Just 9%? JUST 9%??!

According to a Rassmussen poll 9% of Americans, and I have to use the term loosely here: “Just 9% Want No Limits on What Federal Government Can Do.”

These people live in the wrong country. I, for one, would be happy to contribute to the purchase of one-way tickets to North Korea for all of them.

These views are overwhelming shared across virtually all partisan and demographic lines.

The only exception is America’s Political Class. By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.

Shotgun Sellout

‘Shotgun Sellout’: House Democrats cut special deal with NRA

House Democrats held a shotgun wedding between campaign finance “reformers” and the National Rifle Association today in announcing a carve out for the powerful gun lobby in a bill responding to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

The “Shotgun Sellout” exempts large organizations from the most burdensome regulations of the DISCLOSE Act, “Democratic Incumbents Seek to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections,” while pistol whipping genuine grassroots groups. …

Draft amendment affecting the NRA as part of a “Manager’s Amendment” for consideration this week in the House Rules Committee:

Exempt section 501(c)(4) organizations” are also exempt from new reporting requirements. These are organizations which have qualified as having tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code for each of the 10 years prior to making a campaign-related disbursement, that had 1 million or more dues-paying members in the prior calendar year, that had members in each of the 50 states, that received no more than 15 percent of their total funding from corporations or labor organizations, and that do not use any corporate or union money to pay for their campaign-related expenditures.

NRA members, especially, should call the NRA at 1-800-672-3888 and ask them why they don’t defend the First Amendment as strongly as they do the Second.  They should withdraw their support and urge a vote against the DISCLOSE Act.

State speech registry

In the spirit of those states criminalizing (see yesterday’s post) the videotaping of police, State Senator Bruce Patterson (R-District 7) wants to register journalists: he is not asking, yet, to criminalize those who write without a license, he merely wants to get the list of exceptions in place.

Since Senator Patterson was mentioned for this proposal on Fox News, he’s been defending himself on the floor of the Michigan Senate by pointing out the difference between “voluntary registration” and “licensing.”

He’s right, there is a difference, but there remain some problems with this semantic defense:

1), What responsibility is it of the taxpayers of Michigan to be paying to create and administer such a registry?

2), What business is it of the State of Michigan to put its imprimatur on information or on individuals’ speech, flawed or otherwise?

3), Since among other things, the law would require applicants for the State conferred title of “Michigan registered reporter” to possess: a) “Good moral character”; b) a degree in journalism; and c) submit three writing samples: 3a) How does the State make a determination of moral character? 3b), If no degree is required to be a “Michigan legislator”, why should “journalists” have to have one? 3c) Who is going to grade the writing samples; on what basis?

Senator Patterson does not deserve the title “Michigan legislator;” probably could never have achieved it under his rules for “journalists;” and certainly should not be allowed to keep it. Apparently term limits are working in favor of that outcome.

MSNBC. Fail.

I’ve been out of town for 10 days, so I’m quite late to this party. I do not normally reach this far back news-cyclewise, but I’ve had several conversations that make me think it’s worthwhile. Some people don’t know what I’m about to demonstrate.

Protesters against Big Government, at Tea Parties and health-care “town halls,” have been the object of scatological insult by prominent national “news casters” and have been portrayed by Democrat leaders as traitors, dupes, insurance company stooges, Nazis and, most often, as racist. Ignoring the protests didn’t work, so the protesters themselves must be discredited. No protest can be about policies, they are all caused by mouth breathing knuckle draggers who would be most comfortable wearing white sheets.

Here’s an MSM example:

You will note that MSNBC’s video shows dramatic closeups of the rifle while the bobble-heads decry the racial overtones of “white people” showing up with guns when the black president is in town.

Camera angles can be manipulated, however, and MSNBC went to some trouble to support their “protesters are white racist, gun-crazed fanatics” narrative. You have to wonder if the bobble-heads even knew the real story.

If the camera angles had been honest, as they are in this local news story, they would have shown the man carrying the rifle.

This coverage honestly conducted and it actually is news, even if none of the people at the local station actually know what a machine gun is.

So, the reason for a tardy post on this is conversations I’ve had where people had only seen the MSNBC video and didn’t know the melanin content of the guy with the gun.

Maybe he is a racist. Maybe not. What he is not is a white racist. He is also not a fanatic. As he states, he is simply exercising a Constitutional right.