Sunday, March 14, 2010

Following Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Once Again, Dem Operatives Mock Their Own Efforts to Throw Off Critics

By Ned Barnett

Saul Alinsky is the late philosopher of American far-left radicalism. His book, "Rules for Radicals," influenced young Hillary Clinton while she was in Law School at Yale. Former Professor Obama used it as a teaching tool in his classroom activities and in his efforts on behalf of ACORN to "organize" the "community" in poorer sections of Chicago in the years before he became a U.S. Senator and later our 44th President.

However, these two national political leaders are not the only individuals who turn to Saul Alinsky for guidance in their own political activities. One prominent Nevada political commentator, Jon Ralston, is also a devotee of Alinsky's. His make-believe column in Sunday, March 14th's Las Vegas Sun is a classic example of Alinsky in action.

Background: If you're politically aware and live in Nevada, and you don't know that the Las Vegas Sun's Jon Ralston is a committed left-wing operative, you're just not paying attention. Ralston conducts an almost ratings-free political interview show, and writes a column for a newspaper (the Sun) that ceased to exist as an independent evening newspaper some years ago, staggering on as an 8-page supplement to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. In short, he doesn't have a big audience or a big constituency - but thanks to the internet, and the appearance of having two presumably large audiences (his seldom-read newspaper column and his rarely-watched TV interview program), Mr. Ralston has a voice and influence via the Internet far beyond his actual traditional-media impact.

Beyond the borders of Nevada, and beyond the circle of politically-aware Nevadans, Ralston has perceived influence and real credibility among those who don't understand that he's a committed partisan on the Left. Which is one reason why his columns and TV interviews have such power - others (including Fox News) assume that Mr. Ralston is a powerful and centrist (or at least objective) political observer, and they give their own voice and credence to his political observations.

Before you read Mr. Ralston's column (below), please read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - then, as you read the Ralston column, ask yourself which rules he's exercised in writing this fantasy about a meeting that never took place - a fantasy meeting in which absurdity blends with fact to create the illusion of credibility.

Rules for Radicals

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...


Jon Ralston's Alinsky-like "make-believe" fantasy column, March 14, 2010, Las Vegas Sun

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/14/imagining-covert-meeting-sabotage-nevada-gop/

Imagining the covert meeting to sabotage the Nevada GOP


By Jon Ralston

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a spy in his inner circle — the man has since left the state and changed his name because of what he heard about Reid’s evil ways — a Benedict Arnold only too willing to tape a clandestine conversation and then provide it to me.

(Note to Reid, but not to give away a source: He was the only one sipping tea and with the Armenian last name.)

I have since transcribed the colloquy, which took place a couple of months ago — I am protecting the names of everyone but Prince Reid:

Reid: “So we all know the problem — me. My numbers are horrible. I can’t keep my foot out of my mouth. And Obama is killing me. Without some scheme, the election is lost.”

Pollster: “I have an idea, Senator. The only way for you to win is to siphon enough votes from the Republican to let you squeak by.”

Reid: “I know that. That’s why I am going to vaporize Sue Lowden. She may still look good on TV, but after I am done with her, she won’t look so good.”

Aide: “Senator, the point is that’s not going to be enough, whether it’s Lowden, or Tarkanian or Angle or even that New York banker.”

Reid (chuckling): “Don’t forget Chad Christensen.”

Pollster: “Hey, even he could win in this climate. The point is, Senator, you can’t beat any Republican straight up. People just dislike you so much that we need to find another way. A third way, so to speak.”

Reid: “You mean a third party.”

Pollster: “Exactly.”

Reid: “So we need to find someone to start a third party?”

Aide: “That’s right. And guess what? There is no Tea Party yet in Nevada officially filed with the secretary of state. How good would that be?”

Reid: “Beautiful. The best way to do it would be to find someone who is not a Democrat to start the party and then find a totally clean horse, someone with no business problems at all, someone who can legitimately claim to be a Tea Partier. But that would be too suspicious. So let’s do a CIA-type deal on them and find a Democrat to start the party and find a guy who has all kinds of business problems so he might have to drop out before he can help me. That makes sense, right?”

Aide: “Really, Senator? That doesn’t sound like the Machiavellian guy we know. That sounds like some kind of black helicopter nuttiness.”

Reid: Exactly. That’s how we will throw them off. And let’s find some Armenian guy, too, because that will send Danny into orbit. And make him a Mormon, too, because that will cause even more suspicion. You know we are all alike. (Chuckles.)”

Armenian Aide, sipping tea: “I have just the guy, as it happens, Senator.”

Reid: “What?! Who?”

AA: “His name is Scott Ashjian. His whole family hates you, but one of his good friends is a Democratic lawyer named Barry Levinson. We get Levinson to start up this deal, blow some smoke at Ashjian and viola, we have our guy.”

Reid: “But does the guy have some bad business dealings, too? We need that so we can triple-blind, double-reverse, one half-nelson this. Or whatever. Wouldn’t want to put a clean horse in there and have a well-known conservative start the Tea Party of Nevada. That would make it too credible.”

Aide: “Business problems? The guy has a $200,000 IRS lien. He’s had property foreclosed on, businesses go out of business. He’s perfect.”

Reid: “And he’s Armenian, too? Those people all stick together and Tark will go bonkers.”

AA: “And guess what? He’s an Armenian Mormon convert. I doubt he even knows the secret handshake yet, but no one else will know that. (Chuckles.)”

Pollster: “Senator, you know the Republicans will try to discredit this guy, accuse you of planting him. The media will be skeptical, too.”

Reid: “So what? Let them squawk. We will not leave fingerprints. That’s our specialty. And because they can’t connect this guy to me, it will just make them even more nutty. They will say all kinds of crazy stuff. Just wait. The so-called ‘real’ Tea Party folks will claim he is illegitimate. Get that: One group of flakes saying another group is not flaky enough. I love it. This is too good to be true.”

Aide: “It just might work, Senator. If this guy gets some traction, and enough people choose ‘none of the above’ because of our negative campaign, you just might survive.”

Reid: “Put the Super-Secret Armenian Mormon Flawed Businessman Tea Party Diversion Plan into action right away.”

End of article

Look again at Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and determine for yourself which of these rules Mr. Ralston has followed in writhing his satiric "Imagine" column today. Here are the rules I think Mr. Ralston followed in writing this article:

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
Mr. Ralston has the perceived power of the press, and he is taken seriously by people who do not understand how limited his readership is, or the far-Left nature of his perspectives.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." Clearly, Mr. Ralston is trying to ridicule all of those who believe or suspect that Jon Scott Ashjian and the bogus-third-party Tea Party of Nevada are tools of Reid's desperate attempt to steal a re-election he can't win fair-and-square.

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." Making fun of the opposition is generally entertaining, and Mr. Ralston has a gift for Swiftian satire as well as an "Airplane - the Movie" like absurdity that is entertaining, even to those being skewered.

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose." Mr. Ralston has been debunking those who distrust Mr. Ashjian's campaign - who see his campaign as a clever attempt to split the grass roots movement and allow Harry Reid to squeak by in a closely-contested three-way race. This fantasy column, ripe with satire, is just one of several methods he's using to chip away at the grass roots.

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign." Once again, Mr. Ralston never misses the opportunity to discredit or attack the grass roots - mocking them is one more effective way that Ralston has mastered.

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative." Ditto. Using satire is a subtle, effective way of breaking through to what Alinsky called the "counterside." It is harder to maintain focus when being mocked than when being attacked openly.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... Once again, Ralston has carefully followed Alinsky in "freezing" the opposition in place. He is mocking the opposition, showing them to be on the tinfoil-helmet fringe - and that freezes them in place, a place that no rational mind would take seriously.

There is no question that the Ashjian candidacy will split the grass roots vote. There are tens of thousands of Nevadans who share beliefs with the grass roots - the real tea party activists - but who are themselves politically unaware of the behind-the-scenes machinations. The Las Vegas Review-Journal recently conducted a poll that showed Ashjian - totally unknown, with no public positions or track record - received, as the candidate of the "Tea Party of Nevada," 18 percent of the voters' support. That 18 percent represents the aspirations of conservative Nevadans who "assume" that if you're the candidate of the "Tea Party of Nevada," then you're the candidate of the grass roots.

That naming tactic is proving effective. Ralston's satiric Alinsky-like tactics will, unless exposed, do more to re-elect Harry Reid by giving Ashjian's campaign far more credibility than it deserves.

Ned Barnett

http://nevadapoliticsmatters.blogspot.com/2010/03/following-alinskys-rules-for-radicals.html

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Follow the Money - To Scott Ashjian's Hidden Backers

By Ned Barnett

Here is one of those “follow the money” leads.

If you follow Nevada politics, you know about how the big-money Casino industry leaders who lined up in forming 100 Republicans for Reid. These were traditional Republican big-bucks-boys - the kind you'd expect would support Sue Lowden because of her own big-money casino ties - but who obviously see more financial benefit from Reid's reinstatement ... people who are linked to R&R, which is behind Reid's re-election bid, even though R&R's Sid Rogish used to be a Reagan-backing Republican.

This group is doing much to undermine the conservative Republican efforts, favoring instead the "realpolitik" choice of backing a corrupt Majority Leader because of what he can (presumably) do to help line their pockets. Even though he's done nothing to get Obama to back off attacking Las Vegas. Politics of Convenience does indeed create strange bedfellows.

With all of that in mind, it has come to light from a source I trust - who is nonetheless terrified (literally) of going public - that this group long ago selected Scott Ashjian to adopt the Tea Party mantle, to run against Reid, but in a way that will ensure Reid's election by splitting conservatives. He was chosen by this group with no apparent fingerprints, to do Reid's bidding without Reid's visible or provable involvement. To help focus this interest, if you check Ashjian’s LLCs (he has a dozen or more) you’ll see his direct ties to the Casino industry. That could prove the smoking gun - not to Reid, but to the "100 Republican" Reid supporters.

For his part, Ashjian is “confident” (see his interview with Jon Ralston if you want to see "confident") because he knows he’s got those deep Casino "Republican" pro-Reid pockets behind him. My sources have the information that substantiates, but as I said, they are literally afraid to be seen leaking it – afraid for their jobs, or worse. I don’t share that fear, but at the same time I can’t shake them of this fear.

For those of you who are interested in digging out the truth about Ashjian, knowing where to begin (the 100 Republicans for Reid went public, so their names and business affiliations are out there), will make it possible for you to find the smoking gun to show that Ashjian is the puppet of a group of very well-heeled Republicans who are fronting for the Reid campaign.

As I said, there are (likely) no fingerprints to the Reid campaign directly, yet if we can establish this link, we'll be able to show that Ashjian is nonetheless the creature of re-elect Reid movement.

It’s actually one hell of a good sting for taking down the Tea Party movement. Consider this:

1. Ashjian will have enough money to run a creditable campaign and reach out to people who’re pro-Tea Party but not politically active or aware (so they’ll take him at his word)

2. Ashjian’s being controlled puppet-master style (and funded) by pro-Reid people but with a complete and creditable cut-out that distances Ashjian from the formal Reid campaign

3. Unless the media can prove this to themselves (and then prove it to their audiences and the public) that this is for-real, the media will treat Ashjian as a legitimate third party – and will probably give him more than his fair share of coverage because the issue of the tea party being a Party or just a Movement is a national issue – and this is one place that the Tea Party Party (hence my nickname for it, “Tea Party Squared”) could really influence the outcome of the election. They are, in fact, already doing so.

Only the light of truth will prove this out, and it’s up to people who care about the truth - and who have the skills and contacts to dig this out and figure out what’s happening - to shine that light on Ashjian and on Reid's renegate rich Republican supporters.

I hope you’ll be one of those who has the time, resources and interest to dig this truth out. If you find out anything, my contact information is below.

Ned

Ned Barnett
420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276
Las Vegas NV 89110
702-696-1200 - office
702-561-1167 - cell/text
ned@barnettmarcom.com

Endorsing Fiore: Nevada Congressional District One Gains A Strong Conservative Challenger

By Ned Barnett

You may not know Michele Fiore - yet - but she is a powerful, conservative woman who you will want to get to know. She has emerged from being a self-funded challenger for the Nevada Senate District 9 seat to become the leading grass-roots conservative Republican candidate for Shelley Berkley's Congressional seat.

A few "full disclosure" statements.

1. I first met Michele several years ago when discussing ways of marketing her remarkably good first-time film, SIREN, a theatrical film she wrote, produced, directed. I liked her when I met her; more important, I respected her as a visionary businesswoman, as a creative film producer and as a human being.

2. Last December, I met with Michele several times to help her launch her Senate District 9 election. I got to know her politically, and I got to know her as a businesswoman who owns and successfully manages (under intense government pressure that most in healthcare have come to know and loathe) a caring, humane business that helps Medicaid and Medicare patients receive non-medical home healthcare support to allow them to live independently in their homes instead of becoming institutionalized. Along the way, she created more than 1,300 jobs in Southern Nevada, while helping countless elderly and infirm citizens.

3. I was the first to pass along a lead to Michele about an opportunity to run for Congress and receive strong financial support for a viable attempt by a conservative woman to take down Shelley Berkley. I didn't make it happen, but I as a small cog in that wheel of events.

That being said, I am thrilled to report on her candidacy and to endorse Michele Fiore as a truly grass-roots candidate who can take back CD1 and return Las Vegas, Nevada to conservative representation in Washington.

Here is the full story, written by Chuck Muth and published today in Nevada News & Views: http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2010/03/13/hell-hath-no-fiore-like-a-craig-lake-scorned/ After this story (click on the link to see the article and the published comments), I'll fill in a few blanks, based on information I have and involvement I had in the process.

Hell Hath No Fiore like a Craig Lake Scorned -

(Chuck Muth) – Last minute filing maneuvers likely helped Republicans in three different races yesterday while administering a Brett Michaels-like screw job to one candidate.

If EVER there was going to be a chance to take out Rep. Shelley Berkley in Nevada’s CD 1 race, THIS is the year. And the conventional wisdom is that a woman backed by big bucks would have a better chance to win against the incumbent Democrat than a man.

As such, gaming chief Steve Wynn, reportedly furious with Berkley over her support for ObamaCare, has been actively looking for such a woman for weeks now. Word on the street was that Wynn, and possibly others with deep pockets, are willing to expend six-, maybe even seven-figures, in independent expenditures in this race if the right woman surfaced.

Earlier this week, Wynn met with and was impressed by conservative businesswoman Michelle Fiore – who at the time was running in the state Senate District 9 race against RINO (Republican In Name Only) state Sen. Dennis Nolan.

And Fiore had a clear shot at Nolan after Republican Assemblyman Chad Christensen arguably committed political suicide by dropping out of the SD 9 race last week and instead opted for the glory of being the sole GOP/LDS candidate in the U.S. Senate race. Of course, that was until Garn “Maybe” Mabey threw his hat and monkey wrench into Chad’s plans.

But back to Fiore.

Not sure whose idea it was, but about a week ago Michelle popped up on the CD 1 radar screen. She met with Wynn this week who, I’m told, was favorably impressed and gave his blessing. She also met with Nevada GOP leaders who, likewise, were favorably impressed – especially with the fact that Wynn was favorably impressed.

So impressed, by the way, that all three members of the Nevada Republican delegation to the Republican National Committee – Chairman Chris (Dis)Comfort, National Committeeman Bob List and National Committeewoman Heidi Smith – signed a “Rule 11” letter for Fiore.

A Rule 11 letter is rare but extremely valuable. It is, in reality, a pre-primary endorsement of a candidate. It provides the candidate with party resources not available to other Republicans in the race, including access to all-important donor databases, as well as gives a green light to national PACs to contribute to the anointed one.

Joe Heck, Republican candidate against Democrat incumbent Dina Titus in the Third Congressional District is also the beneficiary of a Rule 11 letter.

So, armed with the party’s Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, access to donors she wouldn’t have otherwise, and the suggestions (promises?) of significant independent expenditures being expended on her (non-coordinated) behalf against her opponent, Fiore decided Thursday night to make the switch.

You can learn more about Michelle Fiore HERE on her campaign website.

Oh, and something not widely known or advertised yet, Fiore produced an independent film titled “Siren” in which she played the lead role a couple years back. Click HERE to get the details of the movie about an ordinary, middle-aged wife and mother who pursues her dream of becoming a rock star.

And normally, that would be that.

Two of the Republicans who had already filed in the CD 1 race are not considered as seriously viable candidates, now or in the future. But the third GOP candidate, Craig Lake, was another story altogether.

A young, promising businessman, Lake has been actively campaigning for the CD 1 seat for months. Although this is his first run at elective office, he’s been impressive on the campaign trail and has won over a lot of fans with his tenacity and commitment to conservative principles, including yours truly. Lake represents the party’s future and is not someone the party should risk losing by treating him like yesterday’s diapers.

Unfortunately, that’s just what they did.

GOP Chairman Chris (Dis)Comfort broke the news to Lake at eight o’clock yesterday morning, telling Lake he had an offer for him he couldn’t refuse (yes, he actually used that phrase according to Lake). And as yet another example of how hapless and ineffective (Dis)Comfort is as a party “leader”….Lake refused.

The offer (Dis)Comfort made to persuade Lake to abandon the CD 1 race was to instead jump into the Secretary of State race….where Republican Rob Lauer – who had already taken one for the team by switching from the congressional race in CD 3 to SoS to clear the field for Joe Heck – was already filed.

So (Dis)Comfort tried to fix the Craig Lake screw-job….by screwing Lauer.

Is this guy a political genius or what?

Lake deserved MUCH better than being subjected to a political root canal visit by Dr. (Dis)Comfort. In any event, Lake is staying in the CD 1 race.

So overall, despite the last-minute, ham-handed way this whole thing was handled, the GOP has a strong, likely well-financed candidate who could end up at least giving Berkley some Maalox moments in the general election.

If only the party had treated Craig Lake better, there wouldn’t be such a sour taste in my mouth about all of this.

Then again, with Chairman (Dis)Comfort involved, how could it have ended up any other way?

END OF ARTICLE

My comments: How Michele Fiore learned of Wynn’s potential interest - I was told by a senior CCRP official who asked me to off-the-record share this with the media (I did - Elizabeth Crum of Nevada News & Views) and to also share this with any strong potential woman candidates. I called Michele to let her know that Wynn might have an interest.

I was not provided the back-up information promised by my source, but Michele was able to take my news and make her own contacts with Wynn or his people and to start the ball rolling. The rest, as they say, is history.

Having known Michele for some years and having gotten to know her political aspirations and talents, I’m thrilled that we’ve got a real, sold grass-roots conservative constitutionalist running against Berkley. I do not know Craig Lake at all – he might also be an excellent candidate, and I have nothing against him – but I do know that Michele is a woman of strong personal integrity, a woman (and a person) who’s a great business owner/employer, a driver and pusher who can get jobs done for people. I think she’ll make a great candidate and a great Congresswoman from Nevada.

I am proud to endorse Michele Fiore for Congress, CD-1, Las Vegas, Nevada

Ned Barnett

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Return of the Anonymous Scott Ashjian

Ned Barnett

My anonymous correspondent, the one who claims to not agree with Scott Ashjian's politics but who likes the man personally, has had another anonymous melt-down, writing me an impassioned, illogical email that proves he isn't what he initially claimed to be (a disinterested personal friend/political opponent), while proving just how dishonest the real Scott Ashjian is.

I have come to believe that these "anonmymous" emails are, in fact, coming from Scott Ashjian himself. Any man who'd steal others' good name and ensure Harry Reid's election while claiming to oppose Reid would also write this kind of rubbish. Take a look at what he's now saying ... then look at my response. The debater in me makes me want to refute every charge, but the truth is, this is so preposterous that no rebuttal is really needed ... but I couldn't resist.

Ned

PS - If anyone has a reverse directory program and can identify by name "govgood@aol.com" I would very much like to know if this is really Scott, or perhaps Barry Levinson, or one of his other supporters. I'd like to know who's wasting all of our time. Thanks - Ned

***

Here's what Anonymous-Scott wrote:

Dear Mr. Barnett,
Now you have seen that everything I told you was true. Scott is not a Reid pawn. He is a devoted family man, Christian and conservative.
But you continue to criticize him because he is just an every day working guy and not an established politician. There is nothing about his politics or positions that you can criticize, because they are essentially the same as those of your Tea Party. But since he is not "in" with your little clique, he is treated as the devil reincarnate. Why are you people so closed minded that you cannot simply admit the real truth.
1. You are all part of the good ol' boy Republican network, and not true representatives of any real conservative movement.
2. You are shills for the GOP.
3. There is nothing wrong with Scott's position on issues, and in fact, his stance is much more in line with those of the self-professed Tea Party than Danny or Sue!
4. If Scott won't let you be the quarterback, you are just going to take your ball and go home.
5. Scott is the only true conservative running for senate.
6. Not one of you do-gooders have the balls to stand up to Reid, or the establishment, or the hypocrisy of the GOP, and all of you are just jealous that Scott is man enough to take them all on.
Why don't you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who you really are? Are you the establishment's gopher, or do you have the guts to stand up for what you pretend to be?
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!



Here are my point-by-point replies:

From: govgood@aol.com [mailto:govgood@aol.com]


Dear Mr. Barnett,
Now you have seen that everything I told you was true. Scott is not a Reid pawn. He is a devoted family man, Christian and conservative.


NED: First, since you insist on remaining anonymous, and since “Scott Ashjian” has been very effective in hiding from the grass roots and those members of the press willing to ask tough questions, I have to conclude that you and Scott are one in the same. From here on, I’m going to refer to you by your real name, “Scott.”

“Scott,” “you” may be a Christian. “You” may be devoted to “your” family. How the hell should I know? “You’ve” done nothing to demonstrate that “you” are, or aren’t. And frankly, I don’t care about “your” religious faith (if any) or “your” devotion to “your” family (if any). What I do know is that “you” are NOT a conservative. Any REAL conservative would know that by muddying the water in a two-party race in which Harry Reid is the clear loser – by creating a three-way race and skimming off 15 percent of the votes among ignorant conservatives who think the party name means something – “you” hand the race to Reid. The RJ published those findings, and many other polls show the same thing. No REAL conservative would allow his ego to re-elect Harry Reid … but a Reid pawn like “you” would eagerly pretend to be anything that would get Harry Reid elected.

But you continue to criticize him because he is just an every day working guy

NED: Au Contraire mon cher … your typical “every day (sic) working guy” isn’t facing disciplinary action from the Nevada Contractors Board and isn’t dealing with an IRS Lien, as “you” most certainly are. I’d say that “you” are a very exceptional guy – one under criminal suspicion or action from both state and federal government regulatory agencies. Typical everyday working guys don’t have these problems which “you” do.

and not an established politician.

NED: All this means is that “you’ve” never run before. Doesn’t prove a thing, except … “you’ve” never run before.

There is nothing about his politics or positions that you can criticize, because they are essentially the same as those of your Tea Party.

NED: This gets to the heart of the issue. Talk is incredibly cheap. “You” have (very briefly, in very controlled environments) talked the talk. But the REAL Tea Party’s pissed off, and rightly so, because – although “you” have NEVER participated in any tea party event, organization, discussion group, etc. – “you” have purloined our good name. “You’ve” mouthed the mouth, but “you” have NOT walked the walk. “You’re” a fraud in sheep’s clothing, and the entire grass roots tea party movement is up in arms against “you.” Did you see the 20-group resolution condemning “your” fraudulent usurpation of our good name? Do you REALLY believe there is nothing to criticize? Do you REALLY think that every grass roots tea party group in Nevada is criticizing “you” for nothing? Then “you’re” not as bright – or not as honest – as “you’d” like me to believe.

But since he is not "in" with your little clique,

NED: I’m sorry, but my “little clique” includes tens of thousands of politically-active conservative Nevadans who have walked the walk – showing up at Tea Party rallies, taking it to the street at politicians’ “Town Hall Meetings,” spent endless hours debating conservative policies and current politics, and buttonholing friends and neighbors and getting them involved. I hardly think that this is a “little clique.” More to the point, I don’t think “you” really think we’re a “little clique” – if “you” did, “you’d” have never wasted “your” time or money by stealing our good name. “Your” logic is flawed, “Scott.”


he is treated as the devil reincarnate.

NED: Not really, “Scott.” We treat “you” as a thief, a dishonest and fraudulent individual who is pretending to be something that “you’re” not – a grass-roots conservative. We treat “you” as a “man” who is pretending to be something that “you’re” not in order to re-elect one of the most despicably-liberal Senators in America, by stealing our good name. That doesn’t make “you” the devil incarnate – just a “man” beneath our contempt, a thief and a liar and a fraud.


Why are you people so closed minded that you cannot simply admit the real truth.


NED: “Scott,” you’re one to talk about the “real truth.” You purloined a name, “Tea Party,” that you had no right to. That’s the “real truth.” It doesn’t take a closed mind to see that truth – but it takes a very closed mind – “your” closed mind – to pretend that the truth doesn’t matter.

1. You are all part of the good ol' boy Republican network, and not true representatives of any real conservative movement.


NED: “Scott,” you’ve told me that you don’t agree with “Scott’s” positions, which suggests that “you” wouldn’t know a real conservative if he shot you in the ass with 12-gauge rock salt. If “you” knew anything about the grass roots tea party people “you’re” trying to bamboozle by stealing our good name, “you’d” know that we are at 180 from the “good ol’ boy Republican network.” We have no more use for RINOs than we have for “you,” “Scott,” or that liberal Democrat Barry Levinson who is “your” apparent puppet-master.

2. You are shills for the GOP.

NED: And how would “you” know that, “Scott?” I guess “you” figure that one fraud can spot other frauds … but “you’re” too blind to see the real truth about the people that “you” are trying to hornswoggle.

3. There is nothing wrong with Scott's position on issues, and in fact, his stance is much more in line with those of the self-professed Tea Party than Danny or Sue!

NED: See above, “Scott,” – “you” talk the talk (in very controlled-access environments), but “you” have never even tried to walk the walk. “You” don’t stand anywhere, “Scott,” because you refuse to stand at all and face those who “you’ve” wronged with your theft of our good name.

4. If Scott won't let you be the quarterback, you are just going to take your ball and go home.

NED: “Scott,” it’s not up to "you" to decide who is the “quarterback.” The only thing "you’ve" gotten right all night, “Scott,” is that it is our ball. And our game. And our NAME. And “you,” “Scott,” have no right to take our name or play our game.

5. Scott is the only true conservative running for senate.

NED: Now you’re getting really delusional, “Scott.” “You” haven’t been true about anything … and if “you” think “you’re” more conservative than Bill Parson, “you” truly are fruity as a nut-cake. Bill is a true conservative, with a career-long record of performance and NO IRS Liens and NO Nevada Contractors Board investigations for fraudulent business dealings – dealings in which “you” showed us “your” true colors, even before “you” stole our good name. Other track-record-conservatives include Sharron Angle among our pantheon of candidates for the right to oppose Harry Reid.

6. Not one of you do-gooders have the balls to stand up to Reid, or the establishment, or the hypocrisy of the GOP, and all of you are just jealous that Scott is man enough to take them all on.

NED: “Scott,” “you” remind me of Robert Duvall in “True Grit” when he said, “that’s mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.” “You” don’t have the balls to stand up to the people “you” claim to lead – the real tea partiers in Nevada – and as for standing up to Reid, “you” are standing up FOR Harry Reid … working to ensure that he wins in a three-way race.

And just to pretend that “you” are a different person than “Scott,” (which I no longer believe), “YOU” don’t even have the balls to stand up to me, to give me “your” name, “Scott.” “You” hide behind anonymity, a pigmy hiding in a hollow log yelling insults at giants out there contending with the biggest political machine in America. Do NOT give me any more bullshit about “courage.”

However, I do appreciate the fact, “Scott,” that “you” think we are out there doing good. I’m surprised “you” can even recognized “good.” Starting with a lie and a theft, “you” wouldn’t know truth if … but I already told “you,” didn’t I?

Why don't you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who you really are?

NED: I know who I am, “Scott.” I don’t hide behind anonymity. But who are “you?” Do “you” even know?

Are you the establishment's gopher,

NED: “Scott,” have “you” considered that Harry Reid is “the establishment” – and that “you” are ensuring that Harry Reid will win in a contested three-way race? Who’s the REAL establishment gopher, “Scott?” Do “you” have a mirror?

or do you have the guts to stand up for what you pretend to be?


NED: One last time, “Scott.” I don’t hide behind anonymity. I stand up for who I am and what I believe in. I walk the walk, putting in time at rallies and on discussion groups, while “you” hide behind anonymity (when you write me) and behind an answering machine when “you” are really “Scott.”

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!

NED: Which leaves you out, “Scott.” No thief, no liar, no fraud can be counted as a “good man.”

But thanks for once again displaying your ignorance, and allowing me yet more fodder for my blog. Keep ‘em coming, “Scott.”

Why Nevada's Politics Mattters - The Reid Race Will Become America's First 2012 Presidential Primary

By Ned Barnett

The Nevada election to unseat Harry Reid is the only truly National election this year. Harry Reid - Majority Leader and the only candidate in the line of Presidential Succession - is facing an uphill battle to hang on as Senator - in large part because, as Senate Majority Leader, he has become the Senior Senator from MoveOn.org instead of the Senior Senator of Nevada. And Nevadans are tired of being represented by a San Francisco-like far-left aparatchik instead of a center-right Nevadan.

No other national official, no other individual in line of succession to the Presidency, is facing a seriously-contested election race. So the importance of this election is all out of proportion to the size of Nevada's population. This means that Nevada will be in a spotlight of surpassing intensity - and every candidate for the Senate (and, because they might be indicators of the outcome, every candidate for any U.S. House seat from Nevada), will be under an electron microscope. Their every utterance since grade school will be examined for consistency with the new grass roots orthodoxy, the new emphasis on constitutional conservatism.

This is good and it's bad, since the national media will try - as they successfully tried with John McCain - to anoint Nevada Republicans' choice for candidate, and to tell Nevada's voters who they really want in Washington. Which means, the media being what they are, that the media's darling for the Republican nominee will be the most pragmatically moderate rather than the most dogmatically Constitutional. All the candidates will be claiming to be conservatives - to determine who's telling the truth, look at those candidates that the out-of-state mainstream media tries hardest to ignore.

This also means that there will be dozens (or more) outside political action groups - each with their own axes to grind - descending on Nevada, pumping money into ad campaigns advocating one candidate or the other ... with no real concern about Nevada. All they care about is their cause; which means the political discourse in Nevada between now and the first Tuesday in November will be fragmented - maybe even fractured.

For candidates who know it's important to stay on messages, this will be a huge challenge. Others, purportedly supporting them, will be using their own messages, and tying those messages around candidates necks like long-dead albatrosses. You've already seen some of this - ads that say, "call Harry Reid and thank him for ____ (fill in your own radical left message)." This will start hitting Republican candidates soon, and they'll wind up having to answer to the media for ads and messages that did not come from their campaigns.

In addition, and even more important, the run up to the election to dethrone Harry Reid will be, in essence, the first Presidential Primary of 2012. Not officially, of course, but the election to replace Ried will be, de facto, the first presidential primary. This will focus even more national media attention on Nevada's elections. It will also focus national money as never before - but with that money will come the media (who always follow the money), who'll be busy telling us poor ignorant back-woods (or back-arroyo) Nevada Republicans who we should support.

All of the serious national presidential candidates-to-be will see this primary and subsequent general election as a beauty pageant. They'll be eagerly showing the national media that they can attract crowds, raise money and motivate volunteers - all the things necessary to win primaries and the Presidential election.

Obama is going to be here later this week (as I write this). Tim Pawlenty will be here shortly. Mitt is certain to drop by, and Sarah will be here on March 27th. Chairman Steele has been almost commuting here ... the writing's on the wall.

This is a great opportunity for Nevada conservatives - especially those who are part of the authentic tea party/grass roots/constitutional conservative movement - to influence national politics. Not only will we be working to replace Harry Reid, we will also be helping to shape the media and voting public's perception - nationwide - of the strengths and weaknesses of the likely (and not so likely) 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. In effect, we may help influence whether or not President Obama is a one-termer like Jimmy Carter or a two-termer like Bill Clinton. It's a heady opportunity, and a heady responsibility - one that no other state shares with us.

Which means that we'll have to decide - do we support a conservative on principle, or do we go with the person the media tells us is most likely to be selected in the primary (because he or she is the most likely to retire Harry Reid in the fall). Which is more important - electability or principle.

For me, I'm tired of the lesser of two evils, and after John McCain, I'm mortally tired of the national media telling us who ought to be our Republican candidate. However, I only have one vote. I'll make mine count - but if you're a grass roots conservative, I ask you to be sure to make yours count, too.

Ned Barnett
ned@barnettmarcom.com


You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

Tark Takes the Fifth on the Second

By Ned Barnett

Disclaimer: Of all the people who stand opposite to me on key issues, I respect none so much as I do Sarah Brady. If anyone has a justification for her cause, it's Sarah Brady. Her bright, vibrant and ALIVE husband, James Brady, was gunned down by an insane assassin, taking a bullet meant for President Ronald Reagan. His life was shattered, his future terminated - he lives, but as a shadow of the man who she married - robbed of his future by a hand-gunner's bullet.

Having also suffered at the hands of a bullet (my late wife, Karol, a gifted target shooter, took her own life with her target pistol when the soul-sucking burden of having lost two sons - including our 17-year-old son John David - became more than she could bear), I can empathize with Sarah Brady.

I don't agree with her - one man's insanity should not be the basis of national policy - but I can empathize with her. That doesn't mean I can accept those politicians who support her, or who accept support from her ... and on this the tale turns ...



Back when the story about Danny Tarkanian - Republican aspirant to the nomination to retire Harry Reid acceptance of support from Sarah Brady and her gun-grab organization - first broke in the Washington Times, I asked Danny Tarkanian on his Facebook page for his side of the story. Specifically, I asked if he cared to explain the then-breaking news about his campaign accepting donations - including a Robo-Call - from Sarah Brady's gun-grab organization. He told me that he wasn't going to stoop to debate with Chuck Muth - but I never mentioned Chuck Muth, instead citing Amanda Carpenter, a reporter for the Washington Times, a conservative-but-mainstream daily newspaper.

In effect, he shifted attention from the real issue and onto a straw-horse, Chuck Muth (who, ironically, has contributed to the Tark campaign, apparently before he became disillusioned by the former nepotized Basketball assistant coach and serial candidate).

I've spent two months trying to give Tark the benefit of the doubt - but I keep seeing him duck and twist away from issues - relevant issues - about his campaign, instead spinning a diamond-bright web of distraction.

I've got nothing personal against Danny Tarkanian. I've met him a few times and he seemed to be a decent guy and is clearly a strong family man - and those are characteristics I value in a politician and a human being. His wife Amy is a lovely woman who is also a skilled political operator - I've seen her in action in Republican leadership meetings, and she takes second place to no-one when it comes to political savvy.

However, after decades of Harry Reid, I really, really, REALLY want a candidate who stands on principle, one who offers direct answers to direct questions. I've seen Sharron Angle do that, with but one exception (and everybody deserves one mistake).

I've never seen Bill Parson do anything BUT directly answer direct questions (and Bill never has to think about his answers first - when you know what you stand for and what you believe, you don't have to think about how to best answer a question).

But Danny seems to duck, to bob and weave when he doesn't want to directly answer questions or to man-up and take responsibility for mistakes. And when it comes to Danny, I do object to his stance on the Second Amendment. No constitutional conservative would ever accept support from Sarah Brady - and no candidate with integrity would - after this happened - blame his mother rather than take responsibility himself. Which is what Danny did, first, when confronted by the press with this story. When he realized that blaming mom meant that he was either hiding behind her skirts or looking for a safe person to blame, he has since routinely changed the subject when this came up.

It's instructive to note that when he first faced this issue, he proved his love of the Second Amendment by announcing that he planned to go to Alaska and hunt Bullwinkle with a relative of Sarah Palin's - ducking one Sarah problem by hiding behind another Sarah's skirts. Of course, everyone who understands the Second Amendment knows that it has nothing to do with hunting (which I don't do) or target shooting (which I do every chance I get).

The Second Amendment is all about Lexington and Concord - it's all about the Minutemen standing on that bridge, protecting their private arsenal of rifles and muskets, cannon and shot and gunpowder by facing down the occupation force of "Lobsterbacks" (which is what our colonial forefathers called people we now call "Redcoats") sent to seize their arms and remove the colonists' rights to self-defense. The Second Amendment is all about what Jefferson wrote - the right to bear arms protects the right to personally defend home, hearth, and community from all threats, foreign and domestic. That's something every CCW-permitted gun owner understands, but not, apparently, one of the leading candidates for the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, Danny Tarkanian doesn't seem to understand the Second Amendment, or the damage he's done to his own image by accepting financial help from Sarah Brady in his failed 2006 election campaign.

Here is the story - lest it be forgotten in the heat of the campaign - behind Danny Tarkanian's flirtation with Sarah Brady's gun-grab group's support.


Amanda Carpenter wrote in the Washington Times:

A 2006 endorsement and robo-call from the Brady Campaign isn’t the kind of thing Republican Danny Tarkanian wants coming up in his 2010 bid to unseat Nevada’s senior Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat who won an endorsement from the National Rifle Association in his last election.

But Mr. Tarkanian has only one person to blame: his mom.

The Tarkanian campaign initially dismissed questions about the little-noticed 2006 Brady Campaign endorsement Mr. Tarkanian received in his unsuccessful race for secretary of state in 2006. (PDF HERE.) The Brady Campaign also recorded robo-calls urging Nevada voters to support him. (Audio HERE and transcribed below). Tarkanian Campaign Manager James Fisfis suggested it was a dirty campaign tactic meant to discredit Mr. Tarkanian’s support for gun rights because, as he told The Washington Times, “a Brady call in Nevada is not a positive call.” [Ed. note -- PDF and audio links in original article.]

Mr. Tarkanian “is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and has never reached out to the Brady Campaign,” Mr. Fisfis said. He said later that Dan Burdish, a consultant who now works for their Republican primary opponent Sue Lowden, had “freelanced” by making arrangements for the call without Mr. Tarkanian’s knowledge. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke also confirmed that Mr. Burdish, then an unpaid adviser for Mr. Tarkanian, had worked with them, even asking Mrs. Brady’s mispronunciation of “Nevada” be edited out of the call. But, Mr. Helmke said, “We weren’t doing this on our own — we were asked to do it by somebody who was with the campaign — and they even went so far to edit the robocall.”

When reached by phone, however, Mr. Burdish, now Mrs. Lowden’s political director, said Mr. Tarkanian’s mother had asked him to work with the Brady Campaign on the endorsement. “Lois Tarkanian, who is Danny’s mother, came up with everything,” he said. “Danny, as far as I know, knew nothing about it. . . . Lois contacted me asking if I would help her.”

The Lowden campaign, which is eager to draw attention to this issue, said Nevada voters need more information about the endorsement and Mr. Tarkanian’s involvement.

“Nevada is a very pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment state, and I think voters have every right to pin Danny Tarkanian down on his past campaign coordination with the Brady Campaign and what it means today,” said Lowden Campaign Manager Robert Utihoven.

Team Tarkanian, for their part, intends to keep stressing their support for guns, which may include a moose hunt down the road.

“Danny’s record is public, you can read his Web site and look at his positions, and this whole thing is just unfortunate,” Mr. Fisfis said. He added that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s father, Charles R. Heath, had been campaigning on behalf of Mr. Tarkanian and agreed to take him moose hunting as a way of burnishing Mr. Tarkanian’s commitment to gun rights.

“Our family’s love for moose-hunting is well-known,” said Mr. Heath and his son Charles, who is Mrs. Palin’s brother, in a statement passed to The Washington Times from Mr. Fisfis. “One of the reasons our family campaigned for Danny Tarkanian is his strong commitment to protecting the Constitutional rights of gun owners. If we can drag Danny off the campaign trail we’re going to go hunting together.”

SCRIPT: “Hi, this is Sarah Brady from the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence. We want assault weapons off streets. Ross Miller, who is running for secretary of state, opposes that even though one was used to kill a Las Vegas policeman in February. I’m asking you to vote for Danny Tarkanian for secretary of state. He supports common sense gun laws like the ban on military-style assault weapons. Thanks for your time.

Here are the Washington Times' PDF files including internal campaign correspondence:
http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/docs/2009/Dec/16/Nevada_Tarkanian.pdf

However, in fairness, there is another side. Danny Tarkanian put his name to the following, in which he extols the Second Amendment as it was intended. This should be taken in the context of his 2006 support by Sarah Brady and the kerfuffle that arose when Amanda Carpenter broke the story. Perhaps this is his honest view - perhaps it's a thinly-veiled attempt at damage control. As Fox News says, "We report, you decide" ...

Tarkanian Calls For Vigilance On Second Amendment Rights

Published at Gun Rights Examiner, this article is by Danny Tarkanian.

You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to know that the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t ambiguous – any more than freedom of speech or the right to assemble. The words are written clearly for all to see, in the Bill of Rights. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how enemies of freedom in the guise of societal do-gooders want to pretend that the words don’t exist.

Our military provides for the “Common Defence” against threats outside our borders, but as a part of the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms isn’t just about guns – it is part and parcel of the Framers’ unyielding defense of the right of each individual to protect their life and liberty within their community and in their home. My wife Amy has a gun because I bought it for her. Both Amy and I hope we never have to use it, but it’s there for our protection, guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.

Still, the Second Amendment, like all freedoms we cherish, needs constant tending and defense. It seems like every day, some tragedy is leveraged to justify another gun law. We are fortunate to have right on our side – most of the gun-grabbing legislation eventually falls under the weight of its false logic.

Take the assault weapons ban – unconstitutional prima facie – as an example, a political maneuver by the left-wing to demonize guns and institute federal regulation. All it took was a simple study to reveal that banning assault weapons has no effect on gun violence.

Never forget, whether we are talking about guns or another issue, it’s a slippery slope to passing laws like the assault weapons ban with a false premise to eventually passing laws with no basis at all. That can only lead to one thing, a government by individual fiat – a dictatorship. We must always be vigilant.

And vigilance starts with the courts. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld as an individual right our right to keep and bear arms through its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia. This historic decision has set the stage for a similar case, pending before the court today.

Harry Reid is anything but vigilant and he can’t be trusted with our rights. What good does it do if Harry Reid supports all the so-called “pro-gun legislation” in the Congress, but supports Federal judicial nominees like Sotomayor who are ideologically disposed to strike down those laws? Sounds like double talk to me, but then again, I’m relatively new to politics. As Nevada’s Senator I will only vote to confirm Originalists who abide by the intent of our founding fathers, and decisions like Heller will be safe from the Revisionists.

The Supreme Court is now considering the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. This case has prompted responsible Senators like Sen. Hutchison and Sen. Tester, and several U.S. Congressmen to demand that the court uphold the same fundamental rights that the court confirmed in 2008. When the court issues its decision, remember to notice which Justices support freedom, and how Harry Reid voted in each case.

Let me conclude with a final thought. When we talk about threats to our freedom, many on the left try to portray our worldview as fringe (for the left, freedom IS a fringe idea). We need to stand together in pointing out that their naïve attitude is dangerous. The last several years have seen the threats emerge that we always knew were possible: terrorist attacks on our soil, federal government bailouts, an unaccountable Federal Reserve, encroachments on our rights and government involvement in our most private health care decisions. More than ever, we are being proven right in our core belief that freedom isn’t defended by government – it is – in the end, defended by the individual. And sometimes, at the point of a gun.

God Bless America and may its freedoms endure through continued vigilance.

Danny Tarkanian




You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

CLINTON & CARVILLE TARGET TEA PARTY?

A Guest Editorial By Sharon Sebastian – Website: http://www.DarwinsRacists.com

Co-author of Darwin’s Racists

NEDitor's Note: Nevada's tea party movement has a real reason to wonder about the sudden appearance of the 3rd Party "Tea Party of Nevada" (aka Tea Party Squared). Author Sharon Sebastian has put a national dimension to what we've been looking at as a "local" issue. As you read this guest editorial, keep Nevada in mind, and look for the fingerprints ...

How do you measure the effectiveness of a grass roots movement? If a former president and number one henchman plot to take down or coerce citizens of the United States, then the grass roots of that movement must be reaching deep down into the fertile heart of our Constitutional republic. Recent news on Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Government” and “The Drudge Report” is that former President Bill Clinton and his aide-de-camp in all political wars, James Carville, are aiming to bring down some Tea Parties. Reportedly lined-up in their sites are leaders of the Constitution-loving, God-fearing, hard-working, flag-waving, tax- paying, family-raising, country-serving and deeply patriotic Tea Party movement.

Such attention clearly means that the Tea Party is making inroads and winning the hearts and minds of freedom loving Americans. That includes liberals, independents, conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. Make a note: The Tea Party consists of concerned citizens with no identifiable leaders. So, just who are they out to get? Being out of official powerdom should not mean that you are also out of touch. But then, power is blinding – and apparently additive.

The possible gearing up of the Clinton power machine, that had a reputation for flushing out the failings of their big-time Washington enemies and chewing them up in smear campaigns, may have a boomerang effect when you throw the average citizen into that mix-master. Another note, Americans are fed-up with the bullying, do-as-we-say mentality of Washington that treats them as “raw material” to be worked, taxed and ignored. Backroom bribes and strong armed tactics being played out in today’s White House and Congress are receiving the blowback of discontent that they deserve. It is the ugly side of politics that Americans reject and will deal with at the ballot box.

Americans are in no mood for heavy-handed thuggery or the knee-capping of patriots who stand for their Constitutional rights and freedoms. So, Messieurs Clinton and Carville, if you were of a mind to, it may be too late to dig the dirt. It may be too late to hold back the tide that has turned against political operatives and politicians who think Americans work for them and not the other way around. It may be too late for skullduggery as patriots everywhere will now stand with those who are targeted and ferret out and expose any ill-intent against them. The electorate is awake and watching and reporting. Because of the Breitbart and Drudge reports, the spotlight’s full glare is on all current and former residents of the White House leaving them no place to hide should ill befall a single patriot. Americans are stepping forward to save their country and one another, if need be.

The bottom line is that Americans do not like to be strong-armed by a sitting president, much less a former president. Clearly, power is intoxicating. All presidents have it. Tony Soprano prototypes have it. The trick is not to get the two mixed up. Going after average citizens who seek to save and serve their country will leave a very ugly blot on any President’s legacy. Even voters who are not members of the Tea Party movement are rankled at such threats and watching every move you make lest malcontent becomes dirty politics. Going after a movement of patriots whether they be the Tea Party, the 9/12 Project or our fellow citizens at Town Halls may be the worst political move you’ll wish you never made. So, hands off the American patriots, sir.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington. Website: http://www.DarwinsRacists.com

Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow is available from the book’s website - http://www.DarwinsRacists.com , as well as from numerous online book sites and bookstores worldwide. Singular to bulk orders from Virtual Book Worm, 1-877-376-4955, Fax: 877-376-4955, info@virtualbookworm.com

TO CONTACT author Sharon Sebastian: please call Mark Larson, Mark Larson Media Services, (619)542-7735, mark@marklarson.com. (Book’s website: http://www.DarwinsRacists.com)

Ashjian In Trouble?

This is in addition to the IRS Lien mentioned in Las Vegas' mainstream media's coverage of Tea Party Squared.

Since 2004, I have been editor of Nevada’s Construction Zone, a trade publication currently in hiatus (no ad revenue in Nevada’s construction right now) – but still alive on the Internet. In six years of covering the Nevada Contractor Board, I have never seen a contractor get this far without being convicted or making a settlement – the Contractor Board is very careful about going public before they have enough facts to secure a conviction. This is from their website. I'm sorry that the formatting didn't "hold" - but the facts are here.

Ashjian may well be the IDEAL Senate Candidate for Nevada - like Harry Reid, he has problems with questionable practices in the construction and real estate field and the Internal Revenue Service (just as Harry had problems remembering income) ...

License Number: 0038420 Current Date: 03/10/2010 05:41 PM(mm/dd/yyyy)
Business Primary Name: JON SCOTT ASHJIAN DBA License Monetary Limit: $250,000.00
Fictitious Business Name: A & A ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY
Business Address: 4485 N RAINBOW BLVD
LAS VEGAS, NV 89108
Phone Number: (702)891-9111

Status: Summary Suspension
Status Date: 02/03/2010 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Origin Date: 11/02/1994 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Expiration Date: 11/30/2010 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Business Type: Individual
Classification(s): A-8 - SEALING & STRIPING OF ASPHALTIC SURFACES
A12 - EXCAVATING GRADING TRENCHING & SURFACING
A16 - PAVING STREETS,DRIVEWAYS & PARKING LOTS

Principal Name Relation Description
ASHJIAN, JON SCOTT Owner Qualified Individual

Bonds
Bond Type: Surety Bond
Bond Number: FS7782036
Bond Agent: HUDDLESON, KATHLEEN A
Surety Company: GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
Bond Amount: $15,000.00
Effective Date: 09/15/2006 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Cancellation Date: 03/28/2010 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Disciplinary Actions
Date: 12/29/2009 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Discipline Type:
Discipline document: Pending - Disciplinary action is pending against this licensee in the form of a Disciplinary Hearing.
Number Of Complaints: 1 complaint is associated with this action.
Notice: The pending action alleges the following violations. Upon final adjudication some violations or cases may be found to be without merit.
Violation(s): NRS 624.3013(3) Failure to establish financial responsibility
NRS 624.3016(1) Fraudulent or deceitful act
Action(s): Pending Adjudication.


The information contained on these pages are provided as a courtesy and may not reflect recent changes or updates. Neither the completeness nor accuracy is guaranteed. The Nevada State Contractors Board shall have no liability or responsibility for loss and damages arising from the information provided or retrieved from these pages.

Stopping the Name-Robbing "Tea Party of Nevada" - aka "Tea Party Squared"

By Ned Barnett (c) 2010

I have been personally speaking out against this name-robbing group - Tea Party of Nevada (Tea Party Party or "Tea Party Squared") since the very beginning - it is clear that Tea Party Squared is a False Flag operation supported directly or indirectly by Harry Reid and/or Reid supporters.

Being able to prove this tie to Reid or Reid supporters, business allies or relatives is essential to generating national press coverage of the False Flag nature of their effort, according to reporters at CNN and the Washington Post to whom I've talked yesterday and today. So I'm calling on all real Tea Party people to help investigate the backgrounds of the Tea Party Squared's founders and candidates, and uncover direct or indirect (but provable) links between the Tea Party Squared and Reid (senior or junior).

Here are some facts and projections that need to be documented.

1. The candidate, Jon Scott Ashjian, has been reported to be facing an IRS Lien - that was in one of the media, but having direct proof would help.

2. One of Ashjian's dozen or so businesses, a concrete construction firm, is being investigated by the Nevada Contractors Board. As the editor of Nevada's Construction Zone, I've covered that Board for six years, and I have never known them to announce a suspect company without successfully bringing charges (they usually settle with the guilty party). It would be useful to have specific proof of this Contractors Board Action.

3. Since Ashjian and his partner (Barry Levinson, below) is involved in commercial real estate and construction - places where Harry and Rory Reid have made their fortunes (recall Harry's scandal, having to refile his Senate financial disclosure form because he "forgot" a million-dollar piece of property he got without having his name in the deal). Both CNN and The Washington Post have told me they'd consider proof of some direct or indirect connection between Ashjian, Levinson or other founders of Tea Party Squared with Reid or Reid real estate or construction ventures would be a "smoking gun" the media couldn't/wouldn't ignore. We need someone who's good at researching this kind of thing to find those connections if they exist.

4. One of the founders (and candidate Ashjian's business partner), registered Democrat and local slip-and-fall attorney Barry Levinson (best known for defending porn-star and transplant "hero" John Wayne Bobbitt), has ties to previous Reid campaigns and to a MoveOn.org-affiliated "Bush-Lied" anti-war group. Having proof of those involvements (reported in the press but not substantiated by primary source information) would go a long way toward discrediting these bozos with the media and the public.

SO ... if you've got some internet research skills or contacts, you can make a huge difference for the REAL Tea Party Movement, and help to dethrone Harry (and Rory) Reid if you can find such information. Get it to me, Ned Barnett – I will know what to do with the information. My contact information is below.

We need your help.

Ned Barnett, APR
Fellow, American Hospital Association - Marketing & PR
Barnett Marketing Communications
420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276
Las Vegas NV 89110
702-696-1200 - office
702-561-1167 - cell/text
http://www.barnettmarcom.com


You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett

Tea Party Horror Story - Ashjian Neigbor Afraid to Speak Out

I do not generally take anonymous emails seriously - the reasons should be obvious. And I'm not sure how to take this post (below) from a woman who's Ashjian's neighbor and who's afraid to have me publish her name. This could be honest, or it could be a false flag operation (and therefore on a par with the Tea Party Squared itself). Having corresponded with this woman, I believe her - and I believe she's truly afraid of her neighbor, the Man Who Would Be our Tea Party Senator. You decide for yourself.

I had asked for input from people who knew Tea Party Squared's candidate, Scott Ashjian - and this is exactly that.

Remember, this is anonymous in source, and may have no credibility. Or it could be the Gospel truth. As Fox says, "we report, you decide." Here it is:

***

Hi Ned,


I read one of your articles on Scott Ashjian, asking who is this guy? For what it's worth, he lives on my street and I can't believe he is running. I am a republican and support the Tea Party movement and I would NEVER vote for Ashjian. Actually, maybe only one neighbor I can think of would. He is not well liked in our neighborhood.

He is an egomaniac (I guess most politicians are), he doesn't think rules apply to him, even homeowners' rules and definitely not a man of character. He thinks he can do whatever he wants, so I don't see him backing down.

He was a McCain supporter, he is some kind of Mormon with strange marital problems, he is a typical construction guy that has made a lot of cash and has 3/4 new cars in his driveway every 6 months. I hope someone can expose him quickly so he does not give Reid a chance at winning this election.

Sorry, I won't give my name, he is a very spiteful person if you know what I mean.

***

OK, so I've reported - now you decide.



You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

Dialog with an Anonymous Tea Party Squared Supporter

Ned Barnett – 2/23/10

Yesterday, I got, in response to my blog calling the new “Tea Party of Nevada Party” (Tea Party Squared)’s bluff. The response was from an anonymous correspondent (AC for short), but from someone who claims to know Scott Ashjian well (though, oddly, he repeatedly maintains he doesn’t support Scott politically).

AC’s comments seem intent on defending Scott from charges (mine and others) that the Tea Party Squared is a false-flag operation intended to split the grass roots movement and help Harry Reid hold onto his seat by his bloody fingernails. Nothing this individual has said changed my views – in part because I never trust anonymous sources, and in part because I feel the writer’s logic is flawed.

However, I find it an interesting exchange, and perhaps an interesting insight into the minds of Scott Ashjian supporters (it could, you know, be Scott himself writing in the third person as AC – that’s the problem with anonymous sources). So I’m sharing this with you, in order. Some of my replies are interwoven with AC’s messages, so I first offer them unedited, then with my comments. I’ll try to make it clear who’s who, though I suspect that will prove obvious.

Finally, if you’ve got one of those reverse directories, you might tell me who AC is – his email is govgood@aol.com. If you find out, please let me know.

Ned

AC began this exchange as follows:

AC: I do not know you. I am not involved with the Nev Tea Party. But I just read your Wire where you were interested in Jon Ashjian.

I have known him professionally for at least ten years. He is a true conservative. He is a self made man, who has worked his whole life to make something of himself. No one works harder than Scott.

He is a devoted husband and father. No one is more dedicated to his family than Scott.

His views are diametrically opposed to the Democrats. He is pro life, against big government, pro strong defense, against unlimited welfare for lazy people who will not work, and against high, and unfair, taxes. He is totally committed to the capitalist system where anyone can be anything they want to be as long as they are willing to work for it. He did it himself.

He is a compassionate and extremely charitable man. But he gives because he wants to, not because he has to. He feels this is much preferred to welfare.

I would suggest that your conservative group not be too quick to try to smear him, or discredit him. I truly believe that once you get the opportunity to talk with him, you will find that he is a lot like you. It is true that he has no prior political experience, but I am sure he views that as a positive factor.

I have had many political arguments with Scott over the years because he is so conservative and I am a lifelong Democrat. While I do not agree with his positions, I have always respected his convictions. The one thing that I will be willing to bet anyone, a lot of money, is that Scott is not doing this for Reid’s benefit. He hates Reid’s politics, and always has.

You can try to read into this letter what you wish. But let me at least tell you why I am writing, and then you and your friends can speculate and theorize all you want.

I like Scott. He is a great guy. And I respect him. Once you see how he is with his kids, you will see what kind of man you are dealing with. And I truly believe he is in this race because he thinks he can win. You may think this is delusional, but I know that he will approach this challenge like every other. He will work harder and do more than any other candidate. And hard work has always paid off for him.

I hope the true conservatives will give Scott a chance before they decide to castrate him. You might be surprised to learn that this oyster contained a real pearl.

END of AC’s first post.

My first reply –

NED: I don’t give a lot of credence in anonymous testimonials. If you’d like to put a name to your claims and discuss this, I’d be glad to consider what you have to say. But as you surely must understand, anonymous testimonials suggest that there is something to hide. If you’ve got nothing to hide, introduce yourself and allow us to evaluate the merits of your comments.

As I have expressed in my blogs, our suspicion of this gentleman and his cohorts is that none of them have participated in any tea party events, yet they co-opted the Tea Party name. That smacks of false advertising. Perhaps it’s not, but since none of the people involved will talk to either legitimate Tea Party leaders or with the conservative media, how can we do anything but be suspicious.

I invite you (and your candidate) and the other Tea Party Party (Tea Party Squared) leaders to meet with me, face-to-face and on the record. Then, skepticism will disappear and be replaced by knowledge.

Otherwise, don’t waste your time with anonymous testimonials. Nobody will believe them.

Ned



When I got no reply after 24 hours, I wrote a pointed and sarcastic second comment. Perhaps I jumped the gun just a tad.

NED: Thanks for your reply. You’re obviously seriously committed to this guy’s political career, and clearly committed to his credibility. Why else would you write me anonymously then refuse to answer me.

Hmmmm … makes this guy look ever more like a Reid/Dem plant. Prove me wrong by replying with names, facts, figures, and access to him (so I can interview him and let him tell me straight to my face his answers to my questions). Unlike you, I’ll publish those comments straight, and with my own name in case anyone disagrees, they’ll know how to get hold of me.

Ned

Following that second message, I got another reply from govgood@aol.com

AC:
Dear Mr. Barnett,
First, I do not live on the internet and just read your first email. You immediately jump to conclusions that I will not respond, when I will.

Second, why is everything with you so contentious? I gave you information. You want to fight about it. Why not try being a real investigative journalist and try to develop some information or a source instead of trying to drive me away? Is it possible, as Scott says, that you are not truly about what is best for the people of America, but only a hack for Lowden?

Third, if you are really concerned about the Tea Party movement, why not at least try to determine if anything I said is true? Because once you find out it is all true, then you may discover that Scott is good for the movement, and not against the movement.

Fourth, I specifically told you Scott is my friend, but I do not agree with his politics. Hence, he is not my candidate, but the best candidate for what I believe are the misguided, misled, but sincere, Tea Partiers.

Fifth, Scott has preached to me that Reid and Lowden are two sides of the same coin. Both are members of the corporate party. Neither give a damn about the American people. Both are interested in perpetuating their own wealth and vote that way.

Sixth, I want you to look at the following websites Scott has discussed with me and tell me whether it makes sense that Paul Lowden would allow his wife to oppose Reid, and why there are so many Republicans for Reid? Doesn’t this bother you? It bothers Scott!

So, as my mother used to say, you catch a lot more bees with honey than you do with poop?

http://frankrosenthal.com/feature_story/index.php?id=34

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Glick_Allen_3537098.aspx

http://www.lvrj.com/news/unlike-political-races-car-bomb-attempts-are-no-laughing-matter-68202782.html

Read down about 6 paragraphs
on this site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1561650/posts

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-02-25-vegas-disneyland-train_N.htm

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/26/sig-rogich-influential-gop-endorses-reid/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/nevadas-harry-reid-secures-republican-backing-for-reelection.html

http://www.beatreid.com/2009/06/reid-roglich-railroad-the-maglev/

http://blogs.lasvegascitylife.com/various-things-and-stuff/2009/06/08/reid-backs-rogich-train/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2268309/posts

http://www.lvrj.com/news/nevadas-high-speed-rail-plan-deemed-ineligible-for-stimulus-funds-83014497.html

http://rightrevrowland.org/wordpress/?tag=democrats

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=4368

After you reads this, write me and tell me which one of these candidates is interested in America? Because Scott thinks this stinks. So if you think it is best to chastise someone you do not know, who might actually be on your side, then have at it.

One thing you can count on, no one will ever question to whom Scott owes allegiance. His only concern is for his family, his country, and most importantly, his lord.

END of AC’s second email.

Here’s my reply, woven into his message. I think you’ll be able to tell who’s saying what.


AC: Dear Mr. Barnett,
First, I do not live on the internet and just read your first email. You immediately jump to conclusions that I will not respond, when I will.

NED: Good call – I was precipitous. My bad.

AC: Second, why is everything with you so contentious? I gave you information. You want to fight about it. Why not try being a real investigative journalist and try to develop some information or a source instead of trying to drive me away?

NED: My beginning as a “real investigative reporter” (something I’ve actually been earlier in my career), my first question has to be, “who are you?” When you insist on remaining anonymous, I have to believe that you’ve got a reason to hide your identity – and because of what you’re trying to sell me, I have to believe that you are at least possibly a false-flag agent working to disrupt the tea party movement in Nevada.

Why contentious? Because, first, your Scott took upon himself an honorable name he didn’t earn through participation in the real tea party movement in Nevada, and second, because you’re behaving suspiciously, and I’m not about to be sandbagged by someone without the courage to identify himself. Finally, because your Scott is hiding from us, the media and the public – just as you are hiding behind anonymity. Theft (of our name and credibility, without our permission or even knowledge) and secrecy don’t engender trust. You want trust? Earn it and you’ll have it.

AC: Is it possible, as Scott says, that you are not truly about what is best for the people of America, but only a hack for Lowden?

NED: That’s interesting. You want me to be open (to someone who insists on remaining anonymous) while your Senatorial candidate is quick to jump to conclusions while knowing nothing about me. If he knew me at all, he’d understand why I’m convulsed with laughter over the idea that I’m a hack for Lowden (or any other candidate). As an officer in the local party, I can’t publicly endorse any candidate. As an individual, I can and do have a preference, and while that preference isn’t your business, I can assure you that it isn’t Sue Lowden. I am a committed constitutional conservative, and those I support are also committed constitutional conservatives.

If you care to know more about me, read my political blogs (Capitol Curmudgeon … and … Barnett on Politics and PR) – I’m sure when you do, you’ll realize what a joke it is to think that I’m a shill for Sue Lowden (or any other candidate). And I’m not hard to find – I don’t hide my name.

AC: Third, if you are really concerned about the Tea Party movement, why not at least try to determine if anything I said is true? Because once you find out it is all true, then you may discover that Scott is good for the movement, and not against the movement.

NED: My first step in finding out what is true is finding out who you are. If you won’t tell me, I can’t allow myself to be suckered by someone with something to hide.

My involvement in the tea party began before April 15, 2009; it has remained active to this day (in fact, I spent more than five hours today working on tea party activities and business). Your Scott has, to my certain knowledge, never participated in any Nevada tea party activity, yet he and his party have purloined our good name, even as they are not part of us.

AC: Fourth, I specifically told you Scott is my friend, but I do not agree with his politics. Hence, he is not my candidate, but the best candidate for what I believe are the misguided, misled, but sincere, Tea Partiers.

NED: If he is a tea partier (for real, as you suggest) and if you don’t agree with his politics (which is your right), that you think we are misguided and mislead (but sincere), why on earth do you think any real tea partier should listen to you? Should we take advice from someone who admits he’s not on our side (so presumably you’re on someone else’s side)? You really have to be kidding – but perhaps that’s why you’re hiding your name. You know that tea partiers would recognize your name and put two-and-two together.

AC: Fifth, Scott has preached to me that Reid and Lowden are two sides of the same coin. Both are members of the corporate party. Neither give a damn about the American people. Both are interested in perpetuating their own wealth and vote that way.

NED: If he preaches that to you, why won’t he go public and preach that to the REAL tea partiers, and to the press and the public? Why is he putting this forward via anonymous surrogates? Does he think he’s Batman, or Zorro – doing “good” while hiding his face from the public? I’m not sure anybody wants to elect a caped crusader.

AC: Sixth, I want you to look at the following websites Scott has discussed with me and tell me whether it makes sense that Paul Lowden would allow his wife to oppose Reid, and why there are so many Republicans for Reid? Doesn’t this bother you? It bothers Scott!

NED: Republicans who support Reid – most wealthy and powerful people – bother me deeply. They bother any real, constitution-loving conservative. However, I only have the word of a nameless source that Scott cares about this. However, if he’s concerned that Lowden is going to win, he should go public and run as a Republican and unseat her. There is literally NO CHANCE of a third party – any third party (let alone an anonymous third party) can win – but any third party is sure to help elect Reid, by siphoning off an important minority from the Republicans. This happened to the Republicans in 1992 and 1996 (Perot) and to Gore in 2000 (Nader) – and it will happen to the Republicans, Nevada and America if your buddy Scott actually attracts as few as 3-5% of the votes.

AC: So, as my mother used to say, you catch a lot more bees with honey than you do with poop?

NED: I will eschew comments about your mother, bees and poop (though that’s a really weird thing to tell a stranger), but mostly I’ll ignore it because it makes no sense. If you think you’re offering honey by remaining anonymous and thinking I’ll be persuaded by lame “logic” and links, you’ve got another think coming.

http://frankrosenthal.com/feature_story/index.php?id=34

NED: Why on earth do you think this tells me anything about your candidate or much of anything else beyond ancient history?

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Glick_Allen_3537098.aspx

NED: Ditto – if this is supposed to tell me anything useful, one of us isn’t firing on all thrusters.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/unlike-political-races-car-bomb-attempts-are-no-laughing-matter-68202782.html

NED: If you like mob history, fine, but this is the 21st Century and none of the mobsters are running. As I said, I’m not a Lowden man, so your attempts at smearing her by linking her to organized crime is a waste of your time. I really just don’t care.

Read down about 6 paragraphs
on this site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1561650/posts

NED: You really are obsessed with the mob. Like I care … unless, of course, your buddy Scott is a made man …

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-02-25-vegas-disneyland-train_N.htm

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/26/sig-rogich-influential-gop-endorses-reid/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/nevadas-harry-reid-secures-republican-backing-for-reelection.html

http://www.beatreid.com/2009/06/reid-roglich-railroad-the-maglev/

http://blogs.lasvegascitylife.com/various-things-and-stuff/2009/06/08/reid-backs-rogich-train/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2268309/posts

http://www.lvrj.com/news/nevadas-high-speed-rail-plan-deemed-ineligible-for-stimulus-funds-83014497.html

http://rightrevrowland.org/wordpress/?tag=democrats

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=4368

AC: After you reads this, write me and tell me which one of these candidates is interested in America? Because Scott thinks this stinks. So if you think it is best to chastise someone you do not know, who might actually be on your side, then have at it.

NED: I see nothing here that impresses me. If you’re wondering if I think Reid is corrupt, duh! Of course he is. Do I think that Republicans supporting Reid are on the take, duh again.

What any of that has to do with your buddy Scott is a mystery to me. I’m sure you have a reason, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what it is.

I end as I begin. You’re anonymous. Scott is in hiding. Scott’s party, which has absolutely no links to the tea party movement in Nevada, stole (hijacked, if you prefer) the name of a group of people who are pissed at this. Scott’s apparently part of this, which makes him an accessory before the fact.

How any of this is supposed to motivate me is, well, beyond me.

AC: One thing you can count on, no one will ever question to whom Scott owes allegiance.

NED: On that, you’re dead wrong. EVERYBODY who’s involved in Nevada’s tea party questions Scott’s allegiance. Nobody knows who he is or what he stands for – beyond taking someone else’s good name for his own benefit, without so much as a by-your-leave. That theft hardly speaks well for your buddy Scott’s integrity.

AC: His only concern is for his family, his country, and most importantly, his lord.

NED: What part of “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” doesn’t Scott understand? As an honest and committed tea partier, I feel that Scott has stolen my good name and my good works and appropriated to himself and his party. And he’s done that the way the Good Book says that evil does it – hiding from the light (in this case, the light of public awareness, the light of truth).

when you and your buddy are ready to come out of hiding, you know where to find me. In the mean time, all you’ve done is convince me that you’re an agent provocateur and that Scott has something big to hide. No honest man would behave as you have, and no honest man would behave as Scott does.

Sir, go public and prove me wrong. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, and publicly. However, since you’ve ducked naming yourself twice, I’m not worried about having to do that.

Ned Barnett

Below is AC’s last message to me, unedited. Beyond that, you’ll see my interwoven responses again. Hang in there, it’s almost over (but it gets better).

AC: Dear Mr. Barnett,

Thank you for your honest response. I appreciate your taking the time to read what I wrote and to thoughtfully respond. Since you appear to be an honest and sincere man, who believes in his convictions, I know you have given consideration to my comments. That is sufficient for me. My only purpose for writing you in the first place was because I felt Scott was being falsely accused of being a Reid plant. I know he is not, and I believe you now have your doubts.

Whether Scott is a true conservative, a righteous man, and someone who the Tea Partiers can support is not up to me. Scott will have to earn that. But I know his wife and I know his children and I did not want to have them subjected to the lies and smears from the people Scott supports.

Whether Scott has done something inappropriate by formally forming the Tea Party of Nevada is not my judgment either. My personal belief about the Tea Party is that, as to the sincere members as opposed to those trying to pretend they are members for their own gain, it is a very loosely knit group of people who share common concerns about the current state of our country, the future of our country, and the principles upon which this country was founded. I am not aware that anyone or any group owns the name. It has always seemed to me that any person who believed in these common concerns could rightfully claim to be a Tea Partier. If I am mistaken then it is out of ignorance, and I apologize.

So, it was easy for me to support Scott’s decision to try to make a difference and to speak out against the real enemy of this nation, corporate greed and self-serving politicians because I know he is committed and very concerned. These are not of one party, but both parties. I do not have to agree with his politics to support his right to speak. To me, this very concept is the biggest problem most Tea Partiers have. They preach the Constitution, but start with the Second Amendment; somehow they seem to skip over the First Amendment when it comes to other people’s speech. Perhaps if people with different views would talk with each other, instead of screaming at each other, we could work our way out of this mess. In all likelihood, neither the far left, nor the far right, nor the middle, are correct on all issues. Other opinions and viewpoints may help. But my impression of Tea Partiers is that they do not want to hear any other viewpoints, and I am sure, as an honest man, you would agree that is not in the best interest of this country.

I am sure Scott will come forward when he deems it appropriate. I am not involved in his decision making, nor do I know any members of the group you listed who may be advising him.

If you were a true journalist, who was willing to fight for your First Amendment right to keep your sources anonymous, I might consider meeting you. (Have you ever noticed how that darned First Amendment keeps getting in the way?) But I am not aware of any case that says this protection applies to bloggers!
I hope you will keep fighting for what you believe, but I pray that you will keep an open mind to the remote possibility that there are people who have different beliefs from you, yet love this country as much as you do.
Good bye.


Now, finally (and congratulations for hanging in there), here’s my final reply:

NED: I’m not sure what it will take to convince you of a couple of things:

1. I cannot give credence to anything said by someone who will not identify himself – for all I know, you could be anybody, from Ron Paul to Harry Reid – or you could be Scott himself. I just have no way of knowing, and not knowing, I have no way of trusting.

2. Scott and his cohorts hijacked the name Tea Party. You are right that tea partiers are a loose-knit group of self-appointed activists concerned with the future of their country. They are free to use the name to describe themselves. However, it is one thing to say, “I am a tea partier” and quite another thing to say, “we are the official Tea Party of Nevada” … especially when you have never once participated in any tea party activity in Nevada.

Anybody can be a Christian (or call himself one), but if I incorporated The Catholic Church of Nevada or The Mormon Church of Nevada (never having been either a Catholic or a Mormon), don’t you think that the real Catholics (who do not “own” their church) and the real Mormons (who do not “own” their church, either) would be royally pissed off? Well, apply that to politics (remember that “politics” and “religion” are the two things people are advised against mentioning in polite company) and you’ll start to understand why real tea party activists are so offended and outraged by the theft of their name and reputation by people who’ve never even been part of the tea party movement.

Until Scott and his cronies address the second issue, they will be suspected and despised by those they’ve offended. Until you address the first part, I don’t see how I can believe anything you say. I’m not calling you a liar – you might be as honest as the day is long, or as crooked as a dog’s hind leg – how can I know?

See below for a few parting shots …

OC: Dear Mr. Barnett,
Thank you for your honest response. I appreciate your taking the time to read what I wrote and to thoughtfully respond. Since you appear to be an honest and sincere man, who believes in his convictions, I know you have given consideration to my comments. That is sufficient for me. My only purpose for writing you in the first place was because I felt Scott was being falsely accused of being a Reid plant. I know he is not, and I believe you now have your doubts.

NED: Sorry, but I believe that Scott still stands accused of being a Reid Plant. Here’s why:

a. His attorney and business partner, Barry Levinson, is a registered Democrat who has worked with and/or supported Reid in a previous election and who was a “Bush Lied” activist. That is not the profile of a tea partier.

b. He refuses (as do his cadre of official supporters) to talk to real tea partiers, to the media or pretty much anybody else. That (like your anonymity) makes it hard to believe anything good about him.

c. He and his cohorts “stole” the good name of the Tea Party, without any connection to the tea party or tea partiers. That theft has (as I noted above) proved profoundly offensive, and it is exactly the kind of thing Harry Reid has done many times.

So, he remains under suspicion, and every day that goes by makes his actions more – rather than less – suspicious. He’s going to have a LOT to prove if he wants anybody to believe in him or his sincerity. In that, he’ll be like other senatorial candidates. Danny took support from Sarah Brady’s gun-grab group in 2006 – he’s ducking questions, but that only makes him look more suspicious. Sue screwed over the Ron Paul people at the last state convention, and she made enemies who’ll never forget what she did. So your Scott is in good company among people who aren’t trusted for very good reasons.

AC: Whether Scott is a true conservative, a righteous man, and someone who the Tea Partiers can support is not up to me. Scott will have to earn that. But I know his wife and I know his children and I did not want to have them subjected to the lies and smears from the people Scott supports.

NED: Questions are not lies. Statements of fact (such as they stole our name) are not lies. If Scott didn’t want to subject his wife and children to questions and statements of fact, he never should have stolen our name or refused to answer questions (which only raises more questions). Every politician must come to grips with the fact that they will be questioned and uncomfortable facts will come out – and if they have family, those familial wounds are self-inflicted. Even more so in this case, because of the way Scott’s started his campaign.

I trust that you’re sharing all of this with Scott. He needs to know what he’s up against.

AC: Whether Scott has done something inappropriate by formally forming the Tea Party of Nevada is not my judgment either.

NED: No, but it is OUR judgment, and we (the tea partiers) are unanimous in this view. I have yet to find even one person who will stand up to defend what Scott and Barry and the rest have done. If they are for real, they have dug themselves a HUGE hole, and digging themselves out will not be easy. It would be easier to change their party name before it’s too late – if they choose to hang onto that which is not legitimately theirs and they will find a huge and very active group of Nevadans continually and regularly pissed off at them. And unless they do something dramatic, it will become “conventional wisdom” that he and they are indeed Harry Reid shills … and how will he, holding a stolen name, prove it otherwise?

AC: My personal belief about the Tea Party is that, as to the sincere members as opposed to those trying to pretend they are members for their own gain, it is a very loosely knit group of people who share common concerns about the current state of our country, the future of our country, and the principles upon which this country was founded. I am not aware that anyone or any group owns the name.

NED: In that, you are wrong. Your buddy Scott and his cohorts now “own” the name. They stole it, but according to the Secretary of State, they own it.

It should have continued that “nobody” owned the name. But they chose to upset the applecart that had been exactly as you described – a loose-knit group of people who shared some common beliefs and goals, who were upset with government and wanted to pursue real change. Now, wherever they go, if they call themselves “tea partiers,” people will wonder if they are Scott’s people – and that will anger them. You have no idea how angry people are right now.

Scott needs to know this – and if he’s for-real, he needs to renounce the name while he still has the chance.

AC: It has always seemed to me that any person who believed in these common concerns could rightfully claim to be a Tea Partier. If I am mistaken then it is out of ignorance, and I apologize.

NED: Any individual can claim to be a tea partier. And anybody active in the tea party movement can rightfully claim to be a tea partier. But nobody has (had) the right to claim that name solely for himself (or themselves) – especially so because Scott and his gang are not part (and have never been part) of Nevada’s tea party movement. You are not mistaken about the rights of individual participants – but Scott and his cronies are dead wrong to think they can kidnap that name without suffering electoral and reputational consequences.

AC: So, it was easy for me to support Scott’s decision to try to make a difference and to speak out against the real enemy of this nation, corporate greed and self-serving politicians because I know he is committed and very concerned. These are not of one party, but both parties. I do not have to agree with his politics to support his right to speak.

NED: Those are sentiments very common in the grass-roots movement. I am, for instance, a member of Oath Keepers – and we have all publicly renewed our sacred oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Key among those rights can be found in the First Amendment – speech, press, assembly and religion … those are rights we not only defend, but exercise regularly when we meet and speak out.

AC: To me, this very concept is the biggest problem most Tea Partiers have.

NED: Which only shows how little you know about the Tea Partiers. We are an eclectic group with no formal orthodoxy, and we welcome all who share our core views to be with us without membership dues or a secret handshake or anything else. Anybody can start a tea party group, and anybody can join a group that already exists. If that person turns out to be a plant – a MoveOn.org liberal or Harry Reid provocateur, s/he will soon be proven false and asked to move on. But his or her freedom of speech will not be abridged.

AC: They preach the Constitution, but start with the Second Amendment; somehow they seem to skip over the First Amendment when it comes to other people’s speech.

NED: I’d love to know who among the tea partiers have forgotten the First Amendment and jumped right to the Second. You seem to overlook the fact that we meet, exercising our right to free assembly. We speak out in public, exercising our free speech. We write blogs and newsletters and websites and signs we carry at rallies, exercising our right of free press. And many of us worship God in our hearts and our homes and our churches on a daily basis, exercising our religious freedom. I know of NO tea partier who wants to strip others of free speech or other First Amendment rights.

That does not give outsiders the right to try to hijack our meetings or drown out our speakers – and that has happened, and we’ve sent them packing … even as we’re planning senatorial debates that will include (if they’ll come) Harry Reid as well as Sue and Danny and Sharron and Bill and John and … if he’s for real, Scott.

If you think that the tea party movement wants to stifle or ignore the First Amendment, you’ve been spending too much time watching MSNBC. You need to get out, come to an event or two and see just how freely we assemble, communicate and pray.

AC: Perhaps if people with different views would talk with each other, instead of screaming at each other, we could work our way out of this mess. In all likelihood, neither the far left, nor the far right, nor the middle, are correct on all issues. Other opinions and viewpoints may help. But my impression of Tea Partiers is that they do not want to hear any other viewpoints, and I am sure, as an honest man, you would agree that is not in the best interest of this country.

NED: All I can say is that your belief – based on whatever it’s based on – is at dramatic odds to my experience at tea party events. And I’ve been to a lot of them, and promoted even more of them.

I would contend that there is one right way for America – and that is a return to the Constitutional government granted to us by God and our Founders. That means honoring the 9th and 10th amendments, repealing all unconstitutional laws and restoring to Americans liberty and freedom. The freedom to succeed without restriction, the freedom to fail without a nanny-state holding our hands. I agree that talking has merit – without discussions, how can others come to see the vital importance of the Constitution.

I do not believe that judges should be able to “interpret” the Constitution and create rights that don’t exist, or deny rights that clearly do exist – and that right doesn’t go to Congress or the President, either. Our Founders gave us two ways of amending the Constitution, and America has done that more than 25 times in less than 250 years. Instead of the courts – or Congress – or the President – abandoning the Constitution when it’s inconvenient, they should make the case to America to amend the Constitution.

Tell me where in the Constitution is the “separation of Church and state?” It doesn’t exist. The First Amendment bars the Federal government from creating an established, tax-supported church akin to the Church of England – and it also gives to the people the unrestricted right to practice religion. Congress begins each session with a prayer, as does the Supreme Court. George Washington wrote and delivered a national prayer, and Thomas Jefferson made it clear that a country without a strong belief in God could not succeed. Yet the Liberals have sold us a bill of goods (and the courts have bought this) that all but bans faith from the public square. That’s absurd.

Tell me where in the Constitution is the right of privacy that undergirds the incredibly flawed Roe v. Wade decision – regulations of abortions should be where they were for nearly 200 years – with the states. Most would approve of abortion, but perhaps not all. That’s what the Founders intended – a Federal system where in each locale, citizens could decide for themselves.

Tell me where in the Constitution it says that government can abridge the rights of free men to keep and bear arms. That wasn’t intended to protect hunting, collecting or target shooting – it was written to protect the rights of Americans to stand shoulder to shoulder on the Lexington Green and face down the Redcoats with rifles. What were those Minutemen defending? Privately owned arms – an arsenal of rifles and cannon, powder and shot. Our war of Independence was fought largely with privately-owned arms; as was the first year or two of the Civil War. Washington said that the right to bear arms was the FIRST right, since it alone protected all the other rights. Jefferson, Madison and the other Founders agreed with these men. But our courts and our governments now routinely restrict our rights to keep and bear arms, despite the clear wording of the Constitution.

Get the picture? Tea Partiers support the rights of free men (and women) – rights given us by God – and we want to return to that state of grace, to a place and a time when we are again free to live our lives as we choose, without being over-taxed, over-regulated or told what to do by a government more akin to King George’s Tyranny than anything Washington or Jefferson, Franklin or Payne ever dreamed of.

Why am I telling you this? Because you brought up the notion of dialog and compromise.

We in the tea party movement believe in absolute rights which cannot be compromised – those are basic principles, as fundamental to freedom as the Apostles Creed is to Christians. However, we are open to dialog and compromise on the specific ways we implement those rights (do we vote on the First Tuesday or the Second Monday – we can discuss that … but do we have the right to vote? – that’s not subject to debate or discussion).

AC: I am sure Scott will come forward when he deems it appropriate. I am not involved in his decision making, nor do I know any members of the group you listed who may be advising him.

NED: You would be wise to advise him that he’s already way behind the curve on this. Way behind the curve.

AC: If you were a true journalist, who was willing to fight for your First Amendment right to keep your sources anonymous, I might consider meeting you. (Have you ever noticed how that darned First Amendment keeps getting in the way?)

NED: The First Amendment never gets in the way, and I know of no conservative who’d ever think so. As for meeting, if my word isn’t my bond, what would you consider?

On the other hand, consider this. Anonymous sources are used in journalism primarily when dealing with whistle-blowers who would be at risk if it was found out that they were blowing the whistle. I’d need a damned good reason to offer a pledge of anonymity. If you’re a whistle-blower, if you’d be at risk for revealing secrets, I would for sure keep your name out of things. But you are just trying to persuade people (through me) to give Scott a chance. Hardly grist for a whistle blower’s mill.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t do it while hiding behind the curtain. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” is wise advice, given by a mighty wizard, and one that I’m loathe to ignore.

AC: But I am not aware of any case that says this protection applies to bloggers!

NED: According to the courts, bloggers are journalists. Beyond that, I am editor of a magazine (Nevada’s Construction Zone) and a book author. All of those are protected by the First Amendment. What isn’t protected is the right to be taken seriously without standing up and being counted.

AC: I hope you will keep fighting for what you believe, but I pray that you will keep an open mind to the remote possibility that there are people who have different beliefs from you, yet love this country as much as you do.
Good bye.

NED: I have many friends who are wrong on the issues, but right in their love of America. We often have very interesting conversations. I do not limit my circle of friends who believe exactly as I do. When I was in college, and an activist conservative, one of my best friends was a “First Century Christian Communist” (he called it communalist, but it was a religious Marxism). We were great friends who had many fascinating debates.

Do not worry that I might miss something by having too parochial a view. However, I do choose to discuss issues of the day with people who are known to me, so I wish you goodnight and goodbye, unless and until you choose to come out from behind the curtain.

Ned



Well, that’s it. I hope you find it informative. This is as close as we seem to be able to get to Scott Ashjian right now – he won’t give interviews or take phone calls, but he will send anonymous correspondents out to shill for him. If you read between the lines, I think you’ll find useful information here. As Shakespeare says, “Methinks he protesteth too much” – that’s my take-away from the protestations of conservative innocence on Scott’s behalf.

If you want to discuss this, I’m at Ned at Barnettmarcom.com …



You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com