(h/t to Jazz McKay)

What a difference a year makes. Winning elections feels good, but realizing that our grassroots activists are now more edgy, cool, and trend-setting than their activists is redeeming.

Note to “Coffee Party” members: We understand why you would like to jump on our coattails, but we think you’d feel much more comfortable dressing up as hippies, vandalizing cop cars, burning mattresses, and writing vulgarities about America next to love letters to the U.N. on signs. Please don’t abandon your decades of ineffective left-wing activism just because we’ve shown that there is a better way.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you look at the backgrounds of many of the top conservative bloggers and social media activists who have emerged in the last year, you may notice that the economic downturn has been a blessing in disguise for conservative advocacy online. More than a couple of our brightest lights turned to blogging to fill their time after the struggling economy left them with too much free time. We’re happy to see a couple of those individuals struggling to maintain their blogs as they succeed in their quest for employment. However, there are still many more who are frustrated to hear the President’s bizarre braggadocio regarding the success of his “stimulus” legislation.

We’d like to see some of the more excellent online activists find a way to make a living fighting for their beliefs as a career. We’ve noted that many have improved their skills substantially over the last year and could add considerable value as legislative staffers, public relations and new media types, and as journalists. So, for that reason, we’re not going to wait around for the President’s second stimulus “jobs” legislation to try to help create a little employment. Instead, we’re going to refer one and all to the Leadership Institute’s ConservativeJobs.com.

Conservativejobs.com is a site for both job seekers and recruiters whose goals involve employing conservatives. They do not charge any kind of finder’s fee, but actually offer a “confidential and free Employment Placement Service.” Here’s a quote from the web page:

“Move up quickly with the many opportunities available through our confidential and free Employment Placement Service. Register to market your unique skills and experiences to prospective employers.

You will find that our Employment Placement Service offers the best compilation of resources for employment in public policy. We provide assistance in every step of job-hunting, from writing the resume and cover letter to interviewing for a particular position. Your talent deserves the best a job can offer. We make possible the opportunities to help you get what you deserve.”

Even if you don’t want hand-holding, you can always peruse the job listings available on Conservativejobs.com. The listings are diverse and go way beyond advertisements for legislative assistants these days.

Click the thumbnail link below to visit ConservativeJobs.com:

Posted at 11:00 a.m. PST:

WSJ:

Big Sis – Homeland Security Program Digs ‘Into All Internet Communications’

LA Times:

Obama Prepares Immigration Reform – ‘Path Toward Citizenship for Illegal Aliens’

Breitbart:

Obama OKs Bill to Boost Tourism Promotion

USA Today:

Federal Pay Ahead of Private Industry

Click here to view the embedded video.

Posted at 1:40 p.m. PST:

Weekly Standard: Obama Names Brother of Undecided House Dem to Appeals Court

The Hill: Microsoft Exec Pitches Internet Usage Tax to Pay for Cybersecurity Programs

WSJ: Obama Has Doctors Put on White Jackets for Photo Op Again

Washington Times: Senator Says White House Land Grab Proposal Would Favor Animals Over Americans

Montreal Gazette: U.S. Will Determine Who Can Board Some Canadian Flights

What kind of conservatives would object to a balanced budget amendment? Elite economists and some supply-siders believed that there was a time and a place for deficit spending to stimulate growth so long as the spending level was kept to a reasonable percentage of overall economic output or GNP. Others grumbled that the amendment wouldn’t do a thing to prevent spending if there wasn’t political will for it, but it would provide a justification for tax increases — one columnist envisioned a crisis in which the Supreme Court ordered Congress to raise taxes in order to comply with the amendment and continue its entitlement commitments. National security conservatives believed that the amendment would weaken the country’s ability to spend sufficiently to fund a “war of civilizations” effort and pointed out that the amendment’s exception to allow deficit spending during a time of war didn’t mean much when war is all-too-frequently engaged in, but so rarely declared by Congress in modern times. Constitutionalists pointed out that the framers already included a means of dealing with excess spending, which was namely, “throw the bums, out!” Furthermore, some just opposed the amendment because it took a truly beautiful document and sullied it with a reflection of contemporary weakness and vice in a way similar to those who opposed an amendment to ban abortion on the grounds that abortion is a nasty subject to include in our country’s primary defining document.

So, what happened to the BBA? Republicans talked about it and even forced a vote or two to reveal how many Democrats wouldn’t support balanced budgets, but in the end they didn’t push with the tenacity necessary to amend the United States Constitution. All talk, no walk. After awhile, the BBA simply disappeared from the political landscape.

Today, however, the BBA made a startling appearance on the national political scene. In an op-ed piece, Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence, and John Campbell proposed a new version of the BBA that addresses some of those old concerns and taps into the new conservative consensus that spending is out of control and drastic action is necessary. Basically, it limits spending to 20% “as a share of the economy.” Being from a state like California where legislators have gotten better at manipulating economic figures to define the budget than actually cutting spending or increasing revenues, we like the amendment’s emphasis on capping spending versus balancing budgets. Still, we can’t help but wonder how much wiggle room there is concerning the definition of the economic pie we are taking a percentage of? Should the number be 20% or perhaps… 10%?

The one page summary of the proposed amendment is here. Feel free to click on the thumbnail link below for the in-depth review:

Here’s a link to Erik Erikson’s endorsement.