Despite the best efforts of the likes of Barney Frank, a CNN poll shows Americans aren’t yet ready to dance to the Democrats newest version of the tax and spend.

Nearly half of all Americans are worried about the collapse of a bridge somewhere in the United States, yet nearly two-thirds reject higher taxes to inspect and fix them, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp.

In the poll, 52 percent were either “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about a bridge collapsing. Forty-seven percent were either “not too worried” or “not worried at all.” One percent had no opinion.

. . . Despite the concerns, only one-third of those polled favor increasing the tax on gas to pay for bridge inspections and repairs. The federal program to inspect and repair bridges is funded mostly by the federal tax on gasoline. Sixty-five percent of those questioned were against raising that tax.

Several members of the House Transportation Committee are calling for the tax hike in the wake of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis last week. Congressman James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, on Wednesday said he would introduce legislation for bridge repair funding and increased inspections. He says a 5-cent increase in the gas tax would pay for the proposed three-year program by generating $8.5 billion a year.

Every time government screws up because of its massive incompetence, the solution for Democrats is always more taxes. They argue more money is needed, but there’s little evidence that funds are lacking (see: pork from 2006 transportation appropriations bill).

The real issue is one of incentives, not funds. Politicians get no electoral benefits for fixing bridges because nobody notices (”unless one collapses, but how often does that happen?” the thinking no doubt went). Why spend money reinforcing and repairing structures that no one is likely to ever realize need fixing in the first place, especially when that money can be spent buying votes? And so here we are, with governments persistent failures (though it doesn’t serve the anti-Bush crowd to say so, this includes state government; or are they somehow not to be concerned about the quality of transportation that runs through their state?) exposed for all to see. And the very first thing liberals do - other than try to blame global warming - is to call for a raise in taxes. More money won’t change the nature of government and thus simply cannot fix problems that are symptomatic of that nature.

Democrats show us what “supporting the troops” really means.

Apparently it means $24 million for sugar beats, or $20 million for insect infestation reimbursements, or $1.5 billion for livestock production losses. On and on it goes. Welcome to the most clean Congress, EVER.

Hat tip: Right Wing News

Applying these considerations to the language used in the monologue as broadcast by respondent, the Commission concluded that certain words depicted sexual and excretory activities in a patently offensive manner, noted that they “were broadcast at a time when children were undoubtedly in the audience (i. e., in the early afternoon),” and that the prerecorded language, with these offensive words “repeated over and over,” was “deliberately broadcast.” Id., at 99. In summary, the Commission stated: “We therefore hold that the language as broadcast was indecent and prohibited by 18 U.S.C. [] 1464.” 6 Ibid.

Do these words look familiar to any of you?

They should. This is what I believe to be the central deciding paragraph of Federal Communications Commission vs. Pacifica Foundation (et al), often cited as the landmark modern decision of broadcasting censorship in America.

To try and shorten a very long story, George Carlin’s list of ‘Seven Dirty Words‘ was reproduced and broadcast over the air. A father was driving with his young son, when the radio station began the broadcast. Horrified at what was being played, the father complained directly to the FCC. The commission reviewed it and decided to admit the complaint, and filed a non-binding sanction on the Pacifica Foundation, saying essentially that the company would face charges and injunctions if it were complained about again.

This decision (made by a vote of 5-4) has become the precedent by which most forms of censorship are maintained in television and radio. As you can see in the blood-chilling paragraph at the beginning of this post, the Commission, a group of officials entrenched in the bureaucracy of American government and almost entirely unassailable by public opinion, decided that the language was ‘in manner patently offensive by its community’s contemporary standards.’

I have not read any part of the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, which states any American citizen’s Right Not To Be Offended. What need then for a nanny-system of checks on what you may or may not say in public? In fact - and you knew it was coming - the only part of either document I can see which in any way suggests itself to be relevant is the First Amendment, that which grants Americans the right to freely speak without the imposition of government controls.

As if it were not enough that the decision flies in the face of a core tenet of American values, they then ruled that the nature of the broadcast thereby made it subject to a law that made illegal such disseminations of ‘indecency.’

Government has no right nor reason to impose any sort of sanctions or penalties on voluntary things like radio and television, where convenient knobs exist which cause the offensive broadcasts to cease. The father and son in question were not being forced to listen to this broadcast. The hazy line, if it exists at all, is public, in-person displays, such as public nudity, where there is no lawful way to force an offensive thing to cease.

‘When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you may not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.’ - R. A. Heinlein

Government power should be as limited as is necessary to prevent the unlawful use of force between citizens or from outside threats, and to provide a forum by which civil and legal crimes can be redressed. Media censorship is never in the best interest of the public.

The argument used by democrats in favor of a minimum wage increase is that it’s a benefit to workers. We, of course, know this to be false. Nevertheless, they insist it is the truth. One would think that, in believing the minimum wage increase to be a good thing for workers and the economy, it would be imperative for democrats to see that it applies to all such workers.

So, when we hear news that democrats have exempted American Samoa from their minimum wage increase, it can only mean one of two things. Either they think it would harm Samoa, in which case the entire premise to their argument is washed away, or they don’t care about the people of Samoa. Neither speaks well of them. And the fact that 75% of Samoans are employed by Star Kist tuna, which headquarters in Speaker Pelosi’s district? Surely that’s just coincidence.

Not satisfied with 10 figure annual govermment subsidies, the agriculture industry is now demanding that taxpayers subsidize their payroll by immediately making citizens of 1.5 million illegal immigrants.

A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation that will put 1.5 million illegal immigrant farm workers and their relatives on a path to United States citizenship by granting them immediate legal residency.

Claiming that they must help provide a labor pool for the country?s multi billion-dollar agriculture industry, the lawmakers proposed a bill that will grant a so-called ?blue card? to illegal immigrants (and their relatives) who have worked in agriculture for 150 days in the past two years.

. . .A large and powerful agriculture trade association called the Western Growers, applauded the ally senators, saying that the industry has been hurt by a growing labor shortage crisis brought about by an unworkable immigration policy. Providing legal status for farm workers, however, would provide a long term solution to the problem.

And what problem, exactly, is it that we are attempting to solve? Employers may consider it a problem that they can’t hire people at the wage they want to hire them at, but that doesn’t make it a problem for society. They just need to suck it up and pay the wages that the market demands, rather than try to fix the deck by radically and unnecessarily flooding the labor market in an attempt to decrease wages.

If they can’t afford to pay the market rate, it means there is something wrong with their business model. We don’t need to keep them afloat with yet another massive subsidy. We have the greatest and most powerful food production system in the world. We’re not going to starve if a few bad business models are forced out. Agriculture needs to learn to stand on its own two feet and stop demanding government handouts. If these people want to become citizens, they should get in line and follow the legal process like everyone else.

I have to take a slight disagreement to Steve’s post on the gay marriage issue. Of his conclusion I take no issue, as the entanglement of marriage and government was a big mistake that should be rectified. Marriage is a personal matter to be recognized, or not recognized, by a person’s chosen church. The debate over what should and should not be sanctioned by a church should be conducted by those who belong to that church, or whatever method each religion chooses to decide such things.

However, I must disagree with the assertion that government choosing not to recognize “marriage” between those of the same sex is equivalent to making that behavior illegal. That is not what anyone is calling for. Also, at issue, is a question over proper interpretation of the law. While I don’t believe government should be involved in marriage at all, that doesn’t mean the courts are correct to determine that the state is not allowed to distinguish between behaviors that quite clearly are very different. There is, after all, a case to be made that encouraging traditional marriage is in our interest. I agree with Steve that it’s not necessary, but it’s a plausible position. However, no similar interests exist for recognizing “gay marriage”, as it is completely irrelevent to the survival of the species and society. The courts are wrong for usurping the power of the legislatures in this way. As such, even where I find a law misguided, I can’t say that I’m upset to see the courts trumped by popular ballot.

In the end, Steve and I reach the same conclusion, albeit by taking different routes. So I will finish by encouraging all Conservatives to push for seperating government and marriage once and for all.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts approved a measure today that places back on the ballots the famed and oft-debated legislation allowing gays to marry.

Reuters Link

This is an attempt to appeal to the worst part of democracy - the tyranny of the majority. Certainly it is a worthy goal to entreat the peoples’ opinion regarding whatever is at hand, but with regards to acts where no one is harmed - especially those who cry ‘moral outrage’ about the issue - there is no reason to submit it to mere popular vote.

There are innumerable lifestyles, personal choices, habits, preferences, and behavior patterns which, while not harming anyone, are not what the electorate would call ‘normal.’ This does not even come close to making these behavior patterns worthy of being illegal.

The reasons to deplore this sort of behavior are twofold.

One, this attempt to legislate morality by banning a lifestyle that is ‘offensive’ - but which crucially lacks the ability to harm anyone not participating in it - is not at all within the jurisdiction of government in the first place. The safety and well-being of the public should be the sole responsibility of the government, and in all other matters, the individual’s preference reigns.

Two, marriage is a concept that belongs solely in the hands of religion. Marriage benefits in terms of ‘civil union’ are, in many ways, outdated. Tax breaks, for example, should not be an issue - why should those who choose to marry be unfairly rewarded with tax breaks? Outrage, I say! The need to reward marriage (and the presumed continuance of population growth) is also outdated. Indeed, I would be impressed to see anything stop the continued breeding of Americans.

This legislation wastes the time of both the government and the public and needlessly returns to the fore a debate which has no place in legislation to begin with.

Gingrich calls for elimination of McCain-Feingold reforms

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says First Amendment rights need to be expanded, and eliminating the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaign contributions would be a start.

Gingrich, a Republican, suggested allowing people to give any amount to any candidate as long as the donation was reported online within 24 hours.

“Just as tax lawyers always succeed in out-thinking the (Internal Revenue Service) because they stay after five and the IRS goes home, the private-sector lawyers will always out-think the (Federal Election Commission) because they stay after five and the FEC goes home,” Gingrich told about 400 people at the Nackey Scripps Loeb First Amendment Awards dinner Monday.

Passed in 2002, McCain-Feingold bans unrestricted donations from labor, corporations and the wealthy to the political parties. Gingrich said the reforms have failed and led only to more negative campaign ads via e-mail, television, direct mail and phone calls.

Notice how the AP couldn’t help slip in some liberal framing, declaring that the bill “bans unrestricted donations from labor, corporations and the wealthy.” The bill does not discriminate against wealthy and poor, it applies equally to (and thus infringes upon) everyones free speech. But leave it to the MSM to slip some class warfare into an unrelated issue of free speech.

Hat tip: Race 4 2008

The top Democratic member on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, may be in serious trouble as scandals are piling up surrounding her office. The Democrat staffer suspended for suspicion in the NIE leak has been identified as a member of her staff. In addition, FBI and Justice Department investigators are looking into the possibility of illegal scheming to get Harman reappointed as minority leader on the intelligence committee.

Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That’s the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government.

The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman’s behalf.

Does would-be speaker Pelosi’s promise to “drain the swamp” involve her and Harman swirling the drain with the rest of the sludge? It should.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

House Intel Chair suspends staff member

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra has suspended a Democratic staff member because of concerns he may have leaked a high-level intelligence assessment to The New York Times last month.
ADVERTISEMENT

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press Thursday night, Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., a committee member, said that an unidentified staffer requested the document from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte three days before the Sept. 23 story about its conclusions.

The staffer received the National Intelligence Estimate on global terror trends on Sept. 21.

“I have no credible information to say any classified information was leaked from the committee’s minority staff, but the implications of such would be dramatic,” LaHood wrote Hoekstra, R-Mich., late last month. “This may, in fact, be only coincidence, and simply ‘look bad.’ But coincidence, in this town, is rare.”

While it is not definitive that this staff member was behind the leak, the timing does raise suspicion. It would certainly come as no surprise if this turned out to be true. Time and time again, democrats have shown that personal ambition takes precedence over the interests of America. These political leaks of sensitive information are as much a part of their campaigning strategy as race baiting and class warfare.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades