I doubt that the actions of the Bush Administration, Treasury Secretary Paulson, the Senate, and the House in the past couple of weeks mark the death of American Capitalism. The capitalist drive is strong in Americans as a whole and individually.

I don't doubt that their actions have severely harmed that system, however. The fact that the Government has acquired a controlling interest in Fannie, Freddie, and insurance giant AIG and now is buying $250 billion dollars worth of a handful of U.S. banks amounts to repeated body blows to that system. As Joe Frazier said, speaking about body blows: “Kill the body and the head must follow.”

Over time, these kind of actions contribute to the myth in the mind of the people that government intervention is the solution to the problem - whatever the problem is. If it is the solution to this problem, it must be the solution to the next problem that comes along. The typical reality is, however, what Ronald Reagan noted: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

The way these actions have been framed - how they've been presented in speeches, presidential addresses, and in the media - have made this a no-lose situation for proponents of big government. Whether these actions are successful and helpful or not, the unavoidable conclusion most people will draw was that these steps were necessary. That's what's been said over and over again by those in the know - Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, Pelosi, even Newt Gingrich and the likes of Warren Buffet. If these steps seem to have worked - if there's any improvement in the economy after doing this, the credit will go to these "decisive actions" that have been taken. If they don't seem to work, the perception will be that they didn't do enough rather than than a perception that they shouldn't have been done.

Regardless of what the end perception will be, I can't help but wonder if the latest of these steps (the $250 billion of our money being invested in a handful of banks) stands any chance of accomplishing what Paulson and company intend.

How did you spend your "economic stimulus" check? The purpose of those checks was to get Americans out and spending at the shopping malls. I used my check to pay down debt I had. For my personal situation that's what made the most sense... but it didn't help stimulate the economy at all.

Likewise, I wonder how many of these banks will take this money, but then not use it in the way that the Administration hopes they will. The purpose of this money, according to Paulson, is to "improve their access to funding, enabling them to increase financing of the consumption and business investment that drive U.S. economic growth" - in other words, to provide them with capital that we expect them to turn around and loan out. There are no provisions in the agreements with the banks to require them to use the money in this way, however. As minority shareholders in these institutions, the U.S. taxpayers will have no ability to compel them to lend this money out. It is conceivable that many of these banks could decide instead to use this money in a way that's similar to how I used my stimulus check: to improve their cash position and strengthen their balance sheet.

There is much to be concerned about as we watch our government taking a bigger and bigger role in managing the financial institutions as we weather this "crisis". As I said earlier, I don't think there have been enough body blows to bring down American capitalism - yet. I am concerned, however, that as we move closer to a "United Socialist States of America", that we are killing one other institution, and that is American Conservativism.

The conservative movement is the only body that can stand in the way of this march toward Big Government - and it is taking few steps to do so. I have been astounded to watch as leaders in the Republican Party (which should be conservative, but aren't in any uniform or consistent way) have supported the bailout and the other steps taken, seemingly with little more than lip service to the objectionable nature of these steps. This includes not only current office holders from Bush to Republican members of the House and Senate (including my own sad Senators, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker), but also "conservative" leaders like Newt Gingrich and a large number of pundits in the "conservative" journals, magazines, and blogs.

With so few Republicans and so few Conservatives voicing objections to these steps toward Big Government, I fear that a whole new generation of voters will have no conception of what conservativism means. Already, I believe that those who have come of age since the Reagan years have an inadequate understanding of what it means to be a conservative. Certainly those that have watched the current President Bush and believe that he represents the conservative viewpoint have been misled (for example, as they have watched Bush push the Medicare prescription drug plan and the immigration bill). McCain is an even worse example of conservative values and behavior. That lack of understanding will breed more Republicans who don’t know what they stand for and thus stand for nothing. In the end, I wonder if the GOP and even real conservatives will have any relevance going forward.

As Secretary Paulson spoke yesterday about why he would be taking the extraordinary step of investing taxpayer dollars in private banks, he stated that those actions “are what we must do to restore confidence to our financial system”.

I’m wondering what steps, if any, can be done to restore confidence in our political system.

The language we use is important.

Not everyone thinks so - we're often careless with our words (especially in the electronic world with a hastily composed email or instant message). We hurry to say what we want to say, and expect people to either understand what we really meant or to give us a chance to explain if they misunderstand. Like children on a playground, we expect to be able to "take back" a poorly chosen word.

Watching the Palin interviews on ABC last night, it is clear that both Charles Gibson and Sarah Palin understood the importance of the words used to describe an issue. They jockeyed back and forth over the way a question or answer was worded, seeking clarification and trying to move the conversation in the direction they wanted it to go in. That is the power of the words one chooses.

The Left, in general, and homosexual activists specifically know that language is important. They know the words you choose give power. The power to steer debate in the direction you want. The power to get what you want.

According to OneNewsNow and Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, "the state of California no longer recognizes a marriage between a bride and a groom or a husband and a wife". Instead, marriage certificates now read that they are issued between "Party A" and "Party B".

So what's the big deal? Marriages are between two parties, right? Is this something that has no meaning, or is it a small enough issue to shrug our shoulders and go on?

Most people would seem to think so, at their peril.

Make no mistake: this is not a arbitrary, bureaucratic little change that has no importance. This is a deliberate attempt to reframe the conversation around marriage and whether the institution should be extended to same-sex couples. If Christians, conservatives and others object to an institution between a man and a woman - a bride and groom, a husband and a wife - being extended to two men or two women, then we'll change the language. Marriage isn't between a man and a woman, its between "Party A" and "Party B".

There are so many battles to fight. Its understandable that we have "battle fatigue", and wouldn't want to make a battle out of a couple of words. The truth is, however, that our adversaries understand that the words we use are important, and that they have picked the battle. Its a battle that will allow them to win the war if we leave it unchallenged. That is the power of words.

I was struck this morning by a comment made in passing that really shows a central problem in how the Left and the MSM (OK, so that's the same thing) think of everyone that isn't, well, the Left or the MSM (or a D.C. insider, Blue State resident, or Hollywood "expert" like Matt Damon).

I was listening to N.P.R's Morning Edition to see what the reactions were to Sarah Palin's interviews with Charles Gibson. On the segment "Grading Palin's TV Appearance", Mara Liasson makes the comment that while Palin is not "terrifically fluent" in foreign policy, she "shows that she's quick a study, because she's been boning up on this intensively over the last week..."

Now its obviously true that Palin has probably been "boning up" on all kinds of things over the last couple of weeks, and probably especially on foreign policy. There is, however, an underlying assumption that is being made here that we shouldn't miss. It is that this young, 2-year Governor from Alaska would have known nothing whatsoever about any of those issues before "boning up" on them over the last week. More importantly, someone like you or I definitely would not know anything about them.

Sweeping generalization time - you decide for yourself if you agree with it or not: The Left believes that only the elite - the Liberal Washington/New York/Hollywood/Etc. Elite - can grasp these difficult issues. As intimated by Charles Gibson in last night's interviews, only those that have traveled the world and met foreign heads of state are prepared to deal with these issues. Certainly not someone from Alaska, or Tennessee, or Kansas, or any other "red-state" - from Governors on down to you or I.

The truth is that while the situation Sarah Palin was in during those interviews was tough and intimidating, the questions themselves weren't that tough. If asked, I can tell you what I think about why the terrorists attacked NYC and the Pentagon. I can tell you what I think about preemptive strikes, global warming, God's role in war, drilling in ANWR, Russia, Georgia, NATO membership, and crossing into Pakistan chasing after terrorists. I'm not an expert on any of those topics, but I have kept up with the news about them and pondered them... even though I'm not a politician or a journalist and I don't live in any of the big cities on the coasts. If you want to ask me a Biden-esque trick question like, "who is the leader of Angola", I'll confess now: you'll probably trap me. If you want to have an honest exchange though about important issues, I'll probably be able to answer your question without a lot of "boning up".

I'll agree with the Left, the MSM, and anyone else that I want someone who is qualified in the position of President and Vice-President. The big difference is in what we consider the qualifications to be. To the Left, it is someone who has met a head of state. To me, it starts with someone who is in touch with the people and the common sense that the people of this country apply to answering the questions like the ones above.