Air Force Voices

Pewgate: 2nd/3rd Order Effects

Willliam A. Schambra has an excellent article in Chronicle of Philanthropy (HT: Democracy Project).  The article references the huge changes that are happening to once-insular worlds of government, media, and now charity organizations. 

The article references "Pewgate" and the large-scale deception behind so-called Campaign Finance Reform the McCain-Feingold BCRA (see previous posts).

My favorite passage in Schambra's article (emphasis added):

Bloggers are scrappy, radically individualistic insurgents. They like nothing better than to take on tottering institutional empires, where arrogant, insulated leaders have escaped accountability for their lethargy and corruption by virtue of the fear they have instilled within the respectable, established commentariat. So it is just a matter of time before serious blogging comes to philanthropy. But we need bloggers who are veterans of the field, and who know how to interpret the opaque, impenetrable jargon and stylized, empty ceremonies of that world. By mercilessly critiquing the foundation world's "official" literature and rituals, actual transparency might be encouraged.

Bloggers should also do shoe-leather reporting and investigating. Hollow, exaggerated claims for a foundation program's success could quickly be deflated by behind-the-scenes reports on what is really happening on the ground.

Blogs will also be available for back-channel contributions from foundation staff members who wish to report squandered resources, dishonest publicity, or overbearing leadership.

Similar calls could benefit an similarly insulated world like the Pentagon (specifically the E-Ring)...read the boldface above and apply this to the Department of Defense.  No wonder OSD/PA hasn't quite figured out what to do about bloggers (see "Slow to the Fight").  It will be a while before any credible policy is created and disseminated throughout the ranks.

OPSEC considerations have nothing to do with reporting fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA), or dishonest publicity and the usual micromanagers/bad bosses.  "Maintaining Good Order and Discipline" is valid in some instances...but it still should be used as a shield. 

Right now Milblogging is mostly about what is happening on the battlefield (and I am thankful for that)...however, mark my words...it is only a matter of time before the power of this new medium exposes the crass politics, political pandering and wholesale cynicism that resides in the offices and cubby holes in what is affectionately known as "the Building." 

Talk about actual transparency (see underlined above)...my guess is no one will see this coming (again, see "Slow to the Fight").

The Menace Continues

The MSM/DNC is at it again...trying to eliminate a level playing field so they can control your thoughts and tell you how to vote (HT: Captain's Quarters).

Brian Faler of the WaPo has a provocative article in today's paper.  He writes about upcoming Congressional action that would exempt bloggers from proposed FEC rules on the Internet (i.e., restriction of First Amendment rights).  Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):

You could almost hear the blogosphere sigh with relief earlier this spring when federal election officials indicated that they did not plan to crack down on bloggers who write about politics.

The Federal Election Commission, which has been considering issuing new regulations on a range of political activities on the Internet -- and was said by some to be contemplating taking a tough stance on the online commentators -- revealed in late March that it intends to be much less aggressive than many had feared. But now some observers are wondering whether the FEC is not being aggressive enough when it comes to one category of bloggers: those who take money from political campaigns.

Question is...who are these "observers" who wonder about an "aggressive" FEC?  Hmmm.  Read on...

Those who want additional disclosure requirements said they fear that [putting bloggers on campaign payrolls] will become increasingly common as politicians become more sophisticated in using the Internet, as blogs attract larger audiences and as more mainstream news outlets report on -- and amplify -- what the blogosphere is saying.

True...further acknowledgment of the power of blogs.

Faler tries to achieve some balance (though it is at the end of the article) and points out (emphasis added):

But their complaints are meeting skepticism from those who say additional reporting requirements are not only unnecessary but would be legally suspect and difficult to enforce.

Some said, for example, that campaigns routinely take a magnifying glass to their opponents' finance reports -- and can be relied upon to publicize any unannounced payments to bloggers. And some said such requirements would impose obligations on bloggers that are not expected of anyone else who takes money from campaigns and then sounds off on them in other media, such as letters to newspapers or calls to radio shows.

Exactly...you could also include respondents to snap polls, members of a live studio audience, or people/families featured in a news report.  Too bad the article quickly concludes before we can explore these traditional MSM/DNC tricks.

So what is the basis of this article?  Captain Ed' makes a great point is his appraisal (emphasis added):

This article wants to scare people, and Congress, into fighting the proposed exemption for bloggers by creating a strawman of rampant corruption in the blogosphere that doesn't exist. Even if campaigns decided to start "buying" bloggers, it would only reflect their ignorance of the marketplace. After all, why buy what one can get for free? Most of us write for our own purposes, not that of a candidate or party, and what revenue we need to justify our expense and time we generate through advertising. Buying a blogger might be more arguable for disclosure simply as a sign of cluelessness.

The so-called reformers reveal themselves again as more frightened of the power of free speech and the inability of former media elites toe control the information flow. They want to regulate us into silence and clear the field for the Exempt Media to once again tell people what to believe. Fortunately for the rest of us, those days have long since gone by.

Indeed.  Again, this is another attempt by the MSM/DNC under the guise of "campaign finance reform" to use the federal government to control our access to information.  For more information on the history of "campaign finance reform" and the assault on free speech...see previous posts.

Protect the First Amendment

Our Constitution used to be enough to guarantee basic rights to all American citizens.  Yet, it seems federal regulations, if not explicitly denounced by law, can overrule the Constitution.

Mike Krempasky at RedState has some very good news to report.  Here is an excerpt:

First, in the House - HR 1606, introduced by Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling can not only boast a few co-sponsors - the better news is this - Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan has become the first bipartisan cosponsor of the legislation. As you can imagine, getting leaders from both sides of the aisle on a bill early is key.

But frankly, I have to say - the news in the Senate is the real gem. S 678, introduced by Minority Leader Harry Reid, has been waiting for a Republican to step up - and one has. And of all the Members that provide...um, political balance for Senator Reid - how about RedState favorite Dr. Tom Coburn? (his cosponsorship is not listed in Thomas yet, but Coburn's office has already contacted Reid's.)

Perhaps our Senators and Congressional Representatives need a little encouragement.

There is an online petition sponsored by DownsizeDC that Air Force Voices highly recommends.  The petition encourages Members of Congress to co-sponsor and sign the bills and is a call to all patriots sworn to defend the Constitution.  This is not a partisan issue...it is a fundamental American issue.

I got involved.  Here were my personal comments:

The Honorable ___________
United States Senate
___ Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-

The Honorable ___________
United States Senate
_____ Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-

The Honorable ________
United States House of Representatives
_____ Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-

Freedom of speech is an important part of everyday life in America.  America has always cherished this right since its inception. 

It can be said that the United States of America was the first country ever to be argued into existence...men like Paine, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson (among others) started making their case for independence long before the shooting started.  As a result, the First Amendment stands as a monument to their efforts. 

Many Americans have died defending the First Amendment as well as other rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  I believe deeply in these rights and honor the sacrifices made by these brave Americans.

Yet, it seems the Constitution no longer guarantees basic rights afforded to all Americans.  Incredibly, regulations carry the force of law if they are not explicitly denounced by law.  Hence, passage of this bill honors the sacrifices of those who serve to defend the Constitution and further guarantees freedom of speech for all Americans.

Your favorable action on this matter is a call to duty. Again, please co-sponsor and pass the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

Signed,

Air Force Voices

I encourage you to participate and sign the petition.  See previous posts for more information.

A Gathering Menace

Freedom of speech is an important part of everyday life in America.  America has always cherished this right since its inception. 

It can be said that the United States of America was the first country ever to be argued into existence...men like Paine, Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson (among others) started making their case for independence long before the shooting started.  As a result, the First Amendment stands as a monument to their efforts. 

Many Americans have died defending the First Amendment as well as other rights guaranteed in our constitution.  I believe deeply in these rights and honor the sacrifices made by these brave Americans.

I have quoted Neil Postman (author of Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology) before.  Yet, his words seem especially fitting today (emphasis added):

“There is not a single line written by Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Hamilton, or Franklin that does not take for granted that when information is made available to citizens they are capable of managing it. This is not to say that the Founding Fathers believed information could not be false, misleading, or irrelevant. But they believed that the marketplace of information and ideas was sufficiently ordered so that citizens could make sense of what they read and heard and through reason, judge its usefulness to their lives."

“We need not hesitate to claim that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a monument to the ideological biases of print.”

Unfortunately, there are growing indications the marketplace of information and ideas is under attack by the MSM/DNC.  The latest gambit involves legislative efforts to resurrect the FCC's "Fairness" Doctrine so liberals can silence people with different views. 

Need proof?  There are several disturbing posts today: one written by Winfield Myers another by Mark Tapscott and finally one by Jeff Jarvis.  These posts warn of a gathering menace that threatens Freedom of Speech as we know it.

Jarvis reports:

Next month, there's a National Conference for Media Reform with all sorts of odd bedfellows: FCC censor-freaks Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, Al Franken, Seattle Times owner Frank Blethen, David Brock of Media Matter, folks from Fair and the Newspaper Guild and Consumers Union, and so on...

...They want to "increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector."

The keyword there: "policies." Policies come from government. Government media policies equal government media control.

Notice the embedded propaganda technique in the Conference for Media Reform's passage?  They want to:

• "increase informed public participation"
• "produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system"

Sounds good...however, who are these people and why are they suddenly interested "crucial media policy debates?" 

Mark Tapscott has another related post that shows there is nothing "odd" about these "bedfellows."  {Here is a hint:  they are former aides to prominent Democrats...and they are tired of losing elections}

So what is their strategy and who are they really targeting?

Winfield Myers writes (emphasis added):

Those efforts are geared toward preventing bloggers, in particular, from exercising their First Amendment rights. But bloggers aren't the only group of pests who are undermining the old MSM's ability to manipulate the news to their liking. Before blogging, there was talk radio, and it's now stronger than ever. That's why a new initiative is under way to bring back one of the most odious forms of censorship of political speech this country has ever employed: the Fairness Doctrine...

...From this, we're to assume that the failure of liberal talk radio is a direct result of the choice made by the majority of talk radio listeners to tune in to conservative shows. That's the real issue here, after all: Americans are choosing conservative talk radio, just as many of its consumers of political news and commentary are choosing the Net. So they're both a target of liberals in Congress, who can't defeat our arguments, and would just as soon take us down by any means necessary.

These liberals have no interest in letting you decide where you get your news. 

Mark Tapscott warns us to beware of the MSM/DNC (emphasis added):

They have numerous allies in the Mainstream Media, which is losing audience and influence as a result of new media like Talk Radio, Christian broadcasters and the Internet’s Blogosphere. Those of all points on the political and spiritual spectrum who love the First Amendment, the right of unfettered religious expression and an independent, free press had better take notice before its too late.

This is a wake-up call to America...if we fail to stop these attempts, despotism isn't far behind (see previous posts here, here, and here).

Air Force Voices salutes Winfield Myers, Mark Tapscott, and Jeff Jarvis for their vigilance on exposing these efforts.  It is good to have men like you who take defending the Constitution as seriously as I do.

King County Mess

There is an even bigger mess in the Washington State Gubernatorial Election.  Michelle Malkin links to blogger Stefan Sharkansky, who broke the story yesterday which was followed up by the Seattle Times this morning.

The Seattle Times' Keith Ervin and David Postman report:

"Long after it seemed there couldn't be any more surprises in the November governor's election, King County officials acknowledged yesterday they have found more uncounted ballots.

Over the past week, election workers have found 87 valid absentee ballots that had been left in their envelopes and not counted through three tallies of the closest statewide race in Washington history..."

...The discovery comes as lawyers for the state's political parties argue in court over whether Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire's election was legitimate.

Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes after a hand recount overturned the results of two machine counts that Rossi had won."

These were absentee ballots folks!  As a military member, this greatly concerns me.

Hugh Hewitt has a great book appropriately titled: If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat.  See Part II on how elections are manipulated.

With FEC regulations (see post below) and things like this...something is seriously wrong.  We must remain vigilant and continue to expose these shenanigans.

Trickle-Down Despotism

Mark Tapscott introduces a new term called "Trickle-Down Despotism" in his latest post (HT: Democracy Project). 

"Boy, the Speech Police aren't wasting any time in spreading McCain-Feingold's campaign finance reform regulatory nonsense. Not only has it spread to the state level, now we see it on the local level. Wouldn't you know the first local government to propose regulating political speech on the Internet would be San Francisco?"

I agree.  If limits on free speech continue to go unchecked...despotism isn't far behind. 

K. Daniel Glover has an article in the National Journal this morning that details the fight to keep internet speech free from restrictions (HT: Democracy Project).

Finally, Mike Krempasky of RedState reflects on his appearance at a Congressional panel on McCain-Feingold in Cyberspace.  Read through the comments as well.

Krempasky also recommends a book titled: Monopoly Politics by James C. Miller III.  The book describes a political system that overwhelmingly stacks the rules in favor of congressional incumbents that challengers have little or no hope of defeating them at the ballot box.  I'll have to read the book.

Pewgate

The Battle of the Blogosphere

Democracy Project, Captain's Quarters, La Shawn Barber and RedState continue to chronicle the FEC's attempt to quietly regulate free speech on the internet (thus, protect incumbents in office).

Couple this with Ryan Sager's article and blog (see previous post) that McCain-Feingold and the whole campaign finance reform movement is nothing more than a sham perpetuated by the bogus "Pew Charitable Trust."

For a complete roundup of what is becoming known as Pewgate and how far its tentacles extend, see Richard Poe's article on FrontPageMag.Com. (HT: Democracy Project)

This is outrageous and should concern every American...particularly those of us who are sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  We must remain vigilant and cast light on these actions.

See previous Air Force Voices posts on this subject.

UPDATE:  TechCentralStation has a great article on the coming blogwar.  (HT: ScaredMonkeys)

UPDATE II:  I agree with Wizbang, the blogosphere owes FEC Commissioner a serious debt of gratitude.

This smells...

Ryan Sager of the New York Post has an interesting post regarding Campaign Finance "Reform."  (HT: Instapundit)

"CAMPAIGN-FINANCE reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement."

"Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when [Sean Treglia, program manager of Pew Charitable Trusts] joined Pew in the mid-1990s, Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of "experts" all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform."

"From 1994 to 2004, almost $140 million was spent to lobby for changes to our country's campaign-finance laws."

"But this money didn't come from little old ladies making do with cat food so they could send a $20 check to Common Cause. The vast majority of this money — $123 million, 88 percent of the total — came from just eight liberal foundations."

Wait till you read how the money was spent.

There is a video tape of Treglia admitting as much on Ryan Sager's blog.

This really stinks.