How to Eliminate All Free Speech

For reasons that are unimaginable, many Liberals and virtually all Progressives are anxious to eliminate Free Speech here in the USA.  It is, I believe, all about control.... thought control.  There is a bizarre desire to eliminate all opposing ideas and, most certainly, all opposing political ideas.

The effort of any and all groups to eliminate opposing ideas is not new.  It's as old as mankind itself.  The United States, however, was founded on the exact opposite principle: FREE and OPEN exchange of ideas, political points of view and opposing thoughts.  In our relatively short history the exchange of ideas has been robust and often firey.

But the Progressives now have a new weapon to eliminate debate and stop all opposing speech without crossing the hallowed "free speech" line.  It's called "you hurt my feelings" gambit, also known as the "safe space" demand.

Curiously, in demanding a "safe space where the supposed victim can avoid having their feelings hurt, the progressives wantonly destroy their opponent's entire lives.  They don't just "hurt their opponent's feelings" they cause the opponent to lose their job, perhaps their entire career, be removed or expelled from school, and ruin their reputation.  And they do this without any proof that this opponent ever caused the slightest harm to any one.

The bottom line is you damned well better keep your mouth shut or you will be ruined forever.  Of course you still have your blessed "freedom of speech" provided you never use it.

There have been dozens of horrific examples of these assaults in recent weeks.  One of the most egregious however is the attack by the progressive citizens of Revere, Massachusetts of a local high school cheerleading captain, Caley Godino. Godino's offense? She actually took an interest in local politics instead of spending her time on SnapChat or watching One Direction videos.

God knows we cannot let our children have any opinions.  And we certainly can't let them Tweet those opinions on their own Twitter page.  Those opinions might hurt someone's feelings.  Those opinions might threaten someone's "safe space."  Note the word "might" in my analysis. No one actually ever said they were harmed in any way.

Godino sent out one Tweet in response to her high school teacher's Tweet about the poor turnout in a recent election.

"When only 10 percent of Revere votes for mayor cause the other 90 percent isn't legal," Godino replied sarcastically, maybe even a little snarkily, in her tweet.

Of course all hell rained down on Godino after she dared to voice her opinion.  Some other unnamed and protected students complained to the school "authorities" and, in order to shelter and protect these unnamed students, the mighty forces of the school district stepped in to make certain Godino would never, ever voice her opinions again. 

Revere Superintendent Dianne Kelly says the district believes in freedom of speech, but cannot support what she calls insensitive language. "If you're going to stand up and say something that other people will find offensive, then you need to be prepare to deal with the ramifications of that," Kelly said. The ramifications? Kelly kicked Godino off the cheerleading squad for the rest of the year.  

Allow me to translate. What Ms. Kelly means is she will never allow any free speech on her watch. Debate is forbidden.  Opposing ideas are never to be allowed.  If you dare to voice your opinion, you high school career is over and your life will be a living hell.  Thank you for molding America's future leaders, Ms. Kelly.

Caley Godino's opponents never had to name themselves. They were and are anonymous. They never had to defend their political positions or engage in debate.  They never were forced to tell Godino why her opinions were wrong or why their's were right.  The very debate upon which America was founded was never allowed to happen.  That might have violated someone's "safe space. " 

ULTIMATE IRONY:  The mascot of the Revere High School is the "Patriots."

Cultural Genocide

The lives of our political opponents matter.  Not their physical lives, we don't care about that. It's their cultural lives, their cultural symbols, their values, morals and mores that matter. To defeat our political enemies we must utterly destroy all the factors that give their lives value, meaning and structure.  And, let's be honest, we do want the complete and utter destruction of all who might disagree with us in any way.

This attitude of complete cultural destruction has led the left to try to eliminate everything remotely connected to the pop culture "Confederate Flag" icons of the conservative and especially southern society.

This excuse for such destruction of an icon is, of course, the senseless murder of the nine black church members at the hands of white supremacist Dylann Roof in Charlotte last week.

But, as horrific as those murders were, they are not the subject of this post.  Instead it is the remarkable reaction that has swept our entire culture in just a few short days, to effectively ban all things remotely connected to the Civil War.

As a Sociology major in College this is simply stunning to behold.  This is the equivalent of a paleontologist discovering the bone of an undiscovered species of dinosaur.  Rarely do you get to see what can only be described as a tidal wave of coordinated social activity happening across all political spectrums, all races, all economic classes, all at once.

This isn't simply South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley suggesting the Confederate Flag be removed from the Statehouse grounds.  That might have started the chain reaction, but look how far its come!

Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Sears and more are pulling everything Confederate off the shelves.  States are pulling down flags and statues and memorials.  Film critics are calling for the withdrawal of the movie "Gone With The Wind," allowing it only to be shown in museums and only on special occasions.  Amazon and Walmart are "suggesting" authors or publishers revise their cover art if it contains anything related to the Civil War.  Will we ban books from schools and public libraries?

Polygon, the gaming news website, reports that Apple was quickly affected by the societal groupthink with a form of censorship that is breathtaking to behold:

"Now, it appears that Apple has decided to join them by pulling many Civil War wargames from the App Store. As of the writing of this story, games like Ultimate General: Gettysburg and all the Hunted Cow Civil War games are nowhere to be found. Apple is famous for reaching for the axe rather than the scalpel when it comes to political issues (like rejecting Hunted Cow's Tank Battle 1942 for depicting Germans and Russians as enemies), so this move doesn't come as a great surprise." 

Can we erase history? It appears Apple is going to try.  But they are not alone.  When Republican Governors like Robert Bentley of Alabama personally remove Confederate Flags and further suggest any school named after a Civil War General be renamed, memorials removed and school mascots banned, you realize we have a seed change turning into a tsunami

Until two or three days ago, Walmart admits it had virtually never had a complaint about pop culture Confederate merchandise.  The public outcry, mostly on social media, happening that quickly.

People tend to jump on the bandwagon. They love to be on the "winning side."  What they may have never noticed Thursday, becomes issue #1 by Friday.

How long will this last? Will there eventually be blow back.  So far only (former) Senator Jim Webb has offered any caution or defense. Certainly his thoughtful and nuanced response absolutely dooms any hope he had of a Presidential candidacy.

Pat Sajak's Brilliant Tweet

I really appreciate those who have mastered the art of Twitter.  Occasionally you find someone who can be brilliant in 140 characters. I've read dozens of tweets I admire and a few I felt were brilliant. But Sajak's is pure genius.

I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.
— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) May 20, 2014

Naturally, many on the Left worked hard, strained and stretched their credibility to mount faux outraged attacks on Pat Sajak as if they were just too damned stupid to instantly realize Sajak's satire was aimed directly at them. I do not believe there is anyone who claims to be a Liberal that is actually that dumb. I just wish my fellow Liberals didn't feel compelled to insult the intelligence of their fans, followers and progressive supporters.

Sajak certainly won the battle of wits here, but he accomplished much more.  In 140 characters Sajac taught us a lesson about insults, racial and otherwise, that we all need to learn.

Why I HATE Political Parties and Partisan Bull

I've always been a big, big supporter and fan of Republican Representative Paul Ryan. Even though I'm a Democrat I cheered when Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney's running mate in the last election.  He is one of Washington's finest. He is certainly one of their brightest. He's honest and even handed, logical and fair, pragmatic yet principled.

Here's a great example from today's news.  Ryan is working hard, against his own political party, to help Immigration Reform happen.  From the Boston Globe:

Dem Pin Immigration Hopes on GOP's Ryan 

Democrats doggedly pursuing a far-reaching immigration bill are counting on help from Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate last year and an unlikely candidate for delivering the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s second-term agenda.

 Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman who is frequently mentioned in the GOP lineup of possible 2016 presidential candidates, stands apart from many fellow House Republicans in favoring a way out of the shadows for the 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. in violation of the law. He casts sweeping overhaul as a necessity to ensure both economic and national security — a fitting argument for an acolyte of Jack Kemp, the late Republican congressman and 1996 vice presidential candidate who backed an ill-fated effort in 2006 to overhaul the immigration system. 

‘‘Paul Ryan says we cannot have a permanent underclass of Americans, that there needs to be a pathway to citizenship,’’ says Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who has been working relentlessly on immigration legislation. ‘‘He is my guiding light. I know I get him in trouble every time I say it.’’

Ryan is being himself.  He hasn't changed and he doesn't change to suit the political party line.  He is a man of principle and substance.

Here's why I hate Political Party's and the mindless partisan hacks who simply echo the party line without a single intelligent thought of their own.  Many of my fellow Democrats and especially the so-called "Progressives" who now praise Rep. Ryan were lambasting him as the worst human being alive (or dead) during the last election.  He was called every name in the book and accused of hating old people, women and minorities.  None of that was true.  None of that was necessary.  And any reasonable person with moderate intelligence knew it.

Where are Our Liberal Fighters?

The NSA snooping scandal get worse every day.  It turns out rampant spying without any court oversight is happening on a widespread scale.  Using a loose interpretation of a single FISA Court ruling data is being collected on American Citizens and used constantly and consistently.  We clearly have a government completely and totally out of control.

Amy Davidson, writing in The New Yorker, called the FISA ruling a secret FISA court order "a gift certificate for one year of warrant-free spying "

Curiously we don't have a single evil dictator or despot.  That's the good news.  President Obama is aloof, incompetent and largely unaware.  As I've written several times before, Barack Obama isn't the President, he just plays one on TV.  But he is not evil.

Looking at his reception at the G8 last week and his laughable speech to a tiny crowd in Berlin, his star is fading, like every television star whose time has passed.  But I digress.

The bad news is that the government has become this powerful and evil all by itself.  A badly written law here, an over zealous bureaucrat there and you have institutional evil, a government totally out of control.  The Constitution is meaningless.  Your rights, rights you actually had until five or six years ago, are gone and perhaps gone forever.

What worries me most is that our protectors, our guardians of justice and liberty have gone silent.  They have disappeared into partisan political oblivion.  The Liberal Media, the ACLU, the great Liberal crusaders have all gone silent, mumbling nonsensical platitudes in the dark.

Have you read the essays or listened to the Progressive pundits over on MSNBC?  I've read some of the most frightening, convoluted defenses of the status quo I have ever seen.  No logic, no defending the down trodden, no standing up for the rights of the common man, just mumbling about how it was bound to happen anyway.  

The leaders who fought so eloquently, so vocally and occasionally fought so violently against the war in Viet Nam, now tell me everything is perfectly OK as long as we're not doing anything illegal anyway.  "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear."

One of the greatest Progressive voices on Twitter is the brilliant and unyielding Shoq.  He is a voice I greatly respect.  His black cat avatar is beloved by thousands and feared by his opponents.  

I recently engaged Shoq about his defense of the government's abuse of spying power and ignoring of our traditional Constitutional rights.  Quick to misinterpret my questions as an attack on President Obama, his instantly replied that Obama had done nothing wrong and, indeed, Obama has done nothing.

But, I asked, how can allow this power to fall into the hands of the next President, most likely a Republican.  Shoq's reply was simple but I fear terribly naive  "We must be careful of who we elect...."

Shoq has written a lengthy essay about the NSA and the attacks on the NSA Spying by Glenn Greenwald and The CATO Institute here.   It's an interesting read that puts a great deal of blame for the current controversy on the Koch Brothers.  You'll also always find links to Shoq's latest blog essay on the right column of my blog.

Other Progressive have multiple views of the NSA scandal, almost all defensive.  First they mount a defense to protect President Obama or the "government" in general.  Then they defend the indefensible attack on our liberty and freedom with the "... unlike President Bush, Obama got a court opinion, and he's really a good guy..." scenario.

The great Liberals of my youth who mounted the illegal protests against the Viet Nam War at the Chicago Democratic Party Convention, the Liberals who used an illegal leak to bring down the Nixon Presidency because of the SPYING at Watergate, those Liberals who dared to break the law in their fight for our rights in Selma, Birmingham and Jackson, those Liberals are gone.....   

Religious Zealotry

These are modern times.  Religious Zealotry is no longer confined to the worship of a god or goddess.  It can be an equally blind dedication to any idol, a dedication that moves beyond admiration or even belief and into worship at the expense of all other goals, ideas, morals and principles.

While we are all familiar with the traditional religious zealotry of the far right conservative Christians and the Islamic Fundamentalists, there is equal and even more destructive zealotry on what we call the "left" or Progressive end of the political spectrum.

Because such zealotry is blind, the zealots often don't realize they are violating their very own stated principles and ideals.  Lately I've seen way too many examples of the leftist zealotry and it makes me terribly uncomfortable.

As a Liberal I strongly believe in diversity, tolerance and acceptance of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and even diverse value sets and lifestyles.  This view or principle is stated often by ALL who claim to be liberals and progressives.  You can see it and read it and discuss it on every liberal blog and progressive forum.  Tolerance and acceptance are the holy grail of Liberal beliefs.

Except........ it seems the VAST and VOCAL majority of self proclaimed liberals and progressives don't believe a damned word of it.  It seems their beliefs on any issue is actually a RELIGIOUS DOGMA that cannot and must not ever be violated.  These so-called Liberals are nothing more than the Taliban of the Left.

One need look no further than famous (and incredibly talented) actor Brad Pitt's mother to see the Taliban of the Left in action.

Jane Pitt wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper in response to another letter.  In what ought to be a liberal example of TOLERANCE she actually admonished a conservative Christian for his prejudice against the Mormon religion.  Jane Pitt urged fellow Christians to vote for the man who shared their ideals of being "pro-life" and opposing "gay marriage," even if Mr. Romney didn't share their exact Christian faith.

Now, to be certain Jane was vocal and aggressive in her opposition to President Obama attacked his positions on these same issues.

Of course I personally disagree with Jane Pitt's position on both gay marriage and abortion.  But, tragically, many of my fellow (not really) liberals and progressives took it much further.

Hollywood rose up and attacked Mrs. Pitt with vile and horrific glee.  And the Twitterverse was even worse:

“BRAD PITT’S MOM WROTE AN ANTI-GAY PRO-ROMNEY EDITORIAL. KILL THE B***H.”
“Brad Pitt’s mom, die”

“F*** you, Brad Pitt’s mom. The gay community made your kid a star, you whacko.”

“Brad Pitt’s mother…what a brainless old b***h…”

“Brad Pitt’s Mom Slams Obama, Gays. That stand makes her a deluded, dumba** Fascist Repuke”

“I hope Brad Pitt has been supporting his mother and decides to cut her off. What a b***h.”

“Brad Pitt’s mom can choke on a (redacted).”

Jane Pitt has also received numerous death threats and the attacks are unrelenting.  The Hollywood attacks have been played out all over television. 

What disgusts me most is that (so far) Brad Pitt himself has been silent.  He can't bring himself to step up to the plate and defend his mother. In fact the only prominent Hollywood voice to defend Mrs. Pitt is Jon Voight, Brad Pitt's Father-in-Law (Angelina Jolie's father).

As usual, conservative firebrand Michelle Malkin has said it best: "Hollywood and the American left love diversity, except when it offends their “progressive” value system."

An excellent article on Jane Pitt's letter and the Hollywood backlash can be found in The Huffington Post

UPDATE 7/12/2012: Brilliant blogger B. Daniel Blatt also defends Jane Pitt over on The Gay Patriot.  This short essay is a must read confirmation of the misplaced hatred of the left in attacking Mrs. Pitt unfairly.

Paul Ryan, Washington DC's Lone Adult

Over on the Democratic Party side of Washington, DC there was rejoicing in a new PPP Poll that showed when the public was made aware of Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's arguable mistreatment of his dog Seamus, over 28 years ago, Romney's approval rating tanked.


Seriously, my Liberal and Progressive friends on Tiwtter are simply giddy with excitement.  Leave it to Mitt Romney's dog to sniff out a path to Obama's victory.


Our future is now safe.


Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Representative Paul Ryan has prepared and proposed the most realistic, bold and brilliant budget in the last 20 years.  To do what Ryan has done takes thought, analysis, honesty and courage.  And no polling.


Ryan will be savaged by Democrats who deserve no place in government, cowards and liars, manipulators and pollsters who will not only allow our country to fail, but will ride Seamuss into the very gates of hell.


One does not need to agree with Ryan's every idea, but he should be held in high regard for discussing the real issues of our economy and our exploding debt.


Democrats have failed to produce a budget for three years and they've already signaled that will fail to do so again.  It's so much easier to criticize than to propose ideas and stand behind them. And that's the Democrat plan.


Here are just a few lines from the Washington Post Story linked here and above: 


House Republicans laid down a bold but risky election-year marker Tuesday, unveiling a budget proposal that aims to tame the national debt by reshaping Medicare and cutting deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other programs for the poor, while reshuffling the tax code to sharply lower rates.


Congressional Republicans plan to use the document to demonstrate their willingness to tackle the nation’s difficult fiscal problems head-on. They argue that restraining future borrowing is a moral imperative and that entitlement programs for the elderly and the poor must be redrawn both to reduce red ink and to ensure that federal benefits continue to be available. 


The proposal, authored by Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), calls for spending cuts and tax changes that would put the nation on course to wipe out deficits and balance the budget by 2040. The national debt would continue to rise but would shrink to the historic norm as a percentage of an expanding economy.

The One Thing Absolutely No One Wants: "More Civilized Public Discourse"

The Rush Limbaugh Controversy rages on and on and on. If you've lived under a rock for the last few weeks, Limbaugh called Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a slut, among other things.  See my previous blog post if you'd like more information.


Right now the Progressives and Liberals seem to have the upper hand.  The brilliantly orchestrated advertiser boycott is working and at least 13 advertisers and two radio stations have jumped off the Limbaugh ship.  Limbaugh has been forced to apologize.  And while the conservative loyalists are attempting to bail water, the progressives have hit Limbaugh with a broadside torpedo.


Again and again and again and again we heard President Obama, Limbaugh's departing advertisers, Democratic Party operatives and pundits,television hosts and even comics all exclaim, "All that we want is a more civilized public discourse!"


This is, of course, pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!  No a single one of them wants "more civilized discourse." They just want to cower their opponents and, if possible, silence them.  They would be pleased if their opponents were civil, as long as their allies were as vile, hateful and uncivil as ever.


My PROOF?  I dare you to find a single person, advertiser, corporate entity, pundit, commentator or comic that is condemning the hate speech coming from his or her side of the aisle.  Find me one that condemns both sides equally.  Don't worry, you're not going to find one, because their isn't one!


Today, in another of this episode's most bizarre moments, President Obama inserted his two daughters into his attack on Rush Limbaugh.  Below are the quotes from The Hill Briefing Room story this afternoon:

President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke, the college student at the center of the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy, after thinking about how his own daughters would have handled the criticism.

“I thought about Malia and Sasha,” Obama said Tuesday at a news conference. “And one of the things I want them … to be able to do is speak their minds in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names when they’re being good citizens.

I want to tread lightly here and carefully respect both Malia and Sasha.  But the President's comments raise a serious question.  Is it possible that while he wouldn't want Limbaugh to his beautiful daughters "sluts," it would be perfectly OK if Bill Maher called them "T***s" or "C***s?"  I only make this assumption because President Obama has yet to even mention these misogynistic slurs from his million dollar campaign donor.  Limbaugh's slurs were mild compared to Maher's.

But certainly President Obama isn't alone is his one sided outrage.  David Friend, CEO of Carbonite(r) actually set the stage for President Obama when he, too, invoked his two daughters as a reason he cancelled advertising of the Rush Limbaugh Show.  Here is his statement (from an interesting essay on this issue on Red State):


"No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse."


Gosh! And look. Friend used the patented "more civilized public discourse" excuse, too!  Wow! He's covered all the bases!


Except for the base called "truth." Friend missed that one.  For many years Friend has made heavy political donations for President Obama's election and re-election campaigns.  Curiously he was and remains a heavy advertiser of the Ed Schultz Show.  Schultz, if you remember, was suspended by MSNBC and forced to apologize for calling Laura Ingram a "slut," the exact term Limbaugh used to refer to Fluke.  Friend, exactly like everyone else, is only offended when his political opponents use vile speech.  He's super cool OK when his allies use the identical speech.


This works on both sides of the aisle.  No one in politics has been the subject of more hate speech than Michelle Bachmann.  Amazingly Bachmann appeared on MSNBC this morning and was grilled relentlessly as to why she won't condemn Limbaugh's hate speech.  Bachmann correctly pointed out that no one had ever been the victim of more hate speech than she has, BUT, she still refused to condemn Limbaugh.   The MSNBC announcer certainly never apologized for the hate spewed from her network associates, either.  STALEMATE.


Here's where I stand. Either it's wrong 100% of the time or it's not.  I don't like today's hate speech, but I've never said speech should be censored.  I'm from the school that says you can and should argue the points, but I don't think you should ever silence the critics.


In other words, I don't need the pig to get out of the mud, but I feel no need to climb in there with him.

Bill Maher versus Mark Halperin, Heroes versus Villains

There are times when the media's double standard concerning liberals (or, more correctly, progressives) versus conservatives is simply stunning. And there has perhaps never been a better example than yesterday's instantanious suspension of pundit Mark Halperin from the MSNBC lineup for his inartful act of calling President Obama a "dick."

Within a few hours of Halperin's remark on the Morning Joe program, Halperin was gone, suspended indefinitely. MSNBC quickly issued an apology to their audience and President Obama. Halperin quickly followed suiit, falling on his sword, even going so far as to say MSNBC did the right thing in suspending him.

My purpose in writing this isn't to defend Halperin. Nor is it to condemn MSNBC. MSNBC has made several moves recently to raise the level of discourse on their network including a recent one week suspension of Ed Schultz for calling Luara Ingram a "slut."

None-the-less a gigantic double standard exists in the treatment of conservatives, especially at MSNBC. It was only six weeks ago that HBO's political superstar Bill Maher created a small firestorm by calling conservative Vice Presidential candidate and former Governor Sarah Palin a "dumb twat." Maher went on to double down with his blatant misogyny by calling Palin a "cunt."

Far from being condemned, Maher was defended by virtually all mainstream and leftwing pundits, because he is "only a comedian, not a news commentator or journalist.". Only that's simply not true. The REAL REASON Maher was defended is the mainstream powers that they all actually agreed with him.

Far from condemning Maher for his vile and blatant misogyny, Maher was "rewarded" with a full 30 minute guest spot on Chris Matthew's Hardball just two days after his sick remarks. For a half hour Matthews fawned over Maher as they discussed and "analyzed" the political events of the week. Matthews certainly never asked a single "hardball" question and simply looked to Maher for support and agreement as he dismantled each Republican candidate for President. Neither the "T" nor "C" words were ever used or discussed.

Maher is a regular visitor and guest on all MSNBC programs because he is in lockstep agreement with their generally progressive views.

But here is the bottom line. Use a mildly profane term to define a liberal, get suspended indefinitely. Use two significantly worse (but similar) term to define a conservative, get a full and featured 30 minutes on a major MSNBC program.

Actions Speak Much Louder Than Words

I realize that my fellow Liberals and Progressives just can't see it, but the major media, the blogosphere and the Twitterverse are dominated by progressive and liberal voices. Those voices tend to be very articulate, passionate and, at times, overwhelming.

Skeptics are often shouted down in comments sections at the Daily Kos or The Huffington Post. Nay-sayers are ridiculed, called cruel or hateful or racist. Of course such skeptics usually sulk away and watch a few hours of Fox News to repair their egos. The result is the remaining progressive voices reinforce themselves, rising to a tidal wave of liberal thinkspeak.

What is lost is any real understanding of opposing thought. If you never listen to opposing views, never try to understand other ideas, concepts or solutions, you remain stuck in a quagmire of groupthink viewpoints.

Such groupthink cacophony insulates and isolates many government officials, too. As a result they find themselves both unable and unwilling to "think outside the box" to solve economic issues. The result is the fascinating migration of people from union dominated, taxation heavy, goverment controlled states to the freedom, low taxes and robust economies of conservative states.

From today's Washington Examiner: Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them

"Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform."

"Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent."

"By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent."

"The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them."

"And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

"Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet."

Progressives Know HOW to Protest, Just NOT How to Recognize Protest

The fact that I am blogging less doesn't mean for one minute that I haven't been thoroughly embarrassed and even humiliated by the bizarre hyperbole and over reaching excess of my fellow liberals and the so-called progressives in their completely unwarranted attacks on the Tea Party Protesters. What a sorry display of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

The Tea Party Rallies were never much of a threat to anyone, including the protesters themselves. Nobody got arrested. Everyone was painfully polite. There never was any so-called "astro-turfing" in spite of efforts by some organizations who wanted to capitalize on the disorganized protesters. Basking in the spotlight of the Rachel Maddow Show doesn't make you responsible for anything other than grandstanding.

Organizing the Tea Partiers would be even tougher than hearding cats. Actually the protests themselves, even in the big one in Washington D.C. resembled a country music concert or the infield at a NASCAR Race. Folks brought their own lawn chairs and coolers.

Instead of the smell of marijuana wafting through the air, there was a smell of barbecue. Tea Partiers even picked up their own trash.

An intelligent progressive pundit could have certainly made a case that the Tea Party Protests were misguided. And it is true that Tea Party protesters were guilty of poor spelling, bad grammer and an overuse of the nazi analogies, a characteristic they share with progressive protesters.

Conservatives are just too..... well, they're too conservative. Their beef was they want less government and lower taxes for everyone (not just low income earners). They really disliked George Bush, as his poll numbers proved, but the lurch further to the left by President Obama pushed them into their conservative slow motion version of action.

Now, what really was astro-turfed was the completely manufactured outrage on the left. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Frank Rich spent literally HUNDREDS of hours attacking the "tea baggers" and trying, very lamely, to paint them as a violent, radical, tool of a super secret right wing gestapo bent on the destruction of life as we know it.

It was, and is, a whole crock of shit.

Now we have real left wing Protesters in Phoenix and throughout the Southwest and we know how to throw a protest! And many more protests are to come as we approach May Day (may 1st). Look for serious protests of large, very angry crowds. Expect arrests. We've already seen vandalism and rocks thrown at police.

The Associated Press reported yesterday, "The furor over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol and civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state."

The silence of the left about these protests is deafening. Instead of condemning real violence, protesters are being placed on a pedestal, heroes in the war against oppression.

Conservative pundit Roger Kimball said it best when he wrote, tongue in cheek, that he fully expected....

"The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, and kindred media outlets to repudiate these new outbreaks of hate and racist incitements to violence, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, etc., etc. Look for it tomorrow on the Daily KOS and other web sites dedicated to rooting out irrational prejudice and exposing the sore losers who don’t understand that elections have consequences and who won’t give a new law a chance but who divisively call for the repeal of the will of the people."

Now that's funny.

Is the Left's Demonization of Glenn Beck Good for America?

Time Magazine has an excellent analysis of the Glenn Beck phenomena as this week's cover story. Lead writer David Von Drehle and the Time reporters are remarkably "fair and balanced" in their coverage of Glenn Beck and his appeal to a large and largely disaffected portion of America.

The article is hardly a "puff piece" as some on the left have claimed. The magazine cover photo alone portrays Beck as a clown or even a mad man, not a business or political leader or a intellectual icon.

Still, Joseph A. Palermo, writing over at The Huffington Post is outraged. He calls David Von Drehle's article "a clinic for journalism students who wish to learn about faux balance, false equivalencies, straw men, and omissions of important facts."

While I'm not going to get in between Palermo and Von Drehle, I feel the real story here is the lefts virtually insane obsession over Beck and his fellow conservative talk show and television personalities. This preoccupation that verges on fixation is unhealthy for the critics, the left wing progressives and maybe for all America.

This obsession is so wrong and so misplaced on so many different levels. First, by concentrating their fire on personalities like Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and (curiously) Bill O'Reilly, they miss huge opportunities every day to focus on issues and ideas and the real personalities that shape today's policies. Some blogs and even television shows devote nearly 100% of their space (or airtime) to demonizing these personalities.

By writing and blogging and talking all day every day about Beck and Limbaugh, progressives actually give them immense power. Beck's popularity and importance and audience size are all fueled by the constant and generally misplaced (and often completely false) attacks by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the bevy of Hollywood Glitterati writing over on Huffington.

Indeed the efforts by progressives to get advertisers to stop advertising on the Beck Telecast on Fox have only increased Beck's popularity and viewership. While similar boycotts have, in the past, actually cost personalities their jobs, it has increased Becks popularity and strengthened his position at Fox.

As a side note, President Barack Obama's boneheaded move to exclude Chris Wallace and Fox New Sunday from his Sunday barrage of appearances to promote his Health Care Restructuring is the absolute worst public relations decision ever made. He has done more real damage to his agenda by this lame and schoolyard childish insult than he can possibly gain by his appearance on the other five programs. President Obama seriously needs new advisers!

Back to the topic. By concentrating their fire on Beck, opportunities are missed to actually promote the progressive agenda. While Beck spends his time and ammunition on issues, programs, ideas and philosophies, the (not very) credible personalities on the left spend their time whining about Beck and O'Reilly.

Even the Democrat Party has fallen into this tragic trap.


As Beck observes at the end of this clip, doesn't the DNC realize he's not running for office?

Such attacks only increase Beck's power and popularity. Worse yet, the ad above displays the DNC's complete ignorance of Beck and his stand on the issues. Beck was and is extremely critical of President Bush and especially Bush's use of CZARS. The ad itself ends up promoting Beck and his position!

Worst of all, when progressives demonize a personality, they blind themselves to both his appeal and his position on important issues. If you put on colored glasses, you blind yourself to what's actually happening. Once you've put a Glenn Beck in a corner, you feel safe in ignoring everything he says. This ignorance is always at your own peril!

Rather than simply ridicule Beck, progressives ought to try to understand why his ideas resonate with millions of people. They aren't all nut cases or whack jobs. They have genuine concerns, good ideas, real problems and valid and important points of view. Turning Beck into the enemy won't ever change any one's mind. Posing good, valid and well thought out counter positions on the issues might.