The 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.
This morning, in promoting the day’s broadcasting schedule, CBS News tweeted out the following:
If you had any doubts about the diabolical nature of Barack Obama’s ideology, it should now be clear. Here we have the man entrusted with safeguarding the nation, and upon the circumstance of a terrorist attack within our own borders, an attack possible only due to the faulty vetting of his immigration enforcement policies that have created a virtual open border, Obama does not seek to close the door, or go after the terrorists, those who inspired, funded, and/or trained them, or any logical course of action at all. Instead, Barack Obama seems poised to turn the entire country into a “Gun Free Zone” wherein only the bad guys have guns.
We know conclusively that gun violence is down almost everywhere in America, except for one class of location: Gun Free Zones. Therefore, President Obama is going to do the most destructive thing possible in response: He’s going to broaden Gun Free Zones to encompass the entire nation. That way, we’re ALL TARGETS, EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME. (Unless we’re surrounded by men and women with guns because we’re under Secret Service protection.)
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, the White House is not a “Gun Free Zone.” President Obama doesn’t live in a “Gun Free Zone.” In fact, wherever he goes, he’s in a bubble of protection that is filled with guns aimed at protecting him. Oh, sure, he’s not wielding any himself, but the men and women of the Secret Service who surround him are armed to the teeth. Yes, the President exists in a “Gun-Enhanced Zone.”
Once again, what’s good for Emperor Obama is not good enough for Americans. It’s good to be king.
I suspect that before this evening’s address is over, as he goes on to announce new Executive Orders clamping down on your right to protect yourself, your family, and your home and property, from the length and breadth of America, minus the statist havens on both shores, we will hear a loud refrain of these most famous words:
*** Caution: Strong Language ***
It’s time to say what needs to be said: Barack Obama, stop blaming and punishing the victims of your intransigent maladministration of our immigration laws, and your senseless policies on defense of the nation. It’s time for you to understand that you don’t run anything that the American people don’t want you to run.
Saturday 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.
“If I decide to run for office again, it will be based on what I believe, and it will be based on my record. And that record was one of solving problems completely from a conservative perspective.”
He went on:
“I will be able to, I think, manage my way through all the chirpers out there,” he said.
“Chirpers?“
I think I deserve a promotion to “Squawker”
Hey Jeb, psssst, Jeb, you want a bird? I’ve got one right here for you, pal…
Imagine that you’re enjoying your coffee at an Internet Cafe in Florida. Imagine that two armed thugs bust through the door, ordering people around, threatening their lives, and intent upon robbery. One is waving a gun, while the other is swinging a baseball bat. You are at the mercy of whatever comes next, because you are unarmed. This is a terrible situation for any person, and you are out of options if the thugs decide to open fire.
Now, imagine that among your fellow patrons, a 71-year-old man who is armed decides that he will not let himself or fellow patrons be victimized any longer. Samuel Williams is a hero. Thankfully, Mr. Williams does not live in Bloomberg’s New York, where he would have been prohibited from this courageous act.
Why do you have armed bodyguards? Why? Isn’t it “nonsensical” to believe they can protect you?
Or is it something else? Is it that you are worthy of self-defense, but we are not? That’s a mighty fine armored limousine you have, Mr. Mayor. Can the residents of New York get the same? No? You have bodyguards and police around you wherever you go. Can you offer the same assurances to all the New Yorkers who you forbid from arming themselves in their own defense? No.
WesternJournalism.com ran this story, with accompanying video, in which Representative Paul Gosar(R-AZ) participates in a panel discussion over the question of adherence to the US Constitution. The Congressman said that we can’t adhere to it, since fifty percent(or more) of the American people don’t wish to live within its confines. This admission by a US Representative, allegedly a conservative from a relatively conservative district, demonstrates the serious trouble we’re in, and also why the Republican party simply cannot be relied upon as the vehicle conservatives would use to restore a healthy respect for the Constitution, and a restoration of our republic. This congressman seems to be one of Boehner’s boot-lickers, undoubtedly sold on the notion that after all, Republicans control only one-half of one-third of the government. My question for a congressman who exhibits this pathetic attitude, and all the surrender-monkeys like him in the Republican party in Washington DC, and elsewhere around the country is simply this: If you will not stand for the constitution, why in Hell do we need you? We don’t need excuses for your inaction. We don’t need more sad stories. We need people who are willing to lead, and to fight if need be. Is Congressman Gosar one upon whom we can rely?
Somebody please offer the Congressman a tissue, and a pair of… Look, I realize that I have been rather surly about all of this lately, but the fact of the matter is that somebody in his district needs to get in touch with this moral coward and let him know that while the party’s establishment may be following in the mold he and other squeamish Republicans are wont to do, there are plenty of Americans who are becoming convinced by such displays as his that the Republican party needs to die a sudden death. We all know the realities, but I have a question for Congressman Lie-Down-and-Be-Depressed: If he is not willing to make a stand when he has the opportunity, truly, what sort of fraud must he be? This is the nature of much of the Republican party in Congress. They come home to rally the ‘troops’ but all they’re really doing is to let us vent a little of our frustration in the hope that we will stay in line through yet another election, since they see it all as futile anyway. They all swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and too many of them either join or simply yield to the latter.
I’ve got a proposition for Congressman The Undescended: If you believe you can’t win while adhering to the constitution, then why don’t you have the guts to go home and tell your voters that? Why don’t you have the guts to go home and tell them that in order to restore their sacred constitution, which ought to be your touchstone too, they(and – fat chance – you) may well need to resort to actions rather than words? You see, with this wilting tendency that has overtaken the Republican Impotency in the House, the sad truth is that we don’t even have one-half of one-third of the government. It’s bad enough that the Republican nominee has all the fight of this morning’s oatmeal, that their majority leader in the Senate seems to need a dose of starch in order to stand erect behind a podium and make another display of impotent finger-waggling, and that the Speaker of the House cries ceaselessly about the obstacles and “realities” in Washington, but when rank-and-file members find they cannot serve and uphold their oaths, what they should do is resign their offices, tell their constituents the ugly truth about the state of the Republic, and then lead them into battle, but I don’t mean politics.
What I hope readers will note is that if it is as bad as this Congressman claims, there can be only one course remaining. If that is so, why will this Congressman not say so? The dear ladies in the video are precisely correct, particularly the latter, Stephani Scruggs, so permit me to say a word in her defense, since so few in this emasculated culture will do so with the requisite vigor: When she says we are slaves, she is in all ways correct. When she alleges that our constitutionally guaranteed liberties have been stripped from us, she in no way exaggerates the matter. If anything, to save time, she understated the list by some number, but she did not underestimate the gravity, and to her credit, that much was unmistakable: In order to save liberty, we may be called upon to risk every bit as much as our founders before us. In fact, it seems certain. If the Congressman’s assertion is correct, and it is not out of line with my own analysis of the futility of the tax argument, then our question to him and all those like him must be: “So what are you going to do about it, now that you’ve noticed?”
All the “moderates” who tell me I’m “too extreme” should instead offer my readers a solution that is workable, but does not consist of more pie-in-the-sky, “silver-linings” rhetoric. Tell us, bluntly if you dare: How do we reverse this now that we’ve created the beast? All along the way, the “extreme” conservatives warned that this would be the result of an uninterrupted string of surrenders dressed up as “tactical retreats.” If this Congressman is right, you might defend him on the basis that he’s merely being pragmatic. As I would point out to him, pragmatism of that sort leads to chains, and in fact, it has. We wear them now, you and I, each working, productive American. If this can be turned around with something short of violence, let the Congressman explain the methodology, because what he seems to propose is more of the same: Slinking, slithering retreat from battle, all in order to live to fight another day that never arrives. How does that restore our Constitution? How does that repair our republic? How does that loosen the bonds that increasingly weigh us down and must ultimately crush us? Will any Republican be honest enough to say what may be necessary? If our founders had been men like these, we would still kneel before the crown, irrespective of our current President’s penchant for bowing. If we continue to elect representatives who will offer no more vigorous an opposition than this, it’s clear we still do, though the throne may have changed addresses.
Every doctor in America who is worth his or her salt should quit. Apparently, given the impending implementation of Obama-care, they’ve been contemplating it. How many? Eighty-three percent! Unfortunately, most of them will not quit, and more is the shame because if we want to defeat Obama-care, that’s the way it could be done. That, or the statists would need to unmask completely and simply enact in law what they intend: Health-care professionals, from doctors to nurses to orderlies must now be the slaves of the state. If you think this is an overstatement, consider the facts. When you are forbidden from negotiating your wages, and must accept whatever some bureaucrat tells dictates, you are a slave. You can pretty it up any way you like, but that’s where all of this will lead. Eventually, those skilled enough, smart enough, and diligent enough to be doctors will realize they would be better off doing something else. Instead, the ranks of doctors and nurses will begin to be filled with the incompetent, the slothful, and the under-qualified. This is what always happens under socialized medicine, and every one of these would-be slaves has the same moral right to refuse this servitude, and the sooner they do, the better the chance that they will spawn a movement in opposition.
If you’re not a doctor or nurse, and you’re not a skilled radiologist, and you haven’t the foggiest about how to operate an MRI machine, you might want to hold on a moment before joyfully proclaiming your new “right to medical care” under the Affordable Care Act(a.k.a “Obama-care.”) Those who foolishly believe they will maintain some form of private health insurance over the longer haul ought to pay attention too. Let us imagine everybody has insurance, as the Utopian masterminds behind Obama-care promise. Then what? It is not only money that can be inflated out of all value. An insurance to purchase a service that is in shortage isn’t much of an insurance, is it? Imagine having auto insurance of this sort. You have your fender-bender, and your insurance company estimates the damages, sending you out in search of a shop to perform the repairs. What if you can’t find one? What if you sit there with the check from your insurer, satisfying your claim in full, but there exists no shop to perform the work, or so few, that you will be without your vehicle for weeks or months, or perhaps longer. How will you maintain your job? How will you get to the grocery store?
Naturally, if you’re a welfare leech, you’re not much worried about that, but if you’re a working American with bills to pay, you’d better begin to think about it now. Under Obama-care, slowly, but surely, this will become the inevitable conclusion: Care will be of poorer quality, more scarce, and since everybody will have their coverage, there will be no advantage by offering more in payment. How long before a black-market medical system develops? Do you deny the possibility of all of this? Are you stuck on the notions of what you have known, rather than what can(and likely will) now come to pass? What happens when it’s your six-year-old daughter down at the emergency room with a fractured wrist, in a line that stretches up and down the hallways and side corridors, because there exists a severe shortage of medical professionals? Will your wishes mute your daughter’s agony?
You think doctors and nurses are endless, bottomless pits of human compassion, but they’re not, and no person is, because it’s simply not possible. More, if you want their compassion, shouldn’t you offer them yours? Why do you wish to have them work as slaves to your needs? Isn’t that what this whole corrupt system has become? Tax-payers must be slaves. Doctors and nurses and orderlies must be slaves. Everybody must be slaves but he who has nothing to offer, and no intention of offering it, since he has no intention of obtaining it by his own efforts.
Am I being too crass, and too obnoxiously terse in my appraisal? Brother, you haven’t seen the half of it yet. Wait until doctors are unionized, since it will be the only way to protect their diminishing wages, and they look at you and your suffering child, parent, or spouse and say simply: “I’m on break.” At the ends of their shifts, they will walk away, as carelessly as the country has walked away from them. What do you think is the meaning about the endless delays in Medicare payments, and the inaction of Congress year after year in adjusting reimbursements to doctors? Were I a physician, I wouldn’t have a single patient who is in a government system of any sort. Why would one wish to accept patients whose payment will always be less than it ought to be, while robbing from paying patients in order to subsidize the government-paid accounts?
Imagine running any other enterprise like this for long. All of your paying customers would abandon you. You wouldn’t be able to carry off this sort of con-game, because they’d price-shop the matter and move briskly to another provider, whether the product is a widget or the service is the measurement of blood-pressure. What Obama-care offers, and indeed what all forms of socialized medicine promise is to deliver something many people desperately want without regard to their ability to pay. That’s it, in a nutshell, and if I were a physician, I’d be looking to set up a clinic somewhere off-shore where I could live out my life unmolested by big government mandates. Nobody should be compelled to labor. Neither you, nor I, and certainly not doctors. We’d better begin to consider if we wish to coerce the people who we expect to save our lives.
Back in 1978, Dr. Milton Friedman discussed all of this at length. I’ve provided his talk on the matter, in six pieces, here:
I really haven’t much to say about this. It’s sad and depressing, and merely shows what has become of our popular culture. Anything goes. This video depicts a six year old rapper, and I won’t post it on this site. I feel bad for what is being made of this poor child’s life. I tremble with rage that an adult could turn a child into this sort of sideshow. That any parent would use their child in this way signifies a complete breakdown of a growing segment of our society for which it’s difficult to imagine any possible repair. You don’t need to watch the whole thing, and in fact, you don’t need to watch any of it. Knowing that some adult thinks it is a good idea to have one’s 6yo rap: “I can make your booty pop” is enough. H/T Iowntheworld.com:
I had this video passed along to me, and I must say that it’s very much in line with what I’ve been saying on this blog since its inception. Those who want America to fail are indeed following this model, and while the Obama administration fiddles, America is burning. This video was published by www.freemarketamerica.org, an organization that says it exists to fight for free markets and against the environmental extremists. Take a look. It’s well done:
Former GOP Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin appeared on NBC’s Today Show on Tuesday. She co-hosted the show, and she also answered a series of question from Matt Lauer. It’s an interesting this to see her place Barack Obama in the proper context, that I submit is a better characterization of the manner of the current president: “…when Barack Obama took over.” This is exactly the right sense of the manner in which Obama has presided over the country. He hasn’t led anything. He simply “took over.”
Governor Palin went on to explain why she thinks this election is so important, but also why she thinks the GOP shouldn’t play it safe when it comes to picking its Vice Presidential candidate. Here’s the interview segment with Matt Lauer:
Governor Palin was featured in a number of entertaining segments throughout the show, and you can watch some of the highlights here:
Ann Coulter seems intent on snuggling up close to the GOP establishment, and her liberal friends in media. On Sunday, notably a day for fools like Coulter, she joined the round table discussion on ABC’s “This Week.” The problem is that as with all such things, it seems as though the only real intention here was to smear Palin. The comment was an aside without substantiation, and I now believe she does it just to ingratiate herself with the liberal Republicans and the left. It’s typical of Coulter to make snide remarks as a throwaway line, but this isn’t the first lately aimed at Sarah Palin. To attack the former Vice Presidential candidate as having been some sort of “novelty candidate” when she was picked by John McCain as his running mate is simply ridiculous.
I think Coulter is losing her grasp on the conservative movement. Slowly but surely, she’s turning into precisely the caricature the left has painted of her over the years. Naturally, in discussing the Vice Presidential pick, she acknowledged many are talking about Marco Rubio, and she fairly drooled over the prospect of NJ Governor Chris Christie again, but that’s no surprise. Coulter has worn out her welcome with me, as she continues to take cheap-shots at conservatives, particularly Sarah Palin.
We already knew that Mitt Romney would never stand up for capitalism, but on Jay Leno’s show on Tuesday night, Romney said that he would seek to repeal Obama-care and replace it. We don’t need to replace it with a different big government plan like Romney-care, which is almost the same thing. We need to get the government OUT of health care to the degree we can. That’s going to be impossible with Mitt Romney who intends to extend the welfare state just the same. It isn’t a question of repealing Obama-care only to replace it with another big-government program, but instead getting government out of all such programs. Mitt Romney would tinker around the edges, only, as I’ve been reporting here for months, and this clip is effectively his confession.
Here’s the video, with the relevant portion at roughly half-way through:
The other problem with Romney’s claim is that he will issue waivers for Obamacare, but the truth is that no waivers are permissible under the statute, and the left will immediately take a Romney administration to court. There will be no waivers. This man is lying to the American people when he hangs all of this on a supposed waiver. Sure, Obama is issuing waivers, but there’s nothing in the law that suggests this is permissible.
Greta Van Susteren interviewed former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Monday night, asking her about a range of issues including the Obama-care case and its relevance to the 2012 election. She was asked what she thought of the effect it would have on Mitt Romney’s campaign, and it was an accurate, and concise answer as usual. Said Gov. Palin: “Romney will have his hands full with this one because he’s now been dubbed the father of Obama-care.” That’s an apt description of things, and I believe it’s the prevailing opinion among conservative voters.
The talking points suggesting that this race is all but over have really begun to get on my nerves, because there’s really no evidence this is true. As long as Gingrich and Santorum remain in this race, the race continues until somebody obtains 1144 delegates, or we wind up at the convention. The question is whether it is numerically possible for anybody but Romney to get enough delegates, and as Drudge couldn’t wait to point out to the world Sunday, it’s going to be tough for Santorum or Gingrich, in second and third in the delegate count respectively. The truth this conceals is that Romney isn’t in much better shape at this juncture.
Demonstrating my point about Romney, and the reason the Drudge page pointing out Santorum will need 74% of delegates to win was a bit dishonest, what is missed in all of this is that it omits the fact that Romney’s path isn’t exceptionally better. Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele makes this clear in the following video of a March 16th appearance on MSNBC:
From my point of view, the thing that must happen throughout the remainder of this primary season is that Gingrich and Santorum must arrive at the convention having prevented Romney from obtaining 1144 delegates. If they do this, anything is possible, and it could be that between them, they are able to forge some sort of strategic alliance to overcome Mitt Romney in a brokered convention. This is why Romney and all his surrogates in media continue to press the theme that either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum should get out: If either one does, it will make Romney’s job of obtaining 1144 delegates that much easier.
I don’t think most conservatives are interested in seeing that happen, whomever they support, because the fact is that we are still in the position where roughly 60% of the party wants somebody other than Mitt Romney. Of course, Romney’s defenders are quick to point out that the others are in worse shape, but that ignores something critical: Romney is the apparent front-runner, and as yet, he has shown no ability to put the contest to an end by defeating all of his competitors, at once and finally.
This is video is both hilarious, and sad, but I think we should be able to get a laugh from this, while also realizing the more serious nature of what it implies about the character of this president, and what Governor Palin termed his “empty, recycled rhetoric” in a tweet just minutes ago. It’s true. Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have an original thought in his head, and his treatment of our allies in this video is a classic reminder. Thanks to Governor Palin for reminding us of this scandalously poor commander-in-chief’s behavior, and the sort of national embarrassment his presidency has become. One can imagine foreign leaders coming to our country, wondering if they’re going to be given the same old song and dance. It’s cookie-cutter foreign policy, and it’s typical of Barack Obama’s pathetic leadership.
This one just came over the transom and I thought readers might want to take a look. It’s a pretty sharp critique of Mitt Romney’s record, and I think the more conservatives know about his record, the less attractive he is as a candidate. The video touches on a number of stories I’ve covered here over time, so much of this will be at least vaguely familiar. There has been a great deal of vetting of Mitt Romney’s record on the Internet, in blogs and on conservative websites, but the problem is that most of it never gets into the mass media. They’re simply not interested in showing Republicans much of his record as it pertains to governance, including particularly the Romney-care debacle under which the people of Massachusetts now live.
Viewing time is approximately three-and-one-half minutes:
It’s hard to understand why a politician would run an ad that seeks to minimize the story that is doing the most political damage to one’s chief rival. In my view, to hit Gingrich and Santorum while leaving Romney untouched hints at another motive. Ron Paul’s camp is running an ad slamming the two non-Romneys for their focus on Romney Communications Direct Eric Fehrnstrom’s “Etch-a-Sketch” remark. He apparently thinks it’s ridiculous to be focused on what he considers a sideshow, but I wonder if that’s his real objective. After all, he’s been rather friendly with Mitt Romney, and at times it has seemed he was working on coordinating his attacks on the others with the former Massachusetts governor, who one would think would receive the most scrutiny from the Paul camp, since Romney is clearly the most liberal of the four.
Not once in this ad are viewers informed about the nature of the controversy, although you do get a clip of Fehrnstrom’s remark, but what viewers receive is a series of repeated iterations of Gingrich, Santorum, and media saying “Etch-a-Sketch,” portrayed in such a way as to mock the subject. Romney’s been playing damage control ever since his Communications Director’s remarks, and they’ve tried several approaches to change the subject. I suppose if all else fails, you let Ron Paul’s campaign do your dirty-work, and try to downplay the meaning and impact of the “Etch-a-Sketch” remark. Of course, this could be Paul’s way of trying to get a little attention, but whatever his motive, I think it’s dishonest to downplay the significance. After all, if the Romney campaign will bear a resemblance to an etch-a-sketch if he secures the nomination, one would think this is information all of the other candidates would want voters to possess. To me, this looks like an attempt to minimize the damage to Romney. Is this part of a collusion between Paul and Romney? Nobody’s certain but it’s odd that Paul’s campaign would posit a thesis that reduces the damage to an opponent.
With very nearly half of the vote, Rick Santorum easily defeated his Republican opponents in the Louisiana GOP Primary. Mitt Romney finished second, more than 20% behind Santorum, with Gingrich back in third, and Paul finishing out of sight in last. This sets the stage for a continuing primary fight, and it’s one that may go all the way to the convention. At this point, it may take a brokered convention to keep Romney out, although the math becomes muddled once you consider all the possible permutations. What’s clear at this stage is that while Romney remains the front-runner in the delegate count, he’s in for a hard road ahead. My thought is: Good! I would prefer a brokered convention at this point, since it seems that it will be the only available method by which we get a nominee who stands a chance of defeating Barack Obama.
Santorum’s campaign released a new ad on Saturday, presenting a dramatic portrayal of the future should Barack Obama be re-elected, but then again, much of it is already true. The ad runs just more than a minute, and it makes the point perfectly clear: Barack Obama must go. The alternative is Obamaville:
As conservatives and Tea Party types begin to realize the full meaning of “Etch-a-Sketch,” the first gaps in Romney’s armor have begun to show. Wrapped in a suit of campaign cash and superPAC support, Mitt Romney has been able to fend off almost every charge against him by virtue of a strategy of non-response combined with a campaign of big money advertising hammering his opponents. At last report, he was outspending Rick Santorum in Wisconsin by a ratio of 50:1, but the problem for Mitt Romney is that all the money in the world won’t save him from the “Etch-a-Sketch” remarks of his Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom on CNN. That video has gone viral, and in its wake is a roiling sea of doubt: Is Mitt Romney faking his way through the primary season as a conservative? Romney’s camp is quietly scrambling to undo the damage, but this horse in this story has escaped the barn.
Naturally, the first option for the Romney campaign was to redirect the controversy onto somebody else. Rick Santorum’s remarks served as the outrage to which the Romney camp could point in desperate distraction mode, and for a time, it seemed that the theme would gain traction as a few people decided to carry his water, but the problem is that pointing at Santorum’s remark does nothing to blunt the impact of Fehrnstrom’s remarks. After the mini-Jihad against Rick Santorum began to fade, the question voters still faced about Romney hadn’t been shaken out of existence in the Romney campaign’s etch-a-sketch play. This has been the object of the Romney campaign all along, and while some may have missed the point at first, they’re now coming back to it, because if the truth is told about this fiasco, the problem for Romney is that the minds of conservative voters aren’t like Etch-a-Sketch drawings after all, and as annoyed as some may have been with Rick Santorum’s remarks, it’s nevertheless true that the impetus for those remarks has not been erased.
Romney’s negatives have been on a steady climb for some time, and this is beginning to present a real problem. This is the reason the GOP establishment is on a full-court press to stop the conversation, and pull the plug on further debate. This week, they played their big cards in this deal, throwing the Jeb Bush endorsement out along with a statement that it’s time to consolidate and coalesce, and while he didn’t fully endorse Mitt Romney, even Jim DeMint(R-SC) began to sound the tones of bringing this campaign season to a speedier conclusion. The party simply does not want the primary debate to continue, because with each passing day, despite gaining a few more delegates, Mitt Romney has begun to take on the appearance of a candidate without the conservative horsepower to bring along the base. If he can’t do that, he can’t win in November, and the GOP establishment is acutely aware that while he may get the nomination, his prospects for victory are slipping away. Their nightmare scenario is a brokered convention, because they may not have enough delegates on the first vote to bring this to a speedy conclusion, and if they don’t get them then, it is entirely possible they never will.
What Romney had needed this week was a knock-out punch on Santorum, but instead, what they managed was a self-inflicted wound that they rushed out to cover up with a counter-attack on Santorum. In the waning of the furor over Santorum’s indelicate remarks, the problem remains that all the talk about Santorum has done nothing to reduce the effect of the “Etch-a-Sketch” problem, and now even Charles Krauthammer has weighed in on the damage:
The fact that Krauthammer sees the damage plainly should tell you about the impact the “Etch-a-Sketch” remark is having, but you may also notice that Krauthammer places the blame on Romney’s staff. While it’s true that Fehrnstrom’s description of the campaign as like an “Etch-a-sketch” was in poor form, it’s really not Fehrnstrom’s fault. What Krauthammer seems to lament most is not the facts that underlie the remark, but that the remark slipped out there in plain view.
In this sense, Krauthammer misses the real point of this episode, and it’s one the conservative base of the party isn’t missing: Mitt Romney evinces no solid core of beliefs, and his half-decade long campaign for the Presidency is built on many instances of shaking up the Etch-a-Mitt. Romney’s positions on various issues have changed, re-shaped, “perfected,” and re-drawn so many times that conservative voters have suspected this all along, and all Fehrnstrom’s comments to CNN did was to solidify that impression, and it’s not so likely to be erased by a gentle or even vigorous shaking. Krauthammer’s real disappointment here is that Fehrnstrom spilled the beans, but he doesn’t seem too concerned about the facts that support the disclosure.
This should offer you a bit of insight into the mechanics of Washington DC. Krauthammer is more concerned with the impression it leaves than the fact that it seems to be true. This is how everything in Washington is viewed: Through the sorry, distorting lens of politics. It’s not a question of what an event means in fact, but what impression it will make. It’s not a matter of what is truth, but instead merely a concern over how a thing is perceived. Krauthammer isn’t exercised over the fact that Romney may indeed “Etch-a-Sketch” his campaign appeal if he obtains the nomination, but that his Communications Director would openly admit this is a mortal sin. You see, the reason he isn’t bothered by the former, but is so disappointed in the latter is because he’s part of the crowd that knows this is what Romney’s about, and while they have worked to conceal it from the eyes of voters, Fehrnstrom’s little disclosure made plain what they have toiled to keep secret, or at least tamped-down.
This is a sort of admission that I wonder if Krauthammer won’t later regret, because it exemplifies what’s wrong inside the Beltway, not just in government, but in the sickening media that services it. They don’t exist to inform you or keep you abreast of critical issues so much as to manage your opinions and tell you what should be important. What Fehrnstrom has inadvertently managed to do is open a window not only into the Romney campaign, but also into the diseased mindset of Washington DC on both in front and behind the camera. Krauthammer’s remarks prove it, but it may be too late. If conservatives ignore this, Romney might be able to pull off the nomination in spite of it all. On the other hand, as Krauthammer’s commentary also demonstrates, it seems that conservatives have finally seen the cracks in the Romney facade, and there may be no filling them any longer.
Here’s a quick video clip from 2002, when Mitt Romney was seeking the office of Governor in Massachusetts. He disclaims his association with the Republican party. What many of you from around the country may not know is that it’s common practice in the Northeast for Democrats to run for office as Republicans because in many cases, they can run unopposed in primaries since there are so few (relatively) Republicans vying for office. I can’t say that this had been what Mitt tried to imply here, but I wouldn’t be surprised. After all, as you may remember, he spent most of his 1994 Senatorial campaign against Ted Kennedy trying to distance himself from Reagan.
This is the guy who wants to be your Republican nominee?
I wasn’t surprised to see Newt Gingrich pick up this theme, but that he did it so effectively and on such short notice is really just another testament to his mental horsepower. The former House Speaker appeared at a campaign stop just an hour or so after Eric Fehrnstrom made his remarks to CNN, in which he likened Mitt Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch. Call it the gaffe of the day, or the confession of the year, but either way, Gingrich was quick to seize upon the moment and throw it in Romney’s face. After a day-long media mocking, Romney came out Wednesday evening in a tepid response designed to blunt the criticisms, but Newt Gingrich captured the moment in explaining what this episode should strike a cautious note for conservatives. Here’s the video:
Fehrnstrom really threw his boss into a shark tank with this one. He’s been a Romney adviser since Romney took office as Governor of Massachusetts. What this episode demonstrates clearly is that Romney is no conservative, and once he secures the Republican nomination, he is going to move to the left dramatically. Gingrich is right to make sport of Romney over this issue, because in fact, Romney has campaigned against both Gingrich and Santorum as though he was the more conservative of the three. I think this episode permits us to firmly dispense with that line of nonsense. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for not dropping the issue so easily.
A top Mitt Romney adviser admitted on CNN that whatever conservative positions Mitt Romney is taking now, it’s unlikely to reflect in the Massachusetts moderate’s Fall campaign. He likened the shift in positions possible to a nominee in the general campaign to an etch-a-sketch. Romney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom was asked on CNN this morning if he thought Mitt Romney’s “hard right” positions would would prevail in the Fall, or whether it would be possible for him to attract the support of “independents” and “moderates.”
Romney is no conservative, and his campaign advisers are trying to pitch you a lie. This whole business is another demonstration of why Mitt Romney isn’t suited to be the Republican nominee, although he may wind up being the choice. The primary campaign has been a sham to conceal his true nature from conservatives, and this is the proof.
Our Republic is suffering a slow death at the hands of statists of the left, but also the moderate Republicans. We have a fiscal situation that most would label a crisis by any definition, in which the Federal government expends money fifty percent faster than it collects it, and it collects plenty. Three years of Barack Obama’s reckless spending, and the willingness of Republican leadership to make deals has left us in a situation in which we are accruing debt faster than at any time in history. Even if Barack Obama is defeated and sent packing in 2012, as he surely should be, we may not make it that far before the consequences explode in our faces. The House of Representatives should not pass another bill that appropriates one dollar. Yes, we need a government shutdown, but Barack Obama has other plans. He intends to take over, and to ignore the Congress, and he intends to do so well in advance of the elections. Obama is a man who has planned all his life for overthrowing the United States Constitution, and now, armed with the power of the executive branch, and with a supporting Senate, he is likely to make his play now while he still can.
Barack Obama isn’t a garden variety socialist. He’s steeped in the tactics of Saul Alinsky, but more, he has an abiding desire to see the United States become a slave state. People have wondered why he’s doing the things he is, but for many, the answer is clear: We may be on the verge of a second bloody revolution, and the proponents of this one are already in charge, and already using the levers of power to make ready for their moment. I know this sounds so thoroughly outlandish to some people, that it’s difficult to say it seriously, except for the fact that it’s happening.
Consider Occupy Wall Street. Here is an organization that exists to create unrest and violence in the streets, and in typical leftist fashion, it will be used to give government and excuse to step in. Of course, it’s being directed by Obama friends and co-conspirators, including a healthy dose of funding from George Soros and his various affiliate pass-through organizations, but what make it more stunning than this is that Obama is putting in place the foundations for declaring vast new emergencies and taking on new Federal powers under the aegis of just such an emergency. On Thursday, he signed a new executive order, that while updating older statutes, effectively gives the government the power to seize whatever it wants under whatever conditions it wants in response to a vague national emergency. The Executive Order, titled: NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS, provides for adjustments to procedures to be carried out under 50 USC.
This order provides for the organization of the executive branch under such an emergency, and likewise provides directions on what may be delegated, to whom, and for what purposes. It references a number of other executives orders, along with various sections of 50 USC. The Obama administration will claim it is merely updating policies, but this is a bit more than that. We mustn’t be fooled into thinking this is all business-as-usual. Nothing about the Obama administration is business-as-usual except for the outward appearance they wish to project.
Consider the implications of a President being tied to a civil unrest movement the likes of OWS, and then also setting up the legal basis for a government response to the sort of crisis OWS could be expected to generate, particularly if there is substantial financial difficulty arising out of the reckless policies of this administration. On the one hand, he has OWS to terrorize you, and on the other, he is preparing to deal with them in response to your demands. The truly stunning part is that the Occupiers don’t quite seem to grasp the danger, or that they’re being set up to take a mighty fall.
Now comes news that Obama has been groomed for this role for a long time, perhaps as far back as the mid-1980s, when it seems that Bill Ayers’ parents may have sponsored Obama or otherwise helped him through school, as WND reports. A former mail carrier explained his contacts with the Ayers family and young black man he met who he now believes was Barack Obama. WND interviewed him, and here is that video:
Whatever you may make of this, what’s certain is that Obama certainly had ties to some very radical people, and the problem with this man’s testimony is that he remembers Mrs. Ayers(Bill Ayers’ mother) saying that this was a foreign student. What is certain is that the postal carrier remembers Obama’s features, his voice and manner of speaking. He also had an interesting discussion with Ayers’ father, Tom, who seems to have been an ardent Marxist too.
I bring this to your attention because it’s an interesting aside to the general conversation about who Barack Obama really is, and what his intentions for this country really are. I don’t believe he’s anything but a radical leftist, and as many now contend, he is not undertaking these policies lightly. As Mark Levin mentioned on Monday evening, the Executive Order issued by Obama last week is bad in any president’s hands, but in the hands of this President particularly, that offers a potential prescription for the end of America as we have known it.
It reminds me of a famous piece of literature, Atlas Shrugged, wherein Ayn Rand constructs the devolution of the United States, and one of the instruments the statists use is an analog to this latest executive order, called “Directive 10-289.” It basically offered a takeover under the guise of an emergency in much the same form as this latest executive order would do: Take over the means of production,distribution, transportation, and any and every other critical part of the American economy. The longer the Obama administration goes on, the more I get the impression that we are living out the last chapters of Atlas Shrugged.
I think Obama is a good deal more malevolent than the shrinking coward who was the head of the country in that book. I don’t believe any of this is or can be accidental. He’s clearly intent upon changing America to his vision, whether or not Americans consent. Any president who can so easily disregard the opinion of more than sixty percent of Americans in enacting a health-care reform bill isn’t acting in the best interests of the country. Slowly but surely, he’s picking our constitution apart, and if he gets his way, it will be altogether meaningless as a restraint upon government. 2012 may be our last chance to stop the overthrow of our Republic by peaceful means. The fox is in the hen-house, and establishment Republicans still look at him expectantly, as though he ought to lay an egg. If we do oust him, our next job will be to clean out that sorry gaggle of spur-less roosters who have been so ineffective at keeping the fox in check, in part because they golf with him and see him as one of their own. He’s not, and the sooner our Republican leadership learns that, the sooner we can take back this country.
The 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.
