As Mike pointed out earlier, Arkansas and Tennessee Democrats only gave Obama 60% of their votes.  This is really embarrassing  to his campaign and certainly to the Democrat Machine and the only real explanation that is plausible is it is his policies – too liberal, too costly, too out of the American mainstream, and too extreme.

Oh, wait! Here’s the real reason (according to – Democrats!):

…They argue that conservative white Democrats — particularly those in the South and Appalachia — don’t want to vote for an African American for president and, therefore, are willing to cast a ballot for almost anyone else up to and including an incarcerated felon.…

“Race, resentment [and] fear,” explained Donna Brazile,  a Louisiana native and Democratic strategist [and an African-American who advised that MA Guv that beclosed himself in the tank helmet  -Skip] when asked about Obama’s underperformance. “Democrats have not had any messaging in those states for more than a decade. It’s hard to get voters to like you or even know you when all they hear is negative stuff.”

Yeah, every white Democrat is a racist – that’s how Obama got elected in the first place.  You know, insulting your own supporters is gonna pay off in spades!

Speaking of spades – keep digging!

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…

Back to “Really, Judd?”

But what is the point, if you govern out of control, at cross-odds to Constitutional philosophy, once you get there, as the Democrats now wish to?

Oops, this time, its Republicans showing a lack of knowledge of Constitutional values – and respect as well.  All I can say is that I am really glad that I’m not in NY (or my server).  The Daily Caller has the story:

Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.

If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.

An anonymous comment could remain if the author “agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

Yeah – their version of NH’s HB1704 (sideways) – we will silence speech, particular that which might be critical of others.  The Founders had the equivalent problem of anonymous speech back then – only then, it was not computers and servers it was hand operated paper and ink printing presses (re: slow, laborious, and expensive).  In fact, if looking at history, we might still be singing “God save the Queen” without that anonymous speech.

Oh, that pesky parchment that is the foundation for all our laws?  Was THAT considered?  Er, no:

The sponsor of the state Senate’s version, Republican Thomas O’Mara, told TheDC that he had not initially considered that the legislation might ban First Amendment-protected speech.

“Today is the first day that these issues have been raised,” O’Mara said. “I haven’t gotten any comments from any of my colleagues in the Senate who said that this wasn’t a good idea.”

“I certainly didn’t introduce the legislation with the thought that it was violative of the First Amendment. We’re certainly looking forward to any and all input.”

I find it hard to believe, given all of the hoo-hah raised by the TEA Party movement about going back to Constitutional values that these professional politicians (who actually get a liveable salary vs the $100 / year that they do here in NH) have no clue about what is allowable or not.  This is the problem – governance without first considering, well before keys hit keyboard, what the Constitution says.  That should be the first thought – are we aligned with Constitutional value instead of “hey, we have to do something”.  Really, not even a clue during the process?  No one, from the first day that this was germinated, nobody had the presence of mind to go “uh-oh”?  When I read this for the first time, my jaw dropped.  I can understand recent graduates of government schools might not be really up on this (re: that teacher in NC that told a student that he could go to jail for criticizing the President), but these are professionals?  Yikes!

The legislation would “demand that those who spread rumor, conjecture or outright lies online be willing to come forward and defend the comments they post,” Republican Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney added. “We, as a society, have never expected anything less when potentially harmful words are put into print.”

As Wired magazine notes, the legislation would have banned the anonymously written Federalist Papers from online distribution.

Indeed.

There is no way that I want to moderate every single comment that comes into the ‘Grok – and we are a relatively small site.  Those with millions and millions of hits per day?  They couldn’t afford to hire enough moderators to review everything that a commenter would put.  Hey, it would take away another game – the “gotcha game” that often is used in politics where a commenter (sometimes a plant) to write something “naughty” and then accuse some politician of malfeasance simply for being associated with that site (like when a site endorses a like minded politician).

Nothing but chuckleheaded morons.  There!

Many of the major lefty oriented blogs are touting this – I think to deflect the actual spending orgy that the Obama Administration has actually done.  Does anyone not believe that their normal whipping boy – President Bush (hey, isn’t EVERY thing his fault?) is responsible.  The problem, as it always is, is in the definition of words and MarketWatch has decided to do just that to save their Obamessiah:

Obama spending binge never happened

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen…

Really?  That almost $5 Trillion in debt spending over the last three years didn’t happen??  You just KNEW that any claim like this was going to be challenged and vetted just like Dan Rather was when he was trying to smear then President Bush (and look what happened to Rather).  Political Math decided that he had had enough of the Left’s nonsense and “Rathered” (or fisked) them and created a really great infographic on this (full image after the jump).  The important part is the definition of WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA BECOMES RESPONSIBLE.  Some data points from the Political Math post:

• Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.
• For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file.
• For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.
• The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.
• President Obama’s actual 2013 budget

There’s a lot of info there and you do need to go and read it.  Do so.

There's something wrong with this picture - back too wide, head too small, and that's just the beginning.

Mara Zebest at American Thinker Deconstructs another piece of "Axops Fables"

American Thinker, which deconstructed Obama well ahead of the curve, and long before Dinesh DeSouza (example here), is now busily deconstructing the fraudulent images of his presidency, if indeed it IS his presidency. Mara Zebest is a Photoshop expert, author of several books on the topic, and has been observing some odd features of official White House images – not just the birth certificate. We discussed her work on the other situation room photo a couple of weeks ago.

I passed a few photo examples around some expert photoshop friends last night, and they tend to agree with Mara’s diagnosis. One of them had even taken the trouble to reverse photoshop the PDF birth certificate before it was recently replaced with a flattened version, and confirms that there were several layers and numerous flaws.

GraniteGrok Photoshop: "Captain of the Starship Moral Enterprise"
This obvious fake has less flaws than official photos!

I am not sure if Obama’s staff are rank amateurs like him or whether it would be more appropriate to imagine an exchange like this:

Aide: Sir, you can’t be MIA through such important events, we’ll need photos of you engaged in the process.
O: Well, Photoshop me in then.
Aide: Would you mind posing for a couple of shots so we can get the light right?
O: Why? You have a gazillion photos of me – just pick one!
Aide: Yes, Sir! (Thinking…. Something that will fool an amateur, but not a professional. Yes we Can!)
Read Mara’s article: The Illusion of Obama’s Bin Laden Raid Situation Room Leadership

Redneck Hot Tub:

(H/T: There, I fixed it)

“I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.“

- Glenn Reynolds, owner of Instapundit, law professor, columnist, author

Sometimes, the posts just write themselves…

Judd Gregg:

This means that if there is no middle ground, nothing happens. Big issues of significant national concern go unaddressed.

Well, this must be one whale of a Big Deal (civility requires that I not quote VP Biden’s words) – unanimous!  Not just the middle but the entire shootin’ match!  The Hill:

The Senate on Wednesday quickly approved legislation that would remove the word “lunatic” everywhere it appears in the federal code.

The Senate approved S. 2367 by unanimous consent, giving the House a chance to act if it wishes, although no House member has introduced a similar bill.

…The word “lunatic” appears in the U.S. Code in Title 1, Chapter 1, which covers rules of construction. Chapter 1 holds that when determining the meaning of any law, “the words ‘insane’ and ‘insane person’ and ‘lunatic’ shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis.”

According to Conrad’s bill, it also appears in laws related to banking that deal with the authority to take receivership of estates.

The Corner concludes:

Still no word on when they’ll get around to a budget. Or entitlement reform. Or tax reform. Or . . .

Or the effect of the Euro collapse.  Or the mental midget in North Korea and the REAL theocrats in Iran that wanna play BOOM! with nukes, or actually paying for the debt they’ve created.  You know, the REAL big stuff.  I guess they are absorbing President Obama’s laser-like focus on jobs, second go round on jobs, third go round on jobs….aw heck, we’re in the best of hands, Judd.  “Lunatic” and a retired baseball player – yup, national issues all.  Look, why don’t you, as Congressman Emeritus, try to persuade those that remain “Guys, you really gotta up your game and deal with the stuff that only you guys can – pull on your Big Boy pants and get cracking.”

(H/T: The Hill via The Corner)

“working” is only goodness when “working” is on the right stuff and achieving the right results inline with proper governance

(H/T: Granlund)

Afterthought:  Congress and “lunatic” – fits well, don’t it?

“”Of the 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus examined in the analysis, 37 senators paid their female staffers less than male staffers.”"

That would be about $21K / year / female staffer (about 35% less, on average)

Left Wing Projection Strikes Again!

( H/T: Washington Free Beacon)

Over at the Concord Monitor web site, someone going by the name of ItsaRepublic, has been doing some very heavy lifting for GraniteGrok.  They have gone to bat for us on our investigation of Public Employees who have been using the Monitor’s web site, during office hours, at taxpayer expense.  Not exactly a friendly environment to promote anything we do here, but we appreciate the effort.

And as I have pointed out previously, the Monitor had begun letting those sorts of comments stand (where in the past they had been known to ‘moderate’ them out of existance), and letting the debate take it’s bi-partisan course.   But when it comes to allowing links back to GranitGrok articles on the investigation itself, a CM Moderator has explained why they wont be doing that any time soon…

By CM Moderator – 05/24/2012 – 8:39 am

We do not post links to websites making anonymous allegations against real people. It does not matter whether the site leans to the right or the left.

That’s curious for a few reasons.  First, I’ve seen what the monitor passes off for news.  Enough said?  Second, Anonymous?  Allegations?

I have a real person (Dick de Seve), who happens to be a real State employee (DES), who admitted to posting real comments during real work hours (In an email to me, personally) (see also here), with corroborating evidence (600 comments posted at the real Concord Monitor, with real times and real dates), along with related posts on the real DES and State DoIT policies, and a series of real Right to Know requests and the results of those so far (far too numerous to link all of them here.)

Can we get real, here?

Admitting by name to the act, with substantial evidence, in clear violation of policy, is an “anonymous allegation?”  Talk about a tough room.

Then there’s GAIA, who is still anonymous, but whom the allegations against are not just substantiated (and twice what de Seve managed in a similar time frame), they too reside (in their greater abundance) on the servers of the Concord Monitors web presence.   This is a 30 year New Hampshire State employee, reading-digesting and posting political comments, during office hours, on state equipment, in violation of the state’s DoIT policy, when they are supposed to be doing the people’s business–that’s all the people’s business, whether they lean left or right.

In case this is too difficult for the left to follow.  You look at the comments, and the times and dates posted, and a calendar, and it all sort of comes together like a puzzle.   You know what else will come together rather easily?  I’m going to go back and look to see if either of these folks posted alleged links to other alleged websites, and if there are any anonymous allegations about real people on them which the Concord Monitor allowed.

Sure hope I don’t find any.  Wow, that could be embarrassing. (Good thing I have given them plenty of time to come up with another excuse.)

Not that it matters to the CM but regardless of their opinion of our investigation, we exposed people stealing taxpayer time and got them to stop.  All things being equal–and we know how much the Monitor like’s “Equality”–dozens or even hundreds of state employees of varying degrees of guilt may well have joined them and stopped wasting taxpayer resources on themselves.   We applaud this sudden, if unexpected bout of conscience but we’re not done.  We’ve got a few more on the burner, waiting to boil over, and we’re still looking.  That just might encourage other taxpayer funded folks to stop wasting taxpayers time and money, on taxpayer equipment and networks, whether the Monitor wants to help or not.

Of course the monitor could help.  We wouldn’t mind at all.   They could do their own investigation and help save the taxpayers some money… or try to pretend there’s no problem so we can later embarrass them with things we know already.  But I don’t think they will.   The overall message being promoted by state employees, at taxpayer expense (on their site or any other), is the message of the Concord Monitor.   It’s a left leaning, Democrat Party, tax and spend narrative.   Besides, if every state employee stopped posting at the Concord Monitor, on state equipment, during work hours, their page hits and unique users would probably take a hit so large you’d hear the smacking  all the way up in Pittsburg, NH.

Good thing a lefty, pro-socialist, rag like the Concord Monitor doesn’t give a damn about capitalist motivations like web traffic, and page hits, except for that whole capitalist pig pay wall thing, you know… um… well…awkward.  I guess they can always stick with Anonymous allegations schtick.  At least until we find links to them all over their pages.

I’m actually looking forward to that.

“working” is only goodness when “working” is on the right stuff and achieving the right results inline with proper governance

A few days ago, former US Senator from NH Judd Gregg had an Op-Ed in The Hill (an inside- DC-political-baseball newspaper) was decrying the loss of the “bipartisan centrist” and it included :

…Our politics has for the most part always been played between the forty-yard lines. Unlike a parliamentary form of government where the majority party has all the power, our system is designed to be incremental — and it usually is.

As a consequence, it is almost always necessary to include the minority party in any action that is going to actually lead to governance, especially if the act contemplated affects a significant number of Americans.

This means that if there is no middle ground, nothing happens. Big issues of significant national concern go unaddressed.

I dryly note that this vaunted “centrist moel governance” has resulted, as a result of BOTH Republicans and Democrats, with a mind-blowing $16 trillion dollar debt laid upon our childrens’ children – but only if we last that long as a nation even if it has been just incremental (“just turn that knob on the stove up EVAH so slightly, wouldja?”).  Nice to see that you’re owning up to owning that, due to this middling governance that I hear so lamented lately.

We now have a Federal Government that acts as if every other political entity is entirely subordinate to its decrees even as Congress continues to pass laws to which it exempts itself.  I also note, with much lamentation, that you helped to set the stage for the current brand Executive branch governance that has decided that it no longer has to mind that the Constitution mandates that a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch also have roles to play in how that governing happens (as in “We Can’t Wait” and thumbing its nose at judicial decrees that stop it from what it wants to do (e.g., EPA, FCC, NLRB, Interior Dept; the list goes on).  Why should it – the Leviathan is here and has figured out that it has sufficient power and leverage on its own to act as the Progressive end game – The Administrative State.

Yeah, such a great thing, that bipartisanship that has governed seemingly with only lip service to the words of the Constitution (and almost zip with its underlying philosophy) in dealing with a limited government (e.g., Nancy Pelosi’s outburst of “Are you serious?”).    I also note that the Founders did not set out to make a government that only worked from the middle – their intent was to deliberately make it hard to get anything done if an idea was not that substantial or important enough (leaving aside for the moment, those items that are highly urgent but totally stupid which seem to crawl through DC’s Halls of Power on a too frequent basis).

I also note that it seems that Congress no longer deals with “Big issues of significant national concern” – for instance,  the Senate has refused to take up and pass an actual budget (something that ALL in Congress should wish to do to set the nation’s priorities) for over three years.  Instead actually dealing with national issues as it should, it shows its true focus  is now only actually “playing small ball” as it takes up such a ludicrous (from what I see as real Congressional purposes) issue of whether or not a pro-baseball player was using steroids.

 …Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening. The House keeps putting up ideas but they are couched purely in partisan terms and rhetoric; the Senate cannot reach consensus; the president has disappeared.

Most Americans want a government that works. Partisanship cannot fulfill this need in the end because it cannot lead to effective governance in our constitutional system.

The American people understand this, which is why their level of frustration with Washington is so high right now. Many members of Congress, to be fair, understand this too.

Yes, reelection is important. But what is the point, if you do not govern once you get there?

I disagree with the premise that the current stalemate is a bug – it IS a feature at this point.  It is time to say “this far and no farther – we’ve gone WAY to far as it is!”  This is the reason why the TEA Party came into existence and why the election of 2010 was such a wipeout of the Left and center-left.  Government was certainly “working” to pass legislation but in a direction that the electorate highly disapproved.  You’re missing the signal, Judd – “working” is only goodness when it is “working” on the right stuff and achieving the right results inline with proper governance.  The electorate is trying to tell you that you’re working on the wrong stuff in the wrong direction at the wrong time – but you aren’t listening!

The last 75 years has seen an incremental but drastic increase in the size, cost, reach, and intrusion of the Federal Government.  The TEA Party movement realized that Government at all levels, but especially at the Federal level, might be working according to Judd’s definition (pass something, anything, to show we’re doing something), but it isn’t working according to the Founders intent.  It has to work to make itself smaller, less costly, and allow private Society to recapture the role it once had before Big Government crowded it out.  But what is the point, if you govern out of control, at cross-odds to Constitutional philosophy, once you get there, as the Democrats now wish to?  Or, to lay equal blame on what the Republicans are doing, allowing it to happen in the name of civility and collegiality?  This muddleheaded middle has built this high cliff and unless it is stopped, it will calmly, collegially and civilly step off that cliff into financial ruin (and the rest of us with them).

We are at a crossroads in which philosophy is going to govern this country going forward – are we going to be governed by our Founders and the original philosophy set down in the Declaration and Constitution with emphasis on self-reliance, hard work, a virtuous people that self-govern, or are we going to allow ourselves to devolve to the Administrative Marxist / Socialist state where only the elite are allowed to make decisions on how we are to live and that the rest of us are simply the wards of the State?

In this environment, Judd seemingly is putting bipartisanship as the highest form and goal of governance;  that can only play the small ball of irrelevant stuff.  It misses the real fight – the future philosophical governance of the country.  And that, sir, is where bipartisanship should be ended and the real fight begun, out loud and bare knuckled, in the Congress.

We just happen to be talking about this in NH…

The Los Angeles city council voted 13-1 to ban plastic shopping bags in grocery stores.  There is a lengthy review and implementation process to follow but if all goes to plan within about 10-12 months the ban will be in force.  Paper bags will still be available for a ten cent fee.  I like to think of it as a tax.

I’ve been following this story with some amusement (What could go wrong, and Norovirus).  As with all left wing flights of fancy, there are far reaching side effects that end up costing society more than the measure enacted.  I just can’t help thinking this is another one of those.

Stacy is getting lots of help in his quest to expose the evil of Brett Kimberlin, including this video by Lee Stranahan, and exposure of the story by Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and many others. On Friday, Lee Stranahan is encouraging an Everybody Blog Brett Kimberlin day – to ensure that he is thoroughly exposed and cannot continue his conjoined careers of intimidation, harassment, and leftist activism. Indeed, to make Kimberlin so radioactive that even the most deranged leftists will stop funding his antics.

Previously on the Grok:
Blogging The Truth Can Be Dangerous – Stacy McCain at an Undisclosed Location
Stacy “The Other McCain” McCain is in need of some assistance!

STACY’S KIMBERLIN FILES:

• May 17: Is Democrat Operative Neal Rauhauser an ‘Associate’ of Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin? (And Why It Matters)
• May 17: Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin Received $70,000 From Tides Foundation, $10,000 From Streisand, $20,000 from John Kerry’s Wife
• May 18: Who Warned Us About Brett Kimberlin?
• May 19: Domestic Terrorist Now Using ‘Lawfare’? Convicted Felon Kimberlin’s 501(c)3 Raised $1.8 Million in Six Years UPDATE: ‘Convicted of Perjury’
• May 20: Deadline Loometh, and the Raven Is Croaking Brett Kimberlin’s Name
• May 20: ‘Other Computer Savvy Activists’
• May 21: Never Doubt That God Answers Prayer
• May 22: Brett Kimberlin Saga Takes a Bizarre Turn, Forcing Me to Leave Maryland
• May 22: ‘He Has No F–king Soul’

I was listening to Hannity when he was interviewing / speaking with Sarah Palin when she had this line:

“These Republican operatives seem to have the fighting instinct of Mr. Snuffleupagus,”

The context:

“Al Sharpton says there’s a war on Blacks. Howard Dean says that there’s a war on Latinos. Then, of course, there’s a war on the poor — throwing granny over the cliff — and, you know, even Mitt Romney hates dogs because he put a kennel on top of the car,” Hannity said. “But yet Republicans don’t seem as willing to fight the same way. I’m a little concerned about it…why repudiate people who will fight fire with fire?”

…“This phony, hypocritical, one-sided call for a cease-fire by the left and their lapdogs in the media. These leftists politicians saying ‘that’s going to be off the table, that’s going to be off the table,’” she said. “And then for the Republican operatives who are high-paid consultants to candidates agreeing to take things off the table — that’s no battle plan for victory on our side — on the common-sense constitutionalist side. It’s ridiculous.”

These Republican operatives, Palin maintained, “seem to have the fighting instinct of Mr. Snuffleupagus,” a Sesame Street character whom she said was always hiding, backing down and running the other direction. This, Palin maintained, isn’t what America needs.

I agree.

While there are some on the Left that may actually believe civility should be in play – and often, are the “useful idiots”.  Some are really pacifists – and I can go along with that.  There are also those that will NEVER give in (e.g., Obama’s attack dog, Axelrod) and are always in “chew’em up”mode.  The rest, however, often are just bullies.  They are SO used to Republicans giving up and cowering to their political correctness threats, they have grown accustomed to not worrying about losing political ground.  Why not, as all they have to do is growl a bit and their opposition just goes crawls away with their tails between their legs.

When I started up in local politics, there was an older gentleman who sternly told me that Republicans should always “walk softly and not make waves”.  My retort was “yeah, look where that got you in 2006 and 2008 – tremendous victory loss for Rs all the way around.  If you are not, or cannot, defend or argue positively in the arena of ideas, you should lose – and the Republicans did just that.  “Shhhh” is not a winning strategy at all – it makes you look impotent and after the election, they WERE impotent.  Being civil nowadays only gives permission for the other side to jam it to you – you only can win ONLY if the other side is SO over the top that Political Correctness isn’t even an issue.

Otherwise, why make your side look weak?  While Americans like underdogs, they don’t like dishrags as underdogs.  They want people to fight and fight well.  Sure, you need the ideas and you need the ability to get your message out.  It seems like Obama’s crew has no problem in assuming the attack dog role – its nice to see the beginnings of Mitt’s campaign not pulling a “McCain redux”.  It does sound like Mitt himself is sharpening up his rhetoric and certainly (as it has been noted at a number of different sites) that his “quick response video unit” has been very quick on the uptake to put on the gloves and climb into the ring.

Us?  We have no problems in doing a “mix it up” – we just smile, for we are not Mr. Snuffleupagus

Tim, Mike, Rick, and Steve (yes, me) will be heading out to RightOnline in Vegas in just a few weeks.  Here’s a little primer–clips from 2011.

Note from Skip: I had been expecting to go as well but I was told by my boss that I should be going to San Diego for a series of meetings (on, then off, and maybe right now).  In my place, Conservative activist Jeff Chidester will become an honorary Grokster for RightOnline

In 2008, I was not the most thrilled to have John McCain to be the Republican nominee, at least until I was able to say “Yeah, I voted for Sarah Palin and the old white guy”.  At that time, however, I had a bad premonition about what an Obama Presidency would bring (yeah, I pretty much had it right as the future-now-history shows).  This time, it is Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee and once again, it’s back to “drag that candidate over the line” as the excitement for me for his candidacy just isn’t there.  It is back to the “vote against the other guy”, for if Obama is given a second term, the America that the Founders envisioned with respect to limited government and an emphasis on individual freedom may well be never seen again.

However, this from a speech that Romney gave today gave me a little smile:

First, I will expand parental choice in an unprecedented way.  Too many of our kids are trapped in schools that are failing or simply don’t meet their needs.  And for too long, we’ve merely talked about the virtues of school choice.

As President, I will give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school.  For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school, or to a private school, where permitted.  And I will make that choice meaningful by ensuring there are sufficient options to exercise it.

To receive the full complement of federal education dollars, states must provide students with ample school choice.  In addition, digital learning options must not be prohibited.  And charter schools or similar education choices must be scaled up to meet student demand.

Instead of eliminating the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as President Obama has proposed, I will expand it to offer more students a chance to attend a better school.  It will be a model for parental choice programs across the nation.

I’ve said for a number of years now that “every child does not deserve a public education – they deserve a publicly funded education” and that the parents should make the decisions about where their child should go and not just because of where they happen to live.  It used to be that way until education became industrialized and returning to that philosophy can only be to the good.  Certainly this would create a huge power shift – it will relieve the present power structure of much of that power.  That can only result in that power being decentralized – anathema to the Progressive mantra that now drives much of the field (as in “we are the professionals, we are the educated (and thus, you are not) so we should be calling the shots).  Centralization has built almost unassailable folks who have massed that power either into themselves or their office and has resulted in a lot of butt kissing.  It also has created very little opportunity to hold those in power accountable – malfeasance is reported almost daily of educrats doing badly.  Putting the power back into the hands of parents will, by definition, decentralized that power into literally thousands of little power centers and remove a lot of opportunities for graft and back scratching.

Frankly, it is not just the right thing to say but also politically smart.  There is no way that the teachers unions are going to be voting for him but it may well make a enough of a difference in some suburban to move that needle over to red from blue.  In urban areas,  it may make a difference where the schools are really horrendous and parents are subjected to uppity unions talking point of “hey, just give us more money – then we’ll fix it) that keep their kids trapped in those schools.   I am troubled, to a degree, that the Feds will use the “our money, our strings” approach to the States.  It has always had the outcome that it

This should be an election based on differences – and this will create a huge difference between Mitt and Obama.

Don’t get me wrong – I haven’t gone daft!  I still don’t think that the Feds should be in the Education business at all from a 10th Amendment standpoint.  This still propagates the “we take your money, make some rules, and then “give” it back IF an ONLY IF you follow our rules” (i.e., here’s your Highway Bill money – it’s all yours unless, of course  you don’t pass a seatbelt law on your citizens or spend it the way We want you to like those stupid ARRA signs that pay homage to Dear Leader).

Can this be a bridge?  Maybe.  But you have to admit, until we can delete the US Dept of Ed, funneling the money for parents to control is at least a first step.

When CIA Desk-Jockey Valerie Plame was “outed”  [*] the left went postal for years on the incompetence of the Bush Administration, then wasted millions on an investigation that was more a sound bite machine for Democrat friendly talking-heads than an effort to find justice for a pencil pusher with a disgraced husband.   Despite the obvious, Plame became a darling of the lefty-media, got a book deal, a movie, bags of money to be certain, and Scooter Libby got charged with Perjury for failing to recall the precise context of something that happened years before.

When the FauxBama Administration takes another victory lap (latest underwear bomber plot) because it is deperate to salvage a failing political campaign, at the expense of actual spies, including those of our so-called allies abroad, not to mention jeopardizing hard to come by double-agents and sources inside al-Qaeda, is there any expectation of real accountability?

I’m not holding my breath.

[ * correction: Plame was not outed by a 'Democrat' she was outed by Richard Armitage, first to Bob Woodward, and later to Robert Novak.  Armitage was a RINO, not officially a democrat.]

The editorial in this morning’s Union Leader visits two problems we’ve had in spades around here of late.  A public body unwilling to part with public information and School superintendents.

What’s worse than a public body denying access to an investigator’s report that was paid for with taxpayer money?

Hiring a lawyer to fight the release of that investigator’s report by spending even more of the taxpayers’ money.

That’s the latest wrinkle in the running soap opera touched off by former Wilton-Lyndeborough Cooperative School District Superintendent Trevor Evel, who resigned last month after an audit revealed the questionable use of the school district’s credit card at out-of-town training conferences.

The Union Leader has filed suit.  The Nashua Telegraph has filed it’s own Right to Know for all details surrounding the issue. And nothing says we have something to hide like refusing to part with it, and then hiring a lawyer to keep it hidden.

All at taxpayer expense.  And that is where the bureaucratic intimidation comes in.  It won’t be long before the people hiding the details will argue that the folks asking all the questions are wasting taxpayers dollars.  That is how the game is played.

It is imperative that we not flinch, or the bureaucracy will continue to use these tactics to hide whatever it does not want to share with the people.

“Mr. Obama’s pledge to exclude lobbyists from the White House was, from the start, about as believable as a madam’s pledge to exclude men willing to pay for sex from the whore house.”

(H/T: Cafe Hayek)

Sure, the kids were on their parents’s insurance when they were small.  President Obama – why is it that all you can do for them now is “Hey, I put you on your parent’s insurance now that you’re still children adults!” – instead of crafting an economic environment that would allow them to get jobs (and move out of their parents’ home)?

“Basketball“

BTW, how long has it been since Obamacare was signed – and his Administration STILL has to try to sell it to the public?

• $20 million PR contract
• HHS & Dept. of Ed enrolling High Schools & Colleges to shill for them as well?

Could this be “that close” to electioneering for Obama?

(H/T: Crossroads GPS for the video)