Parteibuch Aggregator Feed - Items from date 2010-08-31

Publius: Joe Miller Set to Win Alaska Senate Primary

Publius — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:04:30 +0000

Sources in Alaska have informed Big Government that the trend in the count of absentee ballots makes it virtually impossible that Sen. Murkowski will overtake Joe Miller in the GOP Senate Primary. A trusted and well-placed operative told BG:

It’s over.

Sources have also revealed that the Murkowski campaign is scheduling a conference call this afternoon Alaska time with her entire campaign team to discuss next steps. There is additional information we hope to be able to publicize soon. Stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: Sen. Murkowski has tentatively set a press conference for 10pm EDT.

Brad Schaeffer: Glenn Beck Is Bad For Al Sharpton’s Business

Brad Schaeffer — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:41:12 +0000

Al Sharpton is not happy with Glenn Beck. On The O’Reilly Factor yesterday he took umbrage with Beck’s desire to “take back the Civil Rights movement.” Now, as I see it there are several reasons a so-called Black Community leader like Sharpton could find that language offensive.

It could be that be Al believes that the Civil Rights movement – one in which Americans of all races, creeds and backgrounds came together to forge a new national character that elevated previously down-put groups to equal legal and social footing with the majority population as a whole – is the exclusive property of African-Americans. He said so much during his counter-rally when he commented on the date being the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech on the mall. “This is our day!” Sharpton bloviated. “And we ain’t giving it away!”

I guess the idea that those on the mall this Saturday had no right to that day came as a surprise to Dr. Alveda King who is the niece of Dr. King and was a featured speaker at Beck’s rally. It may have even come as surprise to the late MLK himself were he alive. He was, after all, the man who referred in his
speech to “All God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics…” coming together. And isn’t that what made King’s speech so special? That his was a message of inclusion. Not an “us versus them” but a gigantic national ”we.” King understood that the cancer of racism destroys the entire body America , not just the organ minorities it specifically targets. In comparison, Sharpton’s comments seemed so beneath the memory of King. So petty. So small as to make one shake his/her head and ask what happened to this most noble of movements that began when a woman on a bus refused to give up her seat to a white man so many years ago?

And this really gets to the heart of Sharpton’s problem with Beck’s incredibly successful gathering.

When Mr. Beck speaks of “taking back” the Civil Rights movement, he is not using code language for returning to the days of Jim Crow and “separate but equal.” Sharpton knows this of course. And for so-called religious leaders like Al Barnum to imply as such is nothing more than a cynical act rooted in self-preservation. What Beck means by this is that the Civil Rights movement that arose from the mist of exclusion and bigotry came to champion the ideals of racial harmony, equality, and overcoming our divisions “we shall overcome” . But somewhere along the way to the promised land it was effectively hijacked by a band of self-promoting charlatans, self-righteous statists, and shake-down artists, urged on by their enablers in the left wing literati, for whom agitation and protest has become a lucrative cottage industry.

The movement has also become synonymous with a certain political agenda that stresses affirmative action, cradle-to-grave government hand-outs, and patronizing attitudes towards personal responsibility. In other words, a litmus test somehow came into being whereby one’s commitment to racial equality is measured by one’s level of assent to the Democratic Party’s social platform.

I argue that the policies that so many left-leaning self-proclaimed minority advocates have implemented which have imprisoned great numbers as permanent wards of the welfare state while financially rewarding socially destructive behavior have done more damage to the very fabric of minority communities since that great speech on August 28, 1963 than any klansman would have ever dared
hope for. 70% Black babies born out-of-wedlock. Inner-cities racked in poverty, despair, gang-banging and drug violence. Homicide now the leading cause of death among young Black males. Millions imprisoned. And looming over it all, a haze of political correctness that stifles honest and productive
dialogue about the true causes of the plight so many African-Americans still endure despite an ocean of entitlements courtesy of stubborn adherence to defunct leftist dogma and funded by the American taxpayer.

This state of disharmony suits P.T. Sharpton just fine. So long as he has a fight to fight, real or fabricated, so long as so many of his people remain in a state of second-class citizenship despite the root cause his career will be secure and his income steady. Indeed, for men like Sharpton, a truly
color-blind society, ie. getting to the real promised land for which Dr. King dared to pine on the very grounds of the Beck rally, would be the worst thing that could possibly happen. It would make him and his professional protest machine irrelevant and thus would he be a has-been on the political
scene as well as drain his coffers. Worst of all, he would be a nobody. Just another city preacher in a tailor-made suit. No wonder the Reverend Al is all tied in knots over of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who rallied in peace under a clear blue sky to reaffirm the dream that King so eloquently
relayed to another just as peaceful group 47 years before. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and without the ever diminishing shade of the MSM’s loosening hammer-lock on information framing the discussion on race, it is becoming quite apparent that Dr. King’s dream realized, the one that Glenn Beck wishes to
re-claim for all Americans, would put Al Sharpton out of a job.

In any other business but the grievance industry that is called a conflict of interest. I think it’s time for the Reverend Al to recuse himself from this discussion once and for all.

F. Vincent Vernuccio: Unions Hire Non-union Picketers?

F. Vincent Vernuccio — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:18:25 +0000

The Mid-Atlantic Region of Carpenters MARC is notorious for hiring non-union workers to walk their union picket lines. These paid non-union picketers are usually given minimum wage and no benefits.

In an act of pure hypocrisy MARC protests are targeted at construction companies they are claim are not paying a “living wage.”

The union has over 150 pickets around DC and Baltimore. Yesterday the Competitive Enterprise Institute sent a camera to document one of these pickets.

Seton Motley: Network Neutrality is Engaged in the California Senate Race

Seton Motley — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:27:24 +0000

News broke just before the weekend that California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina opposes the absurd notion known as Internet Network Neutrality NN .

“The principle sounds fantastic, but the principle is not the problem,” Fiorina said in an interview at the Technology Policy Institute’s conference in Aspen, Colo. “The problem is how companies and regulatory bodies are trying to translate that principle into policy, which would have a bad effect.”

A spokeswoman later added that Fiorina “opposes Net neutrality and thinks government intervention and more regulation will not be helpful where the Internet is concerned.”

It’s really helpful to have someone running for office publicly standing opposed to NN who is as knowledgeable on it as is Fiorina – she is a former 1999-2005 chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard HP .

Fiorina’s opponent is a big NN proponent.

Fiorina’s position contrasts greatly with that of her opponent, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who previously cosponsored legislation that would have set open Internet rules firmly in place.

In a statement, Boxer reaffirmed her support for Net neutrality. Her office later added that Boxer felt it was “premature to comment” on the Federal Communications Commission FCC ’s efforts to mandate Net neutrality using its own rule-making process.

Emphasis mine.

“Premature to comment?”

In other words, Boxer is an elected official willing to cede her responsibility to write laws authorizing the FCC to regulate the Internet – so as to achieve her desired NN outcome via FCC regulatory fiat.

In this Machiavellian mindset Boxer joins with a handful of other Democrats – Reps. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Anna Eshoo of California, Jay Inslee of Washington and Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania among them.

In this way, they are no different than Congressmen who are pro-Cap & Tax energy control – but who can’t pass the Cap & Tax bill. So they are more than willing to sit idly by while the Environmental Protection Agency EPA unilaterally takes domination of our energy sector.

The end justifies the means – lather, rinse, repeat.

And on Net Neutrality, Boxer and Co. are woefully outnumbered in their will to abrogate their Constitutional obligation – as 299 members of Congress have thus far demanded the FCC stop their unilateral Internet reclassification process and allow the Congress to do what it is supposed to do.

Perhaps Fiorina will point out that Boxer no longer wishes to do the job of Senator – and that the people of California should alleviate her of the wearying responsibility.

Before her HP gig, Fiorina was an executive vice president at AT&T where she successfully coordinated the spinoff and initial public offering of Lucent Technologies . You would think this would lead the pro-NN Media Marxists like Free Press to dismiss her as just another tool of the Evil Industry, but I perused their website and as of this writing there’s no mention of her anti-NN announcement.

Perhaps they’re a bit distracted, what with their pro-Net Neutrality “coalition” collapsing and all. Or they may not wish to drag Boxer down along with the sinking pro-NN ship.

It will be interesting to see how big a role Net Neutrality plays in the California Senate race going forward. It is empirically useful to have a national race with the candidates clearly staked out on opposite sides of the issue.

In an electoral environment as anti-big government no pun intended, Mr. Breitbart as this one is, Boxer being in favor of an FCC land grab of 1/6^th of the economy can’t bode well for her come Election Day.

Christopher C. Horner: Judge in Virginia ‘Global Warming’ Investigation Blocks Inquiry Into…His Wife’s Former Employer

Christopher C. Horner — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:06:10 +0000

As you can read here, retired Albemarle County Virginia Circuit Judge Paul Peatross has ruled that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli may not have access to records under Virginia’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as he seeks to determine the propriety of Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann’s claims made to obtain research funding. Judge Peatross’s ruling protects Mann, the University, and specifically the Department of Environmental Sciences, at least for now.

Here’s the rub, on which I will have more to say. I attended the hearing a week ago Friday at which the parties argued the University’s motion to dismiss. The Deputy AG Wesley Russell’s arguments dominated, so badly I almost felt sorry for the University. The judge’s queries were puzzling, as he pleaded with the University’s counsel to come up with some argument how he might rule in their favor, as were other comments continue reading .

Before the hearing commenced Peatross, substituting for the vacationing chief judge, cited his wife’s 1982 degree in environmental science from UVA – oddly, he then said “but not in global warming” — as part of a rather spare recitation of why he was hearing of this case which he attested he had never heard about until reading the briefs that morning. A prominent case in the local, state and national news assigned to his old court! This man takes his retirement seriously… , and articulating his history so that counsel might decide whether he carried any conflict such that he should not hear the University’s motion.

That fact of her 1982 degree from Mann’s former Department, apparently, was relevant. Okay. But…

The fact that the judge’s wife had in fact previously worked in that Department of Environmental Sciences — the very Department that stands to suffer should he have ruled in favor of the Attorney General – was somehow not worth disclosing to counsel.

I only learned of this after the hearing by others who had also worked at the same time Ms. Peatross did, in messages expressing astonishment that her husband would decide such a matter given the obvious appearance of an inability to objectively hear it.

Also not worth disclosing was that Ms. Peatross’s relationships go much deeper, being, e.g., lauded for her role in producing a book edited by the Department’s then-chairman during Mann’s alleged hijinks, as well as, it appears, at least two of his papers.

But that she has a degree from the Department in 1982 merited consideration in determining the judge’s suitability to hear the case. And only that.

Amazing.

Now, to be completely accurate, it is an open question whether Ms. Peatross worked for the Department of Environmental Sciences, or simply in the building, physically which I am told with no doubts that she did , for one of two particular former colleagues of Mann’s and one supervisor at the relevant times in their consultancies. The latter response, if it were the case, would beg other questions about mixing research and consulting. Which is to say, there is no good answer to the question. Which may be why the University refused to answer it when I asked. Four times. The two former colleagues of Mann for whom Ms. Peatross worked, according to a very basic Google search, also declined my invitation to clarify.

Charlottsville I live here is indeed the epitome of a company town – with UVA the company – as is surrounding Albemarle County. An adverse ruling leading to release of Mann’s relevant documents was the biggest possible black eye for a university that zealously promotes its prestige derived, in part, from Thomas Jefferson having founded it…a history the school’s lawyers rather sadly invoked up front in their brief arguing that, while some people are subject to laws, others simply cannot suffer the indiginity if you’re thinking “Hollywood and Roman Polanski”, I’m way ahead of you . Well, of course. It’s on Jefferson’s headstone up on the hill, no doubt.

But while that particular argument of “academic freedom” did not prevail, the University did nonetheless manage to persuade Judge Peatross to block the taxpayer from discovering whether the University’s employee, Mann, engaged in fraud on the taxpayer. Again, this is for now as, according to press reports, Mr. Cuccinelli intends to press on with a new civil investigative demand CID . It was not a complete victory for the University but, if you attended argument and/or read the briefs, you know such an outcome was not a consideration.

However that turns out, this series of events at best provides a very uncomfortable appearance of failure to disclose. Indeed, it seems to clearly rise to the level of a basis for the judge to recuse himself, instead of asking counsel, in his presence, whether they thought he was possibly biased.

The last thing our institutions of government need right now is more reason to question their operation. This is unfortunate and could easily have been avoided. Having read Cuccinelli’s briefs and seen his Deputy argue rings around the school and its hapless case for hiding the truth, I feel the truth will inevitably out, if later and after more wrangling than was necessary.

Restoring Federalism: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

Restoring Federalism — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:01:31 +0000

The “Restoring Honor” event at the Lincoln Memorial was inspiring. That should be just the beginning of a “Restoration Movement.” We don’t really need a revolution in America; all we need to do is restore what once was. I have a suggestion for another aspect of our Founding that needs to be restored—a suggestion that some will call unrealistic, yet one that the Founders considered essential.

Let’s restore the provision in the original wording of the Constitution that allows state legislatures to choose a state’s senators who serve in Congress.

Article I, Section 3 says, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.”

The reasoning was lucid: the people of each state already had direct representation into the national government via the House of Representatives; it was necessary as well to provide representation for the state governments in the national Congress. The goal was to make sure that laws passed by each state were not going to be overturned by the national government without good reason.

It was one of those key checks on power; it was to provide balance in the federal system.

Why did this change?

By the early twentieth century, the progressive movement was gaining ascendancy. One of the primary tenets of the movement was to add an amendment to the Constitution allowing the people of each state to elect senators directly, just as they already did for representatives.

The argument was pretty much the following: there is too much corruption in the Senate, and the only way to ensure good government is to give the people at large the vote for senators. That will end the “evil” of state legislatures sending their favorites to Congress.

This reasoning was based on the belief that state governments usually legislated against the well-being of the people and assumed that if the people, not the state legislatures, chose the senators, they would no longer be corrupt.

Consequently, in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, shifting the choice of senators from the state legislatures to the people of the states. Now that the people choose their senators, corruption has vanished from the halls of the Senate.

Is there really anyone who believes that fantasy?

If state legislatures are corrupt, the people can change them. The maxim holds: in a representative system, the government is a reflection of the people who voted them into power. If corruption exists, the people allowed it. If the people awaken to the corruption, it will be much easier to root it out at the state level than at the national because the state government is closer to the people, and their voice can be more clearly heard.

Denying the state legislatures the choice of senators has effectively eliminated state government influence on national legislation. The senators don’t have to answer to their state governments anymore; they are elected or re-elected by the people directly. As a result, they don’t care about the interests of the state governments. They only have to pay attention if the people get aroused on an issue.

This changes the role of senators. They are now just like their counterparts in the House; the only differences are that their district is comprised of the entire state and they get to hang around for six years rather than two.

The problems go beyond theory. What about unfunded mandates? This is when Congress passes laws that require states to pay for them. Who is in the Congress to plead for the state governments and be concerned about state budgets? No one. In some respects, the state governments have become mere appendages of the national government. They have no say or recourse except to try to find relief through the courts.

Here’s another very specific consequence. The Senate has the responsibility for confirming federal judges, even to the Supreme Court. When going through the confirmation process, does any senator take into consideration how a judge’s judicial philosophy will affect state laws?

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, forty-four state laws restricting abortion were overturned. If senators had to protect their state’s laws, as representatives of their respective legislatures, they would have been more attuned to whether the judges they placed on the Supreme Court would have the tendency to overthrow the principle of the sanctity of life.

In the past thirty-seven years, more than fifty million innocent children have lost their lives. Part of the blame should rest on the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.

It’s time to consider the repeal of this amendment. Very few have taken up this cause. I know its repeal is not probable—but it is possible. If we can at least start the discussion, you never know where it may lead.

May the “Restoration Movement” continue to thrive.

Derek Hunter: You’re a Bigot, Now Vote for Me! The Progressive’s Plan for November.

Derek Hunter — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:28:32 +0000

Are you opposed to Obamacare or illegal immgration? You’re a racist. Are you opposed to gay marriage? You’re a homophobe. Did you oppose Elana Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court? You’re a sexist. After less than two years of complete Democrat control of government, there aren’t many Americas progressives haven’t accused of some sort of bigotry for simply having an opinion different from theirs. The politics of “hope” and “change” have devolved into exactly what those espousing them claimed they would end. Is this really Democrat’s plan to win votes in November?

Barack Obama campaigned under the banner of unity and ending the “politics of division.” But that banner was swiftly furled and the true banner of progressive politics began flying over our country. Progressivism leaves no room for debate or disagreement. To paraphrase former President Bush, to progressives you’re either with them or you’re with the enemy.

During the Obamacare debate, opponents were compared to opponents of civil rights legislation. The ethically challenged Congressman from New York, Charlie Rangel, said “The group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, [they] looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South.” Left-wing blogs ran with this mantra and agenda-driven media outlets like MSNBC dutifully followed. They still advance the lie that African-American Members of Congress were pelted with racial slurs as they walked to cast their vote, something even the New York Times has acknowledged there is zero evidence of.

The ends justify the means, no matter how sickening and divisive the means.

When a judge in California overturned Proposition 8, a ballot measure that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman which was passed by voters, these self-appointed champions of democracy cheered its undermining. Whatever your opinion on the issue, it was a rather ironic turn for people who use the word “democracy” as though they respect it.

When Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court without much of a record, opposition to this life-time appointment was called sexist all across the left-wing echo chamber. Blogs were replete with this unfounded charge, with headlines like “Not-So-Subtle Sexism at the Kagan Hearings” from the blog at Ms. Magazine.

The bigotry arrow has become the default weapon in the progressive’s quiver, only it’s lost its sting.

When Arizona passed a state law allowing police to enforce federal law on immigration, progressives cried racism. It couldn’t be that a majority of Arizonans, and Americans, simply support forcing immigrants to enter the country legally – opponents needed to be painted as bigots.

When 9/11 families expressed discomfort with building a Mosque two blocks from where Muslin extremists senselessly murdered their loved ones they were ignored by Progressives. Why? Because attacking them is a losing proposition. So they attacked those who sided with them, many of whom are Republicans, as bigots. They’ve basically ignored Democrats, including Howard Dean and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who’ve said the same things. Opponents are not trying to “block” the Mosque, Progressives claim, yet no law to stop it has been proposed. They’ve made appeals to sensitivity, nothing more.

Progressives, who act as sensitivity police for others, attack Republicans for standing with people who have every reason to be sensitive.

The difference between right and left on these issues is the right attempts to change hearts and minds; the left simply accused opponents of bigotry. This makes sense when you realize how unpopular their initiatives have been; if you can’t get people to vote for you, try to discourage them from voting at all. It’s a strategy – if you can’t win someone’s vote, convince them the alternative is a bigot, because who wants to vote for a racist, homophobe or sexist? They’re hoping people will stay home on November 2^nd.

Progressives show little concern for the will of the people. They have an agenda, and nothing is going to stand in the way of achieving it. They will lie, they will demonize, they will do anything to achieve it.

In their zeal to advance that agenda they’ve gone farther than they ever have before and thus exposed their true nature. Progressives have accused about 90 percent of the country of bigotry, in one form or another. On every one of the issues listed above polls show the American people are unambiguously not buying the spin and siding with their opponents. That’s a fact progressives will learn the hard way when it comes time for these “bigots” to vote.