Net Neutrality and DISCLOSE Act: A two-pronged attack on sites like this one

In today’s Wall Street Journal is report on the FCC’s move to impose stricter regulation on the Internet. A similar attempt by the agency in 2005 was thrown out last April by a federal court. Unbowed and defiant, the FCC is taking another bite at the apple. At stake is the eventual regulation of internet service as a telecom or public utility. Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com calls the current compromise proposal a “bullet dodged.” But I’m not so sure.

I have known no government effort to regulate or control something stop at the first step.  That crucial first step is always one on a slippery slope. As the WSJ piece notes, it’s a matter of concern for service providers and small startups alike, and it has liberals huffing that it doesn’t go far enough:

---

Net neutrality has become a contentious issue as worries grow that large phone and cable companies are growing too powerful as Internet gatekeepers. Start-ups and small businesses that rely on the Internet to provide shopping, information or other services to consumers are particularly concerned.

The FCC has wanted to step in and act as an Internet traffic cop, but Congress has never given it clear authority to do so.

"We must take action to protect consumers against price hikes and closed access to the Internet—and our proposed framework is designed to do just that: to guard against these risks while recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a blog post this month.

Liberal activists and some consumer advocates have sharply criticized the proposal, saying it allows too much leeway to big broadband providers and falls well short of promises made by President Barack Obama, including limits on how the rules apply to mobile broadband networks.

---

The proposal will certainly be challenged in court, using the same arguments that led to a successful block earlier this year. And the new Congress—elected in large part by a majority expressing anger at the ever-growing reach of the federal government—is just as likely as not to gut the FCC’s budget for enforcement. A battle looms that will play out through the 2012 elections.

Meanwhile, the left is eager to pursue the Orwellian DISCLOSE Act, which was narrowly defeated in the US Senate just before the November bloodbath that swept Republicans into power in the House.  Thank GOD:

---

In the past week, Senate Democrats considered a bare-bones strategy for the measure that would involve stripping the bill down to just the disclosure requirements, effectively setting up a vote for or against transparency.

With time running out before Senate heads out of town, however, leaders have decided to begin debate with the bill they voted on before the August recess. That vote attracted 58 votes in the Senate, two shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was absent the day of the vote and has told watchdogs he will vote in favor of the bill, so supporters need to flip just one of Maine’s senators to break the filibuster.

---

The measure would have forced sites like this one to file full disclosure on all sources of revenue if they engaged in the ordinary exercise of First Amendment rights. If this blog were to carry a series of opinion pieces opposing or supporting a particular candidate for office or a ballot measure, I would have to eventually either shut down the site or spend countless hours and money filing Federal Election Commission reports, even if not one cent of revenue came from political campaigns, PAC’s or party organizations.

Meanwhile, big labor unions and other traditionally leftist groups would be exempted from the legislation’s requirements by the loopholes carved out by lobbyists and opponents of free speech.  It exempts non-profits with 500,000 or more members. Special provisions were included to keep the National Rifle Association on the sidelines.  It is an onerous and blatant attempt to squelch speech that favors individual liberties, smaller government, lower taxes and a better business climate.

Speech that readers saw here daily in the run-up to the November elections.

Give the government the opportunity to control who accesses the Internet, and the government will certainly limit the access of its critics. Give the government the opportunity to control not only the access to free speech but the content of the expression itself, and it is certain to do so.

Net Neutrality and the DISCLOSE Act are nothing more than a two pronged attack on conservative voices, and they absolutely must be stopped.

Tea Party Losses in the Senate: Bad candidates or worth the risk?

Establishment-minded Republicans, like Karl Rove and Lindsey Graham, have been in the news pointing out that the reason why Tea Party favorites Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck ran into so much trouble is because they were either (1) too conservative for the electorate whose votes they sought or (2) they were just bad candidates with bad campaigns. Or, both.

Lost in that message was the success of Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Nikki Haley. How did such Tea Party conservatives do so well while equally conservative O’Donnell, Angle and Buck fare so poorly?  Was it really that the former group were better candidates? Perhaps, but it doesn’t matter, especially in the Senate, and here’s why:

The rules of Senate debate limit the power and authority of the majority party. If you’re reading this blog, you’re already politically astute enough to understand what a filibuster is and what it takes to invoke cloture. Because only one-third of the US Senate is up for election each cycle, the house is naturally more resistant to wave changes like that which occurred in 1994.

As a result, when your party is poised to make significant gains in a midterm election it makes sense to take some risks with ideologically better candidates than play the safe cards with politically better candidates. We already knew, or at least should have known, that the Republicans were unlikely to take the Senate outright. And even had we done so, the effect of the victory would have been largely symbolic. The minority Democrats would still have had enough votes to filibuster any major legislative measure.

So why put liberal Republicans like Mike Castle in the US Senate? He’s no conservative and would have been a natural target for Democrats pushing cap and trade and amnesty. Why run such a candidate, have him win, and then have him turn coats and vote with liberals?

Why not take a risk with a Christine O’Donnell who, while admittedly a long-shot politically, would have been a slam dunk vote for a conservative legislative agenda? She only lost by 27,000 votes or so, in a deep blue state. With a little luck and a little more support, who knows what could have happened there?

Why put party apparatchik Sue Lowden up for US Senate in Nevada? Would she have had a better shot at knocking off Harry Reid than Sharron Angle did? Perhaps, but why not take the risk of installing a bona fide conservative?

The risk versus reward ratio is so off the charts here that anyone making the argument that candidates like Castle or Lowder would have made a real difference is doing so from an establishment perspective, not a conservative one. If your goal is to change the ideological makeup of the US Senate, you understand that its worth taking a risk on a less-than sure bet, if that risk pays off by installing a bona fide conservative. And, the payoff for settling for someone with and “R” after their name just to have enough votes to change majority leaders and committee chairmen is nothing more than political expediency.

We’ve had enough of politically expedient, establishment Republicans.  They do more damage than good.  If we have a chance—even a long shot chance—of installing a real conservative in the Senate, we should take it.

We did, and I for one have no regrets.

Revealing story from Tea Party eyewitness

George Hewes, a man who would have been just as happy practicing his cobbler’s trade in Boston, was instead swept up in one of the most compelling stories of protest in American History.

Here is his recounting of the events of December 16, 1773:

---

"The tea destroyed was contained in three ships, lying near each other at what was called at that time Griffin's wharf, and were surrounded by armed ships of war, the commanders of which had publicly declared that if the rebels, as they were pleased to style the Bostonians, should not withdraw their opposition to the landing of the tea before a certain day, the 17th day of December, 1773, they should on that day force it on shore, under the cover of their cannon's mouth.

"On the day preceding the seventeenth, there was a meeting of the citizens of the county of Suffolk, convened at one of the churches in Boston, for the purpose of consulting on what measures might be considered expedient to prevent the landing of the tea, or secure the people from the collection of the duty. At that meeting a committee was appointed to wait on Governor Hutchinson, and request him to inform them whether he would take any measures to satisfy the people on the object of the meeting.

"To the first application of this committee, the Governor told them he would give them a definite answer by five o'clock in the afternoon. At the hour appointed, the committee again repaired to the Governor's house, and on inquiry found he had gone to his country seat at Milton, a distance of about six miles. When the committee returned and informed the meeting of the absence of the Governor, there was a confused murmur among the members, and the meeting was immediately dissolved, many of them crying out, "Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country"; and there was a general huzza for Griffin's wharf.

"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.

"When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew.

"We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging.

"We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.

In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.

"We then quietly retired to our several places of residence, without having any conversation with each other, or taking any measures to discover who were our associates; nor do I recollect of our having had the knowledge of the name of a single individual concerned in that affair, except that of Leonard Pitt, the commander of my division, whom I have mentioned. There appeared to be an understanding that each individual should volunteer his services, keep his own secret, and risk the consequence for himself. No disorder took place during that transaction, and it was observed at that time that the stillest night ensued that Boston had enjoyed for many months.

"During the time we were throwing the tea overboard, there were several attempts made by some of the citizens of Boston and its vicinity to carry off small quantities of it for their family use. To effect that object, they would watch their opportunity to snatch up a handful from the deck, where it became plentifully scattered, and put it into their pockets.

"One Captain O'Connor, whom I well knew, came on board for that purpose, and when he supposed he was not noticed, filled his pockets, and also the lining of his coat. But I had detected him and gave information to the captain of what he was doing. We were ordered to take him into custody, and just as he was stepping from the vessel, I seized him by the skirt of his coat, and in attempting to pull him back, I tore it off; but, springing forward, by a rapid effort he made his escape. He had, however, to run a gauntlet through the crowd upon the wharf nine each one, as he passed, giving him a kick or a stroke.

"Another attempt was made to save a little tea from the ruins of the cargo by a tall, aged man who wore a large cocked hat and white wig, which was fashionable at that time. He had sleightly slipped a little into his pocket, but being detected, they seized him and, taking his hat and wig from his head, threw them, together with the tea, of which they had emptied his pockets, into the water. In consideration of his advanced age, he was permitted to escape, with now and then a slight kick.

"The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable."

-- George Hewes  

---

SMILING and DIALING: Tea Party activists turn to the phones

One of the Democrats’ long standing advantages in national elections is the so-called “ground game.”  Getting out the vote is one thing they’ve always done well.  No one votes earlier or more often than Democrats do.  They’ve had labor unions, environmentalists, abortionists and now ACORN and state/local government employees involved.

One thing in politics is more true than any other:  It doesn’t matter if you’re running for Dog Catcher or President of the United States.  You can’t win if you don’t get your people to the polls.

In this cycle, conservative grassroots organizations are using grassroots tactics perfected by the left.  No, not the voter fraud or intimidation.  It’s the nice retired lady, stay-at-home mom or retired Vet making a phone call or three from the comfort of the kitchen table:

---

Here, in between making dinner and baking cookies and celebrating the 16th birthday of one of her eight children, tea party activist Rosie Gagnon is working the phones, squeezing in 10 or 20 minutes or even an hour when she can, placing dozens of calls each day urging voters to support her favored candidates.

"Hello, my name is Rosie, and I'm a volunteer with FreedomWorks PAC, a grass-roots organization advocating for limited government," began Gagnon, reading from a script. "I'm calling to ask for your vote for Senate candidate Sharron Angle in the general election on Tuesday, November 2nd."

It's no mistake that Gagnon is calling people in Nevada rather than Oregon, where the Republican Senate nominee isn't given much of a chance. Encouraged by national tea party groups, she and other activists are dialing long-distance to try to influence the nation's most competitive congressional contests.

…

FreedomWorks, which claims 2,100 registered callers nationwide, is just one group with a phone-from-home program. The Sacramento-based Tea Party Express helped sway primary elections in Alaska, Delaware and Nevada by placing tens of thousands of calls to those states, and organizers for Americans for Prosperity, headquartered in Arlington, say 10,000 volunteers are making calls through the program - 400 of whom are in Oregon.

The efforts are designed to be a conservative counterweight to MoveOn.org and other liberal organizations that used these sorts of tactics to great effect in 2006 and 2008. Those groups are at it again this year, with Organizing for America launching a revamped online calling tool last week to coincide with President Obama's rallies nationwide.

The Internet-based software the tea party groups provide makes calling easy: Register as a volunteer, log in, and the program calls your phone number to connect you. Click again and your phone calls a voter's home. Read the script on the screen, click again and the call is disconnected. Click again and the next call is underway.

All the while, the system is logging valuable information for the national groups: who's still undecided, which numbers are good, who's home and who's not.

Calling all around the country on behalf of politicians she has never met is not exactly something Gagnon expected to do. But she's a mother and she's worried that no matter how well she raises her kids, it won't make much difference if things don't improve.

---

Think about the math, here. If you have 2,100 Rosies making dozens of calls each day then you have the potential to reach 50,000 to 100,000 voters. Daily.  With 12 days left until Election Day, those numbers can easily reach into the millions.  Folks, numbers like that can not only make a difference, they can turn a wave into a Tsunami.

There’s still time for you to get involved.  If you are a blogger, facebooker or Twitterer, or if you’re just a fired up Patriot who wants to make a difference besides blasting out tweets and facebook posts, then Don’t Just Catch the Wave. BE THE WAVE.

Go sign up for the Ace of Spades HQ “BE THE WAVE” Get out the vote effort at FreedomWorks PAC.  It takes seconds to sign up.

I have a full time job, this blog and an active Twitter account.  But I am still finding time to make a few calls a day for Martha Roby, a bona fide conservative seeking election to the House of Representatives for the Alabama 2nd Congressional District.  If I can do it, you can do it!

Allow me a little rope on a stereotype, here.  What could strike more fear in the hearts of liberals than a Tea Party effort led by women using the telephone to make a difference in an election?

The Peasants in Revolt

Last spring and summer, when the Tea Party movement started its near spontaneous combustion of grassroots fervor, the Beltway Cocktail Circuit viewed it all with some amusement.  Establishment Republicans.  Democrats.  The national media.  The K Street consortium.  They all pointed, chuckled and said: “Look.  The Peasants are revolting.”

Amusement became curiosity.  Curiosity—particularly among the GOP establishment—became cynicism, as the party thought they might be able to harness the energy, ride it back into power, and then co-opt the freshmen.  The curiosity among the left morphed into concern, and then abject terror. The Peasants are Revolting!

My, my, my.  How things have changed.  The political Torch and Pitchfork Parade has engulfed a lot of people who never thought all those un-nuanced peasants would ever be able to tell the difference between a Republican and a conservative.  It has been a huge and costly miscalculation for the establishment.

As of the last major party primaries held September 14, the Tea Party movement—a movement of ordinary, center-right Americans—had their candidates best establishment Republican favorites in six states’ senatorial primaries:  Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada and Utah.  Grassroots’ favorites in gubernatorial elections also won their GOP nominations, including Iowa, New Mexico and South Carolina.  The Tea Party movement’s favorites haven’t won every battle, though.  They’ve lost some high-profile primary races in Alabama, California and Kansas, among a few other down-the-ballot races.

It’s the Senate races that bear the most interest because, if you’re going to start shifting the center of gravity, the most deliberative body of Congress is the place to establish a long term trend.  The Senate elects one-third of its members every six years. And, because of the rules of debate in the upper chamber, the minority party holds considerably more power than a minority in the House of Representatives.  If you’re going to make an ideological stand, it makes sense to put your assets in play in the Senate, and take a few risks with candidates who line up more closely with the principles espoused by the movement.  The power of the minority party allows you to block measures that run counter to the center-right agenda while building coalitions with moderate Democrats to pass measures supporting the center-right agenda, all while building for the next cycle of elections, where you’ll have a shot at another one-third of the seats.  How do you think the Democrats did it?

You’re not going to win every race. Angle faces a formidable foe in the sitting Senate Majority Leader.  That’s a toss-up.  Rubio is up against two candidates, one backed by a well-funded Democrat party apparatus; the other the sitting Governor.  Another toss-up. O’Donnell has the longest, tallest road to climb in beating a Democrat in a deep blue state without any party establishment support at all.  That’s almost surely a loss. 

But you will win some of them, and you’ll win enough of them so that your voices are heard loudly on Capitol Hill for the next six years.  And, you’re also putting the GOP establishment on notice—conservatives are willing to lose races by nominating candidates on conservative principle.  That is to say, conservatives—and the grassroots movement that became the Tea Party—are willing to sacrifice a race here or there by nominating principled conservatives and unwilling to sacrifice conservative principles just to win.  Conservatives will nominate a “non-electable” candidate if they think the “non-conservative” candidate isn’t worth voting for. It will cause establishment-type Republicans to think twice about seeking nominations in the 2012 and 2014 Senate cycles while encouraging principled conservatives to explore and possibly seek seats.  This is a long process, but it’s the best one if we’re ever going to see center-right common sense on Capitol Hill.

This process is never what the GOP establishment expected to see happen when the uprising began.  It amused them at first, and then they cynically sought to have establishment dolts like Bennet, Castle, Murkowski ride its fervor back to the Beltway Cocktail Circuit. But with the Miller win in Alaska and the O’Donnell win in Delaware, the establishment realized that the peasant revolt was taking aim at them, as well.

This has the potential to get even more troublesome for the establishment, because as people see that their friends, neighbors, coworkers and parishioners are making a difference, they’ll get more involved.  Americans who’ve thrown up their hands in frustration at ever being able to effect real change could catch the scent of a real revolution, grab their own pitchforks and torches, and head for the…  Castle Walls, if you will.

The peasants aren’t revolting against just the Democrats.  It’s a revolt against the establishment. Democrats who think this means a great party divide gives them hope for survival in November are making an even worse miscalculation than establishment Republicans.  If the political heads of establishment Republicans need to fall in the baskets along with the leftists, so be it, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to escape.

Off with their heads.  All of’em.

In Honor of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution

We’re in this together, and together we’ll get this country back on track.

I don’t know what we’d do without you, ladies. Except lose, and we won’t let that happen as long as we keep working together.

I’m glad to have you on our side.  Happy Anniversary!

In politics, perception is everything

If money is the mother's milk of politics, perception is the stern glare of the father.  The last several months have not been kind to Democrats, and the plight they're in is one of their own making.

Nothing demonstrates a failure to appreciate how perception affects voters like the Obamas' vacation to Maine in July and Mrs. Obama's lavish, six-day excursion to the ritzy, glitzy Mediterranean coast of Spain which ended Sunday.  Mrs. Obama arrived back at the White House south lawn just in time to enjoy some grilled Gulf shrimp.  That shrimp must have come from Tampa or South Padre, because it sure didn't come out of the waters of the northern Gulf Coast.

While ordinary Americans across the country are tightening their belts--and while some residents of the Gulf Coast are literally gasping for air--the Obama's are living the high life.  They're hanging with rock stars.  They're shooting hoops with superstars.  They're closing down whole national parks and cordoning off big stretches of beach so they can enjoy the spoils of power.

While the economy is bleeding jobs, growth was slowing and the Macondo well was spewing crude into the Gulf, el Presidente enjoyed more rounds of in a couple of months than I've played all year.  At the rate he's playing, he's probably gotten good enough to have beaten Tiger Woods at Firestone last weekend.

Mrs. Obama's trip to Spain--which included lavish accommodations at an exclusive resort and dining with Spanish royalty--led the NY Daily News' Andrea Tantaros to compare the First Lady to Marie Antoinette, the famously callous French queen of Louis XIV.

Making matters even worse for the ruling class--not one, not two, but three prominent Democrats are in hot water over alleged ethics violations.  The Rangel case by itself isn't likely to cause someone to say, "you know, Rangel is a crook, so I'm voting Republican."  Neither would the Waters case by itself, or the Manchin case by itself.  But to have all three come sloshing ashore at the same time, mere months away from an election already seething with anti-incumbent fervor...

To dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and newly aroused Tea Party activists, this kind of stuff doesn't do much.  Their Crap-o-Meters have been pegged in the red since that awful Sunday in March.  And dyed-in-the wool liberals are just fine with comparing Michelle Obama's Spanish flair to Laura Bush's visit to Africa; and Dems' ethics problems to a decades-old scandal with Newt Gingrich. What stuff like this does is to get under the skin of moderates and swing voters, a group of people not normally counted on to turn out for midterm elections.  But if the Obama regime keeps up the aloof, detached air of royalty, November 3 will be a heady morning for Democrats.


Gimme some feedback in the comments.

Why the left really fears the Tea Party

It is beyond their capacity to admit it, but the Tea Party movement positively scares the left witless. Last spring and summer, the Tea Party movement was greeted by the elite left as an amusement.

Many observers have opined on the Tea Party movement's loose organization. There really wasn't one clearly identifiable leader of the Tea Party.  It was, and still is, mostly a conglomeration of local activists feeding off of the energy of one another.  More importantly, the Tea Party is not a political party, per se.  It has no national committee.  It has no chairman, subcommittees or fundraising organization.  Some groups have filed the paperwork to gain recognition as a party in some states, but there is no national effort to create a bona fide third party made up of Tea Party activists.  That creates some challenges for the movement, as its amorphousness and lack of national organization makes it difficult for a single, easily communicated message to emerge. 

But the left's amusement at the Tea Partiers has changed.  Amusement gave way to mockery.  Mockery gave way to outright contempt.  Contempt has grown into concern, and as I write this, the concern is morphing into abject terror.  Why?

The left has a tried-and-true method of dealing with those who oppose its agenda of statist utopia. It is based upon a philosophy of identity politics that divides people into easily cubby-holed groups.  These groups have leaders, or easily recognizable faces or icons to associate with the identity of the group.  Favored groups are rewarded, unfavored groups are attacked and punished.  ACORN is given free reign to commit election fraud. Sarah Palin is subjected to relentless personal attacks.  Union thugs are free to trespass on executives' private property.  Keith Olbermann is allowed to spew hatred to a (shrinking) national audience while Glenn Beck is viciously and falsely accused of promoting sedition.  Oprah Winfrey, Whoopi Goldberg and Wanda Sykes can openly espouse racism and wish death on conservative leaders.  Rush Limbaugh is singled out and attacked by the sitting President of the United States.  But the Tea Party movement is different.

What many point out as a weakness is actually the Tea Party's strength.  The Tea Party has no object to vilify.  Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh were faces known well before the Tea Party movement began.  They aren't the Tea Party movement--it's bigger than them.  There's no Tea Party "frontrunner" for any national election, so there's no past to dig dirt on.  There's no chairman, so there's no party financial records to dig through for embarrassing expenditures.  There are no fundraising committees, so there are no FEC filings to dig through to see what special interests can be smeared. There is no group of leaders to isolate, identify and attack.  Attempts to paint the movement as racist are met with speeches from black Tea Party participants and growing support for black Tea Party-backed candidates. Attempts to paint it as an extremist fringe are met with interviews with retired grandmothers.

The traditional weapons of the left--Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals--are absolutely useless against the Tea Party movement. Every round they have fired has fallen harmlessly to the ground, while national polls show that the movement is growing and attracting an ever larger, more energized base of support.  This growing base of support presents an even greater terror--by Attacking the Tea Party as racist, fringe-element wackos, Democrats and the left are shown to be attacking Main Street America.  You, dear reader, are a racist.  You, dear reader, are out of touch.  You, dear reader, are promoting the rise of another Timothy McVeigh.  The more shrill and ridiculous the charges that the left hurls at the Tea Party, the more motivated you have become.

The left is now positively scared to death of you, because they've thrown everything they had at you and you're still growing.  Moreover, you've morphed again.  It's not about protests, signs and slogan chanting.  The protests are still well-attended but now, it's also about a Contract From America that lays out a set of principles that you authored and you have put before candidates for the upcoming election.  The candidates and incumbents who don't support those principles face very dim prospects in November because you are both motivated and absolutely unstoppable.

Extra Point: Could the fear gripping the left be the reason why financial market "reform," immigration "reform" and energy policy "reform" are all expected to come before the Congress before November?  Could the thieves know that the authorities are en route, and that they might as well grab as much loot as they can before the inevitable occurs?