A Dangerous Disaffection

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; that is a foundational principle of our republic. To a stunning degree, however, Americans don't believe that their own government meets that standard. Scott Rasmussen finds that only 23 percent of voters believe that 'the federal government today has the consent of the governed.' A remarkable 62 percent of voters say that our government does not enjoy that consent.

How can this be, given our seemingly free and vibrant democracy? I think there are two main reasons, one specific to our present political environment and one more general.

The immediate cause is the fact that the Obama administration and its Congressional allies have embarked on an ambitious, left-wing program that seeks to transform America into a country quite different from what most Americans want. Elections have consequences, as the Democrats never tire of telling us. The problem is that the Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, did not run on the divisive, far-left program they are now trying to implement. Obama postured himself as a rather centrist, post-racial figure. His style as President has been the opposite.

So it is no wonder that most Americans believe they have gotten a government that they didn't vote for.

I think the more significant cause, however, is the general one--a growing conviction that America is governed by a political class that has its own agenda, involving its own enrichment as well as the endless expansion of its own power, and that this political class is contemptuous of the opinions of ordinary Americans and is determined to impose its will regardless of how Americans vote. I think this perception is in fact true.

The strongest evidence is the history of federal spending in the modern era, which began in the 1960s. Here it is, in constant dollars; click to enlarge:


There have been several occasions when the American people have voted for smaller government; most notably in 1972, 1980 and 1994. But it really doesn't matter. You can vote for limited government, but you can't get it; the political class won't let you. This is not to assert the silly proposition that there is no major difference between Democrats and Republicans. The fiscal disaster that we have witnessed since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 proves the contrary. But still: experience shows that voting for Republicans hasn't been enough to offset the power of the political class.

The main currents of our contemporary politics involve ordinary citizens rebelling against their masters in the political class. While by no means the only manifestation of this rebellion, the Tea Party movement is the most notable. What has happened to the Tea Party is instructive. It was first ignored, then ridiculed. Agents of the status quo like news services, newspapers, network news operations and the NAACP have been enlisted to lodge absurd charges of 'racism' against Americans who protest out-of-control government spending. The Empire is striking back.

It remains to be seen whether the American people can finally break the grip of a political class that remains determined to run their lives and misappropriate trillions of dollars of their wealth. It will be, I think, a close-run thing. In the meantime, there is no mystery as to why most Americans do not regard the federal government as legitimate in Jeffersonian terms.

We must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!

From Redstate:

Erick appropriately posted the powerful words penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 earlier. As a graduate of Mr. Jefferson’s University, I am obliged to promote it yet again, of course. However, I have always felt the Declaration understandably but unfortunately overshadows the many steps that got us to that point. One of those, of course, was fellow Virginian Patrick Henry’s famous speech delivered at St. John’s Church in 1775. That speech is famous for the line, “Give me liberty or give me death,” and for good reason - but the speech in its entirety says so much more about the cause for freedom.

Of note: There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

Enjoy the speech in its entirety and God Bless America.

**************

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, St. John’s Church in 1775

Ideas have consequences and so do attitudes

Read Article at Poweline

Politico reports that Democrats are encountering a brutal fundraising period in their longtime donor stronghold of mega-rich New York. The exact quarterly figures won't be known until after the July 15 filing deadline, but some Democratic campaign insiders are calling this the worst period for fundraising they've experienced in the New York area since 1994 (there's that year again).

It isn't difficult to figure out what the problems are. They include non-stop bashing of Wall Street by the administration; the substantial loss of wealth among donors caused by the recession; demoralization among Democrats caused by the party's loss of popularity and to some extent by disillusionment with the performance of Obama and Congress, the president's arrogance, which prevents him from mingling much with wealthy donors; and the administration's anti-Israeli posture.

Democratic fundraising problems don't automatically translate into inroads for Republicans, but they do provide an opportunity. According to Politico, Sen. John Cornyn 'has has been in New York roughly every six weeks, and is a familiar face at the Regency Hotel power-breakfast circuit on Park Avenue.' And a seven-candidate fundraiser hosted by hedge fund founder Paul Singer in New York last week reportedly raised well over $1 million for a handful of GOP Senate hopefuls. Politico calls this 'a staggering amount that surprised several Democratic fundraisers.' Among the donors were some 'who are typically Democratic givers.'

Similarly, a fundraiser hosted by Dan Senor, a former Bush administration official who is active in the Jewish community, included some Democratic donors. According to Senor, some guests told him 'I've never written a check to a Republican in my life.' Senor added that he's hearing from some Jewish Democratic donors who 'are either sitting on their hands, or giving to Republicans.'

There are many things to dislike about the Obama administration and Democratic rule, even among the rich New York liberals who have mindlessly contributed to the Dems for years. It's possible that Obama sees the erosion of financial support among this crowd as some kind of badge of honor, but his party is certain to be far less sanguine.

If things continue on the present course, perhaps the rich New York donor base will begin clamoring for the longtime source of their largesse, the Clintons.

Blackfive Poll: 91% prefer less restrictive ROE

Blackfive Poll: 91% prefer less restrictive ROE

A recent Blackfive poll found that 91 percent of those surveyed found the military's rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan 'too restrictive.'

Eight percent were satisfied with the current ROE, while fewer than one percent felt the ROE were not restrictive enough.

1,019 participated in the online poll which was posted at Blackfive from 30 June to 4 July.

WANE-TV – Bluffton Tea Party Coverage

Happy 4th… Great Commercial

“Historic” Rise in Taxation in 6 Mos.

From Redstate Blog:

We’ve been here before.

American’s For Tax Reform culled a few things from the List of Expiring Federal Tax Provisions 2009-2020 off the government’s website:

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

- The 25% bracket rises to 28%

- The 28% bracket rises to 31%

- The 33% bracket rises to 36%

- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

HT Weasel Zippers.

On a personal note, I think it’s over for me and my husband.

With the loss of deductions, we can expect our adjusted gross to shoot up, probably place us in an different tax bracket — which would be like the hubby getting a 25K raise. That’s basically getting taxed twice.

Goodbye tax refund. .. but, we were done with lending the government our money, anyway.

We’ll raise the children for another 16+ years — it’ll take a few years to make the adjustment of the tax increases, and by that time, the eldest will be in college and we’ll have to find a way to put them in college because of the income depletion affecting savings now.

No incentive to run a start-up, or look for full-time work that removes Mom from the home. We’d rather survive on 1 income than slave away to have what we’ve earned ripped away, and the kids raised in daycare.

The kids don’t care about trends or television and that’s just fine with us.

Future self-sufficiency, for us, hinges on raising well-adjusted adults who thrive in healthy relationships — where there will be no future mini-family/adult bailouts and divorces.

So for now, we work on we have control over — our values, our patriotism — our dispositions, our happiness, our love.

This can’t be taxed.

If Obama is re-elected, we’re looking at another 6 years of this hell .. 10 more years to readjust and maybe save and play “catch up” if we win in 2016.

I am thinking if the 2012 election is botched then I can expect the rest of our country’s history to be hijacked and the Constitution to be amended — we will have Il Duce for life and 2016 will be nothing to look forward to.

We’ve gotten used to austere.

When the kids leave the nest, we’ll have an RV parked along the ocean, if we’ve payed off our upside down mortgage and the housing market is “nice” .. though we probably won’t have the gas to drive anywhere.

Bikes are useful .. as seen on TV in socialist Europe.

We’ll be just like them before you know it.

A Citizen Takes Matters Into His Own Hands

From Powerline Blog: Article Here

I wrote here about the ineptitude of the Toronto Police Department in containing the criminal element that turned out for the G-20 meeting there. Some think I was a little harsh, in that the Toronto PD meant well, but was outsmarted by the rioters. I'm not sure that's a great defense, but it is noted. Meanwhile, civilization's first and principal line of defense isn't the police department, it is the citizenry. So let's all sing 'O Canada' in honor of the young man you see in this video, confronting a looter:

There is a serious point here. The collective power of the citizenry is always far greater than that of any police department. Glenn Reynolds has written that in any 'shooter' incident, there is one group of people who, by definition, are present: the victims. Only they don't have to be victims. They can be armed and dangerous, or, as in the case of this young man, unarmed but still dangerous. A pack, not a herd. All of us need to be ready to fight for civilization, in our own way.

Step Into the Ring - Mike Pence

Why Do We Have Police Forces?

From Powerline: original article

I mean, really? The question is prompted by the riots going on in Toronto, in connection with the G-20 meeting. The same crowd of knaves and fools that always turns out for such events has descended on Toronto and has run riot through much of the city. The criminals have burned a number of vehicles (maybe some of them are from France), as shown in this photo:

Strangest of all is that the burning vehicle in the background is a police car. How does that happen? Didn't it contain policemen? Were they unarmed? I really don't understand the school of police work that apparently considers it good practice to stand by futilely while criminals seize your car and set it on fire.

It wasn't just vehicles, either. Roving bands of criminals smashed windows and looted stores up and down the streets of downtown Toronto:

Again, I simply fail to understand. Are Toronto policemen not armed? Does it not concern them when rovings bands of criminals smash windows and loot stores? People who engage in public, violent crime are asking to be beaten with clubs and, if necessary, shot. I always thought that was the main reason we keep policemen on the payroll.

To be fair, the police have made some arrests. But all too often, they have been mere spectators:

I've spent very little time in Toronto over the years. Last time I was there, it reminded me of an American city of the 1970s--dirty, with a menacing street population and a whiff of violence in the air. That was only an impression, but it may be that inept police work didn't start with the G-20.

At the Corner, Mark Steyn comments on 'spectators in body armor.'

I may have to revise my old line about the British police being 'the most monumentally useless in the developed world'. For the G20 summit, the Toronto coppers ordered up a ton of new body armor, weaponry, gas masks, etc - and then stood around in their state-of-the-art riot gear watching as a bunch of middle-class 'anarchists' trashed the city. Streetcars were left abandoned, and even police cruisers were seized, vandalized and burned. ...

The Toronto PD are your go-to guys if you want a fetching police escort for the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid float in the Pride Parade, but they don't otherwise seem to perform any useful function.

Not this time, anyway.

Sharia Comes to Michigan

From Powerline Blog

Under Sharia law, it is forbidden to proselytize to Muslims, and no Muslim can leave the faith. Dearborn, Michigan, is home to a substantial Muslim population, and there is strong evidence that local authorities now enforce sharia in preference to the Constitution of the United States. Thus this Associated Press story about the arrest of four Christian missionaries that took place on Friday:

Police in the heavily Arab Detroit suburb of Dearborn say they arrested four Christian missionaries for disorderly conduct at an Arab cultural festival.

Police Chief Ron Haddad says his department made the arrests Friday. The four are free on bond.

Here is video of the arrest. The 'disorderly conduct' consisted of handing out copies of the Gospel of John outside the festival. Note the police demand that one of the group stop filming the arrest:

Many people seem to believe that concerns about creeping sharia are exaggerated or misplaced. This incident demonstrates, I think, the contrary.

Dennis Prager – Great Words

If you haven’t followed him you need to…

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey refuses to be intimidated by the powerful union forces arrayed against him. He has not backed down from his campaign promises (Unlike Scott Brown in Massachusetts) of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. If you have not paid attention to him, you should.

Of course being a man of “size” myself… I am partial to a public figure who casts such a “large” presence….

 

Letter to Gov Christie – 12 Jun 2010

Governor Christie,

On behalf of the 500 plus members of our group I would like to extend a message of thanks to you for your efforts. You have some admirers and friends here in the heartlands that are watching your work with respect and much heartfelt appreciation.

We are fortunate here in Indiana that we have had responsible leadership over the years that have kept our ship of state in somewhat good order. However we fight the same forces you do when it comes to our pubic unions, entitlements and school spending.

You are an inspiration to us all. Of all the public officials your message of accountability has been clear, concise, and consistent, three qualities that seldom come together in words and deeds of contemporary government officials.

We wish you the best and pray for your efforts sir. And should you ever consider seeking a “higher” office know that you have supporters all across this great land.

Godspeed Sir,

Michael Yancey

Trading Oil for Snake Oil

Gun Bans Are Totally Effective... Yeah Right, Daley...

We’ve been talking a lot about the NRA today, and that brings to mind this video from my colleague at the Heartland Institute, Zach Christenson, posted over at Freedom Pub. Watch the whole thing, but particularly the part with Otis MacDonald, the man behind the Chicago gun case, explaining why he needs to own a gun:

MacDonald’s story is moving, and it certainly makes me frustrated. The man just wants to protect himself:

He came to Chicago from Louisiana when he was 17, as part of the Great Migration of blacks. He worked his way up from a janitor to a maintenance engineer, a good job that allowed him and his wife to buy a house on the city’s far South Side in 1972, where they raised their family.

In recent years, McDonald, now a grandfather, has watched the neighborhood deteriorate, the quiet nights he once enjoyed replaced by the sound of gunfire, drunken fights and shattering liquor bottles.

Three times, he says, his house has been broken into — once the front door was wide open and the burglars still out front when his wife and daughter came home from church. A few years ago, he called police to report gunfire, only to be confronted by a man who told him he’d heard about that call and threatened to kill him.

As a commenter over at the Pub writes in response: “Gun bans are 100% effective. You just have to know the actual intent of the gun ban, which is not to lower crime.”

Rudyard Kipling - 1919

This is an interesting poem that Glen Beck is using a stanza from to promote his newest book, “the Overton Window”. Its touched off a firestorm amongst liberal bloggers as to its meaning… read for yourself and see what it says to you:

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

by Rudyard Kipling

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know." 

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death." 

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, 
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; 
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, 
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die." 

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. 
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, 
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, 
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, 
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! 

Better Late Than Never: Rachel Maddow Taken to Task From Unlikely Quarter - The Huffington Post

It's not often I see something on The Huffington Post I look forward to reading. Here's an exception.

In a post ungrammatically titled "Why Has the New York Times and Rachel Maddow Misled Us?", novelist and essayist Richard Greener on Thursday wrote a stinging rebuke of a Times' June 8 editorial and Maddow's coverage on her show the following day of the Supreme Court emergency order intervening in Arizona's political matching funds law.

The specifics of Greener's criticism of the Times and Maddow can be found by following this link to his post. (A video clip of the Maddow segment in question can be found here).

Greener laid it on thick when it came to Maddow, initially describing her as "always intelligent, smart and savvy and usually 100 percent credible" before going after her assertions about the court's action.

He concluded that "only two explanations remain for Rachel's bad behavior" --

One is, she's just another TV entertainer, another pretty face in a long-line of million-dollar talking heads. She shows up, gets her make-up on and she performs her 'show' for the camera. Unsaid, is that she hasn't a clue what the program's about and perhaps doesn't care very much. After all, it's show business and it's her living we're talking about. It's only 'acting' isn't it? Second is she read the order. She knows perfectly well what it says. But she had a reason to do what she did, the way she did it.

I don't want to believe the first possibility. Don't ask me why. I don't know Rachel Maddow and I never will. But I kinda like her. I think she's cool. And, I admit it -- I usually agree with her. But I really don't want to believe the second because its (sic) so fundamentally dishonest, deceptive and downright creepy that it makes me a little queasy.

Greener deserves credit, as does The Huffington Post, for publishing this, knowing full well that many if not most of the readers on the site are also inclined to agree with Maddow. Where I part company with Greener is in his description of Maddow as "usually 100% percent credible."

Leaving aside the many examples on NewsBusters that undermine this claim, one need not venture far from the Maddow segment that Greener criticizes to see further evidence of this.

The day before Maddow's take on the Supreme Court action, Maddow interviewed Las Vegas Sun columnist and cable-show host Jon Ralston. The interview ended with a minor but telling error on Maddow's part when she thanked Ralston for coming on her show (click here for audio) --

MADDOW: Jon Ralston, columnist for the Las Vegas Sun, host of 'Face to Face with Jon Ralston,' and as a political dean of the press corps in Nevada you've got one of the best jobs in American politics.

... Except that Ralston works in journalism, not politics. Unless the person saying this sees no distinction between the two.

What followed from Maddow on Wednesday and Thursday, however, was egregious.

On Wednesday's show, the same one featuring the segment criticized by Greener, Maddow revisited her verbal jousting with John Birchers at last winter's CPAC gathering in her attempt to tar GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle with guilt by association (audio here) --

MADDOW: Seeing the John Birch Society back in the heart of the conservative movement has been sort of a trip. I mean, once they got over the impulse to try to pretend that they are not now and never were crazy about stuff like fluoride, they then got right back into the business of being super-paranoid, highly-imaginative conspiracy theorists about stuff like fluoride.

These guys really believe if we're going to get serious about stopping communist mind-control plots, we must oppose the dreaded Bolshevik fluoride in the water. Here's the most amazing thing, though. The John Birch Society now, in that view, has a very highly placed champion, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, Sharron Angle -- fighter against fluoride! Really!

In 1999 the Nevada state assembly passed a bill requiring the fluoridation of water in two Nevada counties. Then-assemblywoman Sharron Angle tried to block fluoridation in one of those counties. According to an account in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, 'Angle said she simply does not like fluoride.'

A day later, Maddow embellished on the basis for Angle's opposition to fluoridation (audio here) --

MADDOW: Now that Sharron Angle has won the Republican nomination for Senate to run against Harry Reid in Nevada, now the fun part. Now the fun part is watching the national Republican political establishment try to figure out what to do with Sharron Angle. Try to figure out how to balance that national Republican frothing, clamoring, heart-racing desire to beat Harry Reid with the fact that their candidate against Harry Reid thinks that fluoride in drinking water is a conspiracy and recently suggested that beer should be illegal. Sow's ear, can you become a silk purse? Can you?!

To recap: Maddow on Wednesday -- Angle's opposition to fluoridation, according to the newspaper Maddow cited quoting Angle, is personal distaste. Maddow on Thursday claims as "fact" that Angle believes fluoridation is a "conspiracy" -- as in Bolshevik.

Sharing Angle's concern, by the way, is that scurrilous right-wing rag Scientific American, which ran an article titled "Second Thoughts on Fluoride" in 2008. Guess they're in on the conspiracy too.

Maddow is "usually 100% percent credible"? Hardly. More like, slippery as an oil slick.

Louisiana Congressman Smacks Down Chris Matthews: If Titanic Sank Today Obama Would Blame It On Bush

Chris Matthews on Friday got himself marvelously smacked down by a Louisiana Congressman.

In an at times heated discussion about energy policy with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Steve Scalise (R-La.), the "Hardball" host continually bashed the GOP.

"The smartest move for your party is to screw things up for the next couple of years, right through November, get the country completely bollixed up, and they will vote Republican out of desperation, and you will have more power," said Matthews. "Is that the strategy of the Republican Party this year?"

When Scalise refuted this claim, Matthews added, "If the Titanic sank today, you know what the Republicans would be saying? Don`t be telling the shipping lines they need more life rafts or life preservers."

Scalise marvelously responded, "If the Titanic sank today, I`m sure the president would try to blame it on George Bush" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s Mitch McConnell`s position, which I think is not a position. He said: "What I believe most of my members, if not all of them, will not be interested in is seizing on the oil spill in the Gulf and using that as a rationale, if you will, for passing a national energy tax referred to down here at the White House as cap and trade."

Now, that`s a negative position. What is the positive position in terms of moving forward? And do you support some kind of negotiation with the Democrats, which never seems to get done in this presidency? You guys -- McConnell from day one has said you guys` platform is no. That`s your platform.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: That`s right.

MATTHEWS: That`s what...

(CROSSTALK)

REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA), ENERGY & COMMERCE CMT: Well...

MATTHEWS: Is he right? Is McConnell right? The smartest move for your party is to screw things up for the next couple of years, right through November, get the country completely bollixed up, and they will vote Republican out of desperation, and you will have more power? Is that the strategy of the Republican Party this year? Because McConnell says it is. [...]

MATTHEWS: What I see here...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What do I see? If the Titanic sank today, you know what the Republicans would be saying? Don`t be telling the shipping lines they need more life rafts or life preservers. Don`t get involved with industry telling them what to do. At some point, the government has to intervene, because the private sector is not doing the job. The private sector is what we`re seeing on that live bug every night on television. By the way, Congressman, that`s the work of the private sector without regulation. That`s what it looks like without being taxed heavily.

Actually, what we're seeing in the Gulf of Mexico right now indeed IS the result of an over-regulated industry. If our oil companies were allowed to drill in Alaska AND set up more rigs closer to the coast, they wouldn't be drilling in mile-deep seas.

For some reason folks like Matthews just don't get that! But I digress:

SCALISE: Well, but the federal government is the regulator, Chris.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Your oil patch people have been getting away for centuries without paying taxes.

You have had the biggest tax breaks in the world because you have controlled the Ways and Means Committee. You have controlled the Finance Committees and the regulating committees to the point there is no regulation of safety.

This is either astonishing stupidity or an out and out lie. The Democrats have controlled both chambers of Congress -- and therefore the Ways and Means Committee as well as the Finance Committees - since January 2007! That's approaching three and a half years.

In fact, Democrats have mostly controlled Congress since oil exploration began in this country. As such, any suggestion to the contrary is absurd.

Fortunately, Scalise had the best line of the night:

MATTHEWS: You have had your way. So, that works. And we`re seeing it every night on the air.

(CROSSTALK)

SCALISE: If the Titanic sank today, I`m sure the president would try to blame it on George Bush. And we have seen where that has gotten us.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, that`s not useful.

Actually, it's quite useful -- and spot on!

Bravo, Congressman! Bravo!

Marlin Stutzman gets the nomination

Marlin Stutzman received the caucus nomination in Indiana’s third congressional district to be the Republican candidate to replace Mark Souder.

Congrats Marlin!

You have GOT to be kidding me…

This is found in every copy of the “United States Constitution” printed by “Wilder Publications”…

Read more about it at the CATO at Liberty…. here

Wait a minute. Wait just one minute on this.

We’re heard the quote from the President. Now read it.

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.”

No seriously. Read it again.

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.”

He is talking to experts not to find out how to solve the problem but to find out whose ass to kick? Seriously?

That is the President of the United States in his own words.

There is one well leaking caused by the collapse of one platform owned by one company.

Not only has Barack Obama not once talked to the CEO of that company, his big donor British Petroleum, he overreacted and shut down every company’s offshore drilling — every single one. He put, effective immediately, tens of thousands of people on the unemployment line.

And in the President of the United States own words, he’s not talking to experts to figure out how to solve the problem, but to figure out who to assign blame to.

This is not leadership. Heck, this isn’t even bullying.

This is failure.

Bye Helen, can’t say we will miss ya…

A picture is word a thousand words…

Nothing I have heard explains how liberals view our illegal immigration problem as this screen capture from MSNBC does:

Barack Lobster - Down, Down … goes his credibility

It was a joy to read this article from the UK Telegraph this morning. It illustrates just how low Barack Obama has sunk with the latest in a long string of bumblings and fumblings. His popularity continues to tank after a brief flirtation with recovery following his successful implementation of healthcare rationing.

In the piece, the Telegraph’s Toby Harnden calls out Obama for his inept behavior at last week’s “press conference”.

Central to Obama’s appeal was his promise to be truly different. His failure to achieve that is now at the core of the deep disappointment Americans feel about him. At the press conference - the first full-scale affair he had deigned to give for 309 days - he appeared uncomfortable and petulant.

His approach to the issue was that of the law student suddenly fascinated by a science project. He displayed none of the visceral indignation Americans feel about pretty much everything these days - two-thirds now say they are “angry” about the way things are going - resorting instead to Spock-like technocratic language and legalese. “I’m not contradicting my prior point,” he stated at one juncture. During those 63 minutes of soporific verbosity, about 800 barrels of oil poured into the Gulf.

“soporific verbosity” and “Spock-like technocratic language and legalese” Don’t you love the way the English can turn a phrase?

Harnden then points out the 4,233,857th attempt by Obama to evade responsibility by blaming George W. Bush for his problems.

Obama engaged in the obligatory populist bashing of Big Oil and, of course, demonstrated the Obama administration’s version of Tourette’s Syndrome, blaming the previous administration for the situation when, by my reckoning, it’s a full 16 months since Bush left office.

“Obama administration’s version of Tourette’s” - I’m using that. Repeatedly.

He then proceeds to slam Obama’s photo op on the beach, where the POTUS is seen poking his finger into the sand (as opposed to his head, which is normally located there).

By Friday, he was sticking his finger in the sand at Grand Isle, Louisiana as part of a photo op self-consciously designed to contrast with Bush’s famous looking down on the Katrina devastation from Air Force One. It was Obama’s second visit to Louisiana in the 39 days since disaster struck. According to C’BS’s Mark Knoller, in the same period Bush visited the post-Katrina region seven times.

When I saw that picture (it’s shown in Harnden’s story), I simply wondered what kind of mundane, mindless dreck he was scribbling - perhaps “help me?”

Finally, the article turns serious in pointing to Obama’s utter failure to deliver on a key campaign promise of “a new era of transparency”

But perhaps the most dangerous sign during the press conference for Democrats fearful of an unprecedented electoral disaster in November’s mid-term elections was the evasion and opacity of the man who promised a new era of transparency and a different kind of politics.

When asked about the resignation of the director of the Minerals Management Service - an agency he had excoriated - he professed that “I don’t know the circumstances in which this occurred”. She had, of course, been fired.

Even worse was Obama’s refusal to say anything about the growing furore over White House attempts to persuade Congressman Joe Sestak to pull out of the Democratic Senate primary contest in Pennsylvania. Obama’s advisers had preferred the Republican turncoat Senator Arlen Specter - and Sestak inconveniently let slip that he’d been offered a government job to step aside.

That was potentially illegal and for weeks the White House stonewalled. When, even more inconveniently, Sestak beat Specter, the trust-us-nothing-untoward-happened approach would no longer wash. But still Obama declined to answer the question on Thursday, fobbing the reporter – and America – off with the promise that “there will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue”.

Yet again, the Obamites have employed evasion, lies and misdirection to attempt to avoid blame for their missteps and misbehavior. The American media seems to be OK with simply accepting this lack of transparency, but journalists such as Harnden, who are not threatened by the strong-arm tactics of Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the Chicago politithugs, are free to speak the truth.

It’s a shame that Americans do not often see the flavor of analysis that Harnden presents in this piece. Instead we receive pre-chewed pablum served up by the sycophants of the New York Times and Washington Post. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. When the WaPo publishes a story like the one that streiff covered this week, titled “Obama struggling to show he’s in control of oil spill”, there is hope that the media lapdogs have climbed down from Obama’s lap and are now nipping at his heels. Let’s hope they start chewing on his leg.

UPDATE: Holy lapdog, Batman: Maureen Dowd gets on the “Obama Is Spock” bandwagon with an almost-un-sycophantic article that I missed yesterday. She states:

Too often it feels as though Barry is watching from a balcony, reluctant to enter the fray until the clamor of the crowd forces him to come down. The pattern is perverse. The man whose presidency is rooted in his ability to inspire withholds that inspiration when it is most needed.

“Perverse”. Well, that applies to a lot of things that go on in the WH these days and could be used to describe his entire presidency. But the end of her piece is really the money shot:

Obama and top aides who believe in his divinity make a mistake to dismiss complaints of his aloofness as Washington white noise. He treats the press as a nuisance rather than examining his own inability to encapsulate Americans’ feelings.

“The media may get tired of the story, but we will not,” he told Gulf Coast residents when he visited on Friday. Actually, if it weren’t for the media, the president would probably never have woken up from his torpor and flown down there.

Instead of getting Bill Clinton to offer Joe Sestak a job, Obama should be offering Clinton one. Bill would certainly know how to gush at a gusher gone haywire. Let him resume a cameo role as Feeler in Chief. The post is open.

BWAHAHAHA. I could learn to like this Good Maureen. But I doubt it’ll last.

Letter to Editor – Phil Stoller – 27 May 2010

I am proud to call Wells County my home. I have always felt that my upbringing has given me a set of principles and values that I share with my neighbors. We in Wells County are “doers” not “talkers,” and we are "givers" not "takers." There is a quiet sense of pride and decency in all of this.

We look at Washington D.C. with frustration, disappointment, and perhaps apprehension as we watch our government stray so far from what it was created to be. All the while, we take some degree of comfort that at least here, we are keeping our priorities straight. But are we?

The minimum expectation of local government is that it do its required job: protection of public safety, maintenance of infrastructure, and responsible administration of the public's trust. In the case of Township Governments, they are to provide fire protection and poor relief . We expect our elected officials to do this job with diligence, competence, and integrity. Recent headlines splashed with stories of corruption, incompetence and misplaced priorities have begun to undermine this trust.

Jefferson Township has been one of these D.C.-like violators of our trust. We expect our Townships to protect our property, family, and homes from fire. This is a requirement, not an option. The Jefferson trustee continues to short-change obligatory funds from fire protection, paying far below its fair share (approximately 18% of the operational budget). The Trustee has withheld these vital funds all the while paying himself nearly three times that of other Wells County trustees. In addition he has paid his wife three times the amount of other Deputy Trustees in the County, and we the taxpayers are “renting” a portion of his home. One can forgive the just rewards of a hard working man, but to do all this for himself while siphoning away potential fire protection dollars is inexcusable. His personal financial gain is not worth the potential lives of a mother, father, child, or volunteer fire fighter saved by adequate funding.

When approached with potentially equitable solutions, this same trustee refused to even discuss the proposal. The volunteer fire fighters who are regularly shocked out of sleep to come to our aid, are rightly at their wits end. Their funding has been squandered, and their ability to protect the lives of their neighbors is under attack.

This is Wells County. We are “doers,” hard-working people who drop what they are doing to bag sand when the river is flooding even though our own homes remain safe. We are "givers," people who put out signs asking for prayer even though our own children are not at risk. This is in who we are, what we were brought up to believe, and what we aspire to protect. If local government doesn’t reflect who we are than it is time to say enough! We must expect Jefferson's trustee to do what is required of him by law. We must tell all our elected officials, that we won’t tolerate Washington-like priorities that place personal well-being above the good of our community.

Phillip Stoller

Urge Mitch Daniels to Appoint a Constitutional Justice

For immediate release Contact Bryan J. Brown (260) 515-8511 FORT WAYNE, INDIANA

The ArchAngel Institute (Indiana nonprofit corporation dedicated to building the Culture of Life upon the ruins of the culture of death) is today urging Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to take decisive action to free all Hoosier attorneys and the Hoosier justice system from the oppression documented by the internationally-recognized attorney Alan Dershowitz.

The Harvard School of Law professor has documented his troubling experience with Hoosier "justice" in a tell-all column entitled  "A Speech Code for Lawyers”: http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/lawyerspeechcode.html 

In that expose' the leftist Dershowitz notes that:

I have argued cases all over the world, and I have never encountered a legal system as result-oriented as that of Indiana or a chief justice as self-protective as Chief Justice Randall Shepard.” Judge Randall Shepard has enjoyed unquestioned control over the Indiana judiciary since the mid-80's and has used that authority to shape the contours of the attorney's disciplinary authority, attorney licensing and even the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

The ArchAngel Institute has documented the troubling use of political correctness as a foil against a conservative attorney through these captive systems and warned that plans have been located to take these machinations even further. ArchAngel Institute Executive Director Bryan J. Brown, a licensed Kansas attorney since 1996 who has been cleared as to character and fitness by Kansas, Montana, Missouri, the National Conference of Bar Examiners and the United States Supreme Court was recently denied entrance into Indiana's court system in an order signed by Chief Judge Randall Shepard.

This miscarriage of justice is documented in the posts gathered under Brown v. Indiana and Brown v. Bowman at www.archangelinstitute.org. That order and the process that concluded in that order reveal a startling lack of concern for due process and constitutional governance on Indiana's High Court.

Posts at www.archangelinstitute.org document a seemingly unconstitutional use of religion and politics in the processing of a Hoosier bar applicant. See:

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/a-post-modern-heresy-trial-post-2-what-my-inquisitors-most-wanted-to-hear/

Brown has sued the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program and its hand-picked "cooperating clinicians" (the Indiana judiciary's Orwellian term) for the allegedly unconstitutional abuses that Brown documented. Those pleadings are available at this link:

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/23961843/Brown-v-Bowman-complaint-12-09

According to Brown,

Governor Daniels can free Indiana from it current oppression by seizing the opportunity presented by the recently announced retirement of Justice Theodore Boehm.

As is explained in more detail at

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/governor-mitch-daniels-can-set-indiana-free-from-its-bully-court/ ,

Governor Daniels can find both a new Indiana Supreme Court Justice and new Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice in one appointment, placing a constitution-respecting jurist on the High Court who is dedicated to reforming a system that Alan Dershowitz accuses of being less just than a third-rate banana republic.

The ArchAngel Institute urges all persons of good will to join them in calling for this change of the guard in Indiana's legal system. The Institute will continue to develop this call for reformation at www.archangelinstitute.org in the weeks to come.

 

See this post for the public interest nexus driving this call for reform. --

Bryan J. Brown, Esq.

Licensed in Kansas Bar No. 17634 (260) 515-8511

Judiciary Committee Republicans: Do your job, Holder.

Done with the White House non-response to the claims that Joe Sestak (who recently beat out Obama-endorsed Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate primary), all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have stepped up to demand a proper investigation from AG Holder.

Via Jake Tapper:

“If such things happened they would constitute a serious breach of the law,” Axelrod told CNN, “and when the allegations were looked into there is no evidence of such a thing”

That was not enough for the Republican Senators, who wrote to Holder that they “do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve ‘a serious breach of the law.’ The White House cannot possibly manage an internal investigation of potential criminal misconduct while simultaneously crafting a public narrative to rebut the claim that misconduct occurred.”

Wait - the White House shouldn’t be left to handle an investigation into a claim that could land them with a felony? These people are just asking for too much!

The ramifications of this are huge, and the claim should be treated accordingly. It’s inconvenient any way the Democrats handle it, at this point - I can’t figure out how they can spin it to their benefit. From our own Haystack earlier today:

This is all rather counterintuitive to me as I don’t follow Democrat politics. Maybe the Administration is dragging this story out in an effort to give Sestak anti-Administration cred as he goes into an election. Maybe they’re just inept. Whatever the reason, the Obama Administration is now in the interesting position of potentially supporting a candidate they have branded as either a liar or delusional.

It’s unbelievable that it had to come to this - the White House arrogance behind pretending this didn’t happen is stunning.

Meghan McCain and the Irony of the Pot Calling Kettle Black

I suppose the phrase “the pot calling the kettle black” is somehow racist now, but since I’m called one incessantly just for being a Conservative anyway, I’ll say it regardless. Meghan McCain epitomizes that phrase and she proves it yet again with her latest inane rambling of her alleged thoughts on Rand Paul.

I admit that when she tweeted that a new article at The Daily Beast, on Rand Paul no less, was forthcoming, I giggled with schadenfreude-y anticipation. I knew it would be snicker-worthy and I wasn’t disappointed. The only problem is that when I read her reputed writing, I hear things like “ZOMG! Why all the H8rs!!111 Oh, look! Cute shoes!” But, once I tell that voice to get off my lawn (as I’d like to do to Meghan herself), I’m able to somehow muddle through, as a service to y’all. See? The things I do, like read Meghan McCain, so you don’t have to! You’re welcome.

Meghan McCain, of course, jumped right on the bandwagon of her Progressive posse to further the “Tea Partiers are racist” meme. She first set it up by implying that somehow Rand Paul is the face of the Tea Party movement, proving once again that she, like her Progressive buddies, knows nothing about the Tea Parties, nor do they even understand them. It has no face. It has no leader. Nor does it want one. Then, she goes in for the Racist ™ topper:

Paul’s nomination could have been a moment of triumph for the Tea Party movement, as well as for Republicans, but instead it was an embarrassment. And I felt the disappointment firsthand, given that I agree with and support numerous things the Tea Party represents. Like many Americans, I’m angered by the intense spending going on under the Obama administration. But when the movement was given the opportunity to present specific solutions and answer real questions, its leaders nominated someone who—yet again—revealed weird, racist undertones, no matter how he wants to spin it.

An embarrassment for Republicans? Oh my, my tummy hurts! That right there is the pot calling the kettle black. Also note, she doesn’t list anything that the Tea Party represents. Because she’s clueless, as always. Furthermore, in addition to the unfounded claim that somehow Paul’s answer, which only had to do with specific arguments of potential over-reach of the federal government, had “weird, racist undertones”, she also adds in “yet again”. Yet again? Nice job promulgating the idea that the Tea Parties are racist, Meggie Mac. That should get her invited to some super cool cocktail parties, which are the only kind of parties she seems to know or care about.

As always, Meghan McCain is concerned only with Meghan McCain. And being thought of as “cool” and “hip” and “edgy” so that the right people, in her mind, will like her. She has yet to learn that they only pretend to like her as long as they can use her to bash Republicans. She obviously doesn’t realize yet that is the only reason she is paid – such a depressing thought – for her alleged writing.

She also has yet to learn that the “I’m so brave, I speak my own mind” line doesn’t work when one always takes the easy route and never, ever says anything actually brave. You see, Meghan, you can’t claim to be an individual nor a rebel. You have proven yourself to be a sheep — in cute shoes, yes, but a sheep nonetheless.

She constantly calls for a big tent, calls people ‘haters’ (or H8rs for those of limited intelligence on the Left) and claims she is being silenced. She takes photographs for an ad campaign with duct tape over her mouth, as if anyone is stopping her from speaking. Sadly, oh-so-sadly, they are not. Yet, in the next breath, she seeks to silence the thoughts and opinions of anyone with whom she disagrees. They are meany pants, you see. And not “cool” and stuff. They’ve probably never been on The View, for goodness sake!

The rest of the article is good for a few more snickers, but the conclusion of her thoughtful insight (I can’t keep a straight face whilst typing that) really stands out:

Paul’s role within the Republican Party (if any) has yet to be determined. But one thing I am sure of is that, until we start nominating candidates who have more realistic views of the complex world we live in and stop seeing things strictly in black and white (no pun intended), we are going to continue losing elections and becoming punch lines for late-night talk-show hosts.

Meghan, honey, your buddies are the ones who only see things in black and white. Literally. As for the punch line remark, I suggest you look in the mirror. There, you will see what happens when one refuses to hang their head down in shame and slowly walk away when their 15 minutes of fame are up.

—–

(cross-posted from NewsReal)

The Joe Sestak thing is kind of a big deal, actually.

I have to disagree with Jim Geraghty here that Rep. Joe Sestak’s (D) admitting that the White House tried to bribe him reflects well on Sestak. Either Sestak is lying about this, in which case he’s, well, a liar who did so for crass political gain; or Sestak’s telling the truth about this, in which case he’s pretty much explicitly participating in a cover-up of a felony. Either way, talking in general terms is not really acceptable. Unless there was an active conspiracy permeating the entire Executive Branch to bribe Joe Sestak, somebody in the White House is innocent of this crime - but until we get the full details of what happens, we won’t know who. And while I may have been heavily critical of the unprofessional behavior of the White House’s staffers, I think it’s hardly fair of Sestak to talk about this scandal in a fashion that implicates all of them.

Put another way: check out this video from the GOP House Oversight committee…

…By now ignorance is not a legitimate excuse regarding this issue - Gibbs’ and Sestak’s squirming to the contrary - and the regular media isn’t any happier about being given the mushroom treatment than Rep. Issa is.

Moe Lane

PS: To answer Jonah: the scandal is that we were told by President Obama that President Obama was better than this. As I noted earlier, I guess that was a lie.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

500 SEIU bully-boys vs. 1 14-year-old.

Nina Easton* got to meet the faux-populists of SEIU up close and personal:

Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that — in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action — makes his family fair game.

Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

Just a couple other things to note: the normally media-loving SEIU didn’t bring the media, the SEIU’s trying to unionize BoA, SEIU owes BoA several million dollars, and the intended victim is himself a Democrat. AND HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY, GREG? Anyway, read Big Journalism for more unsavory details - but guess what, taxpayers! Your tax money was spent on police support for union intimidation of a child! Doesn’t that make you all warm and fuzzy inside? - and check out Hot Air to see the video of the liberal defending the SEIU while pretending not to.

You know, I’d ask what DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen (whose district this is) is planning to do about this particular act of union intimidation of a child, except that I’m too afraid that Van Hollen would tell us what he did when he heard about it…

Moe Lane

*Yup, already smeared by the Left. Incompetently, but that’s par for the course for Media Matters for America.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Some Wise Words on the Climate Debate

Via my friend and colleague Paul Chesser, this footage of Colorado State University climatologist Scott Denning speaking at the Heartland Institute’s Fourth Annual Conference on Climate Change is really quite refreshing. Denning is no “skeptic,” but he stresses that he’s a scientist who believes that public policy should be based on the facts we know about the world we live in — not on the skewed agenda of those who view their perspective on climate not as science, but as religion or politics.

Insightful remarks, and certainly ones I agree with. Video via Freedom Pub.

Stutzman jumps into the race for Souder’s seat

Disgraced Indiana Rep. Mark Souder resigned this week in the wake of the news of his affair with a female staffer. Souder just won a tough primary for his seat… which is now going to a special election, as there CLEARLY haven’t been enough of those this year. The date hasn’t been determined yet.

State Sen. Marlin Stutzman announced today that he was jumping into the race to replace Souder. Stutzman just lost to Dan Coats in the primary for Evan Bayh’s seat in the Senate, and will be shifting gears to get himself into the House. His anticipated competitors for the vacated seat are “state Representative Randy Borror, Fort Wayne City Council member Liz Brown, car dealer Bob Thomas and other Republicans.”

An interesting dynamic here. He obviously has some pretty heightened name recognition as a result of the Senate primary, and also has some cash left over from the last election - admittedly not a lot, but some. This provides him with a clear advantage, given the expected challengers. The district is a +14 Republican district, which overlaps with the district that Stutzman serves as a state Senator.

Glad to see Stutzman have another shot at getting to DC. This could be good.

The Limbaugh victory

In 2008 Zev Chafets profiled Rush Limbaugh in a good article for the New York Times Magazine. Chafets is a canny journalist who knew he had found a good subject. He proceeded to write a forthcoming book on Rush (Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One) that I look forward to reading.

Rush is the master of what he refers to as conservative strategery as well as what I would describe as tongue-in-cheek comedy. Not infrequently, Rush combines the two, as in his promotion of Operation Chaos during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign. We followed a few of the twists and turns of Rush's execution of Operation Chaos as he commanded his followers to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in order to forestall and complicate the rise of Barack Obama.

Rush deserves the attention that Chafets devotes to him, and he looms large in the nightmares of liberals who don't get the joke or the point. They take the line of brain-dead liberals like Al Franken, who holds in his inimitable style that Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat idiot. Brilliant. Franken really showed Rush when he got his chance on Air America, may it rest in peace.

Today Chafets takes to the New York Times editorial page to proclaim 'The Limbaugh victory.' In this column Chafets seeks to diagnose the root cause of the conservative resurgence that is taking place around the country.

In his lead paragraph, Chafets refers to 'very conservative Republicans' who 'seem to be doing so well lately.' He thereafter drops the 'very' and simply discusses the recent electoral success of Republicans against Democrats as well as the success of conservative candidates within the Republican Party.

Liberals would prefer to deny the conservative resurgence. Denial has been their first recourse. If you can't deny it, the next best thing is to attribute its cause to Rush. Enter Chafets. '[T]he most obvious explanation' for the conservative resurgence, according to Chafets, 'is the one that's been conspicuously absent from the gusher of analysis. Republican success in 2010 can be boiled down to two words: Rush Limbaugh.' Chafets describes Rush as 'the brains and the spirit behind [Republicans'] resurgence.'

This is an explanation that serves a couple of purposes. It gives New York Times readers a congenial explanation for a confusing (to them) phenomenon. At the same time, It gives them a familiar villain.

Liberals like to think that the program of national socialism on which Obama is embarked is a popular phenomenon. Instead, Obama's program has produced a grassroots rebellion harking back to the Founding Fathers. If you seek two words that best explain the resurgence of conservatives, Barack Obama is probably the correct answer.

Rush deserves great credit for maintaining and building conservative morale In the immediate aftermath of Obama's ascension. In today's column, however, I suspect that Chafets is executing his own variation of Operation Chaos, confusing the opposition and selling books at the same time. An Army of One comes out on May 25.

The Socialist Brain

1948 Video – When is the last time you have seen this?

What Ed Whittaker was really saying