Wireless competition continues to grow, as Cricket edges closer to 4G LTE. I’m losing track of how many 4G providers we’re starting to rack up. So yes, the people who tell you smaller and regional carriers are not an acceptable substitute for national carriers? They’re selling you something.

That something is an attack on federalism via the Sprint/Soros/Obama/Holder attack on AT&T and the rights of T-Mobile shareholders.

Which is why it’s bad news that these coordinated lawsuits are continuing. It’s ridiculous: both C Spire and Sprint are in better shape than iPhone-less T-Mobile.

At least there’s good news in new and continuing Republican efforts against previous power grabs.

Kay Bailey Hutchison calls Net Neutrality repeal a Jobs Bill, which is right, and is trying to get a Senate vote on it next week, which is great news. She says “We have over 40 signatures to have the expedited Congressional authority to take this resolution up, and the House has already passed it. It now rests in the Senate.”

And to try to prevent future Net Neutralities, Dean Heller and Greg Walden are teaming up to push for FCC process reform, something badly needed. It’s a sick joke how non-transparent the process was, to create these regulations which demand transparency.

Anonymous: They’ll attack the US government, they’ll attack credit card companies, but they won’t bother Mexican drug gangs. Yeah. No wonder they’re affiliated with the violent Occupy protests.

PATENT WARS: Microsoft defends its patent licensing policies with respect to Android, as it holds patents that Android vendors need. Samsung is going after iPhone software. Apple fails to stop a clone tablet maker. VirnetX tries again against Apple.

Read original post.

Well.

“Conservative” Iowa radio host Steve Deace is in the news
cycle accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment — specifically
saying,
according to Politico, that Cain had
said “awkward/inappropriate things… to two females on
my staff.” Deace also said he was concerned about “the fact the
guy’s wife is never around.”

The American Spectator contacted
Deace directly tonight to ask two questions:

1. What did Herman Cain say to the woman or women on
Deace’s staff?

2. Was Deace present when Cain did whatever
“awkward/inappropriate things” Deace is accusing him of?

This evening Steve Deace responded as follows, his
response printed in its entirety:

No one affiliated with our radio program has anything else
to say about Herman Cain’s awkward and inappropriate
comments made to our staff referenced in a recent
Politico story beyond what we have already said.

Sadly, those comments are no more inappropriate and
awkward than Mr. Cain’s multiple positions on the
sanctity of human life, his support of the TARP, his
not knowing China already has nuclear weapons, and his
refusal to defend marriage. The fact that someone so
uninformed and morally inconsistent has made it this
far in a crucial Republican presidential primary, only
to finally be vetted by his personal life, is an
example of why so many Americans have lost faith in the system.
Instead of debating issues we debate cults of
personality. This sort of personality-driven politics
helped Obama get elected four years ago, and look how
well that turned out.

Steve Deace

The response has also now hastily gone up on the Deace website.

One doesn’t have to support Herman Cain or anyone else in
this race for the GOP nomination to realize quickly that Mr. Deace
seems to have a political axe to grind against Herman
Cain.

To make the accusation — and then go silent to let people
imagine the worst (is Herman Cain, like Bill Clinton, running
around America leaving a trail made up of a woman accusing rape,
another saying he groped her in the Oval Office, a third saying he
dropped his pants and asked her to “kiss it” — is the height of
moral irresponsibility. Mr. Cain may or may not have the experience
to sit in the Oval office. He may or may not have good positions
from a conservative point of view on any number of
issues.

But whether he’s president or not, this is spectacularly
unfair.

And Mr. Dease, now having walked himself and his Christian
beliefs all the way out on a limb, perhaps needs to have another
look at the 9th Commandment.

That would be the one about bearing false
witness.

Mr. Deace somehow believes this statement of his, also on
his website, will be ignored. It reads:

If you have courage and convictions, your new soul mate
will be Steve Deace. He delivers.

What Steve Deace apparently delivers is Establishment
make-believe decidedly without the courage of his convictions. If
Herman Cain sexually harassed the Deace staff in Deace’s presence
– or otherwise — step up. Who, when, where, what was said.
Otherwise, it’s fair to ask of Deace:

What would Jesus do?

Not this.

Read original page.

While being grilled by co-host Ann Curry on Wednesday's NBC Today on Arizona's illegal immigration law causing racial discrimination, Governor Jan Brewer hit back and declared: “I believe truly that the media and others have tried to throw out that race card to shut down the debate. It's not about that. It's about illegal immigration.” Audio available here

Earlier, Curry fretted: “Now what would justify such a law that required people, essentially, to carry papers, identification, something that proved that they're American citizens?” Brewer replied: “…it's under reasonable suspicion, it's no different than what law enforcement actually does today….So it's a simple issue, and the press, the liberal media tried to blow that completely totally out of perspective.” View video after the jump

Curry pressed Brewer on whether police in Arizona would racially profile: “You say the people in Arizona are not racist or bigots. And so the question has been raised, why wouldn't an officer…not take into account the color of someone's skin in weighing whether or not to believe that someone might be an immigrant, an illegal immigrant?…wouldn't they weigh in the color of a person's skin in deciding whether or not that person?”

---

Here is a full transcript of the November 2 interview:

8:44AM ET

ANN CURRY: Illegal immigration is one of the hot button issues in the presidential campaign and the state of Arizona is right in the middle of that debate. More than a year after its Republican governor signed a controversial illegal immigration bill into law. Well now, Governor Jan Brewer has written a book about her struggle called “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border.” Governor Brewer, good morning to you.

JAN BREWER: Good morning to you, Ann.

CURRY: First, let me ask you about what you wrote about in this book about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. You describe her as a good friend despite your political differences. As such, she appears to be making a remarkable recovery.

BREWER: She does.

CURRY: Would you like to see her run for re-election?

BREWER: I would like to see what Gabby do whatever she can do and what she wants to do. She's a terrific gal, she's a wonderful elected official in Arizona, and more than that, she's been terrific for Arizona in the United States Congress. So I certainly hope that she can do whatever she chooses to do.

CURRY: Given all that she's endured, I imagine for a lot of people and maybe even for you, there would be sort of a sweet smile if you see her do something like that.

BREWER: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. She's a terrific – she really is terrific and it was such a tragic thing that happened down in Tucson. Our hearts were just broken for all, everybody that was murdered and injured down there. It was just a terrible day.

CURRY: You also write in this book, as we just mentioned, a lot about illegal immigration.

BREWER: I do.

CURRY: Why would you want to write a book about your experiences during this huge controversy that started to rage after the signing of this bill?

ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: “Scorpions for Breakfast”; Controversial Battle to Secure America's Border

BREWER: Well, it was really important to me that I was able to put down what I believe was the truth about what we were doing in Arizona, and what we were more or less forced to do because the federal government wouldn't do their job. We are the gateway for illegal immigration into America, bottom line is, is that we can't afford it, we can't tolerate it, and we are the recipient of a lot of criminal acts. And the bottom line is, if the federal government won't protect our borders then Arizona will.

CURRY: You know, let's be very specific about what the bill said. The bill you signed, which is still being challenged in court, would let law enforcement check the immigration status of a suspected illegal immigrant if stopped during a lawful traffic stop, detention, or arrest. And it would require that suspected illegal immigrants show proof that they're here legally. Now what would justify such a law that required people, essentially, to carry papers, identification, something that proved that they're American citizens?

BREWER: Well, first of all, let me just say, Ann, that, you know, it's under reasonable suspicion, it's no different than what law enforcement actually does today. And you know, if you're here in our country or if you're in any other country, it's your responsibility to carry identification with you. So it's a simple issue, and the press, the liberal media tried to blow that completely totally out of perspective.

So I try to talk about that in my book, I'm trying to explain to people, that the people in Arizona are not racist, they are not bigots. We have tried to do the best that we can given the circumstances that we have been given. They closed down the borders in California, they closed down the borders in Texas, and they funneled everybody through Arizona. And we just can't expect our citizens to continue to pay the price. It's costing us $1.6 billion out of an $8 billion budget a year to take care of that issue.

CURRY: You say the people in Arizona are not racist or bigots. And so the question has been raised, why wouldn't an officer, if he's looking under these words, if he's thinking about a suspected illegal immigrant, are you saying that he would not, he or she would not take into account the color of someone's skin in weighing whether or not to believe that someone might be an immigrant, an illegal immigrant?

BREWER: Well, and in the law, it says, you know, it has to be under reasonable suspicion, meaning they have to have already committed something, another crime or illegal-

CURRY: Or be suspected of, I mean they're not necessarily committed, they may have had a-

BREWER: Of course, they're law enforcement. They've been trained. They know what to look for. But it's reasonable suspicion. You can't just walk up to somebody and arrest anybody. And when I signed this bill-

CURRY: But wouldn't they weigh in the color of a person's skin in deciding whether or not that person?

BREWER: No.

CURRY: Why wouldn't they?

BREWER: Why would they? I mean, we have grown up in the southwest, we have grown up – these are our friends, these are our neighbors, they're part of our families, it's just ridiculous and it's – you know what? I believe truly that the media and others have tried to throw out that race card to shut down the debate. It's not about that. It's about illegal immigration. It's about the spillover from Mexico and we're just asking the federal government to do their job.

And when I signed Senate Bill 1070, I wanted to make absolutely sure that it would work, that it would be constitutional, and nobody's civil rights would be offended. That was my main goal and that's why I wrote the book “Scorpions for Breakfast,” I want to tell the truth. And I hope everybody that reads it, that they get that story and they understand we are just simply trying to do the job the federal government won't do. And if the federal government doesn't want to do it, well then they ought to change their laws.

CURRY: What do you say to the Obama administration, that has put out this information that under President Obama more people have been deported for illegal immigration status than under any other president since Eisenhower?

BREWER: Well, I say that's good, if that's factual and if that's true. The General Accounting Office, the GAO, says 55% of our border is not secured, and only 15% of those illegals that are coming across are arrested. That's not a secure border. That's not doing your job.

CURRY: We know you're feisty, Governor Jan Brewer, and in this book you're a fighter. Thank you so much…

BREWER: Thank you.

CURRY: …for speaking to us, and really it's been a pleasure.

BREWER: Thank you.

CURRY: The book is called “Scorpions for Breakfast.”

View source page.

There they go again.

The American left, caught in the act of brandishing their
electronic rope for yet another conservative black man, is busy
dodging their long and horrendous history of racism.

Mother Jones
tries to turn attention from the left’s abysmal record on
lynchings — high tech or with a rope — by re-visiting my
criticism of ex-Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod. My point back
then, of course, was that Ms. Sherrod cited a Supreme Court case in
which she claimed the Court said her relative was lynched. I read
the case. The words “lynch” or “lynching” appeared exactly nowhere
in the case. Ms. Sherrod, surprise, finally emerged as just another
standard left-winger who, sadly, employs race and state to push a
progressive agenda. That was my criticism and it stands.

But the Sherrod incident highlights exactly why leftist
publications are so wildly excitable on the subject of lynching, as
Media Matters is here
as it foams about (the list is long) Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,
Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Monica Crowley, Peter Johnson Jr., Greg
Gutfeld, Brent Bozell, Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit and
yours truly. All of us having in our individual fashion called them
out on their wretched history. (Note to Media Matters: You missed
Mark Levin. Get on the stick over there.)

The American left has a brutal and vivid centuries-long
history on race, as we have previously detailed at length
here and
here. This is a political faith that has historically exhibited
a mind-bending addiction to judging their fellow Americans by skin
color. The point the left didn’t want to go anywhere near in the
Sherrod case is that Sherrod’s relative was beaten to death –
brutally — by the local sheriff, and in 1940s Georgia sheriffs
were part of the Democratic political machinery. And the Supreme
Court case was judged by a lifetime Klan member — Justice Hugo
Black. So whether it was the sheriff on the bottom rung of justice
or the Supreme Court at the top rung, the long hand of the
progressive/racism tie was operating. That tie literally beat a
black man to death — and then sat favorably in judgment of his
killers. Progressives are well on record as having supported
slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan (which actually
ran the 1924 Democratic Convention known to history as the “Klan
Bake”) and every race-based approach to life right on down to
today’s belief in racial quotas and refusing to prosecute the Black
Panther voting rights case in Philadelphia for racial reasons. (See
J. Christian Adams book
Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice
Department.)

To cite one of a gazillion examples, here is the
Republican view of lynching as expressed all the way back in 1924
in its platform of that year:

We urge the Congress to enact at the earliest possible date a
federal anti-lynching law so that the full influence of the federal
government may be wielded to exterminate this hideous crime.

And the Democrats? How did they stand on the lynching issue?

We condemn the efforts of the Republican Party to nationalize
the functions and duties of the states.

Get that? This was the left’s response to the GOP on lynching.
In other words: buzz off. We’re busy lynching black men,
particularly if we catch them associating with white women. Take
your anti-lynching law platform and stuff it.

And, but of course, this anti-anti-lynching plank was
seamlessly tied together with every progressive nostrum of the day,
right down to assailing the GOP for taking campaign funds from
“predatory interests.” The same blather promoted by today’s
progressives in the Citizens United case.

In short?

This is what the left does. Today with Herman Cain,
yesterday with Clarence Thomas, long yesterdays ago with a 1924
platform that essentially issued a coded endorsement of their right
to lynch the uppity black men of their day. And with Shirley
Sherrod’s relative Bobby Hall — who, by the way, was a black man
from Georgia just like Herman Cain.

Nothing has changed this tie between progressives and
racism. The latter is used to drive the policies of the
former.

It was true in 1924. It was true in the 1940s’ Bobby Hall
case. It is true today.

And all you have to do to see the modern version of this
at work is keep your eye on the double-standard being used with the
black Herman Cain and that used to ferociously defend the white
liberal Bill Clinton, the latter accused by three women
successively of rape (Juanita Broaddrick), groping (Kathleen
Willey), and dropping his pants with a request to “kiss it” (Paula
Jones).

What’s unfolding here is a dramatic stripping bare of the
progressive double standard on race and sex. Why? Precisely because
conservatives are fed up with letting these people get away with
the double game. The spotlight is now on.

Make my day: read Mother Jones and Media
Matters.

Where the 21st century version of the sentiments of 1924
progressive/racism ties are carefully updated and skillfully
presented for all to see.

Herman Cain may be President of the United States. He may
never be President of the United States.

But he damn well isn’t going to be lynched for trying to
be President of the United States.

Read original post.

The Obama administration is having a difficult time explaining the unemployment rate, which has been above 9 percent for 27 consecutive months and is today 1.3 percentage points higher than it was when Obama took office. The October numbers, due to be released on Friday, are unlikely to look any better. So, his administration goes to great lengths to spin its own unique set of facts.

Just look at Austan Goolsbee’s Friday interview on Sean Hannity’s radio show. Despite having stepped down as Obama’s chief economic adviser in August, Goolsbee continues to do media shows supporting Obama’s economic policies. Goolsbee declared: “I deal only in facts, Sean.” Here is a simple fact check of Mr. Goolsbee’s claims.

Keep reading this post . . .

View source page.

In a Friday bad-news dump that was a whopper even by its own standards, the Obama administration added to the announcement of a near-record annual deficit and an escalation of undeclared war in Uganda the news that the CLASS Act, an ill-conceived adjunct of the Affordable Care Act, is no more. The upshot is this: Obamacare just got a whole lot more expensive than advertised, and there is reason to believe that its Democratic architects have long known this would happen.

The Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act was the brainchild of the late senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and it was supposed to be a kind of Social Security that provided long-term care for the elderly. It figured heavily into the Democrats’ dubious accounting of the cost of the Affordable Care Act, and at the time of passage was expected to account for $70 billion out of a total $143 billion in “deficit reduction” claimed in the bill.

Keep reading this post . . .

Photo source: Ironic Surrealism

My column today tallies up some of the taxpayer costs imposed by the Kamp Alinsky Kids across the country so far. There have been other nasty consequences, too — like the cancellation of a food drive and festival in Boston due to Occupier overload. Go here to donate. Latest word from NYC is that protesters are gearing up for a sunrise showdown to fight clean-up evacuation by Zuccotti Park’s private owners. (Update: The rabble-rousers got into a scuffle with police, as they wanted. The rabble is still piling up. Several arrests. See NYPost.) In Austin, TX, four squatters were arrested after refusing to leave while city workers power-washed the filthy plaza that served as Occupation Central. We’ve only just begun to see the dark side of the movement. They’ve been spoiling for a fight long before Day One of the Month of Rage.

More updates: The occupiers have met the enemy and it is…SANITATION!

Update: Denver clears occupiers’ camp at the Capitol, arrests 23.

***
Costs of the Occupiers
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011

The trash generated by the “Occupy Wall Street” protests keeps piling up. So do the bills. Liberal media outlets claim the anarchic, anti-capitalist movement is more popular than the Tea Party. But wait until Americans across the country get a full picture of the costs of the aimless occupiers.

In New York City, government officials estimate the month-long siege of Zuccotti Park has now imposed $3.2 million in overtime police costs on the public. On Thursday, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office pressured left-wing activists to vacate the park for cleaning, Occupy Wall Street urged sympathizers to flood the city’s customer services lines: “Call 311 and tell Bloomberg not to evict us!”

In Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter told the press that demonstrators outside city hall have incurred $164,000 in overtime public employee costs and $237,000 in regular time. “At the current rate, if Occupy Philly continues to the end of the month, the city would spend another nearly $690,000 on police overtime alone,” the local NBC affiliate reported. “Besides the extra police presence being dedicated to the Occupy Philly protests, other city departments have also incurred costs.”

In Seattle, police have so far billed $30,000 in overtime and the parks department racked up nearly $4,000 in additional costs related to the protests there. Occupiers have blocked traffic, assaulted an officer, and pitched illegal tents. Merchants in the area have been hurt as the riff-raff deter customers. One business owner in Westlake Park, where hundreds of protesters remain camped out, told Seattle TV station KIRO: “There’s definitely fewer people you can identify as people out, just walking through the area.”

Seattle’s pushover mayor, Democrat Mike McGinn, now faces even greater demands from the insatiable mob – which wants a “guaranteed parking
space near City Hall Plaza that allows for around-the-clock parking,” “24-hour access to the first floor of City Hall for restroom access, and a written statement from the mayor approving the protesters’ long-term occupancy of City Hall Plaza.”

In Boston, City Council President Steve Murphy anticipates a $2 million hit to taxpayers if the protests refuse to disband by the end of October. The local Fox affiliate notes the tab represents 8% of the yearly budget for police overtime. “While we’re all sympathetic with
our protesters down there,” Murphy said, “Wall Street isn’t picking up the tab on this thing. It’s the Boston taxpayers.”

When fiscally conservative Tea Party activists held protests over the past two years, they filed for all the required permits and paid for their own power. Occupy Boston, by contrast, neither sought nor obtained any proper permits at any level, according to the Boston Globe. Instead, city and park officials have been cowed into providing them gratis electricity and camp space lest there be “conflict.”

Many of these occupiers are primarily occupied as paid rent-a-mobsters for unions, left-wing think tanks, and the radical Working Families Party. While one collective hand soaks the taxpayers, the other hand is busy soliciting free stuff. Occupy Los Angeles activists took to
Skype on their laptops to solicit donations of iPhones and iPads.

Occupy Wall Street members on Twitter organized an ongoing “#needsoftheoccupiers” drive for everything from batteries and tarps to “gently used” coats and sweaters, wool socks, sleeping bags, and energy bars. Occupy Austin organizers publicized their wish list, including a free barbecue grill, port-o-potties, extension cords, a Bobcat forestry cutter for clearing brush, and network cameras for a livestream.

These are not principled advocates of fiscal responsibility. They are professional freeloaders.

Unlike Tea Party activists who focused like a laser beam on politicians in both parties responsible for redistributing wealth to Big Business cronies by force, the Occupy Wall Street movement is everywhere and nowhere. The entitled Kamp Alinsky Kids are poaching WiFi and trespassing on private property under the guise of “social justice,” but in plain service of themselves.

Their t-shirts and speeches glorify Marxist radicals Che Guevara, Emiliano Zapata, and Chairman Mao. They lionize convicted Death Row cop killer Troy Davis and WikiLeaks collaborator Bradley Manning. They condemn “Nazi Bankers,” Jews, Fox News, the American Legislative
Exchange Council, Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker, the Koch family, and the New York Police Department (“pigs!”). They promote the illegal alien DREAM Act and 9/11 Trutherism.

They spout bumper-sticker profanities and inanities: “F**k banks.” “Unf**k the world.” “Fuuuuu*k.” “Free education.” “Smash nationalism.”
“People not profits.”

They flash peace signs while celebrity supporter Roseanne Barr calls for beheading financial industry workers and fellow marchers call explicitly for “violent revolution” or for Obama to “Send Seal Team 6” to Wall Street.

Then they huff and puff (preferably in a creepy, uniform chant they call the “human microphone”) that we just haven’t taken the time to understand what they’re all about — as they hawk $20 “Eat the Rich” polo shirts and license their protest photos to Getty Images.

Viva la revolucion! Up with people! Stop the greed! (Cha-ching. Cha-ching.)

***

Related (h/t Hot Air): All I can say is: Mother Fudge Biscuits, these people are ridiculous….

View source page.

**Written by Doug Powers

Vice President Joe Biden spent some time in Florida talking to a class of 5th graders about the economy and his favorite three-letter word, jobs. In his discussion about the troubled economy, do you think Biden was forced to admit to the kids that the stimulus was a waste of a huge amount of money, “we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt” is a ridiculous theory, “green jobs” is a disaster, and that trillions have been charged to their generation and beyond on the Sheriff’s watch alone?

Nah, he just blamed Bush:

“Because things got really bad before we came into office and an awful lot of companies said ‘there’s no more jobs for you here.’”

Is that the same Biden who just last week took ownership of the economy on behalf of the administration? Maybe he got a talking to (and if so he might get another one for this):

 

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

View original article.

I’ve spilt many pixels writing about the constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which are now nearly certain to end up in the just-commenced 2011–12 term of the Supreme Court. But there’s another important health-care lawsuit on the high court’s docket, one that pits the Obama administration against congressional and California Democrats. It’s Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, a case that gets at the fundamental flaw in the humanitarian catastrophe known as Medicaid. That is: What should you do when you can’t make two plus two equal seven?

Numerous studies show that many Medicaid patients have worse outcomes than those with no health insurance at all. This is in large part driven by the fact that Medicaid severely underpays physicians and hospitals for the cost of treating Medicaid patients. As a result, many doctors don’t take appointments from Medicaid patients, leaving our nation’s poorest without access to essential health care.

View original post.

In a 2008 debate, Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital-gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

A most revealing window into our president’s political core: To impose a tax that actually impoverishes our communal bank account (the U.S. Treasury) is ridiculous. It is nothing but punitive. It benefits no one — not the rich, not the poor, not the government. For Obama, however, it brings fairness, which is priceless.

View original post.