A bill intended to stop theft – an important goal, and a necessary function of government.  But SOPA was overly broad, and deserved in its most recent iteration to go away – which it did.

Because of a bipartisan oppositional uprising – but the two sides arose for very different reasons.

The Theft-Left is vociferously opposed to private property rights.  SOPA is aimed at protecting private property.  So the Left said No.

The Right is loathe to grow government control of anything – including the Web.  And having just witnessed the recent Big Government Network Neutrality Internet power grab, their antennae were highly sensitized – and they said No.

Now, Washington is talking cyber security.  Where there is, again, a legitimate role for government – but we have, again, a bill that defines said role much too broadly.

Before we get to SOPA-level heights of righteous (Right) and faux-righteous (Left) indignation, let us reflect – and reset.

—–

The cyber security legislative overreach in question is California Republican Dan Lungren’s HR 3647 – the PrECISE Act.  A similar Senate bill will be proffered on February 17 – by the very awful Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Lungren’s bill makes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the decision-making hub for all things cyber security.  For the government – AND the private sector.

The government would take the lead role in developing, implementing, and conducting on-going tests of cyber incident response plans.

And we all know how well the government does when taking the lead on things.

Lungren’s bill creates a whole new level of bureaucracy – in a nonprofit entity called the National Information Sharing Organization (NISO).  And it sounds an awful lot like some of the criss-cross-government personnel monstrosities created by ObamaCare (and others).  And is a Crony Socialist and Media Marxist nightmare mess waiting to happen.

NISO’s Board of Directors consists of:

• One representative from the Department of Homeland Security and four representatives from three different Federal agencies with significant responsibility for cyber security.

Criss.  Cross.

• Ten private sector representatives, including at least one member representing a small business interest.  These must represent each of the following sectors and sub-sectors:
  • Banking and finance
  • Communications
  • Defense industrial base
  • Energy, electricity sub sector
  • Energy, oil, and natural gas sub sector
  • Heath care and public health
  • Information technology

Behold the Crony Socialist Bureau.  You can just imagine the size of the campaign contributions necessary to land here.  But it’ll be worth it.  You’ll get to then write regulations that benefit you and hamstring your competitors.  And receive exclusive shots at myriad government contracts.  And….

• Two representatives from the privacy and civil liberties community.

Behold the Media Marxist contingent.  Think a free market-oriented technology group like Americans for Prosperity, or Americans for Tax Reform or our Less Government will EVER be chosen for this?

Ummm, no.

It will undoubtedly look like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age.  On which not a single conservative organization sits – but more than a dozen Leftist groups do.

A little ironic for a “diversity” panel, is it not?

And last but not least:

• The Chair of the National Council of Information Sharing and Analysis Center

NISO is a bureaucratic, sclerotic crony-fest at best.  It is a totalitarian Cyber Bureau at worst.

Thanks, but no thanks.

There are better, less government-centric cyber security views out there.  There’s the House Republican Cyber Security Task Force report.  And a quartet of Republican Senators recently penned an op-ed that lays out a much-better-than-Reid-and-Lungren outlook.

Let’s go the less government route, shall we?

—–

These piecemeal attempts at Internet legislation are indicators of a broader problem.

The last time Congress wrote telecommunications law was…1996.  Not to overstate it – but things have changed a little.

(Un)intentional government overreaches like SOPA and the Reid-Lungren cyber security bills keep happening because the Internet (and Internet-connected smart phones) exist in an outdated legal no-mans-land.

Dramatic, intentional power grabs like Net Neutrality are the result of government thuggery – but with some grey-area obfuscation cover provided by this lack of legislative clarity.

Remember, Ladies and Gentlemen, we conservatives believe in less government – not none.  Laws can be written to constrain We the People – or to constrain the government.  They in fact must be written to control the latter.

When the lines aren’t clearly drawn so as to confine the Leviathan – it inexorably expands its reach.  We have long since passed this point with the World Wide Web.

Which has rapidly become a free speech, free market Xanadu.  But in so doing has created some new, unique problems – that do in fact require some legislation.

It is time for a government-confining refresh of the now hopelessly antiquated 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Which will go a long way towards helping put a stop to the Big Government Internet atrocities and absurdities that have recently been foisted upon us.

He’s held big gigs at BMW and Ford.  He also worked way up the food chain at (now $85 billion bailed-out) Chrysler and General Motors (GM) – retiring as GM’s Vice Chairman in 2010.

And he has recently written a piece:

Chevy Volt And The Wrong-Headed Right

…in vociferous defense of the Chevy Volt.

You know, the more-than-$200,000 in government-subsidies-per-unit-sold Volt.

The overproduced, unprofitable, unpopular, combustible Volt.  (And January 2011’s sales were no less disappointing.)

That Chevy Volt.

Are we on the Right wrong-headed?  Let’s take Mr. Lutz’s piece piecemeal and see.

The recent media coverage of so-called “Chevrolet Volt fires,” especially by the conservative talk shows and Fox News, has attracted my attention and ire.

Let’s set out the facts (and feel free to check them yourself):

Don’t mind if we do.

1) Not one Chevrolet Volt has ever caught fire in normal use or in accidents. Not a single one.

Fundamentally untrue, as we laid out in great detail after last week’s House Oversight Volt hearing.

From our piece:

There were in fact three other, private-owner Volt fires.  None of which involved Volts that were in crashes.

These three fires involved Volts that were simply garaged or recharging – i.e. “in normal use.”

More from Mr. Lutz:

2) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), even after the highly artificial crash test (placing the car on its back, even though it did not roll over in the test) nevertheless awarded the Volt NHTSA’s highest crash-safety rating: 5 stars. Volt is supremely safe.

But there wasn’t just one NHTSA fire – there were three.

More from us:

The one NHTSA Volt fire discussed at the hearing was not the only NHTSA Volt fire that occurred.  In November, there were two others.

After conducting three different tests two weeks ago, the NHTSA found that the Volt’s battery either caught fire or began to smoke in two out of the three.

So that’s three Volt fires – all in the hands of the Obama Administration, all after crashes.

For a grand total of six Volt fires (about which we know).

And excuse us for being slightly suspect of the Government’s Five Star rating of Government Motors.

Especially when NHTSA, the Barack Obama White House and GM all covered-up the Volt fire(s) for nearly six months.

Especially when President Barack Obama is campaigning for reelection on the $85 billion auto industry bailout “success,” and showing up at car shows to do it.  So bad news for the Volt and Government Motors is bad news for him and his reelect.

So, again, excuse our suspicion.

More from Mr. Lutz:

3) The crashed Volt, its battery shorted by coolant from the period unjustifiably spent “feet up,” caught fire three weeks after said test. (I submit that this would provide adequate time for surviving passengers to exit the vehicle.)

Again, what about the other five fires?  Three of which were just plugged in or garaged – “in normal use?”

Mr. Lutz:

4) On average, 278,000 cars with gasoline engines caught fire in the U.S. each year between 2003 and 2007, according to the National Fire Protection Association.

True – but gasoline engines are a long-known commodity.  Lithium-ion battery cars are not.

And when the Obama Administration and GM have spent half the Volt’s shelf life covering up Volt flameouts, it certainly warrants additional attention.

Mr. Lutz:

5) No factory-produced electric vehicle has ever caught fire, to the best of my knowledge.

As we’ve just demonstrated, Mr. Lutz needs to better his knowledge.

And Mr. Lutz is making a blanket assertion – applicable beyond just the Volt to all electric cars.  Is he really comfortable going that far?

Mr. Lutz:

6) The Volt, the most technologically advanced car on the planet, was conceived by me and my team well before any federal bailout of GM.

Is the pride of creative authorship clouding Mr. Lutz’s judgement?

I’m not sure the Volt is the “most technologically advanced car on the planet” – given that the 1891 electric Morrison had a better battery range than the Volt.

The Volt was in fact conceived by Mr. Lutz and his team, in 2007.  But I notice, Mr. Lutz, that you didn’t rush to mass-produce it, did you?  It existed only as a visual aide for auto shows – not for actual for-sale production.

Only with the arrival of President Obama – and We the People’s $50 billion – did Volts find their way to the mass-assembly line.

Mr. Lutz:

These are the bedrock facts.

Yours aren’t.  Ours are.

Mr. Lutz:

Now, how did the U.S. right-wing media choose to report this admittedly headline-tempting news?

A nationally syndicated editorial three-panel cartoon stated (I believe I remember the sequence): “Thomas Edison discovered electricity;” then, “Alexander Graham Bell discovered the telephone;” and, in the third panel, “But it took the US Government to discover fire!” (accompanied by a drawing of a burning Chevy Volt).

Come on, that cartoon is just FUNNY.

Mr. Lutz then goes into some detail about Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs (appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News Channel show) publicly decrying the Volt.

Then Mr. Lutz writes:

Much air time was spent on the $50 billion-plus (GM) bailout, which, the audience was left to assume, “funded” the Volt, doubtlessly at the whim of Obama’s known army of evil enviro-Nazis, intent on forcing vehicle electrification on a good-ole’-boy, V8-lovin’ populace.

Again, the Lutz-era GM created the Volt – but never mass-produced it.  Obama and the bailout arrived – and suddenly Government Motors is (sort-of) selling Volts.

Clearly there is some electric vehicle forcing going on.  GM in 2011 produced about 10,000 Volts – and sold only 7,671.  And until very recently – when finally hounded into  submission-to-sales-reality – Akerson and GM were planning on upping 2012 Volt production to 60,000.

Sounds forced to me.

Mr. Lutz:

To top it off, these two media pros lamented the fact that the same government that had forced GM to produce the Volt was now extending $7,500 tax credits towards its purchase, thus squandering even more of “our taxpayer” dollars on this failed Socialist-collectivist flop. Truth? The $7,500 tax credit was enacted under the Bush administration!

True.  But again, you, Mr. Lutz, never produced the Volt for sale under the Bush Administration.  Only after you left, under Obama – when General Motors became with our coin Government Motors – did the foolish tax credit apply to the foolish Volt.

And we Right-wingers have long acknowledged – and publicly decried and lamented – many terrible Bush Administration policies.  The $7,500-per-foolish-car is but another.

Mr. Lutz:

But who the hell cares about facts when you’re in O’Reilly’s self-described “No Spin Zone?” (The fine print might as well read, “We said ‘no spin,’ not ‘no deliberate misstatement of facts.’ ”)

Again, as we have thoroughly demonstrated, it is the esteemed Mr. Lutz that is misstating and omitting facts.

Mr. Lutz:

What on Earth is wrong with the conservative media movement that it feels it’s OK to spread false information, OK to damage the reputation of perhaps the finest piece of mechanical technology our country has produced since the space shuttle, OK to hurt an iconic American company that is roaring back to global pre-eminence, OK to hurt American employment in Hamtramck, Mich., as long as it damages the Obama administration’s reputation?

It is Obama that is staking his reputation – and his reelection effort – on the $50 billion GM bailout and the Volt.

If our pointing out egregious, inconvenient facts is harmful thereto, it is simply happy collateral damage.

Mr. Lutz concludes:

While as a conservative Republican I may well share the goal, I deplore the means employed to attain it. The conservative cause damages itself, destroys its credibility through the expedient spreading of untruths. The public will figure it out.

The right-wing “talking heads”, O’Reilly and Limbaugh at the forefront, have managed to make me embarrassed to describe myself as a conservative.

Come on, you guys. Shape up! There’s plenty of legitimate fodder out there. Let’s leave the “invention of facts” to the left-wing climate-change alarmists.

Unfortunately for Mr. Lutz – and the Obama Administration – there are plenty of inconvenient truths about Government Motors, the Obama Administration bailout and the absurd Chevy Volt.

And we “wrong-headed” Right-wingers are the only ones delivering them.

Mr. Lutz is in need of but a minor recalibration.  The Chevy Volt he’s defending may be unrecoverable.

When CBO issued new numbers early last year, I repeated the exercise and again found that the same modest level of budgetary restraint would eliminate red ink in about 10 years.

And when CBO issued their update last summer, I did the same thing and once again confirmed that deficits would disappear in a decade if politicians didn’t let the overall budget rise by faster than 2 percent each year.

Well, the new CBO 10-year forecast was released this morning. I’m going to give you three guesses about what I discovered when I looked at the numbers, and the first two don’t count.

Yes, you guessed it. As the chart illustrates (click to enlarge), balancing the budget doesn’t require any tax increases. Not does it require big spending cuts (though that would be a very good idea).

Even if we assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, all that is needed is for politicians to put government on a modest diet so that overall spending grows by about 2 percent each year. In other words, make sure the budget doesn’t grow faster than inflation.

Tens of millions of households and businesses manage to meet this simple test every year. Surely it’s not asking too much to get the same minimum level of fiscal restraint from the crowd in Washington, right?

At this point, you may be asking yourself whether it’s really this simple. After all, you’ve probably heard politicians and journalists say that deficits are so big that we have no choice but to accept big tax increases and “draconian” spending cuts.

But that’s because politicians use dishonest Washington budget math. They begin each fiscal year by assuming that spending automatically will increase based on factors such as inflation, demographics, and previously legislated program changes.

This creates a “baseline” and if they enact a budget that increases spending be less than the baseline, that increase magically becomes a cut. This is what allowed some politicians to say that last year’s Ryan budget cut spending by trillions of dollars even though spending actually would have increased by an average of 2.8 percent each year.

Needless to say, proponents of big government deliberately use dishonest budget math because it tilts the playing field in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.

There are two important caveats about these calculations.

1. We should be dramatically downsizing the federal government, not just restraining its growth. Even if he’s not your preferred presidential candidate, Ron Paul’s proposal for an immediate $1 trillion reduction in the burden of federal spending is a very good idea. Merely limiting the growth of spending is a tiny and timid step in the right direction.

2. We should be focusing on the underlying problem of excessive government, not the symptom of too much red ink. By pointing out the amount of spending restraint that would balance the budget, some people will incorrectly conclude that getting rid of deficits is the goal.

Last but not least, here is the video I narrated in 2010 showing how red ink would quickly disappear if politicians curtailed their profligacy and restrained spending growth.

Other than updating the numbers, the video is just as accurate today as it was back in 2010. And the concluding message – that there is no good argument for tax increases – also is equally relevant today.

P.S. Some people will argue that it’s impossible to restrain spending because of entitlement programs, but this set of videos shows how to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

P.P.S. Some people will say that the CBO baseline is unrealistic because it assumes the sequester will take place. They may be right if they’re predicting politicians are too irresponsible and profligate to accept about $100 billion of annual reductions from a $4,000 billion-plus budget, but that underscores the core message that there needs to be a cap on total spending so that the crowd in Washington isn’t allowed to turn America into Greece.

I attended Wednesday’s 8:00am (8am?!?) House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing entitled:

Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know And When Did They Know It?

The witnesses were killer:

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), Barack Obama-appointee Administrator David Strickland.

And General Motors (GM), Barack Obama-appointee CEO Dan Akerson.

The scope of the hearing was a bit too narrow – leaving out some fairly important attending facts.  Like, say, the (at least) five other Chevy Volt fires that have occurred besides the one being discussed.

This hearing was all about a single June Volt blaze.  The battery burst into flames about three weeks after a test crash at and by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).

A fire about which Obama’s NHTSA did tell the Obama White House.

But a fire about which neither Obama’s NHTSA, the Obama Administration nor Obama’s GM told the American people for nearly six months – and then did so only when forced by a looming Bloomberg news story.

But:

The White House had no role in the decision to delay disclosure of a fire that broke out in a crash-tested Chevrolet Volt, the Obama administration told Congress on Friday.

Of COURSE not.

But:

Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA believes part of the reason for the delay was the “fragility of Volt sales.” Yet she also believes that “NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert, not to tell them [customers] for six months makes no sense to me.”

Obama is running for reelection in great part on the non-success “success” of the $85 billion auto industry bailout.

On which he once promised we’d make money.  Then had to begrudgingly up the (admitted to) loss from $14.3 billion to $23.6 billion.

And We the Taxpayers still own 500 million shares of GM stock – which is tanking.  So that loss number still has growth prospects.

That auto industry bailout “success.”

Obama mentioned GM prominently in Tuesday night’s campaign – I mean State of the Union – speech:

America: Built to (Be) Last

And had as one of his bio-props – I mean guests – a GM plant manager.

The takeaway from all of this?

For Obama, notifying Americans of their potential immolation-by-Volt is of less import than his keeping his gig past November.

—–

And there’s tremendous immolation potential.

The one NHTSA Volt fire discussed at the hearing was not the only NHTSA Volt fire that occurred.  In November, there were two others.

After conducting three different tests two weeks ago, the NHTSA found that the Volt’s battery either caught fire or began to smoke in two out of the three.

So that’s three Volt fires – all in the hands of the Obama Administration, all after crashes.

But Obama’s GM now says they’ve fixed the problem – and the Obama Administration has (shocker) given GM the good-to-go.

So all is well, right?

Ummm, no.  There were in fact three other, private-owner Volt fires.  None of which involved Volts that were in crashes.

—–

There was the Volt that in April burst into flames – twice.  These were the fires that led to Obama’s NHTSA beginning its investigation.

And then in November another Volt leapt into flames.  While Obama’s NHTSA was still investigating – but after the NHTSA-Obama Administration-GM cover-up had come to light (get it?).

The home that garaged this particular immolated Volt gets its power from Duke Energy – which after the fire felt compelled to issue a warning:

Duke Energy officials want anyone who has a (Volt) charging station to stop using it until they know the devices are safe.

So the charging station is at least suspect.  (So too the charging station cable?)

We still have no idea what caused these fires.  The only thing we do know is that they were not caused by crashes – because these cars were never in crashes.

So why did Obama’s NHTSA, the Obama Administration and Obama’s GM singularly focus on (but one of three) post-crash Volt fires?

When none of these three privately-owned combustible Volts had been in accidents?

We – still – don’t know.  Anything.

But don’t worry: The Obama Administration has declared that the Obama-owned GM Chevy Volt is perfectly safe – just in time for Obama’s reelection campaign.

And GM’s new Volt ad campaign, which is pretty much entitled:

If You Don’t Like the Volt, You Don’t Like America

Don’t you feel safer?

Romney fits right into the Left’s absurd anti-capitalism, “robber baron,” Occupy Wall Street anti-1%-er, scorched earth storyline.

Romney is very wealthy, which for Obama and his Democrats is the height of eee-vill (except – these Donkeys are mostly rich…).  Never mind that Romney’s wealth is right in line with many past Presidents and candidates – including 2004 Democrat nominee John Kerry.  (The difference?  Romney earned it, Kerry married it.)

And as Romney recently told us, he these days pays the 15% capital gains tax rate – rather than the (absurdly) higher income tax rates those of us receiving salaries do.  Never mind that this is perfectly legal (and good fiscal policy, and “fair”) – it is culled right from the Leftist, Warren Buffett “I pay less in taxes than my secretary” fraudulent script.

—–

How did Romney make his coin?  Via the epitome of eeeee-villll free market entities – the venture capital firm.  His was, of course, Bain Capital.

Yes, Bain sometimes invests in failing companies.  Some of which they determine to be not worth saving, so down they go.  Welcome to Reality, Boys and Girls.

See, President Obama – it’s kind of like your “investing” in Solyndra, and Fisker, and Beacon Power, and….  Only President Obama – yours never work out.  And Bain would never dump money into such absurd companies or concepts.  And Bain uses their own coin, not ours.

Bain has created far more jobs than they’ve closed down – which again makes them the polar opposite of Obama, Inc.  There is no Staples, Sports Authority or myriad other Bain-like successes to which Obama can point and say “See, my government ‘investment’ did that.”

“‘Shovel-ready’ wasn’t as shovel-ready as we expected.”  And “created or saved” doesn’t cut it – and fooled only the foolish.

—–

And, of course, the Obama Administration is chock full of Wall Street 1%-ers.  Whom they vilify and legislatively assault by day – and shake down for campaign cash by night.  Heck, Democrats receive more contributions from Bain Capital than do Republicans.  Obama has his own self received $80,000 from Romney’s old digs.

And the new Obama Administration acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jeffrey Zients, worked for Bain Capital.

And behold Obama, Inc. campaign adviser Stephanie Cutter.  Who just wrote a scathing memo about Romney’s Bain days – subtitled “Profit at Any Cost.”

Cutter sounded like a sworn enemy of private equity.  Except a few years ago, she was a spokeswoman for J.C. Flowers, a private-equity firm….

Presumably Cutter wanted to be as well compensated as possible, by J.C. Flowers and the “several Fortune 500 companies” her communications firm served, according to her bio.

Just another poster-child for Obama, Inc.’s “Poverty for Thee – Not for Me,” DC-Wall Street Nexis.

For Obama, Inc., Bain’s good for campaign fodder – and campaign cash.  And, as it turns out, even more than that.

—–

We’ve just discussed Bain Capital investing – vis a vis Obama, Inc. “investing.”

One of the biggest Taxpayer Money “investments” is the $50+ billion in General Motors (GM).  Which has been an unmitigated disaster.

President Obama once promised us we’d make money on the auto bailout – then had to begrudgingly up the (admitted to) loss from $14.3 billion to $23.6 billion.  And We the Taxpayers still own 500 million shares of GM stock – which is tanking.  So that loss number still has growth potential.

GM is foundering because they insist on doing fabulous things like overproduce the unprofitable, unpopular, combustible Chevy Volt.  And in 2010 file for more green non-energy “energy patents – a la Solyndra, Fisker, etc. – than any other company in America.

As GM continued to sink like a stone, guess who Obama’s Auto Task Force asked for assistance in trying to turn around their colossal automotive failure?

Why, Romney’s ex- Bain Capital – and their fellow Wall Streeters.

Oops.

Obama Administration officials working on a turnaround of General Motors and Chrysler asked for advice from the consulting firm Bain & Company, among other consulting firms, speaking to partners there at least twice, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations.

In addition, a partner at Bain & Company later detailed his advice on the auto companies when he was contacted for a follow-up review by the office of the inspector general for TARP, according to that office.

—–

Obama will this year be trying to convince We the People to give him four more years in the White House.

Not because of anything he’s done – because what he’s done has been atrocious – but to prevent an evil 1%-er from succeeding him.

And if that proposed successor is Romney, Obama, Inc. has the anti-Bain Capital dossier already prepared and at the ready.

But when it came down to it, Obama, Inc. had to admit that they had with GM (and just about everything else) absolutely no idea what they were doing.

And they had to go to…Bain Capital, and their fellow eeee-villl Wall Streeters, to ask for help in trying to salvage their incredible failure.

Whose expert advice he desperately sought as he amateurishly blew up General Motors – and our $50+ billion.

I too am opposed to this iteration of SOPA – it remains too overly broad.

But something similar and more finely, sharply crafted – must become law.  And conservatives will need to reorient themselves when a better version of the bill comes along – and support it.

—–

We cannot look at the SOPA debate without putting it into the broader context of the immediately preceding Network Neutrality debate.

Conservatives rightly became highly tuned to Internet censorship as a result of the Left’s drive to impose the truly censorious Net Neutrality by any means necessary.

Following so closely on Net Neutrality’s heels, SOPA got swallowed up in this righteous protect-free-speech verve.

But there are some fundamental differences between SOPA and Net Neutrality that must be acknowledged.

SOPA addresses a legitimate problem – Net Neutrality does not.

SOPA is intended to shut down international stealing online.  Which is a 10s if not 100s of billions of dollars a year problem.

We as Conservatives are for maximum freedom – within the confines of law and order.  We believe in property rights as a fundamental building block for a free and prosperous society.

We can not stand by and allow theft – of this gi-normous magnitude – to go on unabated.

Net Neutrality was and remains a “solution” running around in search of a problem.

Allegedly necessary to stop private companies from blocking Internet content, even the most virulent Net Neutrality proponent begrudgingly admits there isn’t a single private company currently doing so.

But with China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and on, and on, and… – there are examples aplenty of governments blocking Internet content.

So the Left’s “solution” to alleged private sector content-blocking is to bring in government – the one entity that actually is serially blocking content all the world over.

—–

Net Neutrality is a legitimate free speech problem – SOPA’s stolen speech is not “free speech.”

Unless by “free speech” the Left means no cost to them.

Net Neutrality’s assault is on private broadband networks.  Which is how we get to every website on Planet Earth.  It thusly places the government in control of every single website on Planet Earth.

So Net Neutrality is a legitimate, serious threat to free speech.

SOPA does what Net Neutrality does not – targets individual sites that are engaged in illegal activity.  And can not do even that until a warrant from a judge is obtained.

Again, this site targeting must be made more narrow and specific.  But the fact that SOPA deals with identified illegally-trading sites – and the fact that a judge and subsequent warrant must first be engaged – mitigates greatly the free speech concerns.

And stolen property is not magically transformed into protected speech just because someone after the heist hangs it on the Web.

Net Neutrality is a threat to all websites all the time – and there’s neither a judge nor his warrant standing in the way.

—–

The anti-SOPA Left is in it for reasons other than those they state.

The same Leftists that have been screeching and misleading about the censorship dangers of a targeted, site(s)-specific SOPA – are the same Leftists who rammed through the far more dangerous, all-Internet-encompassing Net Neutrality.

Here, their ideological hypocrisy induces whiplash.

On SOPA, they caterwaul things like:

…(I)t would be a mistake to adopt the…approach…The problem…is that they go after all the wrong problems…There are a whole bunch of issues involved with breaking the Internet and the way it works…

—

Internet censorship is coming to America …

—

Every site with user-generated content, including this one, would be put at risk…

But on Net Neutrality, it’s get-the-government-involved-at-all-costs – and complain that the government isn’t involved enough:

Late Monday, a majority of the FCC’s commissioners indicated that they’re going to vote with (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski for a toothless Net Neutrality rule…The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it’s become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users…

—

Julius Genachowski’s pretend net neutrality plan…Genachowski’s own statement…portends the expected disaster. The list of “supporters” of his rule include front groups being paid by the telecoms, and the Communication Workers of America, which has always lined up behind AT&T on net neutrality.

—

…The big telecom companies have claimed network neutrality violates their First Amendment rights by limiting their ability to act as editor of our online experience. But free speech is a two-way street and includes access to information…what threatens the Internet’s valuable democratic and participatory nature now isn’t the government, but corporate censorship…

Let us remember that there is literally no such thing as “corporate censorship” – at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.  The First Amendment states that:

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

It provides protection only from/against – the government.  You may or may not like what companies at any time do or do not do. But whatever it is – or is not – it is never a First Amendment violation.  By definition.

So, again, the Left claims that Net Neutrality is a protection against censorship.  When it dramatically increases the role of the only actual censorship agent there is – government.

—–

The Left’s sudden interest, with SOPA, in preventing government involvement in the Web is only because of what the government would be doing under SOPA – protecting private property rights.

The Left, as we know, has never been a big fan of property rights.  And they have no problem with the government minimizing or eliminating them.

Take the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – please. Or ask any landowner who has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blocking their doing – anything on their land.  The examples are myriad.

But get the government involved in protecting property rights – as SOPA does – and the Left goes nuts.

Think of their aversion to police officers having the audacity to, you know, enforce the law.  Or to border patrol agents – enforcing the border.  The examples are myriad.

The movies, music and other items being illegally sold on these SOPA sites are, of course, someone else’s stolen private property.  And that doesn’t bother the Left a whit – in fact, they kind of like it.

For but one of the myriad examples out there, see: Google ripping off tens of thousands of books.

The Left cries “censorship” to sell their SOPA opposition to others – when it in reality has nothing to do with why they are opposed.

—–

There will likely be down the road another version of SOPA-esque legislation offered.  There quite simply has to be.

If it is improved sufficiently, we as property rights, law and order Conservatives should support it.

And leave the Theft-Libertarianism to the Leftists, with whom it belongs.

The attempted spoonful-of-sugar to help force down the bad Progressive medicine they are pushing.

Which brings us to General Motors (GM) and one of the Leftist ideological windmills at which they tilt – the Chevy Volt.

We the Taxpayers have spent billions subsidizing the Volt.  And continue subsidizing it still.

We bailed out GM ($50 billion) and Chrysler to the tune of $83 billion.  On which the Obama Administration now admits we’ll lose (at least) $23.6 billion.  (President Obama once upon a time promised us we’d actually make money on the deal.)

We the Taxpayers are still stuck holding 500 million shares of GM stock – on which we are poised to lose tens of billions of dollars more.

But you know what makes all of this terrible-ness so much less worse?  GM spent some of our money on – the Chevy Volt official song and music video:

Don’t you feel better?

The GM-official “GMVolt” YouTube video page description of which reads as follows:

Chevrolet’s official Chevy Volt fun and educational song set to a historical collage of developments and progress as captured on the website GM-Volt.com.

“Educational” – like the aforementioned government elementary school songs are “educational.”

Now, a defense could be proffered that companies write songs and cut videos for advertising purposes all the time.  Fine and true.  That being said, this Volt song was (as far as I can find) never made into an actual ad.

GM’s official YouTube posting of it has only (as of this writing) 30,048 views.  And it does not appear on the aforementioned GM-Volt.com’s video page.

The song is a total (if unintentional for GM) joke – and we get that it is.  This is not the end of the world.  It is just another ridiculous aspect of the ridiculous from-the-start Chevy Volt – and auto bailout.

And the joke gets worse.

At the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show, GM also gave us – the Chevy Volt Dancers:

A troupe with a routine devised to accompany the Chevy Volt tune.

Just what every car company needs – a band with a floor show.

Do not attempt to operate heavy machinery for up to 24 hours after viewing either of these videos.  If you’ve watched both, you may want to contact your physician.

—–

All of this is yet another reason to be thankful that We the People have spent nearly $60 billion propping up General Motors and subsidizing the Chevy Volt.

Don’t you feel thankful?