Real Clear Politics Puts Ohio In Obama Column: He's 5 Votes Away From Victory

Real Clear Politics has put Ohio in the "leans Obama" column, here, which puts Obama 5 Electoral College votes away from clinching victory, according to the polling and math as presented.

Recent discussion of polling has included charges that polling is oversampling Democrats, that polling amounts to "in-kind contributions" to Democrat campaigns by news organizations biased toward liberalism, that polling is campaigning in another form, that polling is disinformation designed to suppress the turnout of the Republican opposition, etc.

So remember this map after the election is over, the only poll that counts.

Naked Capitalism Knows A Rival Ideology When It Sees One

It's an amusing attack on the libertarian ideologue Megan McArdle by the anarchist communist ideologue Yves Smith, here, at Naked Capitalism, if you think of it as a cat fight.

The comments are so disturbing to "Strelnikov" (appropriately continuing to use the pseudonym "Yves") that she's thinking of closing down free speech in the comments section for her "shaming" posts only. Call it perestroika.

(image source)

Romney's Sins

In no particular order. Just making my list . . . and checking it twice.

• thinks the 1st Amendment is first
• wants to index the minimum wage to inflation
• supports ethanol subsidies
• flipped on abortion at least 3 times
• supported Obama's murder of an American citizen
• supports TARP
• has a weird religion
• thinks W prevented a depression
• believes in the individual mandate in principle
• was soft on public unions in Ohio
• thinks government coercion in healthcare is conservative
• believes in progressive income taxation
• reassures liberals by pledging to soften up conservatives
• reassures liberals that Republicans like him can make liberal extremism seem almost mainstream
• supports domestic partner benefits
• thinks it's a good idea to shift away from fossil fuels
• he's way too rich to lead the charge to abolish the progressive tax code even if he wanted to
• the world's getting warmer and humans contribute to that
• farm subsidies are a national security issue
• supports No Child Left Behind
• agrees with Milos Forman: Obama's no socialist
• Bain Capital bailed out companies just like Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler
• corporate restructuring is job creation
• "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern"
• "ObamaCare is not worth getting angry about"
• "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush"
• "Fox is watched by the true believers"
• spending cuts will cause a recession or even a depression
• gladly accepts support of John McCain in 2012 even though McCain said in 2010 that Obama's was a left-wing crusade to bankrupt America
• won't light his hair on fire for that angry mob, the Republican base

Milos Forman Isn't Just Skilled At Movies, But Also At Disinformation

Gee, I wonder where he could possibly have learned about disinformation techniques?

In concert with The New York Times, here, Milos Forman offers up a little disinformation on behalf of the regime, which couldn't possibly come close to qualifying as socialist or even militant, no:

"What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice — which never existed and never will — but for social harmony. Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody."

Sure, sure:

"A new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you."

"Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."

-- Barack Obama, 4 November 2008 (here)

EU Fascism: Methinks Mr. Barroso Doth Protest Too Much Of Democracy

So does Ambrose Evans-Pritchard here, who for prudential reasons does not call Mr. Barroso's EU fascist, but he might as well have:

I would accept that six or seven of the EU states are genuine long-established democracies. Others are – frankly, to borrow Mr Barroso’s diction – on probation, in historical terms. Some do not qualify at all. (I refrain from naming them for fear of extradition by one of their politico-magistrates under the European Arrest Warrant scheme, sold to voters as an anti-terrorism device and now used to muzzle free speech).

As for the EU itself, the organisation toppled the elected governments of Italy and Greece last year, replacing them with EU technocrats.

It ignored the NO votes to the European Constitution in France and The Netherlands, ramming through the slightly-altered text as the Lisbon Treaty without referendums – except in Ireland. When the Irish voted NO to that as well, they too were ignored.

That was the moment when the EU crossed the line altogether and lost fundamental legitimacy (at least for me). Lisbon is a rogue Treaty. Mr Barroso – charming though he may be – is a rogue president of a rogue Commission.

The whole construct has become authoritarian and will become autocratic if this crisis is exploited to force through fiscal union.

So we face democratic danger if they take the necessary steps to rescue the euro, and we face financial danger if they don’t.

Thanks a lot.

It's not like the analogy hasn't occurred to him very recently, either, as here:

It was for this outcome that the Greece’s elected government was toppled last year in an EU Putsch. We now learn from ex-premier George Papandreou that this was "all Sarkozy’s fault".

France’s leader refused to let Papandreou call a referendum on the bail-out terms (which would almost certainly have passed), and Chancellor Angela Merkel went along with this shoddy act of EU colonialism. The EU threatened, in effect, to cut off Troika payments. The PASOK government was replaced by an EU-appointed technocrat. ...

Year after year of "internal devaluation" will drive [Greek] unemployment to catastrophic levels before it breaks the back of the labour movement sufficiently to clear the way for drastic pay cuts. It is basically a Fascist policy. Mussolini pulled it of in 1928 under the Lira Forte policy, but he had coercive advantages.

Liberal Massachusetts Town Institutes Fines For Public Swearing

The move actually de-criminalizes public swearing in order to remove it from the penumbra of First Amendment applications, as reported here:

Middleborough, a town of about 20,000 residents perhaps best known for its rich cranberry bogs, has had a bylaw against public profanity since 1968. But because that bylaw essentially makes cursing a crime, it has rarely if ever been enforced, officials said, because it simply would not merit the time and expense to pursue a case through the courts.

The ordinance would decriminalize public profanity, allowing police to write tickets as they would for a traffic violation. It would also decriminalize certain types of disorderly conduct, public drinking and marijuana use, and dumping snow on a roadway.

Just another expression of the reactionary impulse and not really a bona fide idea, an irritable mental gesture which only resembles an idea, right?

Gov. Romney Repeats the Myth of First Amendment Priority

Quoted here:

"We must have a President who is willing to protect America's first right, our right to worship God," he added.

The First Amendment was originally the Third Amendment. If religious liberty had really held priority in the founders' minds, this would not have been the case.

So what did pre-occupy their minds? The issue of adequate representation.

No one today can argue that we have it.

Obama's Attack on Roman Catholicism Evokes Charges of Tyranny, Fascism, Totalitarianism

From one Mark Judge, here:

The New Comstockery is a metastasizing liberal cancer not just of intolerance, but of hatred for those who disagree. ...

The New Comstockery is fascist. ...

[L]iberal tyranny ... has become evident recently in both the Obama administration[']s violation of the First Amendment in forcing Catholic institutions to sell birth control, and the reaction to the Susan Komen Foundation's attempt to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. ...

[S]omething ... in our time has become a terrible reality: the totalitarian impulse of liberalism, particularly when it comes to sexual matters.

Pace Mark Judge, the consequences of the relaxation of morals in the West produced a horrific 20th century on both sides of the Atlantic. It makes no difference that the tens of millions killed here in America have been faceless. Their blood cries out no less than the millions of Stalin's and Hitler's victims.

Nor has the impulse to liberal tyranny been only just recently evident.

It was evident to many of us much earlier, especially in ObamaCare in 2010 and in the fascist bailouts of 2009, which gave rise to the Tea Party. George Bush's liberalism which ended with TARP at home was just the kinder, gentler Republican version of it, trampling out the vintage for the most part in foreign fields.

But Obama has brought the grapes of wrath back home.

Few have been the voices decrying the expansion of the national security state in 2011. The Department of Homeland Security and the TSA have been hard at work implementing nationwide checkpoint programs, using scanners and military surveillance technology, particularly drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) to "patrol the borders," hunt down cattle rustlers and execute without trial (admittedly noxious) American citizens in foreign lands.

In 2012 the Republican House is actually cooperating by passing legislation which routinizes the domestic integration of UAVs under the control of the FAA. And Republicans think Mitt Romney is going to make a difference?

The revolution has been measured, taking off one obstacle at a time so as not to cause widespread alarm, but its objectives are indeed totalist.  Dismissing religious freedom now in 2012 almost comes as an afterthought, a mere by-product of ObamaCare.

The spider weaves its web, and soon we will all be caught it in, if we aren't already.

It's good that Mark Judge is finally paying attention.

Is anyone else?

"There is no contradiction between economic Liberalism and Socialism."

                               -- Oswald Spengler, 1933 

Liberal Lawyer Jonathan Turley Rightly Attacks Obama Administration For Support of Repackaging Blasphemy as Hate Speech

In The LA Times (link):

This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled "Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18." The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to "deter" some speech in the name of human rights.

How About 10,000 US Representatives Instead of 435?

Many people, rightly in my opinion, point to the decline of religious faith, traditional morality and constitutional respect for both as a leading cause of our current discontents. In making this argument, however, some fall prey to an ahistorical understanding of the priority of the 1st Amendment, and miss an important remedy which animated the founding generation just as much did the principle of religious freedom.

The latest example of the myth of the priority of our 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is repeated by none other than John Garvey, president of The Catholic University of America, for The Baltimore Sun (link), whose other observations I otherwise find wholly unobjectionable:

[T]he right to religious freedom — the first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights — was of great importance to the framers of our Constitution.

Mr. Garvey operates under the common misapprehension that the 1st Amendment is somehow first because of James Madison's statements in various places about the priority of religious liberty as an unalienable right whose basis is in the creator. Accordingly Garvey quotes Madison, "This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society," as if this proves why The Bill of Rights starts the way it does and that we should therefore insist more urgently that 1st Amendment considerations somehow take the lead in our civil deliberations over contentious issues, especially as affecting institutions of The Church. It is to some extent an appeal to the authority of what has primacy, which one might expect of a Roman Catholic.

If Madison could hear this, however, he would no doubt laugh, because he himself authored what was the original first amendment, and it had nothing to do with freedom of the press, the free exercise of religion, etc.

Mr. Garvey's ignorance of the historical situation is not unusual, inasmuch as most of us, if we are familiar at all with even the basic facts of history, are children of the federalists who prevailed at the founding and wrote the constitution. We do not remember the arguments of their opponents, the anti-federalists, nor the issues which animated them, probably because we were never taught them.

The short version of a part of this very complicated history is that there was a list of at least twelve amendments proposed in 1789, and what we call our 1st Amendment was actually third in that list, which, with numbers four through twelve, was ultimately ratified while the two preceding were not. These go largely unremarked today, which is a pity because they reveal that if anything animated the minds of the founders as a matter of first importance, it was the idea of adequate representation. And it was this which was a chief pre-occupation of the anti-federalists, who viewed the constitution as a federalist conception of a defective republicanism which co-opted and undermined local constituencies and state governments. To the men of the anti-federalist camp, the more the representation, the less the chance of despotism.

As an historical phenomenon, representation's importance in the founding era formed a unity with taxation, as in "no taxation without representation."

This is why the first article of the constitution concerns itself with establishing the legislative authority, which the founders considered the predominating power in the new government, and its power to tax, both of which were to be apportioned to the states by population. Hence the census. But the constitution failed to delimit the maximum size of legislative representation, only that the number of representatives should not exceed one for every 30,000, and thus amendments were proposed.

The original amendments 1 and 2 read as follows:

Article I:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article II:

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Because Article I was not ratified, the deficiency of the original constitution's provisions for representation, though hotly debated at the time, was never successfully remedied. The deficiency is that the constitution does not specify the "maximum district size", in the words of thirty-thousand.org (link), which happens to be a veritable cornucopia of scholarship on this problem. Its author points out that our US House of Representatives, if it followed the constitution's original intent, would now consist of 10,000 representatives instead of just 435, a number fixed by the Congress in 1929:

Because this part of the Constitution is still “defective”, Congress can choose to grant its constituents virtually any number of Representatives it deems appropriate. In fact, Congress can choose both the number of Representatives and the algorithm by which they are allocated among the states. In contrast, the role of the Census Bureau is limited to conducting the decennial census and applying, to that result, the apportionment algorithm specified by Congress in order to calculate the allocation of House memberships. 

No one alive today who takes politics seriously can say with a straight face that he feels adequately represented by any politician of any party. Gallup would not report polls indicating the extreme low esteem for Congress that it does were it otherwise. Congressmen are remote and aloof, unresponsive even to their erstwhile supporters. Senators are even worse, to say nothing of the president. This was precisely the future predicted by the anti-federalists.

It might come as something of a surprise, perhaps, to thirty-thousand.org, that the anti-federalists were none too happy even with the constitution's idea that "the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." Some of them could not imagine that one man could adequately represent so many people even as that.

Madison's attempt to set the representation progressively, stopping at one per fifty thousand, indicates something of his federalist sympathies, as well the limits of his imagination as to the potential growth of the American population.

In either eventuality, it must be said, Americans today would be better represented with more representatives than the few we currently have, whose nearly impenetrable incumbency makes them a veritable hereditary aristocracy of power and indeed tyranny over the lives of the Americans the founders intended them to represent.

What we have today is representation without representation, which is why Mr. Garvey rightly feels The Church to be under attack. Too much power is concentrated in too few hands, which is just the way the opponents of all that is good, true and beautiful like it.

The last thing they want is a US House of Representatives populated with 2300 Catholics.

John Tamny Believes The Mad Dream of Libertarian Ideology

Briggs forgets his limitations

"[A]s humans we’re free to do anything we want so long as our actions don’t infringe on the freedoms of others. ... [W]e as Americans have infinite natural rights."

-- John Tamny (link)

Just taken at face value the statements are a self-contradiction because the first logically excludes the second.

To qualify the range of permissible action is to limit the range, which therefore cannot be infinite, by definition. In fact, the very resort to so qualifying the range in the first place is a sort of back-handed compliment to the limitations which the underlying order places on all the constituent elements of the world.

Conservatives recognize in the underlying order the divine, which is the basis of the rights. Accordingly the rights themselves have limitations, just as also do we. As surely as our common end is the grave, no one is at liberty to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and to hope to escape arrest. The right to free speech is not absolute.

And to qualify infinite natural rights as somehow American reminds one of nothing so much as the unreflective boosterism of the by-gone era of manifest destiny.

Conservatives recognize their own limitations. Libertarians do not. Therefore the latter are dangerous, especially at the movies.

The Fed's Dollar Swap Operation in Europe is a Sign of the Desperation of Monetarism

So says Jeffrey Snider, here:

Rising credit equals rising economic activity, so the advancement of the banking system necessarily and uniformly leads to advancement in the real economy. This is a pervasive belief that is accepted in too many places without critical questioning, especially in the political arena.

As I (and many others) have said numerous times, it is a deliberate prevarication. The Fed and central banks around the world coordinate dollar swap lines to save the banking system from its umpteenth moment of illiquidity simply because the banking system, through credit creation, equals control over the economies those central banks are supposed to serve. ...

The Fed, the economics profession and the financial media spread the idea that this unfettered credit creation paradigm is part and parcel to the basic economic philosophy of capitalism. It is not. Capitalism represents the free expressions of a free society, so leeching onto it achieves another shortcut to allow free people to accept a degree of economic central control. ...

The central control of modern economics seeks to control credit independent of actual demand; indeed, it seeks to create demand from nothing.

If a housing bubble achieves the philosophical aims of "stimulating" the economy to some predetermined target or range, then the political aims of the central bank are fulfilled no matter how shortsighted that may be. ...

The detachment of credit money from actual money demand to engage in productive transactions is both the glaring difference between capitalism and monetarism, and the ultimate weakness of superimposing the latter on the former. ...

As the façade plummets to earth in the messy aftermath of what it, not capitalism, has wrought, the central authorities cling desperately to their system. It matters little if bailing out the eurodollar market for the fifth time actually advances the real economy. All that matters is that the tools for maintaining the elitist utopia are preserved for future use. They just want us to accept that they know better, having already crowned themselves Lords of the global economy.

Kalle Lasn Thinks Anti-Semitic Viewpoints Deserve Free Speech Protections

Kalle Lasn said the following, quoted here, in response to a controversial photo spread in Adbusters Magazine pulled from Canadian magazine shelves last year:

"If you think that publishing side-by-side images of the Gaza and Warsaw ghettos is a valid expression of free speech, email the Canadian Jewish Congress and tell them to back off," Lasn wrote. "In Canada, we should be free to choose from a diversity of viewpoints and decide for ourselves what is anti-Semitic and what is a legitimate critique of Israel's occupation of Palestine."

The trouble with Kalle Lasn is that one gets the impression from him that Jews shouldn't occupy anything, including their own homeland.

Senator John Kerry: Enemy of a Free Press and Free Speech

Story here, about media reporting on the Tea Party:

"The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."

In other words, free speech and a free press are only for some people.

Kind of like how stop signs are only for some people, right Senator? 

Switch Hitters Nullify Softball Victory

"U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled Tuesday that the organization [North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance] has a First Amendment right to limit the number of heterosexual players, much as the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays."

More here. 

If the case goes to the Supreme Court, will she recuse herself?

Hutaree Militia Update: Big Talk, No Plot?

All behind the scenes stuff about what is and is not evidence in the case:

Defense lawyers have spent the past year arguing over evidentiary issues and trying to frame the case as a First Amendment fight.

There was no plan and no target identified by the Hutaree members, said lawyer Todd Shanker of the Federal Defender Office, who represents the Hutaree leader's stepson, David Stone Jr.

"A few of the people talked a lot and talked big in front of their friends and fellow militia members," Shanker told The Detroit News.

"But everybody, I think, was there for different reasons."

There's more here at The Detroit News.

British Teenager Emails Obama, Calls Him a Pussy, Gets Banned From US For Life

Luke Angel is his name, according to the story reported at this link last September.

He is a keen judge of character, I'd say, like someone else we know.

A Department of Homeland Security goon is quoted as saying there are about 60 things on their list which will get you banned from visiting the US.

Funny how if you're a citizen and live here already and say such things they don't (yet) resort to banishment. I guess that whole freedom of speech thing isn't for export while every stupid precedent of international law is supposed to be eligible for import.  

NY Times Paints Loughner and Hard Money Libertarianism as Right Wing Extreme

The leftist ridicule offensive continues, designed to preoccupy the opposition and get the right fighting amongst themselves over who belongs and who doesn't, while the left presses on for new gun control measures and suppression of free speech.

Notice the elision going on in the first passage here:

He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language.

Libertarians generally hold to hard money ideas, but that hardly makes them right wing, witness the long war of traditionalists like Russell Kirk against what he called "the chirping sectaries." The hard money idea is subtly paired with mind-manipulation conspiracy theory by the Times, whatever that means, without support and simply by assertion. Having been a fairly well-informed conservative since the late 70s, one is hard-pressed to know what the Times is even talking about. There you go again, one of our own might say now. We've had our Truthers and our Birthers. Now we've got our Minders, I guess.

One suspects the Times knows full well its only plausible case is in the Libertarian hard money ideology, as here:

A few days later, during a meeting with a school administrator, Mr. Loughner said that he had paid for his courses illegally because, “I did not pay with gold and silver” — a standard position among right-wing extremist groups. With Mr. Loughner’s consent, that same administrator then arranged to meet with the student and his mother to discuss the creation of a “behavioral contract” for him, after which the official noted: “Throughout the meeting, Jared held himself very rigidly and smiled overtly at inappropriate times.”

Notice the effort to paint gold and silver backed money as "a standard position" on the right. It isn't, and it hasn't been as long as conservatism has been resurgent since the 60s and Milton Friedman style monetarism and devotion to a strong dollar captured people's imaginations.

Clear-headed thinkers on the right, like George Will, have well noted the Federal Reserve's failure to maintain a sound currency partly because its mandate was divided in 1978 to include maintaining full employment. Instead, hard money ideology has been an enthusiasm prevalent on the fringe, among Libertarians, in the post-war era in view of the fact that the monetarist consensus has been breaking down due to its failures, and because the gold standard used to be, well, the law of the land, all the way up until . . . FDR.

The dishonesty of the presentation coheres with the view of the Times that, for most of its history, America has been a veritable right-wing nuthouse. They ought to know.

Here Comes the Repression: Your Representative or Senator May Accuse You to the FBI

Newly elected Republican Billy Long, MO-7, is going after a political opponent in his home district, a conservative blogger no less, named Clay Bowler, aka Bungalow Bill.

Looks like one hell of an abuse of federal power to me, trying to squelch a constituent's freedom of speech, intimidate him, and reduce him to servility while they go about their business of picking our pockets clean and shoveling the shit down our throats.

Hey, thanks Billy, you giant statist toadie. 

You can also thank the Capitol security police for facilitating this newest and ominous expression of police state power, reported here:

The local sheriff told KSRP that Capitol police are actively soliciting the names of possible threats from members of Congress in the wake of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s assassination attempt. And he admitted there are more names his office is looking into — names that came from Long.


Obviously there are no Oathkeepers among the Capitol police.

Time to lawyer up.

Mlive.com Targets Free Speech

Per the very unattractive, Stalinist cave-dwelling hobgoblin in charge, here.