Palin resigned.  Did you hear the news?  No?  Well, where the hell’ve you been, Skippy?  Clearly not here at RedState.  Sanford screwed up.  Probably heard about that, too.  But in all the hubbub and handwringing going on regarding 2012 here in RedState, we’re quickly losing focus of something far more pressing: It’s only 2009.

We have a HUGE game still to play, and it’s way too early to start talking about the end of the season.  The 2010 election is vital.  Not just, “say, you know, it would be super-duper if we got some Republicans in the Legislature again.”  No.  Vital.  As in, “Say, if we don’t get some Conservatives on the Hill in 2010, we can pretty much wave a sad farewell to the Country we know and love.”

Am I overstating the case?  Obama runs GM.  The House passed a giant enviro-bill that will create new regs and costs for everybody from the “big bad corporations” to the working guy trying to buy a pack of smokes.  There are healthcare plans on the docket right now which will effectively gut our current system and pave the way for a single-payer system.   Like Canada, but run by the geniuses who brought you Walter Reed.  And that’s all inside the First Year.  Overstating my case?  Sure.  How’s that sand taste?

We have one thing we need to focus on right now.  One.  Putting Conservatives into the Legislature.  That’s it.  That’s the game we’re playing.  Not the 2012 election.  We don’t even have a player list for that one.  I don’t know who’s going to run in 2012, and I don’t give a damn — and neither should you. Because it is a distraction, and only a distraction.

We have enough problems for 2010 without everybody starting the infighting and loss of focus over Palin, Sanford or whoever else you wanted to draft for the POTUS campaign.  This is the one that matters.  Here.  Now.  Get your damned head in the game, or step off the field.

Many people have already heard about or read about California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, and her assertion that Conservative talk show hosts are “terrorists.”  If not, you can check The Corner at NRO.

It was during an interview with the LA Times.  The portion of the interview that, rightly, has many people up in arms is this:

Q: How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

A: The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

As a matter of fact, though the question was about talk radio, it’s clear she’s actually talking about the Republican Party in general, and its members.  What she’s talking about is simple protesting.  When you protest government, what are you telling them?  In essence, you’re here because we allow you to be; muck it up and you’re gone.

Bass appears to be under the impression that the Legislature is not answerable to the folks who put them in power.  Bass, it would appear, has never heard the phrase “Consent of the Governed.”  Perhaps she knows a Constitutional Scholar would could explain it to her.  For an elected official to equate the simple practice of the First Amendment with “terrorism” should start raising alarm bells in people.  That she would then suggest that believers in “Government by Consent” — a key founding principle of our nation, by the way — should be silenced, ought to scare the bejesus out of everyone.

But then, in keeping with the Liberal tradition of “Freedom for me, but not for thee,” Bass reveals that, actually, she’s okay with reminding Government who pays the bills — as long as you agree with her personal ideals.  From the Times interview, with absolutley NO clipping in the middle:

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

Do you get especially exasperated when your own people — Democrats — don’t agree with you?

You know, I was a community activist, so I’m used to standing out in front of an elected official’s office and protesting.

(italics added)

So, just to be clear: Community Activism, which Bass defines as “standing out in front of an elected official’s office and protesting” is fine and dandy, so long as you’re name is Karen Bass.  Using radio, television, letters and email to carry out your right as an American Citizen to make your voice heard by reminding your representatives who pays their mortgage – especially as a card-carrying Republican – that’s terrorism.  Got it.

According to an article by the Associated Press today, the Supreme Court overturning of Sotomayor’s discrimination ruling will cause “confusion.”  That, according to “civil rights” advocates and union attorneys like Wade Henderson.  Henderson, the President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, has suggested that a ruling in favor of the white folks (and two hispanics) in the New Haven case will create “confusing standards on how to meet that obligation.”

“Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination,” Henderson said. “Employers are looking for bright lines … they’re looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions.”

The ruling is confusing, Henderson said, because the high court seemed to say that while New Haven officials tried to avoid discrimination, throwing out the test was discriminatory. “It puts employers in a real quandary,” he said.

Shirley Wilcher, who is the executive Director of the American Association for Affirmative Action (could there be a more useless organization?) also chimed in, saying that the Obama Administration should be creating guidelines on how to deal with the ruling.

“In the meantime, we’re scratching our heads,” she said. “We’re concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate … and it’s not clear how to do that.”

There’s more, and I suggest reading the full article.  But we’ll stop there.  Several things bugged me about this piece.  But first thing’s first.

I need to address a pet peeve of mine.  I know I’ve heard Limbaugh use the phrases “Reverse Discrimination” and “Reverse racism.”  Many times, Conservatives use that termanology to differentiate between racism against non-whites and racism against whites.  “Progressives” have the same use: to them, there’s “real” racism, and then “reverse racism” — that against those who are racists by default.  This termanology needs to be expunged from our vernacular.  “Discrimination” and “racism” are not defined by ideology or by which group is being victimized.  Discrimination is simply the preference of one group over another.  Racism is simply ideological discrimination based on race.  Period.  White, black, red, tan, pink-and-orange — racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination.  Okay?  Moving along.

Now then, to Henderson and Wilcher.  What they seem to be saying — indeed, what Wilcher just comes right out and says — is that people don’t know how not to discriminate without instruction from … other people.  This idea is, let’s call it problematic, on many levels.  First, the obvious.  Does election to public office automatically enable one to answer a philosophical social question that an unelected person is (according to Wilcher and Henderson) funamentally unequipped to answer?  How does that work?  That takes care of the clear idiocy of Wilcher’s suggestion.

The bigger problem, though, is intent.  Let’s start with a basic statement of reality: If you need somebody to tell you how NOT to discriminate, you’re doing it wrong.  When I was a substitute teacher, my students were shocked when they found out I’d never experimented with illegal drugs, had never been drunk, and had been celibate before my wedding (hey, they asked, and they were in high school — I figured they could use a good, adult example).  “How,” they asked, “did you go through College without doing any of that stuff?”  “Simple,” I joked.  “I’m lazy.”  Then seriously, I would say, “Look, it’s actually very easy to not do something.  You just… don’t do it.  Inactivity is the default state.  Temptation is the hangup of people who seek approval from others.”

The same argument can be made for discrimination.  You don’t have to be told how to not discriminate.  You just don’t do it.  In a work situation, you make the choice to select the best candidate.  Period.  Yes, it’s actually that easy.  And, of course, while I’m not in favor of antidiscrimination laws in the private sector (I believe people should have the right to be a**holes if they so choose), there can be absolutely NO place for discrimination of any kind in the public services. 

What Henderson and Wilcher are really saying, then, is not, “How do employers know how not to discriminate” but rather, they are asking what the question of Affirmative Action has been all along: “How do they know who it’s okay to discriminate against.”

To a liberal, racism and discrimination are facts of life.  It is always going to go on.  Nobody gains through work, experience and acheivement — gain is always at the expense of somebody else.  This worldview is evident in nearly every single socio-economic policy liberals have ever introduced.

For Henderson and Wilcher, discrimination is always a zero-sum game.  In order for black individuals to NOT be discriminated against, white people must be.  And THAT is why they are so confused, and why they think employers will be.  Because they don’t understand that some people actually make the honest effort to be color blind.  An effort, for the record, which would actually be much easier if “progressives” weren’t so damned hung up on making it an issue.

(sent as an email to the office of John McHugh, and cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

Dear Congressman,

Thank you for selling out your constituents, and your countrymen, by supporting the Cap & Trade bill. A bill which you, like your colleagues, could never have had the time to read before the vote. A bill which even 44 Democrats crossed the aisle to prevent because even they understood that the mandates contained in the bill would be disastrous for business, for our economy, and for both workers and consumers.

Congressman, this is the second letter I’ve written you inre your failure to read a bad bill, and your willingness to vote for it anyway.

Mr. Congressman, if I get a response, I suspect that response will be, much like the one I got for the above-mentioned letter, a form letter extolling what you view as the virtues of this legislation — or at least, the fact that they included your own amendment. Kindly allow me to rebut in advance:

So?

Mr. Congressman, if you’ll allow me to be so blunt, neither I, your constituents, nor indeed most thinking Americans, could give two sh*ts whether your amendment prevents acid rain, saves the whales or turns corn starch into dandelion-excreting fuel alternatives. And why don’t we care? Because the REST of the bill, Mr. Congressman, presents us with far more pressing problems. Problems like how we plan on feeding our families, or driving to work.

There’s this thing that should be taken into account, sir, before agreeing to pass legislation. A thing upon which the lives and livelihoods of your countrymen depend far more than bad science and mandates. It’s called Economics. Perhaps, at some point during your career as a Legislator, you’ve heard of it?

As relates to the Cap & Trade bill you so cavalierly signed, it works like this:Producers’ costs go up, as demanded by following the C&T mandates. That cost is passed on to Consumers. (Consumers, just so we’re clear here, are your basic taxpayers. Folks, like those in your state of New York who have less money every year thanks to tax and fee increases). Consumers have to make choices about what they buy, because they can no longer afford to buy everything they otherwise would. Thanks to the price increases. So… producers must find ways to cut costs. How? By cutting production. Which means cutting personnel. Which means — have you figured it out yet? — unemployment goes up. And with Cap&Trade, we’re not talking about a percentage point here. We’re talking about an astronomic increase in good, taxpaying men and women who suddenly don’t have a means of supporting their families.

All thanks to you and seven other turncoat Republicans.

I hope the fact that those of your constituents you sold out don’t have the option of voting you out of office helps you sleep at night.

Yours, sincerely

(edit: I fixed a bit of profanity I forgot to edit before cross-posting.  My apologies to Mgmt)

In his speech to the AMA yesterday, President Obama decried criticism of a public health plan as partisan paranoia.  “What are not legitimate concerns,” he said, “are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. ”

Not legitimate?  Well, let’s see.  A “Trojan Horse,” of course, refers to the legend of the Trojan war in which a giant horse was delivered as a gift to the city of Troy, but which in fact held the city’s destruction.  In the President’s view, then, critics of the health plan would suggest that the plan, which is presented as a supplement, even a compliment, to the current (free-market) system, in fact is a means of the current system’s undoing.  Fair enough.  So, are those critics wrong, as Obama is suggesting they are?

Well, let’s simply examine the surface.  Something, perhaps, the Trojans would have done well to consider.  What is its function, its purpose?  Does it do the job it is purported to do, or is it hollow enough to be hiding destruction in its guts?  Now, when we’re looking, it’s important to remember that it’s still under construction.  What we’ve been privvy to are the public discussions of that construction.  That information which is being allowed to slip out.

What we know is that Obama wants a plan that involves a public health option.  A government-run, taxpayer-subsidized, publicly available insurance.  This plan would be inserted into the current market, ostensibly to provide care for those who need it and can’t get it elsewhere, and to compete with the private firms, to “encourage” them to create better, more affordable plans. 

There is a reason Conservatives strongly discourage government entry into the free-market system.  It creates monopolies.  This is something that even a community organizer should be able to understand.  And, even if not Obama himself, at least somebody on his financial staff understands how monopolies work.  And, I’m sure, the conversation has come up.  Democrats love discussing monopolies, after all; it helps define the enemy for the drudges of the class war.  Surely, they understand how monopolies are made.

In short, here’s the problem: it creates an unlevel playing field in the marketplace.  On the Capitalist side, you have privately funded groups which are in business to make a profit for themselves and for their stockholders.  Insurance is hard work; nobody does it for free.  The capitalist system is built on making profit.  That’s how companies stay afloat.  And, surely, Obama (who assures us, after all, that a public health plan is NOT designed to destroy the free market) wants these companies to stay afloat… right?  On the other side, though, you have the “Public” health plan.  A plan that is government sponsored, which means, in many cases, taxpaying Americans are already paying for it, even if they aren’t using it.  Further, this plan is a government beaurocracy — designed specifically to not make a profit, and being operated by government employees who, by and large, get paid less than free-market executives (after all, why become an executive if it doesn’t pay well?).  Plus, as with all government entities, should it fail to meet the bottom line (in this case, to simply cover operating expense), it has the benefit of being taxpayer-funded, so the government will simply foot the bill.  This will, of course, sink the US further into debt, but that’s neither here nor there.

Obama has said the idea is to get the private Health industry to compete with this new government monster.  What he has not said is that such competition is impossible.  You don’t compete against somebody who’s holding all the cards.  You’re not even in the game.  This new “competitor” in the healthcare industry will have the power to make all the rules in the game, will have no stockholders to be held accountable by, no need for profit, or even sustainability.  And the President thinks the private industry will compete how?

The truth is, he doesn’t.  The truth is, he knows damned well what a publicly-funded system will do to the private industry.  He knows that what he’s presenting as a boon and a gift to free-market healthcare, in fact houses a bellyfull of destruction — and that, when the dust settles, there will be one entity standing.  A single-payer government system.

Reuters’ James Pethokoukis isn’t fooled.  As he pointed out yesterday:

New York District 20 rep John McHugh, currently the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is apparently being chosen by Barack Obama as his new Secretary of the Army.  Fox News says Obama will officially name McHugh to replace current Secretary Pete Geren.

McHugh is another Republican pick for Obama’s defense staff.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates worried Obama supporters because they believed a Republican pick would bolster opinions of Democrats as weak on defense.
UPDATE: remarks from Obama…

“… My administration has increased funding for our military, including the army, and increasing the size of the military two years ahead of schedule.”

That’s gotta sting some Code Pinkers.

“Today I’m proud to announce the distinguished public servant who will help keep us safe, and who will help keep our sacred trust with our soldiers and their familes.  The next Secretary of the Army, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, John McHugh.”

<snip>

“… but it is his service over the past 16 years in Congress, as a champion of our men and women in Uniform that uniquely qualifies him to help lead America’s Army.”

<snip>

“John is committed to keeping America’s Army the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best-led land force the world has ever seen.”

And… where the politics come into play…

“Finally, John shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home.”

Translation: John is a token Republican who I probably won’t listen to, but at least the media can point to when people claim I’m not being bipartisan.

This, of course, followed by the standard “It’s an honor to be nominated” stuff by McHugh.

Yesterday, Obama called for a speedy confirmation of his SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.  Any opposition, he claimed, was built along purely partisan lines, and not on drawing “old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record.”

Obama seems to be missing the point, but fair enough; enough Republican pundits and pols have played the race card with Sotomayor’s comments that he can perhaps be forgiven for being confused on the issue.  So, in the spirit of fairness, let’s look at Sotomayor’s comments, and then the Administration’s interpretation of those comments, so that we can look at them in Obama’s “proper context.”

Sotomayor, of course, made the now-infamous remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

For those painting the comments as “racist,” the sticking point here would appear to be the “better conclusion” remark.  And they have a point.  But there is a context here which lends itself to the Administration’s interpretation.  The argument can be made, and should be made, I think, that what she’s really saying is simply that her life experiences give her a perspective into the lives of the people involved in the individual cases, and better inform her judgements.

Okay?  Fair enough?  So let’s diffuse this racist thing and boil down what she’s “really” saying.  She’s not saying “Latina women are smarter than white men.”  No, what she’s saying is that because of her experiences, she has the ability to render judgements on individual cases, not according to the law and constitution, but based on subjective standards based on her subjective life experiences.  As Obama said, hers will be decisions based on empathy and understanding.

One problem with that, of course: any subjective coloring of her decisions based on her life experiences is a clear violation of her oath of office.

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

(from about.com)

Without respect to persons.  Equal right to the poor and rich.  Faithfully and impartially.  This is the point Obama seems to be missing.  This is the point hidden by the “race” controversy.  A Justice should not be swayed by subjective experience.  At all.  The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to judge, not based on her idea of “fair,” not based on what she personally thinks would be best for one party or the other.  But on the law of the land and on the Constitution.

No wonder Obama wants a quick confirmation.  Perhaps he fears that, given enough time, the racial undertones of Sotomayor’s comments will give way to the reality of her views on the position of the courts as unelected activist legislators.

There is a reason for the courts being set up the way they are.  Put simply, the Highest Court exists as a safeguard against (often well-intentioned) idealism or ambition turning into tyranny against the citizens of the United States.  To be sure that the laws of the land apply equally to all, and not differently depending on your race, income or social status.

And even if you take Sotomayor’s comments in the context the Administration suggests, that’s really what it comes down to.  She — and Obama — believe that her experiences give her the insight into how to apply the law in the way that best fits their subjective version of “fairness,” as applied to each individual.  Which is precisely the opposite of what the Supreme Court oath demands.

Hopefully, Republican leaders can learn from the recent past and understand that when this administration calls for a quick decision, it’s often because there’s something to hide.

In letters to Senators Gillibrand and Schumer – as well as to Congressman John McHugh – Nancy Foster, Chairwoman of the Lousiville Republican Committee is urging new laws on legislative accountability and transparency.   The text of that letter follows:

Along with millions of other Americans we were absolutely appalled that our government representatives voted on the $787 billion dollar American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill) without personally reading the legislation in its entirety. We have since learned that it is not uncommon for our elected officials to vote on bills they have not personally read. Instead, they rely on staff recommendations and committee reports. No matter how dire our circumstances seem to be, members of Congress cannot abdicate their responsibility to their staff or committees.

The American public has become increasingly frustrated with a government whose rhetoric does not match its actions. We were promised transparency but have gotten a maze of convoluted trails that seem to be contrived to bar the public from following how, where, and when our tax dollars are being spent.

Not only is legislation rarely open for public scrutiny before it is voted on, it is written in legal language and references volumes of material not provided to the public when they are able to view a bill.

Although President Obama promised he would “…not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days” that has not happened. Government is losing the trust of the American people. You can help ebb that trend by authoring and supporting a bill that will guarantee, except in cases of extreme national security emergencies:

1.  The distribution of all legislation to the members of Congress seven days prior to a vote on said legislation.

2. The posting of all legislation, including references, to an internet site accessible to the public at the same time it is distributed to the members of Congress. Such posting shall also include a straightforward summary of the major points of the bill.

3. No last minute additions or changes shall be made to pending legislation without providing members of Congress and the public an additional seven days for review of the proposed additions or changes.

4. Most Americans view the practice of inserting identity free earmarks in the dead of night as unacceptable cowardly acts unworthy of our government representatives. All legislation must mandate author identification of all earmarks.

The American taxpayer needs reassurance that our government representatives are working on their behalf. Authoring and supporting a bill which includes the above components would be a very positive step in regaining an ebbing trust.

Given Obama’s own promises while on the campaign trail, and an out-of-control Congress, this is common sense legislation that every New Yorker — and every American — should not merely request of their representatives, but demand.  It is high time we remind our legislators who they work for.  They don’t work for the President, and they don’t work for the DNC, or George Soros, or Moveon.org.  They work for us.  For Americans.  Americans who are sick of the mountains of waste and debt being laid at the feet of our children.

The concepts contained in this letter are not partisan in nature.  Every Legislative session, whether run by Republicans or Democrats, ought to follow the rules outlined here.   And every voter – whether Republican, Democrat, Green or Libertarian — should expect nothing less from their representatives.

Remember, we’re not asking for anything that wasn’t promised by Candidate Obama before his election.  It’s time to hold our leaders accountable.  Call your represetatives, and demand this legislation.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

You’d think Senator Gillibrand would have important things to do, as both a member of the US Senate and as a member of the Agriculture Committee. Things like dealing with the economy, for example (not that I necessarily want her to and her Democrat allies to be passing legislation and such, but, still). But evidently, what she and others find to be of surpassing importance is a bill to require calorie counts on chain restaurant menues.

Well, I for one wish her all the luck in the world. After all, clearly the only reason I’m fat is because I just don’t understand how many calories I’m putting into my body. Well, that, and because soda is just a few cents too cheap. Please, Federal Government, save me from myself. If only I knew how fattening these foods are, I could stop putting them in my body. Just like how everybody quit smoking after the Surgeon General made them put all the cancer warnings on packs of cigarettes. And the children! How are parents supposed to know that chicken wrapped in starch and fried is actually not the healthiest thing their kids could eat, without proper labeling on the menues to tell them?

But, you know, why stop there? If the government is to be in charge of my safety and well-being (like all good governments should), why even give me the option? Why not just outlaw fatty foods? And cigarettes. Driving faster than 35 mph? Driving at all?

(warning: some strong language)

(cross-posted at SLCLiberty [digg link])

It took a recommendation by the Property Tax commission to do it.   David Paterson has issued an executive order to the State Legislature requiring that all new legislation with attached costs must also come with a plan to pay for it.  Traditionally, Albany has simply issued mandates without such a requirement, leaving local municipalities to foot the bill.  Meaning, in general, insanely high property taxes.  Because, evidently, we still have too much money in our pocketbooks after all the other insanely high taxes here in New York.

But, says Paterson, that is no longer the way of Albany.

“We will now have a pay -as-you-go philosophy in Albany,” said Paterson. “You pass a bill and it costs us money, you also have to show how we’ll pay for it. If not, we cannot do it at this time.”

I would echo the NY Republican leadership here, that Paterson’s new order flies in the face of his own actions:

But Republicans say the governor’s mandate relief announcement is counter to what his budget actually does. They say by passing measures like the Rockefeller Drug Law reforms, which pushes more costs down to counties, and by eliminating programs such as the STAR rebate checks, New Yorkers are hurting now more than ever

But, even if that were not the case, I am not convinced the new Executive Order actually solves any problems.

My wife and I have a policy where we never buy something we don’t have the cash for.  If we can’t afford it today, we don’t get it.  We own debit cards, and not a single credit card between us.  This ensures our policy sticks, in the face of temptation.  We are forced to recognize that buying one thing means not having money available for something else.  In general, not only is this sound financial policy for families, but also for business and, yes, governments.

The problem is, for too long, states like New York have tended to act as though the taxpayer is a limitless source of income.  Need to pay for something?  Put it on the taxpayer.  Paterson addresses a part of this tendency: Albany’s traditional policy of pushing the cost of new mandates onto homeowners.  In and of itself, this seems like a good start.  In reality, it treats a symptom of the greater disease, and with potential side effects that are just as bad as the symptom.  It’s like treating a tension headache with a medicine that causes ulcers.  It neither addresses the tension at the root of the headache nor provides the patient with real relief.  It just shifts the burden.

Putting taxpayers on the hook at a hundred bucks a year for some mandate takes that money from the taxpayer.  Whether it comes through property tax, income tax, or some new usage fee is beside the point.  Unlike the government, the average taxpayer does not have an income source that can give out more when he lives beyond his means.  And, in the case of usage fees, which seem to be Paterson’s modus operandi, what that means is that where such fees are attached, services are used less.  Which means, ultimately, the money will come from somewhere else anyway.

Certain people, who either haven’t bothered to educate themselves about the truth, or are being deliberately obtuse, have painted the Tea Parties of this month as mere “anti-tax” rallies by people who want government services, but don’t want to pay for them.  It may make for a good soundbite, but this clear nonsense obfuscates reality.  What we want is responsible government.  We want government who realizes that we don’t work in order to fund state programs, but to provide for our families and to live our lives.  We want Albany — and Washington — to understand that government is meant to be peripheral, not central, to our daily lives.  And, that said, we want them to start using our money — that’s our money, not theirs — more wisely.

We don’t want empty words from Paterson, finally making the suggestion that Albany behave as though they understand they actually have to pay for the things they put into law.  We want action that shows that Albany understands the citizens of New York simply can’t send all their money to the State Capitol to fund every pet project that comes along.

Personally, I’d like to see an extended moratorium on all new spending.  But I’m not holding my breath.

I’d settle for a State — and national — government that looked for real areas to cut spending.  A lot of spending.  Not these drop-in-the-bucket cuts like those suggested by Obama for Washington and Paterson for Albany, but real examinations of current spending, followed up with real reductions in beaurocracy and spending. 

What we, the taxpayers, would settle for, is a government that stopped talking up fiscal responsibility, and started acting like it was a priority.

People paying attention to copyright law may remember some noise in The Hill in mid-late 2007 about imposing performance fees on terrestrial radio stations.  At the time, it didn’t really go anywhere, so the idea managed to stay out of the public eye.  But it wasn’t gone.

In February of this year, with next to no fanfair or coverage, this so-called “Performance Rights Act” was reincarnated as H.R. 848 and S. 379 and began making the rounds in both houses of Congress.  I posted on this item, from the perspective of a local broadcaster, at my local blog, SLC Republitarian:

Though the proponants of the bill claim money taken through these fees will go to artists, the reality is that very few newer artists actually own the copyrights to their songs. The biggest group of artists to benefit from these bills will, in fact, be those with enough clout to own their own copyrights — most of whom are already filthy rich. The main copyright holders in this industry are, in fact, record labels. And, of those new artists who do own their own copyrights, such a fee would actually be a detriment — if broadcasters have to pay for the “privelidge” of promoting these bands and songs on air, we’re certainly not very likely to waste that time on untried artists.

So what these bills will actually do is keep money in the hands of the rich, by taking it out of the pockets of radio broadcasters, including small, local and independent stations. In other words, we would be looking at a situation where large corporations prosper at the expense of small business — by federal law. And let’s face it, local radio is already in some trouble. Year after year it becomes harder for independent stations to compete with large corporate entities like Citadel or Radio 1. Under a free market system, these smaller stations find ways to keep operating. They make cuts where necessary, they gain favor of local businesses… and those that don’t exactly thrive are at least surviving. These bills would be inconvenient for corporate radio. They could very well spell the end for many smaller stations.

But, the arguement goes, don’t these artists and copyright holders deserve to be paid? After all, the songwriters are being paid by the stations, so why not the other copyright owners? Well, because, put simply, artists and record companies are being paid because of what the stations do. They are paid in sales. Songwriters, many of whom do not enjoy the noteriety of recording artists, don’t get concert receipts, or promotion deals. They get paid primarily through the airplay and performance of their songs. Recording artists, on the other hand, get paid for showing up and smiling at the camera. These “other” copyright holders get paid through merchandise and other things. All of which is made possible by the songwriters, but are peripheral to specific songs. And, of course, you have the fact that many artists write their own songs, which means they are already paid for them through the current system.

But back to the value of radio to the industry, for a minute. As I said above, in a sense, these other copyright holders are indeed paid by radio stations, through free publicity. It’s true, a radio station benefits financially through playing these songs. I would argue, artists and record companies benefit even more. In fact, as a broadcaster, allow me this moment to address the artists and companies pushing for this legislation:

We give you free publicity. We do interviews with you, and specials about your upcoming releases. If it wasn’t for radio, nobody would care who you are — and they certainly wouldn’t pay obscene amounts of their hard-earned cash for your concert tickets and CDs. You would be a random name on a random CD cover (if you were lucky) that might sell a few thousand copies. You are rich because we play your music. Playing your music gets the public interested in your CDs, and in your concert tickets. That gigantic house? The limos and car collections? The throngs of screaming fans? Yeah. We did that. You’re welcome.

…

But, here, the point I want to make is this: why is the government involved at all?  Here we have a symbiotic relationship between private entities.  It is not for the govenrmnet to decide who should get paid for what, how much they should get paid, and who should do the paying.  That isn’t the free market, and it’s not how the industry runs.

The problem, as I see it, is that a few people in the recording industry got together and decided that if they simply tried to impose these fees on radio stations, those stations would simply work with the companies that didn’t charge them.  The only way to maintain equal airplay, and still get what they wanted, then, was to socialize the system.

Let’s be clear.  This isn’t about rights.  It isn’t about bettering the system.  It’s about money.

People may find it ironic that the Democrats — that “party of the working man,” which cries constantly about the “rich getting richer while the poor get poorer” — are in fact legislating the “rich getting richer” and in many cases forcing the “poor to get poorer.”  I, actually, do not find this ironic, because I’ve never been suckered by the pretty words uttered by liberals.

All in all, this is just another attempt by liberals to expand federal powers (and, some have suggested, to reward certain members of the music industry for their votes).  It shouldn’t be surprising, but it should be stopped.

Noperformancetax.org has more on this subject, as well as the Congressional and Senatorial resolutions against such legislation.  Call your congresscritters, and be sure to thank those who have already signed on to these resolutions.  Don’t allow them to destroy small business in favor of Big Production.

Two students have filed suit against Peralta College after being suspended for praying.

Now, I’m not one who likes to go off half-cocked.  Normally, I like to go beyond the headlines, and often find that there’s just more to it than that.  Like, maybe they were praying loudly in the middle of class, being disruptive, and ignoring the professor’s instructions to sit down.  Then, I’ll be honest, I’d probably back a suspension.

But that isn’t what happened.

According to court documents, Kyriacou was praying with an instructor in December 2007 — after the instructor said she was feeling ill — when another instructor entered the office and told the student that praying was not allowed. Soon afterward, Kyriacou was talking with Omaga in a hallway, where the same instructor confronted them and said, “You can’t be doing that in there. That’s our office.”

A few days later, they were served with suspension papers citing, get this, “”Disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity; or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises.”

Evidently, after consultation with the students’ attorneys, the school did take back the suspensions.  “Instead,” says the report, ”administrators formally warned the women that they cannot engage in disruptive behavior.”

Singling out students based solely on their religious beliefs?  Warning them that practice of those beliefs is considered “disruptive behavior?”  On a state-funded campus?

There is no excuse for this, and none should be accepted.

Any day you can drive through Northern New York with the windows down is a good day.  And, considering I was about to stand on a line holding a sign for two and a half hours, this bode very well indeed.  The light breeze and clear, blue sky was all the encouragement I needed that this was a darn fine day for dissent.

As I pulled into Canton and started looking for a parking spot, I stopped at a red light that put me just across the road from the protesters facing Main Street.  My window down, one attendee yelled, “Hey, honk if you support us.”  I smiled and honked, and avoided the temptation to grab my own gigantic signs to wave back at them as the a protester yelled, “we’re here for you, too!”

Amen to that.

Once on the line, I handed one of my two signs off to another protester, and was immediately struck by the overall friendliness of the crowd.   Here we were, serious as a heart attack and mad as hell over taxation, runaway spending, and the wholesale bankrupting of generations of our offspring — but it was more like talking politics with old friends over coffee.

Read More →

Against all odds, in spite of trillions of dollars being funneled to auto manufacturers, insurers and financial institutions, billions of dollars spent on state and federal makework projects and millions in proposed new taxes, people just aren’t buying stuff.  According to Fox News, sales dropped 1.1 per cent — further than the .03 per cent originally projected.

Listen, people.  Your children aren’t going to bankrupt themselves.  And, frankly, there is only so much the government can do — even the government under Barack Obama.  Sure, the man can perform miracles, but you have got to do your part, too.

Now, in his benevolence, Obama is still trying to help, through increased business taxes, which will of course be passed on to you.  But you’re an important part of this equation.  Pay your taxes — it is, after all the patriotic thing to do.  And, for God’s sake, stop squirrelling away your money.  The President has shown the way to nickel and dime your kids out of prosperity, and it is time we learn from his example.  So drop those remaining dollars on iPods, DVD collections — whatever.

The Obama administration has worked hard to get money into the hands of people who need it least; it is up to you, now, to do your part.

Yesterday, Captain Richard Phillips was rescued by Navy SEALs from the hands of the four pirates who held him for five days.  And now, he’s getting a hero’s welcome at home.

But what makes him a hero?

Our society, longing perhaps, for heroes lately, tends to throw the word around pretty loosely.  Society, in our seemingly endless quest to venerate the mediocre, bestows the title, “Hero” on everyone from fathers who merely act as fathers should, to people who happen to have contracted a deadly disease.  This is not to denegrate any of these acts, or the individuals who accomplish them (or to whom they happen).  Indeed, there is a shortage of good fathers, or teachers.  But heroism is not merely doing what is (or should be) expected of you — it is going above and beyond.

Our culture, in its celebration of victimhood, often elevates the victim to the status of “hero” — based solely on the fact that something bad has happened to him.  This is not heroism.  It is unfortunate.  But it is not, by itself, some noble thing.

If you want a definition of “hero,” look to the men and women of our Armed Forces, who willingly put themselves in harm’s way for the defense of their countrymen.  Look to the men and women who become police officers, risking much, up to and including their lives, to uphold the laws of our society.  Look to the men and women who run headlong into a burning building, risking all for the lives and safety of their fellow citizens. 

No, heroism is not merely doing the right thing.  Heroism is knowing that the right — the necessary — thing could well come at a great cost to you… and then doing it anyway.

The word “hero” is being bandied about now, regarding the rescue of Cpt. Phillips.  Fanatic supporters of the President even use the word to describe Obama — simply for doing what he should have done long before finally deciding to do it.

The men and women of the Navy, and the SEALs who effected this rescue are heroes.  They always were.  And, yes, Phillips is a hero.

That he was held hostage by pirates and rescued — that he was victimized — is not what makes him a hero.  Plenty of others have been in that situation who are simply not deserving of the title.  What makes Captain Richard Phillips a hero is that he willingly gave himself to the situation, to save his shipmates.  He understood this act of pure selflessness may well be his last, and he did it anyway. 

And it is his willingness to trade himself for the lives of others that makes Captain Phillips a by-God True American Hero.

A quick rant to start this off: Know your enemy.  My inbox sickens me every day with psychotic rantings from moveon.org and the angry, babykilling chants of NARAL.  Not to mention various other liberal organizations.  I do this for one reason only: to know what they’re up to and look for opportunities for countermeasures.  Every now and then, I think to myself, why do I not just unsubscribe from this garbage?  But then, as happened yesterday, I get an email that reminds me why I subject myself to it.

Yesterday, I received an email from Daniel Mintz, of Move On’s political action arm.  It came with a link to a petition to treasury secretary Tim Geithner.  The message:

“We can’t trust the same people who got us into this financial mess to help lead us out. Replace the leadership at the bailed-out banks, starting with Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.“

That’s the gist.  If you want to read it, here’s the whole message (out of fairness, I’ve also included their ’sources’):

Dear MoveOn member,

Last week the Obama administration took tough, decisive action with the auto industry, forcing the resignation of the CEO of General Motors.

The president knows that we can’t trust the same folks who got us into this mess to help lead us out.

It’s time to do the same for the banks. And the best way to start is by firing Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis. He’s the worst of the worst. 

Lewis’s poor management helped ruin his company and our economy. Shareholders are calling him “reckless” and citing “disastrous missteps.”¹ Worse, Lewis accepted $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds, but instead of using all the money to get the economy going again, he let $3.6 billion go to bonuses for top execs.²

There can’t be real reform on Wall Street until the CEOs who brought down the banks we had to bail out are long gone. 

Can you sign our petition asking Treasury Secretary Geithner replace the leadership at bailed out banks—starting with Ken Lewis? Clicking here adds your name:  

http://pol.moveon.org/lewis//o.pl?id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=4

The petition says: “We can’t trust the same people who got us into this financial mess to help lead us out. Replace the leadership at the bailed-out banks, starting with Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.“

Lewis is the CEO of the biggest bank in the United States.³ If Secretary Geithner forces him to resign, it’ll send a strong message to the rest of Wall St.: The era of zero accountability is over and reckless behavior that puts our economy at risk won’t be tolerated.

Of all the folks who helped bring about the recession, Lewis is one of the worst:

• Shareholders say he helped drive the company into the ground. Bank of America has lost billions—and 90% of its value—in part because Lewis “hastily arranged the ill-considered acquisition” of Merrill Lynch.⁴
• Even after the crisis, he hasn’t changed his ways. He ensured that high-level staff received bonuses—despite recent announcements that the bank was laying off another 35,000 employees.⁵
• On top of all this, he’s fighting against more rights for workers. Three days after receiving $25 billion in bailout money, Bank of America brought together powerful banking interests to figure out how to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that makes it easier for workers to form unions.⁶

Ken Lewis has got to go. And we need to look closely at the other bailed-out banks that may need new leadership too.

Our friends at Service Employees International Union (the country’s fastest-growing union) have been leading this campaign for a few weeks—and they’re building momentum quickly. If hundreds of thousands of us act, together, we’ll be impossible to ignore. Please sign today!

http://pol.moveon.org/lewis//o.pl?id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=5

Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Patrick S., Eli, Lenore and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. “Investment group calls on BofA to fire Ken Lewis,” WCNC, March 5, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51294&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=6

“Union to B of A: Fire Ken Lewis or Risk a Shareholder Revolt,” Talking Points Memo, March 5, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51295&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=7

2. “Thain tells investigators BofA’s Ken Lewis knew of bonuses,” CNN Money, February 20, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51285&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=8

3. “Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis scores another deal,” Fortune, September 15, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51289&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=9

4. “Investment group calls on BofA to fire Ken Lewis,” WCNC, March 5, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51294&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=10

5. “Ken Lewis, What’s Really in Your Company’s Best Interest?” SEIU Blog, February 12, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51290&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=11

6. “Bailout Recipients Hosted Call to Defeat Key Labor Bill,” Huffington Post, January 27, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51292&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=12 

 

What we’re looking at here is simple distraction.  It is an extension of the liberals’ general goal of making you forget whose fault this is.  It’s a simple strategy: misdirect and incite to action.  Liberals who are busy frothing at the mouth and signing petitions don’t have time to examine reality.  And that’s precisely what Daniel Mintz — and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, for that matter — want.

People are starting to notice what RedState bloggers and Conservative talkers have been saying all along: that this is the Democrats’ mess.  And the Dems are noticing that we’re noticing.  And they don’t like it.  To wit:

Daniel Mintz and Barney Frank don’t want you to remember that this all started with Jimmy Carter and company mandating that banks give loans to people of dubious reliability (PS, the entire above link is well worth the read, and counts as my citation on other points as well).  Or that said legislation was tightened further in the age of “Political Correctness.”  Or that Barney Frank denied Fannie and Freddie were in trouble — all the while having slept with a former Fannie Mae exec, and recieving over $40,000 in campaign donations from the group.  Or that Frank and Dodd, both recipients of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie, as well as AIG and others, ignored warnings that the housing bubble had to burst.  They don’t want you to remember that they voted for a bailout package nobody had time to read, or that they voted for the “bailout bonuses” everybody’s up in arms about.

No, Democrats don’t want to take any blame for this mess we’re in.  And so, they point the finger at bank CEOs — for doing what banks do!  They seek to unconstitutionally expand the powers of, not only the President, but the President’s underlings, to dictatorial proportions.  And moveon.org is trying to convince people, not only to accept these unprecedented governmental powers, but to ask for them.  Tricky as hell, Dan Mintz.  Sly as an effing fox.

It’s up to us, then — we who know the truth — to counter these lies.  We haven’t forgotten where this crisis came from, and we can’t let them forget, either.

(from a post at St. Lawrence Co. Republitarian)

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was in Cortland, New York Tuesday, speaking with local business leaders about how to best stimulate local economy.  Basically, the idea was to seek grant proposals for money that is already earmarked for the State.  The gist: we have x amount of dollars, now let’s decide how to spend it.

Now, let’s forget, for the moment, that Obama’s so-called “stimulus” package, um, isn’t.  Let’s forget that you don’t put the nation in debt in order to stimulate economic wellbeing.  Let us pretend, as Obama and the Legislative democrats are doing, that tossing money at states (to the detriment of our childrens’ economic future) is indeed the right move to make.  Even so, shouldn’t discussions about where, and how much money should be spent, have already happened?  Shouldn’t the government, since they’re evidently going to try playing the investment game, have some ideas already in mind before they start shelling out money?

But let’s continue.  Let’s look at reality and actually take this road to its end:  shouldn’t the government, perhaps, have asked whether those investments should even be made?  Or, since many Americans gave answers to that question without being asked by government anyway, shouldn’t the government, perhaps, have even pretended to listen?

But they didn’t. 

Democrats and bad Republicans knew what they wanted to do, and, without regard to consequence or even a moderate view of economic reality, they went ahead and did it.  And now, in standard Democrat Party fashon, they want to have their cake, and eat it too.  They want to be able to pass these tax and spending increases, all the while claiming to not like them.  All the while claiming to be listening to the cries of their constituency.  This, like the AIG bonus tax, is nothing other than Democrats trying to cover their collective ass — and should be taken as nothing else.

Gillibrand’s acknowledgement of “concerns about government spending in the face of mounting budget deficits” sound suspiciously like talking points coming out of most politicians who voted for this thing — and ring just as hollow.

But, says Gillibrand, now that the money’s been spent, it’s time to decide how to use it.

“With a national unemployment rate of five percent and a local unemployment rate at eleven percent, we’ve got a lot of work to do. And so by coming here, I can listen to all our community leaders, our business leaders, our leaders in education and health care and hear directly from them what the problems are and also what their ideas are for the best solutions,” said Gillibrand.

It just seems like a conversation that should have happened a couple months ago — before Obama and Company sold our future to foreign powers.

During Obama’s remarks to France yesterday, the President claimed that, when it comes to Europe, America has been both “arrogant” and “dismissive.”

“[The United States has] failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world”, President Barack Obama said yesterday. … Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

So, in other words, because of our belief in American exceptionalism, we are, indeed, the problem certain UN members say we are.  Now, to gain balance, Obama, did say that European nations have been very anti-American — for which he lays the blame squarely at our feet once again.  But what really stands out here is to be found between the lines.

Obama, during the course of his speech, also promised that “America is changing ….”  The message, loud and clear, is that rather than deriding our European neighbors and their absurdly socialist one-worlder “European Union”, the united states should recognize the “leadership” of that community.

Never mind that the entire world is undergoing economic meltdown — including the EU.  Never mind that it is the United States — not the EU, and not the UN — that must impliment retribution when the United Nations fail to back up their own policies and sanctions.

No, what Obama makes plain here, and in his words to the G20, is that our country is, under his leadership, headed toward one-world government.  And he, Obama, promises to be the bridge that takes us there.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

The President may be a lot of things, few of them flattering, but one thing he is not is politically stupid.  Becoming known for calling out Republican rivals, Obama is now, carefully, working to spread the word that His Excellency will brook no deviation from within the ranks.  And, though he has the political acumen to hide his threats in laughter, even those on his own side aren’t missing the underlying message.

In a meeting of House Dems on Monday, Obama recalled Oregon Rep Peter DeFazio’s dissension regarding the disastrous “stimulus” bill:

“I know you think we need more for that because you voted against” the stimulus bill in February, Obama told DeFazio during a question-and-answer session with about 150 House Democrats at the Capitol.

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama added, as other lawmakers howled with laughter. …

This is, indeed, new politics here in the US.  Obama promised change, and now we begin to see the scope of it.  Not only is Barack Obama not even trying to keep his campaign promises of openness and bipartisanship, but we see now that he will accept no alternatives or dissent from his liberal agenda — from anybody.

Message received, Mr. President.  Your laughter isn’t fooling anyone.

I know, it’s a long title… but it had to be done. 

This is not a post about what’s happening in Florida re: the cancelled tea party.  There are plenty of diaries here at RedState that discuss exactly that.  Rather, this is a post about what to do about it.  It’s very easy for RedStaters to point to the would-be protestors in Florida and tell them they ought to protest anyway.  In fact, there are several good suggestions written as responses right here on RS.  And I do intend to get to that, somewhat.  But more importantly, this is about what we — anyone who cares about liberty — ought to do.

I introduced the following recommendation on Erick’s post regarding the events in Florida, and I hope to expand on them here.

First, allow me to reiterate that, even though this is a local issue, it is one that is important to all of us.  Though Cape Coral is the first municipality to actually cancel a scheduled protest, it comes out of the same attitudes that allow for other municipalities — any government entity, really — to believe they can, or even should, issue “permits” for a peaceful assembly.

We as Republicans — as people who claim to value freedom — cannot and should not tolerate the idea that this natural right, protected by our Constitution, should be subject to the approval of a government entity.  No matter who, by the way, is protesting.  Whether protestors are for us, politically, or against us, we must make it incumbent on ourselves to defend their right to do so.   Our forbears’ failure to protect those with whom we have disagreed in the past is precisely why we find ourselves in this prediciment now.  Freedom is freedom; and freedom denied is tyranny for all.

So what do we, freedom-loving people, do about what’s happening now?  What do we do about states and municipalities in which the government demands hoops be jumped through in order to have access to our simple right of free assembly?  More to the point, what do we do about a municipality that has changed its mind, and cancelled the approval to protest, as has happened here?  What do we, who claim to value the Constitution as dearly as our own lives, do about the fact that “approval for protest” even exists in the American vernacular?

I can think of two things.  The first has been mentioned by myself and many fellow RedStaters, and is both valid and necessary: Protest Anyway.  Both links above go to Erick’s post, and below the linked responses are several excellent ideas regarding how to carry on the protest in the face of this adversity.  I’m not going to repost them here, but I’ll summarize by saying: SHOW UP.  You don’t need a permit to stand on public property, even if you are holding a sign, or wearing a t-shirt.  And if a bunch of other people happen to have the same idea at the same time, well, that’s just convenient.  Your taxes pay for that upkeep.  It’s your property.  Show up, and have your say.

The second response is also important.  The second step recognizes the fact that some people in government have seen fit to deny rights expressly protected by the First Amendment, by claiming authority over those rights which they never should have had.  It also only works if many of us are involved and organized. Sending angry emails can be useful, but it doesn’t show the force, resolve and organization that is necessary to send the right message.

And what is the right message?  Simple:  We (lovers of liberty) are many, we are organized, and we are pissed.  To that end,  what I am proposing is, in essence, a harrassment campaign.   The goal is to make an example of the Cape Coral City Council.  The effort is totally harmless, but it puts them, and others, on notice that we are watching.

The effort itself is simply a campaign of phonecalls, emails and faxes.  By itself, not much different from what grass roots organizations — RedState included — do all the time.  The key here, however, is in the timing and in the message.  We must be coordinated to make this work. 

First the message:  Every call, every fax, every email should say more or less the same thing:
“You cannot rescind the First Amendment.  No permits for protests.  The Cape Coral Tea Party will happen.”

This message should start coming in to the City offices at around the same time.  Calls should start at the same time, the emails sent, the faxes beginning to come in.  If there’s a busy signal, hang up go to the next number.  Keep cycling the numbers until somebody picks up.  Once they do, deliver the message, hang up, cross it off the list, and start cycling again.  Call every number.  Get somebody on every line.  If it’s an answering machine, leave a message and move on. 

The numbers listed are for the mayor, the city council and the Parks Department (who, for some reason, made the final decision).

City Council
phone: 239-574-0437
fax: 239-574-0429
email: council@capecoral.net

Jim Burch, Mayor
Phone: 239-574-0436
Email: jburch@capecoral.net
Term Expires: November 2009

District 1: Gloria Tate
Email: gtate@capecoral.net
District 2: Peter Brandt
Email: pbrandt@capecoral.net
District 3: William Deile
Email: bdeile@capecoral.net
District 4: Dolores Bertolini
Email: dbertolini@capecoral.net
District 5: Eric D. Grill
Email: egrill@capecoral.net
District 6: Timothy Day
Email: tday@capecoral.net
District 7: Derrick L. Donnell Ed. D
Email: ddonnell@capecoral.net

Parks and Recreation
Phone: 239-573-3128
Fax: 239-573-3129
ccpks@capecoral.net

(h/t: ColdWarrior for the info)

Because time will be needed to get people on board, I can’t recommend a time.  First, I’d like to know how many would be on board with this effort, and how many can get others on board.  There needs to be as many of us as possible, so even if it takes a few days to organize, in my opinion, it would be well worth the effort.

So there it is.  We can organize this.  We can send a clear message about our strength and our resolve.  IF we’re willing to do it.  I’m willing to take any and all suggestions about organizing this effort, but remember that it has to happen quickly. 

So first things first: Who will do this with me?  Who will be a part of this effort to tell this and all government bodies and municipalities that they simply don’t have the right to remove those of their citizens?  Any takers?