Dispatches from the NRA’s Kremlin office

NPR is all over it.

Caught in the intersectionality of Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) grandstanding, pervasive Russian collusion hysteria, and teenager induced attacks on civil rights, the National Rifle Association has revealed that it received contributions from individuals with some unspecified ties to Russia.

Might be US citizens living there. Might be Russian nationals living here. Might be Vladimir Putin himself. Who knows? We need to know the extent of this conspiracy.

OK: A total of 23 individuals have been identified.

They contributed a little over $2,500 to the NRA.

Since 2015.

Most of it was membership dues.

The usual suspects, like Everytown for Gun Safety and Media Matters, are outraged. But, for their main money-persons $2,500 wouldn’t even make a car payment – assuming Bloomberg and Soros, for example – didn’t just pay cash for Maseratis, Rolls, or Ferraris. Or armored Escalades.

Simultaneously, the Russians appear to have funneled several orders of magnitude more money into Green activist groups opposed to fracking and the building of pipelines.

But, don’t take my word for it. Here’s Hillary on June 18, 2014:

Clinton Talked About “Phony Environmental Groups” Funded By The Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. “We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]”

There is other evidence of Russian interest in disrupting energy supplies, which should come as no surprise from a kleptocracy heavily dependent on oil and gas revenue. See here, here and here for Russian efforts to protect Gazprom revenues.

And, of course, the Russians also used Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to spread energy-guilt propaganda. It was a bigger effort than their campaign to disrupt our elections, which we know was a few million dollars. Scroll down here to see some of the Russian social media ads attacking pipelines and fracking.

The Left hasn’t complained about those ads because they like them. Even if they were interested in the Russian attempt to stifle US energy independence, they’d have a hard time finding it at NPR, where a search for ‘russia frack’ turns up 3 hits, none related to Russian interference.

Which of these stories seems more important for people to know about? I’m looking at you, NPR.

Good choice, Mitt!

You’ll find some of the few dollars the president has allowed me to keep in your campaign contribution fund today.

By choosing Paul Ryan you have demonstrated that you care about ideas. Or, can at least be influenced to appear to care about ideas. We will see which it is, and it matters very much.

You have called this a pivotal election. Indeed, it is. Picking Representative Ryan indicates you appreciate what “pivotal” means.

You have drawn a clear, bright line on the federal budget and entitlement reform. Resist any impulse to blur it. Your choice remains inspiring only so long as there is no prevarication and no obfuscation about the choice we face in November. There must be no quarter given the statists now scurrying for cover. To do so now will destroy your campaign. That’s the beauty of your choice.

It’s going to get even uglier than it has been, and we expect you to stay the course you have set. We know who built that.

This election is pivotal because ideas matter. That is the whole of it. People who care about the Founding Principles of the United States are awakening to an innate, fundamental and visceral commitment to those principles. They may not be able to articulate this, or relate it to their daily lives, but Paul Ryan can show them why it matters.

The general population’s ignorance of basic economics makes a campaign of ideas seem risky, but in our guts “we” know Obama is wrong. If “we” don’t know that, the Liberty experiment is over. Paul Ryan can show us why.

Thanks, Mitt, you’ve given us the battle we want to fight.

Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Is the United States better off than it was 48 years ago?

Re-Declaration of Independence Day
– Tuesday, November 6, 2012 –

Memo to the San Francisco Chronicle

The other day you told us: Nancy Pelosi is perfect fit for San Francisco

The editorial went on to say she was also the best choice for the country. Apparently, all the stupid people do not see it that way. They do agree that Pelosi embodies San Francisco values, it’s why just 8% of independent voters view her favorably. My question is, “By what tortured definition of “independent” are these people describing themselves?”

Republicans Poised to Win Mid-Term Elections: Survey

Likely voters view Ms. Pelosi unfavorably by a two-to-one margin. Among independents, just 8 percent view the Speaker positively, compared to 61 percent who view her negatively.

Requiem for the Pelosi Democrats

“It’s been an authoritarian, closed leadership.”

Ms Pelosi will not be Speaker of the House in the next Congress. She has never been the speaker for Americans.

Here be dragons

…from the medieval practice of putting sea serpents in blank areas of maps.

Gallup calls today’s long awaited thrashing of the Democrats “Uncharted Territory.” Let’s make sure they are proven correct. Today is the most consequential election of your lifetime.

Don’t get cocky.
Make sure you vote!


Readers of this blog probably already know there is no Michigan Democrat, in any race, for whom you should vote, but just in case there is any confusion regarding non-partisan candidates it’s:

Mary Beth Kelly and Robert Young Jr for Supreme Court. IMPORTANT.

Billie Jo O’Berry for 30th Circuit Court (because Canady is terrible).

On the partisan candidates, exceptions to the GOP are:

Stacey Mathia or Ken Proctor for Governor. (why?)

Libertarians for all State Boards and Regents.  (To provide a baseline.  See ‘why?’, just above).

On propositions:

 
NO on additional taxation for Ingham County Police Patrols.

NO on Con Con.

Show me the dragons.

Municipal narcissism

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
Nancy Pelosi is perfect fit for San Francisco

That might have been better rendered “is a perfect example of San Franciscan values.”

…there is no doubt that the city’s best interest rests with Democrats maintaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As speaker, Nancy Pelosi has used her powers of prerogative and persuasion to help San Franciscans get what they want out of Congress, in terms of both philosophy and funding for specific projects.

…It’s in San Francisco’s best interest to keep Nancy Pelosi in Washington, working for the city’s values and needs. It’s in the nation’s interest to keep her as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“[U]sed her powers of prerogative and persuasion?” That would be better rendered as “her powers of bribery and bludgeoning.”

The Chronicle has succumbed to the pathology of narcissism afflicting Democrats in general and Pelosi, Reid and Obama, in particular. San Franciscans who place their interests before the nation’s will certainly expect the rest of us to bail California out of its Greece-like economic disaster. While Nancy Pelosi’s re-election may be in San Francisco’s best interests, it certainly is not in ours.

San Franciscans may believe that the rest of the country should be just like them:

…but it is obvious the following SF statutes must have been repealed or Nancy Pelosi would not be able to campaign from a soap-box on any street corner in the city:

  • It is illegal to pile horse manure more than six feet high on a street corner
  • Persons classified as “ugly” may not walk down any street

Ref. here, here, here, here, here.

The rest of the country is poised to tell San Francisco we want Pelosi off her soap-box and off the streets.

Why you should not vote for Rick Snyder

Be not afraid: Your vote will not hand a victory to the Democrats and it will not be “wasted.” Snyder has a 20 point lead. Voting for a limited government candidate will send him a message, not elect his opponent.

Why does Mr. Snyder need such a message? Mainly because he sincerely believes government should actively interfere in the economy by picking economic winners. This is not different from Ms Granholm, nor from Mr. Bernero. They all agree that they can command the economy to perform better than can the invisible hand.

Here are Mr. Snyder’s corporatist credentials:

As its first Director, he “created” the disaster known as MEDC, and now thinks it merely needs reform, rather than elimination. Adding injury to insult, after he left MEDC he availed himself of $7.5 million in MEDC funds. Rick Snyder believes that government “picking winners” is a good idea if it’s done by the “right” elite. So do Granholm and Bernero. They differ merely in who comprises the elite.

When asked about Michigan’s preposterous subsidies for the movie industry, Mr. Snyder said he wants to continue them, but to do so in a way that makes sure Michigan companies get the benefit. As an example of such reform, he would eliminate catering from out of State. That’ll show Jenny how the game is played.

Snyder emphasizes continued State subsidization of the mythical “green job.” Jennifer’s bankrupt ethanol plants, ill-advised windmill subsidies and battery manufacturing give-aways will bring prosperity if only we put the “right” bureaucrats in charge of picking the technology-of-the-month. If they could do this, they wouldn’t need a taxation system. They could run the State off their investment gains.

In his single debate, Mr. Snyder indicated he thinks making Michigan a right to work state is not worth the trouble, despite much evidence to the contrary. Right to Work States Gain Billions It is hard to accept the idea that Snyder isn’t aware of this. But…

He won the primary at least partially as a result of soliciting Democrats to cross party lines. This strategy was viable because he did not give (and has not given) any clear idea what he actually intends. His “tough nerd” policy documents are devoid of specifics. Snyder’s strategy succeeded because the vote for candidates with clear limited government platforms was split. Rick Snyder is either putting one over on the Democrats or he will continue the command-and-control economic policies so dear to his predecessor. On the evidence, I think it’s the latter.

In this key area the difference between Snyder and Bernero is the funding channel, not the recipient. Snyder will use an MEDC-like intermediary. Bernero will give directly to the unions. Corporatism is a bad idea no matter who is in charge, and notwithstanding the spoils distribution mechanism.

The good news for those hesitant about a third party vote? Given Snyder’s double digit lead, you can play the politics as the multi-year game it is instead of just rejecting, yet again, the greater of two evils. It’s a free vote protest against statism. It’s without electoral consequence, but still carries policy implications.

Sending this message to Snyder isn’t some mindless obsession with purity. It’s part of presenting a coherent message to other voters and to politicians. It is about offering a real contrast with the bankrupt lunacy of the Democrats. Do you really want to hear, for the next 4 years; “See, Republicans do the same thing!”? If not, you need to do everything you can to constrain Rick Snyder.

In summary: Rick Snyder gives every indication of being a corporatist’s best friend. If you want to encourage him to adopt more sensible economic policies, don’t let him get a double digit win. Given Snyder’s 20 point lead you can vote for a third party without worrying about Virg Bernero. You should consider this so as to send a message to Mr. Snyder: “STOP THE SUBSIDIES. GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF PICKING ECONOMIC WINNERS!”

Vote for Stacey Mathia or Ken Proctor.

If the Taxpayer Party/Libertarian Party vote doubles the expectations – say getting to 12% – Rick Snyder may get the message. If he doesn’t, he’s no nerd.

I think she’s wrong about this…

…because they are about to discover exactly what credit they deserve.

Pelosi: ‘We haven’t really gotten the credit for what we have done’

It’s up to us to go out there. I’m very confident; our members know why they voted for what they did.

She says that as if bribery and corruption were a good thing. It certainly isn’t that they voted for that mess of pottage because they had, you know, read it.