The Obama administration has faced a vocal and growing opposition to the radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, in true czar fashion avoid honest debate on the issue at all costs. Even, it would seem, internally.

From The American Spectator:

“[Summers] and other senior Obama officials were unaware of how radical the draft Net Neutrality regulations were when they were initially internally circulated to Obama administration officials several weeks ago. ‘All of sudden Larry is getting calls from CEOs, Wall Street folks he talks to, Republicans and Democrats, asking him what the Administration is doing with the policies, and he isn’t sure what they’re talking about,’ says one White House aide. ‘He felt blind-sided, and Susan was one of those people who heard about it.’”

This looks to be classic scrambling for cover on the part of Summers. As Big Government notes:

Sources say that such ongoing concern and criticism regarding the push for net neutrality could further impact the thinking of key Obama advisers -including Summers and potentially Obama strategist David Axelrod -and ultimately result in the administration backing away from net neutrality entirely. The White House aide cited by the Spectator notes that radical figures within the administration “are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.”

That last line is a keeper. The full quote obtained by the American Spectator: “They haven’t done us any good on any level, and now they are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.” Yes, that’s in reference to the radical elements appointed all over the administration, not just the net neutrality extremists.

This won’t be the end of the net neutrality war. Nothing with the Obama administration ever seems to end. But it is one more radical leftist shown the door, and that’s a good thing on its own. It’s also yet another reminder of that Neil Steven’s refrain: Elections Have Consequences.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) today on Fox News said that committee rules dictate that at least two members of the minority must be present when meeting. Boxer held a vote on the legislation, which passed 10-1, but no Republicans were present for the vote.

Republican members of the committee have been boycotting the hearings all week because the legislation has not yet been scored by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“That was unprecendented, I think the bill is dead,” Inhofe told Fox.

Inhofe points out that SENATOR Boxer rammed this through despite objections from 6 ranking members of other committees. As Moe noted, there is virtually no chance Boxer’s bill will survive now. SENATOR Boxer may have torpedoed her own bill, so great was her lust to quash debate and mow over any republican objection, in keeping with this Congress’ current SOP.

All of which is pretty funny to have in the press day after the SENATOR’s office released the following statement on her website:

Senator Boxer Lauds California Water Legislation

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) lauded bipartisan legislation passed by the California State Legislature to address the state’s water crisis.

Senator Boxer said, “I commend the legislature and the governor for their successful efforts to approve a comprehensive water package and bond measure that will be presented to California voters. While no legislation is perfect, the bipartisan spirit that led to the passage of these measures will move our state toward meeting the needs of our people, our farming communities and the environment. We must continue to work together, at the state and federal level, on pragmatic short-term and long-term solutions.”

Emphasis added. So no legislation is perfect, and if we work together we can … sorry, choked on my aquafina … well let’s just summarize: YES WE CAN!

SENATOR Boxer runs roughshod over Republicans in violation of senate procedures when Republicans won’t do it her way, even against the objection of fellow global warmers and moderates in the Senate. My way or the highway, please. And do call me SENATOR.

But in California, when Republicans get in line to please the Environmental Defense Fund by signing on to a $12 BILLION water plan that Chuck DeVore says is “so bulked up with pork that it is going to sink under the weight of its own pork,” … well NOW the SENATOR is all bipartisan-curious. But hey, she just wants water for Californians, right?

Well. Not exactly. Republicans signing on to Democrat legislation is bi-awesome. Democrats signing on to REPUBLICAN legislation? Not so much. Carly Fiorina reminds us that “Senate Democrats - led by Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer - defeated a California water amendment offered by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.”

Bipolartisanship is nothing new to SENATORs like Barbara Boxer. As every RedState regular knows, when Democrats talk about reaching across the aisle, they mean us. If Snowe goes along with them it’s bipartisan. If DeMint doesn’t it’s obstructionist. If Lieberman goes along with us it’s treason.

Just so we’re clear.

Today Big Government highlights something worth reiterating.

USA Today goes on to report that one top-level fundraiser apparently awarded with a plum job is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski.

The paper reports that Genachowski raised more than $500,000 for Obama—which critics charge may have helped him “buy” a position that now puts him at the center of one of Washington’s most heated policy debates, namely that regarding net neutrality.

Genachowski, a strong proponent of the policy and a darling of far left groups like Save The Internet, has recently garnered criticism for what some see as an effort to ram net neutrality through with little to no debate. The proposed policy has recently become the focus of criticism and concern from everyone from internet service providers to groups typically regarded as Obama administration-friendly, such as the Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Urban League. 72 House Democrats and three Democratic Governors have also raised concerns about the proposed policy.

And Genachowski isn’t the only net neutrality proponent buying in.

Another big group of donors who purchased “broadband access” to the administration: Google. The powerhouse company is leading the charge on net neutrality. As Big Government reminds us:

The question is whether political support from net neutrality proponents like Genachowski and Google (whose CEO, Eric Schmidt, was a major Obama supporter and whose employees reportedly donated $562,000 to his campaign) has dictated or contributed to [President Obama's net neutrality position].

Obama is surrounded by net neutrality radicals, from his internet czar on down. How much of that is the result of Google’s peer-to-peer access?

Pay to play, after all, is the Chicago way.

Over the last few days there has been an explosion of stories regarding a Fox News report that claimed Fox was, initially, deliberately snubbed by the Treasury Department. Only after other networks in the press pool objected to the exclusion was Fox added to the list of participants, with Major Garrett eventually conducting the interview in question. From Fox:

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to exclude Fox News from participating in an interview of an administration official, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

Pushback on the story was immediate. The contrary narrative was that in no way was Fox ever deliberately excluded from anything, and by no means did the “real” networks ever defend Fox. From Talking Points Memo:

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn’t on the list, was told that they hadn’t asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox’s Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

The story included a statement from the Treasury department that said there was “no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.”

After Talking Points Memo and other outlets began to question the details of Fox News’ initial report, the online left in blogs and on Twitter seized on this as an example of dishonesty on the part of Fox. Salon.com editor Joan Walsh went so far as to refer to it as a “hoax” on her twitter feed, a sentiment in common with some at DailyKos. Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog declared “Fox News surely knows that this ‘controversy’ is not what it appears to be, but the network pushed it anyway, hoping to score some cheap points and desperate to position itself as a victim.”

The most popular quote, though, was from White House spokesman Josh Earnest, who told TPM that “this White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not.”

“Simple as that,” said Talking Points Memo. Only it turns out, not quite.

Today Fox News provided more details on the sequence of events to the Huffington Post.

“Of course we requested an interview,” Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente told the Huffington Post.

This directly contradicts reports by the Associated Press and Talking Points Memo, both of which reported that the White House had excluded Fox News because it did not request an interview.

It certainly does. Although as HuffPo points out, this shouldn’t matter anyway, as it was a pool interview so all pool members are to be included. Interestingly, Clemente indicated to HuffPo that not only was Fox explicitly excluded, but they were to be replaced by Bloomberg News. The real kicker, though, is the following:

Clemente added that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged to Fox News’ White House Correspondent Major Garrett that a low level Treasury staffer made a mistake in attempting to exclude Fox from the pool interviews.

In all reported versions of events, at that point when the pool insisted Fox be included, Treasury contacted Anita Dunn to make sure it was OK. Dunn, you’ll recall, is Obama’s Fox War Czar. In response to several calls and emails to the Treasury Dept asking why, if this was just a simple misunderstanding and oversight, would they need to ask Dunn for permission to correct it, the same canned “ado about nothing” response was sent. However, one Treasury source said something very interesting: “We typically coordinate high profile TV interviews with the White House, just as most Administrations do.”

Well of course they do. That’s the point, isn’t it? Fox was claiming that this was a deliberate snub in keeping with Dunn’s policy toward Fox. It is the White House who claimed to have clean hands, by telling TPM that this wasn’t a salvo in their war on Fox. The whole point is that Fox claims this was part of a coordinated administration policy. So by pointing out something so simple, Treasury is confirming.

Treasury has not, at the time of posting, responded to follow-up questions. Was Dunn part of the initial decision not to include Fox? If not, then why was she only contacted about the supposed “high profile” interview in “typical” fashion only after it was clear the pool required Fox’s participation? Asked for comment on Clemente’s new revelations, no response was given.

If Gibbs apologized for a staffer at Treasury that would doubly contradict their public statements. It would directly contradict the canned line that there was no “ado” due. It would also indicate that the White House is blaming Treasury alone, not in “coordination” with them.

Regardless of whether Anita Dunn was party to an initial, explicit snub of Fox News, it should be abundantly obvious that Treasury contacting her to clear their “correction” is a direct result of her being the Fox war czar. Furthermore, can there be any doubt that a decision to exclude Fox would be a direct result of two weeks of the administration advising everyone and their network to do that very thing?

Dunn, Gibbs, and the administration generally have done nothing to hide their contempt for Fox, their opinion that it is not a news organization, or their belief that Fox should not be treated as real news. So I admit to no small amount of remaining curiosity regarding their reluctance to own this from the start. I can only assume it is because they were met with backlash from the other networks, whom the administration obviously wants to keep in their pocket. That backlash was real, despite TPMs critically flawed reporting. Chip Reid reports the networks all agreed this crossed the line, and HuffPo quotes one network bureau chief characterizing their solidarity as “all for one and one for all.”

There is a clear disconnect between what Fox is reporting the administration said, what White House spokesman Josh Earnest said to TPM, and what Treasury spokespersons are saying to the media. If the Huffington Post and the widespread quotes attributed to White House are correct, I’m pretty sure the administration is essentially calling the Treasury department incompetent liars. Over Fox News being excluded from an interview. Per the administration’s stated preferences. Yeah.

Throughout the campaign and on into January of this year:

February’s phase II:

March and April “World Apology Tour” theme:

.

So now we come to the latest stage in the evolution …

October’s “Fox isn’t news” love us or else media assault:

.

Consider this an OPEN THREAD.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher asked Ziegler for a comment on the segment. His response is priceless. Well, not exactly “priceless” … here’s an excerpt (emphasis added):

This may shock people, but my defense of her is not even politically based. It is motivated purely by the level of unfairness of the coverage of her. I honestly believe that I would have reacted the same way if she were ugly and a Democrat (not that it would have ever happened to her if that was the case), but I can understand why Olbermann couldn’t possibly understand such principled consistency or being motivated by something other than one’s own self interest and/or what they feel in their pants.

I will make this offer to Olbermann. If he has me on the show to debate Palin-related issues, live, for a full hour, I will pay his favorite charity $100,000, which is more than any profit I am ever likely to make from my film “Media Malpractice.” This offer is 100% real.

Will Keith man up? Doubtful. But I’ll tell you one thing if he does, I’m cooking popcorn, setting the DVR, and wearing my three-wolf moon shirt because THAT, sir, is what you call must-see TV.

The less dramatic of the two involved my friend Ed Morrissey of Hot Air. While participating in a “New Media” panel, Ed was ambushed by another panel member who accused him of “rudeness” for disagreeing with an earlier presentation in an article published at Hot Air. More bizarrely, the “New Media’ panel member proceeded to belittle the importance of new media, urging people to “pick up the phone.” It is certainly worth noting that the panel member, Christopher Carmouche, is in the fax blasting business. Yes. Really. A number of bloggers and attendees speculate that Carmouche “donated” his way onto the panel.

Which is a pretty good segue to the much bigger drama to come out of this weekend: Ziegler vs. Keene.

American Conservative Union chair David Keene, you may recall, was the central figure in an ugly pay-to-play scandal earlier this year. He also supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey … you know, back when Specter was a “republican.” He also previously accused Sarah Palin of “whining” about negative media coverage and “bailing” on her office as Governor.

Enter another friend of mine, documentarian and relentless interviewer John Ziegler. Ziegler was an invited speaker at WCPAC, just as he has been at the last few CPAC events. While there, he did that thing which is the very reason he gets invited to such events: he conducted an aggressive on-camera interview.

When the subjects of Keene’s pay-to-play scandal, Palin criticisms, Specter support came up, the tone became decidedly adversarial, and Keene soon abruptly tried to end the interview. Zielger, however, did not give up. Read Ziegler’s take here, and scroll to the bottom to see the whole episode play out on video. It’s important that you read and watch to understand the remainder of my article.

As you might expect, there has been both support and criticism regarding Ziegler’s interview. I think by far the best analysis has come from Ed Morrissey, with J.P. Freire’s thoughtful post also well-worth reading. Ultimately I have to disagree with the critics.

John Ziegler is a personality on the right for doing precisely what he did here. This is the very thing. The fact that this time it was David Keene rather than David Shuster or Katie Couric is the only difference. Ziegler was a credentialed speaker for WCPAC. He was invited to speak because he makes hard-hitting documentaries and doggedly pursues stories. He’s good at it. Far from criticizing him for lack of courtesy, we celebrate his championing of the cause in hostile environments like daytime MSNBC; for facing off with folks like Keith Olbermann (more on that in a minute.) So yes, it is reasonable for J.P. to dislike this form of interview or journalism; but is, I think, very unreasonable for WCPAC to throw Ziegler out for doing the very thing that got him invited in the first place. Invited, I might add, to speak about being unjustly removed from a media event earlier this year. Yep.

But there is a bigger picture here too. As Ed, Ziegler, and many others have pointed out since the event, the attendees shared a sense that the whole thing wasn’t really about the message, but rather about the money; thus fax-blasting. Even worse, though, was the attitude on display. Shut up, get in line. It’s why Ed was called “rude” on his own panel, it’s why Newt endorsed Scozzafava, it’s why the RNC endorsed Crist, and it’s why David Keene saw fit to finance Arlen Specter, who promptly turned coat.

As Ben Domenech recently extensively detailed, much of the right is failing to adapt to a new environment. The WCPAC flare-ups are just symptoms of a larger disconnect. The grassroots are disconnected from the party, the new media is not understood by the old money, and the leadership is increasingly deaf to the base.

If you are like me, you are with the grassroots, the activists. So maybe, like me, you think it’s about time someone got in the faces of the old guard and demanded answers.

Just a thought.

So that’s the waves on the right. Now for the waves on the left …

RRRAAAACCCCIIIIISSSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s what the MSM had to say in comments about Rush Limbaugh’s recent bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams. According to some guy I overheard at the mall, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested that Limbaugh owning the Rams “is exactly the same as slavery, but fatter.” And then there’s what Helen Thomas probably said, “Rush to what window? With a ram? Where’s my sweater?”

So in honor of the controversy, I’ve compiled a top ten list of some completely ridiculous but totally true and not fake quotes of famous people who are not (or so they claim) Rush Limbaugh. These are, like, so teh true. For really real. Really. No … really.

Don’t look at me that way. I told you they were really real. Did you think I was joking? Well I wasn’t.

Every single one of those quotes is a real, legitimate, well-sourced quote. Totally real; not fake.

Now ask yourself why the unsourced fake Limbaugh quotes get so much more play than these actual statements. Not so funny anymore, huh?

This is an open thread so you can talk about anything. And if you can’t think of anything, well … I’ll give you a topic: Obama was denied the Olympics, then he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Each is hilarious and terrible in different ways. Discuss.

Bring the funny, but keep it clean (cough speciallist cough). If you choose to post an image or photo, please properly attribute the source. I created the thread header.

OPEN THREAD

Over the course of the last year, the Obama administration has taken on an increasingly hostile tone towards critical press. During the campaign, of necessity, it was more muted (although not nonexistent, as conservative reporters discovered).

Since the inauguration, however, the practice has become more frequent and more sophisticated. Time reports that the White House has decided they are going to be a “player” in how the press is won.

So a new White House strategy has emerged: rather than just giving reporters ammunition to “fact-check” Obama’s many critics, the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims, like the assertion that health-care reform would establish new “sex clinics” in schools. Obama, fresh from his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, cheered on the effort, telling his aides he wanted to “call ‘em out.”

Time calls it a “take no prisoners” stance; a war. And this war has a general: Anita Dunn. Dunn is the White House communications director and a longtime Obama advisor. She’s been a heavy-weight Democrat strategist since the 80s.

As with the citizen reporting system and many other such initiatives, censorship 2.0 is strongly internet focused. Mediaite characterizes Dunn’s new role as being the White House’s “own Glenn Beck.” She is aggressive, and is the brains behind using the White House blog as a vehicle for attacking Fox News. Dunn has crafted this adversarial pose, and stands by it. Something which would certainly disappoint a formerly vocal critic of such tactics: Anita Dunn.

The tone the administration has adopted is important. Time points out that the White House blog now “issues regular denunciations of the Administration’s critics, including a recent post that announced ‘Fox lies’ and suggested that the cable network was unpatriotic for criticizing Obama’s 2016 Olympics effort.” Dunn herself is a professed “fierce critic” of Fox News in particular, and leads the effort to withhold interviews from Fox. The tone is highly adversarial, even snarky.

In summary, Anita Dunn has crafted a policy of using a blog to attack a news organization. Some might call that intimidation; among them, Anita Dunn herself, circa February 2007. In an interview with Sara Fritz, posted on The Center for Public Integrity’s “The Buying of the President” site, Dunn had a very different view of such practices.

Near the end of the article, the interviewer points out to her that “[some journalists have] had entire blogs set up attacking [them].” Dunn’s reply:

Right. And it’s a very intimidating kind of thing. The Dean campaign pioneered this; they used to actually go tell their people, “OK, go after this reporter,” as far as I can tell. I think that the relationship continues to grow more cynical and, I think, less respectful. When I started being a press assistant way back then, everyone respected each other. We respected the press, the press respected the people, and they respected the candidates, and I think that there is a lack of respect on both sides that is so corrosive, it really is.

Got that? Intimidating. Corrosive.

Dunn goes on to lament that reporters are increasingly seen as the enemy. “I don’t think that’s fair, either,” she says. “Reporters work very, very hard.”

My how things change.

Oh and speaking of how things change, here’s another little gem to chew on, lest you think Dunn’s wrath is just for those of us on the right. Obama has enjoyed a pretty cozy relationship with the online left. DailyKos famously lost a pro-Hillary chunk of their members, and Obama has actually posted on the site before. They were a big part of his fundraising as well as the volunteer base. I wonder, then, how they’ll react to being characterized as hysterically hateful by Obama’s communication’s czar?

I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but I’ve yet to talk to a reporter, including some very progressive reporters, who haven’t had the experience of saying something that the “netroots’ decided they don’t like, and just getting bombarded with the hate e-mails.

That one’s for you, nutroots. Enjoy.

The roll call is here. The guilty Republicans are: Walter B. Jones (NC), Peter King (NY), Tim Murphy (PA), Don Young (AK), Dana Rohrabacher (CA), and Ron Paul (TX), with King, Rohrabacher and Young having also voted yea to end debate and hold the referral vote. (If I understood the procedure correctly.)

UPDATE
Some clarification on why there were two votes, and why the totals were different, from Rep. Carter’s office:

“The first vote eliminated any chance for debating the resolution, and the second vote was to refer it to the ethics committee. So it could be said that three people wanted to hear the debate but then they voted to refer it to the ethics committee.”

Full Text of the resolution:

Whereas the gentleman from New York, Charles B. Rangel, the fourth most senior Member of the House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a position of considerable power and influence within the House of Representatives;

Whereas clause one of Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.”;

Whereas in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel’s annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel’s lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.”;

Whereas clause 5(a)(2)(A) of House Rule 25 defines a gift as, “…a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value” and prohibits the acceptance of such gifts except in limited circumstances;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in interest forgiveness is a violation of the House gift ban;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts and income on his Personal Financial Disclosure Statements violates House rules and federal law;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to report the aforementioned gifts and income on federal, state and local tax returns is a violation of the tax laws of those jurisdictions;

Whereas the Committee on Ways and Means, which Representative Rangel chairs, has jurisdiction over the United States Tax Code;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct first announced on July 31, 2008 that it was reviewing allegations of misconduct by Representative Rangel;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on September 15, 2008 that, “The inconsistent reports are among myriad errors, discrepancies and unexplained entries on Rangel’s personal disclosure forms over the past eight years that make it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the Ways and Means chairman’s financial dealings.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on September 24, 2008 that it had established an investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Rangel;

Whereas after the Ethics Committee probe was underway, The New York Times reported on November 24, 2008 that, “Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited Nabors Industries an oil drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on December 9, 2008 that it had expanded the jurisdiction of the aforementioned investigative subcommittee to examine the allegations related to Representative Rangel’s involvement with Nabors Industries;

Whereas since then, further serious allegations of improper and potentially illegal conduct by Representative Rangel have surfaced;

Whereas during the recently completed August district work period, Representative Rangel acknowledged his failure to publicly disclose at least half a million dollars in cash assets, tens of thousands of dollars in investment income, and his ownership of two pieces of property in New Jersey;

Whereas corrected financial disclosure statements filed by Representative Rangel on August 12, 2009 now reveal his net worth to be nearly twice as much as he had previously revealed;

Whereas The New York Times newspaper reported on August 26, 2009 that, “United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month. Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.”;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on August 25, 2009 that Representative Rangel’s corrected filings also revealed “at least $250,001 in a fund called ML Allianz Global Investors Consults Diversified Port III.”;

Whereas the aforementioned Roll Call story reported that “Rangel also originally misreported that his investments in 2007 netted him $6,511-$17,950 in dividends, capital gains and rental income. In his revised filing, that range jumped to between $29,220 and $81,200.”;

Whereas these most recent revelations by Representative Rangel have resulted in heightened national news media coverage of alleged impropriety and potentially criminal conduct by one of the most senior Members of the House;

Whereas an editorial in The Washington Times newspaper on September 1, 2009 noted, “Charlie Rangel is one lucky guy. The Democratic congressman from Harlem, N.Y., just discovered that his net wealth is twice what he thought. That’s a pretty good day at the office for a public servant. Mr. Rangel also realized that he made tens of thousands of dollars more than he reported in many different years over the past decade. This is the most recent string in a series of financial bonanzas for Mr. Rangel, who last year admitted he had forgotten about $75,000 in rental income on his Caribbean resort property.”;

Whereas the same editorial also noted, “The congressman has failed to pay property taxes on two lots in New Jersey, according to the New York Post. That’s not all. In order to avoid taxes and get lower mortgage rates, Mr. Rangel simultaneously claimed three ‘primary residences’.”;

Whereas an editorial in the September 17, 2009 edition of the New Haven Register stated, “The ethics and tax complaints keep piling up against U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, who as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee controls writing of the nation’s tax laws. The New York Democrat may write those laws, but he apparently feels no obligation to obey them. The investigation appears to have a long way to go. The man who is in charge of writing the nation’s tax laws doesn’t pay his federal income or local property taxes. He has such a poor grasp of his own finances that he neglects to list half his assets on a disclosure form intended to keep members of Congress accountable and honest. We can already hear the defense of the next tax deadbeat called into court. If Charlie Rangel doesn’t have to pay his taxes, why should I?”;

Whereas, an article in The Washington Post on September 15, 2009 stated, “Rangel is now the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a man of immense importance in Washington. Nonetheless, he has been busy of late revising and amending the record, backing and filling, using buckets of Wite-Out as he discovers or remembers properties he has owned in New York, New Jersey, Florida, the Dominican Republic and God only knows where else. Rangel recently even discovered bank accounts that no one in the world, apparently including him, knew he had. One was with the Congressional Federal Credit Union; another was with Merrill Lynch – each valued between $250,000 and $500,000. He somehow neglected to mention these accounts on his congressional disclosure forms, which means, if you can believe it, that when he signed the forms, he did not notice that maybe $1 million was missing. Someone ought to check the lighting in his office.”;

Whereas the same article in The Washington Post stated, “There is something wrong with Charlie Rangel. Either he did not notice that he was worth about twice as much as he said he was – which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader – or he thinks he’s above the law, which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader.”;

Whereas it has been more than one year since an editorial in The New York Times on September 15, 2008 stated, “Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.”;

Whereas at various times during the past twelve months Representative Rangel and Speaker Pelosi have made public statements asserting that the ongoing investigation of Representative Rangel by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would soon be concluded;

Whereas the Committee has to date issued no public statements concerning any expected timeline for conducting or concluding its investigation of Representative Rangel;

Whereas major daily newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post , and The New York Post have called for Representative Rangel’s removal from his powerful position at least until the House Ethics Committee has completed its ongoing probes of allegations against him;

Whereas, Representative Rangel’s powerful position as chairman permits him to participate in high level decisions about critically important issues such as reform of the nation’s health care system;

Whereas an October 1, 2009 story in The New York Times stated, “Mr. Rangel is one of a small group of House leaders now meeting almost daily behind closed doors with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to distill from the three bills produced in separate committees the one package that will go to the House floor.;

Whereas an Associated Press story on September 20, 2009 stated, “The ethics committee’s investigation of Rangel is almost a year old. It’s as much a problem for House Democratic leaders as for Rangel himself. Later this year, when Rangel’s committee considers estate tax legislation that could expand into other matters, the headlines will be a version of this message: ‘Tax scofflaw presiding over tax changes.’”;

Whereas the New York Post newspaper reported on September 2, 2009 that, “A review of property records for the borough of Glassboro revealed at least six tax liens levied against Rangel’s property during the past 16 years. Just last year, two separate liens were levied against both properties owned by Rangel.”;

Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi took the aforementioned action while Representative Jefferson was under investigation and the subject of considerable controversy in the news media, but prior to any indictment

Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas in April of 2007, Republican Leader John Boehner successfully urged several Republican Members to relinquish their committee assignments after learning that each had become the subject of investigations into possible criminal activity;

Whereas Leader Boehner took the aforementioned actions while the Members in question were under investigation and the subjects of widespread media controversy, but prior to any indictments;

Whereas in the wake of the most recent allegations against Representative Rangel various editorials and articles in major national newspapers criticizing Speaker Pelosi’s continued refusal to remove Representative Rangel as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means after promising she would preside over “the most ethical Congress in history” have held the House up to public ridicule; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution and pending completion of the investigation into his affairs by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Representative Rangel is hereby removed as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Consider this an open thread. (Oh, and if you aren’t familiar with the genre, here you go.)

Update: See also here.

HuffPo Now:

Protesters have taken to the streets of Pittsburgh in opposition to the Group of 20 summit taking place Thursday and Friday. The protests have turned violent, the AP reports, with demonstrators rolling trash bins towards police, and officers firing tear gas back. Read more here.

Check out this slideshow of protesters and vote on your favorite protest tactic. Any creative ones that stand out to you, or have you seen these all before?

And are you going to any G-20 protests? Send us your photos! We will publish the best ones of the HuffPost.

Dude, the anti-capitalism party is turning violent. Teh awesome. Vote your fav!

I guess it’s like Spring Break, but with more marijuana and less coherence. Also they replaced the wet t-shirt contest with a waterboarding demonstration. Plus, I hear for a few beads the gals will show their … ignorance of global markets. Man, I can’t wait for the “Greenpeace Gone Wild” videos. Wait. On second thought … yes I can.

Anyway, that’s the now. Let’s look at the then, eh?

So whereas fire-setting cop-bashers are cause for a contest touting the “creativity” of one’s “favorite” protest tactics, carrying signs at a tea party gets … well this.

Oh, and this (angry mob!!1!1!1!!) … and this (RRRAAACCIIISSSTSSSS!!!!!!) … and this little gem (you really have to read that one to believe it) …

And that’s just HuffPo.

These G20 protests happen every time the group meets, and have for years. They are routinely violent, and they are comprised of mainstream left-wing groups. Can I therefore assume a DHS report in the offing? Hmm? Hand-wringing worry from evening talking heads about how dangerous these voices are? Can we expect Bill Maher to suggest these protests are basically inciting assassination?

Yeah, I’m not holding my breath. There may be some mild criticism of the very worst violence, couched, you can bet, in apologetic rhetoric about “the people” and their “voice.” But I expect most blog coverage will be like HuffPo’s: celebratory.

And in a way, they’ve got a point. The G20 protests do, in fact, remind me of Spring Break or Mardi Gras. After all, there are so many exposed boobs.

As we headed north to Sacramento, my first tour stop, I saw the Golden Gate Bridge away in the misty distance. One more great American symbol for my list. A small thing, but a good start.

In Sacramento, we listened to Chuck DeVore speak to a townhall meeting. If you are like me, you never dare to hope the Boxer’s or Pelosi’s of the world could see ballot box defeat … the disappointment would be too crushing. Let me tell you something: go listen to DeVore for ten minutes and you’ll believe. This is a man who can unseat Boxer. He just needs your help. Campaigns take money, time, and effort. As activists, that’s our job.

This is how the tour began for me, and this is how the idea of it really coalesced in my mind. What are we doing here? Some have asked, some have answered. But I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on it.

The American Liberty Tour isn’t like the Tea Party Express. It’s not about going to each stop to host a huge motivational rally. We do some of that, like the 2500 person Salt Lake City rally on 9/12 … but it’s not the main purpose.

The American Liberty Tour also isn’t like Right Online, CPAC or those other conferences. Classes and lectures training the movers and shakers how to do what they do, but better. There’s some of that, certainly. Our training courses, provided by American Majority, are for both novice and expert alike. Real world actions you can take in the cause of liberty and in defense of conservative ideals and the American way of life. But that’s not our only purpose.

The American Liberty Tour isn’t a personality tour, either. It’s not a come-look-at-me self-indulgence like the left is famous for … although there’s some of that. I’ve been hosting a “vlog” journal of behind the scenes, off-rally footage that’s fairly irreverent. We want to show ourselves as the everyday, cut-up, normal folks we are. We joke. We sing karaoke … horribly. We joke. We are not, in other words, the cartoon monsters the left would have you believe. But again, this is not what the tour is about.

Because the tour is all those things, and we do all those things. But the tour is about the people we meet at every stop.

Tonight, a working single mother came up to me after my talk in Salina, Kansas. She thanked me for being there, I thanked her for being there. She said that she got so much more out of this rally than she had at the tea party, because she felt like she knew what to do next. Then she said “I’m just so glad you all are out here showing us that Kansas isn’t alone.”

Kansas isn’t alone. Neither are the often lonely conservatives we met in California. Neither are the dedicated activists we met in Utah, or the bikers we met in Nevada. Folks, none of us is alone.

There’s something we’ve learned this year. The conservative movement is alive and well. Maybe it’s not organized yet. Maybe we don’t all know what to do next. Maybe the libertarians and the socons have some things to work out. But baby, we’re working it. City to city, state to state, I am meeting hundreds of people who want to get engaged. And I got news for y’all on the left: we’re helping them get there.

Hundreds of people who weren’t plugged in to facebook and twitter now are. Thousands who weren’t getting emails about conservative issues now are. We helped Californians meet up to discuss how to get out DeVote for DeVore. We helped Kansans reach out to the national level. We helped grandparents learn how to read blogs and we helped young people understand what it means to be a citizen journalist.

Folks, this is activism. This is grass roots. We’re living it. And man it feels good.

Here at Redstate, we too can feel lonely. Sometimes we don’t know if anyone out there in the great expanse that is this great nation is really paying attention. Well they are. They are listening, they are engaged, and they want to know what to do next. With the American Liberty Tour, with blogs like Redstate and networks like Twitter, we can help them do it. YOU can help.

So please, visit the tour site and find out if we’re going to be near you. Or if you can’t participate, you could donate. And if you can’t do either of those things, emulate. Go out to your community, or just to your circle of family and friends, and get them involved. Get them signed up for the RedState Morning Briefing. Tell them about the tour. Send them to the American Majority website to find out how they can take the next step.

The time is now. We’re all activists now.

Next week, for many people, the activity, the protests, and the activism will reach a peak. The President is speaking to schools, and the people are speaking back. We’ll be keeping our children home. We’ll be marching on Washington. And we’ll be rallying around the country throughout the week.

I plan to be a part of the activism next week. I’ll be at one of the biggest planned rallies outside DC, in Salt Lake City, Utah. We’ll follow the march, meeting fellow activist conservatives and, most importantly, participate in training and discussion about what’s next for conservatives who want to be active in our movement. Please read on …

During and after the Redstate Gathering, many of you wanted to know what to do next. We had a lot of great answers for you. And I kept thinking about all of that as the days passed by. Then I found out about the Liberty Tour and I realized what an opportunity this is.

The winds of change are stirring, you see. When I heard that refrain a hundred times a day last year it made me want to kick puppies. I got SO sick of it. But little did I know how true it would prove, in both good ways and bad. That the change Obama hopes to bring is of the most radical sort is clear. And in response conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, independents, and sane Democrats are pushing back. That’s a change, too. The monstrous growth of government and the subsequent intrusion upon the liberty of individual Americans has provoked a radical change in us, too. We don’t sit home and wait. We are a silent majority no more.

And now we have our moment, and now our voices are loud, and people have no option but to pay attention. The left is marshaling against us, calling us a mob or worse and literally gnashing their teeth at us. And now we must marshal back, we must join together in common cause. So I’ll be there with you. In Sacramento. In Salt Lake City. In Charlotte. In Atlanta. From coast to coast, I’ll be with you as we come and reason together, as we stand up together. We’ll create a spectacle of liberty and we’ll inform an army of activists. And when we’re through, when the tour has ended and the buses are gone and the last echoes of our cries for freedom have faded, we’ll be a movement. We’ll be in that moment. And we will be heard.

If you can sit by no longer while the whole of conservative thought is driven from the public square, as our leaders and our base are ridiculed by the press, as our very liberty faces existential threat, then join me. Join us. Join the movement.

I truly hope to see you there.

Keep ‘em home.
That should be the motto of every conservative with children in public school on the 8th of this month. That’s the day the President will be invading every classroom that will have him with what is being billed as a general, innocuous “stay in school, do your homework” message for public school students across the country. And if there’s one thing we have all learned, it’s that we can trust the Obama administration to say what they mean and mean what they say. Right?

Why should the presidential morning announcements concern parents? Well that list is too long for a complete accounting, but let’s talk about just a few of the big reasons.

First off, Michelle Malkin walks us through the materials distributed to schools to accompany the president’s instructions address, as well as listing some of the luminaries involved in Obama’s education plans. I would excerpt, but you really want to read the whole thing. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Over at HotAir, the normally skeptical Allahpundit is advising a wait and see attitude, suggesting there will be “ample time for outrageous outrage” later. I can think of many circumstances under which that would be sage advice, none of which involve the untrustworthy Obama administration or the well-being of my children. I’m happy, in other words, to wait and see what he says. So happy to, in fact, that I do believe I’ll wait with my kids. At home.

There is abundant reason and a yardstick-long history timeline’s worth of reasons to distrust what Obama is actually going to say to students, but that’s being ably covered by others, especially Michelle, Vodka Pundit, Dana Loesch, and Steve Foley.

Instead, I’m going to relate an anecdote.

I have two little girls. They attend a public school. Last year, we went to my oldest daughter’s classroom to see them present their “holiday” play. You don’t say “Christmas” play, see, because then you’re indoctrinating students.

So we are sitting in class, and my daughter and a few other kids, third-graders all, stand in front of the class. We parents then sat through the recitation of an excruciating litany of horrors that the world would be facing now that global-warming was here to destroy us all. Little scenes of animals dying were acted out. Prognostications about the end of man were made. Armageddon, as related by 8 and 9 year olds.

My own little girl stepped forward and told us all that in five years, if something wasn’t done, Myrtle Beach (where we share many happy family memories) would be lost under the waves forever. Guess how the play ended? With an exhortation to the parents of course. “Mom and Dad, what can you do? Turn off lights, drive hybrid vehicles, and vote for candidates who are working to change the world for the better.” A small child’s voice barely squeaked out “Obama” before the applause, and a few knowing chuckles, erupted among the yuppies, yippies, and go alongs.

Vote Democrat! …. says their teacher. This is not the first or last time overtly partisan, overtly leftist rhetoric was foisted on my children. That wasn’t even the first or last time that day. Every day they come home with something that I must debunk, refute, or dispute.

Now take another look at the lesson plan Obama is pitching.

*Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.

*Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

*Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.

*Interview and share about their goals with one another to create a supportive community.

*Participate in School wide incentive programs or contests for students who achieve their goals.

*Write about their goals in a variety of genres, i.e. poems, songs, personal essays.

*Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.

*Graph student progress toward goals.

I know my girls’ school, and I can read between the lines. I don’t have to “wait and see” to understand the lesson they’re going to be teaching that day. Here’s a quick summary “it takes a village.” Not descriptive enough? How about “from each according to his abilities” … does that work?

There is a puzzle being put together before us. The pieces just keep falling into place. Day of service. Compulsory volunteerism. Children being called to service for the good of the community. Can you see the picture it’s making?

On September 8th, Barack Obama will address the children of the nation. He will ask them to help him, as well as make pat statements about staying in school and doing your homework. And before and after he speaks, the teachers will be there, making sure your children read between the lines; helping them put the puzzle together.

But not my children. My children will be at home. This is one time the machine can’t have them.

*thanks to Redstate regular speciallist for the phrase “skool-aid”

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll notes the Obama administration is already backpedaling and covering-up.

Now, that does not mean it is not appropriate to criticize. It’s not even to say that on the very day you cannot reconfirm your distaste for the deceased. No, when a polarizing figure dies, even in the short hours following the news, it is to be expected and tolerated that those who oppose him will say so. Again, it’s a pushback against what may be historically inaccurate, hagiographic, rhetorical excess on the part of his dedicated fan base, as well as against any attempt to score political points with a perceived martyr. That’s understandable.

But what is not right, and certainly not classy, are the vicious and nasty personal comments celebrating the loss that others are feeling. Let me give you some examples:

That’s just awful. Especially a health jab at someone who died of brain cancer. Or this one:

Yes, the viciousness that greeted the announcement of the death of journalist Robert Novak was disgusting and cruel. Oh sorry, did you think I was talking about someone else? Well I wasn’t.

Robert Novak was a conservative and a journalist. He never sent anyone to war (in fact, he opposed the Iraq war), robbed a bank, or committed manslaughter at a lake; yet apparently the crime of being a conservative is justification enough for celebrating his death. Here are a few more choice Twitter screenshots:

They range from mundane nastiness:

To the predictable (and ubiquitous that day) final destination cracks:

From ‘just deserts’:

To just plain nasty …:

… nasty …:

… nasty:

And all the way to #cleverfail:

Believe me, there are plenty more where those came from.

Of course, I will also give credit where credit is due:

Unfortunately, he was undermined by his own blog.

Certainly, the world does not revolve around Twitter … yet. But the increasing hand-wringing about criticism directed at Kennedy often cites Twitter commentary, so let’s just call this a reminder. And just for a further reminder, Redstate, Hot Air, and Michelle Malkin blogged about Kennedy’s death as well. Note all the triumphal crowing about hell and such? Me either.

Now, let’s be real here. Yes, there was some nastiness from the right regarding Ted Kennedy on the day he died. Just as there was some even-handed and respectful commentary from the left, including from Markos Moulitsas himself, regarding Robert Novak on the day of his passing. But that’s just the point, isn’t it? The din of outraged objection from the left over negative Kennedy commentary rings all too hollow in the face of the arguably more sinister, arguably less justified nastiness from the left only a few weeks ago when another man of the same age died of the same disease from our side of the aisle.

For my part, I tried to keep mostly quiet on the day of Kennedy’s passing. Not for him. For them. But like I said, he was a polarizing figure. Criticism, even on the day of his death, is to be expected and tolerated.

As for the increasingly morally indignant objectors on the left, do let’s try and remember two weeks ago. Hmm?

Erick and Dan both pointed out last week that Cap and Trade legislation was meeting resistance from Democrats. This week, we have some revealing commentary from former Democratic Senator from Colorado, Timothy Worth. Worth was a “climate-change negotiator” during President Bill Clinton’s administration and currently runs the UN Foundation. Worth is a supporter of cap and trade. Let’s let him tell us about it in his own words. From Bloomberg:

“The Republicans are right — it’s a cap-and-tax bill.”

“That’s what it is because they are raising revenue to do all sorts of things, especially to take care of the coal industry, and it makes no sense.”

“What has happened is it’s gotten out of control.”

What? Democrats are using a climate scare as an excuse for government intrusion well beyond the scope of the issue at hand, broadening their power and diminishing that of the private sector and the individual? Come on.

What Wirth is suggesting is that the bill is too all-encompassing, touching on too many aspects of the economy. Should I repeat that for you? Democratic Climate Change Negotiator Timothy Wirth is suggesting that the climate change bill is too all-encompassing, touching on too many aspects of the economy. Make no mistake, Wirth supports the idea of cap and trade, just not THIS bill. Telling, no?

Wirth was one of the architects of the cap and trade program that was part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, so he has some experience with such things. His claim is that the current climate bill is out of control in contrast with his own plan from the 90s. Republican Candidate for Congress and Redstate Gathering star Michael Williams agrees:

Proponents of Waxman-Markey argue that the CO2 cap and trade bill is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA), which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain.

Not quite.

The sulfur dioxide program initially targeted only 110 coal-fired power plants. It was eventually expanded to 445 power plants. CO2 and GHG are emitted from power plants. They are also released from refineries, industrial plants, planes, trains, automobiles, ships, home furnaces, fertilizer production, farm animals, and millions of other sources, including humans. Most mosquito and insect traps emit CO2.

What all this goes to show is that even the true believers recognize the cynical maneuvering behind the legislation, which has made it past the House but faces problems ahead in the Senate. As I pointed out last week, it’s not really about emissions, or employees, or health care. The three-pronged attack of cap and trade, card check, and Obamacare is part of a massive progressive takeover; a breathtaking power grab by a movement that just “knows” it’s better than you, it’s smarter than you, and gosh darnit, people like it. Fighting the tide isn’t going to be easy, but at least with this one bill, we’re finding strange new allies on the left.

Harry Reid has set a deadline for cap and trade legislation of September 28th. As with every other massive program under Obama, they are trying to cram this one down our throats as quickly as possible before there can be real debate. Don’t let them slip this one by us. Cap and Tax is an economic disaster waiting to happen.

Timothy Wirth says the climate bill is “out of control.” A fitting description for the entire Obama agenda, I think.

I shot the shocking video below myself. I have not editing the foul language so please be warned: not safe for young ears.

Like me, you’ve been hearing about an angry mob. Well it exists. Watch this, then read on for important eyewitness details.

That violent mob was, as you no doubt guessed during my transparent buildup, from the left. I filmed this attack on Griff Jenkins and Fox News at the Recreate 68/World Can’t Wait riots protests in Denver during the Democrats’ coronation convention last fall. If you want to hear something even more vile, which I filmed at a protest outside the RNC, click here. Please understand, though, I did not edit the profanity or vulgarity, which are shocking and abundant.

Also in that Denver protest, and in those at the RNC, were ample depictions of Bush as Hitler. For those of you with short memory (media), back then the comparison was so commonplace it became abbreviated: Bushitler. Don’t remember any of that? Allow me to assist you.

But that’s cool. Because remember, in 2006, shouting and interrupting town halls was teh hip. It really didn’t drop out of fashion until … well, you know, he won.

Anyway, for all you KosKids (I’m looking at you Boxer) and mainstream media talking heads out there who so recently grew a sense of propriety … we’ll just call this a reminder. You have my permission to think about that Fox crew the next time you’re calling old people given microphones at events designed to solicit their feedback an “angry mob”. K? You’re welcome.