Anybody read the recently released resolution from the RNC that spells out what every member of the party should stand for? Yes, these defenders of freedom and liberty are threatening to pull party funding from members who do not agree with at least seven of the below statutes. Take a look (sauce):

[…skipped over much Reagan boot-licking…]

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

[…]

Here are some of my initial thoughts on the ten pseudo-commandments above:

(1)    They must be exceptionally unhappy if they cite a specific president by name. Still, let us look at the meat of things. They call for small government, small national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes. Doesn't every politician in the country call for the same thing, Republican or otherwise? Besides, didn't the debt increase dramatically under the last three Republican presidents? I suppose it's laudable that they want to encourage all of these things, but history does not look upon it well.

(2)    Isn't what Obama (rather, the legislative branch) is proposing a market-based reform? He is creating a new option that will compete, capitalist-style, with other insurance companies. I suppose it is government run, but who cares if it's the government or corporate bigwigs? They will all compete to ensure that they provide the best healthcare possible at the best price.

(3)    What exactly does market-based energy reform mean? Cap and trade would encourage companies to pollute less and charge others to buy up their unused pollution. Companies that are much too dirty to clean up their act can essentially outsource their cleaning. They can say, "hey, I can't clean up the industry I'm in any more; think you can clean yourselves up in our stead?" (Hmm… maybe that's why they're against it. I know how much they hate outsourcing).

(4)    I don't know what this one means. I suppose it has something to do with labor unions, but I know too little about the topic to comment at this time.

(5)    I don't have enough knowledge of illegal immigrant amnesty to form a meaningful opinion at this time.

(6)    I'm sure all politicians support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. This should not even count on the list. It does seem to fly in the face of point one, which calls for a smaller national debt and lower deficits, but hypocrisy, unfortunately, is a universal ailment.

(7)    This sounds a bit weasel-like. What exactly does "containment" mean? Does it mean more sanctions? Does it mean more threats of war? Does it mean actual war? Does it mean building a physical concrete-and-razor-wire wall around both countries? Gaza and Berlin should be proof enough that that last one does not work.

(8)    Whatever.

(9)    You're doing a poor job of it by stonewalling healthcare reform. Well, except for the abortion part. You sure are doing a good job there. I always find the abortion issue to be something of a pawn. It is something easily removed to appease opponents and help move things along.

(10)    Can we remove all gun ownership restrictions? I've always wanted to mount a Browning .50 cal on the back of my sedan. It will help me get through DC traffic a little easier.

I wonder how the Republican politicians would feel if they disagreed with more than three of the bullet points. Who knows; maybe they'll become Democrats! It may sound crazy, but nothing seems that way to me since the Pope offered to allow Anglicans to convert into the Catholic Church. Now that is crazy!

I was reading my post from last Saturday about Otakon and it got me thinking. That convention must be a huge economic boost for that city. There were over 26,000 people all congregating in that one place. These are geeks with frequently deep pockets that need food, lodging, entertainment, and access to their money. I hear reports every year of ATMs drying up in a wave pattern emanating from the convention center. I can only wonder how businesses handle these yearly influxes of geeks. This year's Otakon was its fifteenth, so they must be aware of it by now. Do they have training programs for these kinds of things?

"Okay, we're going to need all of the staff for this coming weekend. It's that time of year again; a bunch of geeks are going to be here dressed like they stood too close to a Michaels explosion. They will come hungry. I can only hope the supplies from the warehouse get here before then. I don't even want to think what will happen if we run out with these locusts. Sometimes I wonder if those swords, guns, and swords that are also guns are really fake."

It is fun to see the legitimate business people going about their work on the Friday. Just the look on their faces as they walk to and from their offices in their pressed suits is priceless. I can only imagine the thoughts: "not this sh#t again..."

I had an interesting thought from a discussion with someone I know. You see, he made the connection that, because there was between 10- and 30-thousand people at that last teabagger rally in DC, that it must be an accurate portrayal of the American majority's feelings on the subject. I didn't have anything to say to this aside from a deep sigh, but later, as I was getting into bed the night after, a powerful retort came to mind. If this connection can be made, then that must also mean a majority of Americans love anime. You see, Otakon last year had over 26,000 hard-working Americans gathered in one place to celebrate a common cause. These patriots gathered together to show the sleepy city-folk of Baltimore that they are united. You know what else? The main stream media did not see fit to report on this mass gathering of Americans united under a common banner. Why would the media try to cover this up. When most Americans in this country love anime, they should be all over this kind of story like stink on cheese. Why is this?

Now, I'm not saying that the main stream media hates you and wants to eat your children on a kaiser roll, but isn't it interesting that I'm the only one with the courage to ask these questions?