Posts Tagged ‘Video’

Nation of Conspiracy Theorists: How the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Wrecked Our Government

Monday, August 12th, 2019

Ordinary Suicide?

Some will say our government had been wrecked already. A strong case can be made that the entire fiasco of the Russia-Collusion Hoax and the plot to overthrow a Presidency has already done much to destroy the credibility of the government.  Heck, part of the reason President Trump asked William Barr to an encore appearance as the nation’s attorney general was with the restoration of the government’s credibility in mind.  It’s part of why this President has stayed clear of the Department of Justice, wanting it and its subordinate departments to be cleaned up by virtue of the people he appoints, rather than by direct intercession lest any prosecutions necessary to the clean-up have the stench of partisan motives attached. Sadly, all of that was wrecked on Saturday morning when Jeffrey Epstein allegedly committed suicide in federal custody. The failure of the US Federal Government to safeguard an inmate who allegedly attempted suicide last month is absolutely shocking. It’s been reported that cameras in the facility may not have been recording during the billionaire inmate’s alleged suicide.  There are all sorts of unconfirmed stories circulating, but the real problem is this: Nobody believes the Federal Government’s story.  Nobody believes it was a simple suicide.  At the very least, there was very “convenient” misfeasance or malfeasance in the supervision of this inmate.  The part that has so many Americans furious is that there may be co-conspirators, many wealthy and well-connected people, who will “get away with it” because their chief co-conspirator is dead.  All that remains is a large number of female accusers, who will be diminished by defense attorneys into cases of “he-said; she-said” if ever they come to trial.  In short, dead men tell no tales, as Paul Joseph Watson pointed out early Saturday morning:

The United States Federal Government has zero credibility. The Federal Bureau of Investigations has zero credibility.  The United States Department of Justice is a joke.  There can be no respect for the rule of law when third-world, banana-republic spectacles like this are permitted.  We’ve known since at least the fake exoneration of Hillary Clinton by James Comey in 2016 despite obvious and repeated criminal conduct that justice is for sale in America.  Jeff Sessions was supposed to fix this. Rod Rosenstein was supposed to fix this. Matthew Whittaker was going to straighten this out. Most recently, Bill Barr was going to set this all straight and restore the credibility of the Department of Justice.  Given the string, I suppose failure was his only option. This creates a problem for the Federal Government, however: The American people no longer believe anything they say, any longer.  This particular failure was so obviously impending and grotesque in its inevitability that many of us expected this result.  Really, among those of you following this case, how many expected Epstein to survive until trial?  This is a serious problem for President Trump, and for Attorney General Barr, not to mention Director Wray over at the FBI.  Nobody trusts these Federal departments. Any of them.  Why should we?  They get tips about mass murderers weeks in advance but do nothing; they let serial criminal felons go; they participated in an attempted coup d’etat; they put their fingers on the scales of American elections; they lean into the whole rule of law to upset and confound it. Who in their right mind would believe any of them?

Epstein was in the process of being prosecuted for what were alleged to have been a lengthy string of despicable sex trafficking crimes, allegedly involving many, many minors over a period of more than a decade. He was a straight-up pedophile.  Worse, it is still alleged that he had co-conspirators in the child sex trafficking that included a who’s-who of famous, wealthy, and well-connected people.  One of the people as yet unnamed but widely believed to have been involved was former President William “Bill” Clinton.  He took at least 26 known flights on Epstein’s so-called “Lolita Express,” a Boeing 727 outfitted as a luxury private plane.  Allegedly, various sex romps and so on occurred aboard the plane.  With the release of a trove of previously sealed documents yesterday, it was thought Epstein might be induced to “sing,” giving up some of his clientele/co-conspirators. It’s also been widely rumored that Epstein was really running an extortion racket of some sort, related to all the perverse sexual exploits said to be ongoing in his orbit.

Whatever Epstein was doing, and with whom, we’re unlikely now to learn it. Just as the media has effectively blacked-out the entire NXIVM sex-trafficking scandal, so too will the blot this entire episode from our national memory.  Monsters will go unpunished.  I know one thing though: I’m going to start putting our politicians to the test. I am going to demand that they amend the constitution to make people who commit sex crimes against minors eligible for the death penalty, and to make federal law such that the ordinary statutes of limitation countdown commences only upon the victim reaching the age of twenty-one years.

Let’s face it: This is the biggest in-custody death since Lee Harvey Oswald, but at least there, we had video.  Our government has lost all credibility.  Claims of “incompetence” just don’t cut it here, Mr. Attorney General.  I wonder how deep this really goes. It wasn’t too long ago that I rejected “conspiracy theories” as lazy thinking, but I’m astonished by this case.  The one thing everybody predicted about Epstein was that he wouldn’t survive jail.  People said it in the form of a joke, but everybody who said it knew that this was not a laughing matter.  It’s rumored that the wikipedia page for Ghislane Maxwell(Epstein’s alleged accomplice) temporarily showed her as deceased as of 18 August, 2019.  Of course, anybody can edit wikipedia.org, which is one reason it’s a reliable source of information, but if nothing else, it serves as a reminder that there are other witnesses the Feds need to be rounding-up. If they’re smart, they’ve disappeared, or they’ll probably end up like Epstein.

Rush Limbaugh spent a goodly part of his Monday show setting up callers in order to debunk their conspiracy theories. Naturally, the callers selected seemed to have been picked based on their kook quotient.  It’s now been revealed that his cell-mate was transferred just hours before his alleged suicide.  Can this get any more ridiculous?  The circumstances of the death of Epstein are so bizarre, and so inconceivably outlandish that my wife has weighed in with her own “conspiracy theory,” and I can’t refute it:

This was set up to be as obvious as possible.  “They” took him out in the most obvious way, and it will be ruled a suicide despite all the obvious oddities.  The conspirators don’t care how obvious it looks.  They don’t care if you know what really happened, so long as nobody can prove it. It’s the ultimate “F U” from the elite dirt-bags associated with Epstein to you, the people of the United States.  It’s like flipping you the bird and saying “na-na, na-na, na-na, you can’t touch us.”

Of course, I suspect we’ll never know. I don’t think it’s any more knowable at this point than whether Jack Ruby was really acting on his own, or instead part of some deep, dark conspiracy.  The problem is that we mustn’t accept this answer.  Our government has no credibility so long as this remains unresolved.  There are too many theories that too many people now believe with some conviction.  What virtually all of them share is that this death is not a simple suicide owing to the simple incompetence of a handful of people in government.  I’m sure some reader here will contradict me now, but no person I know face-to-face believes anything the government has said on this, whatever else their personal theories might indicate.

The credibility of our government is now in virtual tatters, but it must be said that it will continue to be this way until we, the people, insist upon something different. I had barely heard the details of the story of Epstein’s death on Saturday before I was dialing my own House representative, and my two Senators. This is unacceptable, and I also warned them: If I discover that they’re linked in any way to Epstein and his illicit shenanigans, they can consider themselves ineligible for re-election. That’s the first test people need to apply to all Republicans and Democrats and Independents.  The second should be:  What are they doing to restore the credibility of the US Government? We can’t permit this to go on any longer in our country. We mustn’t.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Proud to be an American!(Video)

Friday, July 5th, 2019

President Trump hosted a rousing Independence Day celebration on the Mall in Washington DC on Thursday, the 4th of July 2019.  Complete with the Army Band, and Choir, this was an awesome display of our reverence for our National heritage and our pride in all that has gone into making this the greatest nation in the history of our world. You can watch a video replay here:

We Must Not Let Anything Go

Wednesday, April 10th, 2019

Time to Face the Music

I realize that there’s a sentiment in Washington DC that now that the whole Trump-Russia-Collusion hoax has been exposed as such, we conservatives and Trump supporters ought to just make nice with the Democrats and “let it go” for the sake of comity and bi-partisanship. That probably makes a great deal of sense to people who live and thrive in the swamp.  It probably seems reasonable to them.  Last evening, watching a few minutes of Tucker Carlson, he had Mollie Hemingway on and she mentioned that there might be some laws that would need to be re-written to prevent all of this from happening again.  I looked at my wife, an expression of stunned incredulity on my face, matched by a similar expression on hers, and we both exclaimed “re-write some laws?” Per the norm, I was somewhat more animated, but I then muted the television and went on a mini-rant about the reasons why all of the denizens of the swamp must be evicted. Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t care what talking heads in the swamp may think about it: There must be prosecutions and convictions of the guilty, followed by swift sentencing at the appropriate level, to whatever level it may rise. Screw “letting it go!” We mustn’t let anything go, and we mustn’t let the swamp-rats make it all go away, as it seems they are intent upon doing. There must be consequences, and they must be as severe as the law permits. Simply put, it’s time for the real conspirators to face the music.

Mollie Hemingway is a fantastic writer for the Federalist, and in most all cases, I urge readers to check out her regular articles.  Tucker Carlson on FoxNews can be entertaining, but at times, it’s very frustrating to watch his show because he provides a platform to such outlandishly foolish characters, and I’m fairly certain it’s intended to press all of a conservative’s hot-buttons.  He succeeds quite frequently, at least where I’m concerned.  In this case, however, I don’t think that was the intention.  The two of them seemed to be acknowledging that there was indeed a serious problem in our government and the weaponization of its intelligence and investigative agencies,  but both seemed satisfied that it would be addressed sufficiently that it never happens again.  Hemingway seemed to want a more thorough reckoning, but to suggest that a simple re-write of some statutes would suffice is absurd to me.  I don’t know if it’s because I’m sensitive to the tendencies of the swamp of DC to make conservatives go wobbly, or if it’s because I’ve become adept at judging when we’re about to have one put-over on us by the DC Uni-party, but it smelled of swamp-gas to me, certainly where Tucker was concerned.  Queue the video below:

Again, while some may be satisfied if only we re-write some laws to make sure this never happens again, but the law already forbids the weaponization of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and conspiracy to commit treason is already covered under our existing laws.  While we might re-write some of the FISA law, and that might limit the extent to which that particular class of abuses might occur, there are already many clear-cut laws that make much of what occurred in this instance an unmitigated attack on our entire constitutional system.  One can find many statutes that apply, so I’m not sure why “re-writing law” is necessary to the sort of reckoning that justice in this case demands.

It’s really a fairly simple thing, from my point of view.  People who we’ve entrusted with incredible power over the affairs of our nation decided to abuse that power in a way that is well beyond corrupt.  It’s clearly treasonous, and while people like Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, and others will continue to attempt to downplay or gloss-over what it is that they had done, it’s not satisfactory that we permit this to be dropped.  There’s also the very real possibility that the previous President was directly involved in this effort, and if so, that’s a conspiracy to high treason that originated in the highest office in the land.  While many will not permit this notion to be discussed, if there was treason here, and it surely seems there had been, we must be prepared to charge that offense and upon conviction, hand out its most terrible sentences, whomever the guilty may be.

It’s clear that at least for the moment, Attorney General Barr seems to get it.  In Congressional testimony yesterday, he made it clear that there was spying on the Trump administration, and that he intends to investigate it:

I certainly hope that AG Barr thoroughly investigates the matter, and while I still have some reservations about his swampy tendencies of the past, they’ve not yet surfaced in his current tenure as our nation’s Attorney General.  People in Washington DC don’t understand why it’s such a big deal, but I think it’s worth explaining what it means to me, out here in flyover country, that the elites who carried out the fraud and treason be punished.

Most of us get up each day and go about the process of providing for our families, earning a living, staying out of unnecessary entanglements with trouble, and obeying the law of the land, all while maintaining a certain reverence for the rule of law we’ve been raised to expect from our government, and the adherence to it that we expect from our elected and appointed officials. How many of you does that describe? Perhaps a few of you have gone on to retire after a lifetime of the honorable pursuits described above. The point is that we obey the law, we respect the law, and to an extent not common in most modern societies, we revere the law.  That means that for most of us, most of the time, we recognize the significance of what has been done in the case of the conspiracy to overthrow Donald Trump, and we recognize it as treason.  It doesn’t much matter what party we may be in, but what does matter is that we cherish our constitutional system, and we know that if Donald Trump can be treated in this way, a billionaire candidate, and then a duly elected President of the United States, then we average Americans out here in flyover country are in serious danger from the runaway government in Washington DC that has essentially decided to overthrow the rules we have set for it.  President Trump clearly sees it this way too, as seen in his brief statement to the press on Wednesday morning:

Treason indeed!  It’s time to investigate, prosecute, and punish the convicted upon a guilty finding, to the extent permitted under the law, and the more lofty the office, the more severe must be the punishment.  Only then is there any chance that this will be prevented from repeating in the future, or worse, being extended down to all we citizens who merely live our lives as honorably and honestly as we know to do, and who cherish the liberties with which we have been blessed.  More than that, we require a reckoning for those who have wasted our time, money, and opportunities.  We need a reckoning for those who have effectively demolished the first half of the presidency of Donald Trump.  McCain screwed us with his thumbs-down on the Obama-care repeal, and by helping to create the Trump/Russia-Collusion Hoax, he helped to make sure that we would not be in a position to advance our agenda.  Do you doubt but that this hoax helped the Democrats and other Swamprats to wreck the mid-terms of 2018?  Do you doubt it?  Do you doubt that Ryan and a number of other GOP members of the DC UniParty to make an early escape?  Think of how many high-ranking, or long-serving Republicans quit their House seats last year.  Why?  There’s always a reason, and I think much of it will come to light if there’s a thorough investigation of the Collusion Hoax and the treasonous attempt to overthrow President Trump.

For those of you who think that we ought to simply “let it go,” I must confess that I believe you’ve lost your minds.  We cannot and must not “let it go.” We must not let the Swamp make some nominal reforms but let the guilty go un-prosecuted or unpunished.  After all, that’s part of why we’ve landed here, isn’t it?  Wasn’t it the attempt to conceal and obfuscate Hillary’s crimes part of what went wrong?  Essentially, the swamp wanted to “let it go” where Hillary was concerned, and Obama wanted it that way.  We all know where this really leads, don’t we?  This whole thing lands on the desk of the President, but not President Trump.  It must all land on the desk of the chief executive who permitted, and perhaps even directed this treason. It is time now to ensure that whatever comes next, whatever issues the country faces, it does so on a foundation of an unadulterated rule of law. The American people must have confidence, or the republic will fall.  It is time now to see that whomever had been engaged in this attack on the republic, an attack I regard as potentially more consequential for the fate of our nation, had it succeeded, we must see to it that the conspirators answer for this crime. This time, there can be no letting it go.

Judge Jeanine Silenced By FoxNews(Updated 2x)

Monday, March 18th, 2019

Justice Finished at Fox News

Those of you who’ve been reading this blog for years will know that I’ve never been a big fan of Jeanine Pirro.  At times, I think her positions are not really so conservative, but that’s okay, because we’re all entitled to our own opinions.  If she annoyed me, I’d just change the channel, as I do with anybody else in media.  It’s called “choice,” but for some reason, leftists only enjoy non-choices disguised as choice(infanticide, for instance.)  In this case, what’s been revealed is the degree to which Fox News is becoming more and more like the other Ameriphobic news outlets.  The writing has been on the wall for several years, but viewers had reason to hope. Last Saturday, the 9th of March, on her Fox News weekly show Justice, Pirro asked about Ilhan Omar:

“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Here’s a clip from a Youtuber that contains the controversial clip from “Justice with Jeanine:”

Notice that the quote cited above is the quote widely cited in media, but having watched the video, in context, this question doesn’t seem extraordinary or out of place.  Given Omar’s spate of ridiculous anti-Semitic remarks in recent weeks, Pirro’s question doesn’t seem out of line.

Fox News, now apparently an Ameriphobic network like most of the rest, decided to pull the plug on Pirro’s popular Saturday evening show, bowing to pressure from Islamophiles everywhere, including in corporate management.

Apparently the opinions and sensibilities of at Fox News are those of James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s Ameriphobic son, who is running the network. After her question about Omar, Pirro refused to apologize, and as of this Saturday evening, she wasn’t on the air.  Justice is out at Fox News.

Annoyed, President Trump even retweeted somebody else’s complaint about it:


Of course, this was after he had tweeted extensively on the issue, seeming to demand that FoxNews buck up and defend its hosts, including Judge Jeanine. Earlier, he had tweeted this three-part tweet-storm(part 1:)

 

(part 2:)

 

(part 3:)

 


Like President Trump, I have tired of Fox News’ endless besmirching of patriotism and Americanism, particularly when it comes to their weekend lineup. I’m also tired of their incessant sucking-up to Islam. Pamela Geller was apparently banned from the network some time ago, and Geller was an unabashed critic of Islam. Her contention has been that there’s no real difference between radical Islam and Islam.  After Fox News stopped putting Pamela Geller on the network, I knew the network was headed down the path of surrender fast.

As of Sunday, it seems that Jeanine Pirro may be out entirely at FoxNews.

What’s most sickening is that after Fox News criticized Pirro, Ilhan Omar thanked the network.

As I’ve previously reported on this blog, Fox News is going to Hell.  The few conservatives on the network won’t be able to save it from its idiotic management by #Ameriphobes like James Murdoch and his gaggle of clucking Islamophiles.  I think I’m going to switch to One America News Network. I’ve been a Dish Network customer for years, but it looks like DirectTV offers OANN, so I may be headed that direction, unless ROKU offers it.  Besides, from what I’ve seen, OANN’s reporting is decidedly not Ameriphobic.  It’s time to turn the channel on Fox News. As a whole, the network has become hostile to my sensitivities, and this silencing of pro-America(n), anti-Jihadi voices must be stopped.  Now Fox News coddles an anti-Semite like Omar, while they toss overboard a host who, despite my disagreements on many issues, is an undeniable patriot.

I hate the media Nazis who seem to have need to silence voices they don’t like.

Screw Fox News.

Update: Now we learn that Fox News has rehired the disgraced Donna Brazile, who helped rig debates by providing Hillary the debate questions.

Update 2: H/T Mr. L for pointing me to this accurate and excellent article at AmericanThinker.

See also: How Donald Trump Can Save the World(or at least the Internet)

Napolitano Wrong, As Usual

Tuesday, January 8th, 2019

As usual, the open-borders, chamber-of-commerce media, including FoxNews rushed out to tell you what you need to know.  As usual, they intentionally mislead you about the nature of the law. While I’ve already covered this issue, demonstrating plainly that President Trump has the authority, the media is great at lying and propagandizing, and sadly, that includes FoxNews on immigration-related issues.  Everything is squeezed through the filters they want you to see.  Let’s take a look at what FoxNews “Judicial Analyst” Andrew Napolitano has to say, and let’s see about the facts.  First, the video:

Now let’s analyze Napolitano’s claims and assertions about the law, which I’ve here paraphrased and condensed for further examination:

  • Presidents can’t seize property under emergency declarations.
  • Presidents can’t spend money without congressional authorization in an emergency.
  • The President must “make a case” for a declared emergency.
  • If the President had authority to spend money under emergencies, we’d have seen it before, but we haven’t.
  • Sometimes Congress has “looked the other way” when Presidents reallocate defense money from one use to another, but it doesn’t make it lawful.

First, as a general observation, let it be acknowledged that in certain respect, Andrew Napolitano is a radical libertarian on immigration generally, which is a strong reason for FoxNews to have picked somebody else to provide “Judicial Analysis.”  Naturally, FoxNews is itself a corporation that favor open borders, so it’s easy enough to understand their motives in picking open border hacks like Napolitano to make this particular case.

The first assertion of Napolitano was that the President cannot seize property under emergency declarations.

Let us go right to a pretty open-and-shut case: Roosevelt ordered the surrender of privately owned gold and gold certificates to the Federal Reserve on 5 April, 1933.  This was done under executive order 6102, with authority arising from the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended. Gold is private property. Roosevelt was acting pursuant to an emergency he declared. Not convinced? Let’s go on to a second example, shall we?  In 1944, Roosevelt ordered the plants, offices, and warehouses of Montgomery Ward to be seized in order to force compliance with an emergency-based order of collective bargaining with a labor union, due to the ongoing war, which was the basis of the emergency. (World War II.)

Let’s just stop right there on Napolitano’s first point.  He’s busted.  Thoroughly.  There are hundreds more examples where Presidents made seizures of private property in time of war or emergency.  It’s called the “rule of necessity,” and it is the legal basis for all emergency doctrine.  Like most libertarians, I find such authority despicable, but they exist, have been exercised, and precedents must be recognized, as all the “wise judicial analysts” like to insist.

The Law: 1  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion was that Presidents can’t spend money without authorization by Congress in an emergency.  Let’s ask a Democrat Congressman:


Imagine that!  In addition to this, however, there are at least three known instances of Presidents’ spending without any prior Congressional appropriations:

  • Washington’s Unilateral spending to suppress the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion
  • Jefferson’s purchases of saltpepper and sulphur after the Chesapeake incident
  • Lincoln’s advance of $2 million to purchase supplies in advance of the Civil War in 1861

(See pages 22-23 of the following PDF from Harvard Law:  Constitutionality of Executive Spending)

These are older examples, but if it was good enough for Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, it’s probably good enough for President Trump.

The Law: 2  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion was that Presidents must “make a case” to declare emergencies.  This implies that a President must go find approval.  That’s not the case. In point of fact, all a president must do is issue an emergency declaration, and point to his legal authority, and then act.  This has been done repeatedly.

The Law: 3  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion has already been covered: He claimed that if the President had such authority, we’d have seen it used before, but we haven’t.  See Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln above.

The Law: 4  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His last general assertion is that Congress may have “looked the other way” when it suited them, but that it isn’t lawful.

The problem with this notion is that legal precedents are born of such practices.  If Congress historically “looks the other way,” time after time, permitting the President to do such things without challenging them, it can also be interpreted as an endorsement of that action, or at least an affirmation of its legitimacy. In short, the court could very well view it as a precedent that bears upon their decisions thereafter.  “Looking the other way” once or twice might be tantamount to surrendering the issue in perpetuity.

The Law: 5 Andrew Napolitano: 0

Of course, there was at least one more assertion that had been made by Brian Kilmeade in the video clip above.  He mentioned that one couldn’t rightly term this an “emergency” because it would take too long.

This is a bizarre point.  The United States has been operating under all sorts of emergency statutes for DECADES, some of them continuously since the days of Jimmy Carter, and even earlier.  Read this fascinating article.

Imagine that, and yes, score Mr. Kilmeade a big fat zero.

It’s time for the left and the pro-amnesty, open-borders media and political culture to shut the Hell up and get out of President Trump’s way.  If he declares an emergency, he’ll have every bit of law and precedence on his side.

GOP Says “FU”

Friday, March 18th, 2016

its-our-party-we-can-do-do-what-we-want_ftThe GOP establishment isn’t going quietly. In fact, they’re building their booby trap for those who would oust them from dominance in the upcoming elections, and those who have to date deprived them of viable candidates in the Republican primary season.  I have here stated that I’m not a big fan of Donald Trump, and that I have serious misgivings about all of the Republican candidates.  What you should know is that as much as I may not like Donald Trump’s behavior and antics, I vastly prefer him to the crooked DC UniParty that includes both Democrat and Republican establishments.  What we’ve learned today is that in order to interrupt the natural, normal primary process as the GOP establishment had already rigged it, they will use the continuing candidacy of a mail carrier’s son to foist on the party a nominee like Paul Ryan, or another establishment Republican, through the contested convention process, should neither Trump nor Cruz obtain the necessary 1,237 delegates.  If that doesn’t disgust you quite enough, and it isn’t clear enough to you how, as a voter for any candidate in the GOP primary, you’re being screwed, there’s this bit of news:  Orin Hatch(R-UT) is already aboard with the Obama nomination of  leftist radical Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States.   Perpetual sell-outs Jeff Flake, Kelly Ayotte, and Susan Collins have already expressed interest in meeting with Garland.  You need to understand how you’re being betrayed by the GOP establishment.

This is their parting gift.  If they can’t win in the regular primary process, they’re going to make your votes meaningless.  If that still doesn’t permit them to maintain power, and if they’re unable to stop Trump directly, they will support Hillary.  Assuming somehow that doesn’t materialize, and Trump has such a groundswell of support in the Fall that they’re unable to sufficiently damage him in order to elect Hillary, they are setting up their parting gift: If they believe they’re about to be ousted anyway, they are going to shove a leftist Supreme Court justice down our throats to wreck the country for decades, if not forever.  One way or another, they’re going to have their revenge, like the petulant children of Bill Clinton’s administration who stole all the “W” keys from keyboards throughout the executive departments of our government, the difference being that this will be substantially more damaging, and it will be done with far more malice.  Speaking of malice for Republican voters, watch the following video (H/T Sundance @ the ConservativeTreehouse), and listen closely just beyond the three minute mark:

That’s right, it’s THEIR party, and they’ll nominate who they damned well please.  For those who don’t quite understand this, let me explain it this way: Delegates select the nominee. Voters participate in a process by which delegates are selected, but this is where the voter’s legal say in the process ends. As a practical matter, it is true that the party selects the nominee through its delegates.  If no candidate obtains 1,237 delegates(one more than half) then the delegates who are required to support the candidate to whom they were originally allocated in the first vote become unbound in any successive votes, meaning they can cross over and vote for another candidate.  This is essentially a “contested convention” by party rules, and at present, unless something shifts wildly, it’s going to be very difficult for any of the candidates to get to the 1,237 delegates required.  What Curly Haugland is explaining in this video is that which we already know: It’s THEIR party.  They make the rules, and they determine the process, which means that they alone really possess the ability to select the party’s nominee.  They can make changes to the rules almost at will.

Haugland isn’t lying. Haugland is simply stating the facts. What voters must now realize is what many people have been explaining for decades, but that nobody seems willing to acknowledge: The whole primary process is a farce.  In the Democrat party, it is dominated by “Super Delegates” who basically are able to obviate the will of the voters at their whim.  Witness how Bernie Sanders can win the popular vote in a given state, but always loses in the delegate count. In the 1970s, the Democrats created the “Super Delegates” in the wake of George McGovern’s candidacy, because they never wanted such an apparent leftist to be the nominee of their party again. It’s the Democrat establishment’s version of “Screw-the-vote,” and it’s in clear evidence in 2016 in the race between Clinton and Sanders.

On the Republican side, a different methodology is used to obtain the same kind of result.  A myriad of candidates are inserted into the campaign to split and shape the results.  As they lose their utility in shaping the race, they’re withdrawn from the process.  This is why John Kasich remains in this race today, because he’s going to effectively siphon-off just enough delegates to make sure neither of the other two can obtain 1,237 delegates.  This will put the GOP establishment in the position of being able to negotiate with the candidates at the convention, probably even throughout the period between the last primary in early June, and the convention’s start in July.  By then, the delegate counts will be firmly known, and the deal-making will begin in earnest.  We will eventually discover who had been the better deal-maker, or if a deal had been reached at all, once the voting begins at the convention.  I would not be surprised to see a Trump-Kasich ticket emerge, with Kasich being the establishment’s lever in the supposed presidency of Donald Trump.

Whatever the case, you can bet that the GOP establishment will use a “contested convention” to set their hooks deeply into Donald Trump’s backside if he is to become the nominee.  The same is true if they were to instead broker a deal with Ted Cruz.  The basic idea here is that they will obtain certain policy concessions for the DC UniParty that will undermine whomever they ultimately decide to support in this process.  You can bet that this is where some form of “amnesty” will sneak in over the threshold, and you can expect to be thoroughly betrayed on this issue.  Whether it’s some sort of “touch-back amnesty” as Trump has previously suggested, or a “legalize-in-place-without-path-to-citizenship” as Cruz has previously advocated, you can bet the hooks will be set firmly.

The party establishments are firmly in control of their parties, and I detest the misleading comments of those who will tell you now that the “GOP establishment is dead.”  Nothing could be further from the truth, and they will never yield power in their party.  At best, they’re in hiding.  Should voters become so incensed at the process that they decide to form a new party, abandoning the GOP altogether, the GOP establishment will simply switch and work to co-opt the new party.  There is a vast political class of consultants, analysts, propagandists, public-relations pushers, and pollsters who cannot live without this process.  They’d be out of a job.  They are the folks most threatened by the two remaining Republican candidates, because either is likely to wipe out a good deal of this nonsense if they are able to obtain the nomination and win the presidency.

The Republican Party’s establishment is able to say “FU” to the voters and make it stick, certainly for now, and probably for as long as the Republican Party remains in existence. They control far too much of the process to ever be truly defeated on their own home turf.  Even Ronald Reagan discovered this as he found through the course of his presidency that he was being consistently opposed and undermined not just by Democrats like Ted Kennedy, but also from within his own administration through the establishment cronies tied to his Vice President.  If either Trump or Cruz manages to make a deal to get the nomination at a “contested convention,” you should know that exactly the same sort of thing will be in the offing, because the establishment isn’t giving up their power without a serious knock-down, drag-out fight.  We should be realistic about the betrayals that will attend any deal-making, and it’s why we must never forget that when they assert that it’s THEIR party, they aren’t lying.  It’s just that in most cases, they’re just as soon not point it out.  We should be prepared to exert our influence, to the degree we have any, with the candidate who they ultimately nominate, because the deal-making of the DC establishment is never in our favor. Never.

The New Communists at FoxNews

Sunday, December 6th, 2015

cargile_fnc_smSaturday afternoon, I took a little bit of time to watch some news. I flipped over to FoxNews, and there I witnessed Mickey Cargile explaining to openly supportive host Eric Shawn and his audience that drug prices are a moral issue, and a quality of life issue, more than economic issue. I couldn’t agree more.  His conclusion, however, was based on the moral system of collectivism. I realize that the anchors and stories on FoxNews on weekends tend to be the “B-Team” or even the “C-Team,” but this is despicable. Watch for yourself:

Apparently, Cargile believes this is a moral issue, but unfortunately, his moral standard is collectivism. He ignores entirely the morality of a civilized country inasmuch as he openly attacks private property rights, private wealth, and the freedom to choose. Reading between the lines, he’s advocating some sort of government-enforced price control at the very least, and perhaps even complete expropriation at the worst. This implies violence. In order to enforce such a thing, what one is saying is that one is ready to kill people in order to take their things if they do not otherwise consent.

The host, for his part, is no better. He smears the owners of the rights to the Hepatitis C treatment under discussion as people who are merely out to profit, first, as if profit is somehow an evil, and second in that they might use that profit to “buy a new Ferrari.” This shameful broadcast merely confirms my contention that FoxNews is all about co-opting conservatism. There’s nothing remotely conservative in this, Cargile’s protests about his continuing devotion to the free market notwithstanding.

For those who don’t understand the principles involved, let us be clear: If you invent a thing, and I purchase the rights to that thing from you, my moral claim to the thing in question is every bit as legitimate as yours when you had invented the thing. More, since it’s now my thing, I have the absolute right to buy it and sell it as I see fit, and the only moral method by which to obtain it is to pay the price at which we arrive by mutual consent. Any government interference in that exchange, either to my benefit or to a purchaser’s, is tyranny.

What Cargile advocates in this clip is tyranny. What the hapless Mr. Shawn approvingly supports is no different from what Hugo Chavez had imposed in that poor, enslaved, collapsing communist state that is Venezuela: Communism. The closer we get to complete collapse, and the more people begin to shrug their shoulders over the concepts and moral standing of individual rights, the more rapidly our collapse will accelerate.

One might argue, as the communists at FoxNews seem to insist, that there is some maximum amount that ought to be charged for some life-saving, or quality-of-life-preserving drug or treatment. My question for you is: Had I Hepatitis C, how much of my earnings would I forego for how long a period to finance a cure? Is there any amount of money I would not pay? One might argue, as the dolts on FoxNews have done here, that such a burden is unaffordable, and use this as a justification to steal. Theft via government action is still theft, even though done under color of law. The fact that the government was placed in office by vote does not reduce the significance of the crime, but merely multiplies the number of criminals and broadens the expanse of the guilt(though its concentration is not diluted.)

With this sort of thing becoming the norm on FoxNews, as further evidence of the spread of collectivist ethics throughout the culture, we cannot and will not last.

Veterans March on DC – Palin, Cruz, Lee Run Interference

Monday, October 14th, 2013

In Washington DC on Sunday, an unknown number of veterans(we’ll never get an honest estimate out of DC officials) together with Governor Sarah Palin, Senators Ted Cruz(R-TX) and Mike Lee(R-UT) gathered to visit the World War II memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, and later, the vets marched to the White House and the Capitol, depositing and discarding a pile of “Barry-cades” at the White House.  According to a report on Shark-tank.net, Palin and her contingent were greeted by riot police who were there to attempt to shut down the event.  Gov. Palin reportedly thanked the officers for their service before joining in the barricade removal and continuation of the event.  Senators Cruz and Lee joined her in making remarks to open the event. Here’s video posted on youtube:

A clip repeating a small segment of Sarah Palin’s remarks with Senator Cruz’s remarks:

A clip of Greta Van Susternen talking with Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee at the event:

Not surprisingly, this group of leaders show up for the important things.  Other so-called leaders were nowhere to be seen.  Certainly, President Obama wasn’t around, and Marine 1 was seen leaving the White House during the extended event that included veterans carrying and depositing sections of “Barry-cades” at the White House, notably, one double-amputee on a Segway who loaded a section of the barricade and carted it with him.

These are the men and women our President and Harry Reid choose to dismiss.  These are the people who are “radicals,” “extremists,” and “zealots” in the estimation of the Washington DC elitists.  The simple truth is that men and women who have given their service honorably and often at great(or ultimate) personal cost to this country should never be barricaded from memorials.  Never in any previous shutdown have these memorials been barricaded, and the truth is that it costs more money to barricade them than to have left them open.  This spectacle was brought to you by none other than Barack Obama, along with his cronies and henchmen, all attempting to bring unnecessary pain to the American people.

Naturally, it wasn’t over there.  Vets carried barricade section up to the White House, and riot police soon filled the area, along with mounted police.  There were alleged to have been a few minor scuffles, with protesters chanting everything from “Obama must go” to “Shame on you.” Here’s a video clip:

As police v. protester “clashes” go, this one was pretty mild, thankfully, and you could hear in this and similar video clips the veterans urging one another to remain “cool” and to otherwise prevent the situation from getting out of hand.  These are America’s vets, mobilized, honorable, and patriotic.  Meanwhile, the DC elite bring out the riot police to try to close down an event that should never have been necessary but for the President’s insistence on closing down memorials that have never been closed before.

I would like to thank all my honorable brothers and sisters, young and old, who showed up for this event.  I also think we owe significant thanks to Governor Palin, along with Senators Cruz and Lee, for running interference and making it more difficult for the riot police to attempt to sweep this up and bury it.  The media did its level best to either ignore or mock the event.  The truth is that American veterans and patriots rallied on Sunday in defense of our liberties and against a tyrant, and whether the mainstream media covered it or not, you should know of their efforts. This must be the beginning of taking our country back.

 

Sarah Palin’s Obama Smackdown No Pin-Prick

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

Monday evening, on Sean Hannity’s show, Governor Sarah Palin took on the issue of the government shutdown, explained that the partial shutdown of the government is a necessary result of our broken budgetary process, but that it’s certainly no Armageddon.  She had a special aside just for Barack Obama(video courtesy SarahNet):

 

David Gregory Bites Off More Than He Can Chew With Ted Cruz

Monday, September 30th, 2013

Cruzing

On Sunday Morning, David Gregory interviewed Senator Ted Cruz on NBC’s Meet the Press. Gregory questioned Cruz for several minutes, and what became clear from the outset was that it was Gregory’s aim to somehow trap the Texas Senator.  Every question was formulated from the viewpoint of a Democrat.  Every contention of Gregory was constructed to obscure the trainwreck that is Obama-care, or to shield Democrats from blame.  At no point did Gregory attempt to understand the Senator, so that Cruz was obliged to make his case clearly despite Gregory.  What Gregory tried to conceal most of all is who has been inflexible, and absolutist, and who has been unwilling to compromise.  As usual, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid in the Senate and Barack Obama generally haven’t been willing to listen to any complaints from the American people, while they’ve been willing to do the bidding of big corporations, granting waivers, delays, and carve-outs under Obama-care.  This interview is a study in how to go over the heads of a hostile press directly to the American people.

Senator Cruz is absolutely correct: If government shuts down, it will be because Democrats, particularly Senator Reid and President Obama, have been unwilling to listen to the American people.

Levin’s Proposal May Be Our Last Hope

Saturday, August 17th, 2013

Given the direction of our republic into complete cultural, economic, and political collapse, it may be that drastic circumstances must call for equally drastic measures.  On Friday night, Hannity aired a one-hour special with a studio audience on Fox News Channel that featured Mark Levin and his latest book: The Liberty Amendments -Restoring the American Republic.  Hannity put up Levin’s proposed constitutional amendments for review by the esteemed studio audience, but the first matter to be examined was Levin’s proposed method of amending the constitution: Rather than wait for Congress to repair itself, a hope based entirely in futile notions about the ability of the American people to somehow force the change, he instead argues that Article V of the constitution already provides the means by which to amend it without the approval or consent of Congress or any other branch of the federal government.  He is proposing an amending convention, convened by two-thirds of the states, with any produced amendments requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states.

For those who are somewhat confused about all of this, I would refer you to Article V of the US Constitution that provides for the two legitimate procedures by which to amend the constitution:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”(emphasis added.)

Bluntly, two-thirds of the legislatures of the states can initiate this process.  Three-fourths have the ability to ratify them, just as if the Congress had proposed them.  The difficulty of this process alone makes it entirely unlikely that the process might become a so-called “runaway convention.”  As Levin responded on this point when asked during the course of the Hannity show, the simple fact is that there is nothing revolutionary about this process except that we, the people, have never initiated it, and it could be initiated at any time.  Perhaps it is time we start.

Some of the comments on my last article on this subject seemed to raise the same objections, and while I understand the reservations, the simple truth of the matter is that if the statists existed in sufficient numbers that they could hijack this process, they would have initiated it themselves some time ago.  There are clear dangers, but I think what Levin has here accomplished is marvelous for one particular reason, as became clear in a question from Breitbart’s Joel Pollak during the course of the show: The eleven amendments Levin proposes do not confront any political issue in particular, apart from perhaps taxation.  Instead, they are all structural and procedural issues with respect to the federal government.  Rather than attack a particular issue where the federal government can be shown to be out of control, they each confront defects in the original document, or in one case, reverse a defect imposed by previous amendments.

In focusing so tightly on the constructs of our federal government, Levin avoids the pitfalls of specific divisive political issues, leaving them to be resolved by virtue of a political process amended and restored to the framers’ intentions.  In this sense, the proposal is at once elegant and simple.  It is elegant inasmuch as it addresses the central failings of our national political process and the aggregation of power in the federal bureaucracy, and it inserts new forms of protections against a runaway federal establishment that imposes law and regulation with no effective check by those it purports to serve.  The reversals born of such a slate of amendments would be slow but intractable, as power would necessarily begin to shift from the central government to the states.  His proposal is simple because it relies on a process that is already part of our constitutional system, and need not be invented, nor rely on the approval of the federal establishment that would naturally resist it.

One of the criticisms that was raised had been about the repeal of the seventeenth amendment.  Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com asked if returning the selection of Senators to the states’ legislatures wouldn’t hurt the civil engagement of the populace.  My answer would be somewhat different than Dr. Levin’s, because I would tend to consider it this way: Which elections need the most bolstering in terms of civic participation?  National or state and local?  I would suspect that if electing one’s state representatives and senators would be crucial in electing members of the US Senate, interest in state legislative elections would be certain to grow.  I might also point out that in many respects, this might well serve conservatives most of all, since it is we who tend to show up reliably in off-year and state/local elections. The so-called “low information voter” does not.  To the degree this would draw more to the process, it may also help reduce the total number of such uninformed voters by engaging them in their state governments, thereby lifting the veil of ignorance behind which they may now suffer.

Indeed, one could argue that the seventeenth amendment had been contrary to the framers’ intent, not merely because it repealed their process, but because of its net result in muting the states as voices in the federal government. It is fitting then that even in Article V, the point is demonstrated by its closing clause:

“…no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”(emphasis mine.)

It could be said hereby that the seventeenth amendment deprived all the States of any form of suffrage in the US Senate.  After the seventeenth amendment, States effectively have no direct suffrage of any form, thus rendering them voiceless in the federal government that had been their creation.

Naturally, there were ten amendments more than the repeal of the seventeenth discussed, including an interesting proposal that would permit the overturn of federal regulations by the states.  There were also term limits for Congress, and there were term limits for the federal judiciary.  There was even a method by which the states could overturn Supreme Court decisions.  What all of these proposed amendments share is a singular focus on the construction and process of the federal government.  That is a brilliant approach to reform that would have the effect of more slowly and carefully reversing our course.

I’ve given a great deal of thought to Levin’s proposal, as I have proposed some of these same ideas in some form in the past. As Levin points out, the Congress and the Courts, never mind a runaway executive have no reason whatever to reform themselves.  If they are to be reformed, we will need to be the instigators. This then ought to be our mission, the effort of our time.  If we are to be blunt about our nation’s prospects on its current course, it must be admitted that the future looks bleak. None should think this is a project that will be done in a year or in an election cycle.  The fact is that this process begins with local and state politics. It means getting our state legislatures in shape so that the delegates they would send must be of a mind to author the kinds of amendments that Levin proposes here.

I realize there are risks implicit in any move to convene delegates for the purpose of amending the constitution, but the simple fact is that the constitution has been amended in a de facto methodology by the results of extra-constitutional rulings of the court, outrageous legislative initiatives in Congress, and the tyrannical fiat of executive whimsy that threaten every right of the American people.  We are already nearing the precipice from which there will be no return, where plummeting into the abyss will be merely a matter of inertia.  If George Mason insisted on this second procedure as the last effective rampart against federal tyranny, then I say we must exercise it.  The only alternative is almost too terrible to imagine, and violence will be the only feasible outcome.  There are many who make bold oaths, explaining that they would be happy with that occasion, but I wonder how much of that is bravado.  Perhaps it is easier for some to make idle pronouncements than to stand forth and make serious efforts aimed at avoiding that sort of catastrophe.

When I consider even the simple repeal of the seventeenth amendment, I realize Levin is right.  Such an amendment could never pass a Senate now subservient only to the Washington DC establishment, so that to restore the voice of the states, it will require their insistence and instigation.  If you missed this episode of Hannity, I hope FNC will make more of it available. Here is the opening clip:

 


A Word on the Maddening Ignorance of too many Americans

Sunday, July 7th, 2013

I realize that our educational systems are filled with rot and torment, and I know many parents don’t do very much to help the situation, and I understand there are so many distractions for our young people that it’s amazing they have learned to tie their shoes…well, some of them have.  What I notice is the empty byproduct of a vacuous self-esteem that has taught them to value their opinions when it’s clear from listening to them that they don’t know a blessed thing of merit.  I don’t like to attack people in a general way, but for the love of Pete, can somebody tell these dead-heads to remember the quote variously attributed to Lincoln, Twain, and a few others, since we can predict they won’t have known it:

“It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

My apologies. These dead-heads aren’t likely to know who Lincoln or Twain had been.

“Lincoln? The car?”

“Twain? Doesn’t that have something to do with scanners?”

Who am I kidding? I’d be surprised if they could manage that much. This is why I oppose early voting.  This is why I oppose motor-voter laws.  I don’t think our nation should be run by people who haven’t the willingness to learn the first damned thing about it.  Am I an “elitist” for suggesting that some people are too ignorant to vote? I don’t think so, but then, I know what I know. If you’re as blissfully, wretchedly ignorant as the people depicted in this video, you shouldn’t be permitted to vote, or even gain entry to a college, in the first instance because you clearly don’t care enough to be a responsible participant in our nation’s decisions, and in the second because there is probably nothing a university can do to help you, other than to alleviate you of the burden arising from those few funds you likely possess.  If you’re a parent paying for college, you’d better find out whether your money is being well-spent, and if you have children in public education, if you love them, get them the Hell out!

What am I going on about?  Was it the video our friend “The Unit” posted? No, it was another video a reader provided in response to the first.  I caution you that there is vulgar language in this one, but honestly, I want you to see what your trillions of dollars in education spending has produced as college students discuss the meaning of the 4th of July(from chicksontheright.com H/T F. Brown):

This isn’t merely “facepalm” material. It’s an indictment of a nation that has grown far too complacent.  I am thankful that we still have enough young people of sufficient character to populate our armed services, but for those who appeared in this video, may whatever god(s) they worship have mercy on their souls.

I’m betting on Dionysus.

 

Sarah Palin Speaks to Faith and Freedom Coalition

Saturday, June 15th, 2013

Governor Palin spoke to the Faith and Freedom Coalition on Saturday in Washington DC.  She had a few words on “fertility,” among other topics.  Here’s the video, complete with introduction(H/T:Les Grossman):

What continues to astonish me with all she said in this speech is how the media lines up to attack her.  The UK Daily Mail couldn’t wait to run a headline about her “controversial claim” that Syria “should be left for Allah to work out.”

Frankly, that’s only controversial to a slimy, servile leftist press that is itching to get into Syria, and I believe that such an action is neither in our best national security interests nor in the best interests of our uniformed services that are already stretched far too thinly across the globe.  Combat as charity must end.  This model of intervention as a way to spread our wealth to countries whose residents almost uniformly hate us must stop.  Only a bunch of globalist dimwits could find Governor Palin’s remarks on the matter controversial.

The Bushies will hate this speech on that count, but also on her brief mention of “fertility,” as a small jab at Jeb’s foot-in-mouth episode of Friday.  Her willingness to take on the immigration reform bill and the Gang-of-Eight who authored it place her in direct opposition to the DC establishment that cannot wait for more instant Americans to use as grease lubricating the treads of advancing big government.

Ted Cruz: “There Is an Alternative – You Could Just Not Be a Bunch of Squishes”

Monday, April 29th, 2013

Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) was elected to office after a difficult primary campaign against Texas Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst. Let us be thankful for that.  He was instrumental in helping stop the gun control legislation that was shelved by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) last week.  In this video clip, he describes the reaction of the other Republican Senators who were angry with Cruz, as well as Mike Lee and Rand Paul, for daring to stand on principle.  Watch this video, from a little talk Senator Cruz had with the FreedomWorks Texas Summit:

Last week, there was the following news from Senator Cruz on another front:

 

 

You can see the full statement here.

New SarahPAC Video: Loaded for Bear

Wednesday, March 27th, 2013

A new SarahPAC video launched as a call to political action for conservatives and independents.  The video includes a number of highlights of her recent CPAC speech, and is another confirmation that despite the wishes of the lamestream media, Governor Palin isn’t going away as she gears-up for the 2014 fight.  As the video explains, there are many important elections in 2014, and conservatives cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach.  If the Democrats succeed in taking over the House, Obama’s last two years will be a virtual slaughter.  More, there is still an opportunity to take the Senate, and to strengthen it with real conservatives, perhaps sending some of the RINO legion home.  It’s clear from this video that Governor Palin will remain a force for change in the Republican party, and many grass-roots conservatives hope she will succeed.   H/T Tony Lee at Breitbart, citing the video in his article:

Sarah Palin at CPAC: “We’re Here to Rebuild a Country”

Saturday, March 16th, 2013

Rebuilding a Country

After a string of speakers this week who hope one day to be President of the United States, Sarah Palin spoke to a packed house as she explained her vision of the future, and also what conservatives must do to regain electoral success.  She was introduced by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who had been the keynote speaker.  Of all the rhetoric to come out of CPAC 2013, it will be this speech that is remembered.  Governor Palin reminded conservatives that it is their principles they must abide, and not the political winds of the day, but she also cautioned conservatives to speak to a broader audience, instead of merely preaching to the choir. She also pointed out that rather than abandoning their principles, conservatives should abandon the consultancy that has led the party to so many defeats.  As has always been the case, Governor Palin energized the crowd.  At a time when conservatives are still reeling from Obama’s re-election, her speech laid out the only rational course conservatives can take in order to rebuild the country.  Here’s the video:

Video: Dr. Benjamin Carson at National Prayer Breakfast

Saturday, February 9th, 2013

Dr. Benjamin Carson appeared on Friday night on Sean Hannity’s show to discuss the reaction to his speech.  Rather than talk about Hannity’s show, I’d rather you watch his speech so that you might understand why Dr. Carson has gotten such a positive reaction to his speech. You may also quickly realize why at certain points, President Obama seems to have become annoyed and uncomfortable in his seat, particularly once Dr. Carson began to speak about America’s resemblance to Rome. Obama’s reaction to Dr. Carson’s views on taxes and health savings accounts didn’t seem to help the President feel at ease.

 

Karl Rove Still Trying to Decide for Conservatives

Wednesday, February 6th, 2013

Shrugging-Off Levin

Karl Rove appeared on Hannity on Tuesday night to deflect criticism that he’s an agent of the establishment at war with the Tea Party.  I don’t buy it, and I believe his own professions in this clip should give you a sense of how he views the rank-and-file conservatives in the country.  You see, he explains that it’s the goal of his “Conservative Victory Project” to support “the most conservative candidate who can win.” You may well notice that there exists a mile of wiggle-room in that statement, and it’s made from a deeply held sense of arrogance that is simply undeniable.  If you watch carefully, at roughly 3:43 into the clip from Hannity’s show, as Sean asks him a question about the reaction to the Time article, you will see what “Tokyo Rove” thinks of Mark Levin, shrugging him off in derisive dismissal(screen-capture at left.)  Watch the segment:

Rove attacked the motives of a wide range of people in the Tea Party movement, both in the blogosphere and in activist endeavors, as seeking some financial end.  The irony of such a claim is galling.  Mr. Rove insists that his new group exists to support “the most conservative candidate who can win.”  This prompts a few questions in my mind, and I’d like to see them answered by Mr. Rove or any of his numerous establishment apologists:

  1. Who decides what constitutes the “most conservative?”  According to whose standard?  Karl Rove’s?
  2. Who decides who is able to win?  According to whose calculations? Karl Rove’s?
  3. What do we know about Mr. Rove’s success rate in his selections of candidates?

You see, when I answer these questions, I come to several conclusions, and none of them support Mr. Rove’s fanciful explanation on Hannity’s show.  Karl Rove has shown no understanding of conservatism.  His relentless appeal for immigration reform, his attacks on other conservative causes, candidates or efforts, and his involvement in the Bush administration with the passage of very liberal programs suggest to me quite strongly that Karl Rove is not an appropriate or even qualified judge of conservatism in any respect.

Since when is Mr. Rove the final arbiter on who is able to win?  He told us throughout the primary season that only Romney could win, and through the general campaign that Romney would win, and that it might be a big win(though he did not quite go down the fantastic rabbit-hole with Dick Morris who predicted a Romney landslide.)  Still, if 2012 is the measure of Mr. Rove’s ability to pick winners and losers, I’d say he did pretty poorly, and on his performance in 2012 measured against his own predictions and his own direction of funds, I would suggest that a blind-folded ape flipping  coins could have done as well, and probably much better.  For somebody who now indicates he supported Steelman in Missouri, it’s funny that he twice refers to her as “Deb,” though her name is Sarah.  I can’t say it adds much to his credibility.

Hannity’s apologetic interview with Karl Rove does nothing to convince me that Rove intends anything but that which has already been said.  His history of efforts against the grass-roots of the Republican Party are evidence enough for me that what he’s after is not conservatism, and certainly not victory.  Translated, “the most conservative candidate who can win” means: “Vote for the people we recommend, or we’re going to destroy your candidate, depriving your candidate of just enough votes to make them lose.” It’s clear to me that Rove and his bunch would just as soon lose as have an actual conservative win office, and I’m not inclined to believe a word Mr. Whiteboard has to say in his own defense.  Sure, the article at the beginning of this latest flap appeared in the New York Times, and I’m certain there’s a bias there, but it hardly excuses Rove’s past actions, and doesn’t explain away his current ones either.  One of these days, conservatives will begin to catch on that an “R” following somebody’s name doesn’t necessarily imply the first damned thing about their philosophical leanings.

 

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.

 

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:

Kimmel Video Highlights Our National Tragedy

Saturday, January 19th, 2013

Inaugural Reviews

It’s hard to believe that so many Americans can be so gullible.  Limbaugh calls them “Low Information Voters,” but you might call them something less flattering.  The same electorate that produced two victories for Barack Obama is the same general grouping of people who believe that Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her home in Alaska, despite the fact that it had been a parody on Saturday Night Live.   This sort of tragic ignorance in which people are so easily manipulated by entertainment media speaks to a country now dominated by people who are largely plugged into movies, television, comedy, and all the other facets of pop-culture, but who will not take the least little opportunity to educate themselves with facts, news, political study, or philosophical contemplation.  On Jimmy Kimmel’s show, a show I don’t watch, on a channel I don’t receive, the host sent out a crew to do a man-on-the-street segment to ask people about their appraisals of the inauguration of Barack Obama’s second term, an event that will not happen until Monday. Here is the video, as played on Greta Van Susteren’s show, passed along to me by a Facebook friend:

Listening to the poor, wretched “Low Info Voters” who responded to the question, I couldn’t help but laugh at the fact that they could be manipulated so easily by the questioner.  Obvious hoaxes, like “throwing bears into the crowd,” or “giant cake” didn’t stop them from acknowledging these events as not only real, but as the highlights of the inaugural festivities that have not transpired.  They even concocted notions of what Obama had said in a fictional speech that never occurred, and yet these are the people who think the rest of us should surrender our right to keep and bear arms to their emotional whims?  It’s a shocking display of grotesque, popularized ignorance, but it also speaks to something more chilling: The people answering these questions had to at least mentally fill in blanks with knowledge concocted in their own minds.  I have heard it said that “liberalism is a mental disorder,” but if ever you needed proof of that thesis, it is in full demonstration here.

One might wonder, looking at recent poll or election results, how many of the participants are fueled by such abject stupidity, but it’s a depressing proposition and I suspect there were at least some who knew they were being scammed even if their rejection of the spoof landed on the cutting-room floor.  I must believe that, or accept that the country is irretrievably lost, and I’m simply not willing to draw that conclusion just yet.  What videos like this one should accomplish is to provide you with firm evidence that we have a serious problem in our populace, and that the rest of us have a good deal of work yet to do.  That any American adult doesn’t know when Inauguration Day is or isn’t suggests a complete failure of our education system, our news media, our polity and our cultural priorities.

One can only guess at how many of these respondents could speak with clear-minded authority on the cases of disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong, or hoaxed Notre Dame football player Manti Te’o.  While they keep up with the latest developments in such cases, they haven’t a clue about what’s being done to their country, or by whom, and how their self-imposed status as “Low Information Voters” is lending assistance to the very people who are wrecking their futures.

I realize that the vast bulk of the readers of this blog don’t fit into that category, not merely because they may tend to be in rough philosophical alignment with me, but because they’re here at all.  The sort of people who make up the respondents to Kimmel’s hoaxing are the sort of people who will never find their way to a site discussing seriously the matters of state and culture that I cover, but they’re also the sort who will be taken by surprise when the world they’ve taken for granted comes crashing down.  At best, they skim headlines, filling in the blanks with imaginary remembrances of events, to which they were not witnesses, but to which they will happily add their own fictional appraisals.  It’s small wonder we’re losing the country, as we’ve lost the attention of the pop-culture-absorbed audience.  Cakes and circuses, indeed!

Now, what do you think of Obama’s second inaugural address, that he hasn’t yet delivered?

NRA Video Slams Obama Hypocrisy

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

There’s not much one can add to the simplicity of this message. Barack Obama’s children go to school and enjoy the protection of armed guards. Why should your kids have any less? This video courtesy of the National Rifle Association’s NRA Stand and Fight website:

“It’s 3am”

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Where was Barack Obama?

Sarah Palin on Cavuto (Eric Bolling Guest-Hosting) Video

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Governor Palin with Eric Bolling

Governor Palin appeared on Fox with Eric Bolling to talk about the Ted Cruz victory, as well as other matters.  Bolling asked her about a remark by lobbyist and former Senator Bob Bennett(R-UT) who had said that the “Tea Party wave is receding.”  Gov. Palin responded: “Bless his heart, he’s a little out of touch… Bolling also asked Governor Palin about the convention, and she said “I just want to help,” but that “sometimes, helping means you step aside,” apparently meaning that Governor Palin won’t be part of the convention as a speaker, at least as it stands.  Here’s the video, courtesy of the Barracuda Brigade: