Welcome nooneofanyimport readers
The solidarity continues here as the National Bloggers Club is sponsoring a website for today… Kimberlinfiles.org. It offers a great review today on what is going on!
Bully. That is what Brett Kimberlin is… Maybe he wasn’t loved as a child. Maybe he wasn’t breastfed. Maybe he is just a leftist douchebag bully who needs confronted. This is a fundamental issue that the left just doesn’t get…bullies exist and they suck. But where the left sees an opportunity to indoctrinate our children about homosexuality, us conservatives take a different approach with our children. We teach our kids to confront the bully and punch ’em in the nose.
Now, nobody is advocating punching Brett Kimberlin (although if I had to relocate my family like Stacy McCain has had too…I might), but the conservative blogosphere has had enough with the left bullying us at every turn trying to silence our opposing discourse! As I ranted, the rub is that the left tries to win by silencing the opposition. They can’t beat us on the football field of ideas and they can’t even bribe the officials that good anymore so they are left with trying to prevent us from ever getting on the field in the first place by creating traffic jams that keep us from the frickin stadium.
So, on this Everybody Blog Kimberlin Day, let us remember what this fight is about! It is about the silliness of trying to let us walk on the field…it is about bullying us…and we can’t stand for it. We surely can’t afford to let it happen to even the smallest blogger out there, as ACE so gallantly stated.
Patterico on Political Terrorism – This is CHILLING!
Smitty over at TheOtherMcCain has some awesome links HERE:
And I am RePosting…hope he doesn’t mind: UPDATE 2: He doesn’t mind (thanks!)
Another great rundown…
This was important, and Andrew Breitbart understood why it was important: The “TwitterGate” episode in October 2010 exposed Democrat operative Neal Rauhauser’s role in an apparent conspiracy to harass Tea Party activists online. Shortly thereafter, Mandy Nagy (aka “Liberty Chick”) documented Brett Kimberlin heinous criminal history.
Kimberlin and his “Velvet Revolution” partner Brad Friedman teamed up to urge Maryland authorities to prosecute James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles. At some point, according to Kimberlin, he became an “associate” of Rauhauser.
Now, investigative journalist Matthew Vadum has shown that major “progressive” tax-exempt foundations contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Kimberlin’s “Justice Through Music Project” and “Velvet Revolution” non-profits.
Money is fungible, as they say…
View original post 466 more words
Brett Kimberlin Has A Friend In Lee Stranahan, For ‘Worst Nightmare’ Values Of ‘Friend’ Is the latest post by the crew over at “The Other McCain” that helps to explain why we should care about Brett Kimberlin. I plan on doing a larger post for Friday. Help us fight the insanity happening to a good friend.
On May 16th, Matt Lewis asked “Is Sarah Palin Biased Towards Female Candidates?” His general premise was that something didn’t quite feel right about Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Deb Fischer in Nebraska. He remembered the Carly Fiorina endorsement as an example. BUT while I have had the same general sense, especially based on my talks with friends in South Carolina who were miffed at her endorsement of Nikki Hailey, I wanted to explore the hard facts for myself.
Like clockwork, SP apologists always point out that SP endorses males too. But the question isn’t just whether she endorses men (in 2010 she endorsed more men than women), the question is whether she endorses women over men. OR as was my initial thought, maybe the women just so happen to be the TP favorites or the most conservative. So, here is my analysis of her 2010 endorsements:
In 2010, SP endorsed 64 candidates. She endorsed 27 women and 37 men. To do a thorough analysis, I divided all her endorsements into two categories: 1.) Contested Primaries and 2.) Either non-contested primaries OR general election endorsements (These really don’t provide us much information because they are essentially endorsements that ALL GOPers would make)
Of the 27 women she endorsed, 13 were in contested primaries. Of those contested races, all 13 endorsements were over male challengers (not so surprising as a woman v. woman primary would be rare in the GOP).
Of the 37 men she endorsed, 17 were in contested primaries. Of those contested races, 3 endorsements were over female challengers.
So, there were 16 contested primaries in which there was a male and female candidate to choose from in which SP made an endorsement, here are the gender/ideological differences.
13:3 Female to Male
9:7 Establishment v. TP
8:8 Conservative v. “Moderate”
This means that in contested primary races where there was a choice between gender, ideology, or anti-establishment sentiment, a candidate’s gender was a better predictor of who would receive Sarah Palin’s endorsement. This includes real head-scrachers like Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Hailey, and Carly.
WHY THIS MATTERS:
Identity politics is wrong…and progressive to its core. It says that a woman can’t represent men and that men can’t represent women. It also rears its ugly head with regards to race and religion. In fact, identity politics is the gateway drug to all “well-intentioned” government programs. As conservatives, we should rail against identity politics and when national figures, who the liberal media lumps us in with, embraces it. We have a duty to call them out! It isn’t sexist to ask what the reasons are for someone’s endorsement. And when the endorser describes her reasons as the candidate, “unique blend of steel magnolia and mama grizzly.” We should ask what that means and why in God’s name that has anything to do with what kind of Governor, Senator, or Rep they will be? If I endorsed someone and mentioned as my primary reasons that the guy was black and a father…wouldn’t I be questioned by my conservative cohorts? Yes. As I should be.
While there is a general debate over the cache of endorsements…(do they matter?) what cannot be left untilled is WHY we endorse…and if someone endorses mostly based on gender or race or religion…it is laziness, it is progressive, and it is antitheses to our movement as conservatives. I just wish more of conservative cohorts would call it instead of just whispering in the halls of power.
1. Stop comparing the sacrifices of our men and women in the military or what the citizens of New York went through to New Orleans and Katrina.
– I was in Iraq when Katrina hit, I watched in horror as my fellow Americans were failed by a government that THEY had put their faith and trust in. The local and state governements failed them miserably. But the tragedy was a misplaced faith and trust in some entity providing everything. Hurricanes are tragic, as are tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. But they do not compare to being attacked by an enemy or facing death in a country far from home for 300 million strangers just because that is what you do. You want to create a Katrina victims memorial day? Go ahead. I would love the extra day off of work, as I am sure the post office and banks would. But, don’t water down the sacrifice of veterans. It is bad enough that the media wants to keep talking about all of our “mental health” as if every Veteran is one step short of an asylum. Which leads me to…
2. Veteran’s Day is NOT the time to talk about Mental Health
I am tired of people talking about the mental health of veterans and how we have been failed. Maybe we have, but the media is too intent on making out every veteran to part loon because they served in a combat zone. Or, are about to be deployed to a combat zone. Have we really got that soft as a society? Or is PTSD just a way to marginalize our veterans. I think it is becoming a margnialization. Pretty soon, we will say that someone is unfit to serve in office because they are a veteran and we al know what that means…cuckoo. Even IF PTSD is a huge issue, the media treats it as a gleeful way to market against the armed forces. “Support our Veterans” lets build more asylums. You want to support our veterans…
3. Supporting the Current VA Health System IS NOT Supporting Our Veterans
You want to pass national healthcare…we already have it. It is the VA healthcare system, where Doctors are underpaid and do it as a “service to their country,” where 90 year old Veterans have to ride a bus that a volunteer is driving to get to the local VA hospital to get surgery when they live two blocks from a hospital that pound for pound provides better care, where bureacracy lives and some guy in a cubicle decides whether you even get access or not.
Solution, give these veterans access to Tricare for Life, an insurance option that would allow them to go where ever they want or need to go. I don’t believe one DANGED Dem who says we can choose our own doctors under their plan. Why? If you won’t give a MOH winner the ability to choose HIS own Dr., you expect me to believe that you will let me or my neighbor choose? And if you will…doesn’t that speak to your priorities…
Thank a veteran, besides me, I did what alot of better people did. Answer a call. Now, I am fighting that we don’t hang up on those others who did.
Ahhh, NetNeutrality. So blissful, so wonderful. The government needs to ensure that evil companies don’t tax consumers. Now, that sounds all nice. But, on a call with the Open Internet Coalition, they admitted in Q&A that it wasn’t just about consumers, but also application specialists. They also admitted that the status quo is absolutely wonderful, all of this is based on fears of what “may” come at a later time.
So, we want the government to start regulating 4/5ths of our economy (Their number, not mine) based off a fear. Once again, net neutrality really comes down to the left wanting their nuggets for free. In other words, companies that invest in the infrastructure to bring highspeed internet to my home for $29/month really dont have the right to make or turn a profit?
Over and over again, Markham Erickson, Open Internet Coalition; Paul Misener, Amazon.com; Derek Turner, Free Press; and Harold Feld, Public Knowledge talked about the Bell and Cable companies who were lobbying hard to prevent the consumer from getting products that they need.
Fundamentally at issue is who has a “right” to the internet. Roads are “free” because the government creates them, but even then there are toll roads. Why not have road neutrality and suspend all toll roads? Because investors (sometimes taxpayers, sometimes private companies) have invested in a product and need to get a return on their investment.
During the call, Derek Turner (also called Glenn Beck and AFP the fringe of society) talked about how there is no “real” competition among wireless companies. First, I can choose between five different carriers in my area. But, if I was in rural South Dakota, I may only have one or two choices. Why? Because I am out in the middle of nowhere and only one or two companies decided to invest in a tower for my service. But what if no one had invested? Do I still have a right to wireless service? No. Do I have a right to the internet? No. I like it, I am able to work remotely on it. But I don’t have an inalienable right to it. That is why I pay for it. So, if TimeWarner doesn’t want me going on some Torrent site for what I pay, I may have to pay a little extra. Or, find another ISP who doesn’t charge. I would still rather the decision be between me and my supplier than mother government. The same government that blocks FoxNews because it is an “entertainment” site and not a news site. Hmmm. Go figure.
In closing, the song and dance is the same. They say choice and competition because it sounds pretty and American. But, I like my current internet service and I like my current health plan so take your net neutrality and shove it. I don’t see the crisis here worth giving up more rights for the sake of “regulating” to make sure my rights stay the same.
In August, President Obama stated that the United States Postal Service had not put FedEx or UPS out of business and that was comparable to what he wanted to do with healthcare. Now besides the obvious problems with this, one being that FedEx and UPS are not able to competitively provide door to door letter delivery because of regulatory and pricing concerns.
Here is a story that presents the opposite argument, one about FedEx providing a service that USPS would never provide. A 7-year-old little girl who needs to be flown to live her final months at home can’t pay the $11,000 bill. USPS doesn’t help them. FedEx does. Why? because capitalism isn’t the cold hearted beast that liberals portray it as. In fact, because FedEx is able to make a profit, they can afford to do things like this to ease the suffering of a little girl. I have no doubt that if the USPS could regulate UPS and FedEx out they would. In Fact, if they are allowed to run billions in the red consistently, they may well outprice FedEx and UPS out of the market as well. My wife’s business uses USPS because they are cheaper. That said, I also have NO doubt that USPS would not have shipped the little girl. Why?
1. It wasn’t necessary, she was being flown home to be with family not get a lifesaving operation. Compassion only counts for government bureaucrats when it saves lives!
2. The unions probably wouldn’t have allowed it. I am not just union bashing here. I just know union rules are often an impediment to charity. For example, performers are able to give their time freely for charity concerts, but most labels still require the musicians to be paid at union rates making the acts still unaffordable for most. Some performers, like Charlie Daniels pay their bands out of their pockets to make the concert free. Charlie Daniels usually pays over 100k for each overseas USO tour he has gone on! Others don’t. Should a musician be forced to participate in a charity event? No. Should they have the option? Yes. Seems that the uncompassionate ones are the unions not the companies. I would also note, it wasn’t UPS that came through either.
3. Government doesn’t care! They don’t. Humans care. Humans do great things. Government doesn’t care, never have, never will. Why not? Because some bureaucrat in DC cares more about the traffic on the way to work, getting Starbucks, and recycling their Starbucks cup than you. Their idea of compassion is how much they have enforced recycling in their cubicle or agency, not how many people they have actually helped. Don’t believe me? Try calling one of them…pick an agency, any one. Heck, does your local DMV care about your time. Ours put in a ticket system and thought they were doing me a favor because now I can wait an hour in a chair instead of in a line! And if that bureaucrat has happened to have a bad day? You might as well ask a telephone pole for help. Which leads me to…
4. Government is inefficient! Even if she would have gotten the flight on USPS. It would have been 3 months from now…you get the picture.