I just saw Ventura County Tea Party organizer Carla Bonney get interviewed by KEYT, and over the weekend the Star gave her some pretty good coverage. I loved it when she said this to KEYT:

"My children were my decision, why should it be your responsibility to take care of my kids?"

This is coming from a woman with nine kids, who downgraded her art-framing business to a home office due to the economy.

She came across great in the Star as well, and her article racked up over 300 comments and rose quickly to the most-read section. But I think the part where she avoided taking a stance on the birther question will raise eyebrows of many readers.

Even if someone doesn't think he's a citizen--and there is no evidence he isn't--they might as well say he is. Because the alternative is civil war--can you imagine the national crisis that would result if a president that had served for a year was deemed ineligible after the fact? It's too horrible to comprehend.

But it's a sign that there is a lot of mistrust between regular Americans and this President--although he's a citizen, much of what he represents is alien to us--a huge government, socialism, and radicalism--he might as well be from another planet.

So, the actual experience was 165% higher than the estimate, after all necessary adjustments to achieve consistency were made.

A deviation such as this is nothing to be proud about; it is, however, much better than that based on the dollar values alone. Nonetheless, the only thing for me to do now is to commit hari-kari!

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less....The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America's fiscal house in order.

Geoff Dean's picked up another endorsement in his race against Dennis Carpenter for the county's top-cop position, and it's a big one. Larry Carpenter (no relation to Dennis), was Ventura's Sheriff for six years in the 1990s.

"I've endorsed Geoff based on his education, his training, experience and integrity," said Carpenter. "Although he is certainly an able administrator, the job of sheriff requires leadership ability, and I believe Geoff is a leader among leaders." [continue reading]

Remember Joel Pollak, the Harvard Law student who questioned a feisty Barney Frank last year? He's now a human rights lawyer and running for Congress in Illinois, and conservative media powerhouse Andrew Breitbart is hosting a fundraiser for him Wednesday in Los Angeles (yes, the page contains a typo--it's 2010 not 2009).

Pollak moved from South Africa to Skokie when he was a boy, moving back briefly to work in South African politics. His unique story can be found on his website, along with this statement on why he's running:

After being encouraged for several months by friends in the district, Joel decided to run for Congress in September 2009, after attending a town hall meeting on health care held by incumbent representative Jan Schakowsky. Joel caught paid organizers on tape as they instructed their supporters to block opposing views from being heard. The experience convinced him that the 9th district needed a new voice.

Of course, all we heard from the elite media was that town halls were attended by Astroturf activists who were manipulated by the Republican Party, but as Pollak's footage shows, they got it backwards. Breitbart picked up the story and it went national. Pollak wrote:

The HCAN video became a YouTube sensation, the "smoking gun" in the controversy over which side of the debate was "Astroturfing"--i.e. creating a false image of grass roots support. I have since discovered that the video contains clues about how the entire nationwide health care campaign was planned and executed by congressional Democrats and the White House.

But that wasn't all. Pollak also noted that his Congressional opponent's husband, Robert Creamer, authored a progressive instructional manual--while serving a prison sentence for bank fraud and tax evasion--to convince Americans to support universal health care. His plan was put into action by the Obama Administration.

The book was endorsed by leading Democrats and their allies, including SEIU boss Andy Stern--the most frequent visitor thus far to the Obama White House--and chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Creamer's tome "provides a blueprint for future victories."

In the book, Creamer draws lessons from decades of experience on the radical left, including the teachings of arch-radical Saul Alinsky, and several episodes from Rep. Schakowsky's political career. He also lays out a "Progressive Agenda for Structural Change," which includes a ten-point plan for foisting universal health care on the American people in 2009[.]

Ah, Saul Alinsky. Creamer learned from the master, writing, "To win we must not generate understanding, but emotion--fear, revulsion, anger, disgust."

Just as the Obama Administration has applied Creamer's manifesto, so it has adopted fellow Chicagoan Alinsky.  The "founder of modern community organizing,"  Alinksy was the author of Rules for Radicals, a Machiavellian the-ends-justify-the-means tactical manual for organizing 1960s revolutionaries.

Alinksy was quite the radical himself. He told Playboy in 1972:

I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work; they were in the vanguard of the labor movement and they played an important role in aiding blacks and Okies and Southern sharecroppers. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line. Without the Communists, for example, I doubt the C.I.O. could have won all the battles it did. I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party.

In the famous campaign photo of Obama writing on a chalkboard in the classroom, he's writing an Alinsky theory. Alinksy's son thought that Obama successfully applied his father's theories when he said, "Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. "

And Hillary Clinton even wrote a master's thesis on Alinksy.

What is it with Chicago? We haven't even mentioned Blagojevich or Rahm Emanuel's shower incident with Eric Massa, and I'm already horrified.

As if Chicago doesn't have a bad enough reputation for corruption, Pollak's father made things worse for the city's image when he blew the whistle on its organ allocation system, which was unfairly allocating livers in a way that prevented them from reaching the most deserving patients.

The younger Pollak apparently has a similar revulsion to corruption, having famously stood up to Barney Frank, whose scandals need not be mentioned in this post. Even if you don't agree with Pollak' politics, please read his biography to learn more about this truly interesting person.

An article in the Star today focused on the personality differences between the two men running to be the county's top cop, Geoff Dean and Dennis Carpenter.

One's running on integrity, the other on passion. But when it comes to making distinctions between the two veteran lawmen vying to replace retiring Sheriff Bob Brooks, the differences are harder to find.

I completely agree. How would one man run the department in a way that would differ from the other?  You won't find out from their respective websites, which focus on biographies and endorsements. Both men are cops with outstanding careers--one is endorsed by the outgoing Sheriff and most of management while the other is supported by the rank-and-file (although several city police chiefs endorse him).

But on Dean's website, there isn't even an Issues tab. And while Carpenter does have one, it reads like a bio and restates his endorsements; there's no meat to it.

Without any other information, the public is forced to make their decision on this:

Supporters tout Carpenter's integrity and loyalty, which might be seen as a reference to Dean's highly publicized fallout with Brooks.

Dean was fired from his chief deputy position by Brooks in 2008 for insubordination after he began talking about running for sheriff.

That's the only thing to come out of this race so far, and it's murky. The Star article referenced above doesn't add any clarity--in fact it does the opposite. Dean wasn't fired for "talking about running for sheriff" as it implies, but because he tried to get access to Brooks' fundraising list without his permission. In Dean's defense, he was reinstated to a lower position [3/16/10: clarification--he was reinstated to his original position and then demoted by Brooks --ed.] after an independent committee found that the disciplinary action was too harsh. To his credit, Dean released the committee report to the media, but Brooks has also hinted at a pattern of behavioral problems that led up to his termination.

Right now, there's not a lot for voters to go on in either direction.

There are few things on the Huffington Post that I agree with, and I think Arianna herself is as vicious as they come, but she and her website deserve credit for the fair treatment they delivered about what was possibly Glenn Beck's most disappointing show. Although the headline seemed to blame Beck in part for "trainwreck TV", the article was much more balanced:

"It literally keeps me awake at night," he said. "Glenn, I have had people come to me, union leaders -- and I'm a union guy and I know you're not -- who look at me and said, 'If you don't support this health care bill, I will not contribute to your campaign'. Glenn that's a bribe."

Even Beck wasn't buying it, pointing out that what Massa was talking about was, in fact, just lobbying.

Beck did all he could to lower his audience's expectations at the beginning of the show, telling them he had guests lined up in case Massa was a disaster. Which he was, despite Beck's best efforts to stop the former congressman from tap-dancing all over the set.

The Fox News host seemed completely and utterly un-amused. And towards the end, he grew a bit hostile. "America, I've got to shoot straight with you," he said. "I think I've wasted your time. I think this is the first time I have wasted an hour of your time. And I apologize for that."

Before the interview, a skeptical Beck wrote on his trademark chalkboard that there are three questions the viewer should ask after the interview: 1) Is there anything new to his charges of corruption, 2) Do you believe him, and if so does it affect you, and 3) Do you believe what he says about himself. Beck interrogated him hard, and when Massa started to waffle or obfuscate, Beck wouldn't let him squirm away.

Despite the fact that Beck announced he didn't know what the outcome would be, having guests lined up, and conducting a dogged interview with tough questions, Salon did what the The Huffington Post resisted--they churned out a hatchet job with the headline, "Unprepared Fox host fails to get ex-congressman to provide evidence for the wild charges he's been throwing around."

He wasn't exactly unprepared. O'Reilly's about the toughest interview around, and Beck would have given him a run for his money. Bill's never called anyone an "evil bastard":

MASSA: I didn't. I did nothing sexual. I did things that were wrong. I should not have allowed myself to be that familiar with my staff.

BECK: Got it. And you did nothing criminal?

MASSA: No, no, no.

BECK: OK. If you -- if you say that and it comes out and, you know -- whisper campaigns are whisper campaigns. But if it comes out, you're one of the most evil bastards I've ever met. If you -- if you can say that and look at somebody in the eye and --

MASSA: So be it.

BECK: OK.

Beck kept on him like that during the entire interview, but Salon was unimpressed.

As Salon's Mike Madden put it on Twitter, "Beck's lesson: conspiracy theories much easier to spin without bothering to 'interview' people who would 'know something' about the 'facts.'"

Salon doesn't mention that one of Beck's "conspiracy theories" was that Van Jones was a communist.  Yet Van Jones himself said he was:

Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

Conspiracy theory? It's Van Jones own words! Maybe Salon didn't catch the interview Beck did with Debra Medina, a popular Tea Party candidate who Beck destroyed on his radio show for being a 9/11 Truther.

GLENN: I have when I said that I was going to have you on, you can't imagine the mail pro and con that I received. There was a theme that ran against you and that is you are a 9/11 Truther.

[Medina dances]

GLENN: Right. Here's then let me be more frank and ask you the question: Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11? 

[Medina dances]

GLENN: I think the people of America might think that might be a yes. 

[Medina dances]

GLENN: Do you have advisors that advise you or people that are around you that are 9/11 Truthers? 

[Medina dances]

GLENN: Would you, if you found out that there were, would you disavow them like the president should have but I mean, he escorted them out in the middle of the night. Van Jones was a 9/11 Truther. If you found out that people around you are advising you were 9/11 Truthers, would you disavow them or allow them to continue to advise you? 

Medina refused to answer the question, and Beck politely thanked her for the interview, got off the phone, and mocked her.

GLENN: While I don't endorse anyone, I think I can write her off the list. Let me take another look at Kay Bailey Hutchison if I have to. Rick [Perry], I think you and I could French kiss right now....Wow, that's the fastest way back to four percent [approval rating]...Holy Cow.

And while some liberals still cling to the myth that Beck claimed there were FEMA camps that would be used to imprison Americans in an emergency, nevertheless he said they didn't exist and debunked their existence on his show. Again, the Huffington Post reported accurately on that:

On his show Monday, Glenn Beck enlisted the help of Popular Mechanics to debunk an internet rumor that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) operates concentration camps in the United States.

Ironically, Beck is more clear eyed and provides a bigger service than almost anyone in journalism. Do you think Larry King or Anderson Cooper would have stayed on Massa like Beck did? Beck is on a crusade to fight corruption, no matter which side of the aisle it is on. How many other news figures are doing that?

Goodwin Liu is about to become the youngest member of California's 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court is known to be one of the most liberal in the country, and, based on my reading of Liu's book, he'll fit right in.

Liu's book is a both a criticism of originalism--the largely conservative idea that the Constitution's text should be strictly interpreted using meanings that applied when it was originally signed--and an affirmation of the "living, breathing document" approach that gives new meaning to it as the years roll on.

The Constitution endures because its meaning and application have been shaped by an ongoing process of interpretation. That process includes both judicial interpretation and transformations in constitutional understanding pressed by political leaders and ordinary citizens throughout our

history.

Considering that the Constitution is the foundation of our government and the fountainhead from which all other laws spring, it's a little unsettling that Liu thinks that it should shift drastically every decade or two, based on whims from politicians. After all, that's what a foundation is--it's a solid base to build on and its sole purpose is not to move. Isn't that how Liu interprets that word?

Of course not. Liu and other loose constructionists are less concerned with what a word means than with what they want to accomplish with it.  You see, the Constitution was a flawed document written by less evolved men over two hundred years ago. They made all sorts of mistakes in this historical relic, and because it doesn't cover Bluetooth and Internet pornography we can't really rely on it anymore. But we can't SAY that...could you imagine what the peons would say? They didn't go to Stanford and Yale, they wouldn't understand! So we come up with long, boring rulings with exotic words such as "insofar" that basically say that we make things up so we can clean up after the Founders.

And, of course, the express legalization of slavery could not be reconciled with the ideal of a democratic nation dedicated to freedom and equality.

One of Liu's defenses of a loose interpretation of the Constitution is that it's the pragmatic thing to do to keep it from being irrelevant in a 21^st Century society. Nevermind that it has a whole Amendment process that could keep it updated, let's take his argument at face value. The Founders also made a pragmatic decision to not ban slavery right at the outset of the country.  They had just completed a war, and the country had strongly divided northern and southern interests. For the sake of instituting the Constitution, perhaps the greatest document ever written, they agreed not ban slavery for twenty years. They didn't say that we should have slavery, as is often interpreted, they merely allowed it to exist until 1808. Tensions were so high that in 80 years the country would be in a civil war over the same issue--it simply wasn't feasible to ban it right away. And yet that's always the argument that is trotted out to criticize it.

I find Liu's point that the Constitution is outdated puzzling in one other regard. Ultimately, it's a contract. Can contracts really go out of style? If I have a 30-year mortgage fixed at five percent, does Liu think the bank can reinterpret our contract 20 years from now and say, "well, the dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be, so we think you should pay 10 percent interest?"

I don't think he would go along with that. Neither should he go along with the idea of changing the terms of government that has served us well for so long.

I didn't intend to write more on the misuse of political labels, but I came across some reading material that highlights the point I set out to make, which is that we unknowingly apply many labels to the group that is the exact of the group we should be applying it to. We got so turned around due to the extremely successful manipulation of the labels for political reasons, particularly by the Left.

To summarize my past post, throughout its history the Left has been most successful in this regard. When their policies fail, they relabel their movement and continue plodding along in a new disguise. If I may be so bold as to boil down the difference between conservatives and liberals (to use the parlance of our times), it's that conservatives believe that the individual is more important that the community, and the liberals believe the community is more important than the individual.

And so most combatants in politics today end up one side of a given issue or another depending on which they think is paramount. Global Warming? Individuals need to be regulated for the benefit of our common environment, says the liberal. Gun control? Individuals need the right to protect themselves from others in the community, says the conservative.

Economically, since I am an individualist, I support free market capitalism, in which actors succeed or fail based on their own merits. The opposite of that is communism, in which the community (i.e. government) controls all aspect of the economy.  It stands to reason that the more control a government has over the economy, the further it moves away from capitalism and the closer it gets to communism.

And here we are presented a problem with labels again. Because some of the most murderous dictators in the world's history were in Communist parties, that word is extraordinarily loaded with meaning beyond its original economic description.  So the Left, which generally supports government control over the economy (but obviously does NOT support murderous dictators), finds it convenient to call their beliefs something else, such as liberalism, socialism, progressivism, or economic justice. However, they're all degrees of the same thing--the belief that the state is superior than the individual (i.e. a classical definition of communism)--but the mainstream Left will deny this vociferously, because that's a "bad word."

But over the decades, we've all accepted their labels and use them every day without thought. But we're really just fooling ourselves , and every once in awhile you can see the charade on full display.

Take this picture:

t's posted on the Party for Socialism and Liberation website. Socialism is basically the idea that individuals should act for the benefit of society as opposed as acting in pursuit of one's own personal best interests. That sounds fine on the surface, but it's a close relative of "classic communism" (again, not the murderous-dictator communism). Notice the red star and Che on the poster behind them. There's a succinct representation of the connection between communism and socialism.  It's no accident that The Party of Socialism and Liberation also have a "Marxism 101" primer on their website.

Tea Partiers are progressive, liberal, and populist. Those on the Left are conservative, reactionary, and elitist.

No, I haven't lost my mind. This post is going to examine some real definitions in the political world.

In the face of an expected conservative electoral tsunami, many Democrats already threw down their arms and surrendered without a fight, and those who intend to stick it out are grasping for any cover they can get their hands on. And one time-tested way of hiding is to call yourself something that you're not.

Like the hermit crab, the Democrat changes his shell when it no longer suits its purpose, which is usually when the public finally figures out what the liberals/socialists/progressives/(insert nice-sounding word here) are implementing.

Of course, those on the Left are masters of euphemisms, so playing with definitions is almost second nature to the inventors of political correctness. Remember "handy capable" and "differently abled"? Crackheads have a "disease." Charlie Rangel is "ethically challenged," and so on and so forth.

In 2010,the buzzword is "populist." It's got the focus-group appeal--it sounds like "people," it's vague, and it doesn't carry around a lot of baggage, like "liberal."  You'll hear "progressive" bandied about, the reflexive term the statists resort to when they've been outed--but this year, in light of all the Tea Party rage--"progressive" is the new word to co-opt.

And, because this article is about the accuracy of terms, co-opt is exactly what I mean. Take the original meaning of "liberal." Prior to the New Deal, it was used to refer to the Founding Fathers. That's right, those dead, white slave owners that modern liberals hate.

Why would they name themselves after something they marginalize? Simple--because people liked the sound of it, and the Left at the time had already worn out the "Progressive" moniker. Nevermind that "liberalism" is almost the polar opposite of the nanny state that modern "liberals" seek to impose on the American people.

Don't worry--all good lefties recycle. While they wore out "progressive" pretty fast at the beginning of the 20^th century (Prohibition), the memory ain't so great of those few that were alive when those disastrous policies were in full bloom, and so the Left finds that it's effective to trot that term out whenever they get into trouble. Here's an example of  a post on the Ventura County Democratic Party websites that mingles terms:

Ever wonder why it seems that Democrats are especially disorganized and divided, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? It may not be as simple as a lack of will among our leaders. Legal structures and political culture both work to make the job of building and sustaining political parties, particularly progressive parties, very difficult. Nonetheless, I would argue that party building, while hard and sometimes thankless, is necessary for achieving progressive goals in the United States, and that parties are an important and crucial part of a healthy democratic system.

 Interestingly, I read that progressivism was borne out of a response to "changes brought by modernization." That sounds reactionary to me.

Of course, "reactionary" is an inaccurate term the Left applies to conservatives, a term which itself is inaccurate. The Left has been so good at confusing all of us that we even use their flawed labels.

The French Revolution gave the English language two politically descriptive words denoting anti-progressive politics: reactionary and conservative. Reactionary derives from the French word réactionnaire (an early nineteenth-century coinage), and conservative from conservateur, identifying monarchist parliamentarians opposed to the revolution.

Do modern conservatives--those of laissez faire economics and minimal government--sound like people who would support an absolute government in control of everything? Remind me which party's president has been given more power than anyone since FDR?

Feel like the world is upside down yet? Can we even safely rely on calling the Left "progressives?" Here's Wikipedia's first sentence in that article: "Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform."

Phew, that sounds familiar. President Obama calls himself a Progressive, and he's Mr. Change. But wait a minute, although he SAID "change" a lot, he didn't close Guantanamo, he's still practicing rendition, he's still wiretapping people, he's bailing out big businesses, and is pretty much acting like nobody told him that he doesn't have to continue Bush's policies. He's the Bush third term that he warned us about when he talked about McCain.

Wouldn't the Tea Party fit nicely in the definition of "progressivism" two paragraphs above? It's always called conservative, but they don't really fit the original definition of conservative. Here's some more info on progressivism:

Progressivism in the United States is a broadly-based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics.

Alright--now the world is spinning out of control again--does that say that progressivism is middle class, reformist, anti-large corporation, and anti-political establishment?

I know you lefties are shouting that "conservatives" LOVE big corporations. Maybe Country Club Republicans do, but your average Tea Partier HATES fat cat corporate executives and the bailouts they get. He also is middle-class, wants to reform everything, and is on the verge of throwing all the bums out of Washington.

Now that we know everything is the opposite of what we've been told, let's examine "populism," the latest phrase that's tossed at us. Hopefully by now you have a healthy dose of skepticism. But let's give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt, and maybe they got this one right. After all, President Obama was hailed for his populist tone during his State of the Union address. Again, we begin with the Wikipedia definition:

Populism ...is a type of political-social thought which juxtaposes "the people" against "the elites", and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style deployed by members of political or social movements. It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes"

OK, so Obama is the exact opposite of populism. He IS the elite--he's rich, Ivy-League educated, and is the most powerful man in the world. You don't get more elite than that. The Left loves elites--the elite media, college professors, climate "scientists", Hollywood celebrities, "experts" of all stripes. Who is the darling of the Left? John F. Kennedy, a man born into privilege. Who does the Right connect with? Ronald Reagan, who had humble origins and seemed like he was a homespun cowboy--a man who spoke in clear, stark language. Naturally, the elites said he was dumb--after all, he doesn't have the "nuanced" speech of President Obama.

Read that definition of populism again and tell me if it sounds like those Tea Parties.

Yes THOSE Tea Parties. The ones you "liberals" "progressives" "populists" call "racist", "fascist," and "Astroturf." While we're having fun with definitions, let's see what "racism" REALLY means:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

 Have you seen any Tea Partiers, even the 10 percent that is present in any organization that is insane, advocate a right to rule others based on their race? Yet they are called this every day. And Fascism was a big government political ideology--not exactly Tea Party fare. As for Astroturf--did you catch how a prominent local Republican was politely asked to leave a Tea Party protest over the weekend?

That's because the Left muddied those waters as well, just like they did with everything else they wanted to hide. To summarize, according to the true definitions of the terms:

Tea Partiers are progressive, liberal, and populist.

Those on the Left are conservative, reactionary, and elitist.

How did they get away with that?