I am not a huge fan of John Wayne. Yes, I know, several conservatives just raised their eyebrows and began typing "RINO" into the comment box already. I don't dislike John Wayne's work. I'm just not a huge fan.
I prefer Clint Eastwood and James Stewart. I prefer James Earl Jones. All of them actually served in the military, didn't just pretend to on the silver screen. Eastwood was an NCO in the US Army. In fact, he used his GI Bill to acquire his degree in drama. James Earl Jones was a Lieutenant (Infantry) in the US Army during the Korean War. Stewart served in the Air Force Reserve, eventually earning the promotion to Major General under appointment by Ronald Reagan. All three are conservatives, though Eastwood admits he leans libertarian on some issues.
However, I have far more respect for John Wayne than say, Matt Damon. The Duke at least tried to serve. When he was declared "4F", he turned and did what he could to support those in uniform. He studied strong warrior personalities and portrayed them as heroes. John Wayne also was a self-admitted socialist while in college. Those short-lived socialist leanings may have not even encroached had he been accepted into Annapolis, where he applied, instead of attending USC. However, maturity, experience, and a dose of the real world pushed him to the opposite side of the political spectrum. Until his death in 1979, he was a strong supporter of right-wing policies and his friend Ronald Reagan.
Too many of today's celebrities attempt to portray self-emasculated "heroes" who rebel against the oppressive alpha-types that are out there trying to get the job done. It's why I highly recommend movies such as "Act of Valor" and "Bravo Two Zero" over, say "Green Zone". "The Battle of Los Angeles" also attempts to paint strong warrior, patriotic, alpha-types in a positive light, though it is science fiction.
At a recent celebrity fund-raiser, Obama told the socialist-oligarchy supporting sycophants present "You're the tie-breaker. You're the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes". So why are these professional pretenders the "ultimate arbiters"? It's simple. Too many people are too stupid to recognize that most actors are experts in one topic: acting. They pretend to be somebody they are not for a living. In other words, they lie for a living, as a form of entertainment. Sorry, a professional juggler is not a prime choice authority on energy production in the US.
Playing a doctor on TV does not a doctor make. Because George Clooney portrayed a doctor on "ER" does not make him an authority on the healthcare system. The socialist machine can use Clooney's liberal jaw-jacking to yank on heartstrings all they want. Their money should be considered wasted. Clooney knows as much about the healthcare industry, insurance, HSAs, the economy, paying payroll taxes, and running a doctor's office as I do about walking on the moon.
I don't discount celebrities' assessments and analysis of socio-political issues simply because most of them are liberals. I discount them because most of them are not authorities on the subjects they spew their word-vomit over. They do two or three weeks of familiarization on some subject in order to play a role, and they believe themselves experts on the subjects. That's something people need to understand. These SAG union members will fall into lock-step on their "issue of the day" thinking that their opinions matter more than the facts they never bothered to research on the subjects before opening their mouths.
One celebrity I do pay attention to is Mr. Adam S. Baldwin. It's not because his roles as John Casey and Jayne are so awesome. (They are!). It's not because he did such a breakthrough performance in "My Bodyguard". (He did, great movie!). It's because I have seen this guy debate political issues with a firm and deep knowledge of history and the Federalist Papers. Even then, I don't take his word for anything. I fact-check things he says. 99 times out of 100, he's spot on.
Roseanne Barr, not so much. I have had a few conversations with Rosie. She is not as dumb as her characters seem to be. She also isn't as dumb as some of her soundbites make her out to be. One thing that did seem obvious is that she is a little confused. She seems to follow lock-step with the lib-progs. However, when calmly chatting one-on-one about issues, it seems she needs to burn her Party card and visit a TEA Party meeting. Once in that meeting, she needs to latch on to the libertarian in the group. Her personal views are a lot more right-leaning than her public rhetoric makes her out to be. Given the views she expressed to me on the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and tax reform, I can see her reading Stephen Moore's last two books as well as Neal Boortz's two books on The Fair Tax. However, her views on those subjects would make her socialist peers weep, scream, and writhe in disbelief.
I raise these examples to illustrate a simple point. Celebrities are just people. Some do have experiences and education that make them authorities on certain subjects. However, for economics and finance, you may want to pay more attention to Peter Schiff and Stephen Moore (Wall Street Journal contributor, not the novelist). On the subject of Obamacare, I suggest paying attention to Dean Clancy over Sarah Jessica Parker.
I suggest fact-checking everything non-expert celebrities utter. Seek all of the facts and not just those that support the pejorative they (are usually paid to) spew. The only thing less responsible than being too lazy to research the facts and make up your own mind is to take the words of actors as though they are the words of experts.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
June 14th Is Important To Remember
June 14th is an important day. On the federal calender is holds two important dates of significance, both worthy of celebration. Even those who may argue the reasons for celebrating will acknowledge solemn assent to observe the day in at least some capacity.
June 14th is Flag Day. It is the day set aside to commemorate our adopted and beloved Stars and Stripes, The field of blue, and the currently 50 (not 57) stars. The best form of observance is to proudly display the flag on your property and remember its significance.Flag Day originated in 1885, conceived by a school teacher in Wisconsin. This was back in the days when schools still taught an amount of respect and reverence for our great republic and the beloved US Constitution that forms the supreme law of the land.
In 1889, word of commemorating the date our flag was adopted (June 14, 1777) spread to other educators. A kindergarten teacher in New York named George Balch planned a ceremony for his students as well. By 1893, several states and historical societies had Flag Day festivities instituted as regular events.
In 1916, ultra-progressive President Woodrow Wilson, in the middle of World War I, issued a proclamation calling for nation-wide celebrations of Flag Day. The intent was to increase patriotic awareness within a country at war in Europe.
Through an act of congress, President Truman signed into law in August of 1949 that June 14th be designated Flag Day as a national holiday.
However, June 14th holds an even older significance. On June 14th, 1775, the colonies joined together and established the US Army. Though this was more than a year prior to the official issuance of the Declaration of Independence, the colonies were already at war. The Declaration enumerates several crimes King George committed against free and independent people. However, by June 14, 1775, the colonists already had their fill of most of these crimes. People who believed in the Natural Rights as described by John Locke and a better way of self-governance proposed by men like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington took up arms in what was thought to become a fruitless effort.
While July 4th is the day to celebrate our posting of consolidated grievances for the crimes committed by King George, our extended middle digits in his general direction, and the birth of our nation; the war for our liberty began more than a year prior.
June 14th should be celebrated with almost as much fanfare. It marks the birthday of that proud symbol of our great nation, its thirteen original colonies, our current 50 beautiful states, our moral values, the blood we shed to protect her, and our loyalty to each other. It is also the day to celebrate the first national military force that stood up to fight for her birth, our liberty, and our way of life.
October 13th 1775, the US Navy was established. (October 12th is "Constitution Day") November 10, 1775 the Marine Corps was formed (November 11th is "Veterans' Day"). The US Air Force was established as a force separate from the US Army on September 18, 1947.
Mark those dates on your calender as well.
God Bless the USA!
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Layman's Analysis of AZ-CD-8 SE Results
Some may be expecting some form of
whining over Barber's victory over Jesse Kelly. While there are things
about the election I could "call foul" about, I won't. Though many
thought Kelly started the campaign as the probable victor who had to
play defense the whole time, I knew Kelly was facing a hard battle. He
had a left-leaning concentration in Tucson to contend with. He also faced many Giffords supporters that were
quick to back Barber. There were other issues that came into play, yes.
In an earlier article, I expressed concern over a still unverified rumor.
Another issue is voter turnout. In the heavily conservative Cochise County, there was a reported 20% turnout for the primary. The special election yielded a 31% voter turnout, an increase of only 11%. As of Saturday, there were at least 300 PEVL ballots (early, mail-in ballots) still not returned. That was just in 4 of the county's 64 voting precincts. In the primary, Kelly garnered the majority of PEVL votes.
In contrast, Pima County, which contains Tucson, has 281 voting precincts, 324k registered voters, and a 50% voter turnout percentage. The turnout for the primary was only 31% by comparison, a 19% bump from the primary. Clearly, Pima County residents were more willing to take the time out of their busy days to cast a ballot.
(Figures taken from the Arizona Secretary of State Elections site)
Some politicos and political analysts have posited that the results of this election will indicate how Arizona will vote in the November Presidential Elections. With 69% more registered voters likely to turnout for the November election in Cochise County as well as the additional 50% in Pima County, the results only indicate that the race in Arizona may be closer than initially anticipated. It would be foolish to try to predict the results this early in the race.
The figures that emerge after the August 28, 2012 primaries will be interesting to track and compare, as well as the results by county in the November general election. In the General Election, Cochise County and part of Pima County will comprise CD-2, while the majority of Pima County and all of Santa Cruz County be part of CD-3.
While voter fraud may have occurred in the election, a 6.7% victory margin is too wide to claim it had much of an impact on the results. The results are more likely the result of voter-burnout in Cochise County combined with some people confused, thinking the primary was the special election. Some may not have cared about who won a congressional seat for the 6 months left in the term. Another possible conclusion that could be drawn from the low turnout in Cochise County is some voters just refused to vote, since their candidate lost the primary. Any who don't like the outcome but didn't vote have only the person in their mirrors to blame. In any case, Barber won fair and square.
Another issue is voter turnout. In the heavily conservative Cochise County, there was a reported 20% turnout for the primary. The special election yielded a 31% voter turnout, an increase of only 11%. As of Saturday, there were at least 300 PEVL ballots (early, mail-in ballots) still not returned. That was just in 4 of the county's 64 voting precincts. In the primary, Kelly garnered the majority of PEVL votes.
In contrast, Pima County, which contains Tucson, has 281 voting precincts, 324k registered voters, and a 50% voter turnout percentage. The turnout for the primary was only 31% by comparison, a 19% bump from the primary. Clearly, Pima County residents were more willing to take the time out of their busy days to cast a ballot.
(Figures taken from the Arizona Secretary of State Elections site)
Some politicos and political analysts have posited that the results of this election will indicate how Arizona will vote in the November Presidential Elections. With 69% more registered voters likely to turnout for the November election in Cochise County as well as the additional 50% in Pima County, the results only indicate that the race in Arizona may be closer than initially anticipated. It would be foolish to try to predict the results this early in the race.
The figures that emerge after the August 28, 2012 primaries will be interesting to track and compare, as well as the results by county in the November general election. In the General Election, Cochise County and part of Pima County will comprise CD-2, while the majority of Pima County and all of Santa Cruz County be part of CD-3.
While voter fraud may have occurred in the election, a 6.7% victory margin is too wide to claim it had much of an impact on the results. The results are more likely the result of voter-burnout in Cochise County combined with some people confused, thinking the primary was the special election. Some may not have cared about who won a congressional seat for the 6 months left in the term. Another possible conclusion that could be drawn from the low turnout in Cochise County is some voters just refused to vote, since their candidate lost the primary. Any who don't like the outcome but didn't vote have only the person in their mirrors to blame. In any case, Barber won fair and square.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Review: I AM A CONSERVATIVE by Kurt Schlichter
Kurt Schlichter's book, I Am a Conservative: Uncensored, Undiluted and Absolutely Un-PC, hit the virtual bookshelves last Wednesday. Since then, it has floated around the top 5 in the "Political Humor" section, seeming to bounce between #1 and #2 depending upon how long Kurt has been active on Twitter at any particular moment.
Those who follow Kurt Schlichter on Twitter have come to either adore or despise his quick-witted and sharp tweets, depending upon your political viewpoints. Those who have not met the man may find his tweets a bit brazen and callous at the time. However, after spending just five minutes with him in a pub, you will find that his comments are meant as somewhat tongue-in-cheek commentaries on current events. Don't misunderstand that to intend that he does not mean what he tweets. He does. However, the hyperbole in his voice draws out the humor behind his commentaries. He deftly applies the Alinsky Tactic of humor with a definite conservative ideology twisting it.
Those unfamiliar with Mr. Schlichter may be surprised at his resume. Kurt is a Colonel ("full-bird" O-6) in the California Army National Guard. He is a Gulf War (Desert Storm) veteran with multiple deployments overseas on combat, contingency, and humanitarian support missions. He is also a lawyer practicing in California. Kurt's seeming workaholic nature also includes the job of "Journalist", writing for Big Hollywood (Breitbart.com) and other news outlets.
The book is mostly a collection of his greatest hits from Twitter. Those right-of-center in political ideology will find the book hilarious while ringing of some truths many wish they had said. Those left-of center may even find a little humor poking fun at themselves. The issues Kurt addresses are real concerns in today's America. Behind the humor is a clear conservative message about individual rights, personal responsibility, and demanding accountability from those who asked us to hire/elect them as leaders. In that, his signature Twitter hashtag, "#caring", emotes a double purpose. While it seems to mean "I couldn't care less", it is obvious he cares deeply for this country, its citizens, and the future of our great republic.
Excerpts:
I am a Conservative: End all government "job training" programs. All of them. Now. They do more harm than good.
I am a Conservative: Hey liberals — A "hero" isn't some pinko who organizes a letter writing campaign to promote windmills.
I am a Conservative: Inspired by your bumpersticker, I say feel free to have your lips "COEXIST" with my ass.
I am a Conservative: I do not think we should legislate morality — or legislate away the consequences of bad choices.
Excuses are the building blocks of failure.
Have you noticed that no one is ever “sensitive” to the needs of the people who actually produce something besides social pathologies?
I highly recommend this book for anybody willing to take a less serious glance at some of today's most pressing political and social issues. I also recommend it because I am a Capitalist. Kurt is paying me in beer and lattes to recommend his book. So buy it at the Amazon Kindle Store. There are no excuses. You don't have a Kindle ? On what device are you reading this review? Amazon.com most likely has a free application for reading an e-book available for your gizmo.
So, Kurt, now can I get that e-signature on my copy of your e-book? #bored #caring #waitingformylatte #notipforbarista
Monday, June 11, 2012
Teachers' Unions Failing to Comprehend The Signs?
The June 5th Wisconsin Recall Election sent a chilling message to public sector workers' unions. Despite unions outspending $7 to $1 in an effort to recall Governor Scott Walker and elect Mayor Barrett to replace him, Governor Walker won the election by a remarkable percentage (7%).
According to several sources, some teachers' union members crossed the picket line and voted to keep Gov. Walker in office. A reported 38% of union families (not restricted to teachers' unions) voted in favor of Gov. Walker in the recall. The actual results of the election seemed contrary to media polling because many voters feared making public statements. They did not want to be overheard speaking to poll-takers outside of election sites. So, many either declined to comment or lied to the survey takers.
The results of the recall election, with Walker, his Lt Governor, and three of four recalled state senators beating the attempted recall, sent a bold message to unions. That message is that tax-payers will no longer be bullied by public sector unions. The whole country watched this one state-level election because of how vital that message is to the tax-paying citizens of our country.
However, it seems the teacher's unions are blind to the signs. In Arizona, Jan Brewer signed HB 2622. Unions see this as a blow because the bill redirects education funds to voucher programs in areas where the schools are failing to meet the state standards. What this means to the unions is that, in those poorly performing schools, their class sizes could fall dramatically. That would decrease the unions' arguments for decreased class sizes and requirements for more teachers. More teachers will still be required. They will just be in Charter and Private schools. They won't be union teachers. That means fewer due-paying members. Unions don't want the tax-paying parents to have a choice in how their kids are raised. They want tax-payers to pay them to decide that for them.
In Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels and the state legislators implemented a great school-choice program. The program includes charter schools and vouchers. It even includes an incentive for students to work hard and graduate early. A portion of the state taxes allocated per student go to those who graduate early to help defray the costs of college. For similar reasons regarding Arizona's HB2622, unions don't like that idea.
For more information on Indiana's, Arizona's, and other common sense education programs that work, please see my article from May 21, 2012.
Now, in Chicago, we have unions proposing things that have even the liberals in Chicago's City Hall raising their eyebrows and turning out their empty pockets asking "with what money?". The Chicago Teachers' Union has voted to strike.
The average public school teacher in Chicago is salaried at over $74k for 9 1/2 months' work. Starting pay, right out of college, for a Chicago Public School Teacher is over $55k. Their current retirement pension rate tops out at 75%. (Military tops out at 70%. Most military retirees are closer to 50% and very few qualify to remain in service the full 30 years of active service required). They want more. They also want smaller class sizes so they can justify tax-payers hiring more employees who will be forced to pay union dues.
Meanwhile, in one Chicago-area charter school, union thugs moved in and forced the teachers to vote in favor of unionizing the school. Since charter schools are public partnerships with private institutions, the school responded by announcing that it is shutting down rather than bend to the union. So, the union effectively shut down the private sector jobs linked to that school. In response, the CTU has filed suit against the school in an effort to force it to stay open, and force them to employ union teachers against their will.
One little bit of common sense that CTU members fail to realize is that, should they get rid of the unions, they could split the dues amounts, cost the tax-payers over $500k a year in doing so, and see a raise in net income by doing so. If they applied that raise in net income to their own version of a 410K plan, it would offset the burden on tax-payers for their pensions. It could further increase the overall pension benefit they receive (especially if it is a Roth-type of retirement plan). Or, if they really cared about educating the kids, the over $1M paid by tax-payers to union dues per year could go to better facilities and materials. Instead, these so-called educators bend to their Marxist masters. They fall in lock-step to the beat of the socialist drum. Who suffers? The tax-payers and the students.
The CTU (and other public sector unions) also fail to realize that they don't work for the politicians and bureaucrats. They work for the tax-payers. They work for the property owners paying property taxes. They work for those who pay sales taxes (from their own pockets, not from welfare funds). People have had enough of their money being wasted. Do we need to put it into braille, have a reality TV show made about it, or put a sign written in poor English on their lawns for them to get it?
According to several sources, some teachers' union members crossed the picket line and voted to keep Gov. Walker in office. A reported 38% of union families (not restricted to teachers' unions) voted in favor of Gov. Walker in the recall. The actual results of the election seemed contrary to media polling because many voters feared making public statements. They did not want to be overheard speaking to poll-takers outside of election sites. So, many either declined to comment or lied to the survey takers.
The results of the recall election, with Walker, his Lt Governor, and three of four recalled state senators beating the attempted recall, sent a bold message to unions. That message is that tax-payers will no longer be bullied by public sector unions. The whole country watched this one state-level election because of how vital that message is to the tax-paying citizens of our country.
However, it seems the teacher's unions are blind to the signs. In Arizona, Jan Brewer signed HB 2622. Unions see this as a blow because the bill redirects education funds to voucher programs in areas where the schools are failing to meet the state standards. What this means to the unions is that, in those poorly performing schools, their class sizes could fall dramatically. That would decrease the unions' arguments for decreased class sizes and requirements for more teachers. More teachers will still be required. They will just be in Charter and Private schools. They won't be union teachers. That means fewer due-paying members. Unions don't want the tax-paying parents to have a choice in how their kids are raised. They want tax-payers to pay them to decide that for them.
In Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels and the state legislators implemented a great school-choice program. The program includes charter schools and vouchers. It even includes an incentive for students to work hard and graduate early. A portion of the state taxes allocated per student go to those who graduate early to help defray the costs of college. For similar reasons regarding Arizona's HB2622, unions don't like that idea.
For more information on Indiana's, Arizona's, and other common sense education programs that work, please see my article from May 21, 2012.
Now, in Chicago, we have unions proposing things that have even the liberals in Chicago's City Hall raising their eyebrows and turning out their empty pockets asking "with what money?". The Chicago Teachers' Union has voted to strike.
The average public school teacher in Chicago is salaried at over $74k for 9 1/2 months' work. Starting pay, right out of college, for a Chicago Public School Teacher is over $55k. Their current retirement pension rate tops out at 75%. (Military tops out at 70%. Most military retirees are closer to 50% and very few qualify to remain in service the full 30 years of active service required). They want more. They also want smaller class sizes so they can justify tax-payers hiring more employees who will be forced to pay union dues.
Meanwhile, in one Chicago-area charter school, union thugs moved in and forced the teachers to vote in favor of unionizing the school. Since charter schools are public partnerships with private institutions, the school responded by announcing that it is shutting down rather than bend to the union. So, the union effectively shut down the private sector jobs linked to that school. In response, the CTU has filed suit against the school in an effort to force it to stay open, and force them to employ union teachers against their will.
One little bit of common sense that CTU members fail to realize is that, should they get rid of the unions, they could split the dues amounts, cost the tax-payers over $500k a year in doing so, and see a raise in net income by doing so. If they applied that raise in net income to their own version of a 410K plan, it would offset the burden on tax-payers for their pensions. It could further increase the overall pension benefit they receive (especially if it is a Roth-type of retirement plan). Or, if they really cared about educating the kids, the over $1M paid by tax-payers to union dues per year could go to better facilities and materials. Instead, these so-called educators bend to their Marxist masters. They fall in lock-step to the beat of the socialist drum. Who suffers? The tax-payers and the students.
The CTU (and other public sector unions) also fail to realize that they don't work for the politicians and bureaucrats. They work for the tax-payers. They work for the property owners paying property taxes. They work for those who pay sales taxes (from their own pockets, not from welfare funds). People have had enough of their money being wasted. Do we need to put it into braille, have a reality TV show made about it, or put a sign written in poor English on their lawns for them to get it?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
A Disturbing Rumor Of Dirty Pool?
Those who pay attention to various campaigns and speeches from political figures may have seen something going on.
President Clinton has made some statements of late that seem to cut at Obama's foundation. Though he may backpedal a little later, the impact of the original statements has its effects. Anybody with three working brain cells can see what Slick-Willy is doing. He is setting up Hilary for a 2016 run at the White House. He seeks to not disenfranchise his party in the process. However, a Romney win may enhance a 2016 candidacy for Hilary. I'm sure that these "gaffes" have some level of intention as part of a political strategy.
These suspected intentions of these "gaffes", as well as the initial statements themselves, work to bolster conservative goals in the near future. For those backing Romney, they are good news for the 2012 race. If combined with maintaining conservative seats in the House of Representatives and increasing the number of conservative US Senators, it will set the stage, in 2013, for at least two years of reforms at the federal level.
Some of those reforms will not be popular with the left-wing. They hope that such policies and actions will spawn at left-wing take-over of the house in the 2014 elections such as the TEA Party did in 2010. In a long-term strategy, it is a smart move, though a risky one. It will put the pressure on conservatives to do the right thing and gain positive results in a rather short amount of time. It sets the stage for Alinsky Tactics come 2014 and 2016.
However, it does give conservatives the ground to accomplish many short and mid-term goals. If effective in these goals, the strategy of the left will backfire. Conservatives have their work cut out for them.
This form of "dirty pool" is not restricted to the left and Bill Clinton.
I attended a monthly TEA Party meeting in Cochise County, Arizona. Cochise County falls within Arizona Congressional District 8 (For US House of Representatives), Gabrielle Giffords vacated seat. In the special election to fill the vacated seat, primaries were held recently. In the GOP primary, there was a tight race. The nominee was USMC veteran, Jesse Kelly. I didn't support Jesse in the Primary. I put my support behind retired Green Beret, Frank Antenori. However, once the dust settled and the nominee was chosen, I quickly turned to backing Jesse. Once the dust settles in any primary, it is important to unify behind our nominee. As the great Andrew Breitbart said at CPAC 2012, "Ask not what your candidate can do for you; ask what you can do for your candidate!".
There is a reason I state the military backgrounds of these two candidates. Southeast Arizona is a largely military and veteran community. The military record of candidates quickly becomes a campaign issue, especially among conservatives.
At this TEA party meeting, I met with several volunteers for the Jesse Kelly Campaign. I asked how things were going, and the usual networking to get press releases, candidate statements, and other such things. A couple of them brought up a concern.
Martha McSally is a retired US Air Force Colonel (O-6). Frank is a retired Army Senior NCO. Jesse was an NCO in the USMC. According to rumors, McSally or her supporters are allegedly campaigning against Kelly in the special election. The supposed perceived lack of unity behind Jesse in the Special Election against Ron Barber is based upon military service. Retired officers, especially those from service in the Air Force, are being urged to not vote for "this former enlisted Marine". This is the perception from Kelly campaign volunteers who have been walking these precincts, and not from any statement made from McSally or her campaign. If true, however, this is a violation of Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment".
I attempted to contact the McSally campaign office for comment. As of the initial publishing of this article, they have not returned my call or provided a statement.
In truth, Kelly, Antentori, and McSally are all far more conservative than Ron Barber. Any of the three is a much better choice than putting another Marxist in the US Congress. They should be backing the current nominee. If any of them are attempting to undercut the nominee in an effort to pull a similar strategy as the one Clinton may be conducting, they are revealing themselves as a leftist in RINO clothing. I have no problem with the left using such tactics in such an obvious manner. It will backfire on them. I sincerely pray that rumors of such occurring among conservatives are nothing less than ramblings of tired, frustrated grassroots campaign volunteers.
Some of the facts and information related to me include a lower Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL) return for the special election than there was for the primary. Jesse Kelly won the primary through mostly PEVL ballots. The precincts with the lower return all happen to be precincts where McSally did rather well in the primary. While this proves absolutely nothing in and of itself, the coincidence is eyebrow-raising. It merits some further research that will only be possible after the election on June 12, 2012.
The topic also indicates that voters and conservatives around the country need to be on the look-out for this tactic possibly being employed in their own local elections. Conservatives, now is the time for unity. Do not fall to or employ the divisive tactics of the left.
President Clinton has made some statements of late that seem to cut at Obama's foundation. Though he may backpedal a little later, the impact of the original statements has its effects. Anybody with three working brain cells can see what Slick-Willy is doing. He is setting up Hilary for a 2016 run at the White House. He seeks to not disenfranchise his party in the process. However, a Romney win may enhance a 2016 candidacy for Hilary. I'm sure that these "gaffes" have some level of intention as part of a political strategy.
These suspected intentions of these "gaffes", as well as the initial statements themselves, work to bolster conservative goals in the near future. For those backing Romney, they are good news for the 2012 race. If combined with maintaining conservative seats in the House of Representatives and increasing the number of conservative US Senators, it will set the stage, in 2013, for at least two years of reforms at the federal level.
Some of those reforms will not be popular with the left-wing. They hope that such policies and actions will spawn at left-wing take-over of the house in the 2014 elections such as the TEA Party did in 2010. In a long-term strategy, it is a smart move, though a risky one. It will put the pressure on conservatives to do the right thing and gain positive results in a rather short amount of time. It sets the stage for Alinsky Tactics come 2014 and 2016.
However, it does give conservatives the ground to accomplish many short and mid-term goals. If effective in these goals, the strategy of the left will backfire. Conservatives have their work cut out for them.
This form of "dirty pool" is not restricted to the left and Bill Clinton.
I attended a monthly TEA Party meeting in Cochise County, Arizona. Cochise County falls within Arizona Congressional District 8 (For US House of Representatives), Gabrielle Giffords vacated seat. In the special election to fill the vacated seat, primaries were held recently. In the GOP primary, there was a tight race. The nominee was USMC veteran, Jesse Kelly. I didn't support Jesse in the Primary. I put my support behind retired Green Beret, Frank Antenori. However, once the dust settled and the nominee was chosen, I quickly turned to backing Jesse. Once the dust settles in any primary, it is important to unify behind our nominee. As the great Andrew Breitbart said at CPAC 2012, "Ask not what your candidate can do for you; ask what you can do for your candidate!".
There is a reason I state the military backgrounds of these two candidates. Southeast Arizona is a largely military and veteran community. The military record of candidates quickly becomes a campaign issue, especially among conservatives.
At this TEA party meeting, I met with several volunteers for the Jesse Kelly Campaign. I asked how things were going, and the usual networking to get press releases, candidate statements, and other such things. A couple of them brought up a concern.
Martha McSally is a retired US Air Force Colonel (O-6). Frank is a retired Army Senior NCO. Jesse was an NCO in the USMC. According to rumors, McSally or her supporters are allegedly campaigning against Kelly in the special election. The supposed perceived lack of unity behind Jesse in the Special Election against Ron Barber is based upon military service. Retired officers, especially those from service in the Air Force, are being urged to not vote for "this former enlisted Marine". This is the perception from Kelly campaign volunteers who have been walking these precincts, and not from any statement made from McSally or her campaign. If true, however, this is a violation of Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment".
I attempted to contact the McSally campaign office for comment. As of the initial publishing of this article, they have not returned my call or provided a statement.
In truth, Kelly, Antentori, and McSally are all far more conservative than Ron Barber. Any of the three is a much better choice than putting another Marxist in the US Congress. They should be backing the current nominee. If any of them are attempting to undercut the nominee in an effort to pull a similar strategy as the one Clinton may be conducting, they are revealing themselves as a leftist in RINO clothing. I have no problem with the left using such tactics in such an obvious manner. It will backfire on them. I sincerely pray that rumors of such occurring among conservatives are nothing less than ramblings of tired, frustrated grassroots campaign volunteers.
Some of the facts and information related to me include a lower Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL) return for the special election than there was for the primary. Jesse Kelly won the primary through mostly PEVL ballots. The precincts with the lower return all happen to be precincts where McSally did rather well in the primary. While this proves absolutely nothing in and of itself, the coincidence is eyebrow-raising. It merits some further research that will only be possible after the election on June 12, 2012.
The topic also indicates that voters and conservatives around the country need to be on the look-out for this tactic possibly being employed in their own local elections. Conservatives, now is the time for unity. Do not fall to or employ the divisive tactics of the left.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Open Letter To Sen. Kyl, Sen. McCain, Et Al.
An Open Letter
To: Senator John Kyl, Senator John McCain, Governor Jan Brewer, Candidate Jesse Kelly, Candidate Ron Barber, Arizona State Senator Frank Antenori, and all other legislators willing to read this;
To: Senator John Kyl, Senator John McCain, Governor Jan Brewer, Candidate Jesse Kelly, Candidate Ron Barber, Arizona State Senator Frank Antenori, and all other legislators willing to read this;
Subject: Perceived Attacks Against the First Amendment
Governor, Senators, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen;
The "attacks" I refer to are not perceived. They are actual attacks. The perception is the the fact they are most likely intended to invoke the silence of outspoken citizens, political commentators, and members of the press. Among the attacks is a tactic that is labeled as "SWATting". Though the incidents may seem rare when you consider the number of vocal personalities on the radio and in the "blogosphere", the issue is an increasing problem.
If you are unaware of the issues at hand, please refer to the articles and OP-EDs circulating the internet, including my own. Michelle Malkin published this recent article in Town Hall Magazine. Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia is aware of the problem and, according to Breitbart.com, would like pressure on the US DOJ to investigate these incidents. I urge you to support Senator Chambliss in investigating these incidents.
Governor Brewer, you have held my regard and respect since you took office in the great state of Arizona. Since I was transferred to Fort Huachuca in 2005, I have adopted this great state as my home. I urge you in considering measures to mitigate any such incidents from occurring in this great state. Senator Antenori is a trusted American Hero, having retired from the US Military. I know he supports the phrase "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I ask both of you to use your influence within the state to make such acts punishable in the state of Arizona.
Governor Brewer, you have held my regard and respect since you took office in the great state of Arizona. Since I was transferred to Fort Huachuca in 2005, I have adopted this great state as my home. I urge you in considering measures to mitigate any such incidents from occurring in this great state. Senator Antenori is a trusted American Hero, having retired from the US Military. I know he supports the phrase "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I ask both of you to use your influence within the state to make such acts punishable in the state of Arizona.
There are several acts taken by extreme political activists to silence their opposition. While most of my experience is with those among the TEA Party and conservative movements, this tactic is a threat to all political views regardless of where along the political spectrum they reside. SWATting is but one such tactic. Some of the others occur in private-sector social networks and website hosting companies. As a firm believer in property rights and the pursuit of happiness as described by John Locke, I feel those particular issues need to remain between the businesses and their clients unless actual laws are broken and people are threatened or assaulted.
However, real threats are made. If you refer to my previous article linked above, I gave examples of such activity. Many of those who conduct these acts are allegedly linked to a small group of extremists. The actors are enticed, manipulated, paid, or otherwise convinced to threaten, blackmail (quite possible with manufactured and fraudulent materials) and conduct other actions upon private citizens who are politically active.
I'll call your attention to the link to my previous article "To Be Not Silent". A man once convicted of conducting domestic terrorist acts in and around the town of Speedway, Indiana, is upset that his conviction, a matter of public record, has made its way into recent news articles and commentary. This individual has compiled a collection of possibly fabricated or hyperbolic allegations against one journalist, Aaron Walker, in an effort to silence him through the court system. I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend to be an expert on the laws. I do find the arrest of Mr. Walker highly questionable. Mr. Walker was arrested for allegedly harassing this previously convicted felon because people talked or wrote about him.
Mr. Walker allegedly incited the "Tweets" on Twitter and blog posts. Mr. Robert S. McCain has openly admitted that Mr. Walker did not request such an action and that he, Mr. McCain, was the originator of what was deemed "Every Blog about Brett Kimberlin Day". I first heard about it from Michelle Malkin. The article I published on May 25, 2012 was written prior, after much research and following aspects of the story for months. Another individual suggested I hold off publishing it until that date. I did so from an individual decision believing my article would reach a wider audience if I did so. Mr. Walker, Mrs. Malkin, nor Mr. McCain had any influence in that decision.
I have read many plausible allegations that Mr. Kimberlin employs a tactic consisting of numerous legal actions against anybody with a political view that opposes his, reports about his well-documented past transgressions, or reports about the activities and actions of his affiliated NPOs with anything less than a perspective of glowing assent. While protections against slander and libel are more than necessary, one would think the courts would take the time to either investigate the validity of public records and information or at least accept into evidence any such proof. In the recording of the court appearance, after which Mr. Walker was arrested, it seems the judge refused to allow the defendant to enter any evidence or cite any legal precedence. The recording is available on multiple websites as are written transcripts. If true, this seems to be, from a layman's view, a miscarriage of justice.
I'll call your attention to the link to my previous article "To Be Not Silent". A man once convicted of conducting domestic terrorist acts in and around the town of Speedway, Indiana, is upset that his conviction, a matter of public record, has made its way into recent news articles and commentary. This individual has compiled a collection of possibly fabricated or hyperbolic allegations against one journalist, Aaron Walker, in an effort to silence him through the court system. I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend to be an expert on the laws. I do find the arrest of Mr. Walker highly questionable. Mr. Walker was arrested for allegedly harassing this previously convicted felon because people talked or wrote about him.
Mr. Walker allegedly incited the "Tweets" on Twitter and blog posts. Mr. Robert S. McCain has openly admitted that Mr. Walker did not request such an action and that he, Mr. McCain, was the originator of what was deemed "Every Blog about Brett Kimberlin Day". I first heard about it from Michelle Malkin. The article I published on May 25, 2012 was written prior, after much research and following aspects of the story for months. Another individual suggested I hold off publishing it until that date. I did so from an individual decision believing my article would reach a wider audience if I did so. Mr. Walker, Mrs. Malkin, nor Mr. McCain had any influence in that decision.
I have read many plausible allegations that Mr. Kimberlin employs a tactic consisting of numerous legal actions against anybody with a political view that opposes his, reports about his well-documented past transgressions, or reports about the activities and actions of his affiliated NPOs with anything less than a perspective of glowing assent. While protections against slander and libel are more than necessary, one would think the courts would take the time to either investigate the validity of public records and information or at least accept into evidence any such proof. In the recording of the court appearance, after which Mr. Walker was arrested, it seems the judge refused to allow the defendant to enter any evidence or cite any legal precedence. The recording is available on multiple websites as are written transcripts. If true, this seems to be, from a layman's view, a miscarriage of justice.
As previously stated, currently one of the more dangerous tactics employed is this once called "SWATting". It knows no geographic boundaries. Of the three incidents Senator Chambliss referred to, I am most familiar with two. The first one was the attack against Patrick Frey, a District Attorney in California who writes articles under the pseudonym of "Patterico". The second was the "SWATting" of political commentator and radio talk show host Erick Erickson of Georgia.
"SWATting" in short, is a fraudulent call placed to police regarding an incident at the home or business of the intended target. In reality, nothing illegal is going on. There is no incident of violence occurring on the property. However, the caller alleges the target is doing or has done some act that requires such a paramilitary response as a SWAT team, SRT, or HRT to deploy. The reports seem to involve mostly allegations the target has shot or is threatening to shoot their spouse or children. Doing their duty, these police assets respond to the 911 calls.
The tactic is perhaps the most dangerous for several reasons. First of all, it takes vital response units away from law enforcement and sends them on a "wild goose chase". If a real incident that required their special skills and equipment occurred in another location, those officers and their assets would be less able to respond. That presents one form of public endangerment.
The second public endangerment occurs on the sight of the target. As I am sure Senator Antenori can attest, while these officers, like US Army Soldiers, are well trained and disciplined, the propensity still exists that an innocent person can be harmed. All it would take is one mistake and one innocent person to be harmed. The first order effects would be the harm or death of an innocent person. The second and third order effects are the "silencing" of somebody's voice through the use of force. That would be use of violence by a government asset to violate the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, even if not intended by the government to do so. The third order of effects include the political exposure of alleged overreach of law-enforcement personnel.
The third danger in the use of this "SWATting" tactic is that it causes a violation of 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure. The political spin about the importance of responding to these types of calls is obvious: "We'd rather err on the side of caution in responding to such a report than have such an incident actually occur with no response". This is nothing less than moral relativism and an "End Justifies The Means" mentality. It undermines the ethics, morals, and values our country is built upon. In addition, there are political activists in our country who would like nothing less than an excuse to polarize our police and elected officials as tyrannical while systematically eroding our constitutional protections. In addition, this pushes the false narrative that the government grants rights to the people instead of the actual intents of our form of government. Our constitutions intend republics (federal and state) founded upon the principles that the individuals grant the governments, at appropriate levels, certain necessary authorities and responsibilities, the remainder (majority) retained by the individual citizens.
I am sure that, having read this, you will investigate these types of activities. I am confident you will employ your staff personnel and gather your own facts and data. Once you have done so, I am also sure you will take appropriate actions in preventing these types of acts, especially "SWATting".
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
To Be Not Silent
Tori Amos wrote a beautiful song entitled "Silent All These Years". That song reminds me of my 24 year military career. I was far from silent. However, my writings remained in the realms of philosophy, fiction, poetry, and general commentary of life. Due to my dedication to duty in service of my country and the US Constitution that defines its government, I honored and obeyed the laws regarding political commentary and public statements by US Military Members as outlined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Having been "Silent All These Years", I reclaimed my political voice shortly after my official retirement date. I have embraced the precious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment that I had defended "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" for so long. This is why I find it so reprehensible when those among our society attempt to silent other voices.
I detest socialism. I am a veteran of the Cold War. I have been in countries that suffered decades, or more, of oppression where simply muttering publicly discontent towards a government official could mean a long jail term or a death sentence. I have fought wars in some of those countries to liberate those people. However, one of the key necessities of oligarchic systems such as socialism is the need to control the press. There is a necessity to silent or marginalize all voices of dissent especially if they are exposing facts that defeat the socialist narrative. This is not some mindless parroting of Andrew Breitbart. Andrew saw it here through complicit actions by mainstream media sources. I saw it used to oppress people in countries with socialist oligarchies such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic.
While, having seen its evils and oppressive nature, I detest socialism I more detest restricting voices of opinion. I do agree that "fighting words" and threats should not be covered by the First Amendment. US Supreme Court decisions concur. However, I find it healthy for our country for a socialist to be able to stand up and say "I disagree. You are wrong because [list actual facts]". I will go so far as to state that socialists have been instrumental in identifying issues of individual liberty that do need to be protected and addressed. The dialog is healthy even if I find their ideas that the government should tell us what to do reprehensible and contrary to the intents of our Constitution as described in the Federalist Papers.
Some activists on the left strongly disagree. They want voices of dissent silenced. They will employ all available means to do so. Their Kantian and Marcusian lack of ethics and belief in moral relativism holds to the tenet that the "end justifies the means" and following Alinsky's principle that "the purpose of the action is the reaction". (As one who studies terrorist groups, I must inform you that to be the object of every terrorist attack -- to force a reaction from the true victims, the audience.)
Some of the tactics they use to do this include what is termed "SWATting". They convince local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment. The callers make claims of some form of drastic violence inciting an overreaction by law enforcement officials. Of course, those making the calls do so in a manner that is difficult to trace. Making false reports to the police is illegal. Doing so in an attempt to harm another person also includes the charge of slander to those of public endangerment, filing a false report, etc. In addition, the costs of such operations are a waste of taxpayer money. Two prominent conservatives have been victims of this tactic: Patrick (Patterico) Frey and WSB radio personality/CNN Political contributor Erick Erickson.
Another tactic has several labels. The tactic includes crowdsourcing a group of people to do various things to silence somebody by allegations of different media sites' Terms of Service. A group called the "beandogs" allegedly conduct crowdsourcing attacks for Neal Rauhauser on selected targets. They get one person to engage the target in some form of tete-a-tete while the others report the target for TOS violations or SPAM production on social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook. Many conservative new media personalities, such as Leah AKA @GOPFirecracker of Misfit Politics, remain suspended in "Twitter-Gulag" from similar abuses of Twitter's spam-block function. They also will gang up on conservative blogs and online news outlets reporting the blogs to hosting companies for posting "unauthorized content". Sometimes they will even post such violating material in comments sections, complaining of "free speech" violations if the comments are not publicly displayed, reporting the author of the original post if they are.
"Crowdsourcing" itself is not illegal, unethical, or immoral. The term itself just means asking for a large group of volunteers to undertake a task or group of tasks. It is similar to contract outsourcing of various business activities. In the mid-90s, Projekt Records conducted a crowdsourcing operation they called their "Maven Projekt". Basically, they provided fliers, graphics, and other materials to anybody willing to go out and spread the word about Projekt Records and their artists. Newt Gingrich conducted a form of crowdsourcing when he asked supporters to place post-it notes at gas pumps about his $2.25/gal meme. Some social groups and youth groups crowdsource with various "bring a friend" activities meant to work as membership drives. There is nothing unethical or illegal about crowdsourcing. However, when used to attack or silence people, that act that is crowdsourced can be. In fact, inciting a group of people to conduct an illegal act is called "criminal solicitation".
One could argue that such tactics are gray-area. One could attempt to argue that they are annoying but not illegal. That is for courts to decide if the cases ever make it to litigation. However threats are still threats. Threats are still illegal. Some leftists have threatened the lives and property of conservatives. I directly witnessed one left-wing activist threaten to kill Todd Kincannon and rape his fiancee while he bled-out. I have seen threats of violence against Dana Loesch and her children. One such threat led to a crowdsourcing spam-block abuse attack on Dana's husband, Chris Loesch, when he confronted the person who allegedly made those threats. Chris was suspended from Twitter for a couple of hours. Ali Akbar and his family also recently received death threats. Ali's "offense" is attempting to organize a group to provide legal and other forms of defense for bloggers and "new media" journalists. R. Stacy McCain and his family have had to move and go into hiding after receiving threats. These are not empty rhetoric. These are actual and viable threats against life, liberty, property, and body (rape) and are not restricted to just the bloggers, including their children.
A third tactic is perhaps the most vile transgression. With hefty budgets provided by socialist financiers such as George Soros, left-wing activists use the court systems against those who most support them -- Conservatives. One such example is Brett Kimberlin's outrageous number of filings against conservatives such as Aaron Walker. Aaron used public information and court records to refresh people of Brett Kimberlin's criminal history. During a recent court case against Aaron Walker, Brett Kimberlin testified that Aaron had inspired people to threaten his family and to "SWAT" him. Ironically, it was Brett's associates who did these things to conservatives. So, he used what they had already done as a claim Aaron or his allegedly paid associates would avenge using the same tactics. The term "extreme hypocrite" comes to mind. Brett Kimberlin claims that the left making ridiculous claims of racism among the TEA Party groups is protected by the first amendment. However, he files SLAPP suits against anybody who discusses news stories published about the terrorist acts he was convicted of committing in 1978. These acts and the evidence are documented in public court records and are not protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. In fact, those records are available with a simple Freedom of Information Act request.
The rampant hypocrisy in these suits, torts, filings, public allegations used as attempts to silence outspoken individuals is that the left actually conducts these acts. They then accuse their targets of doing or threatening to commit these same acts. Psychologists may posit this is a form of projection and/or transference from their guilty conscience. That, however, assumes they have a conscience in the first place. In fact, those formerly of their numbers who move to the right after realizing their hypocrisy, such as Brandon Darby, receive the brunt of such attacks and allegations.
On May 25th, a group of conservative bloggers, sick of Kimberlin's attacks against anybody who dares speak the truth about his past, researched, shared information, and wrote articles about him. He used this against Aaron Walker as though he solicited those who wrote. That is factually untrue. I had been following the story for about a year and felt compelled to write my own commentary. The fact I added further research into my own article and held off publishing until that date was my own decision, feeling my words would carry a greater impact if published on that day. Now, some conservatives call for a day of silence on June 8th. The idea is to post open letters to government officials regarding these tactics and their victims instead of writing other articles. While I stand with my fellow conservative new media journalists, I cannot be silent. It is what they want. It is allowing them to use the Alinsky Tactic of "pushing a negative into a positive". No.
Having been "Silent All These Years", I reclaimed my political voice shortly after my official retirement date. I have embraced the precious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment that I had defended "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" for so long. This is why I find it so reprehensible when those among our society attempt to silent other voices.
I detest socialism. I am a veteran of the Cold War. I have been in countries that suffered decades, or more, of oppression where simply muttering publicly discontent towards a government official could mean a long jail term or a death sentence. I have fought wars in some of those countries to liberate those people. However, one of the key necessities of oligarchic systems such as socialism is the need to control the press. There is a necessity to silent or marginalize all voices of dissent especially if they are exposing facts that defeat the socialist narrative. This is not some mindless parroting of Andrew Breitbart. Andrew saw it here through complicit actions by mainstream media sources. I saw it used to oppress people in countries with socialist oligarchies such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic.
While, having seen its evils and oppressive nature, I detest socialism I more detest restricting voices of opinion. I do agree that "fighting words" and threats should not be covered by the First Amendment. US Supreme Court decisions concur. However, I find it healthy for our country for a socialist to be able to stand up and say "I disagree. You are wrong because [list actual facts]". I will go so far as to state that socialists have been instrumental in identifying issues of individual liberty that do need to be protected and addressed. The dialog is healthy even if I find their ideas that the government should tell us what to do reprehensible and contrary to the intents of our Constitution as described in the Federalist Papers.
Some activists on the left strongly disagree. They want voices of dissent silenced. They will employ all available means to do so. Their Kantian and Marcusian lack of ethics and belief in moral relativism holds to the tenet that the "end justifies the means" and following Alinsky's principle that "the purpose of the action is the reaction". (As one who studies terrorist groups, I must inform you that to be the object of every terrorist attack -- to force a reaction from the true victims, the audience.)
Some of the tactics they use to do this include what is termed "SWATting". They convince local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment. The callers make claims of some form of drastic violence inciting an overreaction by law enforcement officials. Of course, those making the calls do so in a manner that is difficult to trace. Making false reports to the police is illegal. Doing so in an attempt to harm another person also includes the charge of slander to those of public endangerment, filing a false report, etc. In addition, the costs of such operations are a waste of taxpayer money. Two prominent conservatives have been victims of this tactic: Patrick (Patterico) Frey and WSB radio personality/CNN Political contributor Erick Erickson.
Another tactic has several labels. The tactic includes crowdsourcing a group of people to do various things to silence somebody by allegations of different media sites' Terms of Service. A group called the "beandogs" allegedly conduct crowdsourcing attacks for Neal Rauhauser on selected targets. They get one person to engage the target in some form of tete-a-tete while the others report the target for TOS violations or SPAM production on social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook. Many conservative new media personalities, such as Leah AKA @GOPFirecracker of Misfit Politics, remain suspended in "Twitter-Gulag" from similar abuses of Twitter's spam-block function. They also will gang up on conservative blogs and online news outlets reporting the blogs to hosting companies for posting "unauthorized content". Sometimes they will even post such violating material in comments sections, complaining of "free speech" violations if the comments are not publicly displayed, reporting the author of the original post if they are.
"Crowdsourcing" itself is not illegal, unethical, or immoral. The term itself just means asking for a large group of volunteers to undertake a task or group of tasks. It is similar to contract outsourcing of various business activities. In the mid-90s, Projekt Records conducted a crowdsourcing operation they called their "Maven Projekt". Basically, they provided fliers, graphics, and other materials to anybody willing to go out and spread the word about Projekt Records and their artists. Newt Gingrich conducted a form of crowdsourcing when he asked supporters to place post-it notes at gas pumps about his $2.25/gal meme. Some social groups and youth groups crowdsource with various "bring a friend" activities meant to work as membership drives. There is nothing unethical or illegal about crowdsourcing. However, when used to attack or silence people, that act that is crowdsourced can be. In fact, inciting a group of people to conduct an illegal act is called "criminal solicitation".
One could argue that such tactics are gray-area. One could attempt to argue that they are annoying but not illegal. That is for courts to decide if the cases ever make it to litigation. However threats are still threats. Threats are still illegal. Some leftists have threatened the lives and property of conservatives. I directly witnessed one left-wing activist threaten to kill Todd Kincannon and rape his fiancee while he bled-out. I have seen threats of violence against Dana Loesch and her children. One such threat led to a crowdsourcing spam-block abuse attack on Dana's husband, Chris Loesch, when he confronted the person who allegedly made those threats. Chris was suspended from Twitter for a couple of hours. Ali Akbar and his family also recently received death threats. Ali's "offense" is attempting to organize a group to provide legal and other forms of defense for bloggers and "new media" journalists. R. Stacy McCain and his family have had to move and go into hiding after receiving threats. These are not empty rhetoric. These are actual and viable threats against life, liberty, property, and body (rape) and are not restricted to just the bloggers, including their children.
A third tactic is perhaps the most vile transgression. With hefty budgets provided by socialist financiers such as George Soros, left-wing activists use the court systems against those who most support them -- Conservatives. One such example is Brett Kimberlin's outrageous number of filings against conservatives such as Aaron Walker. Aaron used public information and court records to refresh people of Brett Kimberlin's criminal history. During a recent court case against Aaron Walker, Brett Kimberlin testified that Aaron had inspired people to threaten his family and to "SWAT" him. Ironically, it was Brett's associates who did these things to conservatives. So, he used what they had already done as a claim Aaron or his allegedly paid associates would avenge using the same tactics. The term "extreme hypocrite" comes to mind. Brett Kimberlin claims that the left making ridiculous claims of racism among the TEA Party groups is protected by the first amendment. However, he files SLAPP suits against anybody who discusses news stories published about the terrorist acts he was convicted of committing in 1978. These acts and the evidence are documented in public court records and are not protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. In fact, those records are available with a simple Freedom of Information Act request.
The rampant hypocrisy in these suits, torts, filings, public allegations used as attempts to silence outspoken individuals is that the left actually conducts these acts. They then accuse their targets of doing or threatening to commit these same acts. Psychologists may posit this is a form of projection and/or transference from their guilty conscience. That, however, assumes they have a conscience in the first place. In fact, those formerly of their numbers who move to the right after realizing their hypocrisy, such as Brandon Darby, receive the brunt of such attacks and allegations.
On May 25th, a group of conservative bloggers, sick of Kimberlin's attacks against anybody who dares speak the truth about his past, researched, shared information, and wrote articles about him. He used this against Aaron Walker as though he solicited those who wrote. That is factually untrue. I had been following the story for about a year and felt compelled to write my own commentary. The fact I added further research into my own article and held off publishing until that date was my own decision, feeling my words would carry a greater impact if published on that day. Now, some conservatives call for a day of silence on June 8th. The idea is to post open letters to government officials regarding these tactics and their victims instead of writing other articles. While I stand with my fellow conservative new media journalists, I cannot be silent. It is what they want. It is allowing them to use the Alinsky Tactic of "pushing a negative into a positive". No.
Monday, June 4, 2012
THE High Priest (Neal Boortz) Announces Retirement
I awoke this morning, later than normal, and engaged in my normal routine. I logged into the websites I use to gather information and communicate. I turned on my Apple TV With A5 Chip Processor and brought up WSB radio to listen to Neal Boortz. They were on a news break. The top story broadcast out of the WSB Atlanta news team was an announcement that Neal Boortz, the "High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth" is retiring.
I dropped my coffee. Neal has become such a staple to my morning information gathering and commentary screening it felt like a blow. Though the words used were "is retiring", my not yet caffeinated brain registered something bad. I began to scramble to get the reasons thinking pessimistic thoughts. "Why?"
Then Neal came on and gave a partial explanation. I thought this workaholic would only retire if his doctor and wife forced him to, or he was physically incapable of continuing. According to his statement on the air and his longer explanation on his website, that is not the case. That news brought a huge sigh of relief.
According to Neal's own story, he originally planned to retire in 2009. However, numerous people asked him to wait a few years. Sean Hannity is named as the person among those voices who was most influential in Neal's decision to remain on the air through Obama's first administration. We owe Sean Hannity no small amount of gratitude for convincing Neal to stay on these past three years. Without Neal, a needed daily dose of common sense would have left many people deficient. Many of the controversial policies and actions taken by the government may have gone unnoticed. Many of the issues reported in the "new media" would have gone ignored by the Mainstream Media had Neal not brought those subjects to the airwaves, forcing the Democrat Media Complex to discuss them.
Those who missed this morning's show missed a rather emotional but great show. It was a landmark show and worth listening to, even if you normally avoid it. Herman Cain and Jeff Foxworthy were among the numerous callers who congratulated and thanked Neal for his years on the air.
This year, Neal's last, will be among his most important. Andrew Breitbart died. "Shoq", Soros, Van Jones, Brett Kimberlin, and their ilk move to silence Rush Limbaugh. Aaron Walker has been jailed for writing the truth about a convicted domestic terrorist and the activities of his NPOs. The "Fourth Branch" of government has become mostly just a propaganda machine for the socialists instead of the public outlet for checks and balances the First Amendment intended it to be. Left-wing activists seek to silence conservative and libertarian news outlets that publish facts, information, and commentary they refuse to. America needs a strong Libertarian voice to join those on the right in an effort to bring the facts and the truth to people. Neal is that voice.
I first heard Neal's program in 1993. I was on leave from Berlin, Germany. My father had moved from Chicago to Atlanta. He put on the program. Back then, talk radio was not my chosen entertainment. I was in my mid-20s and in the military. So, I tried to remain apolitical. However, here was this guy talking about things that AP and AFN wouldn't. I was hooked.
Over the course of my military career, I sought out Boortz. I have his books (Somebody's Gotta Say It, The Fair Tax Book, The Fair Tax: Answering the Critics, The Terrible Truth About Liberals, and The Commencement Speech You Need To Hear) on my shelf. When I couldn't receive his show, especially while overseas, I went to his website to read his program notes and rants. His perspective, even when I disagreed, was a necessary part of my information input. It was Neal who inspired me to read the US Constitution at least once a week. It was Neal who caused me to research the Libertarian Party in 1995, when I joined it. Yes, I was a card-carrying Libertarian until January 2002. You can scream all you want when I say this, but George W. Bush was who inspired me to leave that party. I still have a libertarian lean with many issues.
Neal's reasons for retiring just make sense. In essence, yes, he is "Going Galt", though his primary reason for retiring is a far less political reason. I did much the same thing. I left a comment on Neal's blog about it.
I retired for a number of reasons. It was a hard decision. I loved my job as a Senior NCO in the Army. However, my disagreement with many of the new policies coming from the current administration were in direct contrast with what I believe and what I know. I worked in intelligence and could see several poor decisions that I could pay lip-service no longer. My conscience would not allow me to serve policies that I felt to be contrary to the US Constitution and the government system described by the Federalist Papers that this great nation adopted in 1789. [Yes, the Constitution was written in 1787. Consider the ratification date.]
Like Neal described in his decision to retire from practicing law, my blood pressure had skyrocketed. In addition, I acquired an auto-immune disorder that eats away at my Vitamin-D. Knowing the current policies were not supportive of workable military operations that would lead to the desired end-states in Iraq and Afghanistan, several symptoms of my PTS increased, namely rage and nightmares. So I hung up my spurs.
The best decision I have made in my life, so far, was "going active" from the National Guard for the last 20 years of my 24 year military career. My second best decision was to retire. It has enabled so many other great things in my life in just that past year. My rage episodes are now rare. So I no longer have to exert and waste that energy to fight them. Now I can be outraged. Now I can research my reasons for discontent and voice it, with factual data to validate and support reasons for it.
And I am engaged to a wonderful woman whom I have been in a committed relationship with since 2008. I don't think that marriage would have been possible had I remained in service. My dedication to duty would have had me deploying all over the world doing some things that I couldn't share with the love of my life. My role in the military was not conducive to marriage. Now I have time to be a family man. That excites me.
I am currently self-employed. I make a few dollars here and there writing, researching, fact-checking, and proofreading. My hard-earned military pension covers my living expenses. If I received a pension that was "fair" by Obama's standards (using teachers as an example) I'd be getting twice as much. I honestly think I deserve more since teachers don't get shot at or have prices put on their heads by terrorists. However, I am content with what I earned. If I wished, I could be working at something that gives a regular paycheck. The truth is that I don't need it, yet. So, in essence, I "Went Galt" on August 1, 2011.
Neal desires to travel and spend time with his wife (Donna), daughter, and grandchild. I more than understand that reason. I desire to start a family and spending time with them. If you need a reason to retire, that is probably the best one. The reason we work is to support our families. It makes sense that we enjoy the fruits of those labors. Donna has earned time traveling with Neal, and vice versa.
Obama's rhetoric has claimed those like Neal who have earned and accrued a certain level of wealth have earned enough. Obama desires to further tax those who earn in the highest tax bracket should have their tax-rate raised. No, it is not a "fair share". A "fair share" would mean everybody pays the same amount or the same percentage. So, as Neal stated in his announcement, he has made enough and will retire. He will no longer have a regular income to tax. You an call that "Going Galt" if you wish. However, Neal has stated that he plans to be a fill-in guest host as well as doing small-spot commentaries such as those Herman Cain currently does on Neal and Erick Erickson's shows. Herman Cain will go from his role as a fill-in guest-host and short-spot commentator to taking over Neal's show.
Neal, this is a personal note to you, stated with sincerity and the deepest respect. You have been a positive influence in my life over the past 20 years. I thank you for the support you have shown the military. I took that personally. I felt that you supported me and those I cared so much for -- My Soldiers. Thank you for saying things that needed to be said. Thank you for being that friendly voice I could tune in to hear when I could find a station carrying you. Thank you for the years of program notes, news stories, and commentary on your website. Thank you for being that friend I have never met.
Enjoy your last seven months on the radio. I know I will. Please, continue to blog and write articles for Town Hall Magazine. I think you'll find the outlet necessary from time to time.
Most of all, enjoy that retirement you earned and deserve. Donna seems like a wonderful woman. It is about time her patience saw its rewards.
And Neal -- that flutter you hear isn't tinnitus. It is the standing ovation that will increase daily over the next seven months.
Health and Happiness. Adios My Friend (AMF).
Friday, June 1, 2012
Military Budget Blowing Away?
Last spring, Fort Huachuca, AZ installed an 850KW wind turbine along the Southeast firing range area, near Garden Canyon. The above photograph was taken in March of 2011 as the turbine was cleaned and maintained. The project was installed to be tested, once in operation, for a year. Planning and budgeting for the project began in 2006. Fort Huachuca strives to lead the DoD in Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) and Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) initiatives.
First, an environmental impact study was conducted. According to the Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy standards, environmental impact is last in priority. (5th of 5 priorities). Increasing renewable energy sources ranks 3rd in priority, above environmental considerations. Access to sufficient energy supplies ranks 4th. So, renewable energy sources are a higher priority than even having enough power to maintain mission capabilities, according to this plan.
A 2007 USDoI Environmental Impact study for all Fort Activities found 7 endangered species at risk. They claimed that the ESPC with SSVEC increased compliance with safety and environmental regulations:
Electrical privatization of the distribution system was accomplished with Sulphur Springs ValleyYet an impact study directly referring to the wind turbine projects issued later that year stated a direct concern for protected Agave Palmeri and the Lesser Long-Nosed Bats that are ecologically interdependent. The study dismissed any impact to either Golden or Bald Eagles, as none had, at that time, been spotted in the proposed project location. The study did, however, ignore the mated pair of Harris Hawks that call that area "home". The study does call for the Turbine to be shut-down and the project reassessed if 10 Lesser Long-Nosed Bats are discovered dead.
Electric Co-operative in September 2004. The Fort continues to purchase electricity from
Tucson Electric Power Company. This privatization will have a positive effect as all the power
poles will be brought into not only current safety standards, but also comply with the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect the Bald Eagle and other large predatory birds by installing safety devices to reduce the risk of
electrocution.
In recent months, other environmental considerations concerning large wind turbines came into question. The current theory is that these machines either contribute to or aggravate global warming trends. While further study is necessary to verify this hypothesis, the potential impact of the 850 KW turbine on the Soldiers' training remain unconsidered. After all, that should be the first consideration for any military post: the training and welfare of the Soldiers.
However, environmental impact remains 5th in priority. Compliance with ECIP, EPA, and USDoE policies and regulations coupled with budgetary considerations and public opinion remain higher priorities. If you couple those with the current executive branch's alliance with George Soros, even more unanswered questions concerning these projects arise. Let us not soon forget the stimulus subsidies to failing solar companies like Solyndra. Solyndra was granted a contract to produce solar panels for the US Navy. Another "renewable energy" contract was for an avionic bio-fuel that costs tax payers far more than fossil aviation fuels. What sort of impacts do these have on our military readiness and national security?
Military activities and installations do need to budget effectively. The more an installation can save on quality infrastructure, the more funds it can divert to Soldier training, Soldier Welfare, Soldier Quality of Life, and Family programs. Naturally, this meant that privatized housing projects on the post include new policies requiring Soldiers to pay part of their energy bill. It should therefore follow that reductions in energy costs would benefit all involved as well as the local community.
Take a look at some facts concerning the 850 KW turbine. It requires winds in excess of 12mph to generate power and 14mph winds for optimal production. Those winds occur regularly in the high desert. However, the winds are not constant. There are days when the winds blow hard enough to require the turbine to be "locked" to prevent damage or overload. There are other days, particularly during monsoon season, when the winds are relatively calm. Those happen to also be the days when energy consumption on the fort is highest due to the heat and humidity.
The environmental impact study suggests reducing operating hours at night to protect the bats. That reduces the operating hours. So the turbine is not contributing to the power grid 24 hours a day, if the recommendation is followed.
Paul Dreissen of TownHall Magazine wrote a great article on wind power' impacts on the environment, economy, and human health. In the article he presents a firm argument against wind-power and wind-power subsidies. Examining his summary of several facts and studies should be enough to raise eyebrows over the employment of wind turbine projects in general. The bottom line is that they cost more than they benefit.If you take his article and apply it to the case of the 850 KW wind turbine on Fort Huachuca, it opens the project up to critical examination.
The initial average cost of an 850 KW turbine is between $765k and $935k, up front. If the turbine ran full-time, maintenance and operational costs are $10.20 and hour plus $.06 per KwH produced. So, at optimal production, running the turbine costs $61.20 an hour. Those are pretty high costs for a "one year test" on the project. That is a lot of beans and bullets. Let's not discuss the fight some of the units/courses on Fort Huachuca had in recent years to be allotted enough ammunition to train to the TRADOC marksmanship training standards.
In addition, Fort Huachuca entered into four ESPC contracts, the forth of which is a 20-year contract at $777,500 a year. That is $15,500,000 of the total $21,690,000 renewable energy contracts Fort Huachuca currently holds with private companies under the ESPC. While projected energy cost savings are estimated at approximately $600k a year, the current costs are piling up. The exact savings cannot be calculated until several years from now.
Costs of Wind Energy itself are skewed. The FY12 budget called for numerous subsidies for "green energy" firms, including wind-power equipment manufacturers. On top of those subsidies, such firms are set to garner $144.2 Million in Production Tax Credits. The USDoE and the AWEA are lobbying for an increase in the PTCs for FY13. This will mark a 20-year long history of ever increasing tax credits for a failing industry. Without those tax credits, analysts state that US manufacturers would be unable to compete in this business, and the products would not be available.
When calculated into the real costs of Wind Power, the "savings" compared to the costs of fossil fuels such as natural gas are in the negative, not savings at all. Considering natural gas costs approximately $2 per 1,000,000 BTUs to produce and utilize, money sunk into wind-turbines is really throwing dollars to the wind. This practice directly contradicts the Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy's first two priorities that dictate lowering energy costs and increasing efficiency. Instead of saving money on energy costs, wind energy is stealing funds from the DoD that could be put to better use, such as better pay, training and equipment for our great men and women in uniform.
Fort Huchuca's primary power contracts through the ESPC are with Sulphur Springs Valley Electrical Co-op. The co-op also serves the majority of Cochise County, AZ. The company is technically an NPO. They have a rebate program for land owners who employ alternative and renewable energy systems on their property. These can be wind-power, photo-electric power (solar panels) and other systems. Given the published successes of the programs on Fort Huachuca, it would seem to follow that these rebates would remain steady or increase. SSVEC reduced the rebate rates by approximately 30% in May of 2011, about the time the 850 KW turbine was erected on Fort Huachuca.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)