Michelle Malkin declares the McDonald ruling “good news, bad news”. The good news of course being the Supreme Court ruling against the Chicago gun ban. Malkin states that with the NRA withholding a position of opposition against anti-gun Kagan, the bad news and surely it is. Why the hesitation? Kagan clearly is not a supporter of gun rights. Isn’t the NRA’s mission to promote and protect Second Amendment rights?

The NRA never opposed the nomination of now Justice Sotomayor until after members of the NRA Board and heads of state NRA affiliates signed and mailed a letter opposing Sotomayor to NRA management. As if there was some question about Sotomayor’s position on gun rights, that was clarified yesterday in her dissenting vote in McDonald v. Chicago.

Some point out that Kagan’s known work reveals an even greater support for strict gun control and yet we still see the NRA not officially opposing her nomination. Instead they have issued a public position stating they are “carefully reviewing” Kagan’s record and working with key Senators to make sure Kagan is “aggressively questioned”.

We see from what is found in the Malkin piece that the NRA management prohibited any NRA Board members from testifying or coming out publicly in opposition to Kagan. This is troubling and seems to mimic the same tactics this Obama administration uses in censoring anyone in opposition to his positions.

While Americans for the preservation of gun rights applaud any victory in court that supports the Constitution, we should not be willing to achieve those victories by compromising the very principles for which the Constitution itself was founded. When political wrangling, which is the norm in Washington, becomes a part of the NRA’s policies, it can only be expected that something will be given up in order to get.

Which brings me to wondering what the NRA gave up in order to get themselves an exemption in the DISCLOSE Act? Was it that they could have the exemption if they promised not to oppose the Kagan nomination? Who knows but the reality is that when you play these games, questions remain and speculation takes over.

Tom Remington

Read the editorial here.

The truth is many of us can and do see only what we want to see. This is partially what defines us. God forbid we should all be so much alike that life would be boring. The black box above can represent anything you would like it to be and probably even some shrink would tell you that what you wrote would be a reflection of your inner being, perhaps even your suppressed fears, or hopes and dreams.

So much has been made of the Tea Party movement. From both sides we have witnessed the influence of the Tea Party. The Republicans, who seem to think they own the movement, got handed a rude awakening as we saw what happened in Utah with Bob Bennett. The Democrats as well, are dropping like flies as Americans in general are fed up with politics as usual.

If you don’t fit the mold of what the local Tea Partiers want, you won’t get their support. Why is this considered bad by some? Isn’t this exactly what American politics was supposed to be? A country governed of and by the people?

That black box takes on odd illusions I think for some. We have always had political organizations that put their support behind the candidate of their choice. But this Tea Party thing is grass roots and scares the living hell out of some people. As a result a person’s black box becomes a living nightmare for them.

Witness an opinion piece posted at Politico by Charles Postel, an assistant professor of history at San Francisco State University, about the Tea Party that he labels the “dark side of conservatism”.

For whatever reasons, in Postel’s black box he focuses on the main stream media and their insistence on calling Tea Partiers, “populists”. In case Postel hadn’t figured it out yet, the MSM is clueless when it comes to the Tea Party and they too are petrified of it. He spends much of his time wanting to paint the Tea Party, as he says, the “dark side of conservatism” by disproving the media’s contention that it is “populist”.

Here is a grocery list of the things Postel sees in his black box as what makes Tea Parties, “dark”.

1. Tea Partiers are conservatives
2. They repeat catchwords of Goldwater and Reagan
3. “echoes of a well-known grass-roots movement of the 1950s and ’60s — the John Birch Society”
4. Sound like the John Birch Society
5. Author views Obama as a moderate
6. Believes all TPers think Obama a communist
7. Tea Partiers have “angrily taken to the streets”
8. Tea Partiers “are boiling mad”
9. They are “punishing politicians”
10. Tea Partiers are “more concerned about possible inflation of the future than with the current ordeal of the unemployed.”
11. Tea Partiers don’t care about unemployment among blacks
12. Tea Partiers are like Ku Klux Klan members who want to protect their Protestant religion and white race from communism and immigration.
13. Sees Tea Partiers as “birthers”, opposed to immigration and against Mulims.
14. Tea Partiers, being “radical rights” have a “soft spot for bigots”.
15. Tea Partiers are “a movement of the haves and well-protected who” that since FDR, “have feared that their freedom will be lost” if government expands its powers and steals from the rich to give to the poor.

That’s a lot of things to see in a black box. The Tea Party is many things but “dark” is not one of them. It is unfortunate that Mr. Postel sees those who cherish the American dream and a return to following the Constitution as being “dark” and all the other nasty things he sees.

Makes you wonder what kind of a childhood he must have had. (snicker)

Photo from fOTOGLIF

The questions came from David Ridenour, Dr. Tom Borelli and Deneen Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who inquired about:

* extreme attacks on conservatives by the GE-owned MSNBC,

* GE’s extensive lobbying for cap-and-trade,

* the possibility of a conservative/Republican backlash against GE,

* how much the adoption of ObamaCare will cost GE;

* any GE lobbying for ObamaCare.

The National Center for Public Policy Research owns GE stock.

“MSNBC, part of GE’s NBC Universal, runs programming that is offensive to a substantial portion of the population. Keith Olbermann has called the Tea Party movement the ‘Tea Klux Klan’ and has said the Republican Party wants to re-impose Jim Crow Laws,” said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center. “Whatever your political outlook, I said [to Immelt], this doesn’t make sense for GE… I also asked what he was doing to address the perception — especially among conservatives — that GE stands against them. Quite a bit of applause followed. Immelt didn’t answer but went to the next question.”

Later, Ridenour asked the same question, noting he never received a reply the first time. Immelt said GE has never attempted to influence the programming of its news or public affairs programs. Immelt repeated that when specifically asked about an April 16, 2009 New York Post Page Six story reporting that a three-hour meeting took place between Immelt and top CNBC executives and on-air talent for the purpose of making sure CNBC had not become “too conservative.”

“I asked Immelt about GE’s support of cap-and-trade and the letter from its political action committee that stated Waxman-Markey would good for its business,” said Tom Borelli, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “I specifically asked how much money GE was going to make if cap-and-trade passes. Immelt responded that he did not know, and I told him that was a joke. My second question was focused on the political risk of GE/Immelt being so closely associated with the Obama Administration. I added that stopping cap-and-trade is highly ranked on the Tea Party’s ‘Contract for America,’ and by pushing against the movement the company could experience reputational and political risk. Finally, I mentioned there could be a backlash against GE if the House flips to Republicans. I asked Immelt if he is concerned about or measures political risk. He didn’t acknowledge a political risk.”

In light of John Deere and Caterpillar having to write off expenses against their earnings because of ObamaCare, Deneen Borelli of Project 21 asked Immelt how much ObamaCare will cost GE. “Immelt had Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman Keith Sherin respond, and he said the amount was $15 million for first quarter 2010 and additional costs going forward… My final question was did GE lobby for ObamaCare? Immelt said they did not individually lobby on health care and that their position was covered through the Business Roundtable,” said Deneen Borelli.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has questioned Mr. Immelt in the past. Go here for a video of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly interviewing Tom Borelli about the 2008 GE stockholder meeting and here for information about news reports detailing Jeff Immelt’s alleged retaliation.

Today I venture off into some combination of mindless satire, cynicism, hunting and fishing humor and poking fun of the lack of intelligence that seems to embody the halls of Washington these days. Listen in and watch and discover what happens when Sen. Majority Leader, Harry Reid, goes fishing with the Dali Lama and Harry tries to match his brain power with that of a fish. It’s really just an issue of “Mind Over Matter”.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, DC: In response to GE’s recent announcement of its sponsorship commemorating the Centennial Celebration of President Ronald Reagan’s birth, today the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research is criticizing GE CEO Jeff Immelt for exploiting Reagan’s legacy to curry favor with conservatives.

“I’m outraged over Immelt’s shameless exploitation of President Reagan’s historic presidency to improve GE’s reputation among conservatives. Reagan is the champion of conservatives because he fought for liberty and limited government. In contrast, Immelt uses GE’s vast lobbying resources to expand the size and role of government in order to create markets for its products and loot Americans of their liberty,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., Director of the Free Enterprise Project.

Borelli notes that GE is an aggressive supporter of cap-and-trade legislation and the company played a key role in passing the Waxman-Markey climate change bill last year. GE hopes the capping of carbon emissions would force demand for its renewable energy products such as wind turbines and solar panels. With cap-and-trade currently stalled in the Senate, GE lobbyists are now writing energy legislation for Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would mandate that an increasing amount of electricity be derived from renewable energy sources.

“In anticipating a Tea Party surge of conservatives to be elected next November, Immelt needs to steer the GE ship hard right. With his revenue increasingly dependent on government projects, policies, and subsidies, Immelt can’t be caught on the progressive aisle if the Republicans take charge in Congress. That’s why Immelt is running ads recalling Reagan’s role with GE during the 1950′s,” added Borelli.

“It’s going to take a lot of advertising to wash away the progressive odor from Immelt’s policies. Immelt is a member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and he has repeatedly been an Obama cheerleader ranging from defending the president’s commencement speech at Notre Dame to echoing Obama’s views on CEO greed during a talk at West Point. GE’s NBC Universal media empire frequently promotes the Administration’s green agenda and MSNBC’s progressive attack dogs, led by Keith Olbermann, consistently assaults anything that represents conservative values.”

GE is being richly rewarded by Obama’s economic stimulus package. GE lobbied the Administration to make sure its utility customers, including Duke Energy, Exelon and FPL Group, were given hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
The contrast between Reagan and Immelt’s GE is stark in regard to dealing with national adversaries. While Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, Immelt’s GE has profited from selling infrastructure equipment to Iran.

“Immelt should realize slick advertising will not cover up his pact with the progressive devils. Because of Immelt, today’s GE has far more in common with Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Olbermann than with President Reagan.”

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, DC: Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is condemning President Barack Obama’s decision to urge Senate leaders to employ controversial reconciliation rules to force a government takeover of health care.

“The people have spoken, and they have said no to Obama’s radical brand of health care reform,” said Project 21′s Massie. “Putting his seal of approval on usurping regular Senate procedure showcases not just an extraordinary arrogance and a willingness to abuse legislative power, but it also unambiguously indicates his contempt and disregard for the will of the American people.”

In an address from the White House today, Obama expressed a willingness to work with Republicans to pass health care reform. But Obama also suggested that the Senate leadership might instead employ reconciliation rules to limit debate and lower the vote threshold normally needed to pass legislation in that chamber. This would allow the plan’s more unpopular provisions to be enacted.

“During the judicial battles of the Bush years, when there was talk of the employing the ‘nuclear option’ to overcome filibusters, there was great respect among liberals for Senate the procedure of cloture,” noted Massie. “Ultimately, conservative legislators agreed with them and the option was never used. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, liberals are quick to do the very thing that once horrified them. They are refusing to hear the pleas from their colleagues and the American people to scrap their plan and start over.”

Massie continued: “The question to be answered is why are these senators willing to risk their careers and Obama his legacy to force such a miserable piece of legislation? Trying to obfuscate and confuse the use of reconciliation to pass a fundamental overhaul of such a substantial portion of the American economy is dishonest on a level likely never before imagined in the history of the legislative branch. Misrepresenting it as cost-cutting is morally opprobrious and fraudulent. But this is apparently not out of character for those determined to make a free citizenry dependent upon government from cradle to the grave.”

In a February 25 Wall Street Journal commentary, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare “a total affront to the legislative process.” He noted that the process had previously been used only for incremental budget issues or those with wide bipartisan support.