A word to Newt Gingrich on moon colonization: you’re not the grandiose visionary you think you are.

This week, Gingrich generated a lot of news touching on a subject that is actually rather dear to me: colonizing the moon. He lost a ton of points once I learned it was only because he happened to be standing on NASA property when he made the following statement, “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.” What is clearly little more than self-aggrandizing rhetoric is horribly tempered by the fact that he can’t even seem to promise the moon on his first term, because clearly re-election is more important than a moon base in under four years.

On the campaign trail, presidential candidates will often make grandiose statements about space exploration, simply because it’s the one unifying goal all of mankind shares. We know it’s crass and they know it’s crass, but it seems every time the campaign trail passes through Cape Canaveral Florida the issue of space suddenly becomes en vogue. Color us shocked the issue is once again front and center.

George W. Bush famously invoked space travel aspirations in a 2004 speech saying, “We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own.” It’s easily arguable Bush’s eyes were set on the 2004 re-election when he made this grandiose claim, seeing as he hardly made much of a grandiose contribution to NASA’s 2004-2008 budget (half of which is allocated for launching defense satellites), instead opting to raise the Department of Defense’s budget yet again while giving mere lip service.

Oddly enough, Barack Obama has been famously against all moon exploration, even back to 2007 he proposed raiding NASA’s budget to pay for education programs, not to mention that in 2010 Obama officially scrubbed the Bush initiative to put Americans back on the moon, instead opting for some robot nonsense that only makes me wonder if Skynet has officially won.

Someone like Gingrich, or any political candidate for that matter, doesn’t really have a shot in hell of impressing anyone with lofty, suspiciously timed space rhetoric while battling for ballot dominance in Florida. Unless of course he was trying to impress the late-night joke writers to make fun of him, which Jon Stewart handily accomplished when he ‘figured out’ the game, “I see what’s going on here, this isn’t about making new states. Newt Gingrich did that global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi realizing that the Earth is very sick–and now he wants to leave it for a younger planet!” Ouch.

Gingrich may have his head in the clouds on the campaign trail, but in the end we’ll do fine colonizing the moon with or without a politician’s blessing. And no, it won’t be the 51st state, it’ll be a hard life and I predict it will be fiercely independent of earth’s political nonsense.

The relatively recent political party — Boston Tea Party — was founded back in 2006 and has seen steady, if slow, growth as a political player since then.

I caught up with front man Darryl Perry (who writes a column here on a regular basis) for a few questions and here’s how he responded.

1) What is the membership size of the BTP? Is there a growth chart of any kind since its inception?
As of mid-December there were 2,232 members. I have not updated the growth chart recently, however I can tell you that membership growth hasn’t grown as fast in the past 18 months or so.

2) Have you considered forming a caucus or bloc within one of the established political parties?
The original intent was for the BTP to be a caucus within the LP – however the members present at the first meeting decided to form a new party. As far as future plans to form a caucus within any other party, I will say “no comment”.

3) How is the platform different than that of the Libertarian Party? What would you say the fundamental difference is in your party’s coming together in the online era.
The BTP platform is 1 sentence that can never be changed; whereas the LP platform is tweaked or majorly overhauled every two years. The BTP also offers a bottom-up approach to party organization, whereas the LP (and most other parties) prefer a top-down approach.

4) How many candidates will the BTP be fielding in 2012?
That is a good question. Aside from the Presidential ticket at this time only one party member has announced plans to run for office in Florida for a position on the Soil and Water Conservation Board in Hillsborough County, FL.

5) As a political party, what has your role been in challenging the onerous ballot access laws in many states?
I wish the BTP were able to file lawsuits to challenge these laws – however, the bylaws prohibit the National Committee from soliciting donations – which makes spending money on lawsuits difficult. However, the BTP is a member of COFOE, a group which has assisted others in lawsuits against these laws. I’ve personally spoken with half a dozen legislators in NH about easing ballot access, as well as sent letters to countless other legislators in many States.

I also published a book in October of last year which was written to inform people about the various ways in which the two major parties have taken control of the electoral process and ways in which the “playing field” can be leveled so that independent & minor party candidates have the same path to ballot access as the “big boys.”

If you have further questions about this fledgling political party, please leave them in the comments and we’ll try to have Perry answer them. If you’d like more info on the Boston Tea Party happenings, their website — bostontea.us — is simple enough to remember.

Dearest Frenchmen and Turks,

We here in Washington, DC would like to applaud the French parliament for breaking new ground in the policing of people’s thoughts. If President Sarkozy steps up and signs the legislation it will be a crime to express doubt about the Ottoman Empire’s supposed Genocide of Armenians. The French are making revolutionary progress in the arena of thought crime! Bliss it is to be alive in this dawn, and to be a young bureaucrat is very heaven!

Turkey is already accomplished in this arena. Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code makes it a crime to insult the Turkish Nation. Now that France has weighed in on Turkey’s history, the Turks may want to return the favor. As the descendant of Protestants allow me to propose that Turkey make it a crime to deny the Huguenot Genocide! The Huguenots were French Protestants. France’s Catholic government exiled and exterminated them in the 16th and 17th centuries.

There was all manner of religious cleansing. Huguenots were exiled, sold into slavery, and massacred in great numbers. This century and a half of persecution culminated in the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The Edict of Nantes was a sensible piece of paper that said that people could worship as they wished. Louis the XIVth revoked it in 1685, making it illegal for a whole class of people to exist. Over the next decade almost a million Huguenots were forced to leave the country.

What’s that you say? This isn’t quite a genocide? Doesn’t matter. That’s the beauty of what the French are doing. If you legislate historical fact you can’t discuss it. We’re not interested in historical truth here, just political gain. If we wanted truth, Turkey could focus on the Vichy regime’s eager participation in the Nazi holocaust, but that would be too close to rational. The truth doesn’t need to be legislated.

Great job guys! Once we deal with this pesky 1st Amendment thing, we’ll be doing the same!

Hugs,
The Federal Government of the United States of America

Satire, Obviously

The Federal Government tweets @TheFederalGovt. More from Robert Morris can be found at the More Freedom Foundation.

President Obama wants us to imagine an America that is within reach. I would rather have you imagine a world a little further down the road. The President wants “[a] country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.”

I prefer to imagine a world in which governments allow you to educate your children as you see fit, without interference. A world in which governments allow you to start and run your own business and create jobs without interference from bureaucrats. A world where you are allowed to purchase energy from any number of sources or companies that do not have special government privilege, or supply your own energy from wind or solar and be able to share the excess with your neighbors without government regulation. A world where you are able to use the currency of your choice without threat of violating a legal tender law. Such a world would have an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

The President also said “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

If the President were serious about having an economy where everyone plays by the same set of rules; he would immediately ask Congress to revoke all government contracts, abolish the IRS, abolish the Federal Reserve which serves to protect the large banking institutions, and work with the Governors of the 50 States to abolish the use of eminent domain, abolish special privilege given to “corporations,” repeal zoning laws and abolish welfare and licensing laws which do little more than stifle the free market. A world without government interference would be a world where everyone gets a “fair shot.”

President Obama additionally said that he will “fight obstruction” in Congress. As long as bills that create more laws, continue funding the military occupation of foreign nations, take away more rights of the people and increase spending are being proposed, I believe that obstruction is the only admirable action that any member of Congress could commit.

In closing, the President says “[m]illions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same.” I am curious what President Obama means by this statement. I doubt that he intends to remove the special privilege given to the Federal Reserve System. I doubt he will remove government contracts and privatize all government agencies. I doubt he will ask Congress to abolish the postal monopoly that prohibits competition on delivery of first class mail. I also doubt that President Obama will request the repeal of “sovereign immunity” which protects governments from civil suits when a government (or government employee) violates someone’s rights.

As long as there is a central bank (whether private or government run) there will be “phony financial profits” and “bad debt;” two things Obama says he wants to eliminate. If the President were serious about moving forward with a blueprint for an economy built to last; he would heed the advice I’ve already mentioned. The only way forward, is to remove the obstacles – placed by government at all levels – from the road.

I love the new year of the political season because so many great talented patriots use it as a fresh opportunity to weigh in on the pressing issues of the day in their own great ways. My tip of the tricorner hat goes first to The folks over at Songify The News (previously called Auto-Tune The News until the lawyers from Antares intervened and made them change it) for their little diddy poking fun at all the silly candidate hijinx in song form.

Newt Gingrich actually is not a terrible singer, but that’s thanks to some very painstaking and creative editing by the schmoyoho crew.

Ron Paul is curiously silent during the song, which seems like a fitting observation of his relative exclusion at the debates, and the fact that there’s at least a million other channels on YouTube alone trying to pimp Ron Paul in some song or another. The slow clap was a great touch though.

In related news, Rand Paul was sidelined at a TSA checkpoint yesterday after he refused to be groped. The White House made the amazing blunder of siding with the TSA in what is arguably the flashpoint of the clash between freedom of movement and the security state. I will be mailing him a complimentary copy of the Big Brass Balls TSA card to proudly carry in his wallet for the next encounter:

The Ron Paul campaign has expertly taken this latest personal confrontation with the encroaching police state and started a potentially devastating fundraising drive called “End the TSA.” Paul has promised vehemently to dismantle the TSA and other odious police state agencies at home and abroad along with cutting a trillion dollars in a bold spending reform plan.

The campaign stated, “The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe.”

My tip of the tricorner hat to the Paul’s today as well, for fighting the good fight against those agencies and polices that so desperately needs to be reformed and having the long game to back it up this time around.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that the Paul family will soon announce their hereditary medical condition:

h/T to George Faulk