Moonbeam more like loose (potato) cannon

In her Feb 3rd "Laser Beam", the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus walks us down a path of truth.  Jerry Brown's State of the State address was more specific than President Obama's State of the Union.  In fact, Obama's reading was as inspired and decisive as a substitute math teacher (apologies to teachers) reciting the instructions to your old V.C.R.  There was nothing in the carefully tele-prompted speech to offend (or inform) any potential Independent voter.  No direction pointed out and nothing to to be pinned down on later.  It was actually worse than his old I'm-willing-to-say-anything-to-get-elected or pass-a-bill days.

But "responsible"?  Sorry, but at that point Marcus hangs a u-turn on her path and pushes the throttles up to after-burner.  What Brown was so "focused" on was higher taxes.

The Progressive Democrat dominated legislature has run up a debt of $25 billion over the past few decades.  They passed a temporary tax, promising to close the gap, two years ago.  As Marcus reports, they slashed the general fund. But they refuse to even discus their sacred-cow, specified funds: fat union bosses, plentiful abortions, stigma-free welfare, happy animals, comfy and numerous illegal aliens, lots of business-strangling regulations, etc.  They will (like Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co) threaten to cut police, firefighters, teachers and granny's care if "nothing is done".

As Marcus misrepresents, 2/3 of Californians want a chance to vote on taxes, but not because they fear they will be deprived by the conservative minority of the pleasure of paying more. So what is Brown's "laser" focused on?  A five (5) year extension of the two (2) year "temporary" tax - - but approved by voters rather than vulnerable legislators(D).  Oh, and with the usual list of threats if it fails.  And stand by for the increases in gas, vehicle registration and other taxes and "fees", no matter which way the vote goes.

Brilliant.  Moonbeam at his Progressive best.  It sounds more like Marcus is joining the Leftist "dump Obama" crowd (Soros, Weiner, Politico, Huffington, et al) than seriously defending Brown's red herring.  But Brown, like Clinton and the rest, all have the same playbook (Maynard Keynes channeling Marx), even if they have competing campaign staffs. And speech writers.

Cohen correct about Egypt

I never thought I would juxtapose those first two words, but it is a fact.  We see precious little in the media about the players in Egypt’s revolution.  Just Mubarak, either tyrant or ally, and (as Jerry Brown used them) the democratic and  imaginative “young people of Egypt ant Tunisia”.  As the Washington Post's Richard Cohen points out in “Washington should proceed slowly” (Feb 2nd in California papers), it’s not that simple.  You can’t tell the players without a program.

The Muslim Brotherhood that Cohen reveals as a major player was founded in 1928 in with the sole purpose of dominating the world under Sharia Law.  Not offering, imposing.  They use terrorism, intrigue and now anarchy.  That is, they have learned from new, global, Socialist allies to “never waste a crisis”.  They wait for or start insurrections, urging people towards “democratic” uprisings.  Then they step into the void with ready organization, money and an iron fist to co-opt the government. 

Socialists did it in Russia, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and others.  Muslim Brotherhood has done it in Yemen and Tunisia.  They also installed the Ayatollahs in Iran, followed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s Baathists in Iraq (both now reversed).  Other spin-offs: Black September (Munich Olympic massacre), Hamas and Hezbollah (rocket and suicide attacks on Israeli civilians), and Al Qaida.  There are dozens more worldwide.  There are associated groups in the U.S.; research Imam Feisal Rauf, the promoter of the “Cordoba Initiative” Ground Zero Mosque.  They are now inserting their rhetoric and propaganda into what was probably an honest, freedom-seeking revolution of the people of Egypt, working to seize power.  Their motto says, “Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”.

Why is this largely unreported?  Because it does not help Progressive Socialists or their liberal-press supporters to play up the dangers of jihadists, when you are trying to demonize George Bush (and his war against jihadi terrorism) and repudiate conservatives and the Constitution in general.  Jihadist’s supporters might help in that propaganda.  There is a saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.  The concept made the Communist U.S.S.R. an ally if the Capitalist American republic in WWII, because those same Communists competed for control of the German Socialist membership against Hitler’s National Socialists in 1933.  If you are only interested in power, your allegiances shift pretty elaborately.  You scheme against friend and foe alike to gain control.

Certainly, Mubarak is no Washington or Jefferson.  He is technically a dictator and should go.  He held power by force for 30 years.  He makes all the decisions.  His people are poorer than they should be while he maintains the largest army in the Arab world.  He disregarded the will of the people and seized control of their internet.  Yet, he upheld the peace his predecessor forged with Israel, opposed terrorist jihadists and was a stabilizing influence on the region.  Without a stable Egypt controlling the Suez Canal, the world’s oil would have to brave the dangerous Strait of Hormuz in lumbering, vulnerable tankers (another reason to drill our own).  His announcement of retiring in the fall may settle things and allow an orderly transfer of power, without creating another Iranian nightmare.

Back to Cohen’s point, Washington has little actual influence on the ground in Egypt.  What they have they must use to ease Mubarak out and encourage an orderly succession to a moderate, populist government.  Hopefully, the Egyptian people can thread the needle and install one that will respect freedom of religion and peace.

Another tough phrase: Obama has done as well as can be expected so far.  Certainly better than his disrespectful neglect of the crushed 2009 freedom uprising in Tehran.

False premises and bad budgeting

In February 1^st Inland Newspapers, we see the kind of duplicitous language that should be expected from Progressive Socialists in general and (for those of us old enough to remember) Jerry Brown in particular.

The banner headline is “Governor calls for vote”.  How dramatic.  How democratic.  How hopeful.  How deceitful.  With the spotlighted quote, “When democratic ideals and calls for the right to vote are stirring the imagination of young people in Egypt and Tunisia… we in California can’t say now is the time to block a vote of the people”, we have a full circle of deception.

The topic is the extension of a “temporary” tax, passed just two years ago by the Democratic dominated legislature without voter input.  Brown takes the typical, Leftist stance of 'all or nothing' (no gray area) in framing the options: “…whether it is better to extend the current tax statutes another five years or chop another $12billion out of schools, public safety, our universities and our system of caring for the most vulnerable”.  So it was a “temporary”, two year tax that must be extended by five years.  This comes at a time when even Progressive Socialist Obama had to admit (in his “lame duck” congress) that extending the Bush tax cuts was necessary to sustain and grow our fragile recovery.

And now we as Americans must take lessons in “democracy” from Egyptians and Tunisians?  Both have called for the destruction of Israel in the past and given varying aid (money, recruits or political cover) to terrorist organizations that kill Americans.  Though most of the “young people” now in the streets of Egypt (and recently in the streets of Tunisia, Yemen and 1979 Iran) really do want more freedom, their revolt is being promoted and underwritten by the Muslim Brotherhood.  The M.B. (motto: “Jihad is our way - Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”) was formed in 1928 with the specific mission of dominating the world under Sharia Law.  They never actually fight; they create front groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Black September (Munich Olympic massacre), Taliban (Afghanistan), Al Qaida (9-11) and many others.  They encourage terrorism, anarchy and revolt “for democracy”, then take control of the revolution in the chaos.   Socialist insurgents do the same thing, in this case working with them against the common American enemy.  Mubarak, like the Shah of Iran, Cuba’s Batista, China’s Manchus, Russia’s Romanov and Germany’s Wilhelm before, is a bad guy.  All ruthless autocrats.  But the tyrants that took their place were the Ayatollas and Ahmadinejad, Castro and Che, Mao, Stalin, Hitler and others; poverty and hundreds of millions of murders in their wake, even without the wars they fomented.  Mubarak has been dictator for 30 years and needs to go, but at least he resisted the jihadis and left Israel alone.  Pray that his replacement leads to freer people, not more misery and terror.  Funny how Obama is seeking power to cut the internet, as Mubarak just did.  

Also, we have a Republic, not a “Democracy”.  Democracies are unstable and soon fail, so Americans invented a federal (not “national”) system where the people are served by the leaders they elect.  This broke down in 2009, when damaging and unconstitutional bills were forced over the objections of the people.  Everywhere but California, this is now self-correcting as the Founders designed. I will get into shutting down American oil drilling (forcing importation of even more expensive, foreign oil in vulnerable tankers, when the middle east is in uproar and the Suez Canal is in doubt) in another post.

Finally, it’s not all-or-nothing, as Moonbeam – er, Jerry (sorry) – tells us.  There are lots of non-essential social programs that can be cut before “schools, public safety and grandma’s care”.  L.A. alone spends $1.6 billion annually, specifically on free education and meals for illegal alien children, plus more aid to their families.  Schools get more money than ever, but union bosses and tenure take too much of it.  “Happy animal” and luxurious, “stigma-free” welfare programs take even more.  How many streets in your town have been ripped up for weeks to put in pretty, brick ribbons or lavish landscaping?  How about half-billion dollar schools with their grand architecture?

When the kids in Sacramento come asking for yet another credit card, tell them “no”.  And make them tell the truth.

Nullifying good journalism – Tenth Amendment Center

This is another angle on why I write what I write, by Michael Maharry via the X-Amendment folks. Keep in mind that the several American States already held independent power when they held a convention that created the United States.  In doing so, they ensured that they were not substituting "one tyrant a thousand miles away with a thousand tyrants one mile away".  Thus the clear, concise language of the Constitution and its many checks and balances, emphasizing the ultimate power of the States and the individual People whenever the federal (not "national") government steps outside its enumerated powers.  We need to take a hundred steps back to only be one step outside. 
In recent decades, too much of the "free press" has been fully dedicated to the statist viewpoint, with ever less regard for the truth.  You still see a few individual reporters striving for honesty, but they are usually shouted down or ignored.  Onward...

~SophosArchaeus

- - - -

Nullifying good journalism

by Michael Maharrey
AP reporter John Miller provides a textbook example of sloppy, agenda driven “journalism” in a piece headlined GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight published on Jan. 26.
Miller cobbles together a report clearly reflecting his personal opinion on the subject, and while he would surely argue that the story holds completely to the facts, he links those facts together in a way that leads the reader to his forgone conclusion.
Perhaps Miller doesn’t know any better, but he also omits vital information, leaving the reader with an incomplete understanding of nullification. He can either plead ignorance, making him a lazy reporter, or he left those bits of information out on purpose, making him an agenda driven hack.
Either way, he earns low marks as a professional journalist.
Let’s look at some specifics.
Miller sets up his assumption in the language of his lede graph.
“Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama’s health care overhaul.”
Note the wording – dusty annals of American history. In other words, nullification isn’t really something to take seriously.  It’s old. (He re-emphasizes that point when he mentions Jefferson “philosophical guidance” 211 years ago.) Old means irrelevant and arcane. And if it’s old, irrelevant and arcane, you need not pay attention to it.
Miller frames the story with the loaded language in his opening graph and proceeds to hang it nicely inside.
He goes on to declare the notion of nullification unconstitutional. His source? “Most legal scholars…”
Presumably, Miller interviewed or at least read the opinions of most legal scholars in this country.
Or not.
Nowhere does he bother to cite any cogent opposing viewpoint. And it does exist. In fact, the logic is quite simple. He should be able to grasp it, even with all of the time spent talking to “most legal experts”. Quite simply, if Congress passes legislation reaching outside of its constitutionally prescribed delegated powers, it is not law at all, but an unconstitutional act – by definition illegal. The Constitution stands as the supreme law of the land, not the court. And unconstitutional acts cannot hold a place of supremacy over a state law.
Miller spends the next several graphs describing other radical “conservative” activities. They don’t have anything to do with nullification, but they fit the frame, so he throws them in.
I love some of the loaded language. “Anti-government angst running high.” “Tea Party crowd.” “Secession.” Miller clearly intends to paint nullification the color of extremism – right wing extremism to boot. He doesn’t come out and say it, of course. That would be non-objective. He lets the language serve as his brush.
Finally, he gets into the origins of nullification, lazily hanging the entire concept on the writing of Thomas Jefferson. I have to give him credit for basically explaining the Kentucky Resolutions correctly, all in one sentence. Well, except for the incorrect date. But why quibble? Anyway, after his cursory explanation of the principle’s origin, Miller simply sweeps the third president’s idea aside in one sentence.
“And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions…”
I suppose I could say the same about “most legal scholars”. Or supreme court justices for that matter.
But I digress.
At this point, Miller takes the opportunity to create a little “gotcha” moment. He quotes Idaho Republican Sen. Monty Pearce saying Jefferson was at the constitutional convention.
Miller writes:
“Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation.”
Good one John!
But perhaps Miller should have included the fact that James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, wrote the Virginia Resolution the same year, mirroring Jefferson’s reasoning. And that Madison laid out the fundamental principle of state resistance to overreaching federal power in Federalist 46.
But then again, who cares? That was just Madison’s opinion.
Miller moves on to assert, “Nullification has been invoked several times over the years — to no avail.”
He mentions the tariff act that South Carolina fought in the 1830s. He points out that it “nearly provoked armed conflict.”
Nearly, but it didn’t.
In fact, the feds backed down, and in a compromise, agreed to roll back the tariff over time. Sounds like at least a partial win for South Carolina. But that doesn’t fit the template.
And Miller fails to mention to modern cases of successful nullification. Numerous states refused to implement the Real ID act of 2005, rendering the act functionally void, and 15 states have defied federal law and implemented medicinal marijuana programs, without tanks rolling through the streets.
Finally, near the end of the story, Miller gets around to citing an intellectual source on nullification. But not before a little character assassination. Thomas Woods earned his undergrad degree in history from Harvard. He holds a masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University. But Miller doesn’t mention these credentials. He does mention that “as a college student in 1994, Woods helped found the League of the South, an Alabama group the Southern Poverty Law Center says has become a ‘neo-Confederate group’ seeking a second Southern secession.”
In other words, Woods is a racist and what he has to say isn’t relevant, but here it is anyway. Never mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t exactly count as an unbiased source of information. And never mind that Woods no longer has any association with the League of the South. (Yes, Miller did mention this fact as an afterthought. But really, why mention the association at all? What does it have to do with the story? Oops.  Sorry. Asking too many questions.)
Interestingly, Miller fails to tell us anything about the organizational memberships, paper subjects or college hi-jinks of “most legal scholars”, Idaho Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane, or David Gray Adler – all sources asserting nullification is an unconstitutional, archaic concept.
But I’m sure Miller thoroughly checked all of their backgrounds to make sure there was no ties to any progressive advocacy groups and no skeletons in their closets. No dirty laundry there for sure.
Miller makes a mockery of journalism with this story. Agree or disagree with the concept or wisdom of nullification, it has its roots in the founding philosophy of the nation and in the original understanding of the Constitution. It was invoked frequently in the first century of the Republic’s existence, by members of every political party, in the north and in the south. It stands on solid philosophical ground and has been successfully utilized in the last decade.
But Miller doesn’t bother to get into any of those complex nuances. Miller doesn’t bother to provide a balanced story explaining nullification. Miller doesn’t even bother to fact-check his work to make sure he gets something as basic as the date of the Kentucky Resolutions correct.
In short, he fails to do the basic job of a fair objective journalist.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.

 - - - -

Link to original story on the Tenth Amendment Center site:
Nullifying good journalism – Tenth Amendment Center