Assange is not protected by Freedom of Speech

It’s a provocative headline but accurate. Freedom of Speech only covers what one says and extrapolating to a minor degree what one does. For instance one can’t burn the American Flag on public property and then claim that you can’t be prosecuted because of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause.

Among things we’re missing in today’s political discourse, aside from civility, is clarity in political thought: Roe v Wade is not synonymous with being pro-abortion; Congress did not just pass a tax-cut (aside from a temporary payroll modification which was not a focal point of the debate); Assange is not protected by Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech applies to what one personally says; that you cannot, within reason, be prosecuted for expressing political thought. (Advocating political assassination and outright insurrection are excluded.) Freedom of speech is, to a limited degree, expanded to non-political thought and applies to even a lesser degree to forms of political activity. It would be useful to start identifying how political activities are protected by the US Constitution. I would say, for example, that burning the American flag is NOT permitted by the Freedom of Speech clause. If burning a piece of cloth on public property is not permitted then the fact that the cloth that’s being burned was manufactured as a US flag does not, by the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment, give you immunity from prosecution for burning that piece of cloth. It would, I would argue, protect you from added penalties for burning the US Flag – but it would not protect you from the liabilities involved in burning a piece of cloth on public property and “endangering” the lives of the people around you.

Regarding Assange, he is protected by the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment, not the Freedom of Speech clause. This is not a matter of semantics. It is important in how we view the issues involved. Freedom of the Press expands Freedom of Speech, not only to the printed word (and by extension radio, TV and the internet) but also means that the ideas in question need not be ones’ own. A publisher is protected by the Freedom of Press clause.

How does that apply to Assange? Does it mean that he, like any other publisher cannot be prosecuted for publishing the ideas and thoughts of anyone else? Yes and no. Yes, he is protected as any other publisher, and no – a publisher may not publish the ideas and thoughts of anyone else. If The New York Times received a stolen manuscript of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows and published it would they be protected by the Freedom of the Press clause? No. We have copyright laws that protect ideas from being published without the owner’s approval.
Assange KNOWINGLY published stolen material. Why would he be any less liable than the NYTs in the above scenario? Does the fact that he did or didn’t make any money off publishing the material matter? No. Does the fact that Assange published classified material make him less liable than someone publishing a work of fiction where the only damage done is to the author and publisher’s bank account? No.

Without a doubt there is a societal benefit to exposing the activities of the government; we know that transparency is an important counter-measure to government power; and we know that reporters often get and then report on classified information from their sources. Therefore how do we balance these conflicting priorities – that some information needs to be private, and the people’s right to know?

The issue isn’t particularly about Assange. It is: How do we deal with the national security; criminal investigations and other issues if, at any time this information can be published without consequences? How do we deal with an arrangement between an Assange and a traitor / thief / spy who takes and then, through Assange, publishes information. This makes Assange, and others like him, part of a shadow-government, power-brokers who choose what information will be and will not be made public.

Lastly I find that the argument - made by many on the left - praising increased transparency to be deceptive at best. If one is concerned about an over-reaching government then the best thing to do is to limit government power to the bare minimum. I don’t find the transparency argument convincing by those who want to increase government’s power – especially by those who seem to find no limit in what the government can force its citizens to do.

UPDATE: May 4, 2011

"Wikileaks released a set of leaked Guantanamo prisoner files to the public last week. Among them is a document dated from 2008, which mentioned both Osama's trusted courier's name and Abbottabad, the city in which Osama had been hiding. There are speculations that, fearing al-Qaida realized their courier may have been tracked and move Osama, the US administration accelerated their plan and attacked the target site over the weekend. This link highlights the relevant section of the document."

UPDATE: November 18, 2011

Just found out that the USSC has ruled on flag burning.

Texas v. Johnson did not strike down fire codes, or even set out an exception to them for expressive purposes. It said the government may not penalize the specific act of burning a flag because of that act's symbolic meaning.

The New Tammany Hall: Early Elections and Voter Fraud

This has not been a good year for elections in New York State, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Monday. The state recorded one of the lowest turnouts in the midterm elections of any state. And over the last three federal elections, New York has averaged 47th among the 50 states in voter turnout.

Mr. Bloomberg presented his critical assessment of the state’s electoral picture as he proposed a package of changes to state laws that he said would help remove the obstacles that make it hard for New Yorkers to exercise their right to vote.

“Our voting restrictions and requirements actually discourage citizens from participating in elections,” the mayor said. “We are proposing four changes to state law that would make it easier to participate in elections and easier for New York voters to have their voice heard.”

So, NY voters, in 2010, were uninspired with their choices for Governor and Senator - and knew, before hand, that the Democrat nominees were going to win the election. Were there any doubts in 2008 and 2006 and 2004 who were going to win? None whatsoever. So now Bloomberg and others say they're surprised and disappointed that voting participation is down. What is their solution?

The mayor proposed allowing for early voting, moving the deadline for registering to vote closer to Election Day, making the ballot easier to read and making absentee voting easier.
Bloomberg Seeking Election Law Changes to Increase Voter Turnout
by Elizabeth A. Harris

All these changes do is make fraud easier and increase suspicion of ballot-box rigging, ala Tammany Hall of yesteryear.

Mayor Bloomberg do you want to increase participation? How about making it easier for third parties to get on the ballot? How about we let some decisions be decided by referendum (such as allowable decibel levels coming from car or home stereos). Such changes would dramatically increase voter participation.

The solutions put forth are at best window dressing and at worse increases the power of the local political machine and make elections feel even more one-sided, if not actually rigged.

Assange, Freedom of Speech and Neo-Imperialist America

It's hard to take seriously the crap that's being printed in the New York Times. Do people really believe the nonsense quoted below?

First, for the record, I think that for the United States to prosecute Assange would be idiotic, un-American and a threat to the future health of investigative journalism. Second, the New Republic piece by John Judis that I linked to above is well worth reading. Judis emphasizes, as I do, the possible virtues of WikiLeaks exposing secret deals with other countries, but he situates his analysis in a different context: the history of imperialism, and the periodic disruption of imperialist schemes by revelation of the secret deals they involve. In this view, America’s alliances with dubious regimes — whether to secure oil, cooperation against terrorism, whatever — are a form of neo-imperialism, and WikiLeaks is anti-imperialist. Judis himself doesn’t necessarily embrace the characterization of American foreign policy as neo-imperialist, but I’m pretty sure Assange would ...

Julian Assange: Neocon Tool? by Robert Wright

Here's the salient point: Mr. Assange was dealing with stolen goods. He did not have a right to the information. All governments at all times have secrets. Who decides which information is to be kept secret and which is to be revealed, and at which time? Our elected officials that's who. If you don't like what they're doing elect new ones that do. If that doesn't work what do you propose Mr. Wright: rebellion? civil war? anarchy?

Are we now to believe that leftists, those that want to increase the size of government; those people who have contempt and disdain for those who want limited, smaller government are advocating that governments have no secrets: that we the people should have access to all the information? No. There is nothing but hypocrisy and lies coming from Mr. Wright, The New York Times' and The New Republic' editorial boards.

EDIT: See Assange Is Not Protected by the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment

Pearl Harbor going the way of "Remember the Maine"

Funny how the media tut-tuts the fact that American public has such a limited knowledge of history and geography - and yet nary a peep about Pearl Harbor in today's papers. The Day Which Will Live in Infamy is already forgotten.

Media, The Treatment of Two Administrations: Bush and Obama

Unusual methods helped ICE break deportation record,
emails and interview show

Can you imagine the headline in the Washington Post if Bush were president? How about if Palin is President? Could you not hear the calls for investigation; the demand for heads to roll?

ICE lies about its performance; "included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year" and "ran a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than ever before, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol." In addition officials were directed "to bypass backlogged immigration courts and time-consuming deportation hearings whenever possible."

Sarah Palin is about as sharp as a wet balloon.

Nancy Pelosi's keen intelligence and profound understanding of Keynesian theory has led her to proclaim that unemployment insurance stimulates the economy and help lead us out of our economic malaise.

Meanwhile "sharp as a wet balloon" Palin thinks that the more the government grows, the more it takes through taxes, the less the private sector will grow jobs. Nancy is smart because she knows that government knows best. Palin is "hollow, dim and mean." Is there anyone who advocates free markets who would not be so smeared? Wouldn't I be so labeled if I was foolish enough to run for office.

I would rather have someone with a more accomplished resume than Palin but if Obama and Pelosi are the left's idea of intelligent and competent then I would rather have Palin.

Palin's a strategic thinker. Laugh if you will. But look at the end run she did when the left was trying to ruin her financially and destroy her political career by tieing her down with frivilous lawsuits. She did the unimaginable - she resigned her position as Governor. The left laughed with glee. One year later she is more powerful than she was before.

She has courage. She grows stronger the more she is attacked. Unlike the current occupant of the White House Sarah Palin rises to the occassion. This is a useful, and not irrelevant, trait.

Some say that Palin brings on and deserves all of the scorn she gets; and that she is a dangerous demagogue. I would answer this by saying that the media is trying a new tact. At first Palin was simply laughed at - now she is being portrayed as a dangerous demagogue. So Sarah Palin is a demagogue but Barack Obama isn't? Take another look at the Obama imagry, an idoltry reminisent of the smartest regimes of the last century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the other dear leaders of our time.

National Security Song and Dance, Part 2

Last week the Department of Homeland Security shuts down Torrent and yet does nothing but send a letter regarding Wiki Leaks displaying classified information.

“My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!” the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning.

“I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,” he explained.

Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.” (original emphasis.)

Wired: Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.”

Wired: Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

The government acts tyrannically with COICA but does nothing regarding WikiLeaks. Are Wiki Leaks true leaks or is the Obama administration leaking this information for gain. If the government can shut down servers for illegally disseminating copyrighted material then surely it can do so for classified information.

A copy of the letter that the State Department sent to Wiki Leaks can be found at Reuters: Text of State Department letter to Wikileaks and The New York Times

A portion is presented below:

Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:

I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents.

As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing. ...

Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:

* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals -- from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;

* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,

* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries - partners, allies and common stakeholders -- to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.

(The letter is signed by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser to the State Department)

So WikiLeaks is a true threat to international stability and our government doesn't do anything. But they close Torrent?

Makes sense to me.

Below is a copy of the actual letter sent by the DOJ to WikiLeaks:

National Security Song and Dance, Part 1

Ever get the idea that national security is not important to some government types? Ever get the idea that the TSA screening guidelines are just one big song and dance to give the illusion that the government is doing their best to "protect" us?

For years I've been ridiculing the TSA's ban on nail clippers: the logic being that if you're so good that you're able to kill people and take over an airplane with nail clippers - then you don't need the nail clippers to do so. Furthermore a ball point pen is more effective in hand-to-hand combat than a pair of nail clippers and we don't confiscate them.

Now we get this article (HAT TIP: slashdot > think.co.uk > redstate

Soldiers boarding a military charter from Baghram Air Field in Afghanistan were apparently filed through the sort of full-body scanner which has been causing so much trouble in the good ole US of A.

The flight eventually landed in Indianapolis to discharge some of its passengers, but according to a report at Redstate.com, all 330 passengers were made to disembark.

"It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons," the anonymous source of the yarn writes. "Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol." The weapons weren't loaded, or course.

Despite having already been vetted, when the soldiers tried to re-board the plane they were subject to TSA checks. And one soldier was stopped and told he couldn't take his nail clippers on board.

"You’re not suppose(d) to have them," a TSA official informed the startled grunt.

"Why?" he asked.

"They can be used as a weapon," the official informed him.

The soldier then touched butt stock of the rifle he was carrying. "But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on."

"Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane, you don’t have bullets," the smug official replied.

"And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?" the soldier said, a suggestion that was met with 'awkward silence' according to the source

At which point the solder handed over the clippers and was allowed to board the plane.

You couldn't make it up.

I'lld like to know if this story is true. I have to say, as I'm rereading this post, that it sounds like bullshit to me. HOWEVER, the gist of the post is the silliness, and ineffectiveness of what the TSA is doing, not whether the above story is true or not.

Palin Derangement Syndrome, Again

PALIN'S RECKLESS VIEWS ON OBESITY

A few days ago Roland Martin, of CNN fame, added one more example of Palin's inane ideas to the public record . Surely by this time we all know that Palin is an embarrassment to the body politic: unlike Biden, Hank "Guam May Tip Over" Johnson or Sheila Jackson Lee. Well, let's laugh at Palin's stupidity one more time. After all, who can't use a good laugh every now and then?

ROLAND MARTIN:
It's clear that we can't go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic, but leave it to the Kim Kardashian of politics to find something wrong with first lady Michelle Obama's effort to curb obesity in America's kids.

What did Palin say that was so stupid?

SARAH PALIN:
And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.

Palin is truly out of the mainstream here. Martin is so correct: who can pay attention to this Kim Kardashian of politics when obesity rates have "tripled in the last three decades, and one in three children are obese." Palin must be crazy to think that the parents ought to decide. Obviously the parents don't know what they're doing. The government must step in to save the children. They're our future after all.

ROLAND MARTIN :
This latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is.

Libertarians and far right conservative Republicans are always talking about government intrusion into our lives, but when we look at clean water, air quality and food supply, thank God for governmental standards.

There's a lot wrong with your arguments Roland. I'll mention two things. First, let’s focus directly upon your statement of government standards. You would see, if you cared to look, that water and air quality were improving before the EPA was founded. Take a look at the same graphs and you will not see a change in the slope of the curve; thus showing that the value of the EPA is debatable.

Second, the fact that government has a role in upholding contracts (that what one says is in the food actually is) and in making certain that a person/company does not damage another person's property (pollution) has nothing to do with the government forcing people to eat good food.

Nobody is against a plain and simple "education" message. Nobody is against the first lady saying "brush your teeth," or "read to your kid every night," or "don't eat too much," or "eat more fruits and vegetable." What we're against is government intrusion; what we're against is the rise of Euro-socialist nanny state where laws and government power is used to enforce such a standard.

We have a social contract here: I promise not to kill you and take your stuff, if you promise not to kill me and take mine. We entered no such arrangement whereby I promise to stop you from eating too many Twinkies if you promise to stop me from eating too much meat.

2012 - Does Obama have a chance?

The short answer is YES. Absolutely. The country has reverted back to the 2000-2004 electoral map. The 2012 election will probably be very close.

2000 Electoral Map (Bush-Gore)

The 2000 map will exist in 2012 for three reasons. The House and Senate Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 were largely in response to Republicans thinking they could stay in power by government largess (as the Dems did for 40 years). The Democrats who were elected, for a large part, campaigned as fiscal conservatives, and often times as social conservatives as well. Many of the newly elected Blue Dog Democrats ran far to the right of their Republican opponents. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pushed these congressmen to make several very unpopular votes in 2009 and 2010. We saw the result of those votes in the 2010 election. The long-term result of these votes is that whatever patina of "centrist Democrat" that existed in the minds of many Americans has been wiped away. This is particularly true in the South and Mid-West.

Second, it appears likely that the Republicans will win both the House and Senate. There will be some that will want to have a divided government and be less inclined to vote for a Republican President. If, for instance, the Democrats were a lock to hold onto the House and Senate some Progressives might have been willing to let Obama lose. We know that many on the left are angry at Obama for not following his campaign promises: such as closing Gitmo, pulling troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and overturning "Don't Ask Don't Tell"; as well as not holding firm on "single-payer" health care and other issues. However the same people, fearing a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, will be animated and very likely to show up.

The third reason for the return to the 2000 map is that there isn't a Republican that can rally the base as well as reach out and carry non-progressive Democrats. There are many Democrat voters who are not socialists, who are not progressives, by any stretch of the imagination who are appalled at what's happening but don't associate the ridiculous laws with the democratic party. Many, as an example, may be for zero illegal immigration and lower taxes but would still vote straight-line Democratic. To break the 2000 electoral map wide open there would need to be a Ronald Reagan, but there aren't any available for the 2012 election. It must be stated that most of these Democrats live in Blue States. For those reasons I don't see the 2000 map, shown above, to morph into the 1980 map (Ronald Reagan versus Jimmy Carter) shown below.

1980 Electoral Map (Reagan-Carter)

Obama can win even if he loses Florida. Nevada and Colorado are turning purple-blue and I can see them being more reliably Democrat in the future. Gore won New Mexico by fraud, IMO, and, unless Susana Martinez turns things around for the Republicans, New Mexico will probably joing Nevada and Colorado as Purple-Blue states.

2000 Electoral Map (Bush-Gore)

EDIT: 12/16/2011
See a follow-up post: Obama May Truly be Carter 2.0

Sarah Palin and North Korea

I'm not a Palin-phile but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be defended from the garbage the media is throwing her way.

Obama misspeaks and says "57 states" and nobody bats an eye. And rightfully so. But Palin misspeaks and it becomes international news.

Looks at the headlines:

SARAH PALIN MAKES GAFFE, SAYING NORTH KOREA IS US ALLY

Former Alaskan governor and potential 2012 presidential contender Sarah Palin has made a gaffe on a radio show by saying North Korea is a US ally.

A review of the transcript shows that it was a mis-statement. One thing that's for certain Sarah Palin is much tougher, much more comfortable in dealing with a critical press, and, I think, much better at handling tough situations than President "voted present" Obama.

The transcript of the interview is below:

PAT: Sarah, you said in the last few days that you are considering a run for president.

SARAH PALIN: Yes.

PAT: And polls show that you would probably win the Republican nomination. How would you handle a situation like just developed in North Korea?

SARAH PALIN: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from I think a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking, "Oh, no, what are we going to do" and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea's going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But obviously got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by treaty. We're also bound to by ‑‑

STU: South Korea.

SARAH PALIN: Yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes. And, you know, to remind North Korea, well, we're not going to reward bad behavior and we're not going to walk away and we do need to press China to do more to increase pressure on that arena.

Obviously this was an informal conversation and she misspoke. Imagine though, that Sarah Palin was in Austria and said that "she didn't know the term in Austrian."

Should that comment by Obama automatically be taken as a misstatement? No. Imagine the outcry had Sarah Palin made the exact same statement.

Look at the accompanying photo: can we get a more unflattering picture of Sarah Palin than that? Why try to evoke images of Hitler and other dictators? "Oh, I know, I know": because the BBC is trying to implant this image, and yet maintain a pretense of objectivity by including this last paragraph in their article:

The conservative US website The Weekly Standard came to Ms Palin's defence, pointing out that "she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally eight seconds before the mix-up".

Once again we see the objective media at their best.

---

EDIT: 11/27/2010
What follows is an audio file of Sarah Palin's comments:

HAT TIP: rctlfy

North Korea, McCain Speaks up

I'm not much of a John McCain fan but if things heat up much more between North and South Korea it would be interesting to hear what McCain has to say. I don't think this is going to escalate to full-scale war; it's one more "pay-attention-to-me" ploy by North Korea because it needs money, or rice, to last through the winter. I wonder if the harvest was bad.

China will be a BIG loser if there is a full-scale war and I think they'll put the kibosh on this right quick if there is any major troop movement.

McCain speaking up will provide US voters with a comparison. The voters chose Obama, who is now weak for a whole slew of reasons -- the ongoing TSA mess -- among them. McCain speaking on the issue would remind people of their choice in 2008 and would, for many people, cement the idea that America cannot afford Obama having a second term.

This is an overtly political calculation on my part, one I usually do not support, but I feel that Obama and his socialist progressive policies are harming, purposefully harming the United States. It's time for this man, and the policies which he represents, to be taken out politically. One of the interesting ramifications of such a move by McCain would be that it would dramatically harm Palin's chances in 2012. She, as with Obama, doesn't have the necessary experience to deal with the presidency. The fact that she has more experience than Obama doesn't mean that she has enough to be President of the United States.

McCain is famously known for holding grudges. We're told that he doesn't like either Obama or Palin. Hmmm. I wonder what he and his advisors are thinking about?

Two new voting machines were located last night in Buffalo

Two new voting machines were located last night in Buffalo, according to Sen.-elect Mike Gianaris, a Democratic attorney helping his party’s efforts in ballot counting.

Incumbent Democratic Sen. Antoine Thompson trails GOP challenger Mark Grisanti by 821 votes, but Gianaris said the new voting machines and how they’ve been handled are a “total disaster” and “complete mess,” adding that lawyers for Thompson are considering legal action that might force a complete recount of paper ballots optically scanned by the machines.

This would involve an amount of paper not seen in 50 years; elections in recent New York history have until this year been conducted with mechanical voting machines, not electronic machines that scan paper ballots. Such a recount would take a long time, to the dismay of people hoping the Senate will be clearly decided before January, when it is set to reconvene.

Capitol Confidential

HAT TIP: Legal Insurrection

I've been waiting to see if this story was going to be picked up by the MSM. It hasn't.

One of the major issues that neither our media nor our political parties address is the transparency and competence of our elections. It is relatively simple to have fair and honest elections and yet we do everything we can to complicate matters and to bring the fairness of the elections into play.

For more reading:
Key New York Races Remain Undecided

Internet Piracy, Copyright Laws and Censorship

The Senate Judiciary Committee has just approved the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). This bill would allow any website to be shut down by the U.S. Attorney General if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site.

Few people, especially those working with intellectual property, have any problems with the idea of protecting property rights. But this goes too far. If a site is doing something illegal, this illegal activity must be proved in a court of law before the site is shut down.

If there is a timeliness factor to this special courts can be set up that deal with this issue alone. Piracy ought not be difficult to prove. And if it is difficult to prove, it shows that the decision ought to be made in a court of law and not by the Attorney General.

UPDATE: See National Security Song and Dance

Aftermath of 2010 Elections

Executive Summary: Outside of Deep Blue areas Republicans did very well.

The Effects of ObamaCare
We were told by the Obama administration that passing the health care bill would help keep the Democratic majority; we were told by Nancy Pelosi that after the initial fear mongering was over and that it was passed that the American people would appreciate the work done in their behalf; we were told by Democratic strategists that the collapse of Democratic fortunes in 1994 was because they didn’t pass HillaryCare.

And come the November elections few Democrats, even those in blue areas were touting their efforts on passing ObamaCare. Furthermore saw Democrat supporters running against the HealthCare law and then dropping by the wayside as the election results came in. A clear example of this was the race between Cravaack and Oberstar, an 18-term incumbent who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Cravaack focused on Oberstar's support of the health- care legislation and vowed, that should he be elected, he would work to repeal the new health care law. After winning 18 straight elections Oberstar was defeated.

The Realignment of the South
Since 1994 the South has been very favorable to Republicans on the national stage, but considerably less so on the state level. We haven’t fully digested the changes brought by the 2010 elections but it looks as if the states are turning Republican on the state and local level as well.

The Realignment of the Mid-West
For years Republicans have been trying to make inroads into what they thought was fertile territory -Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan – for years it looked like fools gold. This past mid-term election might have been the election which has changed the electoral map here for good. The Michigan House, the Minnesota House and Senate and the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate all switched from Democrat to Republican control. We won’t know for sure for another two election cycles.

Fools Gold
Neither California nor Pennsylvania will go Republican anytime soon on a state level. Republicans always feel that they can do well in Pennsylvania. They can outside of Philly and Pittsburg but the Political Machine, I mean the fraud, is too high for time, energy and money to be placed in either state.

Obama Himself
One of Obama’s most persuasive arguments in the 2008 elections and one that inspired much of the electorate was his desire to change the way Washington works, to end the red-state/blue-state rancor: as Obama put it “there is no red state - blue state” Does anyone believe Obama anymore? In 2012 he will get the Progressives and SEIU types out en masse. Who else? The black population, yes. Latinos? Probably not as much as 2008.

Red v Blue state economies: the experiments
Michigan is one thing, but California is another. The trashing of the Californian economy can be laid directly upon the rise of Euro-Socialism. If a declining California becomes the poster boy for progressive economic policies, and a rising Texas becomes the poster boy for free markets the Democrats will be hurt badly in the 2012 elections. It’s not that a progressive state, like Michigan, is doing badly and that a semi-free market state, like Florida, is doing well: it’s all the extra symbolism that’s attached to each state. If we clearly see a rise in the economic well-being in several red states, along with Texas, and “malaise” elsewhere the political transformation of the south and the mid-west will be complete.

What does the electoral map look like in 2012?
It’s way too early for specifics. Indiana and North Carolina are definitely Red again. New Hampshire and Florida are likely Red; and Virginia and Ohio are lean red. Those changes alone would give Obama a very narrow victory. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada are toss-ups and right now, along with the Mid-West Lake Region states could determine the election.

Scientifically Illiterate Media: Cats have innate knowledge of gravity

Taking the Purrfect Drink is All Physics to a Cat

According to the researchers cats understand innately the relationship between gravity and inertia, one force, inertia, pulls the liquid up while the other, gravity, draws it back down. The cat instinctively knows when those forces are in balance and closes its mouth around the column at exactly the right time.

I hate reporting like this. Cats do NOT have an innate understanding of the "relationship between gravity and inertia;" they do not "instinctively know when these forces are in balance." This is as stupid as saying that a cat lands on its feet because it has an "innate understanding of gravity." And it begs the question: do other animals have an innate understanding of gravity? Do humans? After all 3 year olds can catch a ball: a child can see the ball leaving his parents hands; observe the arc; calculate the force of gravity, air resistance and the curvature of the earth and put his hands up at the right time and place to catch this thrown ball. Whoopee! We've just proved that knowledge of gravity and air resistance is innate in human beings.

How is it possible that this sort of reporting takes place? What kind of idiocy is this? How could a journalist write this; how could the editorial staff approve of it? How could the fact checker let this go by?

Oh yeah, I know, because they're ignorant of even the most basic scientific principles. It doesn't help that journalists can write well if they don't understand what they're writing about. This video is one of the reasons adults remain scientifically illiterate. It is one of the reasons we have such silly debates over global warming.

Jesus and Mo, the Comic Strip

Some of these are very funny.

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme

Wow!!! Libertarian, free market ideas are becoming mainstream. Who would have thought a mainstream Republican would say something like this:

“I want people to be afraid not to talk about that Social Security is bankrupt and is a Ponzi scheme and if you've got a young 20-something-year-old, they know for a fact that they're not ever going to see that. ... So let's fix it.”

Way to go Governor Perry (TX)

Milton Friedman on Social Security


EDIT: 11/15/2010



Milton Friedman debating a young Michael Moore on Ford's cost-benefit analysis regarding the Pinto.

Veterans Day (Armistice Day or Remembrance Day)

Armistice Day with the images of WWI, Islamofascists and bumper stickers with CoExist on it bring to mind a great quote attributed to Winston Churchill

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Thank you to everyone who served protecting this country and our freedoms.

IN FLANDERS FIELD
In Flanders fields the poppies blow 
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

I wonder what our Commander in Chief will do for this Remembrance Day?

Obama Administration: Opposed to repealing DADT

Isn't this a treat: Obama campaigned against DADT and now his administration is presenting an argument in the US Supreme Court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 10A465) that Obama should not be forced by the court to sign an executive order eliminating DADT but that instead the law needs to be changed by Congress.

Now, I agree with this -- but since when has Obama thought that way? He hasn't. It is just convenient for him to argue this point today. Yesterday he agreed with Florida Court overturning the Florida Secretary of State in 2000 elections. Tomorrow he'll reverse himself when it comes to abortion, or illegal immigration, or people eating greasy food.

One thing that the media doesn't explore is: What does it mean to repeal DADT? Will homosexuality once again to be considered a mental disease with the military having a right, and obligation, to find and discharge homosexuals from their ranks? Too many people forget that DADT was a major advancement.

OK, let's assume that repealing DADT (which prohibits the military from finding and revealing the sexual prference of closeted homosexuals) means that the gay and lesbian community can openly serve in the all parts of the US military. Since DADT was an executive decision made by the Clinton Administration why is it all of a sudden a legislative or judicial issue and not an executive one? Once again, Barack Obama, who voted present on almost every controversial pieces of legislation, has chosen to pass the buck. Aren't you glad YOU voted for him?

Basic Economics: We're Runnng Out of Chocolate

I don't know how I got to this article at Gizmodo but the author writes:

At the rate we're going, chocolate is going to be a rare—and extremely pricey—commodity within the next twenty years. Somebody needs to light a fire under those Oompa-Loompas, stat.

The problem's easy to explain, and much harder to fix. According to the Cocoa Research Association, we're consuming more chocolate than we're producing cocoa. Which means, eventually, we're going to run out. ...

What will the shortage mean? $11 Snickers bars, sooner than you think.

and quotes John Mason from the Nature Conservation Research Council who says:

"In 20 years chocolate will be like caviar. It will become so rare and so expensive that the average Joe just won't be able to afford it."

I don't expect quality business and economic analysis from Gizmodo but it is representative of much of the thinking that's out there.

Where to begin to unpack all these economic fallacies? Oh yeah, let's start with markets. If demand continues to rise what will farmers do? They will grow more cocoa. Duh! Unless there is cocoa weevil, which destroys the plant world-wide, why would cocoa become rare? As the cost of cocoa increases relative to other crops farmers would rush to cultivate it. Farmers with a choice of growing corn to eat, or cocoa to make a huge return, would grow cocoa and buy corn from someone else.

Let's assume the writer and the quoted expert believe their story. They should then buy cocoa futures and become wealthy. Assuming the price of cocoa is 10% of a dollar chocolate bar (I would guess that it's less than that) then the price of cocoa would have to rise about 100x (10,000%) for the cost of a chocolate bar to be eleven dollars in twenty years.

The current price of cocoa is roughly 2,900 dollars per metric ton, so if they are correct we should see the price of cocoa to rise to 290,000 dollars per metric ton. I'm willing to bet my house to a cup of coffee that cocoa will not be anywhere near 100,000, let alone 300,000 dollars a metric ton - in constant dollars of course.

Yes, the world is much more complicated than I made it out in the above example. If commodity prices rise, especially soft commodities, it won't be simply cocoa. Sugar would rise, as would milk, both components of chocolate bars. IF the US doesn't end its flirtation with socialism commodity prices will soar relative to the dollar.

Still, relating to the thinking behind the statements in the article, how are we to deal with silliness such as the following:

"we're consuming more chocolate than we're producing ... eventually, we're going to run out."

And how do we deal with writers and "experts" making predictions that they obviously don't believe. (Oh they'll scream at that statement.) Examples include the above cocoa expert predicting $11 chocolate bars and those experts and pundits saying that Big Pharma, and Big Oil, and Big Banks are making obscene amounts of money. If they truly believed that they would invest all they have in these markets, become "filthy rich" and redistribute part of their obscene profits to those in need.

EDIT 11/15/2010

Re-reading this I see that I forgot to mention a very important point (price elasticity). There will come a point, long before $12 chocolate bars, where people will refuse to buy chocolate, or will drastically reduce their consumption. At that point demand drops with supply rising (as farmers are planting more and more cocoa). Soon thereafter what do you think will happen to the price of chocolate?

If you have any question look at the price variation of hops over the last few years. First there was a shortage and price rise, then there were increased plantings followed by a price drop. Now there is a glut and it looks as if farmers will plant less hops.

Allen West will join the Congressional Black Caucus

I don't know if this is the best use of his time but I sure hope he shakes that Caucus to the core. If anyone can do it he can.

As an aside I love his comments on the criticisms of the phrase "take the country back."

The Democrats are in denial, what will they do?

The Manchurian Candidate goes to India. He thinks he didn't get his message out well enough. I assure you President Obama, outside of re-education camps, you can't get the message out any clearer. We know what Obama will do. He'll double down on stupid, I mean, his progressive/Socialist agenda. What we don't know is what the Republicans will do. Will they start tearing down the Leviathan or are they simply going to give lip service while the Federal Government gets ever larger?

As far as the Democrats come-back strategy they are bringing out their race card again. I'm hearing the "Republican Southern Strategy" rearing its ugly head again. Of course people willfully distort the story of Nixon's Southern Strategy, turning a political calculation based upon a 3-man race, into a Republican attempt to turn Democrat racists into mainstream Republicans (more on this Southern Strategy sillyness in a subsequent post).

The real question of the moment is: are the Democrats going to fight the Republicans with ideas - pitting their ideals of a big government liberalism/progressivism/socialist utopia against a small government Goldwater, Friedman, Randian heterodoxy? * Or are they simply going to bring out and rely on the same divisive tropes that they usually do?

"racist"
"mean"
"hateful"
"extremist"
etc...


*I'm not suggesting that that would be the position of the Republican Caucus but I can dream can't I?

Obama = Keynesian, or is that Kenyan?

HAT TIP: HOT AIR

This is too funny for words. And these people would be among the first to ridicule Sarah Palin and George Bush; and consider that Tea Party supporters are poorly educated dolts.

They know that free markets don't work, think the idea is stupid and yet have probably never heard of Frederic Bastiat, Karl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, or Milton Friedman. Obviously many have not heard of one of the most influential - unfortunately - economists of the 20th C: John Maynard Keynes, nor probably have they heard of Paul Samuelson one of Keynes foremost supporters, writer of one of the most successful textbooks in Economics, and mentor to Paul Krugman (now of NYTimes fame).

And yet I'm stupid and laughably ignorant for being a supporter of limited government and the free market.

Too early to recap but very disappointed

I have to see what bright lights exists but, all in all, I'm disappointed in the election results. Over the last day I let myself get very enthused about the potential turnover.

Races to Root For: Senators

There are some clear choices here:

Ron Johnson (WI)

It’s ironic that Feingold, who is possibly the most independent member of the Senate, a Mr. Clean who votes against his party regularly, is among the incumbents in the most danger from an anti-Washington voter rebellion. Especially since Johnson is not all that impressive. Unless you like Ayn Rand and are yearning to see the country run just like a plastics business.
Elections: Oshkosh Shrugged
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: October 22, 2010

Well, since I’m a fan of Ayn Rand, yes sir this would be a great and wonderful change. By the way Gail, did you think this was simply an anti-incumbant, anti-Washington voter rebellion? I certainly hope it’s not. I’m hoping that it is a constitutionally-minded small-government, free-market rebellion rising up against the forces of an ever-encroaching, government-knows-best mentalite. And, that being the case, Russ Feingold definitely must go.

Marco Rubio (FL)
Definitely a rising star. He may be great: he says the right things, the left is terrified of him gaining a national stage.

Sharon Angle (NV)
If she is truly for the elimination of the Veterans Agency and privatise veteran health care! WOW!!!! Go Sharon. And she would replace Harry Reid. OMG.

Carly Fiorina (CA)
She seems good and she would take out Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer.

Rand Paul (KY)
Seems interesting. Would be good to have a free-market gadfly in the Senate.

Races to Root For: Governors

Aside from rooting for generic reasons that Republicans *are supposedly* more free-market, limited, constitutional government than Democrats and that we're at a crossroad in this country I am rooting for the following Republican candidates for governor. I must reiterate that, until this year, I have never rooted for Republicans.

Rick Scott (FL)
I like Scott in Florida: one to punish Crist and two because his running mate is a Trinidadian immigrant: Jennifer Carroll. Other than that I haven't really seen a reason to particularly root for him. But, then again, I didn't foresee how great Chris Christie would be.

Susana Martinez (NM)
She seems to be for limited government, and as a Hispanic, will help break the idiotic meme: Republicans are Racist.

Brian Sandoval (NV)
Same as for Susana Martinez plus it might take down the potential of the Reid family dynasty. Is there anything more disgusting than a dynastic claim to office?

Tom Tancredo (CO)
He seems!? to be committed to limited government, for closing the border to illegal immigration and his opponent, Hickenlooper, is terrible.

Jan Brewer (AZ)
She deserves to stay after that nonsense with Obama, the justice department and the media over the state immigration policy.

Some states, such as Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania matter for political reasons: such as redistricting and the 2012 Presidential Elections, but aside from the premise that we need to take down the progressive/socialist infrastructure and force the Democrats to kick this wing of their party to the side in order to survive as a political force, I see little reason to be enthused about their victories.

I haven't figured out whether I really care who wins California. They may need to be smacked up side the head some more with their idiotic socialist policies. California needs to sink, not be bailed out, declare bankruptcy and then renegotiate their labor contracts.

The Audacity of Hope v2

I'm hoping that numerous free market capitalists, small-government types win and keep their footing while in Washington - whether I know their names or not;

• that 10+ members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus lose their seats;
• that the Republican gain over 100 seats;
• that 5+ Black Republican Congressmen win;
• that there will be 35+ Republican Governors and
• 52+ Republican Senators;
• that Barney Frank and "Just Call Me Senator" Boxer go down,
• that numerous down ticket Democrats are slaughtered and that Republicans control redistricting in the states where there is change in the EV count.

The audacity of hope.

It's time for socialists and their fellow travelers to be kicked to the side and be seen as the despicable anti-enlightenment, control-freaks that they are.

Ken Buck's ad describes the mood of the nation

This Ken Buck ad describes my mood, and the country's mood, very well.

“We protested when the government ran up trillions of dollars of debt. We sent e-mails when they nationalized health care. We asked them to get off the backs of small business so we could create jobs. We pleaded with our government to secure our border.

“And you know what? They heard us, and yet they ignored us. And folks, on Nov. 2, they will ignore us no more.”

Candidates to Root for, as well as those to root against

I’ve been working on a list of which candidates I’m rooting for and why. It’s important that we get more than numbers, although numbers do count. Especially as we are now seeing articles that say that the “realistic baseline” for this year, due to structural conditions, would be a Democratic loss of 45 seats. Of course we are then meant to forget the political posturing of Nancy Pelosi, several NYT writers and numerous others saying that the Democrats would hold the House this year.

Remove Socialist Candidates from office:
What counts more than numbers is the change of personnel. Of all the Democrats there are some that I want to lose more than others. The more socialist the candidate is, the more committed the candidate is to promoting state control and, almost as a corollary, destroying the constitution by ignoring the limits placed upon the legislature, the more I want that individual to lose. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a good measure of the far left in this country. The more CPC members that lose, the better.

A socialist replaced by a free-market capitalist changes the system more than if a Blue-Dog is replaced by a RINO. Barney Frank going down is a huge turnover; so is Kucinich. Grayson going down is less of a turnover simply because he doesn't have seniority but it's still huge.

Furthermore the addition of free market activists will create – hopefully create – a free-market voting bloc that must be accounted for.

Time to end the “Republicans are Racist” meme.
I want the meme that Republicans are racist to end. It is divisive in the worst of ways and allows socialists to continue the argument, unchallenged, that anything other than socialism is racist. We need to break this meme and the related narratives such as: proponents of limited-government are racist. The way to destroy that is to elect Black and Hispanic and Asian Republican representatives and governors. Then we can better focus on the issue at hand, the conflict between state control and individual freedom.

Sweet, Sweet Justice
Another category is one which I call “Sweet, Sweet Justice.” There are some people who are simply odious and it would be sweet if they were simply removed from the halls of power. Frank and Grayson are two of these as are Eddie Bernice Johnson (she of scholarship fame); and Phil Hare (IL-17) who “doesn’t worry if it’s in the Constitution” and Raul M. Grijalva, (AZ-7) a four-term congressman from Arizona who became nationally known for calling for a boycott of his state after Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona’s immigration law. Not surprisingly each of these incumbents is in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The one major name in this category that is not on this list is Nancy Pelosi.

There is one last category of candidate: advocates of limited, constitutional government who have been vilified by the national press and targets of the DNC and other groups. Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio and Susan Angle are three that come to mind. Rand Paul would have been part of this list if his race had remained close. Think of this group as Sweet, Sweet Justice Part II.

The actual list of candidates will come in following posts.

Miller, Anchorage Media Fabricating a Story

Not that I can add anything to this except: "are you really shocked?"

Here's the statement from KTVA:

A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, "openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller." KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, "It's unfortunate that this recording has happened. It's unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign's analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation."

"While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue," said Bever. "The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller's appearance on that evening's newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening's Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential "what-if" scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news."

Bever continues, "The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do."

While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says "Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from."

It just makes me wonder? How many journalistic teams looked for sex offenders who might have worked for Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barney Frank? Is this sort of research normal for KTVA? Have they looked for sex predators in Lisa Murkowski's camp? Did they look for them in her father's?

As to the response by KTVA. You heard the tape. You read the response. It's up to you to draw your own conclusion.

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.

James Madison
Elliot's Debates
Friday, June 6, 1788.

"I don't worry about the Constitution." Phil Hare, Democrat (IL-17)

And you think the Tea Party and other small government types are crazy?



"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Nancy Pelosi, Democrat (CA-8)



"We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it." Nancy Pelosi, Democrat (CA-8)

You still think we're crazy?

President Palin, The most terrifying words in the English Language

Funny, how promoting limited government equals a totalitarian state and that promoting more and more government control over ones life equals freedom.

And you think President Palin is stupid?

Olivia Wilde and MoveOn.org what is it about individuality that scares you so much?

Environmentalists are now part of Obama's Enemies List

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder, and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

Barack Obama on Univision, October 25, 2010

Oh, Obama certainly didn't mean it that way, and doesn't see it that way - that Environmentalists are "enemies to be punished", but a key component of the Democrat Coalition, the environmentalists, are largely against immigration. They're against immigration for a whole slew of reasons among them resource and habitat use; and belief that the ideal size for the United States is 150-200 million instead of the 300+ a growing population.

Quoted from the Negative Population Growth website:

Immigration, as it relates to population, is not a racial issue; it’s about numbers, not race, ethnicity or skin color. It is not racist to consider what doubling or tripling our population would require of our resources and environment.

Negative Population Growth

There are some Reds in Green clothing, analagous to the NAACP, who use environmentalist arguments as a way of promoting their cause, but environmentalists who want less immigration are now ... what? Inadvertently they have now joined the group that needs to be punished.

How about union members who don't want business to under cut them with cheap "imported" labor. Are they also "enemies;" or are they simply misguided and need to be re-educated? Of course the SEIU leadership, who are a national verision of yester-year's Tammany Hall Machine exchanging favorable contracts for providing a massed army of small-time thugs and loyalists who know they have to produce votes would beg to differ.

For you Obama supporters: Does Obama sound like a Ward Leader or someone who is going to heal the divides of this country? Does he sound like a community organizer, intent of dividing the country or a president of the entire country?

What would you say if Bush called his critics "enemies" that needed to be "punished"? I can hear the outrage - "divisive", "hateful", "fear mongering", "unpresidential", "Nixonian" - and yet how little of this is said about Obama.

For you environmentalists: why do you still support this President, why are you going to vote straight "D" this November?

Mexico, a Failed-State:but let's leave our borders wide-open.

And people still object to the US sealing it's borders? There's a lot we can can change regarding immigration but the first thing that must be done is to control the borders. Funny how the very people who are for regulating everything are against regulating borders. These same people who don't see limits on what government officials can do to regulate our lives: don't open new McDonalds, put on your seat belts, eat more vegetables, don't do this, don't do that think that we shouldn't know who enters our country.

What a load of nonsense.





What can we do about the narco state below our borders? One thing we can do is start legalizing drugs, take the power and money away from illegal entities and have them taxed and regulated. Notice how few gang killings we have over the sale of beer and whisky compared to the 1920s?

UPDATE: 10/28/2010

Entire police force in Los Ramones, Mexico quits after gunmen attack headquarters

The entire police force in a small Mexican town abruptly resigned Tuesday after its new headquarters was viciously attacked by suspected drug cartel gunmen.

All 14 police officers in Los Ramones, a rural town in northern Mexico, fled the force in terror after gunmen fired more than 1,000 bullets and flung six grenades at their headquarters on Monday night.

As the President of Mexico Felipe Calderón, who, in 2009, angrily denied that Mexico was becoming a "failed state," described the situation in February 2010 as a fight for "the very authority of the state."

Why I Love Allen West

Can you imagine this man in Congress? He NEEDS to be in Congress. Talk about speaking truth to power.

America you choose: Barack Obama or Allen West. I pick Allen West.









[Hat Tip: Just a Conservative Girl for the Videos.]

Kickback or Illegal Access

Too many people think that companies give money solely to influence and corrupt congressmen. All the rhetoric behind McCain-Feingold assumes that the congressman is getting rolled by big-bad businesses and special interests. Too many forget that kickbacks are involved as well as extortion.

God Bless a Congress that can do whatever it wants </sarc> and God Bless candidates who present this clearly to the voters.

I'm an Extremist

The left calls people like me "extremists." For the moment let's leave to another conversation how we determine and what we consider to be extreme. Let's look at the following statement:

"The bigger the majority, the easier it is to advance an agenda, especially if it includes some of the GOP's more divisive priorities such as school vouchers, court system changes or a constitutional spending lid."

Missouri House may gain more GOP members

You may be for or against school vouchers but is this truly an extreme position? How about passing a law saying that the state can't spend more than it takes in? These ideas are what some people consider to be extreme. If balancing the state's checkbook is extreme then I'm an extremist.

Just Call Me Senator, Barbara Boxer

This is a laugh-out-loud spoof of the event as it was "supposed to happen."

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

In case you haven't heard it -- here's the original version: