Is Foreign Money Involved in the US Election?

United States Chamber of Commerce accused to accepting foreign funds

Speaking recently in advance of the United States midterm elections, US President Barack Obama is attempting a new tactic to stave off defeat:

He's insisted that the United States Chamber of Commerce is running attack ads funded by foreign money.

"We learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources," Obama announced. "Are you going to let special interests from Wall Street and Washington and maybe places beyond our shores come to this state and tell us who our senator should be?"

As it turns out, according to ABC News, there is truth to one of these claims, but not the other. The US Chamber of Commerce does, it seems, accept revenue from foreign companies and foreign affiliates. However, there seems to be no evidence that the US Chamber of Commerce is using those funds to pay for their political campaigning.

The Centre for Responsive Politics doesn't seem convinced by Obama and the Democrats' desperate attack.

"We have no idea if the Chamber or any 501(c) organization as defined by the IRS code, is taking foreign money for the purposes of playing politics," exmplained CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. "Saying that that foreign money is actually going toward attack ads or any type of messaging in the political realm, you just don't know. It's speculation and nothing more."

For the Obama administration, it seems that the issue of foreign money is a manner to attempt to stir up discontent surrounding the Citizens United decision, which lifted restrictions on third-party election spending in the United States.

"The Chamber is throwing tons of money at these races and they haven't done that before and you can't disaggregate it," explained Dartmouth College Political Scientist Ronald Shaiko. "But the Chamber appears to be meeting the letter of the law in what they're doing. Plus, they've got plenty of money and they really don't need to be bringing in foreign money to be doing what they're doing."

To Shaiko's eye, however, there's little difference between outright electoral interference and the manner of lobbying considered more mundane by American standards.

"For over a decade now we've had the door open to foreign influence in the political process, policy process," Shaiko continues. "If we're equating political influence via lobbying with political influence via elections, I wouldn't want to draw the distinction."

But so far as an attempt to stir up discontent, Shaiko expects that this strategy will fail.

"This isn't going to help the White House win votes by doing this," he concludes. "They're grasping at straws."

Perhaps this is because the Democrats themselves have been accepting foreign money as well.

The Democrats have been found to have accepted $1.02 million from Political Action Committees linked to foreign companies.

"This is not foreign money per-se, but these PACs are certainly populated by people who work for foreign companies," explains Levinthal.

These groups have made their donations public via the Federal Election Commission. Meanwhile, the Democrats are demanding that the US Chamber of Commerce reveal its donor lists to the American public.

"All you have to do to clear up the questions is reveal who your donors are from," insists White House advisor David Axelrod. "It is an insidious, dangerous thing when people can contribute huge sums of money to run negative ads in campaigns and never confess or allow to their participation. It opens the door to all kinds of chicanery."

"Any interest group can write a $10 million check to try to defeat a candidate and no one will ever know exactly what their involvement was," Axelrod concludes.

Of course, one can just as easily defeat a candidate with thousands of small cheques -- foreign- or domestic-sourced -- as with one large one.

There's ample reason to suspect that the Democrats have received a large number of foreign donations and used them to fund their campaigns -- particularly small donations that don't need to be reported to the FEC.

Whitman May Find Immigration to be a Tough Sell

Nicky Diaz affair poisoning immigration debate in California

In the debate over the future of immigration policy in California, the name of Nicky Diaz will likely be one that resonates for a long time.

Diaz is the former housekeeper of Republican Gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman. She's also an undocumented and illegal immigrant. Whitman claims that Diaz had presented fake documents when she was hired to clean for the Whitman family, and that Whitman fired her after learning of the alleged deception.

Democratic nominee Jerry Brown, however, sees a goldmine in the Nicky Diaz story. So much so that he hosted Diaz at a press conference, and is using the story to score political points on his opponent.

There may be many to be scored. Among the accusations against Whitman are that she failed to pay Diaz a proper wage, and that she mistreated her.

All this while Whitman makes immigration central in her policy platform. Whitman opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, and wants government to crackdown on the hiring of undocumented migrants.

At a recent debate, Brown accused Whitman of hypocrisy.

"You're going around this state saying employers must be accountable for hiring unlawful people, there ought to be raids on businesses, there's no path to citizenship," Brown crowed. "This is a terrible thing we have -- all these millions of [illegal] people, but you don't want a path to citizenship."

Of course what Brown fails to acknowledge is that there's already a path to citizenship for immigrants. It's supposed to begin before they cross the border.

Caught in a compromising situation, Whitman was unable to defend herself with such simple details. Rather, she resorted to attempting to shame Brown for what she termed crass exploitation of the story.

Brown clearly had his answer: shame Whitman instead. Regardless of whether or not she's done anything wrong, it helps that she looks guilty.

"You don't just bring in semiserfs and say do our dirty work, and then we're finished with you like an orange and just throw it away," he countered. "That's after you've squeezed it. That's not right."

It's a shame that the Nicky Diaz story has poisoned the immigration debate in California. With so many municipalities in California boycotting Arizona over its immigration law, California needs to be awake to the reality that they have a stake in the matter beyond trying to appear politically correct, and needs a clear vision of how it can best move forward on the issue.

Jerry Brown's stance on the matter -- supporting the Dream Act -- is to support a wrong-headed approach that risks introducing a further incentive for migrants to enter the United States illegally, undemrining border security.

Meg Whitman's opposition to the Dream Act may be harder to sell to California's traditionally-liberal population, but is more likely to lead to a constructive solution to the immigration issues confronting California.

Barack Obama's Strategy for November: The Black Vote

Obama begs black caucus for support

When President Barack Obama stormed into the White House in 2008, it was at the head of a movement of hope, and at the front of some of the largest crowds to support a candidate in decades.

Now that Obama has disappointed his followers and done a better job of mobilizing his opposition than the Republican Party ever could have, Obama is looking back to the most crass element that contributed to his 2008 successes:

The politics of race.

Speaking at the Congressional Black Congress dinner, Obama called on members of the caucus to mobilize their constituents in his support.

"I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods and your workplaces, to your churches and barbershops, and beauty shops," Obama announced. "Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now."

"When I took office, our economy was on the brink of collapse. So, we acted immediately and took some steps to stop our economic free-fall," he continued. "And now, our economy is growing. We're adding private sector jobs, instead of losing them. We're in a different place than we were one year ago."

Obama would like caucus members to believe that his economic problem has been a success. But even as three million job openings were reported on the last day of July, unemployment increased 0.3% in July, and 0.3% again in August.

In other words: economy growing? Not so much. Adding private sector jobs? Not compared to the rate of loss.

Which may be a good time to remember what Obama's election to the office of President was supposed to be about.

"It was about giving every hardworking American a chance to join a growing middle class," he explained. "It was about putting the American dream within reach for all Americans, no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you come from."

Instead, Obama's policies continue to precipitate economic havoc in the United States, as the famed American dream continues to slip beyond the reach of increasing numbers of Americans, including some who once had it firmly within their grasp.

With these sobering realities hovering over his Presidency, Obama has instead opted to flatly appeal for black votes.

There is deep peril in this for the alleged post-racial President. Even as he reaches out for overwhelming level of support from black voters, his support among white voters continues to erode.

In July, only 37% of white men assess Obama's performance positively. Even fewer white women -- 35% -- agreed.

So in so starkly appealing to black voters while his support amongst white voters continues to erode, the post-racial President risks doing something that a post-racial President should never do: divide voters along racial lines.

It isn't as if it's all Obama's fault. After all, ideologically-motivated commentators have taken the rise of the Tea Party as an opportunity to weaponize racism in support of an increasingly radical and civically-destructive agenda.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama is reaching the breaking point. November 2 seems like it's going to be the beginning of the end for Obama. The end cannot come soon enough.

Who You Calling Bitch?

Not Ieshuh Griffin

As featured on last night's episode of the Daily Show, US congressional candidate Ieshuh Griffin attempted to make unique use the "five words of principle" independent candidates can place on the ballot next to their name in the state of Wisconsin.

When voters cast their ballot, "NOT the white man's bitch" will not appear next to Griffin's name.

No, this is not a joke.

Griffin had to get the statement past Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board, who initially ruled that it would appear on the ballot. That decision was later reversed.

Griffin even managed to attract the attention of Rush Limbaugh.

In politics, as in anything else, controversy sells. Ieshuh Griffin managed to parlay her clearly-militant racial views ever-so-briefly to the top. The Daily Show has now granted her a few more minutes of fame.

This author, as a white man, is quite comfortable with Ieshuh Griffin not being his bitch. That job's already been taken.

Rand Paul, Deficit Spending & The Threat to Fiscal Democracy

Rand Paul warns of "day of reckoning"

As US President Barack Obama continues to rack up the largest deficit in US history, the situation in the November 2 mid-term elections is crystal clear:

Even one more Senate seat for the Democrats will further empower Obama's fiscally destructive politics. One more for the Republicans -- coupled with gains in the House of Representatives -- will be able to stem the tide.

Few seem to understand this better than Republican Rand Paul, whose running to become the new junior Senator from Kentucky.

"We have a different vision than the president," Paul announced. "There's nothing inherently wrong with him, it's that his vision is wrong."

"His vision is that we're going to get out of this recession with more spending, more deficits," he continued. "But that money just doesn't magically appear."

"People come to me and they say, 'Oh, you're going to vote against this program,'" Paul said. "I say, 'How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to simply stick your head in the sand and keep borrowing, or are you going to print it up from the Federal Reserve and dilute the value of the dollars that exist?'"

"We can't live that way," Paul concluded. "There is a day of reckoning coming."

That looming day of reckoning should be quite familar to Canadians. As recently as 15 years ago, economists and financiers were musing about the possibility of Canada defaulting on its foreign debts.

In his book Hands-On Democracy, Patrick Boyer (then a candidate to succeed Brian Mulroney as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party) laid out the case for getting a handle on Canada's public finances.

In the book, Boyer noted the extent to which public debt is a threat to democracy. As default looms, and international crediters begin to demand concessions from a threat-belleaguered state, the number of options available to elected officials narrows.

In the United States, potentially facing a similar crisis, Rand Paul is the one sounding this alarm.

His Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, seems to have little to offer aside from complaining about what events Paul doesn't show up to, and vague suggestions that Paul doesn't share "Kentucky's values".

Simply put, there's a reason Conway continues to trail Paul in the polls.

It's because Rand Paul and his party have clearly recognized the fiscal danger of allowing President Obama to continue uninhibited. And while the Republican Party clearly played a roll in making the sorry fiscal state of the United States what it is, they are at least the party that is acknowledging the extent of the crisis.

That's why Rand Paul is poised to defeat Jack Conway on November 2.

Who Is The Party of No?

As the United States draws closer and closer to the 2010 midterm elections on November 2, it seems that the mission of Republican campaign advertising is to turn the buzzwords of the Democrat campaign against them.

The most recent effort is an ad entitled "Party of No". In it, a clip of President Barack Obama attempting to defend his failure to implement his policies by accusing the Republican Party of being relentlessly contrarian.

"If I said the sky was blue," Obama crows, "they'd say no."

The ad then responds with clips of campaign ads by Obama's fellow Democrats, all of them staking claim to opposition to Obama's agenda.

This is, of course, a simple matter of reality: with the Democrats enjoying a majority in each house of Congress, there really is no one other than themselves to blame for the failure of their President's agenda.

Judging from the campaign advertising sampled, it's clear that many of them are quite comfortable with that.

Rarely has a political party given their opponents the opportunity to counter-brand them with the very reputation they've attempted to foist upon them.

The Democrats can say whatever they want: Obama's agenda has failed because Democrats failed to support it. The Republicans have quite wisely chosen to remind American voters of that very inconvenient detail.

Someone is Out to Kick Obama's Ass

One of the Democratic Party's favourite themes since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama has been to accuse the Republican Party of being "extreme".

In an ad entitled "Extreme?", the National Republican Senatorial Committee takes that particular theme for a walk -- and then crams it down the Democrat's throat.

The ad begins with a television screen on which the predominant talking heads of the American left -- Rachel Maddow, Howard Dean, and even Obama himself -- discussing how extreme they want Americans to believe the Republican Party is.

The ad then begins to hit back with some polling numbers that are, to say the least, inconvenient for Democrats:

-57$ of likely voters think the Democrat agenda is "extreme".
-60% favour the repeal of Barack Obama's health care reform legislation.
-56% disapprove of Obama's performance.
-61% favour an immigration law similar to Arizona's in their own state.
-68% oppose the Ground Zero mosque (which Obama supports).
-65% are angry at federal government policies.
-65% of polled Americans believed the United States is on the wrong track.

The ad then cuts to polling comparisons of Democrat stalwarts and the so-called "extreme" candidates running against them -- many of which are either leading their Democrat opponent by double digits, or are in a statistical tie with them.

The then cuts again to Howard Dean, declaring that Republican candidates are "way outside the mainstream of what Americans want", and then hit back:

-Suing Arizona
-Siding against 9/11 families
-$3 trillion tax hike
-$1.5 trillion deficit
-$13 trillion debt
-$2.5 trillion healthcare takeover

"Mr President, that's extreme," the ad concludes. "Don't believe us? You'll find out November 2."

The ad brilliantly turns the Democrats' own rhetorical themes against them, and counter-brands them as the extremists in Washington.

After all, if Obama's administration and his policies were really so moderate, really so within the mainstream of American desires and expectations, the polling numbers wouldn't have turned so clearly against him -- and they wouldn't be worsening.

Simply put, the Republican Party has set out to turn Barack Obama's 2008 electoral triumph into the swiftest kick in the ass in American political history -- and with messaging like this, they just might pull it off.

Remember Everyone, It's Conservatives Who are Thuggish and Violent... Right?

Freedom Works assailed with death threats

As talk of the Tea Party continues to dominate the political discourse in the United States, it's hard to forget the effort that many among the United States' left wing went to in order to portray the Tea Party as thuggish and violent.

Yet in Washington, DC, Freedom Works, a group led by former Republican majority leader Dick Armey has been the target of numerous threats.

The group supports Tea Party activism.

"FreedomWorks and Dick Armey receive dozens of threatening and harassing calls and E-mails each day. Many imply violence and use of weapons," said Freedom Works spokesman Adam Brandon. "As we get closer to the election we expect the harassment to increase."

The group has responded by moving its headquarters to a more secure -- and more expensive -- location, and by hiring extra security.

However, that means that the group will have less money to spend on its Get Out the Vote efforts on election day.

"Unfortunately, we may have to use resources for security guards that we would rather use for GOTV," Brandon added.

Some of the threats are directed toward Freedom Works staff, or Tea Party figures. Others are directed toward conservative figures.

"Now, we are going to destroy and obliterate Rush [Limbaugh] and Sean Hannity," one callter threatened. "Those two guys are dead."

Unfortunately, this extra spending on security, and the diversion of funds away from their election-day activities was probably the ultimate goal of this intimidation campaign against the organization.

With things going badly for President Barack Obama, the left's desperation is beginning to show. This thuggish behaviour may be more of a symptom of that than a cause unto itself.

Are the Democrats Experiencing a Deficit of Hope?

The second ad in the Republican Party's "Deficit of Hope" ad campaign, entitled "Crazy" opens to an animated Air Force Once sitting on the tarmac preparing for departure.

"Attention passengers, fellow Democrats, we're just about ready to depart DC and go on my national fundraising tour to your homestates," an animated Barack Obama, dressed as a flight attendant, announces to the passengers. In his hand he holds an itinerary of his destinations, with revised unemployment rates -- all of them climbing -- on a clipboard.

"That's right, I'm coming to your hometowns," Obama announces.

At which point an emergency exit slide bursts forth from the jet, and the Democrats evacuate the plane.

In a television appearing on the bottom right corner of the screen, a series of newsclips are shown in quick succession. Viriginia Governor Tim Kaine is shown declaring Democrats who are distancing themselves from party leadership to be "crazy", while newsclips describe the growing discomfort Democrat politicians are beginning to show with Obama.

For good measure, it even includes former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's infamous scream from the 2004 Presidential primaries.

The ad presses a worthy question: are the Democrats themselves beginning to experience a deficit of hope? And for how long?

That the Democratic Party themselves adopted Spencer Ackerman's now-famed weaponized racism tactic indicates that they may have lost faith in their ability -- and that of their President -- to win the political debate by legitimate means.

Now that the race card is famously maxed out, the Democrats have been robbed of what they must have expected to be one of their greatest assets under Barack Obama.

With the political climate in the United States increasingly turning against them, it's becoming clear that the Democrats are experiencing a deficit of hope.

Can Obama Overcome the Deficit of Hope?

Wiith the 2010 midterm elections slowly drawing near, the Republicans have decided to turn up the pressure on what may be the Democrats' greatest weakness: President Barack Obama himself.

The Republicans have targetted Obama with a "Deficit of Hope" campaign, designed to turn his own political stylings against him.

"Deficit of Hope" counter-brands Obama less as the man who plucked the heartstrings of America with The Audacity of Hope and his "yes we can" credo and more as the architect of a continually-climbing government deficit.

The ad features a dark, yet triumphant picture of Barack Obama, reaching for the sky while his name is chanted over and over again. Against this triumphal image, text balloons out to reveal the dispiriting direction the United States has followed under Obama's leadership.

9.5% unemployment.

14.6 million unemployed.

2.5 million jobs lost since the stimulus.

40.8 million on food stamps. (Funding for which the Obama administration may raid to pay for one of Michelle Obama's pet projects.)

At this point, the spot's soundtrack takes a stark turn. The chanting of Obama's name is replaced by the sounds of protest, and citizens objecting to Obama's policies.

$13 trillion national debt.

$43,000 average share of the national debt.

$1.47 trillion record deficit.

The ad then, in rapid succession, makes it clear what its creators believe must be stopped: "Bailouts, takeovers, unemployment, foreclosures, tax hikes, debt."

It concludes with a simple message, contrasted to Timothy Geithner's famous "welcome to the recovery" comment quoted at the beginning of the ad:

"Welcome to the Obama economy."

It concludes with an appeal for funds.

The ad has numerous strengths. It plays to the precise issues that will be on the mind of every American voter come November. It will remind Americans that the euphoria of Obama's victory has since been replaced by the rage of protest.

It also has weaknesses. It doesn't really give voters any reason to trust Republicans -- who have had their share of the role in creating the US' current fiscal mess -- will do any better than the Democrats. Moreover, the ballooning text collapses back in on itself so quickly that the viewer often doesn't have any time to read it.

But in terms of setting the tone for their "Deficit of Hope" campaign, rhe Republicans couldn't have hoped for any better.

Whether the ad helps the Republican Party realize their ballot-box hopes won't be seen until November.

Ben Quayle's Fighting Words

Running for the Republican nomination for the House of Representatives in Arizona's third district, Ben Quayle has produced one of the most straight-forward campaign advertisements in recent history.

There's no dark, forboding music. No clever sloganeering. No computer-generated chariactures of his opponents. Just Quayle staring into the camera, explaining why he thinks Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of United States.

There are plenty of people suggesting that if Obama is not the worst President in US history, he is one of the worst. Many consider Obama to be second only to Jimmy Carter in this particular category.

Yet somehow, when Quayle, the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, makes these comments, it's somehow controversial:



Aside from its simplicity, there's a very standard "taking on Washington" message at play within the ad, as Quayle promises to go to DC and "knock the hell out of it."

This is typically a tactic adopted by someone trying to run as a beltway outsider -- this will be a difficult feat for the son of a former Vice President to accomplish.

But in alluding to "Drug cartels in Mexico", Quayle makes what seems to be a calculated effort to envoke the border security issue without directly referring to either the border itself, or to the closely-tied topic of immigration.

Likewise, in alluding to "tax cartels in Washington", Quayle appeals to support from the Tea Party movement without making any direct appeal.

Quayle quietly brands himself as a sympathetic ally of the Tea Party movement, and quietly counter-brands Barack Obama as a tax-and-not-secure-the-border Democrat.

The bonus value of Quayle's ad is that it will give his detractors opportunities to indulge, and embarrass, themselves:



It may be wise to point out to Catie Lazarus, TJ Miller, Joel Godard and their puppet friend that avoiding issues like this hasn't helped them, or President Obama, one bit.

With Barack Obama's approval ratings continually plummeting, stating that Obama is a poor President -- and the President who refuses to enforce the law is definitely a poor President -- can't help but attract support from voters growing increasingly fed up with Obama and his cabal; particularly in Arizona.

Good-bye Mr Obama... It's Time For You to Go

In the 2008 US Presidential election, your not-so-humble scribe backed John McCain -- at least so far as any Canadian had any business endorsing a candidate for any political office in the United States.

But when Barack Obama won the same campaign, this author was not terribly concerned about it. Although McCain had been deemed to be the superior candidate, there seemed to be an awful lot to like about Obama.

Sadly, many of those things never materialized.

Obama's "yes we can" mantra implied the empowerment of citizens over the imposition of state activism. Obama promised a more constructive dialogue on race. Government would be more responsive to the needs of the American people, especially during times of crisis.

These things haven't come to fruition -- there's little evidence that they will.

It isn't Obama's health care reform package -- although it was poorly conceptualized and the to-date execution of that plan has been poor, to phrase it kindly -- that has been the straw that broke the camel's back. Nor was his administration's meagre response to the still-flowing British Petroleum oil spill.

In the end, the final straw for the Obama administration has actually been its corrosive approach to racial issues. Ironically, a more constructive approach to race was one of the more promising prospects of the Obama administration. What has emerged has instead been the polar opposite.

Democrat legislators falsely accuse Tea Party protesters of hurling racial epithets with little or no admonition by the President or by Democratic party brass. A state that passes legislation to enforce federal immigration law replete with a higher standard of jurisprudence than the federal law mandates is declared to be racist, and challenged in court by Obama's Department of Justice.

But the final straw has to be what appears to be political interference in a voter intimidation case.

The case stems from the presence of members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2009. Members of the party openly brandished weapons while claiming to be "security".

Captured on video is King Samir Shabazz, who also attained some level of infamy by calling for the killing of white people and, specifically, white children.

Prosecutors for the Department of Justice won the case against the New Black Panther Party. Then an as-yet unknown figure within the US Department of Justice ordered the case dropped before the sentencing stage.

This is apparently the approach of the Obama administration to race and to law and order: when a group of African Americans is captured on video intimidating voters with weapons at an election polling station, the case is dismissed without explanation. And Americans still have yet to hear an explanation.

In an administration cognizant of its legal and constitutional obligations, Barack Obama would be leaning very hard on Attorney General Eric Holder. When more than a year went by without a satisfactory explanation of the decision -- whether made by Holder or by another Department of Justice official -- for the decision failed to materialize, Holder's resignation should have been sought.

It hasn't been. Holder remains Attorney General. In charge of a Department of Justice that is responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States, declines to do so, and then sues the state of Arizona when it passes legislation to do precisely that in the federal government's stead.

Your not-so-humble scribe, not being a citizen of the United States, does not imagine himself to hold any right or privilege to call for the resignation of the President of the United States; a foreign country.

But this author now agrees with a growing legion of American citizens who believe Barack Obama has failed to meet his obligations as the President of the United States, and should depart from that office at the earliest opportunity.

It's unfortunate. Riding a highly-motivated movement of politically active citizens, Barack Obama had the opportunity to combine government action with citizen action to truly better his country.

Instead, he has stood by while his Department of Justice threatens to render his country a nearly lawless state.

It's time for the Obama Presidency to end, as soon as possible. Americans of sound political conscience need to set the stage for a 2012 defeat of Obama -- provided that he doesn't do the honourable thing and resign as President -- by doing what they can to stem Obama's disastrous tide in 2010.

Democrats of sound political conscience need to ensure that Obama faces strong opposition in primaries leading up to the 2012 election. Republicans need to ensure that their candidate is of the highest possible calibre -- and need to put aside internal divisions within their party long enough to give that candidate the best possible opportunity to win the election.

John McCain cannot save the United States now. He's declared he won't run for President.

Who will be President after 2010 is not for this commenter to decide -- American citizens will have to decide that. But Barack Obama cannot continue as President so much as one minute longer than necessary.

Good-bye, Mr Obama. It's time for you to go.

Rick Barber's Giant Ego Trip Continues

Rick Barber, a candidate for the Republican Party's nomination in Alabama's 2nd district (the fightin' second!), has managed to set the bar high for political narcissism with his now-infamous "gather your armies" ad.

He clearly took the well-deserved criticism he received for that ad as encouragement to continue stroking his ego. Little else really explains his most recent ad.

Entitled "slavery", Barber continues his conversation with George Washington. He counters arguments that Washington would have supported Obama's health care bill by pointing out that Washington's taxation record was largely relegated to key and basic government functions -- for example, the retiring of federal debt from the Revolutionary War.

He then turns to a rather scary-looking actor playing Abraham Lincoln. "Hey Abe," he addresses Lincoln, "when someone's forced to work for months to pay taxes so that a total stranger can get a free meal, medical procedure or a bail-out, what's that called?"

After further similar questioning from Barber, and some deliberation, Lincoln responds:

"Slavery."

Barber then goes on to point out that the United States suffered greatly to rid itself of slavery, then accuses the government of enslaving the American people.

As with Barber's previous ad, the result is actually rather comical. This is a man with the temerity to brand himself as the last, best defender of the legacy of the civil war, and counter-brands Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as its betrayers.

What Barber seems to fail to understand is that no one man won the civil war. The American civil war was won by the sacrifices of an entire nation, and is thus the legacy of that war is common property of all the citizens of the United States. Its legacy could never be defended by one man alone, nor is it meant to be.

That Rick Barber could effectively annoint himself the one to defend that legacy is, once again, deeply revelatory of what his run for congress is really about: his own ego.

Rick Barber Should Not Have Approved This Ad

A campaign ad produced by Republican hopeful Rick Barber -- a Tea Party activist running in a run-off election to become the GOP nominee for the Congressional seat for Alabama's Second District -- is an illustration of why it's unwise to allow one's rhetoric to run away with them.

In the ad, Barber sits himself at a table with George Washington and Samuel Adams. What is imagined to be the original copy of the Constitution of the United States sits atop an American flag draped across the table. Washington's hand pats a single-fire flint lock pistol while he listens to Barber plead his case.

He begins by expressing his desire to impeach US President Barack Obama and then cotninuing by railing against progressive income taxes and the IRS. In the end, he compares Obama's health care reform package to the Tea Tax that helped spark the American Revolution. Clearly believing Obama's health care package to be much worse.

In the end, he asks "are you with me?"

At which point a very bad actor playing George Washington utters, in a nearly Adam West-like scattao, instructs him to "gather your armies".

The ad is being pushed around the internet as evidence that a potentially violent strain may be dominant within the Tea Party movement. This narrative conveniently ignores the detail that Barber is a candidate for office -- if anything, he's planning a revolution in which the weapons used will be ballots in elections, not muskets and bayonettes.

If anything, the ad reinforces the extent of the ego trip that Barber is on -- it isn't a pretty sight.

The ad contains two distinct branding messages. One brands him as a friend of small business, and counter-brands Barack Obama as the enemy of small business. The other brands Barber himself as an heir apparent to the founding fathers of the United States -- as someone who would have stood amongst them if he hadn't been born more than 200 years too late.

Rick Barber never should have approved this ad because, frankly, it is embarrassing. Whatever Rick Barber may imagine he could accomplish as a Congressman, he won't measure up to Washington or Adams. It's unlikely that anyone ever will.

The Quest for the Next Governator

Republicans need to erase memory of Schwarzenegger

In the California Republican Primary, it seems that Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner aren't merely running against one another.

They're also running against the incumbent -- Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"Schwarzenegger" has become rhetorical shorthand for "bad Republican" in this primary election. When one considers what has become of California's finances under Schwarzenegger, it isn't hard to understand why.

The financial commitments of the California government continue to grow, while revenue becomes harder and harder to come by.

Republicans have responded by effectively re-casting Schwarzenegger as a Democrat.

"Conservatives want to make him look like a Democrat as much as possible, so they can distinguish their own mantra from what they feel to be an establishment that caters to liberal causes," said San Jose State University political scientist Larry Gerston. "To conservatives, he's the classic definition of a RINO: a Republican in name only."

Clearly not only do Whitman and Poizner need to rhetorically re-brand Schwarzenegger for their own political gain, but also for that of their party.

No Republican will be able to contend for the office of Governor if they can't offer an alternative to Schwarzenegger.

But as badly as they need to distinguish themselves from Schwarzenegger just to be electable, Poizner and Whitman also need to find creative ways to manage California's deficit.

Moreover, they don't merely need to manage California's budget given the fiscal obligatons of today.

The state's ballot initiative law means that these obligations are continually subject to change. In California, anyone who can collect enough signatures on a petition can place a legislative proposal on the election day ballot.

Schwarzenegger himself attempted to gain control of California's budget through a number of ballot initiatives. These efforts failed.

At this point the only viable option may be to muster the courage to overturn past ballot initiatives in order to make deep enough cuts to the state's budget to erase the deficit.

The path for whichever candidate becomes the Republican nominee will be an extremely difficult one.

Why the Mainstream Media Should Never Use TPM as a Source

North American Union disappears down the memory hole

Those paying attention to the mainstream media (smearjob) coverage of Rand Paul's bid to win election to the US Senate may have noticed a rather peculiar thing regarding coverage of Paul's comments on the North American Union.

Notably, that they site Talking Points Memo as a source:

Using TPM as a source without fact-checking is a serious mistake.

As it turns out, one only needs to look to the Canadian "no deep integreation with the US" movement to realize that it wasn't merely Paul that shared concerns about some of the things that were being discussed.

Rather, it seems that opposition to the various "North American Union" initiatives was actually quite commonplace across ideological divisions.

The only mistake Paul actually makes is when he insists that those possibly planning such a superhighway were open about everything they were planning. Rather, the movers and shakers behind such initiatives were anything but open.

In fact, whenever political and business leaders have met to plan such initiatives as the Security and Prosperity Partnership, these meetings were conducted entirely in secret.

The reasons for this are just as likely to be due to security concerns as they were to a desire for secrecy -- although many participants at these meetings noted that some of the things under discussion would likely be unpalatable to the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Under the Obama administration, the US government quietly shelved the SPP in 2009.

The ideologically- and politically-motivated community that convenes around TPM are treating these Rand Paul/Ron Paul revelations as quite a prized find. The clear intent is to pass Rand Paul off as a conspiracy nut.

The problem is that in order to do this, they have to flush a great deal of publicly verifiable facts, as well as left-wing NAU conspiracy theories, down the memory hole.

It's unlikely that the general public will ever know about all of the proposals discussed at these meetings regarding North American integration. It wouldn't be shocking to many to discover that projects such as a North American super-autobahn were dicussed.

Projects such as the Texas Corridor could certainly facilitate such projects as a series of North American trunk highways -- a Mexico-city to Toronto super-autobahn being part of such a development. Likewise, efforts to further open North American borders to facilitate the movement of people and commodities between the three countries could progress toward a virtually borderless continent.

In another time and place it would be the TPM community that would be denouncing these kinds of projects as leading to the loss of the individual sovereignty of the three countries.

After all, they continue to oppose NAFTA to the extent that Barack Obama felt he could politically benefit by pandering to them with a possible NAFTA abrogation.

But when they suddenly have the opportunity to benefit ideologically and politically from mocking such notions, it all goes down the memory hole.

And this is what the mainstream media is evidently using as its sources -- not wise.

Tom Lucero Defeated in Congressional Bid

Cory Gardner wins Republican nomination in Colorado

Running as an underdog candidate in the race for the Republican nomination for Congress in Colorado's 4th District, Tom Lucero needed an edge.

Lucero must have thought that he had found an edge by running on his role in the firing of University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill. Churchill was fired for multiple cases of academic misconduct in an investigation that followed the publishing of his infamous "little Eichmanns" essay.

By running on his role in that affair, Lucero was effectively running against Churchill rather than his opponents in the race. That may have been a mistake, as Cory Gardner was the only candidate to surpass the 30% of votes cast to appear on the ballot at the Republican GOP's nomination meeting.

Gardner received the votes of 61% of those who cast ballots in the preliminary vote. Lucero received 19%, third to Dean Madere who received 20%.

It's unfortunate for Lucero and for the Republican Party. With issues pertaining to education coming to the forefront in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections, Lucero could have emerged as a star candidate for the GOP.

Lucero's role in the firing of Churchill would have resonated clearly within a party in which the topic of university Ethnic Studies programs has become something of a cause celibre.

At least Lucero's seat on the U of C Board of Regents will remain in Republican hands. No Democrats have filed candidacy papers in the district.

Gardner, on the other hand, seems to be the annointed cabinet by the Republican National Committee. Although Gardner has been critical of RNC Chairman Michael Steele even though the party has aided him through its "Young Guns Program".

Gardner has been electorally successful in Colorado, as he currently serves in the Colorado State House of Representatives. He serves as minority whip.

In Democrat Betsy Markey, Gardner will set his sights on an vulnerable incumbent who recently received some help from Vice President Joe Biden.

Even though Colorado Republicans didn't recognize the potential star candidate value of Tom Lucero, it won't require a major upset for Cory Gardner to win Colorado's 4th District come November.

Tea Party Sets Its Sights on Attorney General

Rand Paul set to challenge Jack Conway in Kentucky

If the Tea Party movement hadn't yet achieved political relevance in the eyes of mainstream politicians, it certainly should have moved a step closer when Rand Paul claimed the Republican Senate nomination in Kentucky.

Paul, a respected figure among the Tea Party movement, defeated Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson. His next opponent will be Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.

Even though some of his views -- particularly on foreign policy and security policy -- diverge from mainstream GOP views, Paul hopes that Republicans will united behind his candidacy come November.

"Primaries divide people, but I think generals bring us together," Paul said. "The general election, I think Republicans will pull together and we've already had discussions with the state party about how things will go forward after the primary."

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway will be a key target come November, particularly for the Tea Party movement. Many within that movement believe much of the Obama administration's legislation -- in particular, it's health care reform package -- to be unconstitutional.

For the Tea Party to topple a Democratic candidate with such a high-profile legal background will send a strong message.

Paul's election also poses key challenges to the GOP itself. Trey Grayson was the hand-picked preference of Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell.

If Rand Paul -- the son of former Presidential candidate Ron Paul -- manages to transform his Tea Party appeal into electoral success in November, however, one would have to imagine that McConnell will be satisfied just the same.