The Crowbar

Typical of Millhiser & ThinkProgress to attempt to bully legitimate opposition, the only available strategy to those who’ve already lost the argument and won’t honorably concede. Of course, his job, career, and reputation are on the line, so I get his desperation. Too bad he chose the wrong side.

Millhiser’s chosen bullying tactic is to inappropriately marginalize those who question Congress’ authority to force everyone to buy something merely because they exist. He calls us “Tenthers,” a lame attempt to sweep us to the fringe along with Birthers and Truthers. The Tenther moniker even has it’s own Wikipedia entry. Created on Sept 26, 2009, the article is already slated for deletion for violating Wikipedia’s general notability guideline – which means someone just made it up.

For the record, I’m a Firster Through Tenther.

Concern over government overstepping it’s authority is a very basic concern, shared by everyone who is sane. It’s somehow fringe to not entirely trust those in charge? It’s odd that someone of Millhiser’s stature would so readily dismiss something so fundamental to a functioning democracy. Does Millhiser advocate unconditional trust of all government authority? Please. Here he goes:

Pelosi is right to be dismissive of the fringe right-wing theory behind this question, which has no basis in the Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce…among the several states” as well as the authority to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its power to regulate commerce.-Een ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledges that these constitutional provisions give Congress sweeping authority to enact laws that regulate “economic activity.”

Yes, the Commerce Clause. A favored liberal citation to justify power grabs – because it just gives so much wiggle room:

The clause does not represent some indication of a shadowy list of “other powers” as needed to suit your convenience. It simply establishes a mandate for Congress to be able to enact legislation to carry out the specific powers which are granted. If we were to assume that this empowers Congress to do whatever it wants as long as it promotes the “general welfare” then just as Professor Hutchinson argues from the other side, the rest of the document could just be thrown in the trash.

Further, I must wonder if Millhiser actually reads the cases he sources because Justice Antonin Scalia had a lot more to say than just the words “economic activity:”

This principle is not without limitation. In Lopez and Morrison, the Court–conscious of the potential of the “substantially affects” test to “ ‘obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local… [The cited case] rejected the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic activity based solely on the effect that it may have on interstate commerce through a remote chain of inferences… “[I]f we were to accept [such] arguments,” the Court reasoned in Lopez, “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”

Limitations on Congressional authority? Goodness me, whoever heard of such a thing?

I hate to say it, but it’s painfully obvious that Millsner operating with an agenda in mind, he’s less interested in protecting your rights and more interested in his ’side’ retaining and gaining power.

Politico.com’s inconsistent bias (accused by both sides) leads me believe they may suffer from collective ideological Bipolar Disorder. Politico has previously claimed it’s not all that ideologically biased, but it’s doubtful they’ve managed to root out worldview bias, which is ideological in nature.

Regardless, at the moment, Politico seems to be in the midst an anti-conservative mood swing. 

Jim VandeHei and Michael Allen paint outspoken conservatives as “hard-core” miscreants who are going to ruin the Republican Party’s 2010/12 chances because their “flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone” is chasing away the sensitive moderates. They’re shooting at Limbaugh, Beck, et al, but, surprisingly their target is also the rank-and-file teaparty conservatives: 

Many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities, according to interviews with GOP officials and operatives.

Their message is for conservatives to quit pressuring their weary leaders to be more conservative:

…some Republicans worry the party could squander an opportunity to capitalize on voters’ concerns about Obama and the Democratic Congress because they come off looking shallow, sharply partisan or just plain odd to persuadable voters.

This is standard RINO fare, those who are in the Republican party but whose animus is ‘conservative Democrat.’ Do you have any doubt that the “many top Republicans” they speak of are John McCain, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Eric Cantor? You shouldn’t doubt it, since the article names them specifically.

Politico attempts to demonstrate their point:

This big tension is playing out in a smaller way in the special election in upstate New York. Congressional leaders are backing moderate Dede Scozzafava, despite her liberal views on abortion and other issues, because they think she has the best chance of winning this swing district. Conservatives, including many who participated in the much-publicized “tea party” protests, are convinced she is insufficiently Republican, so they are throwing their support and money to third-party candidate Doug Hoffman.

 The result: Polls show the Republican vote could be so split that a lackluster Democratic candidate could pull off a win. If Republicans blow this race, it will leave the GOP holding only two of New York’s 29 House seats. A decade ago, it had 14, most of which were occupied by Northeast moderates who no longer feel welcome in the party and were voted in by independents who remain very skeptical of the party’s policy solutions

But, Even Tim Mak on RINO David Frum’s website Newmajority.com opposes Scozzafava:

Across the country, Republicans are scratching their heads and wondering, “How in the world did we end up with Scozzafava?” How did the GOP pick someone who is in favor of card check and had been approached by the Democrats to be their nominee? How did the Republicans in upstate New York choose a candidate who, according to one rating system, is more liberal than 43% of New York State Assembly Democrats?

Gosh, maybe “Republicans” like Scozzafava who support betraying basic democratic ideals like, you know, voting privacy, shouldn’t be welcome in the Republican party?

How clear it is, now, that Politico is trying to manipulate it’s readers by omitting the rest of the story.

I take it back, it’s not Bipolar Politico is suffering from, it’s just plain old emotional detachment that we see all too often in political analyzers who like to play games with people’s lives.

Thomas Sowell > The artificial raising home ownership numbers by politicians is responsible for high unemployment

The New Liberalism and the End of American Ascendancy

Oy, Obama is turning out to be pretty rotten.

Here comes news that Bill Ayers ADMITS writing The One’s autobiography, “The Dreams of My Father.” This means that Our Savior has likely committed literary FRAUD in the tradition of JFK, who disgracefully accepted a Pulitzer for a book he didn’t write.

Jack Cashill was RIGHT, and Sarah Palin was correct, too. I hope they thoroughly enjoy their vindication.

Here’s Obama Downplaying his Ayers connection, which reveals that Obama is truly a corrupt, smooth-talking politician who took advantage of the Democrat’s and the Lamestream Media’s blind adoration:

You were duped, America. Now we’ll know what it’s like to have a hard-left radical thug who pals around with terrorists as President.

UPDATE: Ayers was jerking chains:

Here’s what I’m going to say. This is my quote. Be sure to write it down: ‘Yes, I wrote Dreams From My Father. I ghostwrote the whole thing. I met with the president three or four times, and then I wrote the entire book.’” He released National Journal’s arm, and beamed in Marxist triumph. “And now I would like the royalties.”

Please keep the quotes coming, Terrorist Bill, I’ll be happy to oblige. I’m sure Obama’s feelin’ the warm fuzzies about now.

UPDATE II: Of course everyone strongly suspects he was really telling the truth, knowing the Lamestream Media doesn’t care:

SCOTT adds: Duncan Jaenicke observes in the comments:

I am a professional ghostwriter; of my 12 books, 8 of them were ghosted. I see you are being very careful to not make a hard-and-fast conclusion, based on Cashill alone, about who wrote Dreams.

Give it up. The question of writing style is not a speculative one; any person’s writing style involved choice of vocabulary, grammar, style and even worldview. These things are even more individualized than, say, a speaker’s voice. When faced w/ the blank screen, the mind reaches into its inner resources and works in almost a miraculous way to produce prose, copy, text.

Put another way, when you telephone your best friend, there is a chance that someone else will pick up the phone (if your pal is in the shower, say), but when your friend answers, you “know” immediately it is him. Apply this way of knowing to one’s writing style, carefully studied. It’s a sure thing. Forget nuancing the question of who wrote Dreams, why not write about something more important re: Obama?

The Ayers encounter at the book show by Englund/NR was, I think, authentic–Ayers was telling the truth, and then decided to put in that twinkle in his ey eat the end (the remark about him deserving the royalties) just to confuse the journalists, whom he hates.

BTW I have signed book deals where I, as the ghostwriter, DO get SOME of the royalties, so Ayers is not so far off base as he confessed to the truth.

Troy Senik > Progressives pushing direct democracy killed California

Sean Trende > 2010 election analysis: could be worse than ‘94 for Dems