So, naturally, they are trying to suppress it – Ed Morrissey notes:

Mark Tapscott notices an interesting blog post by Norman Eisen, who works for Barack Obama as Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform. Anticipating a deluge of criticism over the thus-far ineffectual spending plan, Eisen has a straightforward plan to deal with criticism. He’ll simply use the power of the federal government to silence it. Problem solved!

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program. [emphasis mine — Ed]

Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

For years we were told that dissent was the highest form of patriotism…apparently, the highest form in 2009 is slavish devotion to the Obamunist party line. Who is an “unregistered lobbyist”? Who is “exerting influence”? Well, my friends, that is you and me – and anyone else the White House doesn’t want mouthing off on the Spendulus program. We’re now shut out – unless we first fill out a form…the White House doesn’t have to fill out a form before commenting on us “unregistered lobbyists”, but we have to fill out a form for them to post on the web. Meanwhile, the CEO of GE – who is well connected to the White House – just what form do you think he’ll be expected to fill out? Only the one detailing how much money he’ll donate in 2012.

Obama and Co are trying to carefully script the whole thing. They have to, you see? When you’ve promised to “save or create” x number of jobs, provide health care for all Americans, reduce the deficit, win the war and a host of other things, you can’t afford to have a free flow of information…that would get tricky and might allow the truth to come out. And we can’t have that, now can we? I mean, if the truth comes out, Obama might lose in 2012, and how would that help Obama?

Words for the GOP to battle for:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. – Frederick Douglas

They want to destroy the Church because that is the strongest bulwark of civilization – and the bulwark is fighting back:

In the United States District Court Friday, attorneys representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport filed a lawsuit against officials of the State of Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE), seeking a court order to stop them from an unconstitutional application of state lobbying laws.

These officials are requiring the Diocese – and presumably all other organizations – to register as a lobbyist in order to engage in activities such as a rally at the State Capitol or using its website to encourage its members to contact their elected representatives. Application of the law in this manner would subject the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly to government oversight and penalties.

Bishop William E. Lori stated today, “Following the surprise introduction of Bill 1098, a proposal that singled out Catholic parishes and would have forced them to reorganize contrary to Church law and the First Amendment, our Diocese responded in the most natural, spontaneous, and frankly, American, of ways: we alerted our membership – in person and through our website; we encouraged them to exercise their free speech by contacting their elected representatives; and, we organized a rally at the State Capitol. How can this possibly be called lobbying?”

They are trying to make it very 1984-ish…in that it won’t be actually illegal to petition the government for redress of grievances, but there will be so many hoops to jump through that it is inevitable that if you do attempt to petition, you’ll be in violation of the law. Naturally, this will only apply to those groups who tend to be in favor of freedom…if you are petitioning the government to tighten the screws on, say, the Church, then no scrutiny will be applied. Fascism is coming to America in little drips…just a bit more, just a bit more, just a bit more…and before you know it, you’ve lost parental authority, property rights, freedom of speech…and free exercise of religion.

All of this – plus the increasing corrupt in government and the continuing collapse of the economy – are setting up a revolutionary sentiment in the population. In Britain it looks like more than half the members of Parlaiment will not be returned after the next election; in the United States, once safe liberals like Dodd are increasingly under threat. All across the western world, the people are growing restive about the way things have gone – the way, that is, our powerful elites have screwed things up and propose to cure the disease by giving us more of the same. These attempts to silence critics are just part of the desperate, rear-guard action of the powerful…trying to shut us down and shut us out, lest we turn them all out into the streets and take back our government.

The current is set, however – it can’t be turned back; it might be delayed for a while, but the river of liberty is about to drown liberal fascism in a flood of revolution.

Well, thanks, Democrats:

Continue reading →

Ann Althouse dispatches the concept that Sotomayor’s statement was something which was garbled, out of context or in some way excusable:

…it was not an unguarded spontaneous outburst. It was a carefully written speech delivered to a particular audience. Sotomayor was saying the things that would be well-received by her audience. Indeed, I have trouble getting roused by her statement — “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” — because I’ve been immersed for a quarter century in the kind of law school environment that she addressed. Here, we sympathetically smile and nod at such things. We nurture racial analysis. We create a school of thought and hire people to write about Critical Race Theory. What Sotomayor said was actually a weak, feel-good version of the kind of racial talk that is widespread in the legal academy.

Althouse suggests that we view the statement as “racial” rather than “racist” but to me that is a distinction without a difference. The plain fact of the matter is that the liberal elite of this nation believes that white people are inherently wicked (unless they are liberal, of course) and must pay back the non-white population for what they have stolen from them…thus Sotomayor’s racist statement that a Latina woman can have insights superior to a white male’s is nothing to write home about. Its non-controversial on the left. Its like asserting that low taxes are good on the right side of the aisle – a truth so embedded in the worldview as to be considered self-evident.

But it is racist – unlike the left, we on the right have retained our understanding of right and wrong. What Martin Luther King fought against was wrong – to consider anyone superior or inferior on account of race is morally wrong; it degrades the dignity inherent in all men, which is endowed to them by God. We learned, and we’ll never go down that road again. The left learned, but only for a moment…after MLK’s death, hustlers took over and the task was no longer justice, but what could be gotten out of government. Taking off from this, a whole host of idiocy was enshrined in our institutions of higher education (such as, among other monstrosity, “Chicano Studies”

Chicano studies, black studies, feminist studies…all of these disciplines built up in order to allow race-baiters to live on the government gravy train. Sotomayor is the product of this sort of thing – she was told this twaddle in college, she believes it, and she’s going to impose it on us via judicial fiat. If we wish to fight against racism, then this is our struggle – to eject from office anyone who holds to the sort of views Sotomayor has…she might very sincerely believe she’s not racist…but many whites in the South thought that, too.

Had a bit of a party at the Noonan homestead last night then had to work on Sunday…consider this an open thread.

And I’ll bet that Obamunism just accelerates this trend:

My friend Eric Ostermeier at the University of Minnesota has been parsing 160 polls taken recently in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest, and found a surprising result. Despite having elected Barack Obama by wide margins in most of the states, voters in the region have become more conservative over the past two years. Self-identifying conservatives have reached their highest levels in at least four years:

In 2006, the percentage of Minnesotans identifying as conservatives plunged 5.3 points (15.9 percent) to just 28.1 percent of Gopher State residents. Self-identified conservatives in Iowa also declined by 5.1 points (13.9 percent) to 31.5 percent that year, with the largest drop occurring in Wisconsin, with a 6.1-point decline (16.9 percent) to 29.9 percent. In that November’s election cycle, Republicans lost control of the Minnesota House, the Iowa House, the Wisconsin Senate, as well as three U.S. House seats (MN-01, IA-01, WI-08).

The percentage of residents identifying as conservatives declined again in 2007, by 1.6 points in Minnesota (to 26.5 percent), by 3.0 points in Iowa (to 28.5 percent), and by 2.2 points in Wisconsin (to 27.7 percent).

However, during the last two years, conservatism seems to be mounting a comeback in the Upper Midwest, even though the 2008 election cycle saw Republicans lose control of the Wisconsin Assembly, and lose additional seats in the Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Iowa House, and Iowa Senate.

In Minnesota, those Gopher State residents identifying as conservative increased by 1.3 points in 2008 (to 27.8 percent) and by another 1.2 points to 29.0 percent in an aggregation of polling data through the first five months of 2009. This marks the largest percentage of Minnesotans viewing themselves as conservative since 2005.

In Iowa and Wisconsin, the conservative resurgence has been even more pronounced.

Obviously, that didn’t help much in 2008, but part of the answer for that may be in the candidates fielded by the Republicans.

We’re being fed a siren song by the left and by weak kneed GOPers that we have to mute our conservatism…to be less confrontational, to be more nicey-nice and, of course, be more willing to “accept” moderates (which means, of course, “pour out your sweat and treasure for nominal GOPers who will cut you off at the knees when it really matters”). This bit of advice from liberals is what liberals want very much for us to do – because anything which tends to allow them to appear moderate by blending in with the GOP helps them get elected by a center/right electorate. This bit of advice from weak kneed GOPers is what the weak kneed want because they prefer to be invited to the cool parties and have soft-ball interviews on MSM talk shows…makes ’em look smart and important, ya know? Combined, this advice will allow the left to have a kept GOP minority and allow the left to rule the roost. This advice thus doesn’t commend itself to me.

We need to be more stark in our differentiation with the left – with Obama and his Democrats we must be clearly and absolutely different from them. When the wheels finish coming off the Obama Express, we have to be in a position where we warned it would happen, and have a clear alternate plan already in the public mind. Its like this – we screwed up and we lost; the liberals won…allow the liberals to run things and thus allow them to take full responsibility for how bad it gets. Enunciate a clear, conservative message and the people will swing back to us.

Example:

…Sotomayor is poised to be the first Hispanic, and the third woman, to serve on the Supreme Court She appears headed for confirmation, needing a majority vote in a Senate, where Democrats have 59 votes. But White House officials also want a smooth confirmation, not one that bogs down them or their nominee.

As a senator, Obama supported a failed attempt by Democrats to stall President George W. Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court. (emphasis added)

So, you see, the whole “better not fight against Sotomayor” may be translated as “we know we have a kook leftist, racist nominee, and we want to scare you away from doing even half what we did to your highly qualified nominees”. Helping the Democrats in this effort are week kneed Senate GOPers who figure that we rank and file GOPers should trust them on this and not go all out…of course, given that these Senate GOPers have presided over a net 16 seat loss over the past two cycles, I don’t know if we rank and file types are exactly in awe over their political acumen…

A timely reminder of what he rescued us from:

Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man. – Ronald Reagan

Like night following day – this stuff is not hard to figure out:

Crude oil rose, capping its biggest monthly gain in a decade, as the dollar weakened against the euro, bolstering the appeal of commodities.

Oil climbed above $66 a barrel to a six-month high as the dollar declined beyond $1.41 against the euro for the first time this year, making raw materials such as oil and gold an attractive alternative investment. Prices also gained as U.S., and Asian indicators pointed to a global economic recovery.

“The devaluation of the dollar is leading to the revaluation of energy and commodities in general,” said John Kilduff, senior vice president of energy at MF Global in New York. “This is a monetary-based rally. The market is focused on the future and ignoring the fundamentals of the present day crude-oil supply and demand picture.”

The wife asked me last week why gas prices were rising when there was no shortage – I opined that it was probably being run up by people dropping dollars and dollar-denominated securities because Obama is leading us right into high inflation, and maybe hyperinflation. No one with any sense wants to hold on to dollars right now – buy land, buy commodities, stock up on canned food: buy anything you can which has intrinsic value and you’ll come out ahead under Obamunism.

Now, there could be a silver lining in this – the collapse of the dollar’s value means things we grow, mine and make will become cheaper on the global market. Given this, if we enter into a crash program of increasing the amount of stuff we make, mine and grow, we can start to work our way out of this. The problem is that Obama and his Democrats don’t even suspect this – its outside of their worldview, and thus they will be impervious to any attempt to explain to them that even their boneheadedness can now be worked to our advantage if we stop being boneheaded.

We’re about to enter into the very worst economic times we’ve ever experienced. A bit of poverty will, I think, be salubrious for us in the long run. We elected the stupidest man we could have carrying on the stupidest possible policies over the past 75 years. Hopefully what we’re about to go through will teach us our lesson.