Armstrong’s public statement tells another story. It appears, rather than finally admitting something he knew to be untrue, what happened is that he bowed to the pressure of an unelected and untouchable organization.

Read the statement for yourself. The key excerpt is here:

“At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.”

Sour grapes? Maybe, but I have often felt that people went after Lance Armstrong and other exceptional individuals because they simply could not believe that anyone could actually be THAT good and do it fairly.

He didn’t build that, right?

Setting aside the question of his guilt or innocence, Lance Armstrong’s statement touches on the epidemic of quasi-governmental entities and big agencies increasing their reach and impact with significant enforcement power in this country.  This isn’t about USADA and cycling, but about essential freedom.

This should concern us, not just because of what happened to an elite athlete, but because it is emblematic of the behavior of the many untouchable boards and agencies in this country.  Because they operate as nearly autonomous fiefdoms, the traditional checks and balances do not apply.

All over this country, people and businesses, are fighting their own battles with these entities. They are battling for their livelihoods and for their futures.  Often they are battling entities which exert the power relative to their mission in the form of activism. The EPA raiding a guitar factory to check for contraband wood…  The FDA conducting dawn raids on raw milk providers… The USDA not allowing kids to work on their family farm…

Bureaucrats in powerful agencies can — and often do — change history.  If its not worth it to Lance Armstrong, a guy who has plenty of means and celebrity to fight back, imagine how difficult it must be for the small custom guitar manufacturer, raw milk supplier or farmer.

How can a group strip the titles of a seven-time Tour de France winner who was tested before, during, and after every race? How can the EPA create a rule that doesn’t allow a property owner to build on his property? How can the USDA decide not allow a kid to work with machinery on a family farm?

Its simple. Power is power.

This is our government.  Elected or not, these folks work for us. The people of our country should be the ones to make and change history not the unelected and non-transparent agencies or quasi-governmental fiefdoms that have become drunk on their own power.

Remember, if it can happen to Lance Armstrong, it can certainly happen to you.

While spending some time this weekend in Michigan for the Transplant America Games (Olympic Games for Transplant Recipients and their donors), I spent a bit of time looking at the political climate and contests in that great state.

Michigan always seems to have good political theater.  This year is no different.

An interesting primary battle is brewing in Michigan’s 11^th district. Nancy Cassis, who has the support of the Michigan GOP establishment, has pledged $200,000 of her own dollars to defeat conservative Kerry Bentivolio. They are vying for the seat due to the somewhat strange, and certainly awkward, retirement of Rep. Thad McCotter

The twist? Cassis is mounting a write-in campaign, while Bentivolio did the hard work of collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.

We’ve seen this show before.

This isn’t exactly unprecedented in GOP politics. Moderate Senator Lisa Murkowski mounted a successful write-in campaign to defeat conservative Joe Miller. But that was the general election.

But, a write in for a primary?

From what I have gathered, it did seem strange to many in Michigan, however, for the GOP to handpick an opponent to challenge a conservative in a congressional primary as a write-in after their candidate resigned. It appears to some that Cassis was apparently selected based on her willingness to bring her own funds to the table.

To use the words of Nancy Cassis, “Let’s do this honestly and fair.”  I agree. But does she?

She seems surprised that people are looking closely at her record.  It should not be surprising to her that many have been disconcerted to learn about Cassis’ track record. In particular, her support for the Michigan Business Tax, a job killer that was repealed by Governor Rick Snyder, and her broader support for budget increases that go against her talking points and proclaimed viewpoints.

Unfortunately, this is one of the things that many people of this country are so frustrated with… people who run for office one way and vote another.  People who take credit, but don’t expect criticism.

Further, another big problem is that Cassis also makes the claim that she has created “thousands and thousands of jobs.”  Now, I really am confused.  She claims to support free markets and claims to support a limited role for government. But, then claims that under her leadership in government; she has created jobs namely due to government spending programs she spearheaded.

Candidates who argue that they understand government does not create jobs and prosperity (and the private sector does) should not be making the claim that more and more government spending creates additional jobs.  It confuses the issue and does not allow Republicans to draw the important distinctions between the politics of a dependency oriented government driven future brought to you by the Democrats or a growth oriented private sector driven future brought to you by the Republicans.

A candidate cannot have it both ways.

Then we have Cassis’ comment that she cannot support Bentivolio if he wins the primary.  In today’s world, I find comments like that telling.  Effectively, it means that she believes that she knows better than the people who she is asking to vote for her, what is best for them.  Don’t we have too much of that way of thinking in Congress and in the White House already?

In short, what I gather is that Cassis does not appear to be part of the bold and clear solutions that are finally turning Michigan around, but part of the old guard, the faction of the party that played along while Jennifer Granholm and her ilk nearly took the state and the country apart.

For whatever reason, the establishment appears so desperate to defeat Bentivolio they are attempting to auction away the seat and they run the very real risk of defection if they are successful. Has the party learned nothing from 2010? It isn’t money and power voters want. It’s elected officials who will actually reduce the size of government, which Cassis doesn’t have a track record of doing.

It is the voters, and not the GOP establishment, that put Bentivolio on the ballot. It will be interesting to see on August 7^th whether those same voters will choose Bentivolio who sought their support or Cassis and the establishment who expects it.

The excitement of the purchase continues as you await the package landing on your doorstep.  You open it up.  Use the product.  And that, is when the disappointment sets in.  The product either doesn’t work or it doesn’t work the way it did on TV.  The excitement turns to disappointment and then despair as you realize: you were hoodwinked. And, then you get mad.

This is a natural feeling when you feel that you were sold something that turned out to not be what you thought it would be. That is where many of the Obama voters are at today and why Democrat politicians across this great nation are fearful of taking the brunt of the anger over the product that people were sold and did not like.  Democrats on the ballot are fearful that it is they, not Obama, who will be dealing with returns on the product that they partnered with President Obama to sell to Americans. 

 The citizens of this country are sending back Obamanomics and Obamacare to the people who sold it. They want a refund and they want it now.

When many new voters voted in the 2008 Presidential election, they were not necessarily voting for a  specific set of policies, but were voting for a man whom they viewed as both inspirational and someone they could believe in.  He was new and unique.   They bought into the marketing slogan of hope and change.  What they did not know, is that they were effectively voting for an untested product that looked good and sounded good, but was simply too good to be true. 

Now in full disclosure, I wasn’t one of those people who voted for Barack Obama and wasn’t someone who bought into his well-funded marketing campaign.  But, even those of us who opposed him have to admit that Obama branded himself and marketed his plans and himself brilliantly. Less than two years into his Presidency, however, that brilliance has vanished and President Obama is continually having trouble communicating and marketing the rationale for his actions.  But, contrary to what the President himself seems to think, the problem isn’t the marketing of his ideas or the fact that We, the People are not smart enough to understand the directions he gave us;  the real problem is that the product his administration and his liberal allies have sold and continue trying to sell simply does not work and the people don’t want it. 

Whether you are a Republican who opposed him or a Democrat who supported him, for many people the reality of what Obama sold did not prove to be true. His positive and hopeful nature has turned dour, lacking a sense of humor, deficient of humility, and scolding in tone. The once celebrated orator, President Obama is having trouble having a conversation with the people of this country without scolding them or blaming someone else for the challenges we are facing.

He has not made government more transparent or changed the tone in Washington like he promised. He has not stabilized the economy or kept unemployment low which is how he presented and sold his economic stimulus plans.  He has not held the middle class harmless from tax increases.  He has not jumpstarted our economic recovery with his disastrous economic policies that continue to increase uncertainty and harm both recovery and growth.  And, on top of all that, he has added a unconscionable debt burden to our country and it’s children which puts our economic and national security at risk.
President Obama has clearly not lived up to the high standard that his campaign set for themselves.  And, the people are calling him on that  and are giving him feedback  in a very clear and present way through their echoes of frustration.  The people want to return what many of them bought into and are doing so with their voices and their votes.

In 2008 we had a political season ignited by a candidate with a suberbly marketed infomercial campaign selling us something “As Seen On TV” which we were told over and over we must have if we want a good future.  They suggested that if the American people bought into what candidate Obama was selling, we would be better off.  They suggested that he would be different. They said that he would make all our lives better, easier, and more secure. 

In 2010 we have a political season in which many American’s who bought what the Obama sold as a candidate, have realized that the product did not live up to their expectations.  What President Obama does not seem to realize is that the people kept their receipt and they now want a refund. 

The people want their change back, they want their money back, and they want their country back, too.  That is the message voters are sending in November.

Another day, another dark horse race in the making.  This is one of those years in which political upsets are coming fast and furious from all directions.  As I watch the political landscape shift on a daily basis, an interesting race came across my desk.

Recognizing the opportunity to take on an out of touch incumbant who wants to claim ownership and take credit for a massive intrusion of govenment into our private lives, the Freedom’s Defense Fund, a DC based PAC, recently announced an ad campaign in New Jersey’s 6^th Congressional district.

Take a look at their ad at www.stoppallone.com.

This first tv ad is part of a broader campaign to support conservative, upstart candidate Mayor Anna Little’s over Washington-centric incumbent – Frank “It’s my bill” Pallone.  What a namesake.  The ad is short and simple in message. 

In a press release, Michael Centanni, Chairman of the Freedom’s Defense Fund, defined Anna Little as a “true champion of conservative values, limited government and lower taxes.” Incumbant Frank Pallone, in contrast, is a typical big-government liberal who wants to take credit for the Obamacare healthcare scheme which the majority of Americans oppose. 

Democrat after Democrat across the country have been running — no sprinting — away from both the Obamacare bill and President Obama’s agenda.  I am amazed that someone actually publicly wanted take credit for the healthcare scheme.  Really?  

After watching the ad, I wanted to do everything I could do to help Frank “It’s My Bill” Pallone own that issue as voters in New Jersey decide who they want to represent them in November.  If Pallone wants to take credit for a massive overreach of government, lets help him get that message out to the voters so they make make a real and informed choice to reject candidates like Pallone who are trying to put big government in the drivers seat of our lives.

If Pallone wants credit for Obamacare, let’s give it to him by helping him own it. 

Keep an eye on this race — it could be The Next Best Political Upset.

What particularly caught my eye was a questionnaire from a “Women’s” group. What were the questions? The majority of them were about abortion, gay marriage, and how much we should expand big government spending.

In the midst of the deepest recession in living memory and international uncertainties, those don’t strike me — or most people — as the issues keeping women (or men) up at night.

Where were the ideas of economic freedom and economic opportunity? Where were the questions about challenges that women business owners face in small business start-ups which are the mainstay of Main Streets throughout the country? Where were the questions about the national debt and its impact on our children’s future? Where were the questions about how we best educate the children of our country so that we have a qualified and well positioned workforce? This list goes on and on.

This self-described “women’s” group and many like it are more interested in litmus tests on liberal social issues than on what will materially improve women’s lives in the real day-to-day world where we are raising kids, struggling to make ends meet, and hoping that we or our spouses don’t lose their job (or will find one soon).

For decades now we have talked about the glass ceiling women once faced, and to a certain extent still do. But I am more worried about the glass box that liberal feminists have placed women and “women’s issues” in, all tied up with a pretty pink bow. That glass box is all about keeping women and “women’s issues” firmly in their place on the left side of the political spectrum.

Well, I for one, think that the real opportunity for female candidates and officeholders is not to define themselves as concerned about these supposed “women’s issues,” but instead to focus on the bread and butter issues that concern everybody in these troubling times.

The feminists of the past and present should be appalled that these self proclaimed women’s groups are doing in relegating the support of women to second tier or third tier issues which will not design a successful future for our country no matter what your political leanings might suggest that means. Finding and supporting strong, smart, and bold women of diverse thought ought to at least be as important or even more important to a feminist group claiming to support women candidates.

It should not be a surprising that women are actually very free thinking, engaged in complex issues in different ways, have significant experience and varied backgrounds, and don’t all think alike—what a shock! California, for example, has two very strong women running for office. California candidates Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman exemplify what women’s groups should want in their candidates: strength, experience, tenacity, capability, and individuality. Liz Cheney and Sarah Palin are further examples of strong women who test the bounds of traditional thought. Whether you agree with them or not on policy, it is clear these are all women who do not easily fall in line with the social agenda of the left — or the establishment on the right– for that matter.

Women’s groups have attacked these high profile women, and others like them, who are not playing nice by being a typical female politician who will politely stay within the little glass box of issues pre-packaged up for them by the left. These women will shatter that little glass box and the step beyond the typical toward the possible.

Unfortunately, too many women’s groups attack candidates –women candidates– with excessive and stunning vitriol, if the candidates dare disagree with their group’s social agenda. Rather than lash out, they should be focused on encouraging diversity of thought by women and strong debate rather with than squelching it.

Liberal women’s groups seem to have an affinity for something akin to a Stepford Wife – a female candidate who will simply fall in line and think alike rather than female candidates who might challenge that agenda and take on the political establishment through varying experience and approach.

It is time groups like this think of women as true candidates with an important set of skills to bring to the table rather than as simply a demographic to be either used or won over.

Women’s issues are everyone’s issues. Everyone’s issues are women’s issues. If feminists truly want to promote women in politics and bring a feminine touch to state capitols and to Washington DC, they should understand that not all women think alike—that is something they should cherish, not lament. Then, women candidates will have succeeded and the country will win by having women of all political viewpoints at the table.