Tea Party Power Rising

I don’t have much to add to Dr. Zero and John Podhoretz.  Both share excellent overviews of the primary votes from tuesday.  Things are shaping up this year just as I had hoped and believed they would.  The song above is the official music video of the tea party movie.

It has been so fun to rise up with fellow activists this past year as the tea party movement hit the ground running.  So happy to have been a part of history.

Jenny Hatch

Dr. Zero: The Teaparty Imperative

Our Freedom is not for sale

“No one welcomes the understanding that a system they have lived under their entire lives, built over the course of a century, is fatally flawed and headed for collapse. This knowledge is a heavy burden.  The Tea Party is determined, not spiteful.  It’s about renewal, not doom… demanding better from the political and media elite, not lashing out with blind fury as the light fades from America’s eyes.

This is the Tea Party imperative: No more politicians voting for legislation they haven’t written, or denouncing state laws they haven’t read.  No more billion-dollar environmentalist con jobs.  No more programs that can never be repealed.  No more fraudulent candidates.  No more illusory “moderate Democrats” representing a party that abandoned every plausible claim of “moderation” when it rammed the health-care monstrosity down our throats.  No more “moderate Republicans” cutting deals with a system only a few years away from crashing down on all our heads.

Arlen Specter got over 480,000 votes last night.  Pennsylvania’s District 12 elected the successor of a crook they made Senator-for-Life.  The power of incumbency is not to be underestimated.  In November, with the future of this country hanging in the balance, we will discover its limits.”

Podhoretz: No Seat is Safe

“The electoral year that began in January with Republican Scott Brown’s staggering victory in the Senate race for Teddy Kennedy’s seat in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts is nowhere near done with us yet — or with them.

What is happening in the 2010 elections goes far beyond the conventional interpretations. Yes, voters are expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo. Yes, conservatives are displaying anger with runaway liberalism and what they perceive as accommodationism. Yes, populists are using their primary votes or special-election votes to stick it to the elites.

None of that gets at the central fact with which all American politicians will be forced to grapple going forward: The era of political stability for incumbents and veteran political players has truly reached its end.

The point is not that every incumbent is vulnerable — certainly Chuck Schumer isn’t — but that every incumbent might be.

The threat might come, as it did to congressional Republicans in 2006 and 2008, from Democrats taking advantage of voter exhaustion with the GOP in districts and states that should have been safe conservative territory. Or it might come, as it has over the past month, from within the incumbent’s party itself.

If Bob Bennett can be ousted in Utah and Alan Mollohan can be ousted in West Virginia — in their own party’s primaries in seats they not only they held for decades, but that their fathers held in turn before them, in states noted for the relative docility of their party’s internal electorate — then anything can happen.”

Huff Po: Janine R. Wedel – Shadow Elite: Derivatives, a horror story

This excellent post by Janine is a perfect summary of the true cause of the Economic Collapse.  I first learned about the Derivatives issue when I watched the Documentary, The Obama Deception. A portion of that movie was focused exclusively on this issue.  The whole movie is hosted below and the clip about Wall Street is above.  I don’t agree with all of the claims of this movie, but it does tend to make you think.

Here is the final portion of Janines piece:

“With journalists stumped, could anyone in the Washington power “village” stand in the way of runaway derivatives, and the banks that wanted to keep them unregulated? Ironically, there were few policymakers more capable of understanding derivatives or their real world impact than Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and his deputy Lawrence Summers. And both were there when derivatives could have been at least partially reined in before they became, to quote Warren Buffett, “financial weapons of mass destruction”. Instead they did exactly the opposite, blocking key regulation at pivotal moments, as we saw in Summers’ remarks above, with Rubin going on to benefit from this deregulated Wild West when he left Washington and returned to Wall Street as a top executive.

Here again, taking an anthropological view can be instructive. Consider the elite conclaves both came from, and the biases and potential conflicts attached to them. Rubin originally came to Washington after decades at Goldman Sachs, a firm renown for its culture of invincibility. Summers came from a somewhat similar culture – Harvard – with ample faith in both himself and the efficacy of the free market.

Their boss, President Clinton, was intent on being the pro-business “New” Democrat. In the last two months, all three have tried to distance themselves from their roles in letting derivatives go unchecked. (And in true shadow elite fashion, none of them have faced the consequences of their actions. In fact, the only ones to really suffer from the failure of the elite are the non-elite, millions of regular people who’ve lost their jobs, houses or savings.)

And derivatives remain unchecked. Just because the economy cratered doesn’t mean that all these money-printing machines have disappeared. According to calculations by Bernstein Research, Goldman Sachs could lose 41 percent of its profits if the new derivatives regulations pass. Banks generally don’t break down their figures on this part of their business (surprised?), but it seems fair to estimate the percentage of the bank revenue that comes from derivatives is solidly in the double-digits (at some it could be more than 50%) To put this in perspective, imagine a food company that gets half its revenue from selling products that go totally unregulated by the FDA, and whose practices are hidden from both regulators and journalists.

Tett notes sociologist, philosopher and anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu as arguing,

“...elites …. invariably try to hang onto power–not so much by controlling the physical means of production, but by also dominating the cognitive map, or social discourse. What really matters …is not what is publicly discussed, but what is not discussed. Social silences, in other words, are crucial.”

Her message: when the people in power insist a little too hard that there’s no story to be found, start digging in. Tett says this should be a wake-up call for journalists and anthropologists, to question the people drawing that cognitive map. One reviewer dismissed this as “preachy” advice. It might be, if she wasn’t dead right.

Linda Keenan edits the Shadow Elite column.”

El Marco: Cartoons to die for

El Marco of Looking at the Left has written an excellent overview of the whole Danish Cartoon Story.

Today is Everybody draw Mohammed Day.

“Humor-challenged “Religion of Peace” is out for blood.

Today is “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”. If you don’t know what that is I will try to explain. It all started on September 30, 2005, when the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published twelve drawings of Islam’s founder, Mohammed. The cultural editor of the paper commissioned the twelve drawings after he became aware that artists were unwilling to work with a children’s book author on a book about Islam and Mohammed. Apparently, artists were fearful of Europe’s increasingly violent and overtly radical muslim population.

Although the publication of the “Danish cartoons” provoked only local peaceful protest, a group of “Danish Imams” seized the opportunity to create conflict. In the months following publication, the troublemaking Imams toured the middle east with a folio that included the twelve drawings as well as others which they falsely attributed to the newspaper.  The extra images included depictions that the Imams said were meant to show Mohammed as a pig. They lied to incite violence and in the riots that followed, at least 139 people were killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and most of all in Nigeria. In the last four and a half years, embassies have been burned in a number of countries, and muslim threats of violence against artists, newspapers, and book publishers are daily occurrences.”

Reason Magazine has more:

“Via Dan Savage’s blog at The Stranger, some clever chappie (I don’t know who) has declared May 20, 2010 “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day,” in support of Matt Stone and Trey Parker and in opposition to religious thuggery. Why May 20? I haven’t a clue, though it could have something to do with Otto ascending the throne of Greece. Or, more likely, King Sancho IV of Castile’s founding of the Study of General Schools of Alcalá.”

I am not an artist, so I went out looking for a good cartoon to share, and this one at Peoples Cube caught my eye. El Marco has the best overview of the many that I have read on the web.  Please take the time to read the whole story.  I grew up in Detroit and was friends with many muslims.  This story is not about hating a religion or hating a religious figure.  It is about how we are going to live as a society.  I am not too interested in my daughters having to live under Sharia law in the future.  I believe the reason why the left loves and bows down to muslim extreme thought, education, money, and behavior is because the ideologies of both are so similar.

Geert Wilders in Holland is in the middle of this fight.  In an open letter to him published on Front Page Magazine titled A Profile in Courage by David Soloway, Mr. Soloway articulated the stance of the political elites best with these words:

“Of course, we can write off the political and intellectual elites who, through laziness, timidity, adherence to the craven doctrine of political correctness, and no doubt the profiteering impulse, are in bed with the succubus who would guzzle their blood. And this is no blood libel. In addition, you probably strike these presumably more decorous sensibilities as too blunt, aggressive or politically ambitious, which is clearly what prompts their efforts at character assassination against you. But your passionate resistance to the creeping Islamization of Europe prompts me in turn to ask: Does this in Wilders seem ambitious? In any event, pay no attention to these tergiversators. As Andrew Bostom writes, “The transparent agenda in characterizations of Wilders is to demonize Western Europe’s most informed and courageous politician resisting the actual jihadism…But the Swiss minaret referendum, and even more emphatically, burgeoning Dutch support for Wilders and his PVV, indicate that ordinary Europeans reject the capitulation to Islamic supremacism their cultural relativist media and political elites deliberately abet.”

I also stand strongly AGAINST the capitulation to this supremacism and would challenge anyone reading to take the time to really think about life for some of our muslim sisters around the world.  I do not want to live that lifestyle.  The Freedoms of expression, thought, behavior, and speech that I currently enjoy as an American Citizen are treasures, not to be lightly dumped or handed over to murderers in an attempt to be kind, tolerant, politically correct, or Christlike.  So I proudly stand with all of those on this day who believe it is important to reject totalitarianism in any form in our world.

Jenny Hatch

Cairs Response:

WASHINGTON, May 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today offered what the Washington-based civil rights and advocacy group called “A Muslim Response to ‘Draw Muhammad Day.'”

In an ISLAM-OPED commentary that is available for publication on request, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad (nawad@cair.com) wrote: (Word Count: 932)

I will be the first to defend anyone’s right to express their opinion, no matter how offensive it may be to me. Our nation has prospered because Americans value and respect diversity.

But freedom of expression does not create an obligation to offend or to show disrespect to the religious beliefs or revered figures of others.

In reaction to the recent controversy over a depiction of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in an episode of Comedy Central’s “South Park,” a Seattle cartoonist apparently declared May 20th to be “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.”

I say “apparently,” because cartoonist Molly Norris — the creator of the cartoon showing many objects claiming to be a likeness of the prophet — now says she never intended to launch “Draw Muhammad Day.”

On her web site, she has since posted a statement that reads in part: “I did NOT ‘declare’ May 20 to be ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’…The cartoon-poster, with a fake ‘group’ behind it, went viral and was taken seriously…The vitriol this ‘day’ has brought out, of people who only want to draw obscene images, is offensive to the Muslims who did nothing to endanger our right to expression in the first place…I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this ‘day’ be called off.”

Norris even visited a mosque at the invitation of the local Muslim community.

The creator of a Facebook page dedicated to the day also repudiated the “inflammatory posts” it inspired. He said, “I am aghast that so many people are posting deeply offensive pictures of the Prophet…Y’all go ahead if that’s your bag, but count me out.”

Despite the cartoonist’s and the Facebook page creator’s seemingly sincere attempts to distance themselves from the fake event, Muslim-bashers and Islamophobes made sure the call to “draw Muhammad” went viral on the Internet. They are hoping to offend Muslims, who are generally sensitive to created images of the Prophet Muhammad or any prophet.

[The majority of Muslims believe visual representations of all prophets are inappropriate in that they distract from God’s message and could lead to a kind of idol worship, something forbidden in Islam.]

So how should Muslims and other Americans react to this latest attempt by hate-mongers to exploit the precious right of free speech and turn May 20 into a celebration of degradation and xenophobia?

Before I answer that question, it must first be made clear that American Muslims value freedom of speech and have no desire to inhibit the creative instincts of cartoonists, comedians or anyone else.

The mainstream American Muslim community, including my own organization, has also strongly repudiated the few members of an extremist fringe group who appeared to threaten the creators of “South Park.” That group, the origins and makeup of which has been questioned by many Muslims, has absolutely no credibility within the American Muslim community.

I, like many Muslims, was astonished to see media outlets broadcasting the views of a few marginal individuals, while ignoring the hundreds of mosques and Muslim institutions that have representatives who could have offered a mainstream perspective.

Next, one must examine how the Prophet Muhammad himself reacted to personal insults.

Islamic traditions include a number of instances in which the Prophet had the opportunity to retaliate against those who abused him, but refrained from doing so. He said, “You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness.”

Even when the prophet was in a position of power, he chose the path of kindness and mercy. When he returned toMecca after years of exile and personal attacks, he did not take revenge on the people who had reviled him and abused and tortured his followers, but instead offered a general amnesty.

In the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, God states: “Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Lord knows best who have strayed from His Path and who receive guidance.” (16:125)

Another verse tells the prophet to “show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)

This is the guidance Muslims should follow as they express concern about an insulting depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, or of any other prophet of God.

Instead of reacting negatively to the bigoted call to support “Draw Muhammad Day,” American Muslims — and Muslims worldwide — should use that and every other day as an opportunity to reach out to people of other faiths and beliefs to build bridges of understanding and respect.

The best and most productive response to bigoted campaigns like “Draw Muhammad Day” is more communication, not less communication — including not restricting the free flow of ideas with measures like banning Facebook.

Research has shown that anti-Islam prejudice goes down when people interact with ordinary Muslims and have greater knowledge of Islam.

Therefore, the best reaction to those who would mock the Prophet Muhammad (or the religious symbols of any faith) might be a mosque open house for the local interfaith community, a community service activity organized by Muslims and involving people of other faiths, or a newspaper commentary describing the life, legacy and personal character of the Prophet Muhammad, which is the opposite of the calumny some people fabricate about him. This should be of concern to all decent and objective people.

We will all benefit if each of us — whether Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu — exhibits the common human decency required by our respective faiths.

IBD: Yes, Voters Did send a Message

Message

“Primaries: Two facts are clear from Tuesday’s political races. First, voters hate it how Washington is spending so much of their money. Second, an endorsement from President Obama is the reverse Midas Touch.”

Reason Magazine: From Banning Books to Banning Blogs

From Banning Books to Banning Blogs

How the DISCLOSE Act will restrict free speech

“The Obama administration has announced plans to regulate the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, extending its authority over broadband providers to police web traffic, enforcing “net neutrality.”

Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.

The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

…Now that Democrats in Congress seek to ram through an expansive regulatory regime for regulating political speech by Independence Day (no joke), it seems Kagan would defer to Congress’s wisdom on such restrictions rather than the plain text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

If Congress can ban political TV ads and pamphlets, why not blogs?”

Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, heads the Center for Competitive Politics. Jeff Patch is the Center’s communications director.

More Here at the Wall Street Journal