The New Media Militia

Some commenter over at Blue Hampshire is wondering why there was no vendors area at the STEWARD communications conference at SNHU this weekend.  Apparently we conservatives are all about capitalism so we need to be capitalizing on it at every opportunity to justify their worldview of our own.  No one was hawking swag.  This seems to have unnerved some left wing corporatist. 

If it matters, Conservatives are actually for free markets.  Capitalism is merely a potential by-product, and not the unfavorable one they would have you believe.   Capitalism and free markets have proven themselves to be the best way to create and share wealth.  They have lifted more people out of poverty than all the sob-story, redistribution, top-down -welfare, big government hand-outs combined.  

But the mistake is understandable.  Liberals have a hard time with first principles because they get in the way of big government.  That doesn’t mean leftists don’t like capitalism.  In fact they view it as one of the best ways to finance their big government programs.   You know the ones,  with the words “free,” “choice,” “Investment,” or “America” in the title.  But they prefer to control capitalism and direct it because they claim people in business are selfish and corrupt, and should only be permitted to succeed under the pious and caring eye of a liberal-progressive government. (Never by conservative government).  We are meant to accept their view that the same human impulse that they insist makes “capitalists” greedy selfish bastards is absent from any liberal who seeks temporal power in government.  (again , not conservatives.) And that the combination of the energy of controlled capitalism, and the force of law (directed by left wing central planners) will in fact produce utopia.

Only if utopia looks similar to the seventh plane of Hell, sure.

So liberals like to bash corporations, big banks, big anything they do not control, right up until they get their way, usually after threatening them with whatever power they currently wield, and then they just pretend to bash them while making deals with them.

So don’t be fooled.  Liberals love capitalism because it is the only reliable energy source to fuel the mother-ship of the central planners.  The middle class lacks the resources, and most top down regimes milk most of the prosperity out of the lower classes in short order so they can’t be relied on to fund huge government for very long.  (That, and the middle class doesn’t much care for the results once they have to live with them–so liberal’s have to act quickly before they rebel.)   Only large corporations can collect from them the dribs and drabs of whatever is left over, and funnel it into the hands of the government.  So liberals love capitalism, they need capitalism, it’s the free market they hate. 

Wealth must be controlled by politicians, and committees,  and blue ribbon panels of bureaucrats, not people with crazy ideas like individual responsibility, or charting their own future. 

And “left wing capitalism” always devolves into corporate socialism, class warfare, elitism, big money back-room pay offs, special exceptions for the ruling class, and a government/industrial complex that leaves the citizenry with higher taxes, a lower standard of living, fewer choices, fewer winners, fully dependent, and constantly on the cusp of misery.  In most cases lawlessness becomes the only potential path to any kind of personal prosperity.

We’re a few years from that, but we’ve crested the ridge.  If we don’t back up it’s over the top for the lot of us. 

So no, no blatant capitalism on “display” at the STEWARD event unless you consider that STEWARD paid for it all with donations and income from the free market.  

That, by the way–to the liberal mind–is what is called a “special interest” group.  As in, they have no interest in the only logical conclusion to a top down, centrally planned, government take over of everything.

And No Che Guevera T-shirts either

Liberty-denier Paul Hodes is playing his populist violin in today’s UL about campaign finance.  But he’s being a hypocrat.  Mr. Hodes  is up to his eyeballs in money from lawyers, big banks, and Unions. He’s also big on cash from congressional PAC’s all of whom get their dollars from industry, finance, Unions, and special interests.  (see list of links below) Yet he still feels comfortable declaring that the recent supreme court decision will corrupt politics with money.   

He’s just upset because now he might actually have some competition. 

Without a corporate media monopoly pushing his left wing agenda unopposed in the last few weeks of any campaign, Hodes would actually have to defend his voting record right up to election day.  That’s the record of Paul Hodes voting to give trillions to Unions, big banks, and left wing special interests who reward him with large campaign contributions.  A record of sacrificing New Hampshire’s state sovereignty on the alter of the left wing agenda.  A record that will cost the state millions if not billions in upcoming years if left unchecked.  That would also be the record that contradicts his claims of being a cost conscious, fighter of corruption.  None of it is true, never has been, never will, and his voting record proves it.

Hodes is another go along-get along government first, deficient growing, tax and spender who is beholden to the DC system, and more than willing to give up his home state to get better invites to Georgetown mixers.  That’s government before the people at the expense of the people, courtesy of go-along get-along Hodes.

But this adds a new wrinkle. Mr. Hodes has now demonstrated himself to be against political speech he’s not paying for, which makes for a great talking point.  

So representative Hodes, what political speech exactly would you have the government prohibit?  That is what you are suggesting here.  That you are willing to alter the constitution to prohibit speech you object to.  Is that something you’d like to run on? 

And also please explain to me how your constitutional morals—I ask because you’ve not previously demonstrated any concern for other parts of the constitution you find inconvenient—will relate to money as speech in regard to the well connected, corrupt DC money machine (see his campaign contributors for a detailed representation of what that means) that funds your incumbency—and therefore your free, well funded, political speech?  How do we get an opposing message out against a dirty, pandering, politician like yourself who has a compliant media at his beck and call anytime he has something to say?   

If, in fact, Washington is broken as you claim, politicians broke it.  Hypocrites like yourself.  So how do we fight you if we object to your policies without the same advantage you have hard wired into your ability to call a press conference or write a note on the taxpayer dime, or even to vote favors to whatever interest attracts your fancy and reap the rewards in more campaign contributions? 

You have unlimited access to deliver your political speech, and plenty of big corporations and special interests to fund your campaign speech.  Effective political speech—ad buys, radio time, large lit drops, cost thousands, sometimes millions.  So any effort by you to prevent others from even competing—just competing—smells of tyranny from the seat of entrenched power.  And funny thing, that’s exactly what it is. 

So any effort by you to prohibit speech with any hope of competing with a connected DC insider like yourself, is really just an effort to stifle opposition on issues, or campaigns disguised as populist outrage over something most people will never really understand.  That makes you a DC corruptocrat, and a fear monger as well.

HODES

Hypocritical Obdurate Democrat Elitest Sycophant

Heres a few Hodes related reality checks.

No free lunch

Disconnected from reality

Double dipping

Hollow Hodes

Who owns Hodes

Spins a fairy tale

Puttin the Ho in Hodes

When Corruption Reared its ugly head…

And there is plenty more…

As the democrat leadership tries to sell itself (see-pretends) as fiscally relevant in the face of a nationwide revolt against spending and new taxes some unpleasant facts have come to the fore.  

Rep Hensarling actually brought this up to the president today stating that the democrat congress’ monthly deficit had actually exceeded the Republican congress’ yearly deficit.  Obama objected, and it looks like Obama was right. 

The annual budget deficit under democrat congressional rule over the past three years (2007-2009) is 3.222 trillion, which is 1.027 trillion per year or 90 billion a month.   

Republican congressional annual average deficits were 104 billion per year.  So Obama was right.  The democrat’s monthly deficits are actually 14 billion less than the GOP congresses annual numbers. 

Apples to apples? 

Democrat congresses are responsible for 987% more deficit spending per year when they run congress than republicans are.

Now democrats would like to blame Bush—and they did it successfully in 2008 but without a Bush to hide behind the truth has been revealed.  They have been ducking their own responsibility for all that spending.  You see, Bush could not spend that money without their consent.  Not one penny.   And correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we elect representatives to congress to prevent such abuses when they object to them. 

Mr. Obama signed off on all the old spending, and has instituted all this new spending.  And his 2011 budget is no better.  It grows government, raises taxes, and continues to feed the specter of government before the people. 

2010 will likely see the beginning of a double dip recession.  The government cannot sustain GDP on the backs of taxpayers indefinitely and this government’s anti-growth policies will continue to drive employment up and demand down. 

Hold on to your paychecks people—if you still have one.  We’re in for a rough ride

Cross Posted Steve’s primary Blog at NH Insider.com

 http://www.nhinsider.com/steve-mac-donald/2010/2/2/deficit-full-speed-ahead.html

Has the Legislative ethics committee let Rep Peter Leishman (D – Good Ole Boys Network) off the hook?  Mr. Leishman was accused of using his legislative position to give him an advantage in a railroad operating agreement but the committee could not bring itself to suspect Rep Leishman under the circumstances and has recommended a letter of caution and no further action.

What circumstances? 

It starts with HB 613 a 2009 bill that Rep Leishman wrote which would create a committee to consider whether the state 

…shall study whether it would improve freight service, passenger service, or both to have the state acquire the remaining rail corridors in the state, particularly the Nashua-Concord corridor.

So why would Leishman want the state to control more track?  Could it be all the talk about a highly subsidized passenger rail service—that’s guaranteed taxpayer dollars to whoever is leasing that track that will prop up service whether its profitable or not?  Is it just because he owns Milford – Bennington Railroad and he’s well connected? Could it be that Leishman sits on the committee that votes on funding and leasing issues including those for rail transportation?  Could it be because he has to run on a few miles of track operated by a large competitor and it would make his life easier if he had the lease?

Why write that bill?

A man of conscience and integrity would not even propose such a piece of legislation given the potential for his personal enrichment?  He’d stay away from any situation that might suggest a conflict of interest.  But Rep Peter Leishamn is first and foremost, not such a man because he did it anyway. 

It gets more interesting.

According to David Hink, president of Pan Am railway (the competitor), Leishman’s Milford-Bennington apparently failed to seek renewal of its 10 year lease on a section of state owned track by July 2008.  That with no renewal deal in process by February 2009 other companies were now entitled to bid on the deal which would expire in July of 2009. 

So he says Pan Am Systems wanted a shot at the contract, and the Union Leader reported in July 2009 that Hink claims he contacted the NH commissioner of transportation George Campbell about his desire to submit a proposal.  But Fink says Campbell told him that he (Campbell)…

“…was currently seeking approval of his budget and that Representative Leishman’s membership on the House Finance Committee could adversely affect that budget if the commissioner were to cause any disturbances.” 

If that’s true what might those “disturbances be?” 

I’m guessing Democrat Rep Leishman might not take kindly to news of competition for the bid and Campbell must not have had an actual renewal agreement in hand.  So Campbell was worried he might get his budget harpooned if he accepted another  proposal now which would drive up the cost of any last minute renewal effort by Leishman. 

The UL also reports that few days after Pan Am claims to have questioned Campbell about submitting a proposal, finance Chair Marjorie Smith (also a democrat) told Campbell that Milford – Bennington’s contract was being renewed, shutting out Pan Am regardless of the terms of the previous contract as noted above.

Suspicious given the situation, but Leishman and Fink have apparently been at odds for some time, and being competitors that’s not unusual.  Of course Fink can’t write a bill that would permit the state to seize any track it wished (presumably under eminent domain laws) and then use the same suspicious no-bid process that re-leased track to Milford – Bennington for any track it had ‘acquired’ as a result of the commission HB 613 would create. 

Still not suspicious enough?

Commissioner Campbell testified before the ethics committee investigation, that he had expressed an objection to Leishman’s bill in April 2009 by posting a letter to the State Senate Transportation Committee, and that shortly after that, had been contacted by Rep Leishman to discuss the bill.

Campbell also testified that Leishman said he’d make the bill “go away” if Pan AM railway conveyed to Leishman certain trackage adjoining to his own, already leased to him by the state.

I guess George got his budget approved and felt comfortable making such a claim because Leishman denies it, calling it a complete fabrication.  Lord knows it’s rough enough telling the truth to an ethics committee about a guy who can mess with your budget, but making up a statement with those kinds of consequences takes some backbone.  I’m guessing George told the truth.

Campbell also testified that he communicated this offer to David Fink at Pan Am but Fink had no interest in it. 

Fink has testified that Campbell informed him that HB 613 would go away if he conveyed the trackage to Milford-Bennington. 

Rep Peter Burling, who was also present at that meeting with Fink and Campbell says he learned of the suggestion later but does not recall hearing it himself at the time Campbell told Fink.

So despite Leishman’s obvious conflict of interest, he wrote a bill he stood to benefit from personally.  Anecdotal evidence as well as ethics testimony shows it could have been used to coerce a deal that would benefit Rep Leishman.  But the preliminary investigation did not see clear and convincing evidence under the rules as written for improper conduct.  They also did not see a clear path to how HB 613 would necessarily benefit Rep Leishman more or less than any others with similar financial interest. 

Really? What are the rules?  He’s one of us, so we can’t see our way clear to press for more investigation because it will make us look bad?

This whole situation looks like a no-bid contract to a protected insider who may have exercised his legislative power and connections to protect his existing lease from competition and to coerce a private company into relinquishing trackage—or to have it taken and bid to someone else.  In what way does this not present a potential benefit to Leishman’s Company or suggest an ethics problem?

The man wrote a bill that could benefit him personally. He didn’t even have the sense to have some freshman do his dirty work for him.  That’s kind of arrogant don’t you think? And now he simply refutes their testimony, and that’s good enough for them?

If the ethics committee wants’ to be taken seriously, I think they need to do better than this. 

James O’Keefe just took down the entire establishment media—again.  According to Andrew Breitbart, O’Keefe was arrested and then jailed for at least 28 hours without yet having seen a lawyer.  In that time frame details of O’Keefe’s arrest were leaked to the press by the prosecutors office, and the entirety of Journalism crankedout a narrative to destroy James O’Keefe before sunrise the next day.

Crank is so appropriate.

They cranked out reams of text about how the guy who bagged ACORN had been busted trying to wiretap a Senators office.  They called it Watergate Jr, exercising their significant media presence to smear the young man from blog to broadsheet.  They even imagined a money trail. But wait?

According to Big Journalism.com

There are no allegations of any wiretap plot in the FBI affidavit, and a law enforcement official has conceded that the four men were not attempting to wiretap or intercept calls.

Furthermore, legal representation for the accused has gone on record stating there were no intentions to tap phones in the Senator’s office.

It’s worth noting, and again courtesy of Andrew Breitbart, that the crotch bomber who was tackled and stripped in a plane while on fire for trying to kill a few hundred people, had a lawyer appointed to him within a few hours of landing.  James O’Keefe had a lawyer, he was just not permitted to speak to him for more than a day.

In the case of ACORN, despite video evidence, and the outright lies of ACORN officials, (which they did print) the media otherwise ignored that story for weeks until it overcame them, and even then, they covered it with reluctance and always at a distance.  O’Keefe was vilified in the press within hours of his arrest and accused by so-called “journalists” of things he was never charged with nor committed.

Such is the nature of the unbiased press in Amerika.  And Mr. O’Keefe was right to trust what they would do.

James O’Keefe should get an award.  If not for exposing one massive fraud, ACORN, then perhaps for exposing dozens or perhaps hundreds (thousands) more disguised as defenders of freedom and justice; they are neither.  They are the media arm of the left wing.  TAnd they have been watching Mr. O’Keefe all along, pretending disinterest when it made their side look bad.  Acting indifferent until they thought they had an opportunity to destroy him.  And he made them all look like what they are.  Left wing propagandist whores.

Retractions are forthcoming in abundance.