months with fractured bones in his foot. X-rays didn't show anything, but he had an MRI which revealed the broken bones. Long said he injured his foot during a parade.He gave out autographed copies of the Constitution and posed for pictures with members of the group in front of the office window bearing his name.

Long said the snowy weather doesn't bother him because he has a four-wheel drive, but he can't drive now because of his foot.

"They won't let me drive in this boot, and they won't let me fly," he said.

Again, with the ambiguous "They".

Who is they? Is "they" doctors? Billy seems to imply that, that "they" refers to doctors. But if it does, why doesn't he just say "doctors"?

So we were wondering how Billy would make it to Washington this week if he couldn't fly up there-- you know, because "they won't let me fly."

Follow the money.

Billy had a fund raiser tonight, limited to five people, at $2,000 a pop for co-hosts.

Ten grand for a meeting over drinks at the Capitol Club.

Of course he's gonna fly up there.

personal to tea party members: Why aren't you mad as hell at Billy for his vote on the Patriot Act?

this from Neosho "Republicans must be proud":

The big Tea Party names, Michele Bachmann, Kristi Noem, Allen West, voted to pass the authorization. Billy Long voted to pass it. Only eight Republicans first elected in 2010 voted nay. The Teabagger Contingent doesn't get the cred for opposing Big Gummint overreach.The defecting Republicans include a lot of guys who have been opposing this stuff for years (Paul, Broun, Young, Duncan, Jones, Rohrabacher). In 2010 64% of dems voted for it and this year only 34% voted for it. While pubs still vote ~86% yay each year. Those numbers are enough to pass it under normal rules.

Teabaggers don't care. The Patriot Act dying does nothing to prevent them from having to pay for poor black people's welfare baby doctor visits.

Remember, government in health care = bad, government roving wiretaps = A-OK.

Billy “wasn’t sure where he might come down on the proposal" to end airport subsidy in Joplin.

From the Erstwhile Conservative:

Closer to home, Ozark Billy Long made the local paper. The front page of Sunday’s Joplin Globe prominently featured an article on the possible elimination of a federal program that subsidizes airline service to about 150 cities around the country, including here in Joplin. Whoops! When we sent Ozark Billy to Washington to shrink the government, we didn’t mean shrink the part of the government that makes life easier for business travelers and other local bigwigs who can afford to pay the expensive fares to fly out of Joplin!

Our airport manager and city officials, according to the paper, say the subsidized service is “a vital link to economic development.” Yeah, that’s what they all say. These officials will, of course, lobby our legislators to keep the subsidy in place.

As for Ozark Billy, the Globe points out that he is a member of the House Republican Study Committee, a radical bunch of tea partiers that has already proposed killing the subsidy program, which will pay American Eagle nearly $3 million annually for service to Dallas twice a day.

But the paper reported that Ozark Billy “wasn’t sure where he might come down on the proposal.” Ah…It’s so easy to talk all that smack about cutting government spending, as long as it is spending on the poor or the working class. Cut! Cut! Cut! says our congressman. But when it involves cutting subsidies for business travelers and wealthy jetsetters, it gets a little harder for some Republicans.

Here's what Billy had to say to the Joplin Globe on July 10,2010:

Americans are fed up with federal programs that never end. Ronald Reagan said the closest thing to eternal life is a government bureau. I favor looking at all federal programs and assessing whether or not they work or if they are needed anymore. I would work to end Visa Lottery that literally allows people from countries on the terrorist watch list to get a visa with a minimal background check, if their number is pulled in the lottery. We also have over 2 million federal employees. We need to put the federal government on a diet and reduce its size.

We're still waiting, Billy.

Does Billy Long bring bad luck to people who get their photo taken with him?

Sure seems that way:

Not long after Billy Long had his photo taken with Tim Davis, Davis lost an election.


Not long after Billy Long had his photo taken with Scott Eckersley, Eckersley lost an election.


Not long after Billy Long had his photo taken at the Mount Vernon parade, he broke his foot.


Not long after Billy Long had his photo taken with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she lost her speaker's position.

Not long after Billy Long had his photo taken with Speaker of the House John Boehner, news broke of his involvement in a sex scandal which put his speaker's position in jeopardy.


Here's hoping:

Boehner in sex scandal? Did you ever wonder if he bawls when he balls?

This from Firedoglake

John Boehner’s speakership in the U.S. House of Representatives might be short lived.

Boehner has been involved in extramarital affairs with at least two women, according to a new report in the National Enquirer. We don’t normally cite supermarket tabloids as primary source material. But the Enquirer was first to write about the John Edwards’ infidelity, and the newspaper proved to be right on target. And back in the early ’90s, the mainstream press picked up on the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers story after it broke in a tabloid.

In Boehner’s case, the Enquirer gets into specifics–and that gives the story a ring of truth:

Capitol Hill insiders and political bloggers have been buzzing about an upcoming New York Times probe–detailing an alleged affair that the 61-year-old married father of two had with pretty Washington lobbyist LISBETH LYONS.

And an ENQUIRER investigation has uncovered a bedroom encounter that Boehner–second in line of succession to the presidency–allegedly had with LEIGH LaMORA, a 46-year-old former press secretary to ex-Colorado Congressman JOEL HEFLEY.

Who is Lisbeth Lyons? Here is her biography from the Printing Industries of America Web site. Here are her duties:

Lisbeth Lyons is the Vice President, Government Affairs for the Printing Industries of America, having joined PIA/GATF in March 2005 as Director of Legislative Affairs. In this position, she is responsible for providing direct advocacy before Congress and the Administration on key industry legislative initiatives, as well as for the strategic direction of the organization’s grassroots and external outreach activities.

You can check out her Facebook page here. Among her likes? John Boehner. That’s our girl. Sounds like her advocacy, indeed, has been rather direct with Mr. Speaker.

As for Leigh LaMora, here is some background from her LinkedIn page.

With the somnolent nature of today’s mainstream press, there’s no telling if this story will gain traction. Mike Stark at StarkReports.com is giving the story serious attention. In fact, Stark contacted Lisbeth Lyons and found her to be not terribly anxious to comment:

I don't think Blake and Billy are brothers, or even cousins.

But they sure have some of the same habits and they even resemble each other.

Here's a photo of Blake acting like a kid:

And here's a photo of Billy acting like a kid:

Here's a photo of Blake using his phone:

Here's is a photo of Billy using his phone:


Here's another photo of Billy using his phone:

Here is Chris Leahman's Blake:

Here is Chris Leahman's Billy:

This from Bungalow Bill:

Meet Blake. Blake is a fun loving guy, who likes the wine, women, and song, who coincidentally sounds like a Tea Party guy as well. Pay attention to what he says on his campaign Web site. It's impressive.

I believe our government is too big and too expensive. We need to return to the ideals outlined by our founding Fathers in our Constitution and return the power to states, local governments and most importantly the individual. I believe in less government (which means more freedom) and lower taxes (which means bigger paychecks). I’ll fight to defend your freedoms including freedom of speech & religion, the right to bear arms and the right to be free from discrimination.

Right on, right on, right on. A funny thing happened to Blake, he became Congressman Farenthold and bought into John Boehner's rhetoric.

Soon he began acting like the establishment, promoting big intrusive federal government that our founding fathers would be furious over. One of the first bills he sponsored was the "If You See Something Say Something Act of 2011" which increases the size and power of the Department of Homeland Security--you know the same people that want to touch Blake's junk when he travels back to Corpus Christi.

He began to listen to the establishment like gun grabbing Republican Peter King who chairs the Homeland Security committee that Blake sits on. Then he began listening to Boehner, who decided it was in the federal government's best interest to continue spying on Americans in the name of national security without any warrants.

He also began to meet other Tea Party frauds like Billy Long from Southwest Missouri, who also pretend to care about what the founding fathers had to say while voting exactly the way the establishment tells him to vote.

Wouldn't you know it. Both these self-proclaimed champions of liberty decided to a very bad thing last night. They didn't join the 26 Republicans who remained true to the Tea Party. Oh, now both Blake and Billy voted against freedom and liberty and the Constitution. They voted to extend the Patriot Act. In other words, all those nice words Blake said on his blog are quite meaningless, because he believes the federal government has the right to wiretap your phone, e-mails, and text messages.

ROCK ON!