Quote Of The Day: 2015 is the new 1938 edition

September 12, 2015
x

The fruit of appeasement

National Review’s David French on Democrats voting for the Iran deal:

It’s entirely appropriate that the Democrats filibustered Republican efforts to block the Iran Deal on September 10. After all, the Democrats — now fully the party of jihadist appeasement — are the primary political repository of September 10 thinking, but without the excuse of ignorance. We know what jihadists are capable of. We know their war aims. And yet the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to grant the world’s most powerful terrorist state a $150 billion economic stimulus, access to international arms markets, and access to ballistic missile technology – without even stopping their nuclear program or establishing a viable inspection program

Remember that. Democrats know just how bad a deal Obama and Kerry have crafted: that’s why they filibustered the cloture motion — the cowards didn’t want to be on record voting to let genocidal maniacs in Tehran get their hands on nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter, however; the public knows the Democrats own this fiasco-in-the-making.

And for those who forget, we’ll make sure to remind them. This is unforgivable.

To paraphrase Cato the Elder: Factio Democratica delenda est.

PS: Click through to the original post for video explaining the subject line.


Meet Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, anti-democratic Democrat. @SenWhitehouse

June 2, 2015
"No freedom of speech for you, Denier!"

“No freedom of speech for you, Denier!”

Because all Wrong Thought must not just be criticized, but made criminal:

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.

The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.

Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”

Thus the law is weaponized to crush dissent. Think the research into anthropogenic climate change is flawed? Question the manipulated data? Point out the fact that none of its apologists’ predictions have come true? Expose the cronyism and rent-seeking between “Green” businesses and the self-dealing statist pols who hand them subsidies in return for campaign donations? Argue that the evidence indicates climate change may be far more due to natural cycles than the harmless trace gas that’s also plant food that man has pumped into the atmosphere?

Do that, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States —including the 1st Amendment!— wants you punished. Even if he isn’t sure you didn’t do anything wrong:

To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke.

And thus Sheldon Whitehouse’s progressive, liberal fascist America, skeptics, from bloggers to scientists and any corporations or foundations that wish to support them (1) are under suspicion and liable to have to defend themselves in court — at their own (ruinous) expense.

Because Wrong Thinking and Wrong Speech must be punished.

Mao would approve.

via Pirate’s Cove

Footnote:
(1) If that’s the case, I might as well get some money out of being a Gaea-hating traitor to the planet. Any AGW-skeptic foundations or millionaires want to fund a willing shill, I’m your guy.

 


Free Speech: I find your lack of faith disturbing, America.

May 24, 2015
x

Do we need a refresher?

Via Tom Nichols, here’s Charles Cooke on the results of a survey showing a majority of Democrats and a significant minority of Republicans effectively favor repealing the 1st Amendment:

Depressing news from YouGov:

“YouGov’s latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups. Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.”

What’s disturbing is that the speech in question doesn’t directly incite violence. It doesn’t urge people to go right now and burn the shops of those unliked people “over there.”

Rather, the “hate speech” referred to is a vague term (1) meaning “hurtful things you said that I don’t like.” To give a personal example, I’m very clear regarding my dislike for Islam: I think it an antisemitic, misogynistic, and bigoted faith with aggressive imperatives that lead it to demand supremacy over other faiths and to make war on their adherents until they submit. I have serious questions about whether it is or can be compatible with liberal, post-Enlightenment societies, at least with regard to Muslims who choose to live it as Muhammad intended.

For some, that would qualify as “hate speech”under the standards of that survey, because I would be “stirring up hatred” against Islam, though I would never advocate violence against Muslims, no matter how strong my criticisms of their faith. As Cooke explains, that standard is nevertheless exactly what would get me in trouble in the UK, where free speech protections are dying on the vine under the assault of laws such as the Public Order Act.

That a majority of the self-identified adherents of one of our two major parties would favor laws to criminalize the expression of thought — and that a large portion of the supposedly conservative party would agree with them! — is profoundly disturbing. I hope, indeed, I pray, that this is simply because people agreed with something they thought “sounded reasonable” and didn’t think through the implications thereof, rather than indicating a fundamental change to something that has made us, as a nation, truly exceptional.

Otherwise, we’re in deep trouble.

RELATED: While a number of Republicans have lost their way when it comes to free speech, let’s not forget that it was the Democrats who actually proposed an amendment effectively gutting the 1st Amendment.

Footnote:
(1) This is a great analysis of the increasing calls in the MSM for censoring free speech. Well-worth reading. (h/t Charles Cooke)


ObamaCare Architect: To Fool Stupid American Voters “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage”

November 10, 2014

As if we needed any proof that the promises of Obamacare were false, here’s one of its architects admitting that the deceptions were deliberate. Be sure to watch the video, and tell your congresscritter: nothing less than full repeal will do.

Nice Deb

Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying that liberals wake up every morning and ask themselves, “how can we fool them, today?”

Nothing demonstrates that truism better than the dishonest methods Democrats used to passed ObamaCare.

The government  takeover of the United States health care system was based on lies according to the law’s architect, Jonathan Gruber, in a recently revealed video. Gruber, the MIT professor who helped design Obamacare, openly stated that the law was passed through stealth to fool the stupid American people.

Because dishonesty and lack of transparency is Grubby Gruber’s M/O, he has been caught lying about the law in the past.

In 2012, after he started a lucrative business helping states set up their health care exchanges, Gruber argued that according to the letter of the law, only state exchanges were eligible for subsidies. But by the summer of 2014, with legal challenges based on that reading of…

View original post 437 more words


Gwyneth Paltrow: useful idiot for Liberal Fascism

October 10, 2014
"Ready for dictatorship."

“Ready for dictatorship.”

So, yesterday President Obama screwed up traffic here in Los Angeles so he could attend a(nother) fund-raiser at the California ATM, hobnobbing over $1,000 a plate meals with the Hollywood glitterati  at the home of actress and Obama fan-girl Gwyneth Paltrow. As Politico reports, her introduction of the President was cringe-worthy on several levels:

Gwyneth Paltrow wants President Barack Obama to know: she’s just like everyone else.

She makes $16 million per movie, sure, but that doesn’t mean that she’s not worried about Obama getting equal pay legislation through Congress.

At a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee held at her house in Brentwood Thursday evening, she called the issue “very important to me as a working mother.”

In front of a crowd that included fellow actors Julia Roberts (who took her picture in front of the presidential limo on her way out) and Bradley Whitford (that’s Josh Lyman from “The West Wing”), Paltrow told Obama she is “one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest.”

Reminding Obama that she hosted an expat fundraiser for him in London when she was living there, Paltrow described Obama as a president who would be studied for generations, and a role model for everyone of this generation.

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass,” she told the crowd.

Like I said yesterday on Twitter:

Because we all know “working moms” who struggle with making at least $16,000,000 per year, live in huge mansions in Brentwood and Bel Air, and have to get by with only a few dozen maids, nannies, groundskeepers, and cooks. Not to mention personal assistants.

Life must be hell for poor Gwyneth.

But that was nothing compared to the second highlighted statement, in which the “working mother” wishes Obama had absolute power. She yearns not for a constitutional chief executive, whose job is to enforce the laws Congress passes in an evenhanded manner. Nope, what she wants is a king, a caliph, an emperor, a dictator… a fuhrer.

Yeah, I went there. I’m not accusing Paltrow of consciously (1) being a fascist, liberal or otherwise; I don’t believe she’s bright enough or cares to really understand or care about such things. But she makes it clear that fascist leadership, in which all power is vested in a Leader who embodies the will of the nation and knows what’s best for it, is what she wants. Democracy is just too messy, and there are too many unenlightened people pushing their own wrongheaded agendas, in spite of what Gwyneth knows to be right. And so we need to get rid of it and just give Obama all the power he needs, because Gwyneth is sure Barack will only do good with it, progressive superhero that he is.

No, she’s not a liberal fascist. She’s just a useful idiot. A beautiful, smiling, and vapid useful idiot.

Trouble is, there are so many like her in our cultural elites.

RELATED: Other posts in Cult of Personality.

PS: Have a look at this photo of Paltrow staring worshipfully at the man who should have all the power he needs.

PPS: Oh, and here is how she finished her introduction of Him …er… him:‘Then turning over the microphone, she said, “you’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly.”  You may now barf.

PPPS: Speaking of liberal fascism, you need to read… well, “Liberal Fascism.” Trust me, it’s an eye-opener.

Footnote:
(1) There’s only one thing she’s conscious of.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


DNC vice-chairwoman calls for scrapping the Constitution

September 29, 2014
Donna Brazile

Donna Brazile

Over the weekend Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s former campaign manager, current vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee, and a regular commentator apologist for the Democratic Party on CNN and other networks, made it quite clear what she –and, I assume, many of her high-ranking Democrat colleagues– think of our governing document:

Got that? The Constitution, the skeleton of our Republic and perhaps the single most successful governing scheme in history, just isn’t up to the job anymore. It can’t stop the charlatans (1), the loudmouths (2), or the filthy rich (3) from hijacking our democracy! We must have a new one to save the Republic! (4)

What really bugs Ms. Brazile and many in the Democratic leadership is that the Constitution won’t let them do everything they want to do: it’s standing in the way of what they define as “progress” — bigger, more intrusive government; cradle to grave welfare state; higher taxes; and rule by technocratic elites with only an occasional nodding obeisance to democratic accountability.

In other words, France.

Earth to Donna Brazile: that means the Constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do — to limit power and divide sovereignty, to preserve human liberty and to prevent tyranny by preventing its increasing concentration in a few hands. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

It’s actually been darned successful at that, too, which has been driving progressives such as Donna Brazile nuts for over 100 years, since the future President Wilson denounced our founding documents as obsolete in the 1890s. Convinced that they have seen the future and know its preordained course, they’ve tried mightily to ignore it, work around it, twist it, warp it…

And now call for its replacement.

Not that I’m criticizing Donna Brazile for sentiment. After all, as a free American, she has the perfect right to express her opinion. Just as I have a right to say the idea is bad and that she has strawberry jam for brains.

Truth is, I’m grateful to Ms. Brazile, Vice-Chairwoman for the Democratic National Committee. I’m glad that at last a Democrat politician is being open about what Democrat politicians really believe.

PS: Somehow I doubt that Americans really want to take the advice of someone who couldn’t figure out why her health insurance premiums went up after the passage of Obamacare.

PPS: Move went well, by the way. But now the “I finally have time to stop and breathe” exhaustion is setting in, so this is it for me today.

Footnotes:
(1) Well, true. Obama did get elected.
(2) Funny how I immediately thought of Chuck Schumer.
(3) I’m sure she includes lefty eco-loon billionaire Tom Steyer, who’s doing his level best to buy a victory for the Democrats.
(4) Pet-peeve alert: a lot of people shorthand the US as a “democracy.” No, we are not a direct democracy, as was ancient Athens. We are a democratic republic that elects representatives who vote on national issues for us. We are democratic because we have a very wide franchise, but we are not a democracy.


Liberal Fascism laid bare in one @DonnaBrazile tweet

September 7, 2014
Donna Brazile

Donna Brazile

Donna Brazile is a Democrat activist and frequent on-air spokeswoman for the party, when she’s not pretending to be an objective analyst. And she was the manager for Vice President Gore’s unsuccessful campaign in 2000. She also, apparently, deeply desires rule-by-decree in the United States.

This morning she tweeted:

Well, gosh, Donna. I’m awful sorry that Republicans in the House and Senate, listening to their constituents (1), act like an opposition and oppose policies they think are bad. That’s what opposition parties do in democratic republics like ours; it’s part of the whole scheme. (2) If President Obama wants the minimum wage raised or our immigration policies reformed, maybe he should come up with revised proposals the Republicans might agree to. You know, political give-and-take?

Nah. That would be too much like work for him, and he hates that.

But, back to that “executive action” bit, Donna, we carefully and firmly divided the lawmaking power from the law enforcement power: Congress has the former, the Executive the latter, and one doesn’t get to do the other’s job just because it’s feeling frustrated.  As Madison wrote in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

It must be frustrating for you that Obama can’t act like a tyrant, but, last time I checked, we hadn’t passed an enabling act. You know, though, I seem to recall a country that did

What Mr. Madison called “tyranny,” Donna, seems to be the goal of modern American progressivism. A “liberal fascism.”

Thanks for making that clear.

Note: Sometimes the tweet takes a few seconds (minutes?) to display. I think it’s a problem in the hookup between Twitter and WordPress.

Footnote:
(1) That’s why it’s called “democracy.” You Democrats should try to acquaint yourselves with it, sometime.
(2) There’s this thing called “the Constitution.” It gives all the lawmaking power to Congress, not the president. Sorry if that frustrates you.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! Thanks, Glenn!


LOL! Obama’s Climate Plan Spooks U.S. Democrats

August 27, 2014

I wonder when Senate Democrats will finally get it through their thick, obsequious heads that Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss if they get reelected? This climate accord is the latest example of how, in Obama’s mind, Congress is an option, not a requirement when writing laws issuing ukases.

Watts Up With That?

Yesterday we mentioned Obama’s nuclear option event, and now the fallout begins. |

From Timothy Cama and Scott Wong, The Hill
keep-calm-and-run-for-your-life-66[1]President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous.

The administration is in talks at the United Nations about a deal that would seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by “naming and shaming” governments that fail to take significant action.

The State Department on Wednesday denied a report in The New York Times that the plan is to come up with a treaty that would not require Senate confirmation, but that appeared to provide cold comfort to Democrats worried the issue will revive GOP cries about an imperial Obama presidency.

One Democratic strategist said the proposal would put swing-state candidates who are critical to the party keeping its Senate majority “in front of the firing squad.”

“You’re … making it more difficult for…

View original post 439 more words


Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) apparently has trouble with the Constitution

July 13, 2014

dunce_cap

So, I’m enjoying a quiet morning and reading an article on the reactions of the various candidates for the US Senate from Alaska to the Hobby Lobby decision, when I come across this howler from the incumbent, Mark Begich:

“I believe people, not corporations, have a right to practice their constitutional right to freedom of religion, but not at the expense of others,” said Begich.

Sigh.

It’s tough to decide whether Senator Begich, whose seat is not secure, is just ignorant of what the Supreme Court decided, the Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or if he’s a desperate hack just reciting DNC talking points. Of course, both could be true. But the key to that quote above is the senator’s odd belief that, upon forming a corporation, individuals somehow give up their natural rights.

Senator Begich, meet the First Amendment. First Amendment, meet Senator Begich:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right to peaceably assemble has been held to include the right to freely associate. See, for example, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which held, in effect, that individuals do not give up their rights when they form an association (1). And a corporation is an association of individuals with rights and inherits those rights:

Corporations have rights because natural persons have rights. It is sometimes said that corporations are “creations of the state,” but that’s not really true. Corporations are created by people — they are merely recognized by the state. 

To deny the rights of a “legal person,” such as a corporation, is no different than denying those rights to the individuals who own that corporation. Perhaps the newspaper editors of Senator Begich’s home state would like to ask him if their papers, in his view, lack the rights of free speech and freedom of the press, also recognized by the First Amendment, simply because they’re incorporated businesses. The answer should be interesting.

PS: Democrats sure have a problem with that whole freedom and democracy thing, don’t they? Why, yes. Yes they do.

Footnote:
(1) In short, the state of Alabama demanded the NAACP surrender its membership lists. The NAACP argued –correctly, given the times– that this loss of their members’ privacy would have a chilling affect on their members rights of free speech and free association.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Did Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) threaten a presidential coup d’etat?

June 27, 2014
Lackey

Lackey

The topic was immigration, both the current crisis at the border and the Democrats’ desperate desire to have the House pass the comprehensive amnesty bill already approved in the Senate. You can read the whole thing at PJM, but I think the senior senator at Illinois might want to walk this part back:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor.

“I don’t know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

“Borrow the power,” Dick? Pray, under what authority would the president, to whom the Constitution assigns no lawmaking power (that’s your job, Dickie-boy), “borrow” the power to “solve the problem,” that is, to make law? What you mean is that he would unilaterally seize the power and abuse his administrative authority and prosecutorial discretion (even more than he already has) to create a new immigration reality (and millions of new Democratic voters, you hope) by fiat. By ukase. By his will, alone.

You call it “borrowing power,” Dick.

A rational person, on the other hand, and not some fawning courtier of a liberal fascist, calls it what it is: dictatorship.

Resign, Dick. You’re a disgrace to your oath of office.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Efficient as ever, Hillary Clinton attacks 1st and 2nd amendments in one sentence

June 18, 2014

liberal tolerance

Hey, why only gut one amendment in the Bill of Rights when you can trash two at the same time? It’s a progressive win-win!

During a televised town hall, Hillary Clinton was asked about guns, and said that the viewpoint held by gun-rights advocates “terrorizes” the majority of Americans.

The town hall, broadcast live on CNN on Tuesday, closely resembled a commercial for Clinton’s new memoir, “Hard Choices.”

(…)

“We cannot let a minority of people – and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” said Clinton.

Get that? Not only are you allowed to own firearms only at the sufferance of the State, but you are not even allowed to hold a point of view that differs from the majority opinion, presumably as long as that majority happens to agree with the progressive statist position.

And “terrorizes?” Really, Hillary? I’m not allowed to hold the opinion that the natural right to self-defense allows me and all other Americans to arm ourselves and that the Bill of Rights recognizes that unalienable right against government power, because said opinion might make your neighbors in Chappaqua get the vapors? How weird. In all my reading about the American Founding and our constitutional settlement, I never ran across the part that talked about how we have free speech as long as it isn’t scary. I don’t recall Voltaire saying “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, as long as it does not offend the majority.”

Hey, Hillary? What about other minorities? Blacks in the 1950s and 1960s were of the opinion that they held the same natural and civil rights as other Americans and loudly demonstrated to demand those rights be honored. That surely scared the majority Whites at the time, so should Blacks have not been allowed to hold those opinions? I’m curious for your thoughts on the matter.

File this away for 2016, folks, should Lady Macbeth decide to run: it is the opinion of a leading candidate for President of the United States, who swears an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution —including the Bill of Rights— that you are only allowed to express your own opinions as long as most people are comfortable with them.

Comforting, isn’t it?

h/t Bryan Preston

PS: Hillary is no outlier for her party: just the other day, President Obama was praising Australia’s draconian gun confiscation law. The simple truth is that the Left approves of the Constitution only when it is convenient to them.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Democrats’ anti-constitutional constitutional amendment. Updated

May 19, 2014
"Senate Grinch"

Hates free speech

Upset by court rulings that, in effect, declare that “free speech” really means free speech, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) introduced a constitutional amendment granting Congress sweeping powers to regulate campaign expenditures, both monetary and “in kind.” This amendment has the full support of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):

“The shadowy Koch brothers are attempting… a hostile takeover of American democracy,” Reid charged Thursday. “No one should be able to pump unlimited funds into a political campaign.”

Reid urged his fellow lawmakers to support a proposed constitutional amendment, written by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall and co-sponsored by 40 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats, that would give Congress the right to regulate all political contributions and all spending of any kind in all federal elections. (It would also give states the power to do the same in state elections.) The Supreme Court has held such far-reaching restrictions to be unconstitutional, which is why Reid wants to take the extreme step of changing the nation’s founding document.

“Amending our Constitution is not something we take lightly,” Reid said. “But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced.”

You know, I fully expect Reid to soon start ranting about strawberries. But, back to the Left’s latest assault on free speech, here’s the key excerpt from the proposed amendment:

Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office, and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Byron York is right, of course: this amendment has no chance of passing the Senate and House, where two-thirds votes are needed, nor has it any chance of being approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. It’s another attempt to find an issue that will get their base voters excited for the coming election and distract from the rolling Obamacare disaster by invoking two great liberal demons — the Koch brothers (1) and the Citizens United decision.

What is disturbing, however, is Reid and the Democrats’ willingness to put themselves on record as willing to curb our fundamental freedoms, free speech being a natural, unalienable right, in pursuit of short-term electoral goals. It’s emblematic of progressivism, which sees the Constitution as obsolete, and of the Democrats’ predilection for putting their narrow electoral interests ahead of the nation’s well-being — for instance, undercutting American forces even before they enter battle in order to oppose a Republican president. It’s not new, however; we’ve seen plenty of examples in recent years of anti-democratic Democrats, such as former Governor Perdue of North Carolina suggesting that congressional elections be delayed, something not even done during the Civil War, largely because her party was set to do poorly.

It’s not that this amendment would be unconstitutional –by the nature of the process, ratification would make it part of the Constitution and therefore “constitutional”– but its very nature is profoundly and disturbingly anti-constitutional, striking at the concepts of natural rights that are foundational to the Republic. Political speech must be free to have any meaning at all, and that includes expressing your political opinions by donating money and time or other property to further a cause or support a candidate. That the Democrats would think of attacking this fundamental freedom in order to excite their base speaks of a deep rot within their party (2), something that should concern us all.

PS: Take a look at this list of the biggest donors since 1989, and note a couple of things: first, 11 of the top 16 at least lean Democratic. You don’t find one that leans Republican until number 17. And the evil Koch brothers, whom Harry Reid denounces daily like Cato demanding the destruction of Carthage, only place 59th on the list. That alone reveals the vile cynicism of his bleatings: the Majority Leader of the United States Senate by name demagoguing against two American citizens, regardless of the truth. Second, the proposed amendment would require statutes passed by Congress to be implemented. Take a good look again at that donor list: unions and other groups have donated tens of millions to the Democrats, with unions also providing invaluable in-kind donations in the form of campaign volunteers. Does anyone think the Democrats, given half a chance, wouldn’t write implementing legislation that somehow allowed these groups to keep right on helping Democrats? If so, raise your hand; I have a bridge to sell you.

Footnotes:
(1) A pair of libertarian billionaires who are apparently plotting to take over the government with the horrifying goal of leaving us alone. Where do I sign up?
(2) Not that I wholly excuse Republicans. John McCain’s sponsorship of the hateful McCain-Feingold bill revealed him as a constitutional lightweight.

UPDATE: National Review’s Charles Cooke wrote about this a few days and had the following to say:

The move is the final act of a contrived and hamfisted morality play, whose purpose is to cast the Democratic party and its allies as champions of the people and the Kochs as a proxy for all that ails America. Lofty as its broader goal may seek to be, the whole endeavor nevertheless carries with it the ugly smack of the Bill of Attainder — of a change to the nation’s constitutional settlement that serves largely to punish two people that the man with the gavel disdains. Rambling in the general direction of a BuzzFeed reporter earlier this week, Reid inadvertently revealed something about his motivations. His reelection to the Senate in 1998, he griped, “was awful”: “I won it, but just barely. I felt it was corrupting, all this corporate money.” Translation: I almost lost my seat once, so I need the supreme law to protect me. Corruption, schmorruption. This is about power.

Do read the whole thing.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Schumer calls for Obama to use IRS as weapon against Tea Party. UPDATE: Et tu, Booker?

January 24, 2014
"And an upgrade to the Lido Deck. Because it's your right, baby!"

A shark has a more sincere smile

Wait, didn’t we just have a national stink over the IRS harassing conservative and libertarian groups for their political beliefs? Yet now, not at all hiding his lack of understanding of or even his disdain for the principles that underlie our political system, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), in a speech at the progressive Center for American Progress, has called on President Obama to use the IRS to limit the activities of these same groups.

Arguing that Tea Party groups have a financial advantage after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, Schumer said the Obama administration should bypass Congress and institute new campaign finance rules through the IRS.

“It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies—we must redouble those efforts immediately,” Schumer said.

“One of the great advantages the Tea Party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created [by] the ill advised decision [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission],” Schumer said. “Obviously the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”

What really upsets Chuck is free speech and that these groups are effective at getting their message out and that people respond to it. Citizens United merely respected the First Amendment and, in the process, somewhat leveled the playing field against liberal donor groups and the liberal MSM that gives the Democrats arguably illegal in-kind aid. Can’t have that.

Note also his acknowledgement that no further restrictions on political speech would pass the House. Smart man, that Chuck. What escapes him, or really what he refuses to admit, is that the massacre his party suffered in the 2010 midterms in the House was due to popular reaction against his party and its policies. Quite literally, the Republican Party, the majority party in the House –the People’s House–  represents the will of most of the American people.

His solution? Rule by decree via administrative rule-making, in defiance of that will. Use the power of big government to silence the proponents of limited government.

Admit it, Chuck: What you really want is an Enabling Act, not a Constitution.

It seems Chuckie also hates competition. Would-be tyrants usually do.

Schumer also proposed electoral reform in his speech. “Our very electoral structure has been rigged to favor Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries,” he said.

He argued that this is due to the political makeup of primary voters and gerrymandering by Republicans who “draw districts where a Democrat could never be elected.”

Schumer recommended a primary system “where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a run-off.”

Whining against gerrymandering is rich, since Democrats have long benefited from the creation of safe seats. I don’t like it; I’d like to get rid of it. But those are the rules we have now, so, tough, Senator.Try enacting policies that don’t lead to a wipe out in state-level elections, and maybe on day your allies will control the process. And I’ll bet you’ll suddenly be a fan of the system, too.

The leaders of the Democratic Party sure have a problem with democracy, don’t they?

PS: Anyone else get a weird vibe from Schumer, like he’s sworn an oath to Don Corleone? The guy just oozes “made man.”

RELATED: Ted Cruz sends a letter to Eric Holder, demanding an independent prosecutor to look into the IRS scandal. Worth reading.

UPDATE: Just an hour ago on Twitter, Senator Cory “Imaginary Friend” Booker (D-NJ) had this to say about Senator Schumer’s call for restrictions on free speech:

via Katnandu

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I suspect Secretary Sebelius will resign after the midterm elections. UPDATE: Accusations of “criminal obstruction”

December 11, 2013
"A track record of epic failure"

In hot water

Mostly because, if the Republicans take the Senate and she keeps giving contempt-laden answers like these, she’s sure to face impeachment:

[Rep. John] Shimkus (R-IL)moved on to try and get Sebelius to acknowledge that items the Obama administration is claiming are free now because of Obamacare are not actually free: “I had my phone on and when my phone rang on left on because I wanted to talk to a Democrat state senator from my state of Illinois, who was on the insurance commission and he said mandated preventive services are laid directly on premium prices. So you cannot say as you have numerous times that these preventative care services our, quote, free of charge, can you?”

Again, Sebelius stuck to the party line: “They are free to the consumer.”

This sparked a response from Shimkus, “There is no free lunch, Madam Secretary! If the premiums increase because of the mandated coverage based upon state senator from the state of Illinois, a Democrat, who is in oversight of the insurance of the state of Illinois and he said when you mandate coverage it is ruled directly on premiums, premiums increase, that is paying, you cannot say these are free of charge!”

“Consumers will not have a co-pay or deductible,” Sebelius fired back, and refused to acknowledge that anyone’s premiums have risen due to Obamacare mandates, despite the widely reported fact that millions of Americans have seen their health insurance premiums and deductibles rise sharply since Obamacare’s implementation.

I’d recommend that Madame Secretary read Bastiat’s “That Which is Seen” essay, as well as anything by Thomas Sowell, for a reminder that nothing comes without cost. But that would assume she’e even interested in learning such things, which she isn’t.

In fact, the former-governor’s answers at this committee hearing were indicative of utter contempt for those charged with spending the public’s money and, by implication with overseeing how that money is spent. She simply would not give Mr. Shimkus a straight answer, until he gave up and said it was like dealing with North Korea.

This isn’t the first time the HHS secretary has given non-answers to legitimate questions posed by a co-equal branch of the government. Indeed, it’s a pattern with this whole administration; one just has to recall any number of Eric Holder’s appearances before House committees, or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s patent lies to Congress. Granted, this happens to one degree or another in all administrations, especially when the opposition is on an obvious fishing expedition, but that isn’t the case, here. Republicans are posing valid questions in pursuit of their constitutional duties of oversight, and members of the administration are duty-bound to answer.

But, more and more, Obama administration officials are doing the equivalent to answering with “lovely weather, isn’t it?” and acting as if they have no responsibilities to the public at all.

There is an answer for this. I refer the reader to Article 1, sections 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

…and…

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

I would argue that Kathleen Sebelius’s utter disregard for the constitutional proprieties, such as giving a straight answer to a straight question from a member of the legislature, merits impeachment, as much to send a warning to other government officials as to punish her. Now, it would never get through a trial in the Senate as currently constituted. That’s fine; we have more pressing matters to deal with, such as taking control of said Senate in next year’s elections. We must control the tool before we can wield it.

But, after that, some salutary execu… er… impeachments may well be in order; I’ve come to the conclusion we don’t do it often enough. (1)

Which is why I think we’ll see a few key resignations starting in late November, 2014.

BREAKING UPDATE:

Just as I was finishing this post, the following news broke:

In a letter addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) accuses the Department of criminally threatening the vendor that developed troubled Healthcare.gov website. Issa chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has been investigating the extremely rocky rollout of Healthcare.gov on October 1.

Issa cites a December 6, 2013 letter that HHS sent to Creative Computing Solutions, Inc. In that latter, “the Department claimed that the company is contractually precluded from producing documents to Congress. The letter further stated that the Department will respond to requests from Congress on the company’s behalf.” Issa’s letter states that other Healthcare.gov vendors received similar letters.

But Issa notes that the actual HHS contract precludes vendors from sharing documents with other companies, not Congress, which is charged by the Constitution with overseeing the actions of the executive branch.

“The Department’s attempt to threaten CCSI for the purpose of deterring the company from providing documents to Congress places the officials responsible for drafting and sending the letter on the wrong side of federal statutes that prohibit obstruction of a congressional investigation,” Issa states in the letter to HHS. He cites Section 1505 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code,…

Be sure to read the rest. Sebelius may be leaving sooner than I thought.

Footnote:
(1) While I agree completely with Andrew McCarthy that President Obama himself merits impeachment and removal from office, I don’t think we’d ever have enough votes in the Senate (2) to convict him. However, “bumping off ” one or two cabinet-level appointees might convince him to spend more time on the golf course and less abusing his power for the time he has left.
(2) Of course, it’s always possible Obama will leave Congress no choice, whether they’re sure of the votes or not.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Tax-cheat Charlie Rangel: Obama should just bypass Congress

November 25, 2013
"Cancel elections? Wonderful idea"

“We don’t need no steeenking Congress!”

How dare the opposition act like an opposition and actually oppose what President Obama is trying to do, even though they think his plans are awful! I mean, what the Hell do they think they’re in Congress for, to represent the people who elected them, or enact Obama’s will?

New York’s Charlie Rangel obviously thinks it’s the latter:

Congressman Charlie Rangel has a solution for bypassing gridlock in Washington D.C.: executive orders for “everything.”

In an interview last night with NY1, the congressman praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to push through the so-called “nuclear option” to end filibusters on most presidential nominees. But he lamented the fact the work-around could not be used for legislation, suggesting the president turn to the executive orders–like the kind used to end the deportation many people who’d entered the country illegally as children.

“You know, the DREAM Act for the kids that came over here and didn’t know their home town, the president did that by executive order. What I did is I’ve taken out the language that he used and I’m gonna see why we can’t use executive orders for everything. What’s he gonna do? Make the Republicans angry? They’re gonna get annoyed? They’re not gonna cooperate?”

He went on to slam the Republican Party for refusing to cooperate–accusing them of acting against the interests of their own constituents.

Progressive Democrats. They’re all for democracy and the Constitution, until they can’t get what they want. Because, you know, they know better, and any opposition is illegitimate.

Via my blog-buddy ST, who had this to say:

How DARE Republicans disagree with Democrats and President Obama on how best to turn around the economic crisis our country faces – a crisis that has actually gotten WORSE under their watch?  Shame on the GOP for accurately predicting exactly what problems Obamacare would cause.  It was just pure luck they got it right. There can’t possibly be any genuine philosophical differences for disagreement with liberals. Why, conservatives and Republicans just want to “destroy” people. Oh, and raaaaaaaaaacism!

Liberal Fascism. It’s a thing.

PS: Did I mention Charlie is a tax cheat?


Democrat city council of Annapolis plots coup d’etat against Republican mayor. Updated

November 11, 2013
"Cancel elections? Wonderful idea"

“The people have voted! So what?”

Democrats love democracy, except when the people vote for a Republican:

Days after a Republican was elected mayor of Annapolis, City Council members say they will revisit legislation that would strip the mayor’s office of much of its power.

Democratic Alderman Ross Arnett of Ward 8 tells The Capital he will introduce a charter amendment to move Annapolis to a council-manager style of government. The city manager would report directly to the City Council, not the mayor.

A Republican hadn’t been elected mayor since 1997; apparently, the prospect of Mike Pantelides (R) finally winning against the incumbent (D) was just too much for the poor dears on the council, so they’re going to save the people from themselves.

Now, I don’t know Annapolis politics, so maybe –just maybe– the council has a good reason for making this extraordinary move against the popular will. Perhaps Pantelides is corrupt? Maybe he’s another Bob Filner? What could be so horrible that the good Democrats on the council must take such stern measures?

Doing a little research, I went to Pantelides’ campaign site to see what I could learn. And the truth, my friends, was terrifying. From his “issues” page, the monster Pantelides advocates:

The Pantelides Plan:

No new taxes
Immediate Freeze on hiring
Meet with Department Heads and require them to justify each line, item by item in their budget
Streamline city government through consolidation of departments
Explore merging services such as transportation and waste removal with Anne Arundel County
Removing wasteful spending from budget that is not specifically spent to better our city and people

The horror. Hide your children’s eyes!

I can see what likely truly upset the Democrats: Pantelides would cut into their patronage jobs and crony contracts, all the name of saving the taxpayers of Annapolis some money and giving them a more efficient city administration.

How dare he??

But, don’t worry. The Democratic city council is there to save the day, ready to strip the mayor of his powers and render his office meaningless.

Just like the people’s votes.

PS: It just occurred to me that Annapolis is home to our Naval Academy, where future officers sworn to defend freedom of the seas and our liberty are educated. The irony is palpable.

PPS: Of course, the council is showing restraint. They, at least, are going to hold a vote, unlike the Democrats of Wilmington, NC, who launched the only violent coup in US history in 1898 against a Republican-Populist city administration that dared include Black officials. Stealing power seems rather to be a tradition with them, it seems.

via reader Lance

UPDATE: Frontline State, a conservative blog and news site in Maryland, cautions that this may not be as naked a political move as it seems at first glance. The question, as editor Jim Jamitis points out, will be to see who jumps on the bandwagon.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


John Kerry throws freedom-seeking women under the bus

November 8, 2013

Amazing how progressives shout loudly for women’s rights, except in countries where women are truly oppressed. As for Kerry, the “Winter Soldier” is too dense to be called a “willing dhimmi.” He likely has no idea how he’s enabling totalitarian Sharia law.


#Obamacare: VA Democrat calls for making physicians serfs of the State

November 3, 2013
"A Democrat directs his serfs"

“A Democrat directs his serfs”

What was it I was saying yesterday about ownership of one’s own time and labor being essential to a free man or woman? Oh, yeah:

Nothing you pay money for is an inherent, natural right. To declare health care a “right” everyone is entitled to, you have to take from someone else, if need be by force, their property, whether it is their time and labor, or the products they produce. Force them to sell something for less than what it is worth or to provide it “free,” and you are effectively stealing from them, even enslaving them. For the government to demand that taxpayers pay far more than they need to for insurance in order to subsidize your medical procedures is no different than a medieval lord taking a farmer’s grain crop and giving it to his favorites.

And as if to illustrate that last point, along comes Virginia House of Delegates candidate Kathleen Murphy, a Democrat, who advocates making it a law that physicians must accept Medicare and Medicaid patients:

FYI last night at the Great Falls Grange debate, Democrat delegate candidate Kathleen Murphy said that since many doctors are not accepting medicaid and medicare patients, she advocates making it a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.

She did not recognize that the payments are inadequate to cover the doctors’ costs. She also did not recognize there is a shortage of over 45,000 physicians now and that it is forecast to be 90,000 in a few years.

Democrats appear to want to make physicians slaves of the state, but Democrats don’t admit they would just drive more doctors out of practice into retirement and other occupations. The Obamacare law and regulations are causing millions of people to lose their health insurance, drop many doctors and hospitals. The HHS internal forecast is 93 million Americans would lose their health insurance due to the Obamacare law and rules about adequacy of insurance.

It’s like the old joke in which the patient complains to the doctor that “it hurts whenever I do this,” and the doctor replies “then stop doing that!”

Progressives have created a deadly problem through government interference in the economy: their “Affordable Care Act” requires millions of individuals to buy policies and pay inflated prices for coverage they don’t need, in order to cover the costs of, among others, Medicare and Medicaid patients. But, as has been mentioned in several places, far more Medicaid “takers” are signing up than relatively well-off “payers,” threatening the viability of Obamacare, itself.

Compounding this is the doctor shortage “Mason Conservative’s” correspondent mentioned above: not just from doctors leaving the field rather than deal with Obamacare, but fewer and fewer accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients. Already reimbursed at an artificially low rate by the government for their services, many are refusing to take on more such patients –or any at all– as Obamacare signs up thousands more.

A rational person would look at the problem and recognize its causes: top-down government intervention in the healthcare market. That same rational person would then realize that the “hair of the dog” is not the solution; that, in fact, ending the disruptive government intervention is what’s called for.

But, we’re not dealing with rational people. We’re dealing with progressive Democrats, convinced against all evidence that an economy and society managed by technocratic government “experts” is best, let alone possible. It’s their central delusion and it is absolutely crucial to their political belief system.

Hence Ms. Murphy’s suggestion that doctors become servants of the State. It isn’t possible that government created this problem, it’s just some recalcitrant doctors. Or, if government did create a problem, it’s only a “glitch,” to be fixed by more, you guessed it, government intervention, even if that means taking by force of law the time and labor (the property!) of the doctors.

After all, it’s for the public good, and only government knows what’s truly good for the public.

PS: Though it is kind of fitting for the party that defended slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation, no?

RELATED: Legal Insurrection calls it the “revolt of the kulaks.”

UPDATE 12/02/2013: My blog-buddy Sister Toldjah posted an article today with more on Medicaid, Obamacare, and the doctor shortage.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Shutdown follies: the petty, petulant tyrannies of Barack Obama

October 6, 2013
"My will is enough!"

“Defy me, will you?”

While I’m not a fan of the shutdown strategy the Republicans employed in battling Obamacare, it has accomplished one thing, so far: showing what a small man President Obama is. Oppose Obamacare? Legitimately use the powers of the House, which most closely represents the people of the nation, to try to make changes to it? Dare to keep trying after he and his mean-spirited allies with shriveled souls have told you to stop? Then he’ll make sure the American people feel the pain.

We’ve already heard about the unconscionable harassment of elderly veterans who traveled to Washington to see their own monument, and then there was the bizarre news of threats to arrest priests who come to military bases to minister to servicemen, even if on a volunteer basis. Let’s take a few more.

At Mt. Pisgah, North Carolina, Bruce O’Connell runs an inn, which has been in his family for 35 years, on land leased from the federal government. Like any such business, it’s highly dependent on seasonal income. So, when, at the height of the tourist season, the Park Service told O’Connell to shutter his business, he said no. Then the Park Service decided to shut it down for him:

[O’Connell’s] family has operated the inn on the parkway about 25 miles from Asheville, N.C., for 35 years. It the only spot for many miles along the 469.1-mile mountain route to sleep or grab a meal and go to the bathroom.

A handful of guests had lunch before Park Service patrol cars blocked the driveways, turning on their orange flashing lights. Rangers turned customers away, saying the government was closed.

The 51-room inn was booked solid for October. O’Connell said he plans to send refunds to customers who already paid though many planned vacations to see the fall colors months in advance.

His 100 employees are idled; 35 live on the property.

“It’s conscience and conviction that have taken over me, and I just can’t roll over any more,” he said.

While this example is bad enough, a truly infuriating one comes from Lake Mead, where the Park Service, Obama’s chosen enforcers, are keeping people from the homes they own — including the elderly:

Joyce Spencer is 77-years-old and her husband Ralph is 80. They’ve been spending most of their time in the family ice cream store since going home isn’t an option.

The Spencers never expected to be forced out of their Lake Mead home, which they’ve owned since the 70s, but on Thursday, a park ranger said they had 24 hours to get out.

“I had to go to town today and buy Ralph undershirts and jeans because I forgot his pants,” Joyce Spencer told Action News.

The Stewart’s Point home sits on federal land, so even though the Spencers own their cabin outright, they’re not allowed in until the government reopens.

In other words, your home, your property (1), but that doesn’t matter because Barack Obama wants you to feel the pain in the belief that you’ll then blame the Republicans. Joyce and Ralph Spencer are just tools to be used, peasants living on his demesne at his sufferance. As are we all, apparently.

But many Americans just aren’t putting up with it. Not just veterans visiting monuments, but everyday Americans who simply want to enjoy scenery by driving through, or just within view. But the Park Service has tried to block that, too, by putting up road cones to prevent people from stopping to snap a picture:

Blocking access to trails and programs at South Dakota’s most popular attraction was one thing, but state officials didn’t expect Congress’ budget stalemate to shut down a view of Mount Rushmore.

The National Park Service placed cones along highway viewing areas outside Mount Rushmore this week, barring visitors from pulling over and taking pictures of the famed monument.

But, just as the WWII veterans shoved their way through the “Barrycades” at their memorial in D.C., American families like this one are letting Washington know what they think of being kept out of parks their money paid for:

I think we need a lot more of this, all across the nation. There’s more at Twitchy.

Finally, in a move that reminds one of King Cnut, the administration has decided that the ocean, itself, is shut down:

Just before the weekend, the National Park Service informed charter boat captains in Florida that the Florida Bay was “closed” due to the shutdown. Until government funding is restored, the fishing boats are prohibited from taking anglers into 1,100 square-miles of open ocean. Fishing is also prohibited at Biscayne National Park during the shutdown.

The Park Service will also have rangers on duty to police the ban… of access to an ocean. The government will probably use more personnel and spend more resources to attempt to close the ocean, than it would in its normal course of business.

Of course, the King commanded the waves in order to give his courtiers a lesson in the limits of power. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to teach us a lesson about his power.

The question remains, though, of why Obama is acting like tinhorn tyrant, stamping his feet and lashing out in a tantrum? Jonah Goldberg thinks it shows a vindictive streak on his part and an inability to see those who disagree with him as reasonable people. He’s right, I’m sure, but I also believe there’s more. Obama learned how to be a politician in the corrupt environment of Chicago, a place where political “boss-ism” is the norm and “da Mayor” is “da Boss of Bosses.” Go against the mayor, and suddenly your garbage isn’t getting picked up, or health inspectors are “finding” rats in your restaurant’s spotless kitchen. Oppose Obama, and suddenly things go wrong. Play along, and everything’s nice again. “Nice place you have here. It’d be a shame if…”

That’s how Obama sees the presidency: as the Boss of Chicago, writ large.

via lots of people on Twitter

Footnote:
(1) I have to wonder if the Spencers and other residents there have a case based on the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. There’s no denying that they’re being denied the use of their property, the use of which has been taken from them without compensation.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#NewTone Watch: communications lessons from an expert, Allan Brauer (D). Updated, Brauer apologizes. Update 2, Brauer resigns

September 20, 2013

This was an interesting morning on Twitter. After the House voted to pass a continuing resolution that funds the government but provides no money for Obamacare, conservative journalist Amanda Carpenter wrote the following:

Reasonable people can of course disagree on the merits of this move and post their thoughts on Twitter in reply. Which is what Allan Brauer did:

See? That’s a professional handles disagreement on sensitive issues. In fact, Brauer is a Democratic Party official, the Communications Chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento. So you can bet he knows the fine art of messaging and marketing. In fact, the tag line on his blog reads:

“It matters how you say it!”

Indeed, Allan. Indeed. Here are some more examples of a professional Democratic communications expert’s concern for a civil tone in politics:

…and…

Actually, yes, Allan. You are.

I’m sure there’s more, including at least one example of the way not to respond to him, but Sacramento County Democratic Party Communications Chair Allan Brauer has blocked me, so I can’t see them.

Darn. I guess I’ll just never be popular with tolerant progressives who wish death on children.

PS: The Chair of the Democratic Party in Sacramento County is Kerri Asbury. If you have a Twitter account, you might want to let her know well her comms guy is doing his job. Politely, of course.

UPDATE: Brauer has apologized, and Amanda Carpenter has accepted:

However, the California Democratic Party doesn’t quite seem to get it:

Sigh. Shouldn’t be surprised. This is the state party of Bob Filner, after all.

UPDATE 2: Brauer resigns:

The Democratic Party of Sacramento County (DPSC) Friday called for and accepted the resignation of its volunteer communications chair following of series of personal twitter comments directed at GOP staff after Republicans voted to defund President Obama’s health care law.

DPSC chair Kerri Asbury said the personal twitter comments made by Communications Committee chair Allan Brauer were “appalling and inexcusable.” She accepted his resignation Friday, and issued the following statement:

“The comments by our volunteer communications chair are appalling and inexcusable. No matter what our political disagreements may be, wishing harm is never an acceptable response during heated public debate or any other time. Mr. Brauer has apologized for his comments and expressed his remorse.”

via Legal Insurrection

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)