IF YOU CANNOT SILENCE THE OPPOSITION, MAKE IT PAY MORE

On Friday, the Washington Times ran an article that’s a must read, Outside groups paying more for same campaign spots.

The day before the election, President Obama will be running ads during  Cleveland ABC affiliate WEWS-TV’s 11:35 p.m. showing of ‘Nightline’  for only $250 for a 30-second slot. By contrast, American Crossroads, an  anti-Obama super PAC, will pay $1,000 for a same-length ad in the same time  slot.

Crossroads is paying $600 for ads to run this week during the 4:30 a.m. slot,  but Mr. Obama’s campaign was only charged  $40 for the same period. During “Good Morning Cleveland,” which runs 5 a.m. to 7  a.m., Crossroads is paying 16 times what the Obama campaign is.

The difference in rates — which could prove a major, if hidden, advantage for  the president over GOP rival Mitt Romney — is a result of long-standing federal law that requires broadcasters to offer  candidates the lowest market rate for ads to prevent favoritism. Outside groups,  which emerged en masse only this year, get no such billing advantage, and are  subject to the traditional market rates. (continued here)

What the article focuses on is how government interference in the market place gives the Obama campaign an advantage over the Romney campaign. That is, the article focuses on a tactical problem. There is a far more important strategic problem. When it comes to propagandizing us, why do we make it cheaper for politicians? Don’t public interest groups have the same right of free speech?

Check out the 1st Amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (from here)

What is so complicated about that phrase, “Congress shall make no law”? When are we going to learn that we cannot trust our leaders with any more power than is absolutely necessary?

When we listen to or read the news, we need to set the horse race part aside. The polls, the comments on style and delivery, the zingers, the candidate’s wealth, the candidate’s church, the candidate’s ethnic group, — all that is not particularly important. We elect people to protect our rights — the life, liberty, and property of our family, friends, and neighbors. When the people we elect think the election is about them — their “rights” –we have elected the wrong people.

CUCCINELLI SAYS: We need George Allen to win on November 6th.

In yesterday’s Cuccinelli Compass,  Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli got straight to the point.

All in for Allen

Dear Friends and Fellow Virginians,

I’m going to get straight to the point. We need George Allen to win on November 6th.

Right now his race is rated a toss-up by every major poll. I know I’ve said it before, but we simply cannot afford to back down now.

With only 11 days left until Election Day we need all hands on deck.

If elected, George Allen will likely be the critical 51st vote to repeal the federal healthcare bill.

The presidential race has been looking up for the Romney-Ryan ticket especially in the Commonwealth, but a Romney presidency will largely be ineffective without taking back the U.S. Senate.

You hire us, the elected officials to fight to maintain liberty. I’ve   never forgotten that fact and I know George hasn’t either.

I haven’t heard many people say that the federal government should spend evenmore money, intrude on personal healthcare decisions, or regulate small businesses into bankruptcy. As Obama’s cheerleader, that’s what Tim Kaine advocates.

George Allen is currently running hard-hitting ads highlighting Tim Kaine’s miserable record as governor and Kaine’s support for sequestration—a plan that will arbitrarily cut $1 Trillion from our national defense. In order to keep this aggressive ad campaign alive for 11 more days George needs your help. Please click here to donate.

It’s an easy choice for me to support George Allen for U.S. Senate over Tim Kaine. He’s running like it’s his first race. By that I mean George has criss-crossed Virginia for over a year now meeting voters and asking individuals one-on-one for their votes. That’s the kind of personal relationship building that is unmatched by George’s opponent.

If you haven’t already, please make sure to dig deep and chip in to support George Allen, our 51st vote to repeal the federal healthcare bill. If you can help George in these final days of the campaign please donate now by clicking here.

Sincerely,

Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia

Should we be huge fans of George Allen? When Allen was in the Senate, he did not do much. However, Allen is not a busybody. So he also did not do any harm. Given how much power we give senators, we have to give him credit for that. Not doing any harm is the first rule of good government.

If the Federal Government only did what it is suppose to do, we would not have much reason to worry about government. Because our state and local governments have to balance their budgets, we would not be borrowing money from the Chinese.

Would we still have politicians constantly trying to empty our wallets? Would our self-styled glorious leaders still be trying to convince us that it is patriotic to redistribute our wealth? Yes. Some people will always fall for Socialist promises, but we don’t have to.  We don’t have to vote for Tim Kaine. We can vote for George Allen.

INSULT OR COMMUNICATE?

What is the purpose of language? Is our object to communicate or to insult? Or something in between?

In his post, Killing The Retards, Harry at To Be Right! reacts angrily to Socialist Democrat hypocrisy. Ann Coulter, who makes her living insulting Socialist Democrats, made the “mistake” of tweeting that politically incorrect word “retard”. Of course, Harry is hardly the only person who posted on the Democrat reaction to Coulter’s remark.  Linda at NooneOfAnyImport’s Blog, posted Warning:  This Post is Offensive. Instead of cowering quietly in the shadows when the politically correct castigate us for insensitivity, it seems that Conservatives are now just getting fed up.

Meanwhile, our Socialist Democrat friends call Conservatives, racists, bullshitters, stupid, and so forth. So what should we do? Perhaps we should pray for such people.

Instead of calling Socialist Democrats names, we need to focus on winning an election. Participating in name calling will not get us there.

When candidates compete in an election, what is the issue? Don’t we want to select the most qualified candidate? Therefore, don’t we need to compare the qualifications of the candidates?

What are President Barack Obama’s qualifications?

  • He is a fine actor. Just by being elected President of the United States, Barack Obama convinced the Nobel prize committee that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously, Obama’s show of confidence convinced the committee that he had already solved the problem.
  • He is a genius. In a grand experiment with the American economy, he has emphatically proven the Keynesian economic theory does not work. No economist can claim credit for providing the proof, but Obama most certainly can.
  • He is a super salesman. Obama’s charm exceeds that of every other president elected heretofore. Whereas the American news media stubbornly insisted upon vetting all previous candidates, Obama sent such thrills up their legs that they defended him with dogged devotion. Only recently has their loyalty sagged. Some of the news media — Benghazi: Obama’s Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty — well Forbes is not a good example, have resorted to random acts of journalism. Reuters maybe? White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails.
  • He is innovative. Whereas all previous Socialist Democrats gained renown by taxing and spending huge sums of money, Obama broke new ground by running fabulously large deficits. See www.usgovernmentspending.com.

Anyway, you get the picture. What about Mitt Romney?

  • Romney is only a moderately successful businessman.
  • He has some experience as a politician. Really, what serious Republican would brag about being elected as the governor of Massachusetts?
  • He headed the U.S. Olympic Committee for a while. Personally, I have little interest in spectator sports — well, is the fact he rescued them that year from a financial mess really worth mentioning?
  • His public character has twice survived being vetted by a hostile national news media. Got to admit that is remarkable.

Unfortunately, there is just not as much to say about Romney. By comparison to Obama, Romney is such a square. But I suppose that makes Romney at least a little bit more trustworthy.

THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: DID HE WIN ON SUBSTANCE OR STYLE?

Did you listen to the debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney? If not here is the video. Since there is a substantial difference between what the candidates are selling, you will probably find it worth your trouble.

Alternatively, you can either listen to the debate or read the transcript here.

What did I take away from the debate? Because Socialism cannot work, Romney won on the substance. Here is what Romney said about the role of government.

The role of government — look behind us: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means the military, second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America’s military.

Second, in that line that says, we are endowed by our Creator with our rights — I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared by — by one another.

We’re a nation that believes we’re all children of the same God. And we care for those that have difficulties — those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that disabled, we care for them. And we look for discovery and innovation, all these thing desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.

But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams, and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we’re seeing right now is, in my view, a — a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it’s not working.

And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work. (from here)

Why is any other role for government unacceptable? Well, consider what Romney offered as his first criteria for cutting government spending.

What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test — if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. “Obamacare” is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President. I use that term with all respect.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I like it.

MR. ROMNEY: Good. OK, good. (Laughter.) So I’ll get rid of that. I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That’s number one.  (from here)

Think about the sheer idiocy of loading our children and grandchildren under mounds of debt. What for? So they can watch Big Bird on PBS? Yet that is only the half of it. Consider what Romney did not say. The power to tax entails the power to destroy. It means you are willing to confiscate people’s property or send them to jail if they do not pay.

Are you willing to send people to jail to pay for Big Bird and Jim Lehrer’s salary? If not, then by what right are we forcing people to pay taxes for these programs? Just how many government programs do justify violence when people refuse to pay up?

That’s the root problem with Socialism. In order to make Socialism work, Socialists must throw those of us who oppose them into prison, or they have to kill us.

So what will happen in the next debate? We will see what we are already seeing. Biden will tell us (and then Obama in the last two debates) just how hateful Romney and Ryan are –what liars they are — for opposing their Utopian plans.

When people give up on logic, they resort to violence. That violence begins in character assassination.