The first argument, simply put, says that the American people want the government off their backs. As Newt Gingrich argued, there is a growing realization that centralized planning leads to dictatorship. The relationship between government power and individual liberty can properly be described as a zero-sum game, such that an increase in government power necessarily entails a decrease in individual liberty. On this point, John Ashcroft made an interesting distinction. He described proper security measures as only those measures that enhance individual liberty and allow an individual to exercise a maximum level of liberty. Properly understood, a government does not grant rights, it only acts as a guarantor of rights. What is unique about this concern regarding the size of government is that it has the ability to unite the various disparate factions within the conservative movement. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, the Ron Paul people, etc. all agree that the government needs to be smaller. If the Republican Party can provide small-government candidates (as it is in the process of doing), it can take advantage of this coalition.

Another common theme was concern over the massive levels of spending and the level of intrusion into the private sector by the federal government. Glenn Beck described this concern as part of his argument having the right to fail. The main thrust of his argument on this point was that individuals and businesses have a right to and ought to be allowed to fail. Failure creates an opportunity to learn from one’s mistakes, such that after “hitting bottom” you can pick yourself up and go forward a stronger and smarter person/business. The massive spending and intervention undertaken by the federal government to prop up failed businesses and people only undermines the soundness of the American economy, it also robs people of their right to fail and prevents them from learning from their mistakes. Good examples of this are the zombies that are GM and Chrysler. The bailout mentality of the federal government and its increasingly expensive and wasteful welfare programs is only serving to bankrupt and impoverish future generations of Americans while at the same time robbing them of the ability to improve their situation. A flurry of federal dollars has clogged the economic engine of the United States. The people understand that Washington needs new leadership to slash spending and bring the budget back into balance.

The final major theme of the conference was what several speakers referred to as American Exceptionalism, or the idea that in the face of a world history dominated by tyrants, monarchs, and dictators, the American idea of individual liberty and self-determination stands out as an exception to the historical norm. We are now faced with a situation where those liberties are under assault. We are also faced with the very real possibility that the standard of living and general welfare of the rising generation of Americans will be worse than the generation that preceded it. With every bill that comes out of Congress, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate continues its assault on the liberty and prosperity of the American people. However, recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, as well as the emergence of the Tea Party Movement have demonstrated the people’s will to remain the exception to the rule and their will to fight the Democrats’ agenda.

The major themes at CPAC, concern over the size and scope of government coupled with a renewed desire to fight the Democrat agenda of poverty and misery, are also those themes that are best resounding with the American people. With its renewed strength in bearing the mantle of conservatism and renewed courage in fighting the Democrats’ agenda, the Republican Party has demonstrated that it is willing to listen to and heed these concerns. If they stay on the path they are on, the Republicans are poised to win big in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Consider the first scene where the man is arrested for requesting plastic bags at the supermarket. This past spring the General Assembly considered a bill that would have banned the use of bags statewide, while imposing a rather hefty fine on those who persisted in using them.

And then there’s the shot where they arrest the man for throwing away batteries. Incidentally, a law in California prohibits the disposal of common batteries. And for those of you who thought composting was optional, think again. Then there’s the shot where the man is arrested for using the wrong light bulbs and the ban on the disposal of plastic bottles, already mentioned on this blog. The ad also highlights the preferential treatment given to “green” cars and mentions the growing popularity of Styrofoam bans.

On first glance, the ad comes across as funny and harmless. It is an ad after all. However, a closer examination, given the facts mentioned above reveals a more disturbing trend in the green movement, an increasing tendency to regulate and codify a certain life style. That this fact is now beginning to be reflected in commercial advertising further underlines the point.

What is perhaps most interesting is the closing scene of the commercial, where the Green Police proceed to arrest the two local policemen. Over the past few years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has grown into an extremely powerful regulatory and enforcement agency. With its recent attempts to impose a cap-and-trade scheme on the country over the objections of Congress, the EPA has reached a new peak that allows it to run over state, local, and (apparently) federal governments. This new understanding is reflected in the ad, where the Green Police (read EPA) arrest the two local cops for using Styrofoam cups.

In short, the green movement has reached a dangerous level of absurbidity, with the events in the commercial closely mirroring those in real life.

Pork

The allocation of North Carolina’s share of the pork from the $787 billion stimulus bill has begun! In fact, in February the governor appointed North Carolina’s very own czar to dictate the allocation of the $6 billion given to the Old North State. Czar Dempsey Benton is the director of the Office of Economic Recovery and Investment and charged with properly distributing the stimulus dollars.

This raises some interesting questions. There does not appear to be any sort of legislative check or any check at all on Czar Dempsey. The governor unilaterally created his office and, he was unilaterally chosen by the governor without input from the General Assembly or the citizens of North Carolina to be the director. This is a most undemocratic move and one of questionable constitutionality. This is also a rather troubling state of affairs, given that he has unchecked control over $6 billion of taxpayer money. Moreover, given the state government’s blatant corruption and waste in areas that are “checked and balanced,” consider how much greater is the opportunity for corruption and waste in an area that is not subject to these safeguards. It is a circumvention of the legislative process and flies in the face of the basic founding of this country.

There is already some evidence of waste in the Czar’s kingdom. He has allotted $76,000 to an urban forestry project in Durham. The project involves removing 29 trees along a downtown street and replacing them with 103 new ones, with a projected cost of $575 per tree planted. The costs associated with this project are unusually high, particularly the costs associated with the planting of the new trees. The trees typical for such a project usually run at about $100 each. So, then the remainder of the budget must be spent on labor, leaving labor costs at about $475 per tree, which is ridiculous.

Cooked Pork

What this illustrates is the danger and cost of giving one person so much power and removing the legislative branch from the picture. Czar Dempsey is running about the state spending money on a whole slew of pet projects at exorbitant costs to taxpayers.

Of course, the irony of the whole situation is that this supposed “stimulus” has accomplished nothing. The latest statistics from the Labor Department indicate an increase rather than a decrease in unemployment. The official statistic has risen to 9.8%, but when factoring in those who have given up looking for work (discouraged workers) or are involuntarily working part-time the statistic is 17%. Unemployment among the young (ages 16-24) alone stands at 25.9%. We have been asked to surrender our traditional forms and modes of government in return for nothing.

There are two main types of toilet paper: “soft” paper taken straight from trees and “recycled” paper derived from recycled newspapers, magazines, etc. The longer wood fibers in the virgin wood create the soft texture of the soft paper that is not possible with the shorter wood fibers in the recycled paper. In the process of making the soft paper, trees are felled and directly processed as toilet paper. This wanton destruction of trees, of course, is an issue for Greenpeace.

However, a reality check may be in order. Last year, the toilet paper and facial tissue industry made up 5% of the US forest-products industry. In the “away from home” market (public restaurants, gas stations, etc.), recycled paper comprised 75% of the market. In the “at-home” market, soft paper made up 95% of the market.

So, there is a significant demand for the soft paper. This is also a fairly lucrative industry. Last year Quilted Northern made $144 million off its Ultra Plush product alone. However, the Environmentalists would prefer to restrict your freedom and make the choice about what kind of toilet paper you buy for you. They are currently lobbying the industry to move completely over to recycled paper, cheating you the consumer out of your freedom to choose. Of course, all of this is being done in the name of “saving the environment.” We need to preserve these valuable “carbon scrubbers.” In the words of Obama, the toilet paper industry is contributing to the onset of an “irreversible catastrophe” that will result from the destruction of the world’s forest, an increase in pollution, fire and brimstone, etc.

What’s interesting is recent data from a study by the University of Helsinki that suggests that trees may in fact be contributing to air pollution. A reaction between the gases emitted from trees, nitrogen oxide, and sunlight creates lower-level ozone, a commonly recognized pollutant. This study may rehabilitate Ronald Reagan’s famous quote, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”

So then, it appears that Greenpeace’s attempt to further restrict the market and control your life is in fact, based on faulty science. The science completely repudiates their main claim to directing your life. The Free Market and Science have spoken. There is a great demand for soft toilet paper, whose manufacture, at best, has a debatable impact on the environment. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice my freedom to choose just to satisfy the whims of Greenpeace and its pseudo-science.