The Pioneer Project: Hitch Up Your Wagon

In my previous post, I introduced the Pioneer Project.  I provided what is, in essence, our Mission Document.  It's all high-minded and noble, and not very helpful on a practical scale.

So, what -in real world terms- is the Pioneer Project?

Well, the website is mainly a forum.  The point is to have a place where we can discuss a variety of topics from the best/most cost-efficient way to reload ammunition to finding someone who can help you learn how to weld.  We'll also be a sounding board for personal project ideas, and find a way to channel help from those who wish to help to those who need the help.

"Help" here can be advice, monetary, or material support.

To get into the forum, you'll need to register first.  There are Reasons we made that decision, but the upshot is we don't want Derp (people from the HQ will get that reference- I'm fairly certain the rest of you can figure it out).

Once there, very little is off limits.  If an Admin/Moderator asks you to drop a topic, then drop the topic.  Short of really out there racist/bigoted crap (and none of y'all would bring that, would you? Would you?) I can't think of anything that we're going to ask you not to talk about.

Beyond the website- on the other side of the computer- is a community of people who want to weather the storm our politicians have cooked up.  Look for some people to start farming- and ask for help to get started.  Look for others to ask for help learning to fix cars, or machine parts.  Heck, maybe you want to learn one of those things.  Ask, and we'll see if we can get you an answer.

And remember, just like those Pioneers of yester-year: we don't have anyone in authority coming to rescue us.  We're striking out on our own for a reason, after all.

The Pioneer Project

The Declaration of Independence could describe modern times.  So could the Texas Declaration of Independence.  The Federal Government ignores the Constitution whenever, wherever, and however it wants.  The productive class is required to subsidize the unproductive class.  Hard work, far from being rewarded, is seen as some kind of greed or hate.  The desire to protect ones family, rather than being common sense, is painted as some kind of mental disease.

Liberal Politicians (from both Parties) seek to destroy your liberties.  The Media assists them.  From newscasts to weekly TV series American values are mocked and derided.  Things our parents would have been ashamed to see, let alone to do, are shown not only as though they are normal, but as if they are laudatory.

You don't agree with the status quo.  You still believe in hard work.  You still believe that the first place someone should look for support is family, then Church, then community.  You believe that the Rule of Law is still important.

You are not alone.  Millions of Americans still believe in hard work and family.  Millions of Americans still believe in the Promise of Liberty.

But what can we do against the status quo?  How can we fight back to regain our Liberties and reassert our values?

Let me introduce you to the Pioneer Project.  Like our spiritual ancestors- the American Pioneers- we believe in hard work, liberty, and opportunity.  Your life will be as rich, or as poor, as you make

The purpose of the Pioneer Project is three-fold.

(1) The primary mission is to provide material and financial assistance to any member attempting to set their proverbial stake in the ground and get to work.

(2)The second mission is to provide training and intellectual assistance to anyone, member or otherwise, who also wants to go on their own.

(3) The third mission is to connect all these individuals in a community of trust and mutual ambition.

Tyranny in Small Things

Austin, the Capitol City of my Great State of Texas, recently passed a ban on plastic grocery bags.  Now everyone is supposed to use reusable (that is: cloth) bags instead.  This is being hailed as a win for the environment, because those plastic bags were so terrible.

Man, I'm so old I remember when plastic bags were the "environmental" choice, since those eeeevil paper bags came from trees.  (Hint to liberals: when something literally does "grow on trees," that's not a bad thing.)  So now the plastic bags are no longer in favor, so we must change to cloth bags.

Now at least one City Council member in the City of Dallas wants to implement the same thing in that city.  This is why conservatives in Texas should not turn a blind eye to the bad things the Austin does; eventually some idiot will try to bring those bad ideas to our own cities.

Now, I don't actually have a problem with reusable bags themselves.  They are a breeding ground for disease, but they're cloth.  They'll survive the clothes washer just fine.  Wash 'em every couple of weeks and you'll be fine.  Double wrap your meat, and wrap your produce, and you can go even longer between washings.  I use them at Aldi (I don't even buy all of my groceries there, and they've cut my grocery bill about in half), because Aldi (as a private enterprise) encourages their use.  I'm fine with that.

On the other hand, I also like plastic bags.  They're convenient.  They're light.  I don't have to turn around and go back home when I realize I didn't bring any with me. 

On top of that, they're every bit as "reusable" as my cloth bags.  I don't reuse them for groceries, but we keep one in our minivan to put trash in.  I used to carry a couple in my kids' diaper bags (thank God they're both out of diapers now- those things are expensive), for accident containment.  I use them as a "lunch box" for work.  I've used them to line trash cans in the house, paint buckets, and all kinds of things.

They save me a lot of hassle. 

In short, it really annoys me that people are now telling me I shouldn't be able to use them.  So let me ask this: are you targeting plastic trash bags next?  Plastic trash bags are, well, plastic, too.  Am I going to have to change out my plastic trash bags for paper?  For canvas?  If not, then you'll excuse me if I don't believe your objection to the plastic trash bags is about the environment; rather, it's about your desire to control ever facet of my life.

Blow that.

It is not the government's job to mandate that I use reusable grocery bags.  It is not the government's job to make sure I recycle.  It is not the government's job to force me to do anything.

This seems like a tiny thing, but it really isn't.  The Government has already taken over health care.  Just ask your doctor how much of a pain ObamaCare is.  Ask your insurance provider.  Government wants to rule every part of your life, and this is simply another facet.  It seems minor, but the door it opens is huge.

Update & Scienceyist Alert:
FotB tsrblke sends along this little nugget.  Turns out that those "reusable bags" are actually worse for the environment than plastic bags anyway.  And that assumes that someone is just using the plastic bag once and then throwing it away.  It gets even worse (for the canvas propagandists) if you reuse even just 40.3% (well less than half) of your plastic bags just once. 

On Rebranding

Over at the HQ for the last little while, we've been talking about Rebranding the Republican Party (or the Conservative movement- sometimes the two get conflated when they shouldn't).  I've commented a lot over there, but I wanted to use this space to get a bunch of ideas all in one place.

First off, as I see it, the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement are not the same thing.  I am a Conservative.  Until and unless the Republican Party can prove to me that they are also Conservative, I am not a Republican (even though I'll probably vote "R" much more often than "L" for the moment).  Now, Many Republicans are Conservative, and I would venture that most Conservatives are Republican, but not all Republicans are Conservatives, and a goodly number of Conservatives vote Libertarian (I cannot believe anyone who is conservative could vote Democrat in good conscience).

To that end, it is the Conservative Movement that I will be discussing. 

So, if you're ready to come along for the ride, take a look under the fold.

Where We're Headed

CNBC has a story about the EU "saving the banks but losing a generation."  It's a stark and startling insight into how they got where they are, and where we are headed if we don't fix things.

Forget the debt crisis.  Forget the austerity riots.  One quote sums up all the problems they're having, and that we will have:
"We saved the banks but are running the risk of losing a generation," said Martin Schulz, a German socialist who has led the European Parliament, the EU's only directly elected institution, since January last year.

"One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems. And if the younger generation is losing trust, then in my eyes the European Union is in real danger," he told Reuters in an interview.

Think about that for a moment.  "One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems."

Let's break this down.
First: His statement assumes that the EU could solve anyone's problems anyway.  No government can solve people's problems.  The EU less than most, since it is not really a government in any meaningful sense anyway.  Even if the government could solve your problem, it could only do so by causing someone else a problem.

Second: His statement completely ignores where people got this fallacious idea in the first place: the Statist policies of Marx and others who believed that Government should "do something."  The idea of Government "doing something," is one that says the Government should be your parent, your nanny, and your boss.  Nothing you do can escape government control.

If the EU wants to fix its unemployment crisis it must take the opposite tack.  Get government as far out of people's lives as possible.  Yes, the lesson will be painful- as many such lessons are.  But it will be better for them in the long run if people realize that it is their job to care for themselves, not the government's job to "solve their problems."

And we are on the same path.  This same theory that the government should "solve [our] problems" is what drives the Democrat party.  It is the theory that says we must take from those who have succeeded and give to those who have failed.  It is the theory that says the Government can, let alone should, mandate that people engage in a specific economic activity.  It is the theory that says people chosen for government service are somehow more special, more qualified, more Human than everyone else, and so only they should be allowed the right to defend themselves.

We must return to the individualism of our past.  We must return to that pioneer spirit that said, "I'll take care of myself.  If I absolutely can't, my family will help."  We must return to the ideas of self-reliance and self-sufficiency.

And we will.  One way or another it will happen.  Either we will change voluntarily and relatively painlessly, or we will change reluctantly and very painfully.  In either case, reality will not be denied. 

We're like a house of cards built on an earthquake generator, and someone's hand is on the switch.  Either we unplug the generator, or we'll all come crashing down.

A Fundamentally Unserious Party

So Senate Democrats, for the first time in 4 years, have released a budget proposal.  It's contents are depressingly unsurprising, tax-and-spend policies that Democrats always pursue.  Meh.

However, there were somethings this brings up that we should look at.

From the report:

The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

Like all "tax increases" this is a load of bovine fecal matter.  First off, raising tax rates- whether through marginal rate increases, or "closing of loopholes" never generates much more revenue.  Instead, it depresses GDP.  Oh, certainly, people will have less money to take home, but that won't be because the Government is actually taking in much more.

Then there's that whole "deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country's highest wage earners."  This, like "tax increases" is complete horse hockey.  The US Tax Code does not give Bill Gates a single deduction for which you could not qualify.  Not one.  It does not give Exxon-Mobile a single deduction for which Joe's Pizzaria down the street could not qualify.  Not one.

That whole line of argument is a lie.  It is a damnable lie and the Democrats and Media should nto be allowed to keep getting away with it.  Closing those "loopholes" will hurt middle-class families far more than it would hurt the rich, and that's not even taking into consideration the fact the Rich have options the middle-class do not regarding wealth management (hint: there's a reason it's called the Income Tax).

Here's another one:

It also calls for $100 billion in new stimulus spending while cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The rest of the savings would come through spending cuts.

First, let's assume that they were serious about this (they're not: it's another lie).  Our deficit for last year alone was well over $1 Trillion.  They want to cut that over 10 years.  Yeah, that's serious budget management right there.  As for "spending cuts" they're crying over an approximate 2% cut to the rate of growth from the sequester.  They seriously expect us to believe they're going to cut spending?

Those both lead to this:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray said the budget takes a balanced, “pro-middle-class” approach and argued the country’s economic problems started long before fellow Democrats entered the White House in 2009.

Yeah.  Not so much.  Another bald-faced lie.

And whose fault is all this, you ask?  I'd give you three guesses, but you'll only need one:

“Despite some of the rhetoric you may hear from my Republican colleagues, the Great Recession didn’t start the day President Obama was elected,” said Murray, D-Wash.

Ah, yes.  Boooooosh!  Good to know.

This is fundamentally unserious.  It is designed only to generate spin and run news cycles.  It continues running up the debt and making our situation yet worse.  But the Democrats now would have you believe we don't have a spending problem.  Nope, we're not spending too much, we're spending too little.

It is a fundamentally unserious proposal from a fundamentally unserious party.

Fithy Quislings

I don't know enough curse words to capture my sentiment upon reading this story.  It seems GOP Leadership (for whatever that is worth) has decided they "don't need no steenking Conservatives," and that they will be willing to pass Democrat Legislation, marginalizing the majority of their own caucus.

Once my immediate, word-stealing rage dies down (it flares back up every time I re-read the article), I have a couple of things to point out.

First: When grass-roots conservatives were calling to remove Boehner as speaker, we were pooh-poohed and told that of course Speaker Boehner was the best man for the job.  Often this pooh-poohing came from the same Conservative representatives now at risk of being frozen out. 

That is not to say that we expected this kind of betrayal.  Squishy "moderate" stances?  Sure.  Outright betrayal of principle?  Not so much.

Second: The current House Leadership is not Conservative.  Oh, I think a Conservative or two snuck into the upper echelons somehow, but the vast majority of them are not now, nor have they ever been Conservative.  They don't care about "We, the People."  They care about themselves, their own power, and their privilege. Anything which jeopardizes that must be dealt with.  Unfortunately, they seem to believe the best way to secure that power and privilege is to side with Democrats in making us serfs, or at least peasants (I don't think they quite view us as chattle.  Yet.)

Third: The House has fallen into the old trap.  It's one that grass-roots conservatives had hoped to avoid when we hoped to get rid of Boehner.  It goes like this: "We have to do something!  If we're not passing legislation, we're not doing our job!!!!"

In many ways this is the most important point.  Conservatives know that Congress can do its job best by doing nothing in most cases.  Pass a budget; confirm appropriations; oversee the Executive branch.  That's all Congress should be doing in most cases.  However, as full-time legislators, they believe their job is to write (well, vote on, I'm pretty sure none of them has written their own in quite some time) legislation.  That mindset is the only one that could have produced this quote:

“It is better if the House does their work,” said McCarthy. “We should be sending bills to the Senate.”

This, as Ben Shapiro notes, is tantamount to a declaration of War on Conservatives.  The Moderates in Congress want their power.  They want to be invited to the best parties.  They want yet more government expansion.  In fact, the only place Moderates disagree with Liberals is the pace.  Liberals want More Government Now! Moderates want More Government Slowly!

After the initial publication of the Big Government article, Rep. McCarthy's office contacted Breitbart News and whined:

In a statement to The Hill, McCarthy spokesperson Mike Long said: "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to regular order to bring legislation to the floor that has the support of a majority of the majority. Insinuation to the contrary is completely false."

Of course "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to the regular order."  "Strongly supports" is not "is committed to," and in no way is that statement a rejection of the original report.  Whether Boehner and Cantor agree is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the Majority Whip would have made such an inflammatory statement without the blessing of his bosses.

Oh, and if this finds its way into Rep. McCarthy's hands:  before you even think of "crossing the aisle" and enact gun control remember this: I'm a Texan.  Consider well the meaning of "come and take it."