Arianna Huffington: Astroturfer

Arianna Huffington: Astroturfer: "
In what Freud would call projection, the Left continues to accuse the Tea Party of using tactics that they are using.

The accusations flew when around one million people attended last year’s 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington. How could that many people be that upset? Why would they come out en masse against the President that was to be America’s Savior? Surely they must have been bought and paid for by foreign interests and evil corporations!

The truth is that there is no such thing as a political savior, and Americans realized very quickly that there is no way to spend yourself out of debt. The uprising was organic, and we could not have manufactured something on that scale if we’d tried. It simply doesn’t work.

Case in point: The OneNation rally, held on October 2nd of this year. Even the most well funded and organized groups cannot duplicate the true power held by a decentralized groundswell of the American people. The beautiful chaos of our movement, when set against the centrally planned OneNation rally, reveals what Americans have always known: Power released by individuals will always triumph over the artificial control of planners and bureaucrats.

This is representational of America’s fundamental disconnect with Washington. Big government - the most well funded special interest - cannot compete with the power of the market. It is why freedom works… and it is why we have never had to subsidize transportation to any of our events.

This is also why the Left continually finds itself in this predicament. Their very ideology runs contrary to the interests and values of the American people. The people don’t like to be controlled or directed and history has shown that they only tolerate tyranny for so long before they revolt.

Arianna Huffington only further illustrates the fundamental disconnect by committing to spend $250k to bus people from New York City to Washington, DC for Jon Stewart’s Restoring Sanity rally on October 30th. As of last week, 11,000 people had registered for space on the Huffington funded buses.

The question is this: What does this actually accomplish? What happens when they run out of other people’s money and can no longer subsidize attendance of major rallies? The answer is that their “movement” will crumble. What the Tea Party has done is tap into an energy and a fundamental value that may change forms from time to time, but will never disappear. This is why we are successful, and this is why we are here to stay.

Selective Enforcement at Obama's Justice Department

In Washington, there are probably 10 or 20 faux 'scandals' for every real scandal. One of the real scandals these days is the way in which Barack Obama and Eric Holder have politicized the Department of Justice. The Democrats criticized the Bush administration for politicizing DOJ, but that was sheer fabrication. It didn't happen. Immediately upon taking office, however, Obama and Holder embarked on a program of partisan law enforcement the likes of which this country may never have seen before.

The latest manifestation of the Obama administration's perversion of justice is noted by former DOJ lawyer Chris Adams--a deliberate decision, for political reasons, not to enforce Section 8 of the 'Motor Voter' law:

If Americans don't want dead and ineligible felons participating in elections, they will have to clean up the mess themselves, as Attorney General Eric Holder won't do his job by enforcing the integrity protections in the 'Motor Voter' law passed in 1993.

Motor Voter struck an important balance -- it sought to increase voter registration, as well as ensure voter integrity. Welfare offices and motor vehicle offices became voter registration centers. But the law also required states to conduct list maintenance to ensure ineligible names don't pollute the voting rolls. Dead people, ineligible felons, and people who moved away must be removed from the rolls by state election officials.

The attorney general was given the power to enforce both provisions of Motor Voter, yet Eric Holder is only interested in enforcing one. This attorney general simply won't do his job and enforce the list integrity requirements.

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department enforced both Section 7 (the welfare office registration provisions) as well as Section 8 (the list integrity provisions). Section 7 cases were investigated and brought against multiple states, including Illinois and Arizona. Section 8 cases were investigated and brought against multiple states, like Missouri and Maine.

The decision of the Holder DOJ to ignore the integrity provisions of Section 8 is deliberate and corrupt. In November 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes told the entire assembled DOJ Voting Section that the Obama administration would not enforce the list maintenance provisions of Section 8. Section 8 'doesn't have anything to do with increasing minority turnout,' Fernandes said. 'We don't have any interest in enforcing that part of the law.' End of story.

At the same time, Fernandes stressed that the DOJ would vigorously enforce the welfare agency registration provisions of Section 7.

She made these lawless instructions in front of me and dozens of other shocked Voting Section lawyers. The DOJ has never once denied that Fernandes gave these instructions, nor has the DOJ countermanded them.

The Obama administration will continue to engage in selective law enforcement for partisan ends as long as we, the citizens, allow them to get away with it. Remember this on November 2.

Can We Dispense, Now, With The Myth That They Feel Our Pain?

[img via Moonbattery]

Honestly, I don’t care about the frequency with which our King and his Queen vacation from the tough grind of their having to talk out of both sides of their mouths. And I’ve long since grown accustomed to taking a shiv in the back at the 4th rib from the Monarchy on a fairly routine basis. And I’m fine with them going places I’ll never be able to afford to see or gettingreally cool stuff I’d never dream of being worthy of owning…but, can we please stop now with the nonsense of being asked to believe that our rulers are just private folk; simple and humble and understated like the rest of the riff raff that walks the streets and pays their bills?

Please?

And could someone please tell the White House and that Gibbs creature to shut the hell up already?

The first lady is paying for her own room, food and transportation, and the friends she brought will pay for theirs as well. But the government picks up security costs, and the image of the president’s wife enjoying a fancy vacation at a luxury resort abroad while Americans lose their jobs back home struck some as ill-timed. European papers are having a field day tracking her entourage, a New York Daily News columnist called her “a modern-day Marie Antoinette” and the blogosphere has been buzzing.

The White House said it would not comment. “The first lady is on a private trip,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said this week. “She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. And I think I’d leave it at that.”

Nothing about the President and the First Lady is “private”…I mean, I know they have forgotten that we are their employers and all…but it’s not like they can turn turn their lives on and off like a switch. And, how ever much of their glamorous lives they pay for on their own, we’re still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of OUR money to make sure nothing happens to them while they do it. There’s really no need to rub it in our faces…is there?

Millions are out of work, millions are on food stamps, and millions more on welfare. Our idea of a vacation is the phone being disconnected long enough to miss a few days worth of collection calls. Do we really need to be asked for some level of interest or concern for what the Queen is doing in Europe when she could be here…spending that time on the poor folk from whence she wants us to believe she comes, and believes she is well-suited to relate to?

Enough already.

Real Change: Faith in Government Collapses Under Obama

Cross-posted to Liberty Central

President Obama and the current Congressional leadership were swept into office on a wave of dissatisfaction with George Bush and a Republican Congress. Polls showed that Americans were open to the idea of greater government intervention as a way to address serious problems. President Obama promised that he would expand the role of government to ‘fix’ health care, Wall Street, the economy, energy, and other challenges. A new poll from the liberal Center for American Progress shows that less than 2 years later, confidence in the ability of government to solve such problems has plummeted. Faith in the federal government is now at its lowest level in the history of the poll:

Americans increasingly feel that government ‘is doing too much:’

Americans are ambivalent about whether government protects or curtails freedom, but strongly believe that it is opaque rather than transparent, and serves special interests rather than the common good:

Respondents now say that regulation of business does more harm than good - and support for regulation generally is at its lowest point since 1994:

CAP also decided to poll test a straw man: to find out what percentage favors the complete elimination of government from the marketplace. Even here, the collapse of public support for government involvement in the market is stunning. Not only is support for government at its lowest level on record, it has fallen 10 points from its previous all-time low, and 22 points from just 2 years ago:

In the last 18 months, the American people have witnessed an enormous expansion of the federal government, and they’re clearly very negative about the experience. Whereas support for bigger government was at its apex when Obama was elected, it has completely collapsed. Americans continue to believe Uncle Sam has a role in regulating some private activities - that’s no surprise. But clearly the debate over health care, the stimulus, the bailouts, Dodd-Frank, cap and trade, and others, have sown new doubts about the power of Washington to bring positive change.

In Congress, July 4, 1776: The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Rosie O'Donnell: Helen Thomas Wasn't Telling Jews 'Go Back to the Ovens,' So 'Sit and Spin,' Helen-Haters

On her XM/Sirius satellite radio show on Wednesday, Rosie O'Donnell defended the outrageous comments of Helen Thomas telling Jews to “get the hell out of Palestine” and go “home” to Germany and Poland. The Radio Equalizer blog has audio where O'Donnell seemed to acknowledge Richard Cohen's Washington Post column recalling that Jews who did return home after World War II were killed by the thousands.

She added, “But now I think in the year 2010, you know, what she was saying was not 'go back to the ovens”...What she was saying was, you know, the homeland was originally Palestinians, is what she was saying, and it's now occupied by Israel and that Palestinians should be afforded their civil and human rights.” O'Donnell thought comparing it to telling blacks to go back to Africa didn't work because “black people are not occupying a country.”

She was angrier on Thursday's show:

Fifty years as a journalist, and it comes down to some guy stickin' a camera in her face when she was by herself, crossin' the street with her 89-year-old lipstick on, and her whole life is over. I'm sorry, I don't buy the 'Helen Thomas sucks' parade. I'm not buyin' a ticket.”

...I feel like a Jew...I've been to Israel...My son had a bris, performed by a mohel...but [they can] still accuse me of anti-Semitism if I feel that Helen Thomas shouldn't be hung up by her ankles at 89 years old...

Fifty years...of actually being the Fourth Estate when there was one, of standing up and asking questions when women weren't even allowed in the room, to how many administrations, and it all comes down to 'let's throw Helen Thomas under the train'? Sit and spin, that's what I [say] to everyone. I'm so mad.

That's a rather crude middle-finger saying for radio. Also on Thursday's show, O'Donnell responded to conservative bloggers taking note of her comments about nationalizing BP and she didn't care whether you call it socialism or communism:

I'd just like to say for the record that I don't really believe in communism for the United States, and I don't really feel we should be a communist nation, nor do I think socialism would really work in the United States. However, I do believe the government should seize BP and all of its assets, and use...the money to help all the people that they're killing from this horrific act of gross negligence, criminal behavior. I think they should enforce the RICO statutes...Can you imagine after 9/11 if we said, 'OK, we're gonna let the terrorists clean up the 9/11 site'?...They're the ones who did it. They're environmental terrorists.

O'Donnell can't seem to tell the difference between corporate neglect and incompetence in BP's case and the maliciously plotted murder of 3,000 on 9/11. Certainly, the oil rig explosion and skill cost human lives, and a lot more lives of creatures on and under the sea. But the word “terrorism” implies acts committed intentionally to terrify, not accidents. Or is O'Donnell suggesting BP did all of this on purpose?

She also responded emotionally at criticism from conservative talk radio, without ever identifying which host had unfairly maligned her: “One of those idiot shows, like, whatever, Sean Beck Hannity Fred Phelps...they show a picture of me like a freakin' Macy's balloon: 'Look at fat, gay Rosie O'Donnell...She's a communist.'” She yelled: “Eat me! All of you!”

Will the White House Press Corps Get Wimpier Without Helen Thomas?

Jon Ward of the Daily Caller, until recently a White House reporter for the Washington Times, wrote a piece for Sunday's Washington Post titled “Why we'll miss Helen Thomas.” But Ward also interviewed some White House press colleagues who suggested Thomas had ventured across a line into explicit advocacy and argument:

"Helen had always been a tough, no-nonsense interrogator of presidents and press secretaries," said Ann Compton, who has reported on the past six presidents for ABC News. "About a decade ago, when she shed her role as reporter and began a career at Hearst as an opinion columnist, Helen's questions began to cross the line into advocacy."

Ward wrote that as “zany and obvious” her advocacy had become, he wondered if other reporters couldn't learn something about being a little bit tougher on press secretary Robert Gibbs. Fox reporter Major Garrett admitted to Ward “that until the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico became a major story, the White House press corps (himself included) had often failed to adequately hold Gibbs's feet to the fire.” He explained:

"There had long been an unnecessary deference and sort of delicacy and decorum about waiting to be called upon, and rigidly adhering to what is essentially a manufactured process that Robert sought to achieve at the very beginning," Garrett said. He added that the dynamic of the press room works best when reporters are free to follow up and really push the press secretary, but "that has been extremely rare, for whatever reason."

Ward offered a few examples he felt showed excessive deference:

A couple of incidents come to mind. At a briefing just one week after Obama's inauguration, for example, only two reporters pressed Gibbs for details about the president's knowledge of a drone strike in Pakistan -- the first military action of the new administration -- and they received no backing from colleagues in the room when he refused to discuss it. And more recently, in the June 3 briefing, Gibbs faced only a few scattered questions on the announcement by Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff that a top White House official had dangled three job possibilities in front of him should he drop his challenge to the incumbent Democrat, Michael Bennet.

Ward didn't explore the idea that the bosses of these White House reporters weren't truly interested in pressing Gibbs. Even as several reporters asked for answers on job offers to Romanoff and Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, the networks never put the non-answers of Gibbs on the air to create pressure for more disclosure. Persistent questions by reporters alone doesn't move the news needle. Their bosses also have to find it essential to get answers out of Gibbs

How not to fight a war

McClatchy has a long, pessimistic piece about the war in Afghanistan. It begins with a conversation between Gen. McChrystal and an aide. McChrystal is lamenting the situation in Marjah.

Aide: You've got to be patient, we've only been here 90 days.

McChrystal: How many days do you think we have before we run out of support by the international community?

Aide: I can't tell you sir.

McChrystal: I'm telling you. We don't have as many days as we'd like.

In this conversation, as reported by McClatchy, McChrystal is being diplomatic. The issue isn't the number of days before support from the international community runs out; the issue, as the remainder of the McClatchy article makes clear, is the number of days before support from the Obama adminstration expires.

That number isn't uncertain. Under President Obama's announced timetable, McChrystal has 13 months before the president begins bringing the troops home. Nor is there any indication that Obama plans to alter this timetable. Earlier in the month, he stated: 'I am confident that we're going to be able to reduce our troop strength in Afghanistan starting in July 2011, and I am in constant discussions with General McChrystal, as well as Ambassador Eikenberry, about the execution of that time frame.'

Only a modern-day techocrat or lawyer could believe that it makes sense to fight wars pursuant to timetables, and to be 'constantly' discussing withdrawal while the fight heats up. As the McClatchy story points out, 'the tension between political and military timetables [is] apparent' as Obama's withdrawal plans 'collide with the realities of the war.'

Consider the situation in Marjah. Our military campaign, designed to be the first blow in a decisive campaign to oust the Taliban from their spiritual homeland in adjacent Kandahar province, is faltering in large part because we cannot persuade the Afghans in the area to side with the government against the Taliban. This, in turn, is due in part to threats by the Taliban to kill residents who cooperate with the U.S. and the government. That threat is entirely credible, given the fact that we plan to begin withdrawing in about a year. If the U.S. were more committed, the threat would be far less credible.

The president's timetable also gives the new British government, which has no more desire to be fighting in Afghanistan than Obama does, a pretext for excusing itself from the fight at a time of its choosing. Thus, William Hague, the new foreign secretary, told the BBC during a visit to Afghanistan, 'I don't think setting a deadline helps anybody; so much of what we're doing in Afghanistan, setting targets for people then to jump through hoops towards, doesn't help them in their work.'

Mark Sedwill, Britain's former ambassador to Afghanistan and NATO's current representative there, was more direct:

If there are politicians anywhere in the alliance who are making a judgment that we shouldn't have gone for the surge unless we could have been confident by the end of 2010 it would all look completely different, then we shouldn't have gone for the surge, because that was never practical,'

After dithering throughout much of 2009, Obama may well have delivered a plan for Afghanistan that 'was never practical.'

Don’t let them tell you they don’t want to censor the Internet

They do. Oh boy do they ever want to censor the Internet. Why else would the FCC take the radical step of deem-and-pass Title II reclassification of ISPs to regulate them like phone companies? It’s because the endgame of Net Neutrality is total control.

Today I came across two slipups that give up the game, despite the FCC’s promises of “forbearance” and the greater left’s assurances that the War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and Regulation is Liberty.

Cass Sunstein, legal professor and currently the head of Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said this as far back as 2001, per Althouse:

Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word “voluntary” is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.

Yeah, a member of the White House in charge of regulation thinks that a government mandate to control political content is something that could be done in a “neutral” way. And the FCC, a regulatory body, just claimed the ability to regulate content from Internet Service Providers in the name of Net Neutrality. File under “Things that make you go Hmm.”

I was all ready to post on just that tonight when I ran into something even more blatant. Don’t take it from me that the FCC has all this in mind. Take it from Jennifer Schneider via Reason. She is after all the legal adviser to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, and she says that “Commissioner Copps would love to have jurisdiction over everything.”

Hmm. Yeah, some “jokes” are just too revealing, much like when Dick Armey made his little joke on Barney Frank’s name. Armey clearly had no love for Frank, and the Copps office has plenty of love for total Internet regulation.

We’ve got to get a Congress that will stop this runaway FCC.

Michigan’s 1st District: An Awakening

We’ve been traveling this week. We’ve logged hundreds of miles and gone from town to town, meeting people of Main Street, America. I’ve talked to them in coffee shops, private homes, businesses, Republican dinners and Tea Party events. Everywhere I’ve gone, the people are speaking out and I am listening.

I’ve been extremely impressed with how well-informed the people are. The topics we’ve discussed, the questions that have been asked, all show that the citizenry of our 1st District is paying attention, educating themselves and tackling the concerns we have about our country’s direction, head on. This renewed interest by regular Americans has been kindled by the negative impact that the current Democrat administration has had on their lives. They see that they have been caught in the cross-hairs, and they are learning how government is meant to work, not just the politics involved. They’ve asked me about the 1st, 2nd, 10th and 17th Amendments. My fellow citizens are reading for themselves, the Constitution, learning the how and why, what Washington should not be doing vs. what they have done. Our current legislators and this administration do not want the populace to know or speak out, but we are not going to stop. That is the message I am receiving from the people.

We are all concerned about this country’s current course. Policies have been set in place that will have disastrous economic consequences unless we stop and take corrective action. This administration has brought even higher unemployment rates, which we are now all too familiar with here in the 1^st District. President Obama and his administration’s efforts to intrude upon and control the individual citizen’s life cannot continue. The only way we can stop this is by using the energy and common sense of the people themselves to set us on the right course.

While people have legitimate concerns, they also have demonstrated an incredible spirit. The American spirit, the one of “can do” and “will do,” forms the core of our traditional American character. It is this awakening and renewal that I saw as I traveled, and the people of the 1^st District are echoing their fellow Americans across the land. Something else I see; people aren’t leaving this job to others; they are rolling up their sleeves and willing to do it themselves. I am with them on this. I’m a husband, father and physician, but I am also an American seeking to restore this land to her Constitutional foundations.

RedState has an outstanding writer, Vassar Bushmills. Not too long ago he wrote a blog post that illuminated the awakening of the American spirit. He called it America “getting all philosophical again.” He noted the common man and woman, ordinary folks like you and me, looking up the true meaning of the word Liberty; and reminding themselves of the real purpose of citizenship.

Meanwhile, the administration in Washington doesn’t seem to get it. They have a stranglehold on our district, our state, and our country, and it must be loosened. We have to start cutting the strings, breaking out of the web that has trapped us for so long in dependency, dependency on government, dependency on Washington.

The people, you and I, are the backbone of this nation. We will find the strength, the spirit; we’ll reach into ourselves to stop Washington, stop the arrogance and indifference. You will find that spirit in Michigan’s 1st District. I am one of them - just an ordinary citizen who decided to step up and confront these issues head on. It gives me joy and I consider it an honor to do this work, with the support of my fellow citizens, to stop Washington, help others share in the opportunity for prosperity this nation has always represented, and I am willing to risk and sacrifice to do it.

The American awakening is here, and it is the people who are saying, “Enough is Enough.”

P.S. Obviously Michigan’s 1st District is very important to me, but we can’t forget PA-12 next week.

48 Hours. Have You Done What You Can?

48 Hours. Have You Done What You Can?: "

“Freedom means you take chances. Freedom means you fight. Let’s send Jim DeMint some reinforcements. Let’s send Jim DeMint Marlin Stutzman.”

48 hours from now, people head to the polls in Indiana.

Let me let you in on a little secret. When I endorse and support a candidate, I get a lot more angry emails than I do supportive. That’s the way it works.

For the past several months I have gotten the crap kicked out of me for supporting a guy too young to run for the Senate and too conservative to play well with others.

People did not like me endorsing Marlin Stutzman, but I did because I believe in him.

There are three good men in the race, but Marlin Stutzman is the best man to send to the Senate. I am proud to endorse him. I’m proud to stand with Jim DeMint on this one. But we need your help to get him the nomination.

Here’s the problem — this is a race between Coats and Stutzman now. A lot of people like Dan Coats. That’s fine. I get beat up every day from people thinking I’m too hard on him. Never mind his actual record in the Senate or that he fled Indiana ten years ago to become a lobbyist and live in North Carolina.

I get it. Most of you do too.

We’re in a fight for our future. How does voting for Coats help in that fight when we’re going to have to fight for his seat all over again in six years. Do you really think he’s going to serve twelve in the Senate? He’ll be 73 at the end of his term should he win. The same guys who told us he’s the best choice for Republicans also told us Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter were the best choices.

You know, I pick candidates because they are not just conservative in temperament or in instinct, but they are conservatives through and through. We got into the mess we are now in because of Republicans. Read that last sentence again.

Republicans became about the party, not the principle. They lost their way. And many of them don’t even want to head back to their principles. They are comfy. They are cushy. And we are all just a minor annoyance soon to burn out and go away.

I get flack, a lot of flack, for this from Republicans, from friends, from colleagues — but the fight for freedom is too important to not sometimes say, “Hey, I found this candidate and we should support him even though there are other people running.” Part of my job, and I’m not sure how I fell into it, but part of my job is to catapult good men and women into the arena to fight for freedom. And I’ve done that with my friend Marlin Stutzman like I did with my friend Marco Rubio — neither were high in polls when I picked them and now Marco has won his primary by default and Marlin has victory within reach.

Marlin is pro-life. He’s pro-second amendment. He’s for small businesses and families. He has the potential to be in the arena a lot longer than those he is running against and his record compared to theirs shows me that he is consistently right on our issues and will fight unapologetically — not cave or fold or waver or bend or yield when the winds from Washington blow a different way. The other candidates say that too, but they all have records and I’ve studied them. Marlin is the best. Marlin is most likely to stand with conservatives even when that means standing up to Republican leaders.

In 48 hours, we have the opportunity to raise up a new conservative leader. We have the opportunity to raise up one of those guys we always say we want to run for office and who did run for office. Let’s not now turn our back on Marlin because I assure you he will not turn his back on us.

Have you done all you could? Will you do all you can? Freedom means you take chances. Freedom means you fight. Let’s send Jim DeMint some reinforcements. Let’s send Jim DeMint Marlin Stutzman.

"

Paul Ryan on GM’s “so-called repayment”

Paul Ryan on GM’s “so-called repayment”: "

Via HotAir, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on “crony capitalism.”

You may have read reports from the Obama Administration or seen ads on TV claiming that General Motors has fully paid back what it owes you the American taxpayer.

These claims struck me as odd and misleading. The federal government still owns over 60% of this auto company. This so-called repayment is actually a transfer of $6.7 billion from one taxpayer-funded bailout account to another.

As this is your money, I think you deserve some clarity on this shell game. My colleagues Congressmen Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett and I have asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to provide an updated, accurate, and honest account of the taxpayer money that is still propping up General Motors.

If anyone is owed a clear and honest explanation it is those hit hardest by the downturn in the auto industry, including those I serve in Janesville, Kenosha, Oak Creek and the surrounding communities in Southern Wisconsin.

It is time to put an end to the crony capitalism in Washington.

Ed’s exit question: “Does the FTC not concern itself with government-owned businesses? Crony capitalism, indeed.”

"

Republicans joust in Indiana

Five men are seeking to be the Republican nominee in the Indiana Senate race to replace Evan Bayh. Three have a likely chance to win. From where is each getting his support?

SurveyUSA polled the race for the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics, and I have the news release. The top line has been spread out far and wide: Don Bates and Richard Behney are negligible at 6 and 4 precent, so we turn our attention to the top three candidates. Dan Coats leads at 36, followed by John Hostettler at 24, and Marlin Stutzman at 18. But let’s dig beyond that.

All three lead Democrat Brad Ellsworth in the general election according to the poll, but their profiles in the primary are different. Coats and Hostettler do better among voters lacking a favorable view of the Tea Party Movement, 47-34 and 27-21 respectively, while Stutzman does better among the Tea Party supporters by a 20-8 margin. Those who do not consider themselves Tea Party members also favor Coats and Hostettler more, 36-30 and 27-21 again. Stutzman does better among the Tea Party members as well, drawing 23% of the Tea Party members, and only 18% of the non-members. Stutzman is apparently the Tea Party candidate.

On the other hand, Hostettler is the candidate of Independents. He leads among all Independents with 35%, but drops to 19% among Strong Republicans. He also beats Coats and Stutzman among 2008 Obama voters polled. Stutzman does best among Independents leaning Republican, which sounds to me like a Tea Party-friendly category.

Lastly Coats sounds like the mainstream, establishment Republican pick, as he leads overall and among Strong Republicans.

A three way primary with Republicans and Independents both voting allows for a complicated web of relationships, to be sure.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

The Hyperbole Surrounding AZ’s New Law; Talk About Epistemic Closure!

The Hyperbole Surrounding AZ’s New Law; Talk About Epistemic Closure!: "

I figured that I may as well jump on the new buzz word band wagon and use the term epistemic closure. Even though I’m totally not into the term. It sounds icky and like something contagious. Nevertheless, epistemic closure is pretty much what all of the hysterical, over the top shrieking about Arizona’s law is; the result of living in a vacuum and being so ideologically close-minded that you have no problem accepting, and repeating, misinformation. The need to be righteously indignant takes over any logic or reason.

Even sports writers are getting into the mix, asking the heads of sports leagues to boycott Arizona. It’s infuriating and not just because it is forcing me to write about sporty things. Says Kevin Blackistone, a national sports columnist:

The University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Ariz., should lose the BCS National Championship Game scheduled to be played there next January unless Arizona legislators rescind soon and for good an anti-immigration law they just passed that gives police the right to stop and search for documents anyone police suspect of being in the country illegally.

After all, that law means racially profiling people who appear to be Hispanic, no matter what Arizona lawmakers claim. That means making an entire group of people, as the NCAA spokesman said, uncomfortable in Arizona because of their heritage. That’s unquestionably wrong.

We all should be uncomfortable with that, however. As Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles wrote earlier this month, comparing the law to Nazi Germany: “The Arizona legislature just passed the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law.

He then goes on to try to tie in apartheid and the tired, old bashing of South Carolina and the Confederate flag. Yawn.

First, Mr. Blackistone (who calls himself Professor on twitter) should read the actual law before spouting off about it. Or, in the alternative, he should stick to writing about sports and the successes of others. That’s far preferable than resorting to the sad Godwining of oneself by pulling the Nazi card.

He’s not alone there; Joy Behar, in one of her standard fits of hysterical and inane shrieking, also broke out the Hitler card. (there is a video clip at the link, if you choose to expose yourself to it. I can’t in good conscience force one to be subjected to her. She’s enough to make me a misogynist):

On her April 26 broadcast, HLN’s Joy Behar suggested the new Arizona immigration law that would allow local law enforcement to arrest immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. is comparable to “World War II Germany.”

“Do you think it’s kind of – doesn’t it feel like sort of Nazism a little bit?” Behar asked. “I don’t want to overstate it, but ‘may I see your papers,’ you know?”

It’s not surprising that Behar is clueless, as always. This is the same woman who said that a black President is “traumatic” for white men. No, Joy. While many know that Obama’s policies and the Left’s agenda are traumatic for the country, most people don’t focus on the density of a person’s melanin count. It’s a thing called equality. We treat everyone the same way. Post-racial; y’all should try it sometime.

Which brings us to Obama and his irresponsible and erroneous comments regarding the Arizona law.

The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

What? I’m no constitutional lawyer, but even I know that is baloney. So, not only is the President of the United States purposely trying to sway public opinion against a state, but he is doing so with false information.

As Allahpundit notes, people who have read, and understand, the bill have weighed in and put that issue to bed. Byron York explains in his article refuting Obama’s statement that the statute “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Note that Obama is concerned only with “fairness”.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

Gee, no mention of randomly harassing people slurping on ice cream cones there. He goes onto say:

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

Bingo. And there is your epistemic closure. It’s a carefully measured law, wherein a state is desperately trying to fix a problem that is devastating to their state. Instead of reading the law and actually trying to grasp an understanding of it, the immediate reaction is to fly off the handle, full of righteous indignation, and screech Nazi and Racists ™ ! Meanwhile, the only laws on the books that I am aware of in regards to skin pigmentation or ethnicity are laws that grant the same extra protection.

This is exactly why there is no having a dialogue with the left. Intellectual honesty isn’t their strong suit. Of course, this wouldn’t even be an issue if the federal government was doing its job — its primary job, in my opinion — and protecting our borders, not leaving states to resort to trying to do it themselves with far more limited resources.

That’s not really “fair”, is it, Obama? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to address that honestly, however. I know how you can’t spare your laser-like focus — on yourself.

(cross-posted at NewsReal)

"

SWAT Troops against an Army of Grandmas.

SWAT Troops against an Army of Grandmas.: "

I am given to understand that the video below was the result of local police in Illinois being overruled by the Feds. Whether true or not, this is still so pathetic that it just makes me kind of sad:

You know, I remember a day when we had a President who wasn’t fundamentally afraid of the American people, and so do you.

Picture of vicious counter-revolutionary agents requiring a full riot gear-equipped police presence after the fold.

Grow either up, or a spine, Mr. President. Just do either one quickly; the rest of the world is taking notes.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

"