Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

« Older Entries

Looking for Leadership in All the Wrong Places?

Monday, February 18th, 2013

Dr. Benjamin Carson

Last week, I brought you a video from the National Prayer Breakfast speech of Dr. Benjamin Carson.  His words were heartening in many respects, and many in conservative media leaped at the notion of his political potential as a candidate.  I thought at the time that it was a bit of a fad, and I was therefore surprised to see Hannity run a full hour-long show on FoxNews devoted to talking with Dr. Carson.  (You can see the full video, here in parts 1 and 2.) I am glad Hannity had him on because my own caution seemed justified by something Dr. Carson said.  As I listened to him address the question of health insurance, it struck me as odd that he sees an inherent conflict of interests between an insurance company seeking to make a profit and its customers seeking health coverage.  When I hear such things said, I often dismiss them as the vapid utterances of mindless politicians, but since Dr. Carson has been receiving so much press, including on this site, it’s time to address the matter.  What Dr. Carson the practitioner of health-care seems to think about insurance is a common misconception, and it offers one more reason why conservatives must be cautious in their choices of leaders.

Dr. Carson said on Hannity’s show that there exists an inherent conflict of interests between health insurance companies and their insured clients.  This is not true.  The actual conflict begins a good deal sooner in the process, and as I think you will see, exposes a wider misunderstanding of the problem.  Ask yourself this:  Who are the majority of purchasers of health insurance?  If you said “individuals,” you’re wrong by a mile.  The truth is that the largest purchasers of health insurance are institutions, including the Federal and states’ governments, and corporations.  The problem here is that the people who consume the service are not the people directly paying for it.  Any time you break the connection between the end user and the provider of goods and services, you effectively destroy likewise the natural market signaling that provides feedback in both directions.

As an example, imagine you are a smoker looking for health insurance.  If you were approaching insurance companies directly, they would undoubtedly quote you a price many times higher than the one they propose to a non-smoker.  Obese?  Same thing.  This would mean that as a matter of natural market forces, you would either amend your behaviors and condition, or you would bear the burden of higher prices.  Insurers would naturally consider everything about you in determining what they would charge for a policy, but perhaps more importantly, you would be free to shop for insurance among many providers.  This would act as a restraint upon overcharging, and would also cause them to offer special discounts if you lived an exceedingly healthy lifestyle.  In short, personal responsibility would have a good deal to do with how much you pay for health insurance, as it should in a free market.  At the same time, a particular company’s profitability would hinge on making consumers happy with their coverages.

What many people ignore is that if one had to pay cash for the whole bill each time one became ill, or injured, most of us would go untreated indefinitely, because few of us have the resources to pay cash for extensive or invasive health-care procedures.  Dr. Carson talks a good deal about Health Savings Accounts, but such plans are more useful for mundane purposes of a less critical nature than their utility in life-threatening circumstances.  While I support Health Savings Accounts, I believe insurance is a necessary hedge against calamities.  If we change our focus from health-care insurance for ongoing maintenance, to a paradigm in which what we insure against are catastrophic circumstances, while letting things like HSAs pick up the slack for ordinary health maintenance, in a market environment, one would see the market begin to perform in a natural fashion.  Unfortunately, this means that people would need  to shop for insurance like they do any other commodity, and seek out the best deals on their ordinary health maintenance and preventative care, and most Americans have become far too complacent about such matters, expecting it all to be automatic.

The truth of the  matter is that if Americans want health-care to improve markedly in the United States, while restraining the growth in costs, without resorting to some sort of death-panel or other government-mandated rationing mechanism, there is a mechanism, however imperfect: The free market.  Unfortunately, since the advent of Medicaid and Medicare, and even widespread employer-purchased health benefits(prompted by government wage and price controls,)  we haven’t had a free market for health-care in the United States, never mind health insurance.  The government is now the largest consumer of health-care services in the country as a direct payer, by many times over, and yet there is still an illusion held by many who receive health-care services paid for or otherwise subsidized through government payments that they are in control of their health-care.  They’re not.

If Dr. Carson’s criticism of corporate health insurance providers were true, then it must be even more thoroughly the case that no institution more than government would wish to avoid costs by denying care.  Do you need evidence? Consider Paul Krugman, longtime leftist economic propagandist and one-note statist, quoted as follows in a piece at Western Journalism:

“We’re going to need more revenue…it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well…And we’re also going to…have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits…death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.”  -Paul Krugman

What Krugman is saying is entirely true, but only if government becomes the source and payer for health-care, because otherwise, the free market would regulate prices in the same manner it does for virtually everything else.  Some will object, insisting that “health-care is different,” just as they have insisted that every other human need is different, from food to housing to education to Internet service to cellular phones.  All of these claims are equally wrong, and equally immoral.  These claims all begin by demanding that some basic human needs be met, and all of them end with a gun to tax-payers’ heads.  All of them.

I admire a number of positions taken by Dr. Carson, and I have no objections whatever about his participation in the public policy debate, but at some point, if he wishes to keep my attention, he will be required to offer more than platitudes and generalities about Health Savings Accounts.  He devoted several lines of rhetoric to the attack of ideologues, but I am always cautious when people attack broad sets of philosophically bound principles in vague terms. I am curious to hear more from Dr. Carson, but I hope there will be a good deal more specificity. Talk of presidential runs and other such notions are fanciful and premature at best, and while I’ve heard a number of truncated statements about various topics from Dr. Carson, what I’ve not heard is a guiding philosophy that informs his opinions. Absent that, I have no grounds upon which to base any opinion of his suitability to any office, much less his qualifications to be President of the United States, and I find it unseemly that Hannity and others would talk of Dr. Carson in presidential terms given that we know so little about his positions.  It may turn out that Dr. Carson is wonderful in all respects, but we already have a President who sailed into office through the propagation of vague, nice-sounding generalities, and I do not believe we can afford another.

Enough said about that.

Note: Mr. L also had some words to say on this subject.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Conservatism, Featured, Healthcare, Media, News, Politics | 5 Comments »

Rove’s Record With “the Most Conservative Candidate Who Could Win”

Friday, February 8th, 2013

Who Me?

On Friday, Karl Rove was further exposed as misleading and disingenuous.  In an email response to his appearance on Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, in which Rove claimed to have been the Director of Reagan’s 1980 Campaign in Texas, Reagan Biographer Craig Shirley responded via Daily Caller, explaining that Rove was no such thing.  In point of fact, Karl Rove ran Governor Clements’ effort for Reagan, but only after George W. Bush was defeated in the primary.  Do you understand?  Rove was a George H.W. Bush supporter, as was Texas Governor Bill Clements, for whom Rove worked at the time.  You see, Clements was a strong Bush supporter throughout the primaries, but there’s more to consider in this story.  First, watch Rove plead his case on Bill O’Reilly’s softball show:

You might wonder, watching Rove misrepresent his role in the Texas campaign for Ronald Reagan, whether it’s such a big deal that he first supported George H.W. Bush.  After all, it’s not that unusual for a candidate’s supporters to move over to the nominee’s campaign in some role after the primaries.  That said, there’s something very important I want you to consider, and it’s obvious as the spin flowing from Karl Rove’s lips:

In 1980, Rove chose Bush. Consider his dubious argument about supporting “the most conservative candidate who can win.”  It seems the most conservative candidate did win, but it wasn’t Rove’s choice in the primary in 1980.  Instead, Ronald Reagan won, and he was far more conservative than Rove’s choice. Of course, that’s not all you need to know.  In 1976, Ronald Reagan was fighting with Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination, and Karl Rove chose a horse to ride in that race too.  Ronald Reagan?  No, ladies and gentlemen,  Karl Rove was all aboard for Gerald Ford.  Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, and so it was true that once again, Rove apparently picked “the most conservative candidate who could win,” though neither did.

That’s the truth about Karl Rove.  In 1978, Karl Rove ran the losing George W. Bush campaign for congress. In 2000, his candidate nearly lost, and did lose the popular vote.  In 2004, his candidate barely squeaked by a very weak John Kerry.  In 2006, his strategies lost the House and Senate.  In 2012, he backed Romney early and often, and Mitt Romney lost. Karl Rove’s record of picking winners is abysmal. He clearly doesn’t know a conservative from a turnip, never mind a winner.  You must stop falling for his strategies, and as Mark Levin pointed out on Friday evening, Rove is attacking Steve King(R-IA) incessantly and dishonestly.  I repeat my sentiment to those who hope to reclaim leadership in the GOP: If you want any hope of winning, Karl Rove must go.

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Bush Clan, Featured, History, Mark Levin, Media, News, Politics, RINO Alert, Tokyo Rove, video | Comments Closed

History Repeats as GOP Establishment Seeks Unity With Democrats…Again

Wednesday, February 6th, 2013

22nd House Speaker

There’s no denying the fact that as we watch the behavior of the Republican insiders, every action and proposal is aimed at shifting the party toward the left.  More and more, Republicans have ceded the ground on so-called “social issues,” where questions of right vs. wrong take precedence over matters of right vs. left.  On such issues, they would rather not engage, preferring instead to avoid the ugly potential fall-out with moderate and leftist voters if some candidates uses the clumsy or foolish language to describe their views.  They support old bulls of the Senate like Dick Lugar(R-IN) over upstarts like Richard Mourdock(R-IN,) but when Lugar could not win the primary, like saboteurs, the establishment wing arrives on the scene to campaign for the Democrat.  It’s not accidental that the establishment Republicans seem to agree so frequently with the statist left.  After all, they know who butters their bread, and it’s obvious that they’re gaining more than their congressional retirement benefits.  They claim leadership over a party largely composed of people they detest as “purists,” and you might wonder about the character of those who openly mock purity. You might ask yourself what kind of Republicans these are, and as Jeffery Lord writes in the American Spectator, history holds the answer:  Rove and his ilk are modern-day “Cotton Whigs.”

As Lord reminds us, the “Cotton Whigs” had been that branch of the powerful Massachusetts Whig Party that acted in most respects like today’s Republican establishment.  Their opponents, the “Conscience Whigs,” opposed slavery and were uncompromising in that pursuit.  In issue after issue, and election after election, the Cotton Whigs did all they could to undermine Conscience Whigs, often siding with the pro-slavery Democrats out of a desire to forestall addressing the slave trade.  Like our contemporary Republican establishment, they claimed to sympathize with Conscience Whigs, but underlying that sentiment, they wanted to hold the country together and continue making money indirectly through the continued use of slaves.  It was this divide that ultimately led to the building of the Republican party, and the abandonment of the Whigs.  Lord’s conclusion is that modern-day Cotton-Whigs are making a similar error, and that Karl Rove and his fellows in that group may soon find themselves kicked by history against the political curb.

It is also fitting that one of the so-called Cotton Whigs had been Robert Winthrop, who served as speaker of the House, whose close ties to the textile industry in Massachusetts made him a less than enthusiastic supporter of abolition. You see, much like modern day Republican establishment types, he couldn’t or wouldn’t take a firm stand against slavery, not because he agreed with it in principle, but because in practice, he profited from it.  Fast-forward to John Boehner and the rest of the Republican establishment, and you find the same sort of principles of convenience that cannot be tolerated if they interfere with profits.  I warned my readers in 2011 that there were any number of Republican establishment types who were fine with Obama-care, because a.) they wouldn’t be affected personally, and b.) they had figured out a way to profit from it.  These are your putative leaders, and they bear an eerily resemblance to the Cotton Whigs of Massachusetts.

I agree with Mr. Lord’s appraisals of the modern-day Cotton Whigs, because much like their political forerunners in pragmatism, establishment Republicans are not interested in conservative approaches to social issues because they threaten to undermine the status quo.  Let us be blunt in admitting that the GOP establishment is comprised of people who have figured out how to make substantial fortunes from the growth of big government, and that they have no concern for underlying issues of morality so long as the cash continues to run freely from the treasury into their accounts through various devices of public expenditure.  They have sold their souls in exchange for ill-gotten loot, and they are willing to destroy “conscience conservatives” in order to continue on their way.  They side with Democrats in every issue in which their money or power comes up against doing what is right.

There are some who will interpret this as an attack against wealthy Republicans, but such is not the case.  It is a matter of examining who is enriching themselves not by entrepreneurial endeavors, but instead by graft and rampant cronyism.  In most respects, the modern day Cotton Whigs are the frequent beneficiaries of government expenditures.  What do they care if tax rates go up if their take from the treasury increases many times over?  Just as the Cotton Whigs were happy to profit from slavery, thus turning away from consideration of the moral aspects of the issue, so too are today’s “Cotton Republicans” willing to ignore the bondage into which you and your children are being cast. The Democrats play roughly the same part they played a century-and-one-half ago, happy to take such assistance as Cotton Republicans will offer while dividing and destroying Republican strength in opposition to their pro-bondage agenda.

Jeffrey Lord must be credited here with seeing an accurate analog to our current political troubles, reaching back to the founding of the Republican party to make it plain how rank-and-file conservatives, concerned as much with the long-term social and moral aspects of our country are again being overwhelmed by well-heeled interests who continue to profit from the bondage we must in good conscience oppose.  Whether the particular issue is abortion, crony capitalism, immigration, or an outrageous health-care mandate, the “Cotton Republicans” live on the wrong side of every issue, not wanting to stop the gravy train to which they’ve hitched their caboose.  What these charlatans offer is that one can gain the whole world, and to devil with one’s soul. There is one other person who deserves a hat-tip in all of this, because it had been Sarah Palin warning the GOP establishment that they might well end up going the way of the Whigs. Who better than the Alaskan crusader against crony capitalism and corruption to have pointed out the similarities between our modern Republican establishment and the Whigs? The time may have arrived in which her unheeded warning will be made fact by the intransigence of the Beltway political class.

There’s no sense pretending that the GOP establishment is on our side.  In fact, it’s so bad that we ought to stop considering them as Republicans at all, or abandon the party to them, as had been the ultimate result with their philosophical forbears, the “Cotton Whigs.”  One thing about which we must be careful is that some of them don’t manage to infiltrate our movement in order to co-opt it.  Given the opportunity, they will quickly set up shop and begin all over again, leaving us right where we started.  If you don’t think they’re willing to stoop to that tactic, I’d urge you to think again.  Wise conservatives will observe the actions of some of our newer brethren, judging their actions rather than merely listening to their words. If Mr. Lord is right, and I must admit that he has struck a chord with me, a single defeat or a string of them will not banish these Cotton Republicans from our party, whether in six weeks or six years.  We will be required to practice resolve and vigilance to keep them at arms length, because I believe that if one can keep them at bay for long enough, they will shed their masks and simply join up with Democrats who are their natural allies. If the GOP establishment wants to find unity with the Democrats, I strenuously suggest we let them.  Put another way, as Jeffrey Lord aptly reminds us, from the historical precedent he offers:

Briskly remarked a young Charles Sumner, another Conscience Whig (whose defiant anti-Cotton Whig leadership would eventually make him a Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts) of the differences with Cotton Whigs: “Let the lines be drawn. The sooner the better.” Said Sumner: “Thank God! The Constitution of the United States does not recognize men as property,” adding at another point “I am willing to be in a minority in support of our principles.”(emphasis added)

We should heed Lord’s analogy, but we should be willing also embrace Sumner’s advice.  In order to clean out the Cotton Republicans from our midst, we may need to be willing to briefly remain a minority party.  That will be the immediate cost of ejecting or abandoning the GOP establishment, but it is a cost we can’t afford to avoid for much longer.  They are unifying with the Democrats, adopting their arguments and their tactics, and isolating conservatives while claiming the mantle of conservatism.  It’s time we give up our fixation on winning at any cost.  If we stick to the fundamentals of our principles, rejecting statist arguments outright, victory will come in due course.  If we stand on principle, the American people will ultimately notice, and when the Republic begins to collapse, they will remember who refused to yield. If we don’t believe that much at least, for what are we fighting anyway? I am calling on all of my conservative brethren to reject the GOP establishment no matter the short-run cost, so that we may go on about the business of saving the country. We must be a people of no lesser a character than our predecessors, the “Conscience Whigs.”

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Conservatism, Featured, GOP Establishment, Media, News, Politics, Statism | 1 Comment »

A Sandy Hook Parent Whose Testimony Didn’t Make the Evening News

Monday, February 4th, 2013

One of the things I have grown to detest is the absolutely biased media coverage in the wake of tragic events such as the Sandy Hook shooting.  The event was awful enough, but must news coverage also be biased with such regularity in favor of the leftists’ agenda?  Naturally, the invariable answer is “yes,” and as we were treated to the sad testimony of parents who have just been through heart-rending disaster being exploited by politicians and media who are reliably intent on pushing their agenda, it is clear the media will never give coverage to the whole story.  Here is Newtown Connecticut resident Bill Stevens giving testimony regarding the ongoing attack on the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of the tragedy at the school his own daughter attends, a clip I am fairly certain you did not and will not see on your evening news.

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Gun Rights, Media, News, Politics, video | 3 Comments »

“Boomtown” Hannity Special Reveals a Swamp Undrained

Saturday, January 26th, 2013

On Friday night, Sean Hannity aired a special presentation called “Boomtown,” featuring Peter Schweizer and Stephen K. Bannon.  The point of “Boomtown” is to expose the naked corruption of the rich and powerful who now hold sway over the Federal Government.  From crony capitalism to old-fashioned cronyism and nepotism in government, the two explained how thoroughly broken our Federal government has become, and how frequently its machinery is placed in service of the accumulation of vast wealth for those who are on the inside.  Cautioning viewers that these criticisms apply equally to Democrats and Republicans, their point was well made.  Here’s the video:

What one must conclude from this film is what Sarah Palin warned us during her speech at Indianola, IA:  Too much of Washington DC is corrupted by the kickbacks, the insider deals, and the special set-asides for lobbying corporations.  Many conclude that this means money must be gotten out of politics, but that cannot and will not happen.  Instead, in order to cure the problem, government must be gotten out of business, but as Bannon and Schweizer explained, that’s not going to be easy because so many there are so firmly invested in the process of using government and the law as tools of self-enrichment.

To change any of this, the American people will need to become informed in order to demand sensible changes resulting in a different culture in Washington DC, but the solutions will not be easy.  It is going to require leadership committed to reforming the way government operates, and for all the talk of people like Nancy Pelosi who in 2006 lamented the “culture of corruption,” even after four years of her tenure as Speaker of the House, the swamp she claimed her party would drain has filled to overload with shady, corrupt practices and widespread graft.  It’s a bipartisan problem, and this is why in the final analysis, Boehner and crew continue to go along with the President’s out-of-control spending:  Everybody is profiting from it in Washington DC, because while unemployment throughout the country remains nearly 8%, and home values continue to be stagnant or on the decline, in Washington DC, everything is booming because they’re collecting your money and spending money they’re borrowing with the American people held in bondage to make payments on their self-enriching excesses.

We may never get the money out of politics, but we will improve the trajectory of our country if we can get the government out of business by prohibiting to it the sort of corruptions that are now routine procedures in Washington DC. If we love our liberties, it is time to grasp the notion that a government vested with so much power to intervene in the free market is the inevitable birthplace of tyranny.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Crony Capitalism, Featured, Media, News, Politics | Comments Closed

Mr. L: You May Be a Condescending, Arrogant, Elitist, Neo-Liberal, Mini-Dem Putz if…

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

As usual, Mr. L is on point.  He takes on the same moderate Republican whiner I took on here.  It’s ridiculous to think that guys like James Arlandson comprise any more than a tiny fraction of Republican thought, but somehow, they always manage to get the press.  Always.  Meanwhile, as Mr. L rightly points out, the RINO, Mini-Dem, Neo-Liberal front continues to pretend it’s our place to submit.  Endlessly.  Check out Mr. L’s rebuttal to James Arlandson below.  Be sure to let him know what you think over on his website. Here’s the video:

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, GOP Establishment, Media, News, Politics, video | 2 Comments »

NY Times Expresses “Concern” for GOP by Trashing Ted Cruz

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

Best Use of Your Times

There’s something a bit more than preposterous about the premise of the NY Times Op-Ed suggesting that for the good of the party, Republicans leaders should ignore Ted Cruz and other conservatives in their caucuses because in that publication’s view, they’re too rigid and inflexible, and they have all the lies in the world ready to prove it. Given that this is published in the NY Times, conservatives will likely conclude as they should that the paper probably doesn’t exactly have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart, their contrived concern aside. Of course, it’s one thing to offer an opinion, but it’s a damnable shame to validate one’s opinion with lies and half-truths, but once again, the NY Times has little else to offer its readers. Remembering that this is the outfit that hid the holocaust, and covered for Joe Stalin and Fidel Castro(h/t MarkLevinShow,) it’s really not surprising to see the paper resort to this tactic. The Gray Lady sees no black or white, and holds in contempt all who do.  The paper’s motive is transparent: Marginalize conservatives in the Republican Party.

Their screed against Cruz is fundamentally wrong, in large measure because it’s based on a number of lies and distortions:

“Unlike 85 percent of the Republicans in the Senate, he would have voted against the fiscal cliff deal. He says gun control is unconstitutional. Breaking even with conservative business leaders, he would have no qualms about using the debt ceiling as a hostage because he believes (falsely) that it would produce only a partial government shutdown and not default.”

I realize it is the contention of the Times editors that gun control is constitutional, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms just as the First Amendment protects the right of the NY Times to publish lies presented as fact.  The Op-Ed relates that Ted Cruz is willing to use the debt ceiling in order to force cuts in Federal spending, but the conclusion(a.k.a. propaganda) is that he believes a falsehood about the results of such an action. This contention is a lie.  The government of the United States takes in roughly $220-230 billion in revenues each month, and from that amount, paying the interest on the debt, paying for Social Security and Medicare, as well as paying our military can be accomplished.

What is not easily accomplished under such a scenario is to continue funding the endless string of other government programs and departments, some of which are simply bureaucratic fluff, but many of which comprise things like corporate welfare and crony capitalism, along with outrageous spending on items of dubious necessity to the operation of our government.  In short, the Times is lying.  Default is only a necessary result of a Debt Ceiling freeze if the President is unwilling to comply with his duty to pay the debts of the United States and thereby intentionally throw the country into chaos.  This is the truth the NY Times does not want you to know.  We should be so lucky as to have a Congress willing to put a stop to the out-of-control spending.  The Times wants the President to retain the propaganda tool of claiming that a Debt Ceiling impasse would lead to disaster.  It’s simply not the case.

Not satisfied with the growing influence of conservatives with a Tea Party flavor, the Times continued its farcical rant against Cruz:

“Considering the damage that this kind of thinking did to the country and the Republican Party over the last two years — a downgraded credit rating, legislative standoffs, popular anger, a loss of Republican seats — it might seem obvious that the party should marginalize lawmakers like Mr. Cruz. Instead, they continue to gain power and support. Party leaders named Mr. Cruz vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee”

Does the NY Times really expect readers to believe that Republicans had been to blame for the credit downgrade?  The only degree to which the GOP may be blamed is that in the final analysis, they compromised with President Obama, giving in and accepting a spending binge that caused credit rating services to downgrade the nation’s credit-worthiness, and before it’s over, will prompt more credit rating agencies to push the rating down. The popular anger in the country isn’t directed at Cruz, or other conservatives, unless “popular anger” is an expression used to describe the sentiment among the board of editors at the NY Times.  A winning presidential candidate is always expected to pick up seats for his party, thus the long-established political term we call “coat-tails,” just as it is long-held political convention to expect a President to lose seats in an off-year election, much like 2010.

The fact of the matter is that the NY Times is taking a shot at Ted Cruz because in his early popularity, they see the potential for damage to their left-wing agenda.  They want the Republicans to compromise with the President, but if truth be told, they’d rather there were no Republicans.  This is why they continue their campaign to marginalize conservatives, and it’s also why they apparently feel compelled to carry off an unconvincing pretense of concern for the Republican Party.  The Times isn’t interested in making the Republican Party a viable political force, but they know Republican leaders in Washington read their paper, actually believing some of the paper’s hogwash. Let’s concede that when it comes to propaganda that influences policy, the NY Times is an undeniable leader, but that doesn’t mean we must accept it as a permanent condition.  Their claim that Cruz is too rigid is simply another way of saying that he intends to keep his word to voters in Texas, where standing on principle isn’t an entirely foreign concept.

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Activism, Conservatism, Featured, Media, News, Politics, Texas Politics | 1 Comment »

Class in Session: Mark Levin Declares RINO-ism Dead

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

RINOism Dead!

There should be no mistake about what Mark Levin believes, or even the vast reach of his influence over the debate about government.  Many left-wingers and not a few establishment Republicans accuse Dr. Levin of being a yelling mad-man, but that ignores the extent to which he influences the public debate.  At an event last year in support of Ted Cruz, in the run-off that made him the Republican candidate, one attendee asked quite simply:  How can we stop the construction of Ameritopia?  What was stunning wasn’t the fact that the Senate Candidate knew full well what the questioner meant, being a friend with Dr. Levin and a campaign season guest on his show, but that all around the room, heads nodded up and down, because they knew the meaning of the question too.  When the Senator answered, he demonstrated an understanding of the implications with respect to the US constitution, but unlike your typical rally of Democrats, the audience understood his points in part because some of them are lifetime students of our civil society, but also because among them were many listeners of Mark Levin’s show.

On Tuesday evening, frustrated with the talking points and narratives of establishment Republicans who wish to blame conservatives for last November’s losses, Levin launched:

Alternative content


Dr. Levin holds a special contempt for so-called RINOs, or as I have recently dubbed them, “Mini-Dems.” They don’t believe in conservatism, or near as one can tell, much of anything.  Instead, theirs is the worship of a brand of vague pragmatism that ends in Republican defeats.  Of course, Dr. Levin realizes the RINOs aren’t going away, but here I think the larger point is that the underlying strategies and arguments that comprise RINOism are dead, as demonstrated by their repeated failures in election after election.

Levin’s reach into the blogosphere is deep and wide, as almost daily, some blogger somewhere, much as I’m doing now, is posting a vital clip from his show, and this acts as a spark for debate, not merely between left and right, but more importantly in the wake of last November’s election defeats, between and among Republicans and conservatives.  This is because Levin spares no feelings, or at least not many, in making the essential and incisive points that establish the conditions of the debate.  This may explain more than anything else why Levin’s show has grown while others have remained fairly static.  He engages one’s mind, and he demands you follow the logic.  He makes no apologies for supporting the Tea Party, or the conservative wing of the party, as Levin came up in politics in the watershed year of 1976, campaigning for Ronald Reagan.  Though Reagan lost that election, it set the stage for his nomination and election in 1980, and Levin was there to learn the critical lessons.

Most listeners to Levin’s show comprise a group of studious, committed pupils, attending a a constitutional classroom in which the principles behind the founding of the country and the framing of its constitution are the daily lesson plan.  What’s more, while it’s relatively early to draw this conclusion, as conservatives are searching for answers to their current political morass, it seems as though more are turning to Levin for the answers.  It’s not as though Levin claims to be an all-knowing font of wisdom on what ought to be conservatives’ course, but his determination to fight and keep moving is enough because what becomes plain to his listeners is his unfailing commitment to see the battle through, whatever form it takes.  Part of this may owe to the fact that in the wake of the 2012 election, conservatives are looking for a strong, articulate leader to make their best case for liberty, but I believe it’s a good deal more substantive than that.  Levin seems almost instinctively to understand what the left will try next, which may explain why the stories he reads on one day so often become the topic of discussion throughout the blogosphere on the next day.

It’s been true on this site, almost from its inception, and on many occasions, I have brought readers audio from Dr. Levin’s show.  My readers will have no idea on how many occasions Dr. Levin had stolen my thunder by covering a stories that I had in draft form as Levin’s show began, only to later discard them because on topics of substance, he generally leaves so little to be explained.  That’s fine by me, but it highlights another important point about Levin: He’s plugged-in, and he works tirelessly outside the confines of his show, not merely to prepare for his daily three-hour lesson in liberty, but because in other efforts, he’s at the tip of the spear.  The Landmark Legal Foundation is his other instrument of our republic’s defense, taking up cases of constitutional import on behalf of a grateful people.  This level of involvement means that unlike so many other talkers, he’s in the trenches with us, and often as the point-man out ahead of us, spotting danger and directing the initial engagements.

Given all this, you’d think more Republican politicians would heed his advice, but where Dr. Levin is fearless, all too often, elected officials won’t follow his lead, out of a fear frequently masquerading as an overabundance of prudence.  Levin understands this, and he often asks politicians questions that he then suggests they not answer, instead completing the thought on his own, knowing the precarious state of any official’s office.  Levin’s show is probably also the largest network of plugged-in conservative activists in the general right-wing sphere, and his audience is unashamed to lean on politicians and to begin with the phrase: “I heard on Mark Levin’s show that you were going to vote for…”  It is for this reason that so many of the DC Republican establishment tunes into his show, and while most won’t admit it, the fact is that they are well aware of Levin, and they feel his electoral influence. Politicians on the receiving end of his support love to hear the phrase “Levin surge” pronounced on their behalf, just as they cringe when they pop up on Levin’s radar for the sake of a well-deserved critique.  They know they’re about to find their email and voice-mail full, and they’re going to get it both from Levin on the radio as well as from their constituents.

What may make Levin the most compelling and influential of the talkers and political media figures is that he expresses his contempt for the malfeasance of politicians and parties in the context of legal concepts on which he daily refreshes his audience.  Apart from this blog, and rare few like it, you will not often witness a discussion of the principles underlying our supreme law.  Law can be a minefield as any layperson will know, but there’s something precious about the ability to breath life into the collection of words, explaining their meaning and the context in which they were formulated in a manner that both educates and engages listeners.  Very often, listeners to Dr. Levin’s show evince a reverence for our republic’s charter that is both touching and sincere, but also ironic in light of how easily their alleged “betters” dispense with both its words and spirit inside the beltway.

This kind of reformation movement isn’t religious, but its most ardent supporters would contend that while they may cling to their guns and their bibles, they haven’t turned-loose of their constitution either.  Listening Tuesday evening, as Levin mentioned the effect he suspected his show might have on the national dialogue, I wondered aloud in response to my deaf computer screen as to just how many of the people I know are now loyal Levin listeners, and the truth is something staggering.  I may live in rural Texas, where we tend to value liberty more than the average, but even friends from the distant large cities, in this state and out, all seem quite familiar with Levin’s show, his daily “lesson plans” frequently filling my morning inbox:   “Did you hear what Mark [Levin] said last night?”  There’s no denying he’s a bold and entertaining talk radio phenomenon, but more than this, he’s also the commander of constitutional defense headquarters on a national scale.  When people seek the low-down on the latest Obama executive usurpation, they tune to one show on the dial and in streams across the Internet, because for better or worse, they know they’ll find the answers.

Dr. Levin can be heard Monday-Friday, 6-9pm Eastern, both on terrestrial radio and streaming from his site, as well as  affiliates.  If you miss the live show, he also offers free downloads of his podcasts here.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, audio, Conservatism, Featured, Law, Mark Levin, Media, News, Politics | 1 Comment »

The Rise of the Mini-Dems

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

Miniature Look-Alike

In the ruinous ashes of Republican defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, a number of Republicans have popped-up in media to dutifully serve the narrative that the election had been the fault of conservatives.  Not only is this preposterous conclusion untrue, but also a proxy for any actual examination of why Republicans lost in 2012.  One of the favored approaches of these critics is to suggest that if conservatives wouldn’t be, well… so darned conservative, there’s some chance Republicans could have won.  One writer has even fashioned a new term to apply to staunch conservatives, but it’s not hard to notice that by the connotations of his term, he doesn’t mean to win them over.  James Arlandson, writing in the American Thinker, has coined a new term for most of you and I, and I don’t believe he intends flattery, although the combative part of me likes the label even if inaccurate.  He suggests we “might be Hyper-conservatives if…” and in the form of Jeff Foxworthy, goes on to list a number of conditions he believes characterizes the class.  Myself, I’ve devised a different label for folks like Arlandson because I believe it captures the essence and spirit of their fundamental philosophical frailties, to the extent they adhere to any ideology at all. These philosophically smallish Republicans would honestly make better “Mini-Dems.”

Arlandson’s approach to the matter is straightforward, if a bit muddled.  He alleges that there are certain aspects of some in the conservative wing of the general Republican universe that must disqualify their opinions because he believes certain positions are beyond the pale.  He lists a number of these conditions, and right off the top, he asserts a falsehood without substantiation. What makes it interesting is his use of a term to describe those who vote libertarian.  We’ve heard this term before, and it’s another I’m not afraid to wear. Arlandson says those who wish to eliminate too much government too quickly(while bothering to define neither scale) are “too severe.”  The only other person I know who in recent memory used that term to describe conservatism was Mitt Romney, describing himself, for Pete’s sake.

He then insists that we might be hyper-conservatives if we cry “third party” every time we don’t get our way.  Actually, I haven’t cried “third party” every time, but only when the party completely undercuts its purported principles for the sake of political expediency, an approach Mr. Arlandson would seem to approve.  The fact that these betrayals are happening with increasing regularity plays no role in his formulation.  His claim is that “grownup conservatives” (ostensibly such as he) “must be willing to suck it up and fight harder for the (imperfect) brand that has the best chance of winning — R.”  Let us imagine we take his advice.  The imperfect brand with the best chance of winning actually won, with the other imperfect brand following his advice.   Hint to Mr. Arlandson: That’s a “D” – Not an “R.”

He argues that we might be hyper-conservatives if… “[We] refuse to work with Dems(even after [we] lose an election.)”  Exactly what work would Mr. Arlandson suggest we take up with the Dems?  Shall we help them ban semi-automatic firearms?  Shall we work with them to more rapidly bankrupt the country(an object Republicans in DC have apparently taken up?)  Shall we stand by and watch the Democrats rape, pillage and burn, or does the mere suggestion of the truth of the situation brand me irrevocably as a “hyper-conservative?” I know one he intends, but he gets to that in a separate line-item, and so shall we.

Let’s apply his faulty strategy to any other human endeavor in which one side wins and the other sides loses.  In war, should we now work with al-Qaeda, since its apparent that despite more than a decade of conflict, our current administration seems committed to failure?  Too late, the President Arlandson suggests we’re no longer to substantially oppose has already done that.  Even in sport, is a beaten football team supposed to work with its rival?  Should a defeated boxer pummel himself in order to work with his opponent? I’m trying to understand the mentality that permits one to believe any of that is possible without simply joining the other team, but I think Mr. Arlandson is fairly-well ahead of me on that score.  This serves as the unmistakable clarion call of an approaching Mini-Dem.

He argues that if we fantasize about shredding or scrapping the school lunch program, we might be hyper-conservatives.  I suppose that cinches the matter, and I should confess, because if this is the standard, I am guilty as charged, and this issue must serve as my hyper-conservative bona fides.  I would also suggest that this is the sort of issue where the Mini-Dem is likewise exposed.  You see, I may be hyper-conservative, but I also know that the ultimate aim of any such program must be the intent to become obsolete by virtue of a growing prosperity, a quantity and quality that will remain out of our reach so long as we continue to fund dependency.  While Arlandson likes to wave Ronald Reagan around with zest, here he instead peddles “compassionate conservatism,” a theory that when turned to practice actually demonstrates neither.  As he decries those of us who would cut government programs “like drunken lumberjacks,” I’m looking around for some whiskey, and where did that blue ox run off to?  It seems Mr. Arlandson has forgotten that Reagan maxim that we should measure compassion not by how many are on government programs, but instead by how many no longer need them.

Naturally, it didn’t take long for him to get around to the discussion of immigration.  After all, it’s a good opportunity to work with Democrats who will be the primary beneficiaries of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.”  Those who want illegals deported are apparently some sort of back-woods rednecks right out of the script of The Deliverance, at least where Arlandson is concerned.  Says he:

“Honestly, I would self-deport from your America if she were ever made in your image. The DNC is gleeful.”

Honestly, I too would be gleeful at the prospect of your self-deportation, Mr. Arlandson.  He offers us sage counsel, as if we’re too stupid to know it, or too lacking in compassion to care, chiding us:

“Immigrants, even illegal ones, are humans.  Never forget that.”

If there’s one thing a hyper-conservative hates, it’s to be the object of condescension by a Mini-Dem, and here, Mr. Arlandson goes too far.  My wife happens to be an immigrant.  I know everything I need to know about the issue, and I am well aware of the hurdles, the obstacles, and the myriad difficulties, but guess what?  None of that stopped me or my wife from observing the law. Put another way Mr. Arlandson, stuff it. How’s that for hyper-conservatism?

He apparently supports the made-up holiday Kwanzaa.  Why should I care?  In his view, admitting the entirely contrived nature of the holiday is to express some part of that quality that Colin Powell would term “a dark vein of intolerance.”  I suppose he needs to take this complaint up with Ann Coulter who famously dislikes the holiday, if she’s not too busy tying Chris Christie’s shoes. This is one more glaring reason that our country should never be entrusted to Mini-Dems, any more than it should be left to the mercy of the full-size imbeciles.  They’ll accept any absurdity in order to appease others, particularly if those others comprise a significant voting bloc that Republicans will never likely capture.

He says hyper-conservatives get side-tracked too easily by hobbyhorses. Like berating conservatives critical of Kwanzaa?  One example he offers is the desire among many conservatives and libertarians to eliminate the Federal Reserve.  He dismisses the notion with a thoughtful and retrospective view of the history and function of the Federal Reserve by simply saying:

“Ain’t gonna happen.”

That’s a nifty assertion, but let me offer a different view to Mr. Arlandson, although he may well reject it as the product of hyper-conservatism:  Nothing made by men lasts forever, so that whether it happens as a result of a seemingly inevitable monetary collapse birthed by that very institution, or instead because the United States of America ceases to exist as a political subdivision on this Earth, it most certainly will happen at some point whether you like it or not.  The question is not “if the Fed will die,” but instead “when,” and perhaps also “how.”  I love it when people like Arlandson deify themselves and make such preposterous declarations, as if they had any power whatever to make it come out the way they dictate.  It’s another tell-tale sign of a Mini-Dem. Apparently unhappy with their station in life as the weaker ideological sister to either left or right, they tend toward grand pronouncements easily debunked by adolescent logicians.    Notice, however, that Arlandson does not answer whether the Federal Reserve ought to exist, or whether it is doing more harm than good, instead merely asserting that it does exist, and on such basis must remain in perpetuity, or perhaps at least until he gets tired of it.  Naturally, he takes on those who get caught up by media questions about the age of the Earth, as though it had been a perfectly settled matter, but he is unable to acknowledge that the sun will burn out, the world will end, the United States will dissolve, and the Federal Reserve system will come to an end.  Apart from the direct intervention of God, these things will all come to pass, but while He might have some interest in the first two events, I suspect the Almighty isn’t spending much of His infinite time pondering the possibility of life on Earth without the Federal Reserve.

Arlandson goes on a bit more, about “birthers” and rape, and the age of the Earth, along with other pressing issues to conservatism, in each revealing his general competence for the description of Mini-Dem.  Like so many Mini-Dems, he wields Ronald Reagan in selective references like a sword, much like full-size Democrats do, but he is careful to remember only that much of “the Gipper” that will buttress his points, but no more.  He quite predictably flees to that age-old taunt about “hyper-conservatives” being too “simplistic.” What this really denotes, as ever, is a willingness to forgo discussions of precise right and wrong; simple truth and falsehood; moral white and black.   This is the signature cop-out of a Mini-Dem, because what they assert is that things are not so simple as to be reduced to a string of binary choices and decisions, though every computer on the planet proves otherwise.  It’s the same old dodge with the same old flavor:  Create gray areas to obscure one’s [intended]wrongdoing.

As a matter of clean-up then, I suppose it’s time to explain what I mean by “Mini-Dem,” and therefore permit you to decide for yourselves whether Mr. Arlandson fits the description:

A “Mini-Dem” is Republican who never has a single big idea.  Big ideas are too risky for Mini-Dems, because the larger (and smaller) part of what defines them as such is their abiding lack of political courage. They refuse to confront difficult challenges because it’s so much easier to surrender.  To conservatism?  No, never.  To Democrats?  Who else?  Mini-Dems would rather join with Democrats and assist their victory than bend their will to conservatism, because they possess the imbecilic need of a teenager to be accepted by the crowd, while actual conservatives realize that saying “no” is necessary job of responsible adults.  Part of the problem may owe to their conception of political courage, in Mini-Dem terms defined by criticizing conservatism to the endless glee of the left-wing media.

Theirs is the position of interminable surrender.  Who wants to go through all that fighting, and after all, “can’t we just get along?” It’s not that they never contemplate a fight, but instead that at the first imagined spilling of political blood, they go running of in search of another excuse for their cowardice. It’s always “we’ll get’em next time,” but when it’s this time, the “getting’em” is always delayed until next time. Next time never comes.  Ever.  If you want to see Mr. Arlandson’s prescribed approach in action, watch the abandonment of all reason and principle by the House Republicans over the Debt Ceiling.  Last time, they said “next time,” but when the next time came, they said again “next time, not this time.”  Do you notice the pattern?  They talk about conservatism, but when the time demands conservatism in practice, it’s always next time.  My own conclusion is that this owes to small hearts, small minds, weak constitutions, and over-indulging parents.  (All right, fine, maybe not that last, but it just felt right.)  In short, they’re almost exactly like Democrats in practice, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think that which defines the larger part of the psyche of Mini-Dems is a preternatural fear of being disliked. It’s like the teenage emotional state of panic that occurs when they realize everybody is looking at them as though they had the world’s largest zits on the ends of their noses. It’s that kind of sheer terror that reveals the Mini-Dem, and it’s another reason why we continue to lose elections.  Their panic at the embarrassment of a naturally occurring dermal disturbance sends them screaming out of the room to the roaring laughter of their peers, not because they had pimples, but because they had freaked out over them.  It makes a more solid conservative wish to grab and shake them. “Get a grip, man: Zits happen.”

The rise of the Mini-Dem was inevitable after moderate Mitt was defeated.  The idea is to excuse Mitt’s moderate or liberal positions, as possible reasons for his loss.  The problem is that these had been most of the cause, but just as Mitt refused to fight over the Benghazi issue after Candy Crowley flat-out lied to the debate audience, this lack of combativeness typifies the Mini-Dem.  We mustn’t have a big and ugly spectacle lest some one notice those zits on our noses, don’t you know?  Therefore, what defines the breed is an near-absolute unwillingness to stand on any principle lest they be mistaken for us.  What are we?  Apparently, we’re hyper-conservatives because we don’t fear losing much of anything save for our souls. Then we’d be Mini-Dems.

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Conservatism, Featured, GOP Establishment, Media, News, Politics, RINO Alert | 4 Comments »

The Desperate Fraud of the Anti-Palin Left

Sunday, January 20th, 2013

All Hate, All the Time

If you’ve ever wondered about the motive driving the anti-Palin left, sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome(PDS,) or other venom-laden spittle disguised as reporting, wonder no longer.  Willing to twist or omit facts, relying instead upon the absolute gullibility of their audiences, their intention is to propagandize by virtue of one-thousand easily discredited cuts, knowing that their less-than-curious audiences will buy almost anything without question or critical analysis.  In most cases, the manner in which a supporter of Sarah Palin will defend against such garbage is to first attack the fraudulent author’s  propaganda, presenting the facts that negate the false charges leveled by the propagandist involved.  The problem is that these people are so despicable that they don’t care if they’re caught lying by the sane world, as they know their Low Information Audiences won’t ever discover the truth.  I’m going to do it somewhat differently, because I want you to experience the shock value of knowing the real story before reading the propaganda.  For once, you ought to know what it must be like to be Sarah Palin, or anybody else who is attacked in this manner, because having lived reality, it must be shocking to see facts about oneself twisted into such devious propaganda.

Let’s consider a story that had appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, way back in October of 2008, as Sarah Palin was busy campaigning for the office of Vice President with Presidential candidate John McCain.  During the previous summer, before Palin had been chosen as McCain’s running mate, an investigation by authorities had concluded with a recommendation by Lt. Gen. Craig Campbell, the state’s military and veterans affairs commissioner that an all-volunteer militia led by Brig. General Thomas Westall, created to assist the Nation Guard, ought to be disarmed of state-owned and provided weapons over potential liability issues for the state.  This investigation had stemmed from a complaint filed by a member, Larry Wood, because he felt the militia commander might be issuing arbitrary orders and dismissals to members, he himself having been dismissed for unclear cause by his own account.   In short, this was a situation in which responsible Alaska State officials were heading off any potential liability situation for the state.  This sort of action is undertaken by any responsible state official who is concerned with making policies and taking decisions consistent with their official mandates.  It had been concluded by investigators that the militia had insufficient policies and procedures, such that its control and direction had come into question.  The article in the ADN had been: Defense Commander Resigns After Complaints.

If you’re at all like me, you look at the facts of the story, and conclude that the State of Alaska had been concerned there could be some sort of monkey-business going on with the force, known as the 49th Military Police Brigade since 2004, and the state rightly did not wish to take on liability for a force that had not such proper procedures and policies in place to deal with personnel matters, or much of anything.  Nobody was criminally sanctioned, or in any way prosecuted, but the state simply decided that they could not permit this force to be armed in its name any longer.  That’s not so unusual, and bluntly, no public official wants a poorly-organized force armed with State authority to carry on much of anything in an official capacity.  Who could blame either Lt. General Campbell, or Governor Sarah Palin for taking what can only be categorized as perfectly natural and responsible actions?  Well, there is somebody, and predictably, that somebody is a professional  propagandist of the organized left.

Now that you’ve read through the originating story, and are at least familiar with the facts of the case, I now wish to present to you the fantastic tale of Palin anti-gun hypocrisy cobbled together by certified PDS sufferer Sarah Jones, of Politicususa.  If ever you have wondered what it is like to be Sarah Palin, imagine if you will what one must feel when reading the following nonsensical, inane and distorted headline, knowing what you already do:

The Right Calls Obama a Dictator, but Sarah Palin Disarmed the Alaska Civil Militia

The first thing that should grab you is that the story changed title, becoming more dishonest, thereby venting more rage in Sarah Palin’s direction.  Examing the URL of the story tells the tale. Notice that the author changed the label of the disarmed group from “Defense Force” to “Civil Militia” in order to cause readers to wonder if Palin had disarmed ordinary citizens.  Titles have been:

  • Tea Party Darling Sarah Palin Disarmed Alaska State Defense Force
  • The Right Calls Obama a Dictator, but Sarah Palin Disarmed the Alaska Civil Militia

Given the nature of the website in question, we might well expect the next mutation of the title to be:

  • Palin Takes Guns from Alaska Schoolhouse Defense League While Right Wing Racist NRA Klansmen Cheer

Don’t laugh.  I expect that title to appear at any time.  Part and parcel of that site’s schtick is to paint all conservatives, but particularly Sarah Palin, with the broadly damning brushes of racism, “extremism,” violence and hypocrisy.  These are pathologically broken individuals, based on the content of their stories, but fortunately, only what must be considered a “Low Information Voter” could possibly believe the nonsense authored there.

The second thing one ought to notice is that the story cites the Anchorage Daily News story, but never provides a link to it anywhere in the text of the story, instead requiring readers to accept the premise and the facts as outlined in the Sarah Jones piece.  The problem is that the Jones piece constructs an entirely fictitious narrative, positioning Governor Sarah Palin “disarming the militia,” against Sarah Palin the citizen, who is an advocate for gun rights and a longtime gun owner as well as lifetime member of the NRA, a fact they shamelessly mock.  The object is to discredit Governor Palin by presenting her as a hypocrite, an accusation that can stand only if you believe the dishonest narrative presented by the Jones hit-piece.  Since Jones provides no links to source materials, it’s easy to conclude that she had hoped she could simply create a believable impression and that her audience of dullard leftists would lap it up like kittens at a milk-bowl.

Jones screeched:

“All you need to do in order to represent second amendment “freedom” is pose with guns and put cross hairs on your opponents. You can disarm the militia in your state without DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION so long as you have an “R” after your name. Also, posing while leaning on the flag in short shorts helps (warning: do not try this as a Democrat or you will be branded a hater of the troops and an enemy of freedom).”

Naturally, the posting features an image of Governor Palin with a gun, and the comments section is full of those self-same dullards posting their continued vile attacks against Sarah Palin, based on their hatred created by previous propaganda precisely of the sort that includes the very dishonest article on which they are commenting.  Don’t bother trying to post a response pointing out the dishonesty, or the lack of an actual link to the story, because it will be moderated out of existence, and the parade of dullards will be prevented from ever learning the truth is that Jones has fashioned a whopper disguised as a news story based on contrived narratives and a more than four-year-old routine news story appearing without controversy on the ADN site.  By the way, you can fully expect some of the dullards to make their way to this site to castigate me, as well as you.  I also expect that at some point, Jones may get wind of this exposure, and she may then edit her story to include the missing link(to the ADN story – no, not her bio,) but I’ve captured the page as was for posterity. Naturally, I’m far from alone in noting the insanity of Politicususa, as the discussion among these Freepers has witnessed.

Neither does it enter the Palin-hating minds that while carrying out what is intended to be a propaganda piece about Sarah Palin’s mythical hypocrisy on guns, it might be a good idea to at least pretend they wouldn’t hate her if she had taken one position or the other according to their fantasies.  Sadly, they at once bash her for being an alleged “gun-grabber” while also bashing her for being a “gun nut,” if you follow the gist of their bizarre tale.  This reveals the other truth about this twisted crew of leftist lie-volcanoes: There exists no circumstance in which they would not criticize Governor Palin, irrespective of her position on an issue, or the actions she had taken.  No, they will hate her equally, every time, without fail.  Some decades from now, when Sarah Palin leaves the stage for good as must we all, these whack-jobs or their brain-addled philosophical offspring will be there to dump on her.  It’s the way they roll, and it’s merely evidence of another notion I’ve accepted as a truism for quite a long while: Liberalism and sanity are mutually exclusive frames of mind.

Now, returning to my thesis, imagine you’re Governor Palin, more than four years after the fact, running into this absurd rearrangement and invention of alleged “facts” about you.  What are we to conclude?   I realize Governor Palin is an extraordinary woman, with amazing strength and resilience even in the face of this kind of garbage, but to realize that people actually concoct such junk, from the pits of the irrational hatred they bear in their souls, it must be disconcerting at the least to know that some who hate you do so with such fervor that they cannot permit even a glimpse of the truth about you to be known.  This particular Jones article was pointed out to me by a Facebook friend, in whose time-line it had mysteriously appeared, under the innocuous heading: “News about Sarah Palin.”  I’m not in the habit of polluting my brain with the sort of garbage that is produced daily by the cadre of leftist PDS-ers, never mind the bile-raising zoo at Politicususa, where decent people go only to see how the animals live, but I think it’s time for the rest of us to once again pick up some slack in opposition to it.  What such stories reveal about Sarah Palin is absolutely nothing, save only her incredible endurance,  but what it reveals about the drones of the left is a pathological hatred of reality so intense that they feel driven to create their own.

Liberalism is a psychological disorder after all.

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Leftist Cabal, Leftwing Media Loons, Media, News, Politics, Sarah Palin | 22 Comments »

Hypocrites Won’t Proclaim Their Homes “Gun-Free” – Video

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

Once again, James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas were out there catching lefty hypocrisy on video.  This time, they were demonstrating how the same people who can’t wait to publish the location of registered gun owners don’t like any attention coming to their own homes.   Some of the people have armed guards outside to protect them given the recent backlash against the new organization, but naturally, none are willing to place a sign saying “Gun-Free” in their yards.  Why not?  I would think they’d invite the attention, but no, they’re liberals which means they’re free-riders who wish to have the status of their gun ownership in doubt. As you will remember, the Journal News and Star Ledger published pin-maps of registered gun-owners in their respective areas.  Now, these same people don’t want their homes labeled as “gun free.”

Imagine that you’re a doctrinaire leftist who believes that people shouldn’t own guns, to the extent that you’re willing to publish a pin-map of all those who do, in order to bring pressure(and perhaps harm) to those gun-owners.  To then be shocked and surprised when there is a public outcry over your publication is obnoxious.  Now, confronted by O’Keefe’s group posing as anti-gun activists, you see their reactions.  These are hypocrites.  They don’t wish to advertise their own status as unarmed homes, but would instead like to leave the matter in doubt.  Why?

Simply put, they benefit from all those who are armed, and they benefit from the doubt as to whether a given home might have become armed since their publication.  They want the benefits of criminals believing they may be armed, but not the responsibilities of being armed.  This is the height of hypocrisy.  It also demonstrates the pure cowardice of the leftists in media.  I would have a good deal more respect for their position if they’d accepted O’Keefe’s signs, proclaiming proudly that theirs are gun-free homes.  At least that would be putting their money where their mouths are, but no such character was exhibited in this video.  Mostly, at the homes of the Journal News and Star Ledger folk, O’Keefe’s band of spoofers were turned away.

So much for commitment to their espoused ideals.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Featured, Gun Rights, Media, News, Politics, video | 1 Comment »

How to Defeat Liberals in Arguments About Guns – Video Goes Viral

Monday, January 14th, 2013

Hard-Hitting Facts

If you ever wanted to know how thoroughly bankrupt the arguments of the gun-grabbers are, all you need to do is watch this video.  Watch the liberal host, Bray Cary, get sucker-punched repeatedly by WVCDL President, Keith Morgan on the State Journal’s Decision Makers. The WVCDL is the West Virginia Citizens’ Defense League.  If Alex Jones had been the model for how not to win an argument, then Morgan’s calm and collected demeanor is an excellent example of how to corner the left with their own nonsense, rather than coming off like an unhinged lunatic.  What this video reveals is the fear-driven mindset of liberals in media who want to get rid of guns.  Cary doesn’t really want to have a rational discussion, for all his posturing to that effect.  Listen carefully as a plainly rational man de-fangs this leftist vampire who eventually looks as though Morgan had been wielding holy water, a stake and mallet:

Here is a perfectly reasonable man attempting to have a logical conversation with a leftist who turns out to be simply another ignorant talking head.  As the host ultimately admits, he simply doesn’t think private citizens should be armed.  More, the moment Mr. Morgan corners him, he becomes almost desperate to go to break and end the segment, particularly once Morgan begins to describe the lie that is the claim that so-called “assault weapons” have never been used in defense against criminals.  This is a blatant lie, and it been debunked so frequently that it’s astonishing it keeps being re-told.

Here’s one example, from 2011, in which a 15-year-old in Houston defended his home and his sister from home invaders with an AR-15.  The original story and video posted here at KHOU’s website. You can watch the video below:

So much for the faulty assertion that none have ever defended their homes with an AR-15.  The truth is that most instances of defense never involve the discharge of a weapon, but merely the display of one.  There is no statistic on how many times guns were brandished or displayed causing would

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Featured, Gun Rights, Leftist Cabal, Media, News, Politics | 15 Comments »

The Alex Jones Freak-Show With Piers Morgan

Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

Jones Launches

As a resident of Central Texas, I’ve been familiar with Alex Jones for more than a decade.  When I first heard him, he w as on KLBJ-AM radio in Austin on weekends, as well as a daily Internet broadcast. Jones has always been easily convinced of conspiracies, and while he bumps into a number of real ones, he never seems to have the self-restraint to realize that not everything is a conspiracy, and not everything bad that happens is strictly the result of some conspiratorial actions of some shadowy elites.  I knew I could never listen to him again once he proposed that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition.  All of the video from that day shows the real cause of the collapse, and it wasn’t a thermite plasma device, or a series of smaller explosives, but the structural failure of steel load-bearing members weakened by heat and bearing much greater and more asymmetric burdens then they had ever been designed to bear.

It was from that moment on that I dismissed Alex Jones as an overblown crackpot.  The sad part is that he does more damage to his own credibility than his adversaries ever could, and it’s too bad because Jones is right about a number of things on the issue of freedom, and the never-ending growth of government.  On Monday night, he appeared on Piers Morgan’s show on CNN and scored some excellent point before melting down and making a complete ass of himself.  The freak-show may have been entertaining in some respects, but ladies and gentlemen, he is a loose cannon, and conservatives shouldn’t rely on him to carry the banner of liberty.  I get as angry as the next conservative when I see what the left is doing to our country, but most of us realize you can’t win an argument if you appear to be off your nut.  Jones never saw that memo.

The first thing Jones should have known was that he was being set up like a carnival side-show freak.  If Piers Morgan had wanted a serious debate about guns, there are much more authoritative sources he might have interviewed.  John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime would have demolished Morgan without challenging him to a boxing match. As soon as Morgan began pummeling Jones over his beliefs about 9/11, it was clear that his entire aim was to discredit gun-owners by association with the likes of Jones.  Of course, by then, Jones was quite angry because he knew he had been set up, but the problem with Jones is that he never knows when to shut up, and his own kooky pet theories know no bounds.  One would think that with his conspiratorially-tuned mind, he’d have been looking for a big ambush after his run-in with TSA on his way to this interview.

It’s not to say that Jones doesn’t air real issues of consequence, like the extensive coverage he gave to UN Agenda 21 long before it got any mainstream media coverage.  Jones is a constant critic of TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security, but one needn’t be a conspiracy nut to see that those agencies are fatally flawed and reprehensibly managed.  Jones seemed determined to point out Morgan’s hypocrisy, and yet with his inability to maintain his composure, a lacking he’s suffered for all the years during which I’ve been acquainted with his work, he comes off sounding like a ranting loon, and if there was a conspiracy this day, Jones was too incensed to see how he is being used as a propaganda score against the very cause he went to CNN to defend.

I think Alex Jones firmly believes he is doing as he should, and that he believes he is advancing the fight for liberty in America, but each time he gets drawn into one of these battles, he looks the part of the fool he had been selected to play, and he never quite seems to recognize that in the mainstream of America, he’s not going to score points with average viewers by screaming at the interviewer.  Instead, he looks like a raving maniac to most viewers. Rather than ranting, he should have mentioned the stories in support of his thesis that big multi-national corporations are helping government to disarm Americans, like Bank of Americaca that seems to be hostile to gun manufacturers banking with them, or how the Obama Administration is on record as seeking the assistance of big business in getting rid of guns.  Instead, he sat there  flipping verbal channels like the ultimate expression of ADD/ADHD, and in so doing, squandered an opportunity to speak to the issue at hand in a cogent, sensible manner.

Jones went to the interview armed with crime statistics, but as he rightly complained, Morgan was prepared to pepper him with factoids on the subject of mass shootings.  The problem is that sensing the snare, like a trapped animal, he exploded in rage, and rather than making his best arguments, he came off as a clown or a nut.  It’s not to say he didn’t say anything correct or worthwhile, but that the way he said it in combination with all of his extensive conspiracy theories made him look like a raving maniac. It’s too bad, because he made some great points until Morgan got him off-kilter, and from there on, Jones was in purely ballistic trajectory. He spews tenuously-linked tidbits of stories, strung together like a flow of lava from an erupting volcano, and it makes Jones seem unbound and disorganized like a library shelf full of books suddenly deprived of their bindings, but that is also the nature of many of his conspiracy theories.

Here are parts 1 and 2 of the interview, as aired on CNN, H/T

Again, I think that Jones is probably sincere in his efforts, but sincerity is not a substitute for reason.  I think he’s right when he asserts that a gun ban will result in greater violence, and I also know he’s got an important story to tell about such things as the seeming correlation between some psychiatric medications and mass shootings, as WND reported on Monday.  As you can see by that article, WND was careful not to assert that the linkage is certain, but they relied on a variety of cases that are well documented and sourced, rather than innuendo and supposition.

In stark contrast, Jones frequently relies on a trail of bread-crumbs that he spots on a bakery floor, making more of them than might be reasonable.  Again, it’s not to say that Jones and his website don’t present important information, as they were among the first to run the story on the unbelievable amount of small-arms ammunition being purchased by the Federal Government, numbering nearly two billion rounds, for the Department of Homeland Security and other civilian agencies.  In Jones-speak, that’s enough to kill every man, woman and child in America nearly seven times over.  As I said, it’s not that he covers all nonsense, or that all of them are made-up, fanciful conspiracies about globalists, but it is to say that it’s hard to pick your way through it all to separate the wheat from the chaff, and all too often, there’s a good deal more chaff than hard news.

I rather like Alex Jones, in the same way I liked the entertainment value of other loudmouths in media from time to time, not as a steady diet, but as a diversion.  I know that with Alex Jones, what you see is what you get, and most of the time, it’s not smoke indicating fire but steam warning that the pot is boiling.  Watch and listen to Jones at your own risk.  At times, he says some very sensible things, things I have said myself, for instance indicating today in his interview that no entity has committed more murder than statist governments over the last century or so.  It’s undeniably true, and it’s likewise true that in each of the countries in which that occurred, the people had been more or less disarmed without significant struggle.  You see, Jones will say that with the passion it deserves, but when he then follows-up with one of his more outlandish theories, it wastes it all.  One might be tempted to take him seriously if he didn’t follow up every good point with two bad ones, an absurd one, and a challenge to a boxing match.

The most disconcerting thing about Jones is that he doesn’t understand the power of propaganda when he is made into its instrument for the other side.  CNN will make the most of Monday’s freak-show, and haul it out every time something bad happens and they want to discredit patriots, Tea Party folk, libertarians, Republicans, and conservatives.  They will hold Jones forth as exemplar of the nuttiness of the so-called “right,” but naturally, he’s not representative of any of those groups.  He’s one man, with a very loud mouth, and a microphone, and he appeals to some people, particularly young men, under thirty, because he’s angry and he’s loud and he’s obnoxious, but he is not the voice of reason.  Most of his audience outgrows him like a pair of high-water pants, wanting more depth and substance than the yelling man from Texas can provide.  If only he would stick to what he could prove, ditch the bizarre theories, and tone down the yelling a bit, he might just find himself with a larger audience, but after nearly twenty years of his yelling, conspiratorial rants, there’s not much chance of that.

 

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Featured, Gun Rights, Media, News, Politics, video | 15 Comments »

Boot-licker Alert

Thursday, January 3rd, 2013

First there was Kathy Griffin’s disgusting display on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Now there’s this pathetic display by William Kristol making a fool of himself, on Foxnews courtesy of Breitbart:

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Cry-Baby Boehner, GOP Establishment, Media, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

Is the Real Cultural War Against Men?

Saturday, December 1st, 2012

The Surrender of Adam

One story that garnered some media attention this week was a commentary written by Suzanne Venker at FoxNews.  In the article entitled War on Men, Venker contends that the real war in our culture has been waged against men.  Her conclusions are based on the observation that fewer and fewer men seem to have any interest in marriage, while interest among women is on the rise, but there exists a widespread lament about an alleged dearth of good men.  In the end, Venker concluded that women may bear the blame for this situation, but that conclusion garnered outrage and mockery from the typical leftist outlets.  At the same time, Limbaugh discussed the matter at length, but his conclusions were clearly different than those of the shrill left.  What’s the truth?  Is there a “war” on men?  Is it being waged by women who are unknowingly setting themselves up for failure?  I believe Venker is onto something, but I also think her article didn’t fully explore the ramifications, never mind all the conspirators.  If real, this war has had a silent collaborator or two, and I think rather than casting most of the blame on women, she should have identified all of the  culprits.

It is true to say that the character of women has fundamentally changed, and much of that was driven by the so-called “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s.  Women have entered the workplace in unprecedented numbers, and they are now a majority of employees across the nation.  Women now dominate  numerically the college campus, and in many respects, women have managed to displace men entirely.  According to Venker, much of this owes to anger with men, a feeling engendered and supported by our education establishment, much of which is dominated by women.  Writes Venker:

“In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

This may not be entirely true, but there is at least a nugget of truth in it.  There is a clear hostility toward men being engendered by the culture, and I think it is safe to say that any number of men might secretly agree with this sentiment, but while Venker seems to focus on the pedestal from which men were knocked, she spends a good deal less attention on the pedestal being abandoned by women. She finally arrives at a statement that some will find offensive, but nevertheless contains a good bit of information about one of the collaborators in this war:

“It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.”

Here is where Venker both reveals an effect, but slips and falls on the cause.  Spending a good deal of time researching relationships and the culture, Venker should have realized that there is some truth to that old admonishment that “men are only after one thing.”  In the main, and in the short-run thinking of men, that’s probably more often true than not, so that when women climbed down off their once-lofty pedestal in favor of the lower pedestal men had always occupied, it wasn’t true that they were kicking men off, but that men went willingly, at least initially.  The truth is that men hadn’t been kicked off the pedestal so much as bribed off of it. Of course, this is not all the story, but it provides some insight.  When Venker says “no responsibilities whatsoever,” she is mostly correct when viewed from the short-run perspective of men, however those responsibilities would need to be fulfilled by somebody, and therein we shall find the chief collaborator.

While men were busy stepping down from the lower pedestal to which feminism had enticed women, after spending some time on that lowly perch, women were finding it wasn’t all they were promised it would be.  Venker’s point has merit, but the question is: “Why would women so easily leap from the higher perch?”  The roots of this phenomenon may be fundamental to our nature, and has been understood about the nature of people since the beginning of time.  How close does this parallel what the Judeo-Christian ethos regards as the moment of the original sin?  Genesis 3:6 relates:

“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”

This would have made it seem as though Adam had been a bystander, but as 1 Timothy 2:14 records:

“Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

 

This line of thinking then begs the question: “Who played the role of the serpent?”  This is the identity of the other collaborator in the “War on men,”, and its name is government. If there is a war on men, there is no institution that has benefited more from the battle.  If it is to be alleged that while Eve was beguiled by the serpent, and thus caused herself to be cast out of the garden, so it is true that men had been complicit inasmuch as they partook also of the fruit, raising no objection, but knowing the fruit would have a bitter aftertaste. Just as the serpent knew to make his case to women, so too have statists. In our modern culture, the aftertaste of this temptation is to be measured in the wreckage of families, both those dissolved and those never fully constituted, and its evidence is seen in the fundamental breakdown of our society that continues at breakneck speed.  It is true that men have shirked responsibility, but the worst of it is not in their roles as fathers, so much as in their role as men altogether.   You see, men didn’t fight for their pedestal because they assumed that if they yielded it, they would partake of the fruit too, and like Adam, foolishly believed they would avoid the consequences.

Now we arrive in a world in which Venker describes women as angry and resentful of men, but I can imagine Eve being resentful of Adam too, as they were cast out of the garden.  “If you had known better, why didn’t you stop me?”  Adam might respond in coy pragmatism: “How was I to stop you?”  His unstated truth had been: “I didn’t want to…”

All of this demonstrates a strong cultural decline that evades description in modern platitudes.  Instead, what drives all of this is a pervasive immorality based on the notion that one can have anything one wants instantly, without consequence or responsibility, and without regard to the costs.  The provider of this temptation has been big government, and those who advance its cause.  Men sought the immediate benefits of the sexual revolution without concerning themselves with some murky consequence in some distant future.  That future has arrived, and if men now find they are bearing the cost, as Venker explains, women are bearing a terrible consequence:

“It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

“So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.”

I disagree with Venker inasmuch as I believe the worst victims of this entire problem are children.  Men are largely absent from the lives of their children, and they’re being raised in a world that diminishes roughly half of them explicitly, but all of them in fact.  We are now more than two generations into this culture of instant gratification, and yet few seem to have been gratified in the long run.

Just as there was a rush by many on the left to screech at Venker, so I expect there will be those who take a similar stance toward me, who will accuse me of some misogyny or other “primitive thinking.”  Apart from the fact that I don’t care who doesn’t like it, the simple fact is that we can measure the tragedy that has arisen in an America transformed by post-modern feminism, and it’s ugly.  I don’t blame women even as much as Venker, because I believe men were tempted by short-run “benefits” just as surely as Adam stood by as Eve was beguiled.  Venker concludes that women can correct all of this, but I disagree:

“Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”

“If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.”

Men cannot permit themselves to be complicit bystanders, who partake of the fruit but point back at women as the blame. Men have let their own standards slide, and until they raise them a good deal, and for longer than the short-run, it’s going to continue because women will have no cause to change.  Imagine a world in which men are the ones who say “no.” Preposterous? Perhaps, but if our society is to survive, never mind return to a past “golden age,” somebody is going to have to say it, and what Venker’s article reveals is that slowly, men have begun to shift in that direction. Today, they’re saying “no” to marriage in unprecedented numbers. Where Venker sees this as a result of a war on men, I see it as a result of their moral capitulation. Far too many men have adopted the shoddy notion encapsulated in that well-worn misogynist retort: “Why buy the cow if the milk is for free?”  The real question laid before men is now:  Is it so free as you once thought?  On that basis, women are right to ask if the contempt so many women now feel for men is so entirely undeserved as Venker’s piece suggests. If, as the Bible explains, men were to be the moral leaders, one might ask where they had been.  After all, it wasn’t Eve alone who fell into temptation. If the war on men began with the serpent’s whispers in the Garden of Eden, we ought to ask why Adam surrendered so easily.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Culture, Ethics, Featured, Media, News, Politics, War | 2 Comments »

Covering Up the Cover-Up: Petraeus Sideshow

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

The Main Event

I realize that the leftist media is happily pursuing former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus, and I also understand that this is their way of giving Barack Obama cover.  This story is designed simply to cover up a cover-up.  You will remember that almost every media person asked has said that Petraeus had to go, because the affair left him subject to blackmail and coercion.  All those who said that are right.  The thing they missed is that such blackmail had already occurred, as we now learn that the Obama administration used the pending disclosure of the affair to force Petraeus to sing the administration’s song on Benghazi. The fact is that the Obama administration is proof-positive of the reason why we must have people of unimpeachable moral character in the highest offices of United States Federal Government.  On the opposite end of the blackmail of Petraeus sits a President who actually used blackmail or coercion to gain compliance from Petraeus to help conceal the truth about Benghazi.  This is the scandal, and this is the reason Barack Obama must go.  I say again: Barack Obama must go.

There can be no doubt that the character of a person who sits at the head of the CIA must be examined.  I don’t think there are very many people who would endorse the conduct of David Petraeus.  The problem is that as terrible as his actions had been, and as awful as the possibility of his vulnerability to blackmail may have been, the stunning fact remains that the man just re-elected to the presidency actually used that leverage against Petraeus.  Can we be blunt?  Anybody who uses his power as President to coerce or extort an appointed official in any respect does not belong in the office to which he had been elected.  Instead, he belongs in jail.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama held a press conference filled with softball questions during which he said that whomever might decide to “go after” UN Ambassador Rice would have a problem with him.  His threat was explicit.  I’ve got two words for our illustrious leader: Bugger off.  When Obama sent Rice out to all the Sunday shows to spread the administration’s garbage about an anti-Mohammed video as a cause of the attack on the Benghazi installation, she put herself squarely in the spotlight.  If Obama wants to absolve Rice of wrong-doing, there is a way he can do so:  He can publicly admit that he had given her those instructions, and that he is therefore directly responsible for misleading the American people.  If he’s not willing to do that, Rice is fair game.  When the Marxist thug finds the testicular fortitude to take responsibility for that, maybe we can then drop Ambassador Rice.

At the same time, we have the pending testimony of David Petraeus, but I would not expect too much dirt to be dumped by Petraeus.  You might wonder what could cause Petraeus to bite his tongue at this late date, no longer in the administration, but I will tell you why I now expect the Petraeus testimony to produce nothing of value: They used the affair to keep him quiet, but if he was willing to do that, what other untruths will he speak in testimony if the Justice Department is waving possible charges in his general direction?

Put another way, if Petraeus changes his story at this late date, that will mean an admission that his earlier testimony was false, particularly if his testimony was tainted due to administration coercion.  He’s damned if he tells the truth, because he will be subject to prosecution.  If he maintains his earlier lies, then the administration can let it go without prosecution.  Besides, given the clearances to which Petraeus has access, it is possible that charges may be filed related to the access that Ms. Broadwell may have gained by virtue of her relationship with Petraeus.  All of this means he’s likely to keep his lips stapled shut and claim the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. At this point, for him, it is much easier and safer to maintain a lie or say nothing than to tell the truth or make any disclosures.  He may be spitting mad and vengeful with respect to the Obama administration, but chances are that they have him over a barrel.  If there was any chance of him spilling the beans, he’d have wound up “suicided.”

Most media outlets have been distracted by the sex and sleaze aspects of this story, but that’s not the important part of this story except as the means by which to understand how Petraeus we being blackmailed.  The critical thing to expose is that Barack Obama and his administration concealed the whole truth from the American people in the run-up to the election.  They concocted a narrative that was demonstrably false about Youtube videos that they knew at the time was false.  Whether directing the cover-up, or as an adjunct to it, Obama had all the authority in the world necessary to prevent it.  Instead, they tried to bury the truth, both about the fact that it had been a planned terrorist attack, as well as the fact that they failed to take any sort of remedial actions once the attack had begun.

Four Americans were slaughtered, and to conceal their inaction, especially through the election, they used all the leverage they held over David Petraeus, and despite what some may think, through the prosecution powers implicit in the Department of Justice, they still hold him over a barrel.  We need more than some dog-and-pony show investigation.  This President misled the American people, and he should be considered to have suborned perjury if he instructed Petraeus to lie to Congress, which almost certainly occurred on September 13th.  The media is complicit, because they’ve helped to cover this mess for Obama, and they aren’t apt to tell us much because they’d be admitting their own dishonesty.  That shouldn’t stop us from demanding answers, because it’s our country.  Enough of the Petraeus sideshow, as it’s long past time we move on to the main event, in which Barack Obama is the rightful star of the show.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Crime, Featured, Media, News, Politics, Terrorism | 7 Comments »

What If… The Predictions of a Romney Victory Were Right?

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012

Did Obama Win Honestly?

One of the things that has become apparent in the week following the elections of November 6th is that vote fraud had been rampant.  As has been widely reported, fifty-nine Philadelphia voting precincts had zero votes for Romney.  While I am willing to believe these could have been quite lop-sided, zero?  The same thing is true in Ohio, in the Cleveland area, but the more stunning thing is that in many of these places, voter turn-out was greater than 100% of the registered electorate.  Simply put, that’s a prima facie case that some sort of fraud or malfeasance has occurred, because it should not be possible for more votes to be cast than there are registered voters.  This entire election is rife with such cases, and it’s not going away.  It raises the question: What if pollsters who expected a Romney win were right, but overwhelming vote fraud set aside the natural result?

One poll watcher from Pennsylvania reports seeing voting machines switching voters’ selection from Romney to Obama on multiple occasions.  We’ve all basically assumed that the various GOP pollsters and analysts had been dead wrong, but what if they had been right, and this election has been stolen?  We’re not talking about a few or even a few hundred votes here.  There may have been fraud across the nation, particularly in swing states, and we wouldn’t know how many fraudulent votes may have been cast or counted.  We must get to the bottom of this, with or without Mitt Romney.  He can concede if he likes, but this is our election.  We shouldn’t accept vote fraud anywhere, in any measure.

The case of Colorado is particularly stunning.  They have county after county in which the number of registered voters is greater than the number of residents.  How is that possible?  In Ohio, some witnessed van-loads of Somali immigrants being carted into the polling places, and being coached on how to vote by Democrats.  Ohio’s laws are lax enough that no verification of one’s eligibility to vote is conducted.  In Pennsylvania, despite all sorts of irregularities, officials plan no recount. No one should be surprised given that on election day, court-appointed GOP poll-watchers were forcibly removed from polling places in Philadelphia.

Let’s just be blunt about this:  This election may have been stolen.  Allen West is still fighting the issue in Florida, where vote tallies suggest some of the most ridiculous fraud anywhere.  Col. West appeared on Hannity on Monday evening to explain his situation.  Not only did Democrats want West defeated, but the establishment of the GOP won’t shed a tear if he’s unseated. Here’s the clip from Hannity:

It may be a longshot to think that vote fraud may have been the margin of victory, but examining the results, just a swing of around 400,000 votes in just four states would make the difference between an Obama victory, and a Romney victory.  If vote fraud had been large enough, swinging the results by 1% of the the electorate would provide the margin in many of these swing states.

I also wonder about the willingness of Romney to concede early, and disappear from the radar screens so quickly.  In an article on CanadaFreePress, Erik Rush wonders if the overwhelming vote fraud won’t have the effect of making a civil war inevitable.  One thing is certain: If the system of elections in this country is so thoroughly corrupted, we the people are being cheated, and our rights are being subverted.  It should never be possible that there are more votes than registered voters in a given precinct, district or state.  Such things undermine the credibility of our elections, and we should fight back against this by demanding a clean accounting of the ballots, as well as those who cast them.  We cannot afford to ignore this, and it’s time that we begin to raise Hell about it.  Mitt Romney may well have lost this election, but with this much uncertainty about the validity of the count, we may never know.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Allen West, Barack Obama, Featured, Media, News, Politics, Vote Fraud | 5 Comments »

The GOP Has Figured Out the Problem: You

Monday, November 12th, 2012

Can it recover?

It shouldn’t be possible that we have people who invested in the neighborhood of one billion dollars for a return on their investment that amounts to exactly nothing.  These were the so-called “wizards of smart,” who knew how to guide Mitt Romney and the slate of down-ballot candidates to victory.  They’re the number-crunchers, the poll-takers, the marketeers and strategists who represent the consultancy who ran the electoral efforts of the GOP and associated groups.  All of it was allegedly aimed at getting Mitt Romney into the White House, and spend like mad though they did, the failures were massive by any measure.  What makes the whole thing more preposterous still is that five days after the electoral failure they helped to build, they’ve all figured out what the problem is, and they’re unanimous: It wasn’t them, their strategies, their marketing, or their polling models, but instead a single problem that none of them anticipated:  You.

It was the fault of the Tea Party, says Rove.  It was the fault of social conservatives says Erickson.  It was the fault of conservatives’ insistence on closing the border down and dealing with the illegal immigration problem before we commence any sort of immigration reform.  It was the fault of xenophobic conservatives who just don’t want to reach out to Hispanics, they said.  It couldn’t have been their messages, their advertising, their notions of the electorate, or even their candidates.  It was you.  Now that we’ve moved from a President who has spent four years blaming George Bush for his own failures, we will now spend the next two years at least with the Republican establishment’s intelligentsia telling us how the problem had been we conservatives, of varying descriptions. It’s worse than preposterous.  It’s maniacal.

We now know we have at least one Republican Congresswomen addressing the Spanish-speaking press, telling them that the problem with the Republican Party had been the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh.  Jeb Bush, says she, is a conservative.  If Jeb Bush is a conservative, I’m Adam Smith. Actually, I’m a good deal closer to Adam Smith.  The point is that the party is trying to repackage what it means to be a conservative, and along the way, there are several issues they’d like to dump:

  • Traditional marriage
  • Pro-Life Stance on Abortion
  • Illegal Immigration
  • Obama-care

Since they’ve yielded over the years on nearly everything else, what this suggests is that they wish to dump all associations with conservatism.  Sure, they’re still in favor of free markets and property rights in principle, but they can be flexible on those too. American sovereignty isn’t an issue for them either, since they don’t think it ought to exist.  States’ rights and the 10th Amendment are fine insofar as it goes, and with this crowd, you can bet it won’t be far.  No, there isn’t a principle in existence they won’t spit on or tweak if they believe they can somehow capture the middle but still scare you into showing up.  The problem, their wizards of smart assure them is that they’re not liberal enough.

Most conservatives I know are livid over this election, in part because of what it will mean for the country, but also in part because so many of them warned against nominating a moderate Republican of the establishment wing.  To know that Karl Rove’s view is essentially “you win some, you lose some – oh well, we’ll get ‘em next time,” is enough to make most conservatives begin to experience dry heaves.

Like so many of you, I had wondered what could possibly account for this crushing defeat, but while we tend to focus on the Obama vs. Romney campaign, I think we ought to spend some time looking at what happened in the down-ballot races. The more I look, the more I become convinced that this election presented an opportunity for a purge of conservatives, and the GOP establishment capitalized on that opportunity.  I wonder how many members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives never saw it coming.  Remember, the roots of the Tea Party go back to 2006, when there was widespread dissatisfaction with Congressional support of Bush policies and spending priorities, and the sense of general uncertainty about the growth of the deficit.

The one discernible constant has been that conservatives are to blame.  Idiots on the left blame conservatism for moderates’ bad policies, policies on which they would double or triple-down. Consider the whole sorry spectacle of Obama campaigning on the “unpatriotic” nature of the Bush deficits.  He’s quadrupled them.  Bush was widely criticized by conservatives for the prescription drug plan for Medicare, but he was widely criticized on the left also.  The difference is that those on the left would have spent more, much more, and all to purchase votes.  We conservatives get the blame for everything the moderates in the GOP establishment enact, but we generally oppose these things also.

In one sense, we deserve some of the blame since we helped elect these guys often knowing they were mush. The problem is that as the GOP establishment views it, this is a good opportunity to rid themselves of conservatives.  They will use this opportunity to push conservatives to join them, and in desperation, some will.  I think conservatives should think carefully about the notion of blaming one another.  Evangelicals are not the problem.  Tea Party and constitutional conservatives are not the problem.  Social conservatives are not the problem.  The problem is the GOP establishment, and it always has been. It’s when we let them set the agenda and the direction that Republicans lose or having won, blow the opportunity. If we’re ever going to save the country, I don’t think we have any choice but to walk away from the GOP. The Republican establishment will always displace blame and it will always land on us by association.  It’s time for conservatives to get out of the box.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Conservatism, Featured, GOP Establishment, Media, News, Politics | 19 Comments »

Courageous Grass-Roots Conservative Rebukes Florida Congresswoman

Sunday, November 11th, 2012

The Courage to Stand Alone

It takes guts to take on the establishment, and in this case, I happen to know the gentlelady from Facebook, and I also know she is a true patriot and she’s interested in real reform of the GOP.  She posts on Youtube as “IzzyLovesFox1.” Being a Spanish-speaker, and a resident of Florida, she caught Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen making remarks in Spanish that non-Spanish speakers wouldn’t have caught, and she was both shocked and disappointed by the rhetoric of the Congresswoman.  It takes courage to put your face out there and to take on the GOP establishment, and I think this soft-spoken lady with a big heart for America ought to be commended.  The remarks of Lehtinen, as revealed by the Youtube video, were despicable. It’s precisely the sort of divisive rhetoric we get from Democrats in Congress, and it ought to be unacceptable to patriots of every race, color and creed.  I want to thank “Izzy” for bringing this to us.  She’s a great patriot!

It’s worse than obnoxious that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is carrying water for the GOP establishment, talking trash about the Tea Party, and Rush Limbaugh, but frankly anybody openly standing for the establishment while speaking to media in Spanish.  Thank you Izzy. We non-Spanish speakers might never have known.

View the video here:

 

Posted in Conservatism, Featured, GOP Establishment, Media, News, Politics | Comments Closed

Mr. L’s Post-Election Rant

Saturday, November 10th, 2012

If you missed this, I’d like to point it out to you because Mr. L of Mr. L’s Tavern makes some excellent points.  He’s a man after my own heart in many ways, and I was gratified to hear him say the same of me.  He completely disassembles the post-election media spin. I hope you’ll enjoy it:

Be sure to visit Mr. L’s site and youtube channel. His commentary is simply excellent, and his style is straightforward, but he wastes no time in slicing through the baloney.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Conservatism, Featured, Media, News, Politics | 10 Comments »

The Obama Media Bubble

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012

Will They Burst?

I’ve been asked by a number of people how it’s possible that the media could end up shocked come Tuesday night. As some have pointed out, it’s as though the Obama and Romney camps have two completely different models for the election’s outcome.  It’s easy to get caught up in the campaign season at hand, and to ignore all of the precedents.  I don’t know any more than anybody else, but I’ve noticed that over the last few decades, when the mainstream media predictions miss in a big way, it’s invariably because they’ve again underestimated the resolve of the American people, and the level of disgust Americans feel toward government.  The one election that exemplifies this idea was 1994.  Remember the shock?  Remember the excuse-making?  The coverage of that cycle suggested that the Republicans would pick up a few seats, but nobody in media was predicting what actually happened. Sitting in their studios in New York and Washington DC, they were dumbfounded.  I don’t know if 2012 will be that kind of year, but if the media meme turns out to have been another bubble, I won’t be surprised.  As usual, I believe the media has projected its own sentiments onto the Americans, a people who may have other ideas.

There’s something fundamentally broken about the notions held by the biased lame-stream media.  They look out and see America differently than you and I.  They view the American people as suckers to be fooled, and they’re always stunned when the American people stage a revolt against the conventional wisdom.  It happens in other countries too, but there’s something special about America and Americans that causes the media to miss election outcomes in a big way.  What may make the difference is that Americans, particularly conservatives, have a uniquely rebellious side.  They don’t generally show up with protest signs, but on election day, they voice their displeasure with a kind of fervor that doesn’t require loud and boisterous outbursts.  The media likes to talk about “the adult in the room,” but most frequently, in American elections, it is the voting mentality of the conservatives that provide that characteristic.  These are people who live their lives by simply getting things done, and in the main, they do so in relative silence.  If they show up in legions at the polls on Tuesday, the media is going to look foolish on Wednesday morning.

The media underestimates the sentiment of Americans at large because they don’t know Americans at large.  They live in their tight-knit circles and insular cliques, but they seldom venture out into the vastness of “fly-over country.” More than this, however, they simply don’t connect with ordinary Americans outside their own philosophical leanings, and it is in this particular dismissal that they often find themselves “out of sync” with the American people.  They don’t know our pain, and they don’t know the suffering inflicted upon we and our neighbors by endless government meddling.  They simply assume that all of America is like the country they know.  Such a limited picture is sure to result in errors, and frequently, it’s not a small error measured in a point or two within a few districts, but a widespread misjudgment stretching from sea to shining sea.

I don’t know if 2012 will be a year like that, but what I do know is that such years generally have a few characteristics.  Democrats are in power.  Democrats’ policies are in force in our nation’s capital.  The country at large is much more dissatisfied with the state of the nation than the talking heads in the mainstream media.  Enthusiasm of voters is one-sided, and against them.  America is in mortal danger, in economic, financial, and/or national security matters.

When all these things are true, the media misses it big, and the reason is very simple: They never perceive the dangers as clearly as Americans who are suffering as a result.  They never experience the losses.  They sit in their studios, warm and cozy and without fear, so they assume that’s how it is in every household in the country.  Being insulated as they are from the worst of conditions, they never see the warning signs of an impending revolt. After four years of Barack Obama, Americans are quite clear on the risks of continuing on this path, but the media is as detached from that reality as is possible.  In fact, they’ve spent a great deal of their air time trying to convince Americans that conditions aren’t so bad, but people who are losing their homes and their businesses and their jobs are not likely to be swayed by propaganda.

At the end of it all, that may be the media blind-spot that causes the largest errors: They come to believe their own hype.  As the sun rises across the vast expanses of America, her people are rising to go out and cast their votes.  As the media continues to try to shoehorn the impending election results into the unreality they’ve portrayed, it may just turn out that the shoe cannot be made to fit.  If that turns out to be, as I suspect will be the case, the media will have egg on its face again, just like in 1994, or in 1980, when they scrambled for explanations as to how it had been possible. It’s been two decades since the American people have sent an sitting president home, and it’s been nearly that long since the media had its last reality-jarring shock.  If the American people rise to oust the 44th president, they will be horrified and stunned, but I will not.  Obama has been too divisive for too long, but even if the media seems unable or unwilling to recognize it, the American people are not. That is why the media may well be missing this election by a wider margin, and voters may blow them away.

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Election 2012, Featured, Media, News, Politics | 11 Comments »

Time to Stomp Some @ss

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Time to Stomp Some...

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve had an outpouring of responses via email to the post on my decision, albeit very late, to go ahead and vote for Mitt Romney.  What I’ve learned is that I have a great deal of company.  Many people weren’t happy with Romney as the alternative to Obama.  Nearly all of them had finally decided that they would “hold their noses” and do the deed for the sake of the country, and for a chance to recover.  Having done so because I am resolved that this is the only way to save the country, to begin to turn the ship of state, I’ve also decided we have nothing to lose by going all out.  It’s one thing to vote in grim satisfaction that one has taken the only ethical course, but it’s another to fully support that decision.  We could simply vote and stand down after that with no further input, but I’d ask my conservative brethren to look around: The media and the Obama campaign are still trying to steal this election, and to mute your voices. They’re trying to make your difficult decision irrelevant.

The media is reporting that this is tightening, and there’s only one reason: It’s not going well for Obama.  If you believe the polls, or at least what useful information you can glean from them having sifted through the internals, what you must know is that this is a turn-out election: Get yourself and your friends and neighbors of similar inclinations to the polling places, and it’s going to be ugly for Obama.  If we want this torture to end, it’s going to be up to us.  It’s time to put aside all the recriminations and get this thing done.

Based on the traffic I am seeing on Twitter and Facebook, it seems to me as though the American people are ready to put four years of excuses, failures, lies, and treachery behind us.  The polls tell a different story, and I think that’s likely to be bias based on shoddy poll analysis.  They’re oversampling Democrats by a wide margin.  Because this is the case, I simply think that people inclined to vote for Romney should simply ignore all of this.  There’s no getting around the fact that we already know that the Obama campaign intends to call the election early on Tuesday in order to attempt depressing the turnout by Republicans.  The idea is to make Romney voters believe that it’s pointless to vote, and on that basis, give up in dejection and stay home.

IGNORE THE POLLS!  You are going to hear dispiriting polls reported on radio and see them reported on television all day long on Tuesday.  That was certainly the idea on Monday, as the mainstream press tries to get you to stay home.  IGNORE IT!    Report fraud wherever you see it. Report it to election officials on sight.  It’s time to drive out the demons. It’s time to take our country back.  You should be making sure that every wavering person you know gets to the polls to do the right thing.  Get yourself to the polls.  I’ve been listening to people tell me that each election I’ve witnessed would be the most important of my lifetime, but this time, it really is.  Don’t fail your children.  Don’t fail your spouse.  Don’t fail your parents, your friends, or your family. Don’t walk away from your neighbors, your congregations, and your communities, but most of all, don’t fail to stand and be counted for your own sake.  Tomorrow night, after the polls close in your state, go home and report what you’ve seen at the polls. Don’t fret. Don’t worry. What will happen won’t be known until long after there’s nothing to be done about it either way. You should relax knowing that you’ve done all you could, and wait out the results with the rest of us.

I felt a bit badly about changing my mind late in the game, and setting aside my various complaints to vote for Romney.  Having had a few days to think about it, I’m glad I did, and I’m proud that I will take part in tomorrow’s big count, because the truth is that it’s our one damned chance to have a say in much of anything.  I am going to send Ted Cruz to the Senate, and those of you in states with hotly contested Senate elections had better think about that too.  We also have House races, and we dare not lose that firewall, as flimsy as it has been at times.  My point to you is that tomorrow, you had better vote like you love your country because there will be plenty of tricks up the sleeves of the Democrats.  We can overpower them.  We can overpower their media.  Tonight, if you haven’t voted, I want you to resolve this minute that come Hell or high water, intimidation or chicanery, you will drag yourself to the polls and vote.  It’s finally time.  There can be no more delays.  The country cannot take four more years of this.  Tomorrow, we must put an end-date on the nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to stomp some ass, American-style: Proud. Certain. Undeterred.

 

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Conservatism, Election 2012, Featured, Media, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

When All Else Fails, Lie

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

Dishonesty You Can Count On

Conservatives and Republicans along with Romney-supporting independents should steel themselves for the media barrage now in motion.   If you’re like me, you’ll have noticed that not only are they spiking the story on Benghazi, but they’re also running away from the fact that FEMA relief efforts in the Northeast aren’t going so well as the coward-in-chief had promised.  In the run-up to the election, the American people are beginning to notice that the facts don’t match the media meme, and the media is becoming increasingly desperate in their relating(not reporting) of positive spin for Obama. As election day approaches, the biased mainstream media is pulling out all the stops for their candidate. Americans mustn’t permit their campaign of lies to succeed.

Now, having had Obama make a remark on the campaign trail stating that “voting is the best revenge,” one mainstream media outlet has turned to outright lying in order to try to sabotage Romney.  Reuters actually ran the following headline on Saturday:

As Campaign Roars to Close, Romney and Obama Talk “Revenge”

This is pretty desperate, and it’s not merely a matter of biased headline writing.  It’s a lie.  The only context in which Romney was discussing “revenge” was to quote Obama’s remark and comment on it.  This fact is buried in the story, but the headline is constructed to leave you with the impression that Romney brought it up, and that both candidates are moral equals in the matter.  There’s really no other explanation for the name order in the headline.  “Obama” is alphabetically ahead of “Romney,” and chronologically, Obama brought it up.

Of course, it’s going to get much worse as the campaign draws to a close. The mission of the mainstream media is to cover up all negative news about Obama, pounce on Romney for anything they can paint as a misstep, and outright lie about the state of the campaigns.  All of this has one basic purpose: Swing the election for Obama.  There are two things they hope to do, and these are to depress Romney supporters in order to get them to stand down, and to bolster Obama supporters by getting them to show up.  Don’t fall for it.  No matter what the mainstream media says on the Sunday shows, and no matter how many fake polls they thrust in your face, the truth is that you control the outcome of this election.

All day tomorrow, and all day Monday, they will be searching for some salable meme with which to slap Mitt Romney or prop up Barack Obama.  It’s close, but it’s not as close as they need in order to have cover.  You see, for weeks, they’ve been telling you it’s neck-and-neck or Obama up by two or three.  None of it matters, because it’s all nonsense.  What matters is their blessed “reputation,” or “credibility,” either of which they have little to note.

Let’s put this another way: If you swell to the polls in support of Mitt Romney as I suspect will be the case, the mainstream media is going to be tarnished in a big way. They’re going to look like idiots.  They’re going to be revealed as liars and con-artists, and they will immediately turn to the task of resurrecting their supposed “credibility” by coming up with explanations for how they “missed it.”  Of course, if they can turn you off, and get you to stand down, they won’t need to do so even if Romney wins in a squeaker, because they will be calling this a dead heat from here to the end.  Naturally, if Romney wins by larger margins, “Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.” They just as soon avoid that debacle, so at this point, they are willing to lie in order to trim that margin a little if they can.

Don’t fall for it.  On Tuesday, you go out and do as you were going to do, and take your friends and neighbors along.  Make an event of it.  These lying, miserable bastards need to be taken down a peg, and this is your chance to do it.

Even if Mitt Romney isn’t the candidate you would have picked, I suspect that like me, you want to see the mainstream media eat crow. That will be our best revenge. Well, that and watching Mooch cart her bags to the waiting limo. Don’t worry Michelle, it’s just like going on vacation… only better.

I’ll never have been prouder of my country. Lately.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Election 2012, Featured, Media, Mitt Romney, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

One Warm Air Mass Blows Through, Two More Arrive

Thursday, November 1st, 2012

Best Buds

It should come as no surprise to readers of this website that having arrived late in the election season with a chance for Republicans to win the White House, and perhaps strengthen in Congress, with taking the Senate an at least plausible proposition, the turn-coats, the RINOs, the opportunists and the skunks will now come out of the woodwork to sabotage as many Republicans as possible.  Every media venue is beginning to drag them out from behind the curtains, and while a mighty wind struck New Jersey on Monday, an blowhard nearly equal to Hurricane Sandy both in breadth and volume sought on Wednesday to capitalize on the storm’s aftermath, inviting the man from the city that blows hard seemingly in perpetuity to join him on the Jersey shore.  Quite a couple this pair of wind generators made, missing no photo-op to look very gubernatorial and presidential, respectively.  Much like Barack Obama claims it’s wrong to politicize Libya (while politicizing Libya,) Governor Christie took full advantage of the opportunity to improve his own position with New Jersey voters, and yes, maybe even voters nationally, with an eye toward 2016.

Naturally, for that to work out, Romney would need to lose next week, and by playing Oliver Hardy to Obama’s Stanley Laurel, Christie did his best to position himself in all respects.  Of course, this is merely the presidential scene.  Other saboteurs were widely afoot.  Tucker Carlson did his level best to undercut Richard Mourdock in Indiana, suggesting that the Senate candidate cannot win, a fact that the long-time Dick Lugar protoge apparently finds satisfying, so it’s what I suggested long ago: He’s wealthy enough not to be worried about Obama-care.  To quote one-term Texas Governor Maw Richards, “he can’t hepp it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”  Naturally, after his blatant sabotage on FoxNews today, I’d suggest that rather than his foot, it had been Carlson’s  head, though stuck in a different orifice.

I hope my fellow conservatives are working hard to get out the vote for our Senate candidates, because whatever happens at the top of the ticket, we simply must take the Senate. I’m not saying Mitt Romney will lose, as he in fact looks fairly strong at the moment, but let’s be honest about how things will go even if he wins but Harry Reid maintains control of the Senate.  With Boehner in the House, conservative concerns are certain to get rolled at every turn if we don’t re-take the Senate.

I expect that in the days to come, we will begin to see a parade of RINOs stepping out to deal dirt to conservative candidates. The establishment wing of the party doesn’t take defeat easily, and while we conservatives are always expected to rally to their candidates, they never seem to return the favor, instead undercutting conservatives.  Some have speculated the Christie’s actions are part of a ploy to somehow sabotage Obama, but that’s not it at all.  That’s far too complicated a ploy for the simple optics that Christie is gaining from this maneuver.  He’s simply an opportunist, and since his is a deep blue state, this is a way of staying in favor with the people of New Jersey, in part to position himself for his re-election and in part in case he makes a bid for the White House in 2016 in the wake of a Romney loss his actions today were intended to assist.  Quite simply, this kills two birds with one stone, and I knew when he erupted yesterday about not giving “a damn” for the politics, that just like Obama,  a political move on his part was imminent.  If it hadn’t been all about political “optics,” he wouldn’t have spent all his time on photo-ops.  Whatever other “October Surprises” might be in the offing, this one was entirely of Christie’s making.

As this post goes to press, almost as if by way of confirming my thesis, both New York’s Mayor Nanny Doomberg and retired General and affirmative action beneficiary Colin Bowell have shockingly endorsed Barack Obama.  I expect my readers to take it easy after that news as the mainstream media attempts to portray this as a surprise. Meanwhile, back on the East Coast, now that one of the mighty windbags has departed the scene, things aren’t going so well as thousands upon thousands of residents find themselves without shelter or food, and more than three million are still without power.  They’re fighting over fuel at the now sparse gas stations.  They’re siphoning it out of cars for use in generators, showing the utter lack of preparedness of so many governments in the region.  Once again, the coward-in-chief is off in Las Vegas.  I guess when the real hard work needs to be done, Obama can be counted on to arrive in the city he told people they ought not go.

I expect the parade of RINO back-stabbers to continue through the weekend.  It’s what they do.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Emergency Preparedness, Featured, Media, News, Politics, Senate Races | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries