OF FOPS, FOOLS and ENTITLED ELITES Congressional Districts & Senate Seats as Legacies
Are American political elites the new American 'fopocracy'? There's some evidence to think so. There's also gathering evidence that Americans are ready to show some of their members the door.
What is a 'fop'? We knew, in general, it was an over-dressed fool; but we consulted Wikipedia for a more exact definition. From Fop:
"The fop was a stock character in English literature and especially comic drama, as well as satirical prints.
He is a "man of fashion" who overdresses, aspires to wit,"
"and generally puts on airs, which may include aspiring to a higher social station than others think he has."
"He may be somewhat effeminate,"
"although this rarely affects his pursuit of an heiress."
"A fop is also referred to as a 'beau,' as in the Restoration comedies The Beaux' Stratagem (1707) by George Farquhar, The Beau Defeated (1700) by Mary Pix, or the real-life Beau Nash, Master of Ceremonies at Bath, or Regency celebrity, Beau Brummell. The sexual recklessness of "beau" may also bring intimations of homosexuality."
What class did the fops come from?
While not all members of the upper classes were fops, all fops were members of the upper classes. They were the only ones who could afford to dress in such a manner. Sometimes, members of the lower class were referred to as "fops", but that was only to tag them as "fools"--not "over-dressed dandies".
Some would say that our current crop of political elites are members of political dynasties--and they would be right. Almost 10% of Congress (51) is composed of members who've had other members of their families also serve in Congress. From Congressional legacies: Current members of Congress:
Evan Bayh, Mark Begich, Robert Bennett, Brian Bilbray, Gus Bilirakis, Dan Boren, Shelley Capito, Lois Capps, Russ Carnahan, Andre Carson, Ben Chandler, William Clay, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, John Dingell, Christopher Dodd, John Duncan, Jo Emerson, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Kay Hagan, Rush Holt, Duncan Hunter, Walter Jones, Patrick Kennedy, Jon Kyl, Robert Latta, Carl Levin, Sander Levin, Daniel Lipinski, Connie Mack, Mary Mack, Doris Matsui, Kendrick Meek, John Mica, Alan Mollohan, Lisa Murkowski, Nancy Pelosi, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Lucille Roybal-Allard, John Salazar, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Stephanie Sandlin, John Sarbanes, Bill Shuster, Olympia Snowe, John Sullivan, Niki Tsongas, Mark Udall, Tom Udall.
There's nothing like keeping the Congressional District or Senate seat in the family.
While we're not implying that all of the above members of Congress are fops, we will suggest that perhaps when they're used to the perks of "service", they may lose touch with what it's like to live in the real world.
Perhaps that's why it's so easy for Congress to vote for more taxes. And while many of these taxes are advertised as "taxes on the rich", Congress knows well that the real money is the middle and lower-middle classes.
Which is why the tax burden on average Americans continues to rise.
Is our current crew of political elites nothing more than a fopocracy of pampered, over-dressed dandies, anxious to preen for the public?
We'll let the reader decide.
by Mondo Frazier images: * wikipedia * http://scrapetv.com * wonkette.com * dailycontributor.com * http://mzone.mweb.co.za
Lord Christopher Monckton has been raising the alarm against the dangers of the loss of sovereignty that the Copenhagen climate change conference treaty presents. [MORE on Copenhagen: Copenhagen Climate Scam: Read the Treaty Obama Wants to Sign]
Previously, readers may have heard of the British peer who sued Al Gore over the former VP's inaccuracies that are shown in "An Inconvenient Truth". Freedom Works: "He (Lord Monckton) sued to prevent Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" from being forced into British classrooms... and won. The judge ordered that 9 serious inaccuracies in the film be corrected."
Readers may also be familiar with the journalist who asked Al Gore about all of this at a Society of Environmental Journalists meeting. The journalist who asked the inconvenient question had his microphone cut off and he was ejected from the meeting.
The Society of Environmental Journalists spent much of their conference in Madison, Wisconsin questioning why mainstream journalism was dying.
Then they answered their own question when they decided it was their role to protect Al Gore from An Inconvenient Question.
Who is Lord Monckton?
So, exactly who is this member of British nobility who most likely could avoid all of the hassles of opposing the Gore-O-Matic Man Made Climate Change Machine that has sprung up over the last decade? (Remember, as recently as 25-30 years ago, it was speculated that the Earth was endangered by "Global Cooling". In fact, some of the same scientists who are warning of "Global Warming" were worried then about "Global Cooling." [Climate Change 30 Years Ago: Media, Scientists Pimped for Global Cooling]
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s and invented the Eternity puzzle at the end of the 1990s. More recently, he has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change. He also announced a sequel to his original puzzle called Eternity II in 2007, which is still unsolved.
Monckton is critical of the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change and the stated scope of it, which he regards as a controversy catalyzed by "the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round" following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. He has expressed doubt about the reality of global warming in a number of newspaper articles and papers. He has been described in some quarters as a "former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar."
However, his credentials as a commentator on climate change have been questioned by some commentators. James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded self-promotion." The Daily Telegraph has described him as "a former economic adviser"
Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, spoke at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN last week on the UN Climate Change treaty scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. He was hosted by the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
The video of Lord Monckton's last four minutes of that Minnesota speech below.
None of Lord Monckton's actions have endeared him to the cabal of grant-grubbing scientists, hand-wringing lemmings and opportunistic politicians pushing the agenda of more taxes, more regulation and more control that constitutes climate change policy.
Salon's Alex Koppelman criticized Monckton's assertions about the conference's framework as being "woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it."
Koppelman also wrote: "Unfortunately for Monckton and those who've fallen for what he said without doing some rudimentary checking of the document's language, there's more than one meaning of the word "government." There's the conventional definition, the one he used, and then there's this one, which is very clearly the one intended in this case: "direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct.""
Somehow, that doesn't make this writer, with the knowledge of how both U.S. and U.N. programs have burgeoned into bureaucratic behemoths, feel any more secure--Alex Koppelman's assurances aside.
Don't confuse this website, which is about the control that greens want to exert over the economy and life, with greenisthenewred.com. The latter is a website devoted to PETA-type animal activism.
The new energy bill makes the incandescent light bulb illegal as of 2014. The light bulb invented by Thomas Edison will no longer be accepted by the US Governement under the notion that it is not evironmentally friendly enough. It will be replaced by the Compact Flourescent Lightbulb (CFL).
Guess where every single CFL is produced? China. Isn't it interesting that in the name of a "green" america, we are outlawing "american" incandescent light bulbs, and replacing them with "communist" flourscent lightbulbs? And the worst part, is that these so called "green" CFL's aren't even "green". In fact they are extremley toxic. So much so that the EPA has a 3 page single space instruction manual on disposing of these "green" bulbs. If one is burned out, and you are merely throwing it away, you are supposed to put the bulb in two, sealed plastic bags, so if the bulb breaks it doesn't "pollute the landfill". It must be pretty nasty if it can pollute a landfill.
But we digress.
Lord Monckton is one man railing against the charlatans of Climate Change.
It won't be the last time--hopefully--we hear from this brave Brit.
"Recall that Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is a former chair of the House Ethics Committee. That's the same Mollohan under federal investigation after the National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint with the department regarding a bizarre increase in Mollohan's net worth. For 2005, Mollohan and his wife reported assets worth $6.8 million to $25.7 million, up from $116,000 to $315,000 in 1999. His financial disclosure restatements came only after the group's complaint." --Doug Ross, Draining the Swamp
NOTE: If at any time, the reader is a resident of West Virginia's 1st Congressional District and feels moved to contact Alan Mollohan's office for the Congressman's take on the information presented in this article, contact information is provided throughout this piece.
EARMARKS For FRIENDS, FORMER AIDE in THOSE WV HILLS
[ABOVE: Alan Mollohan, former chairman of the House Ethics Committee, forced to step down in 2006 over questions about his ethics.]
Congressman Named Among Most Corrupt
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), dubbed "the overnight millionaire," is in the news again. He received his nickname because in 2000 Mollohan had no portfolio to speak of while making less than $80K a year. By 2004, he reported having at least $6.3 million in assets that generated income of somewhere around $700K annually. Earlier this week, it was reported that a non-profit funded by Mollohan (with the taxpayers' money, of course) had provided his family with $75,000 in free rent and services. --Above the Law: A Handy Guide to Democrat Corruption
So, who would keep sending such a representative to Washington, DC to look after their interests? The people of northern West Virginia, that's who.
Congressman Alan Mollohan represents the 1st Congressional District in West Virginia. The district is comprised of 20 counties in West Virginia's northern section. A lot of Mollohan's constituents come from blue-collar, socially-conservative, working class backgrounds.
The area's voters are mostly registered Democrats, but the 1st Congressional District went for John McCain in 2008. In fact, no Democrat since Bill Clinton has carried the 1st District in a presidential election.
So, the voters of the 1st District don't mindlessly pull the lever for all Democrats.
Where did it all start to go wrong for Alan Mollohan?
It all started in 2006, when the "National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500-page ethics complaint against Mollohan, alleging that the congressman misrepresented his assets on financial disclosure forms."
That caused the congressman to file amendments to past financial disclosure forms and to explain his now-claimed personal wealth.
Mollohan has defended his meteor-like rise in wealth to his wife's hard work over the last 10 years and her astute real estate savvy.
“For more than a decade, my wife Barbara has marketed and managed our real estate investments. That is her full-time job; it’s been her career for 10 years. She has worked hard at it and she has been successful,” Mollohan said. “Rather than simply recognizing the long hours Barbara has put into her career, NLPC has made sinister allegations about our investments."
“The group also has ignored that we received a sizable inheritance, took on considerable financial risks, and had the good fortune to be investing in a rising real estate market. It is those factors that are responsible for the increase of our assets."
When his father, Bob, retired in 1982 after 16 years in Congress spread out over two stints, he endorsed his son as his successor. Alan was elected that November in a very competitive contest. He faced another close race in 1984, but was unopposed for a third term in 1986. He has not faced serious opposition in a general election since, running unopposed in 1992, 1996, 2002 and 2008. In 1998 and 2000, no Republican candidate ran against Mollohan. In both of those years he was opposed by a Libertarian Richard Kerr, but Mollohan won handily.
In 2010, WV State Sen. Clark Barnes will challenge Mollohan for his 1st Congressional seat.
Barnes has connections throughout West Virginia's 1st Congressional District that could prove beneficial to him. Mollohan, D-W.Va., is currently serving his 14th term in Congress.
Barnes' residence in Beverly, W.Va., is located within West Virginia's 2nd District represented by U.S. Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va.
The rules for running for Congress are established by the U.S. Constitution, and require only that a candidate live within the state he or she would represent. --Clark Barnes Will Seek Seat in 2010
As can be guessed from a long-term Congressman who has done so well for himself, Mollohan should have quite a war chest, come campaign time.
According to Open Secrets, Mollohan has a net worth that went "From $-2,381,981 to $21,345,993 and Ranks 33rd among all members of the House".
His campaign finance disclosures show that he only has $30,118 cash on hand as of September 30, 2009. However, Mollohan's financial disclosures have had to be amended many times over the last several years due to "inadvertent errors" on Mollohan's part.
The last time Mollohan had Republican opposition, he raised over $1.6 million for the 2006 race.
ALAN MOLLOHAN: Defender of ACORN
In mid-September 2009, the (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) ACORN scandal broke across America. The IRS and Census Bureau cut ties to ACORN and its affiliates. The House of Representatives moved quickly to cut off funding. Only 75 Representatives voted to continue funding ACORN, already under investigation in 10 states for voter fraud.
Alan Mollohan was one of those 75.
The House of Representatives just voted overwhelmingly to de-fund ACORN, 345-75. The vote came on a Republican motion to recommit the educational loan bill. As a result, the anti-ACORN provision made it into the House-passed bill.
Below are the names of all 75 congressmen who voted to preserve ACORN's stream of funding. The biggest surprises on the list: Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., and the two Democrats from West Virginia, Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall.
For several days, Mollohan was unavailable for comment on his vote. He finally attempted a defense of his vote at an event in Weirton, WV.
Mollohan acknowledged there have been "accusations of irregularities" pertaining to new voter registration accrued by ACORN. And in a video coming to light this week, two ACORN employees are seen apparently advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp to lie about her profession and launder her earnings.
"There has been one outrageous accusation - that an ACORN-managed facility indicated willingness to rent an apartment when obviously nefarious conduct was intended," Mollohan said.
"No one is accusing every ACORN organization of misconduct, and (Republicans) are painting with a broad brush. They are indicting a whole organization based on the conduct of a few. It seems fundamentally wrong to do that." --Mollohan Defends ACORN Vote
IN his defense of his ACORN vote, Mollohan implied that the the ACORN videos were 'made-up'.
"A reporter with the New York Times made up stories and won awards for them," he (Mollohan) commented. "And they were not real. They were factually made up. But that doesn't indict the New York Times or all printed press. The printed press shouldn't be indicted because of the conduct of a few. . . ."
In case the reader is one of the few who haven't seen the string of videos made at ACORN offices across America (where the two actors who portrayed a pimp and a prostitute received help on how to set up a child sex slave prostitution business), the first video is below.
DBKP called Mollohan's office to see if the congressman's take on ACORN had changed since he addressed the woman's club outing in Weirton last month.
Our phone call was not returned.
This is what Alan Mollohan voted to continue funding with US taxpayers' dollars.
This is one of the videos that Mollohan tries to explain away by implying they were "factually made up".
In Mollohan's defense, only the first couple of ACORN sting videos were released at the time he voted to continue funneling US tax dollars to the organization.
Is this good judgment? The reader will have to decide that question.
Why not call Congressman Mollohan's office and ask?
A federal jury convicted former Congressman William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, of 11 counts of being one big crook...Let his conviction strike fear in the hearts of Democrats Jack Murtha, Alan Mollohan, Peter Visclosky and the rest of the Earmarks Inc. Let it strike fear in the hearts of Republicans. --Democrat William Jefferson — convicted
Don Surber is a reporter for the Charleston Daily Mail. He's often quoted around the country. Is his inclusion of Mollohan in the list with the other members of Earmarks Inc accurate?
[ABOVE: Who did Nancy Pelosi find after draining the Congressional swamp?
"Recall that Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is a former chair of the House Ethics Committee. That's the same Mollohan under federal investigation after the National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint with the department regarding a bizarre increase in Mollohan's net worth. For 2005, Mollohan and his wife reported assets worth $6.8 million to $25.7 million, up from $116,000 to $315,000 in 1999. His financial disclosure restatements came only after the group's complaint." --Doug Ross, Draining the Swamp
Mollohan has said such reports as the one above are made by "national political operatives who are desperate to unseat me because I refused to let the House Republican leadership gut the House ethics process last year.” [Wikipedia]
The Republican leadership didn't "gut the House ethics process", but apparently Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did. Mollohan was forced to step down from his ethics committee chair after more "desperate reports".
Pelosi now faces the challenge of whether to let West Virginia Democratic Congressman Alan Mollohan [that's his modest beach house ... can you say Duke Cunningham?] head the Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FBI, an organization which plans to spend part of the money Mollohan lets them have investigating Mollohan! Formerly the ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee — until his scandals forced him to step down — Mollohan has increased his assets from less than $500,000 in 2000 to more than $6.3 million in 2004. His investments, which generated less than $80,000 in 2000, reaped between $200,000 and $1.2 million in 2004.
How did he do it? He got federal funding earmarked for certain companies that his friends either owned or worked for, then got his buddies to pick up half the tab for joint real estate investments with him and his family. For example, he got FMW Composite Systems $4.4 million in earmarks and then teamed up with its CEO to buy a $900,000 farm, which the Mollohans and FMW’s chief split 50-50. The congressman told The New York Times that the thought that the deal might represent a conflict of interest “did not occur to me” when he — literally — bought the farm. --Another Dem Scandal
Did Speaker Pelosi "gut the House ethics process" by forcing Mollohan from his House Ethics Committee chair?
Readers are invited to call the Congressman's office and find out for themselves.
How did Alan Mollohan acquire the millions now listed on his financial disclosure forms? Mollohan said it was his inheritance and his wife's business savvy.
Others point to "The Mollohan Way".
Starting in the 1990s, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) chose an unusual way to funnel federal funds into his poverty-ridden district. He set up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars he directed to such public endeavors as high-tech research and historic preservation.
Over the same period, Mollohan's personal fortunes soared. From 2000 to 2004, his assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million. The partners in his rapidly expanding real estate empire included the head of one of these nonprofit groups and the owner of a local company for which he arranged substantial federal aid.
Mollohan used his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million for five nonprofit groups. One of the groups is headed by a former aide with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C. --West Virginia Democrat is Scrutinized
As stated earlier, Mollohan now reports his personal net worth as being in excess of $21 million.
Questions in Washington have been raised about why millions of dollars of federal money have been steered toward non-profit groups supportive of U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan. But voters in the 12-term Democrat's West Virginia district don't seem to care too much. --TIME: Campaign '06: Pork Trumps Scandal in West Virginia
But at least one of Mollohan's real estate deals have not turned out to his liking.
A North Carolina county court has begun a foreclosure on coastal property owned by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) due to “default in the payment of the indebtedness” on the property.
Mollohan had been criticized for purchasing several lots on Bald Head Island, a North Carolina beach resort, with Laura Kuhns, a former Mollohan staffer who now runs a West Virginia nonprofit that has received millions of dollars in earmarks from the Congressman.
On his most recent financial disclosure form, Mollohan listed his 50 percent share of the Bald Head Island lot as being worth $250,000 to $500,000, with a mortgage worth $100,000 to $250,000. Mollohan reports a minimum net worth of about $4.1 million. --Mollohan Property Faces Foreclosure
How did Alan Mollohan come to own the beachfront property?
The lot was one of five properties co-owned by the Mollohans and Kuhnses that have been part of a controversy that prompted an on-going Justice Department investigation, and Mollohan’s resignation as Ranking Member on the House Ethics Committee in 2006.
Kuhns is President and CEO of Vandalia Heritage Foundation, one of five nonprofits to which Mollohan has earmarked well over $100 million. The cozy relationships between Mollohan and his earmark recipients, against the backdrop of a rapid increase in Mollohan’s net worth, created the appearance that Mollohan is benefitting personally from the earmarks. --Mollohan Scandal Property Goes to Foreclosure
Does everything look as it should involving these transactions?
Why not call the Congressman's office and see what he thinks?
First-timers on the 2009 list are Senators Roland Burris and John Ensign, as well as Congressmen Nathan Deal, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Pete Visclosky. Twelve of the 15 are under investigation of some kind: Vern Buchanan, Burris, Ken Calvert, Ensign, Jackson, Jerry Lewis, Alan Mollohan, John Murtha, Charlie Rangel, Laura Richardson, Visclosky and Don Young. Calvert, Lewis, Mollohan and Murtha made the CREW list for the fourth year in a row.
In case readers may think that the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (who publishes the Most Corrupt list) is a "right wing attack group", seven of the 15 Most Corrupt are Republicans; eight are Democrats.
If Alan Mollohan has so many questionable associations and money ties, why hasn't he been indicted or charged?
But Ken Boehm, chairman of the NLPC, told the Sunday News-Register that he isn't concerned there have been no announcements from either agency pertaining to Mollohan.
He noted that the federal case against former Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich took more than five years before charges were announced. The case was expedited when Blagojevich, who was to appoint the successor to President Obama's former Senate seat, allegedly was found to be offering the seat for financial profit to himself. --Mollohan Under Fire
Oh.
But Congressman Mollohan remains philosophical about the charges.
"I would have done things differently," he said as he drove through West Virginia's northern panhandle. "It puts you in a position where people could say there's something untoward going on." --Alan Mollohan, from West Virginia Democrat is Scrutinized
Over the past ten plus years, Rep. Mollohan has earmarked $369 million in federal grants to his district for 254 separate programs. Between 1997 and 2006, $250 million of that total was directed to five nonprofit organizations that were created by Rep. Mollohan and staffed by his friends. During the same period, top-paid employees, board members and contractors of these organizations gave at least $397,122 to Rep. Mollohan’s campaign and political action committees. CREW Report on Alan Mollohan--
ALAN MOLLOHAN: VICTIM?
Is Alan Mollohan, whose personal wealth has skyrocketed over the last several years, a victim?
That's how the Congressman has tried to portray his mounting legal defense fees: it was not his own actions which brought about his legal troubles, it was the "claims of a right-wing group" that there "were irregularities".
Through a spokesman, Rep. Mollohan gave us the following statement: "The legal expenses were incurred in responding to the claims of a right-wing group in Washington that there were irregularities in my financial disclosure documents. That resulted in the preparation and public release of an extensive financial disclosure report and analysis last June. That work debunked the claims and the accompanying innuendos." --Under FBI Scrutiny, Mollohan Runs up $160K Legal Bill
Debunked?
Today, Alan Mollohan remains "under investigation".
"Democratic Congressman Alan Mollohan and Nick Joe Rahall of West Virginia are both in favor of Obamacare." --Obamacare lacks the votes
Is the reader a resident of Mollohan's 1st Congressional District? If the answer is "yes" and is in favor of ObamaCare, then let the Congressman know.
If the reader is a resident and the answer is "no", then perhaps the Congressman would like to know about that too.
Here it is: almost at the end of 2009. For the last four years, Alan Mollohan has been named one of the Most Corrupt politicians in Washington. His net worth has skyrocketed during the last decade: some would say by corrupt practices; Mollohan would assert that it's because he married a girl with a knack for real estate.
As was mentioned, most of the residents of West Virginia's 1st Congressional District are working class people: some with families, all with the daily challenges of life pressing upon them. It's likely that most don't know everything that their Congressman has been up to in Washington.
This article would hope to help them out by providing some information that's freely available. Perhaps this article will pique the curiosity of some of those voters into doing a bit of research for themselves about their representative, Alan Bowlby Mollohan.
In a little over a year, the Congressman will face a contested election: one of the few he's had in his thus far fortunate political career.
The people who vote in Mollohan's district will have to decide what's more important to them in that 2010 contest.
A congressman they've grown accustomed to or a newcomer whose wife probably doesn't know nearly as much about investing in real estate as Mrs. Mollohan.
Was TIME magazine correct in their 2006 assessment referred to earlier?
In West Virginia's 1st Congressional District, does 'pork trump scandal'?
by Mondo Frazier images: * swamp: Doug Ross * pimp: http://www.babble.com * WV1: en.wikipedia.org * most corrupt, under investigation: http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org
MENTAL SHORTHAND as a SUBSTITUTE for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Hot Air's AllahPundit recycles a tired argument about conservatives sitting down and shutting up when the RNC sticks the goobers in the sticks with a liberal weenie candidate.
It's all about being on the winning team, doncha know? A variation of "My tired Republican hack can beat up your tired Democrat hack!"
We agree with AllahP. more than we disagree. But that doesn't mean that it's not getting tiresome for conservatives/libertartians to be endlessly lectured about supporting--well, somebody, anybody, long as that magic "R" is tagged alongside the name.
Apparently, AP listened to some Glenn Beck and now sees disaster if conservatives decide they're tired of generic politicians and elect to stand on principle.
It's all mental shorthand for avoiding what used to called 'fighting the good fight'.
One crushing defeat away from total victory, in perpetuity. A question for Beck fans, borrowing a line uttered here by the man himself: What is the endgame? There’s a sense I get from watching Beck that he thinks there’s a supermajority out there willing to return to Founders-style libertarianism if only he and other conservatives hammer the message hard and long enough. I don’t think there is. And if I’m right that there’ll always be at least 40 votes or so in the Senate and 45 percent among the population for progressivism, how does he presume to enact the libertarian agenda while confronting the realities of congressional compromise?
Ahhh. The "endgame". What does the endgame for people like the good Allah turn out to be?
It's the rosy scenario of Bob Doles, G.H.W Bushes and John McCains stretching far into the future as far as can be imagined--at least until the rubes wise up and opt out of the system because no one represents their concerns anymore.
It's the idea that Republican Party apparatchiks are so electorally smarter than the great unwashed they're supposed to be serving.
When Republicans are lectured about a "winning formula" by the New York Times' editorial board: that's annoying.
When famed squish-meisters like Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley--both of whom conservatives are wise to--throw in their hectoring two cents worth: that's both annoying and useless.
But when the lecture is followed by eight years of Bill Clinton and the Obama Good Time Hour and is delivered by the occasional well-meaning right-leaning pundit: well, that's nearly unbearable.
At some point, "well-meaning" can be understood to mean "well-meaning tool". There's no debating these types: a philosophical difference of opinion spells doom for the Republican Party.
But make no mistake: this debate must be held and now's as good a time as any. It's past time for conservatives/libertarians to stop apologizing for standing on principle.
Exactly when is the right time for conservatives to open a can of New! Improved! STFU?
Following this well-meaning advice will produce much the same situation as in Europe and the UK. There, the rise of nationalist parties has been a response to the major parties turning a deaf ear to the concerns of the workaday saps that didn't attend the right schools.
These parties usually contain extreme elements--but keep getting stronger because Europe's political elites govern as they damn well please and the yokels who work for a living can shut the hell up and vote as they're told. The elites know better because they're elite and stuff.
Script sound familiar?
After the nationalist parties start picking off seats in national legislatures, those same pundits--who told the hicks to shut up, vote the PC Party Line and everything will turn out swell--then amuse themselves by tarring the frustrated masses for consorting with the "racists" and "Nazis" that these parties inevitably seem to attract on the fringes.
The masses then amuse themselves by completely ignoring the pompous asses to whom they once listened--and trusted.
----
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
Only today, Gallup states that 20% view themselves as Progressives, but Allah sees that number ballooning somehow to "45%".
All because conservatives are tired of being played for suckers.
Of course, a "permanent (progressive) 45% of the population"--if that were possible in the near future--does help make this oft-repeated-though-still-false argument. The number of self-identified liberal/progressives has been stuck at 20% for awhile now; so somehow, conservatives should shut their mouths--the better to eat their RNC-sponsored shit sandwiches they keep getting fed--and this will stop the evil Democrats from winning?
Thank God conservatives didn't listen to that kind of advice in the 1970s. Had they followed that logic, Ronald Reagan would have been known largely as a B-movie actor.
Thank God those that couldn't abide slavery didn't listen to this kind of pablum in the 1850s. Else there would have been no Republican Party to spawn the squishy candidates beloved of RINOs today.
JUST ONCE it would refreshing to hear these principle-evading apologists explain why voting for a cap-and-trade, amnesty-loving, abortion-sponsoring stimulus-cheering Republican is so much better than voting for the Democrat counterpart--other than style points and the odd parliamentarian maneuver?
It is exactly this "well-meaning" advice that was argued in support of political finger-in-the-wind testers like Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee. How are those decisions working out for the Republican party today, huh RNC?
MEMO to Hand-wringing, RNC-loving robo-dopes: just as being a RINO/moderate doesn't mean you'll mindlessly pull the lever for every John McCain clone that makes the ballot--evidence this RINO-in-the-room: Obama won the moderates that supposedly was McCain's strength in 2008--so might conservatives have enough sense to pick their spots about when and who to support.
But then, acknowledging that point would mean conceding important parts of Glenn Beck's argument.
Also, that would mean the unthinkable: that harried pundits working against deadlines would have to stop using mental shorthand when compiling pieces and resort to actually doing some thoughtful analysis.
Support for a conservative third-party candidate doesn't mean support for every conservative third-party candidate.
Perhaps, the RNC might be moved to run candidates which actually stand for something--besides a chance to deliver the occasional winner in a Democrat-wannabe empty suit.
Perhaps the Republican Party will have actual conservatives running and voters will get a real choice.
Novel thought, that.
Heavens knows that the opposite occurs all too often nowadays. But you don't see the hand-wringers getting their panties in a bunch when a liberal Republican jellyfish squares off against a liberal Democrat.
In their mental shorthand: that's letting democracy work for the betterment of unenlightened hicks, boobs and redneck Jonnys everywhere across the fruited plain.
Culture Watch Vol. 89 Nancy Morgan RightBias.com October 26, 2009 Conservatives who get their news from RightBias.com are already aware of the massive assaults on the Constitution that took place last week - and most are also aware of the fact that it has now been 57 days since General McChrystal told Obama that more troops are desperately needed in Afghanistan.
And the fact that Obama has chosen to wage war on Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce instead of sending reinforcements to our brave warriors who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
That said, I've decided most of us need some uplifting news, so this week's issue of Culture Watch will focus on all the:
GOOD NEWS:
For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. Sometimes voters are as slow as Obama to recognize reality.
Speaking of Obama, (again and again....) he has suffered the worst 3rd quarter drop in approval ratings since 1953. The 9% point decline is twice the amount of any other post-war elected president. Just so.
Tennessee is joining the growing number of states that are standing up to the federal government, urging states to come together and create a "joint working group between the states" to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights. For our liberal readers, we refer you to the 10th Amendment. For Tennesseeans, we say "Way to go!"
Speaking of standing up, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he has no intention of bowing to demands from the Obama administration that he stop arresting illegal aliens. (It seems the only agency to lose its authority under the 287(g) program to operate task forces that can enforce federal immigration laws is Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.)
Bad news for Father Earth, algore: There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem.
Alas, the New York Times is being forced to cut the size of its news staff by 8 percent by the end of the year. Despite losing money and prestige, the NYT still refuses to acknowledge that a good 50% of Americans prefer hard news over liberal ideology.
Last, but not least: For the first time in 35 years, all branches of the military met their recruiting goals for 2009.
CULTURE:
New ads are adorning subway stations in New York: they ask the question, written simply over an image of a blue sky with wispy white clouds: "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?"
Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, wants to save the Scriptures from liberals with his latest venture, the Conservative Bible Project. Check it out.
We're sad to inform you that Rosie O'Donnell and her 'wife' appear to be headed for 'divorce.'
A Denver alternative newspaper recently posted an ad for what some consider the sweetest job in journalism - a reviewer of the state's marijuana dispensaries and their products.
A Danish movie about a gay love affair between two members of a neo-Nazi group won top honors Friday at the Rome Film Festival. Talk about a film that just tugs on my heartstrings...
OF INTEREST:
Politically Correct White Flight: A fascinating analysis of a curious aspect shared by progressive urban havens like Austin, Portland and suchlike: they have relatively few black people in them.
Obama has another TelePrompTer moment and a former Fox News contributor said she had to quit, cause Glenn Beck is just so "scary." By golly, I think I just saw a pig fly right by my window!
TOP IDIOTS OF THE WEEK AWARDS:
So many idiots, so little space. This week's top award goes to the UN. They want 'gender equity' in the war on terror. (Can I say that?) Chris Matthews ties with Gore Vidal for Most Idiotic Statement and we have a huge new number of eco-idiots deserving of recognition. Check out all these idiots here.
If these awards don't make you smile, you must be having a really bad hair day:)
Till next week, take heart. Americans are finally wising up.
WHAT ARE THE 25 MOST MEMORABLE MOVIE QUOTES of ALL TIME?
IN 2005, the American Film Institute announced the 100 most memorable movie quotes of all time.
The jury was composed of 1,500 film artists, critics, and historians.
Part of the AFI 100 Years... series, AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes is a list of the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema. The American Film Institute revealed the list in June of 2005 in a three-hour television program on CBS. The program was hosted by actor Pierce Brosnan and had commentary from many Hollywood actors and filmmakers. --AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes
How many of the following quotes is the reader familiar with? There are three characters in the Top 25 that have two quotes each. Before peeking, are there any guesses who these might be? HINT: One is an actor (who has a total of three quotes in the Top 25) and two are actresses.
Link at the end will take you to the rest of the Top 100.
Enjoy!
No.
Quotation
Character
Actor
MOVIE
1
"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
Rhett Butler
Clark Gable
Gone With the Wind
2
"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse."
Vito Corleone
Marlon Brandon
The Godfather
3
"You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am."
Terry Malone
Marlon Brando
On the Waterfront
4
"Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
Dorothy Gale
Judy Garland
The Wizard of Oz
5
"Here's looking at you, kid."
Rick Blaine
Humphrey Bogart
Casablanca
6
"Go ahead, make my day."
Harry Callahan
Clint Eastwood
Sudden Impact
7
"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."
Norma Desmond
Gloria Swanson
Sunset Boulevard
8
"May the Force be with you."
Obi Wan Kenobi
Alec Guinness
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
9
"Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
Margo Channing
Bette Davis
All About Eve
10
"You talkin' to me?"
Travis Bickle
Robert DiNiro
Taxi Driver
11
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
Captain
Strother Martin
Cool Hand Luke
12
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning!"
Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore
Robert Duvall
Apocolypse Now
13
"Love means never having to say you're sorry."
Jennifer Cavilleri Barrett
Ali McGraw
Love Story
14
"The stuff that dreams are made of."
Sam Spade
Humprey Bogart
The Maltese Falcon
15
"E.T. phone home."
E.T.
Pat Welsh
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
16
"They call me Mister Tibbs!"
Virgil Tibbs
Sidney Poitier
In the Heat of the Night
17
"Rosebud."
Charles Foster Kane
Orsen Welles
Citizen Kane
18
"Made it, Ma! Top of the world!"
Arthur "Cody" Jarrett
James Cagney
White Heat
19
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Howard Beale
Peter Finch
Network
20
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Rick Blaine
Humphrey Bogart
Casablanca
21
"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti."
Hannibal Lector
Anthony Hopkins
The Silence of the Lambs
22
"Bond. James Bond."
James Bond
Sean Connery
Dr. No
23
"There's no place like home."
Dorothy Hale
Judy Garland
The Wizard of Oz
24
"I am big! It's the pictures that got small."
Norma Desmond
Gloria Swanson
Sunset Boulevard
25
"Show me the money!"
Rod Tidwell
Cuba Gooding, Jr.
Jerry Malone
How many of these had the reader heard before? On a personal note, #24 was new to this writer.
Our main site, DBKP.com (http://deathby1000papercuts.com), was hacked and is in the midst of restoring itself. We're hoping that it goes back up in the next 24 hours. It went off-line Saturday (October 10 2009) evening. We're working with the server folks to restore the site and get back on-line.
Until then, we'll be publishing here at DBKP@Blogger.
Patience.
Dan Rather sends his regards: "Courage".
Thanks, Dan.
UPDATE: It's more accurate to say we fell prey to a malicious worm.
And no, we're not talking about the ex-brother-in-law.
* UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCESUnexpected Outgrowths of the Tea Party Movement. Backlash against the Left's best God-eradication efforts? Bonus: The author self-describes: "Lloyd Marcus, Black Unhyphenated American!"
"As Big Government points out, a movie that crashes capitalism in a capitalist country fails, go figure. More from Steve Mason."
The guess from this corner is: the movie-goers who attended were sympathetic to Moore's political viewpoint; i.e., university liberals, Hollywood types, denizens of big-city newspapers and newsroom people from the Big 4 Shrinking news networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN).
Or not. Factor in at least a few "bored-teens-on-Saturday-searching-for-something-to-watch-that-they-hadn't-seen-on-Friday-night".
Maybe there's not as many of those people as I thought. Still, Powerline [Zombies 1 Socialists 0] points out: "For purposes of comparison, Zombieland raked in nearly $10 million. Still, even unsuccessful propaganda can do damage. It's a safe bet that hardly any of those who went to see Zombieland actually believe in zombies, while a considerable number of those who saw Moore's film may actually believe in socialism."
The Assault on Free Speech Reaches The Electronic Frontier of America FREE SPEECH UNDER SIEGE
AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR LEFT, RIGHT, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, LIBERTARIAN, INDEPENDENT, LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE
Is it paranoia to wonder if there is a coordinated effort at reigning in Free Speech?
In the last thirty days, the forces that assault the right to free speech have been attacking their target from multiple positions--most of them from inside the Obama administration.
No one--well, almost no one--has come out and said "Free speech is bad for you". At least in as many words. The government just wants to "regulate" it.
REGULATE IT?!?
Make no mistake: free speech has been getting pummeled from a variety of government spokespeople. What's disturbing is that some of these people have the power to put action behind their words.
While individual stories have been duly noted in the press, has there been any reports on why so many attacks have taken place in such a short period of time?
What's happened in the last month? Let's take a look at a few of the stories that should cause concern:
FCC Chairman targets the Internet
Federal Trade Commission Trains His Focus on Bloggers
America Cedes Control of the Internet
Hate Crimes Bill goes after "hate speech"
FCC 'Diversity Czar' Praises Chavez Media Crackdown
US co-sponsors New Improved "Free Speech" resolution with Egypt
Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) sponsors S. 778 which Creates "Internet Czar"
That seems enough for right now. This article won't address them all, but will take a look at several of them.
FCC CHAIRMAN SEEKS INTERNET REGULATION
The FCC seems to be pushing ahead on several fronts in the assault on free speech. One way--some would argue a backdoor method--is to regulate those companies that provide internet connections.
So, the new FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, announces that he wants to regulate the Internet. Government regulating one of the last frontiers of free speech--what could go wrong?
For the technology-challenged, what's this all mean? Andrews continues:
Unfortunately, if Genachowski gets his way and is allowed to begin regulating the internet, and micro-managing telecommunication operators, network operators won’t be able to turn a profit from their investments in infrastructure because they can’t manage their own networks. So they just won’t build the infrastructure. And Americans will miss out on the quality services they would have received had the government not intervened.
Tim Andrews concludes: "The free market has allowed the internet to flourish and proper for the last 20 years. It is sheer folly now to crush it under the cold dead hand of government."
NOTE: Between the time we wrote this article and its publication, Glenn Beck (love him, hate him, but listen to the information and then do some research) did the following 6 minute segment on his Wednesday TV show. h/t Lori Smith, Freedom's Phoenix; IS MARXIST-LED ‘FREE PRESS’ GROUP SHAPING OBAMA POLICIES?
One way to dress up an assault on free speech is to frame the regulations as a battle against "big business". A famous example: the oil companies in the mid-1970s were portrayed as "evil" and a "Windfall Profits Tax" was imposed. The result of taxing productive companies because they're productive?
High prices and long lines for gasoline.
When Internet service deteriorates due to decreased investment, the usual suspects will claim that it wasn't government intervention that was the culprit and will call for more government intervention to fix it.
At any step of the way, Internet providers can be forced to patrol for "hate speech", "rumors", "racist speech" and "irresponsible speech". The problem?
Who's doing the labeling of what constitutes "evil" speech. Will it be the same people who called the August tea party protesters "racists" be in charge of that--like they are now?
A random look at some of these free speech assaults that have taken place in the last several weeks.
Where does the FTC’s jurisdiction end? If I get a free tube of toothpaste in the mail and say nice things about it on Twitter, Facebook, or in a PTA meeting, do I have to disclose it as a freebie or pay the $11,000 fine the FTC imposes? What kind of disclosure can one fit into a 140-character Twitter message, anyway?
This is another in a line of paternalistic decisions on consumer product issues from the federal bureaucracy. It treats blog readers like idiots who are in constant danger of brainwashing by bloggers. American consumers are much brighter than the FTC assumes, but treating us like adults would not give them leverage to increase their power and their intrusiveness.
If the FTC has the time to chase down bloggers who do product reviews, then they must not have much to do. These new rules insinuate themselves into regulating free speech, and worse, they give no clear guidelines on the scope of the enforcement or the methods of disclosing properly to avoid the FTC’s wrath. They aim a bazooka at a gnat in terms of public danger to consumers and threaten to squelch the online discussion of product virtues and failings, which can help inform people in their choices. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/05/ftc-trains-government-focus-on-bloggers/trackback/ ----------------------
Last week, President Obama proudly announced at the United Nations the steps taken by his administration to “embrace a new era of engagement” in international affairs. These actions included supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, addressing global warming through the U.N., joining the Human Rights Council, signing the Disabilities Convention, supporting the Millennium Development Goals, and paying America’s arrears to the United Nations without asking the organization to implement reforms to prevent those payments from being misused.
Well, we can add another dubious decision to the list of sacrifices the Obama administration has made to alter of international engagement. Today it was announced that the administration has agreed to cede much U.S. control over the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which regulates and manages the Domain Name System under which Internet Protocol addresses and registration of top-level domains (such as .org and .com) are assigned.
If Czar Sunstein is able to enact the "chilling effect" that he proposes in Rumors by the next general election, websites like the American Thinker could become regular targets of retraction demands from the Left, and face the threat of fines for spreading what the Regulatory Czar defines as "rumors." ----------------------
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech advocating enforceable "network neutrality" rules for the Internet. Despite declaring "we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet," he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all-knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of innovation in modern times. Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept of net neutrality -- which encourages the free flow of content across the Internet -- would be transformed into formal rules Internet service providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril....
Genachowski is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist, which he plainly admitted by stating his goal is to "preserve" the freedom and openness of today's Internet.
...
The new chairman said, "this is not about government regulation of the Internet," and he did it with a straight face. But this is all about government regulation of the Internet, coming from an agency with a proven record of regulatory failure and abuse of power.
Americans should have little faith in Genachowski's pledge the FCC "will do as much as we need to do, and no more" when regulating the Internet. When you don't "know what tomorrow holds on the Internet," how can you be sure the regulatory lines will be drawn so perfectly?
Answer: You can't. But it's clear what awaits us if the FCC moves forward with the chairman's plans: less freedom, less investment, less innovation.
The reasoning behind the guidelines seems noble enough - provide transparency and keep consumers safe from hokey information. However, the concept of the government dictating how this happens does not sit well with a lot of people. The revisions (which can be found in this 81 page document [pdf], should you care to peruse them [they start around page 55]) have ruffled quite a few feathers and the conversation has become one about free speech.
Jeff JarvisWell-known author/editor/publisher Jeff Jarvis makes a really good point. He says the FTC assumes that the Internet is a medium. "It’s not. It’s a place where people talk. Most people who blog, as Pew found in a survey a few years ago, don’t think they are doing anything remotely connected to journalism. I imagine that virtually no one on Facebook thinks they’re making media. They’re connecting. They’re talking," he says. "So for the FTC to go after bloggers and social media – as they explicitly do – is the same as sending a government goon into Denny’s to listen to the conversations in the corner booth and demand that you disclose that your Uncle Vinnie owns the pizzeria whose product you just endorsed."
The Federal Trade Commission on Monday took steps to make product information and online reviews more accurate for consumers, regulating blogging for the first time and mandating that testimonials reflect typical results.
The FTC will require that writers on the Web clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products. The commission also said advertisers featuring testimonials that claim dramatic results cannot hide behind disclaimers that the results aren't typical.
The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. The guides are not binding law, but rather interpretations of law that hope to help advertisers comply with regulations. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could result in various sanctions including a lawsuit.
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."
...
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
This bill is sponsored by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV)
S. 778.(National Cybersecurity Advisor Act of 2009)- A bill to establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor.
That’s the bill to permanently establish the Cyber Czar.
---------------
Regulation of "rumors".
Regulation--and fines--on speech codes not followed.
Admiration expressed by a White House appointee for Chavez's crackdown on Venezuela's media.
The pace is accelerating under the Obama administration.
This is an issue of constitutional freedoms.
This issue is neither a left or right, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent issue, Liberal or Conservative.
Conservatives on the right, moderates in the middle, and liberals on the Left--as well as civil libertarians--need to start contacting your congressional members and Senators.
Find out where they stand. DEMAND that they vote to keep speech free and unencumbered.
There are a lot of issues to address here. Pick one, pick two or pick 'em all.
