CPAC Cruz

Constitutional conservative Ted Cruz  was interrupted by numerous standing ovations during a powerful CPAC address on Friday before an energized crowd, a fiery speech delivered without notes or teleprompter.

“So, Donald Trump is skipping CPAC,” Cruz said in his opening sentence, causing a roar of boos directed towards Trump, who announced that he would be skipping out on his scheduled speaking spot on Saturday. “I think somebody told him Megyn Kelly was going to be here. Or even worse, he was told there were conservatives that were going to be here,” he said to raucous applause. “Now, none of you have a degree from Trump University,” Cruz joked, taking a jab at the bloviating billionaire and reality TV actor who is being sued for fraud by 5,000 former students who believe they were scammed.

“The men and women here are a grassroots army,” Cruz told the CPAC audience. “The men and women here love liberty. And let me tell you, as dire as things are, people are waking up all over this country. And help is on the way!” he shouted to loud cheers.

Ted Cruz contended that the election is about three main topics; jobs, liberty and security.

“It’s easy to talk about making America great again,” Cruz said, taking a shot at Trump’s often repeated campaign slogan. “You can even print that on a baseball cap. But the question is, do you understand the principles that made America great in the first place?”

“The heart of the economy is not Washington, D.C.; it is not New York City, the heart of the economy are small businesses all over this country,” Cruz said. “You want to hammer the economy? Crush small businesses like we’ve done the last seven years. And if you want to unchain the economy, lift the boot of the federal government off the backs of the necks of small businesses,” Cruz proclaimed.

Ted Cruz directly addressed the anger and frustration felt by Republican voters who have been let down by politicians who say one thing to get elected, but upon arriving in Washington, immediately begin breaking their promises and not fighting for the issues they told voters they would fight for.

“Now, I understand that a lot of people in this country are angry. I get being angry — I’m angry too. For far too long politicians in both parties have lied to us. They make promises on the trail then they go to Washington and they don’t do what they said.”

Cruz said that there’s no example of this than the hot-button issue of immigration, which he calls a law enforcement, a national security and an economic issue, saying when you allow 12 million illegal aliens in the country, you take jobs away from American citizens and it also has the effect of driving down wages.

“There’s a natural question to ask during the Gang of Eight battle — Where was Donald? Donald was funding the Gang of Eight. He gave over $50,000 to five of the eight members of the Gang of Eight. And last night, Donald’s on stage promised all of us to be ‘flexible’…Flexible is code word in Washington, D.C., for ‘They’re getting ready to stick it to you.” 

(ed: which also included Marco Rubio)

Cruz promised to repeal “every word of Obamacare,” implement a flat tax and abolish the IRS, rein in the federal regulators, stop amnesty, and secure the borders. He asserted that the economy would drastically improve with more and better-paying jobs.

He spent considerable time talking about the importance of replacing Justice Scalia with a principled constitutionalist and warned that America is only one liberal Supreme Court justice away from losing much of the First and Second Amendment.

The riled-up crowd gave Ted Cruz perhaps his loudest applause and longest standing ovation when he announced his attitude toward the nation of Israel, an issue where Donald Trump has said he would be neutral between America’s strongest ally in the Middle East and Palestinian terrorists.

“As president, I have no intention of staying neutral. America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel,” Cruz shouted, seemingly at the top of his voice.

After Ted Cruz’s 2016 CPAC speech, he took several questions from FOX News’ Sean Hannity and said that he agreed with Bernie Sanders on one issue, that the relationship between big business and the government is corrupt, but disagrees with the solution.

“If the problem is that government is corrupt, the answer isn’t more government,” Cruz said.

Cruz then explained the differences between how the economy performed under Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama.

“Reaganomics: You start a business in your parent’s garage. Obamanomics: You move into your parent’s garage.”

The Difference

mindset

Via John Hawkins at Townhall:

10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.

9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it’s ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn’t be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That’s why they don’t respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they’ll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them — as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.

5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.

4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That’s why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always….you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That’s why we believe in “American exceptionalism” and “America first.” Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That’s why, whether you’re talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.

1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they’re “nice” and make them feel good. Whether the policies they’re advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
abolished slavery-hate

The Mission is Clear

As long as you say what The Left/PC Crowd want you to say that is…

Students at Gonzaga University say they were told that an upcoming lecture by a conservative speaker will not be open to the public because he is “homophobic” and “anti-immigration.”

“I was told that the reason that his speech is not allowed to be open to the public is because … Dinesh D’Souza’s beliefs are contradictory to Gonzaga’s ‘social justice’ mission and they do not want the public to question why the school brought him in,” Ben DuBois of the Gonzaga chapter of Young Americans for Freedom told YAF on Monday.

Gonzaga’s Mission Statement:

Central to the Jesuit, Catholic, and humanistic mission of Gonzaga University is a deep-seated commitment to issues and practices of social justice and becoming persons for others. A minor in Solidarity and Social Justice gives students the opportunity to enact these values.

The introductory, elective, and capstone courses are purposefully designed to “educate students for lives of leadership and service for the common good” and “foster a mature commitment to dignity of the human person, social justice, diversity, intercultural competence, global engagement, solidarity with the poor and vulnerable, and care for the planet.” 

In addition, these courses teach students to employ key themes of Catholic social teaching in their analysis of justice issues. Among these themes are the fundamental right to life, the right to participate and to work, and the principle of subsidiarity.

The SOSJ curriculum is designed to expose students to various humanistic skills and habits of mind and heart. For example, students engage in ethical reasoning in philosophical/theological elective courses. They evaluate information, perform critical analysis, and solve problems in social science elective courses. SOSJ students integrate ideas across disciplines, explore new perspectives, engage in reflection, and become agents for social change in the capstone class. (Gonzaga.edu)

“For example, he is ‘homophobic’ and ‘anti-immigration’,” DuBois said he was informed by Director of Student Involvement Colleen Vandenboom, adding that she also told him that in the course of researching D’Souza, the administrators had deemed him “a ‘nasty guy’ who is ‘way out there’ and has been ‘caught in many lies in his past.’”

Sound like the childish rationalization of a Leftist you know? Yep…

Consider this:

From Gonzaga.edu – As part of a program sponsored by KSPS Public Television honoring the life and legacy of renowned civil rights leader and Gonzaga Law School alumnus Carl Maxey, Gonzaga Law will host the public forum, “Civil Rights in Washington: The Post-Maxey Era” at 10 a.m., Friday, Feb. 19 in the Barbieri Courtroom.

The panel discussion, which is free and open to the public, will be moderated by Jim Kershner, author of the biography “Carl Maxey: A Fighting Life,” and includes as panelists Emily Chiang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State; GU Law Professor Jason Gillmer, associate dean for faculty research and development and the John J. Hemmingson chair in civil liberties; Raymond Reyes, GU chief diversity officer; Dwayne A. Mack, Carter G. Woodson chair in African American history at Berea College and author of “Black Spokane: The Civil Rights Struggle in the Inland Northwest.”

Gonzaga Law is proud to be a partner in helping to tell the story of Maxey, who overcame enormous odds to change attitudes about civil and gender rights in Eastern Washington and a tireless fighter for racial equality and justice at the state and national level. Co-sponsors include ACLU of Washington state, Humanities Washington, KSPS, Loren Miller Bar Association, NAACP Spokane, Spokane County Bar Association-Diversity Section, Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, and the YWCA of Spokane.

DuBois says he asked to speak directly with the administrators behind the decision—the Dean of Students, Director of Campus Security and Public Safety Scott Snider, and Director of Community and Public Relations Mary Joan Hahn—but that the request was denied.

Homo Superior Liberalis doesn’t have to explain anything to you neanderthals.

He also noted that a number of previous events featuring “blatantly liberal subject matter” have been open to the public, including a “Dream Week” in support of illegal immigrant students, lectures on Islamophobia and xenophobia, a pro-Palestinian play, and International Day of Tolerance Celebrations.

The Agenda is The Agenda. Freedom Liberal Speech is paramount. All must hear it.

“It’s pretty clear that only conservatives are closed to the public,” he remarked, adding that when he brought the apparent inconsistency to administrators’ attention, they could only provide one counter-example of a conservative event that was open to the public, and even that took place several years ago.

The Narrative is The Narrative. The Truth is irrelevant.

Gonzaga, however, disputed portions of DuBois’ account in a statement to Campus Reform, confirming that the February 24 event will only be open to students, faculty, and staff, but maintaining that the decision was made in the interest of maintaining decorum on campus, and was fully consistent with past precedent for similar events. The university did not address, either to confirm or deny, any of DuBois’ specific claims regarding the administrators’ personal feelings about D’Souza.

Dinesh D’Souza at Gonzaga University

February 24, 2016 @ 7:00 pm9:00 pm

“The parameters of this event are in line with Gonzaga’s longstanding and common practice of balancing a broad spectrum of viewpoints while providing a supportive learning environment,” the statement claims. “Since September of 2013, GU student organizations and clubs have hosted 3,485 events, with 63 percent of those events open only to members of the Gonzaga community.”

Lies, damned Lies, and statistics, anyone?

“While we are very much a part of the Spokane, Inland Northwest and global communities, our events at their core are intended to advance an exemplary learning community that educates students for lives of leadership and service for the common good,” said Colleen Vandenboom, Ph.D., Assistant Dean of Student Involvement and Leadership. “We strive to invite the public to many student events, but as a practical matter we need to have reasonable limits.”

Yeah, we don’t Conservatives to be seen to be popular now do we. They are the Enemy of The University establishment.

Vandenboom explained that while “we want to promote discussion and learning,” they wish to do so “in a supportive learning environment,” (Aka PC) and that the controversy surrounding D’Souza’s appearance suggested to them that it would be unwise to open the event to the public.

The controversy being that he’s not Politically Correct and he might confuse the tiny minds of Liberals with reality and truth.

“We’ve heard from those who advocate Mr. D’Souza’s visit with the College Republicans be open to everyone, and we’ve heard from those who believe he should not be allowed on campus,” Vandenboom said. “We believe this approach where members of the University community can hear Mr. D’Souza, ask him questions and have an open dialogue in a supportive setting strikes the right balance—particularly for students.”

We want to sound fair in our censorship. When we invite the next radical Leftist and the people who think he “should not be allowed” object we’ll call them racists, homophobes and tell to shut the hell up. 🙂

Campus Reform was unable to reach DuBois for comment on the university’s response.

Liberal First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us, has exercised “White Privilege”, and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

Gonzaga reached out to The Fix with its own statement, reprinted in full below, implying that D’Souza’s closed lecture was a compromise with those who wanted to ban him entirely from campus.

Clarification regarding Dinesh D’Souza address at Gonzaga

Gonzaga is welcoming political commentator Dinesh D’Souza to campus to speak on Feb. 24.  This event is sponsored by the College Republican student organization. The event is open to the Gonzaga community – students, faculty and staff.  It is not open to the general public.

The parameters of this event are in line with Gonzaga’s longstanding and common practice of balancing a broad spectrum of viewpoints while providing a supportive learning environment. Since September of 2013, GU student organizations and clubs have hosted 3,485 events, with 63 percent of those events open only to members of the Gonzaga community.

“While we are very much a part of the Spokane, Inland Northwest and global communities, our events at their core are intended to advance an exemplary learning community that educates students for lives of leadership and service for the common good,” said Colleen Vandenboom, Ph.D., Assistant Dean of Student Involvement and Leadership. “We strive to invite the public to many student events, but as a practical matter we need to have reasonable limits.”

As with all events, the decision to have Mr. D’Souza speak on campus was made after careful consideration and review of Gonzaga’s Events Policy, Vandenboom said.

Congruent with this policy, “Our responsibility is to our students,” Vandenboom said. “We want to promote discussion and learning, and do so in a supportive learning environment.”

“We’ve heard from those who advocate Mr. D’Souza’s visit with the College Republicans be open to everyone, and we’ve heard from those who believe he should not be allowed on campus,” Vandenboom said. “We believe this approach where members of the University community can hear Mr. D’Souza, ask him questions and have an open dialogue in a supportive setting strikes the right balance – particularly for students.”

“Thank you, sir, may I have another?” No Thanks!

Now is when the adults in the room are supposed to rise from their rocking chairs and send us uppity conservatives to our room without our supper. But instead, we’re going to stay right here and have another cheeseburger. And another beer. And there’s nothing you Chamber of Commerce-kissing, Obama-submitting moderates can do about it.

When Paul Ryan was drafted for Speaker, who held the real power in that dynamic? Not Ryan – he knew he couldn’t say ‘No” because he would catch the blame if everything went to hell. No, the guys with the real power were the dreaded conservatives – they were the ones whose bottoms were getting bussed.

Sure, there are only a few dozen in the Freedom Caucus, but today they are in the driver’s seat, forcing the caucus kicking and screaming to the right. They are the ones who pummeled the House GOP into transforming from the old status quo-reinforcing transactional paradigm based on trading earmarks into an ideological paradigm based on fighting the liberal agenda. The conservatives have won. We need to understand and accept that so we can move on to the next phase in our campaign to destroy progressivism and restore America.

The fact that conservatives have taken the reins away from the moderates makes people mad, mostly moderate people. Their problem is that we conservatives just won’t cooperate and compromise and lose. This insistence on actually doing conservative things freaks out the squares – “You mean, when you said you wanted to defund Obamacare, you guys were serious?”

“All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.”–Scott Alexander

Now, that’s not to say that many of us on the right are not also frustrated and annoyed at the hardcore conservatives. We are. Even I am occasionally, like when they won’t take “Yes” for an answer. Paul Ryan was saying “Yes” when he agreed to not push amnesty, to maintain the Hastert Rule, and to reform House procedures. In return, all Ryan wanted was to be allowed to spend more of his time with his kids than sucking face with donor class squishes and trading our principles for their cash. Oh no, Paul – don’t throw us in the briar patch.

Yeah, hardcore conservatives are a pain, but it’s a good hurt, like when your legs get sore after a run or your knuckles ache after punching a hippie.

Let’s face facts – without the hardcore conservatives, Paul Ryan would be happily wonking out as Ways and Means chairman instead of promising to give up about 90% of what we want. John Boehner would still be the Annoying Orange of GOP politics, clinking his highball glass in his secret conclaves with the same K Street jerks we want to see shuttering their expensive offices and wearing barrels as they ride out of D.C. in a caravan of battered U-Hauls.

“It is a wretched taste to be gratified with mediocrity when the excellent lies before us.” -Isaac D’Israeli

The smart center right guys get this. They know how to make hard lemonade out of the hard right lemons of the Freedom Caucus. I negotiate for a living as a trial lawyer, and I understand that getting 80% of what my client wants on a given deal means I’m getting hi-fived and a bonus. And I love playing the “Craziest Guy in the Room” card. Sometimes, I even am that card. The CGITR strategy involves being the guy willing to pull a Samson and bring it all down on top of everyone – he’s perfectly happy to get smooshed in the collapse just as long as he takes you all with him. That’s the role of the hardcore conservatives who won’t settle for anything less than 110% of what they want. You can point to them, sigh, shake your head sadly, and say, “Gosh, you better give me 80% and then maybe – maybe – I can hold off these lunatics.”

All hail the conservatives who won’t compromise, who won’t buckle, who won’t let the go-along/get-along gang keep going along and getting along. After all, without the hardcore conservatives, the speaker issue would be moot. Pelosi would be in charge and busy helping Obama turn this country into Venezuela II: The Enfascisting.

There’s no turning back either. We are not returning to the days when the House GOP caucus was satisfied to be a bunch of gentlemanly losers happy to spend several terms spinning their wheels on the Potomac as the government grew and metastasized on their watch. Every election cycle, more of the old guard retires and more of the new breed comes on board. The tilt has happened. John Boehner left the speakership and the House for one reason and one reason only – to avoid a humiliating repudiation at the hands of the GOP caucus that a dozen cases of Jack Daniel’s couldn’t make him forget.

Boehner made no secret that he held conservatives in contempt. And for that the conservatives broke him. Maybe the media missed this essential truth, but that’s a lesson ambitious Republican politicians are all going to learn. The likes of David Brooks will wet their collective Dockers, but the Age of the Squish has come to an end. The RINOs are Cecil, the conservatives are the dentists, and the no one wants to the next head on the wall next to Eric Cantor and Sobby John’s.

This isn’t some phase the GOP is going to outgrow. We’re not afraid to demand that those who lead us be conservative. No dignified elder statesman with a track record of honorable defeat is going to talk some sense into us. We have no desire to utter the squish war cry of, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”

Competition is always a good thing. It forces us to do our best. A monopoly renders people complacent and satisfied with mediocrity.

Yeah, conservatives can be annoying. Hell, they often annoy me, and I’m so hardcore that I’d oppose replacing EBT cards with community gruel pots because I think that’s still too generous to deadbeat Democrat-voting losers. But people who actually believe in something often are annoying.

“I react very badly when mediocrity throws a tantrum of entitlement.”-Lee Siegel

And I want all every illegal alien thrown out of the country. Period. Realistic, maybe not, but i’d settle for 80%. 🙂

Here’s the reality. We conservatives have won. And as we exchange our place on the fringes of the party with the RINOs – when the squishes mutter that the GOP they knew is gone, they’re right – we are dealing with a whole new set of challenges. We conservatives now represent the GOP consensus, and power struggles we have seen are our growing pains.

We will get through them. We will prevail. We are the conservatives, and this House is now our house. Deal with it. (Kurt Schlischter)

Grumpy Cat  -  Suck it up princess

The 3 Party System

The House and Senate passed another CR (Cowardly Resolution) Continuing Resolution so that they kick this same can again after Thanksgiving.

But the American people, and especially Conservatives, will be the turkeys.

On Tuesday, members of the House Oversight Committee grilled Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards over undercover videos linking high-ranking employees with illegal sale of fetal body parts. Under heavy questioning, Richards admitted to supporting sex-selective abortion, acknowledged that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s nongovernment revenue springs from abortion, and awkwardly attempted to explain away the organization’s alleged willingness to utilize special abortion techniques to preserve “samples” from the killed unborn.

That night, Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced that he would fully fund Planned Parenthood.

Naturally, conservatives feel that they have been betrayed. Again. Since the 2014 elections, Republicans have done nothing to slow or stop Obama’s historically egregious Iran deal, which almost guarantees Iranian regional dominance followed by their eventual development of nuclear weapons; Obama’s executive amnesty program, which promises to continue to shape the country in heretofore unforeseen ways; and Obama’s support for the nation’s leading abortion mill.

On Wednesday, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he looked forward to Boehner’s last month in the House, and hoped that Boehner would “work with his Republican colleagues and with his Democratic colleagues to effect some progress on important things that we need to be doing.” Hoyer added that Boehner “wants to get some things done that are important for the country to get done so that he doesn’t leave that for the next leadership. … I hope he can.”

When Democrats praise a Republican, boy are we screwed.

When conservatives hope the Republican leadership does nothing, and Democrats hope the Republican Speaker goes big, that’s an excellent indicator that the Republican Party no longer represents its base. No wonder conservatives rally behind anti-establishment figures ranging from Donald Trump to Carly Fiorina; Texas Senator Ted Cruz draws heavy grassroots support for slicing Planned Parenthood funding out of the latest continuing resolution, even if it means Obama vetoing the CR, thus shutting down the government. Conservatives didn’t elect Republicans to build a power base. They elected them to enact conservative policy preferences, no matter the cost.

But Republican Party insiders seem puzzled at the rage of the conservative base over their collective decision not to oppose the most controversial elements of President Obama’s agenda. Instead, Republicans insist to their voters that they’re doing their best, that without 66 votes in the Senate, they can’t override the executive branch, and that they will need just a few more dollars, pretty, pretty please.

This conflict lays bare the conflicting agendas of conservatives and Republican leaders. Republican leaders believe the goal of the Republican Party is to gain and maintain power; conservatives believe the goal of the Republican Party is to represent conservative interests, no matter what comes. The Republican Party has become an excellent vehicle for the former goal, and a smoking garbage heap when it comes to the latter.

Republicans may keep winning, because the only alternative for conservatives is to vote Democrat. For now. But the divergence between the base and the leadership will eventually lead to the GOP’s collapse, unless Republican leaders begin to re-orient themselves to a conservative true north.

Because currently we have 3 Parties in Washington. All of them Minorities, but 2 of them getting in bed often and that passes for government.

The 3 Are: Conservative Republicans, RINOs, and Democrats.

Guess which 2 are in bed with each other most.

And who is getting screwed. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Don’t Me Angry, You Would not Like Me When I’m Angry

Something is going to end up a smoldering ruin. Maybe it will be the whole country. Maybe it’ll just be the elite-run GOP. Hopefully it will be whatever painfully white, elderly, socialist creep the Democrats nominate. But regardless, I’m one of those many people who is so angry he just wants to see something burn.

Boehner down, plenty to go. Now is this reasonable? Is this a smart, savvy strategy? I’m not sure we even care anymore.

See, we’ve been shafted too long– these hacks can’t even keep the government from spending money on baby dismemberment – and someone or something has got to pay. I’d prefer it be the Democrats, but I’m happy to wreck unholy vengeance on the GOP elite that has lied to us, cheated us, and run away faster than Brave Sir Robin.

Which raises the question – what is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Well, I don’t care if it’s African or European; I just want to roast it on a spit.

Fetchaz La Vache!

So where do we go now? Walker and Perry are out, two great guys with impeccable records. And, while I am sorry to see them go, I am not sorry to see them go now, because it seems clear they weren’t going to get the job done. And I want the job done, then I want the doer to take the cannoli.

We conservatives must choose between five categories of GOP candidates (with apologies to Hugh Hewitt, who started discussing his four categories about the time I first started drafting this column). We can throw caution and conservatism to the wind and sign on with the super outsiders, Trump or Carson. We can go with one of the true conservatives, like Cruz or Jindal. We can go down to glorious defeat with a certifiable loser, like Santorum or Huckabee or Paul. We can go with Team Squish and sullenly fall in line, as our elite donor class betters command, for Jeb! or that nattering churchlady John Kasich. Or we can go with the straddlers, Rubio, Christie and Fiorina, who might be able to bring both the moderates and conservatives on board.

Might.

The outsiders shouldn’t be president. Sorry. Dr. Carson is a nice man who has no instinct for ripping out his opponents’ jugular. I want to hear some liberal womyn lamenting the crushing of our enemies, Doc, but you’d probably go and comfort them.

And then there’s Donald Trump, whose embarrassing debate performance started the trend of people saying, “You know, it was fun for a while but this guy has become tiresome.”

Trump has the aggression – that’s the only thing I like about him – but it’s also the only thing he has. The polls are showing that his novelty is wearing off; people can only deal with so much whining. He’ll always have a hardcore set of minions, but for the first time in weeks I don’t think we have to seriously contemplate the notion of Ivanka the veep.

Then there are the true conservatives. I like Bobby Jindal, but unlike most Americans, I know who he is.

I like Ted Cruz too. He’s a lawyer and usually talks like one. But I’m a lawyer and not a normal human being. I’ve seen him up close in the past and he seems to lack charisma. He’s not Gort in a pantsuit like Hillary, but he’s off-putting to people who don’t use words like “tort” in everyday conversation. Normal people may be repelled and frightened, though in his recent Colbert appearance he seemed uncomfortable but human. Still, as great as he is on policy (in fact, I don’t think anyone is better), I just don’t see him putting together 270 electoral votes in a country full of so many blithering idiots. Moreover, I expect the money he needs to beat Hillary will dry up because the treacherous GOP elite will collectively loosen its bowels if he’s nominated.

True enough. They are more important than the people or principle.

The winner will have to beat The GOP Elite, The Democrats, & The Liberal Media. A mighty dragon slayer, he or she will need to be.

Sorry. I don’t see how Cruz wins, and crushing the Democrats is important. Now, if we gotta go down fighting, Cruz is a good hill to die on, but I’d prefer we not die in 2016. More precisely, I’d prefer my country not die, which I think a Hillary victory could very well lead to.

There’s no reason to spend time with the losers. Santorum and Huckabee are punchlines, and railing about sodomy is not a platform. Get a clue, Rick – no one likes you. Huckabee should stop acting like anyone cares about what Kim Davis thinks; all she does is prove that even annoying people can suffer injustice. Go back to covering “Free Bird” and hawking diabetes cures.

As for Rand Paul, well, whatever. Blame the Illuminati.

We come to the elite’s choices, Jeb! and Kasich. Ugh. Since I prefer my Republicans to actually be Republicans, that kind of eliminates the GOPers who support amnesty, Common Core, Obamacare, and gun control. Sure, they’ll deny all of that, but they lie. Sadly, Mitch McConnell and the French Army up on Capitol Hill ruined the squishes’ “Talk right, rule left” scam. If the elite wants to bet we won’t dare destroy the party and that we’ll fall into line with their puppets, I’ll see you and raise you the Whigs.

He said Whigs….Hehehehehehehe

I’ll vote for Trump before I vote for either of these tools. No kidding; I don’t think I can ever swallow voting for these jerks.

Bush VS Clinton Round III: The End of America for sure no matter what.

Oh, and what was the pre-debate thought process that led Kasich to steal Tom Skerrit’s hairstyle from Top Gun?

That just leaves the three potential straddlers of the conservative/moderate divide. I’m being kind by letting Christie in here. He’s much more establishment, and his new-found love of conservatism can’t erase the image of his Hurricane Sandy tonsil hockey tournament with Obama. So nope.

Ewwww, Christie, A New Jersey squish…horrors…

Marco Rubio. I could write a whole column on him and might do it down the road. There’s so much to like there, and so much that makes me want to slap him.

Amen to that!

I keep wanting to like him, but then I keep remembering that he lied to us about amnesty.

Yep, that would be the one. Real Elephants remember. 🙂

I want to hear it from him: “The default for illegal immigrants is going home. You never, ever, ever, get to be citizens because you disrespected us by breaking our laws.” Anything less, and he’s weaseling, and he weaseled once on us already; he should be on his knees shouting “I’m not worthy” in gratitude that we’d even consider allowing him to beg our forgiveness after that shameful Gang of 8 episode.

Oh, and he needs to stop being so damn prissy. I know the consultants are telling you Americans want to hear a “hopeful message,” but our definition of “hopeful message” is “I intend to destroy progressivism and crush its quasi-fascist adherents wherever they lurk.” That’s hope.

AMEN!

And learn from Donald Trump – did I say that? Stop sucking up to the media. Let’s practice:

Media Hack: “So, do you think Donald Trump should have corrected that random guy who thinks Obama is a Muslim?”

Rubio: “I think you liberal media hacks should stop asking me stupid questions. Why don’t you scurry off to the Hillary-o-tron and start asking it why it didn’t repudiate President Fail when he compared patriotic Americans to the mullahs for opposing his Iranian nuclear sell-out. Now get out of my face or I’ll slug you. Jerk.”

🙂 🙂 🙂

I’m sick of Rubio coming across like the kid who reminds the teacher she forgot to assign the homework. But on the plus side, he knows foreign policy and his wife is hot, so there’s that.

Which leaves Carly. She seems ticked off. I like that. She kicks tail. I like that too. She can put together a coherent sentence. Finally. I don’t despise her. That’s something new for a GOP candidate. And, best of all, I think the elite distrusts her and Hillary fears her – in fact, she could mop the floor with the Orange Pantsuit Lady.

Yeah, maybe Carly.

Maybe.

But if not her, and if there’s no one else, then I’m still ready to burn it all down.

Burn them down like Disco…

(Kurt Schlichter)

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Post-Boehner War Begins NOW!

Conservatives 1 RINOs 0.

But it’s only the end of the first inning of a very long game.

“John’s not going to leave for another 30 days, so hopefully he feels like getting as much stuff done as he possibly can,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference with the Chinese president on Friday.

Cram it in now while we have the chance. Sounds familiar somehow?

After all, Conservatives are “extremists” and unwilling to compromise.  🙂 Hmmm, sound like Obama and the Democrats.

The unmovable object meets the irresistible force.

So we better pass everything before that happens, potentially, Obama is thinking.

It’s not like if another RINO gets in as Speaker the same voices will just go away.

But remember, we, the Conservatives, are the “extremists”.

Celebrate the retirement of John Boehner, and it is worth celebrating. But it doesn’t mark a victory for conservatism or the end of any battle. At best, it’s the beginning.

Well, he’s gone. More correctly, he’s going.

Speaker of the House John Boehner announced Friday that he’s resigning effective Oct. 30. My reaction, similar to that of most conservatives, was a resounding “good!”

And it is good, even though we’re unlikely to get the truly new blood we need in this position.

Barring some miracle, the next speaker of the House will be someone who has spent a lot of time in Washington, D.C. And you don’t spend a lot of time in Washington and possibly be elected speaker without having ingratiating yourself to a lot of people. And the only currency for ingratiation in politics is money.

Not always our money. Sometimes it’s campaign money. But for members of Congress to be a draw at fundraisers, they have to have some sway over how our tax money is dispensed. No one is going to give $2,000 to get a grip-n-grin picture with a backbench congressman with no power or influence. Juice gets the green.

So who will be the next speaker of the House? I don’t know. But there’s a saying about the devil you don’t know, and I fear we may end up with a person like that.

Boehner was awful at times, unwilling to fight the fights that mattered when they mattered and not having a strategy to at least put Democrats, particularly the president, in awkward positions. But his problems may not end up being unique to him. Considering he still has support from many Republicans – perhaps even a majority of the caucus – finding an acceptable person to replace him could be harder than people think.

The establishment appears to be coalescing around current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California. He has some appeal to conservatives too, especially when measured against Boehner. But he will not be a savior.

He’s in leadership, which means he’s had every opportunity to strategize with the speaker to take the House in the right direction. It hasn’t happened. There’s little reason to believe much will change should he be the man in charge. It could, but nothing that happened in his current position would lead anyone to be convinced of that.

So who else is there? Lots of qualified conservatives could do the job. Whether they want it is a different story.

There’s no point in listing names – the list of people you’d like to see consider a run is as unique to you as your fingerprints. And I understand the belief that “there’s nowhere to go but up” when it comes to leadership in the House. But just because it seems like that doesn’t make it so.

If conservatives fracture, if they fail to unite behind one candidate and show a united front, we could end up with the devil we don’t know.

And ithink   that likely since the Establishment will want a RINO and the Conservative will want, well, a Conservative and the two are hard to meld together in these very partisan days.

There are egos amongst conservatives. There are friendships. There is loyalty between members. In short, just like the rest of Washington, it’s high school with paychecks.

The Nerds just dethroned the Class President. All his clique minions are buzzing with annoyance.

To elect a conservative speaker, or even a more conservative speaker, it’s going to require unity. That’s the one thing conservatives aren’t good at.

They don’t do groupthink like The Democrats do.

Several conservatives are flirting with a run. If they can’t coalesce around one, we’ll have another Speaker Squish.

And I still think that’s where we are headed.

Celebrate the retirement of John Boehner, and it is worth celebrating. But it doesn’t mark a victory for conservatism or the end of any battle. At best, it’s the beginning.

Conservatives have determination. They have the fight in them. But whether they have the ability to manage their way to success remains to be seen. A victory is great, but it’s just a victory. The fight isn’t over; it will never end.

The WAR begins now.

Eat, drink and be merry. Just remember that Boehner’s resignation, while significant, is a starting line, not a finish line. Without a united march forward, conservatives may win the first inning but lose the game. (Derek Hunter)

 AMEN!

Congress Slipped a Bo(eh)ner

The Good News: JAR JAR RESIGNS!

jar jar

THE BAD NEWS: Boehner 2.0 Coming in November.

There is no way in hell the Establishment RINOs are going to allow an actual Conservative to take over as Speaker. We are going to get Boehner 2.0 shoved down our throats, most likely his loyal Lt., Kevin McCarthy.

THEN WE WILL HAVE TO DETHRONE HIM TOO!

But Jar Jar finally said “NO” for once in the last 5 years and he just might stick to it this time. Have the cowardice of his convictions.

There’s no reason to say nice things about John Boehner that he doesn’t deserve. He didn’t die; he quit his job after enough Republicans FINALLY started moving to unseat him behind the scenes. It would be a better country if that had been done years ago. Other than an earmark ban long ago and sequester cuts, which were practically accidental, John Boehner’s tenure as a leader has been one long, unbroken streak of mediocrity, cowardice and disaster.

Conservatives consider Boehner to be an untrustworthy weakling, Democrats look at him as a joke and the American public despises him. Boehner will leave office as the least popular Speaker in 30 years.

The Man who promised to stop ObamaCare and Executive Amnesty and then actively worked for them to get them passed is gone.

He was against them before he was for them. 🙂

Under the spending deals cut by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the federal government’s debt has climbed $3,968,445,855,460.28, according to debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

That works out to an increase in the debt of $26,627.43 per each of the 149,036,000 people who, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, had a full- or part-time job in the United States as of August 2015.

When the first spending deal made by Speaker Boehner took effect on March 4, 2011, the total federal debt was $95,162.43 per the 149,036,000 workers who had jobs as of this August. It now equals $121,789.86 for each of those workers.

Not very “conservative” is he…

“Here’s the attitude. Ohhhh. Don’t make me do this. Ohhhh. This is too hard.”John Boehner mocks Republicans in Congress who oppose amnesty.

Though his re-election campaign was all about stopping it.

So he was for it before he was against it! 🙂

Short Live his RINO Successor!

As a leader, Boehner’s “strategy” is usually completely reactive. It’s like he reluctantly gets in the ring with the Democrats, leads with his face and hopes that the Democrats will defeat him quickly so he can turn around and yell at the people who insisted he fight for something in the first place.

The perfect example of Boehner’s “leadership” came when Obama shut the government down because the House refused to fund Obamacare.

First of all, you have to keep in mind that John Boehner had publicly promised that the Republican Party would use the power of the purse to stop Obamacare if the GOP took control of the House in 2010.

“We are going to fight to repeal this government takeover of health care and start over with solutions that focus first on lowering costs. Cutting off funding for ObamaCare is absolutely something I support. For example, I would support moving as soon as possible to deny any funding for the estimated 16,500 IRS employees that will be needed to implement ObamaCare. House Republicans will continue to stand with the American people against this unconstitutional government takeover of health care.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, Boehner never had any intention of living up to his pledge.

So eventually Ted Cruz started pushing the idea of using the power of the purse to stop Obamacare and it caught on in the House to such an extent that Boehner felt compelled to try it.

After hemming and hawing that made it clear he didn’t want to pursue the strategy in the first place, Boehner announced that the House was going to fund the government except for Obamacare. Then he came out like a house on fire, slammed Obama for shutting down the government and said he would stand tall!

After a few days of that, Boehner practically went mute while the Democrats continued to hammer away at Republicans. Meanwhile, Boehner ALLIES like Peter King and Devin Nunes publicly undercut the whole strategy, something they would have NEVER done without getting the thumbs up from the Speaker.

“We are the ones who did shut the government down. You don’t take the dramatic step of shutting down the government unless you have a real strategy.” — Peter King

“Unlike many Republicans, (Devin) Nunes is publicly criticizing some of his colleagues, calling them ‘lemmings with suicide vests’ earlier this week.

….’It’s crazy. I don’t understand the whole point, the whole strategy. Most Americans don’t understand it,’ said Nunes.

The California Republican said a small group of lawmakers, what he calls ‘the lemming caucus,’ have been blocking GOP House leadership for three years.

‘It’s guys who meet privately. They’re always conspiring. It’s mostly just about power. And it’s just gotten us nowhere,’ said Nunes.”

Since government shutdowns are essentially a big game of chicken where both sides can equally be said to be at fault, but they try to blame each other, having Republicans in Congress siding with Democrats was very damaging to the effort.

Boehner had options. He could have held out and tried to make a case to the American people. He could have agreed to end the shutdown if Democrats would end the Obamacare subsidy for lawmakers and their staffs. Instead, as per usual, Boehner just surrendered and the shutdown lasted only 16 days.

To top it all off, Boehner went on the Leno Show and said none of it was his fault.

“It was a very predictable disaster, and the sooner we got it over with, the better. I told my colleagues in July I didn’t think shutting down the government over Obamacare would work because the President said, ‘I’m not going to negotiate.’ And so I told them in August ‘Probably not a good idea.’ Told them in early September. But when you have my job, there’s something you have to learn … When I looked up, I saw my colleagues going this way. And you learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk … So I said, ‘You want to fight this fight? I’ll go fight the fight with you.'”

The types of questions people had after this disaster were the ones that dogged Boehner through his whole tenure as “leader.”

The shutdown was a predictable disaster? Then why did he promise to adopt that strategy before he became Speaker? Did he not realize it was a bad idea then or was he just a liar who made promises he never intended to keep? Moreover, if Boehner knew the strategy wouldn’t work, why did he go through with it? Furthermore, how do you call talking tough for a few days and then caving a “fight?” Once Boehner decided to go with the strategy, what was his plan to win – or was it his plan all along to fight a halfhearted battle, lose and then throw up his hands and say, “I tried?” Whatever happened to actually trying to WIN battles for conservatism and the American people? When did that officially become something the Republican Party doesn’t do anymore?

Republicans have a right to expect a lot more out of a leader than drinking, crying and capitulating in every fight that matters. That’s the only thing John Boehner has offered America since he became Speaker of the House and the tragedy isn’t that he’s being muscled out of office, it’s that it didn’t happen much sooner. (John Hawkins)

But just to give you a taste of the Far Left’s response, our friends at the Daily Kos:

Oh no, the Repidiots biggest boner is leaving. Whatever will they use to screw Americans now? There is talk that Rep. McCarthy from California may replace him. That is sending the T (as in terrible) Party into fits of apoplexy. From what I read about him he is a semi intelligent (for a republican) human. He can actually see and understand facts, as opposed to most of the other morons in the party.

This is Homo Superior Liberalis folks!

But let’s get back to the Party while it lasts…

Proof of Jar Jar Binks’s death may be on the way. In a Vanity Fair interview published, appropriately, on Star Wars Day (May the Fourth…), director J.J. Abrams said he just might show fans Jar Jar’s bones.

Sorry, wrong Jar Jar… 🙂

Tranforming America

In this presidential cycle, voters in both parties, to the surprise of the punditocracy, are rejecting experienced political leaders. They’re willfully suspending disbelief in challengers who would have been considered laughable in earlier years.

Polls show more Republicans preferring three candidates who have never held elective office over 14 candidates who have served a combined total of 150 years as governors or in Congress. Most Democrats are declining to favor a candidate who spent eight years in the White House and the Senate and four as secretary of state.

And going in larger numbers for the complete Socialist package with little baggage, Bernie Sanders.

Psephologists of varying stripes attribute this discontent to varying causes. Conservatives blame insufficiently aggressive Republican congressional leaders. Liberals blame Hillary Clinton’s closeness to plutocrats and her home email system.

But in our system the widespread rejection of experienced leaders ultimately comes from dismay at the leader in the White House. In 1960 Richard Nixon, after eight years as vice president and six in Congress, campaigned on the slogan “Experience counts.” No one is running on that theme this year.

Nixon could, because over the preceding quarter-century the majority of Americans mostly approved of the performance of incumbent presidents. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower still look pretty good more than 50 years later.

Barack Obama doesn’t. His deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes recently said that the president’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran was as important an achievement of his second term as Obamacare was of the first. Historians may well agree.

These two policy achievements have many things in common.

nuclear_blast

Both were unpopular when proposed and still are now. In March 2010 Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that people would know, and presumably like, what was in the bill after it was passed. But most Americans didn’t like it then and most don’t today, five and a half years later. As for the Iran deal, Pew Research reports it has only 21 percent approval today, much lower than Obamacare in 2010.

But since both are on THE AGENDA, they and The Ministry of Truth are happy.

What “the American People” want is irrelevant nowadays. It’s what The Agenda wants, whether it’s The Democrats or The Republican Elite RINOs.

Both Obamacare and the Iran deal were bulldozed through Congress through legislative legerdemain. Democrats passed Obamacare by using the temporary 60-vote Senate supermajority gained through a Minnesota recount and the wrongful prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens. After they lost the 60th vote, they resorted to a dubious legislative procedure.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

This year Obama labeled the Iran treaty an executive agreement, and Congress concocted a process requiring only a one-third-plus-one rather than a two-thirds vote for approval. Only 38 percent of members of Congress supported it. Many, such as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, did so only after saying that they never would have accepted it in negotiations.

But the Republicans, allegedly in control of Congress,  willfully submitted to this slight of hand rather than stand on the principles that got them elected in the first place.

And they have done this REPEATEDLY. The Minority (Democrats) are still in control of Congress.

In 2008 Obama promised he would “fundamentally transform” America, and Obamacare and the Iran deal are indeed fundamental transformations of policy –transformations most Americans oppose.

But are on THE AGENDA, so they must be.

Obamacare assumed that financial crisis and recession would make most voters supportive of, or amenable to, bigger government. But as National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru points out, polling doesn’t show that. Obama assumed that if America could “extend a hand” to such propitiated enemies as the mullahs of Iran, they would become friends with us. Most Americans think that’s delusional. No wonder voters are angry.

So he goes out an gets more Illegals to vote for Democrats instead. After all, it’s about the power of Homo Superior Liberalis. The Agenda is The Agenda.

Republican voters are frustrated and angry because for six years they have believed they have public opinion on their side, but their congressional leaders have failed to prevail on high visibility issues. Their successes (clamping down on domestic discretionary spending) have been invisible. They haven’t made gains through compromise because Obama, unlike his two predecessors, lacks both the inclination and ability to make deals.

Rigid Ideologues and weak spined Republicans will do that.

So Republicans who imposed harsh litmus tests in previous presidential cycles (like asking candidates if they’ve ever supported a tax increase, or if they’ve ever wavered in their opposition to abortion) are flocking to Donald Trump, a candidate who would fail every one of them. They are paying little attention to candidates — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal — who advance serious proposals to change public policy.

Because, we don’t believe them. The proof is in the Jar Jar Boehner and Mitch The Ditch pudding.

In polls, Democratic voters have stayed loyal to the president. But to listen to their candidates (and maybe-candidate Joe Biden) you would think we are in our seventh year of oppression by a right-wing administration. You don’t hear much about the virtues of Obamacare or the Iran deal — or “choice.”

Of course not, it’s still, Vote for Me, the “other guy” is an asshole. The “other guy” is still the fear mongering and “Bush” narratives. Grandma is still going be thrown out in the street by evil White, Male, Rich Republicans. The candy is still going to be stolen from babies by evil, heartless Conservatives.

The narrative hasn’t changed because The Democrats haven’t changed.

Most Americans hoped the first black president would improve race relations. Now most Americans believe they have gotten worse.

White Guilt has bit them in the asp!

And so a president who came to office with relatively little experience has managed to tarnish experience, incumbency and institutions: a fundamental transformation indeed. (Michael Barone)

those dame dirty nukes! Agree with me or else!

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Establishment

Let’s be absolutely clear – Donald Trump is entirely the fault of a GOP establishment that lied to conservatives and refused to do what it promised it would do. Trump is no secret Machiavellian genius cunningly outmaneuvering his enemies from his super-classy Atlantic City volcano lair. He’s a finger-to-the-wind charlatan who will say whatever he needs to say to maximize his own personal adulation. And he would still be merely a tiresome reality TV catch-phrase generator if the GOP establishment had not treated the rest of us like dirt. 

True.

Donald Trump will be beaten, but it sure as hell is not going to be the establishment that does it. Instead, it is hard-core conservatives like me and you who are getting out there and making the case that serious conservative renewal requires actual serious conservative candidates. You know, ones who never voted for Obama or gave money to Hillary – conservatives who were conservative before conservatism was cool.

It has been fashionable to say you are one, but not cool, and fashion trends change with a drop of a hat.

For my trouble, I’ve been accused of being a RINO, which totally ruined last week’s Georgetown cocktail party. There I was, comparing Dockers creases with David Brooks and drawing Touché Turtle caricatures of Mitch McConnell on Karl Rove’s whiteboard, when all of a sudden I start getting tweets about how I’m figuratively – and sometimes literally – in bed with Jeb, conspiring to import millions of Mexicans and burn the POW-MIA flag. It made me so sad that I decided to drown my sorrows by doing shots of Glenlivet with John Boehner – big mistake.

Yeah, there really is a GOP establishment, a cadre of Washington insiders whose focus is solely their own power and position, and for whom conservatism is a useful mask to cover up the avaricious hunger for personal power that is their sole true motivation. But you are not part of the GOP establishment just because you oppose a guy whose focus is solely his own power and position, and for whom conservatism is a useful mask to cover up the avaricious hunger for personal power that is his sole true motivation when that guy’s name is Donald Trump.

Now, there are some people out there who will never, ever vote Republican – I know because they told me they won’t – and we need to just ignore them. They’re not worth the time since we will never win them over. But there are a lot of other people who are inspired by Trump’s willingness to say things the GOP elite doesn’t want said. The GOP elite, for example, expected us to keep our mouths shut about the rape and murder rampages of illegal aliens and quietly bury our children while they divvied up Chamber of Commerce donations. Nope.

Why can’t actual conservatives be like Liberals and just follow the Party Agenda blindly and when the Party screws them for their own narcissism they love them for it and will support them 100% no matter what is the question that Boehner & Co. probably ask when they cave into Obama and The Democrats repeatedly.

Whatever possessed you Montgomery Burnses in the establishment and your Smitheresque enablers to think that we aren’t serious about conservatism is beyond me. Maybe it’s because you yourselves are not serious about conservatism. Instead, you’re in it for the power and prestige and position. We aren’t. And we’re mad as hell about your lies. Don’t think Donald Trump’s willingness to speak truth to fraudulence is something we don’t appreciate. Some of us just prefer the Republican candidate doing it be an actual Republican.

Truth.

You ought to be learning from this, but you seem almost as stubbornly resistant to facts and evidence as the Trump superfans. Look at the candidates you keep trying to shove down our throats – astonishingly, they manage to simultaneously be both stiffs and squishes.

You started off with Jeb Bush, the alleged adult in the room, who not only pushes Common Core and amnesty but does it by scolding us about how we are selfishly rejecting an “act of love.” I doubt Katie Steinle’s family feels much love right now.

But Jeb does fit the Establishment mold, so that’s why they want him, not any of these other crazies, and certainly not Trump.

It’s what they want that matters, after all. 🙂

Jeb’s toast, and the GOP establishment’s takeaway from all this seems to be to sell us “plain speakers,” candidates programmed to tap into what the establishment sees as the base’s desire for a certain style, while ignoring the base’s actual desire, which is for a certain ideology – conservatism.

Pull a Democrat strategy, say anything you have to to get elected and then do whatever the hell you want once you do get elected.

The Democrat sheep love them for it. So why not share in the love?  🙂

Democrats never need morals or ethics and they are as unprincipled a bunch as you are ever likely to come across. So why do Republicans have to bear the extra weight, let’s just say whatever we need to get people to vote for us so we can do whatever we want afterwards, until the next cycle when we say the same things over again and, like Democrats, they buy it hook,line, and sinker.

Why work harder than we have to?

First, they offered up Obama-hugging, gun-hating, pork chop advocate Chris Christie. He was a plain talker who mostly talked about how we conservatives are morally and intellectually inferior. He failed. This week, there’s plain speaker du jour John Kasich. Most of his plain speaking seems to involve telling us about how Jesus wants those of us who work for a living to pay more money to subsidize lazy deadbeat Democrat constituents who refuse to. I can just see the Team Kasich K Street strategy session: “Well, just tell those rubes Jesus said to jump on board Obamacare and they’ll eat it up!” Kasich is a loser too.

The fact is, the Washington establishment doesn’t like us, it doesn’t respect us, and thinks we’re stupid. It seems to have learned nothing from Trump and what his rise means. It thinks it can just wait him out and get back to business as usual, which seems to be passing out favors to crony capitalist big business as usual.

And if they can get FOX News, the Democrats version of The Media Anti-Christ to push Trump out the door, mores the better.

Of course, that kind of leaves the heart of the Republican Party, the small business people and middle class, out in the cold. Do you establishment types think we will just shrug and submit to your whims?

They certainly hope so. It works for The Democrats, so why can’t they have a slice of that mindless apathy pie.

Time is on our side, not the establishment’s. If we have the patience, we need only wait till the actuarial tables send the bodies of our enemies floating past us down the Potomac. The new generation of conservatives that has taken the statehouses in most of the country are not composed of establishment dorks. These are committed conservatives mobilized by the conservative revolution. The clocks are ticking until Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker and the rest of those losers dodder off to retirement and well-deserved anonymity. When John McCain goes away — and he’s going to go away relatively soon because he’s like 282 years old — the guy who takes his place is not going to be a squish. There are no squishes left on the GOP bench.

GOOD! I hate John “The Whitest RINO” McCain and am still pissed about J.D. Hayworth self destructing the last time someone challenged McCain.

Don’t even think this will blow over, GOP establishment. The fight for the soul of the GOP has just begun, and we are younger, tougher and meaner than you are. So if any of you establishment types want to stick around, you better learn the right lesson from the rise of Donald Trump. In the words of Rush – the band, not the talk radio legend conform or be cast out. (Kurt Schlichter)

 Or in the words of ISIS, “Convert or Die”. Since most of them are dinosaurs who have been in office since the Paleolithic I know which one they’ll choice.

There is a HYDRA movement in the GOP establishment, Actual Conservatives who are actually Conservative!

WOW! What a concept!!

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The New Rules

We conservatives have spent far too long playing by the old rules when liberals have completely changed the game. There was a time when laws meant what they said, when individual rights were important, when the government did not make it its business to oppress the executive’s ideological opponents, and when principles mattered. But that time has passed.

There’s a new set of rules, and while we don’t have control in Washington right now, we do have control most everywhere else – and someday a conservative will be president again. So there is no reason not to get going right now playing by the same rules the liberals do!

Of course, first we need to understand the basis of the new rules – it’s about having the moral courage to obtain and keep power. Until now, we conservatives have been guided by “principles” and “values” that only serve to distract us from what’s really important. Under the new rules, we will no longer let arbitrary ideas about how America should work get in the way of maximizing our ability to exercise our authority over others. After all, our supremacy is a moral imperative.

We will step beyond obsolete notions about process and embrace the primacy of results. We will stop treating “means” and “ends” like they are distinct and different – as 1984 (Read it – lots of great tactics, techniques and procedures!) teaches, “Power is not a means; it is an end.” Means and ends will flow together seamlessly, and we will stop getting hung-up on how we do things and focus on the real goal under the new rules – consolidating our power for the greater good.

Take the law. Under the old rules, judges were constrained by the plain meaning of the text, but that is far too restrictive. Words must mean what we need them to mean, no more and no less. We have to appoint judges who won’t prattle on about “judicial restraint” and “not legislating from the bench,” and who will reliably rule exactly how we need them to rule on each and every case. Let’s appoint judges, who understand that their purpose is to rationalize rulings that support our policy priorities, not seek some “legally correct” decision that might not. The law of the land is whatever we want it to be!

We should celebrate Judge Robert’s recent Obamacare decision – it was liberating! He made it clear that when we want a different result, we don’t have to be deterred by the fact that the law means exactly the opposite. He affirmed that judges should interpret statutes – and the Constitution too – based upon a subjective desire for a particular outcome. Think of the possibilities for conservative progress if we aren’t hamstrung by some inconvenient text in a statute or the literal meaning of the words on some ancient parchment!

Where we have control of law enforcement, we have another great opportunity to play by the new rules. There are all sorts of liberal organizations out there shamelessly advocating policies and ideas we disapprove of. As we have learned, we can turn the power of the government upon them to root out this wrongdoing. We do not need to bother with accusing them of any kind of specific crime – why should we restrict our investigations to clear violations of laws? Instead, we can launch fishing expeditions to see what we can dig up – and even if there’s nothing, well, remember that the process is the punishment. Regardless, it’s important to establish that our political opponents will pay a price for presuming to oppose us.

And, naturally, when our allies are accused of breaking the law, we just ignore it. There needs to be two sets of laws – one for us, and one for everyone else. Otherwise, we might be constrained from doing what we please.

And there are other opportunities a huge government can provide us. Beyond audits and blocking vital certifications, the IRS has plenty of juicy information on every American – we can selectively release it to intimidate those who do not support us. And when we get a hold of everyone’s medical records under Obamacare – wow! What an opportunity!

Of course, there will not be any Obamacare. Oh, technically it might be hard to repeal (though getting rid of the filibuster entirely will make it much easier!), but who needs to repeal it when we can just choose not to enforce it? Our next president simply has to instruct the rest of the executive branch that they will not be taking any action with regard to implementing Obamacare, not collecting any of its taxes (they are taxes this week, right?) and not enforcing any of its mandates. Understand that we won’ be refusing to carry out the law – we’ll just be focusing on different executive priorities!

Perhaps the mainstream media will speak up, at least at first. But, you know, the New York Times, NBC and the rest really seem to have way too much power over our national conversation. It just isn’t fair how these big companies drown out the voices of regular people. Heck, these corporate entities are not even people and certainly should not have rights like people do to speak freely and so forth. They are more of a public utility, and frankly, they have not been serving the public good. That’s why we will use the FCC to take charge and oversee the shamefully deregulated mainstream media. We especially need some sort of doctrine to ensure fairness that forces the Washington Post and CNN to give a fair hearing to conservative ideas, religious views, and traditional values.

You know, there’s been a lot of bigotry against conservatives, religious people, and traditional Americans, and it is time the government took action by concentrating its anti-discrimination efforts on those spewing hate against them. We will have to root out policies and practices that result in such prejudice. Step one is focusing on colleges, where hate against normal Americans runs amok. Colleges that refuse to conform will lose their funding and tax exempt status – oh, and we will be taxing excessive endowments too. Schools like liberal Harvard have billions socked away, money that could be better used serving working Americans’ priorities than those of wealthy college administrators.

And speaking of billions, Hollywood and the entertainment industry need our attention. They spew out a tremendous amount of hate against conservatives, religious people, and traditional Americans, and that kind of intolerance simply cannot be tolerated. We’ll need to take action under the discrimination laws to punish the kind of offensive words and portrayals that make normal Americans feel unsafe and marginalized in theaters and their own homes.

Moreover, those in Hollywood and in the high tech world are getting far too rich. They are simply not paying their fair share – remember that their wealth came from the regular Americans who buy movie tickets and iPhones, and it is only right that these rich liberals give something back to working American families.

A 40% surcharge on all Hollywood and Silicon Valley windfall profits would go a long way towards making things fairer – and this has nothing to do with the fact that most Hollywood and Silicon Valley political money goes to our opponents. But don’t worry about our conservative allies in those two fields – if they don’t pay we just won’t prosecute them! But if you’re liberal, watch out!

Of course, it’s entirely possible that we and the Hollywood and high tech moguls can resolve the issues that led to them pouring money into our enemy’s coffers and come to some understanding that keeps us from having to rollback copyright protections on their intellectual property to, say, ten years.

This is only the beginning – the new rules liberate us from the constraints that for so long kept us from truly making conservative progress. All those “principles” and “ideals” about right and wrong and all that only served to take our eyes off of the real prize – our power, which we would only use for the common good.

Sure, we were all sad to see the old rules go, but gone they are. Our liberal friends made sure of that. So let’s make the best of it! (Kurt Schlichter)

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The Liberal Arts

Thomas Sowell:

An op-ed piece titled “Conservatives, Please Stop Trashing the Liberal Arts” appeared last week in the Wall Street Journal. But it is not conservatives who trashed the liberal arts.

Liberal professors have trashed the liberal arts, by converting so many liberal arts courses into indoctrination centers for left-wing causes and fads, instead of courses where students learn how to weigh conflicting views of the world for themselves. Now a professor of English, one of the most fad-ridden of the liberal arts today, blames conservative critics for the low esteem in which liberal arts are held.

Surely a professor of English cannot be unaware of how English departments, especially, have become hotbeds of self-indulgent, trendy fads such as trashing classic writings — using Shakespeare’s works as just another ideological playground for romping through with the current mantra of “race, class and gender.”

Surely he cannot be unaware of the many farces of the Modern Language Association that have made headlines. And when our English professor uses a phrase like “critical thinking,” he must be at least dimly aware of how often those words have been perverted to mean uncritical negativism toward traditional values and uncritical acceptance of glittering catchwords of the left, such as “diversity.”

Diversity of political ideas is not to be found on most college campuses, where the range of ideas is usually from the moderate left to the extreme left, and conservatives are rare as hen’s teeth among the faculty — especially in English departments. Academics who go ballistic about an “under-representation” of ethnic minorities in various other institutions are blissfully blind to the under-representation of conservatives among the professors they hire. On many campuses, students can go through all four years of college without ever hearing a conservative vision of the world, even from a visiting speaker.

The problem is not political, but educational. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, back in the 19th century, students must hear opposing views from people who actually believe them, not as presented by people who oppose them. In the 18th century, Edmund Burke warned against those who “teach the humours of the professor, rather than the principles of the science.”

During my years on the lecture circuit, I liked to go into college bookstores across the country and see how many of their courses assigned “The Federalist” among the books students were to buy, as compared to how many assigned “The Communist Manifesto” or other iconic writings on the left.

“The Federalist” is a classic, written by three of the men who were among those who wrote the Constitution of the United States. It is a book of profound thoughts, written in plain English, at a level aimed at the ordinary citizen.

It might even be called “The Constitution for Dummies.” There are Supreme Court Justices who could benefit from reading it.

My survey of college bookstores across the country showed “The Communist Manifesto” virtually everywhere, often required reading in multiple courses — and “The Federalist” used virtually nowhere. Most college students will get only the left’s uncritical negativism toward the American form of government, under the rubric of “critical thinking.”

The liberal arts in theory could indeed make valuable contributions to the education of the young, as our English professor claims. But the liberal arts in practice have in fact done the opposite, not just in the United States but in other countries as well.

The history of the 20th century shows soft-subject students and their professors among the biggest supporters of extremist movements, both fascist and communist — the former in central and eastern Europe before World War II and the latter in countries around the world, both before and after that war.

Those who want liberal arts to be what they were supposed to be will have to profoundly change them from what they have become. Doing that will undoubtedly provoke more denunciations of critics for “trashing” the liberal arts by criticizing those who have in fact already trashed the liberal arts in practice.

Case in point: Apparently there is a poll out there that says that the American people are in favor of giving Nuclear Weapons to Iran so they can nuke us with them in the future. Now, how could that be?

Oh, right, the Liberal News Intelligensia (The Liberal Art of TV News) said so and then you click over to “Dancing with The Stars”…That’s how. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Rules for Conservatives

In his new book, “Rules For Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again,” nationally-syndicated radio host and Townhall columnist Steve Deace created a strategic manual to help conservatives reclaim the nation. Deace’s book intends to equip conservatives with a playbook in the same way that Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals” armed the Left.

I had the pleasure of hearing first-hand about Deace’s new release.

Townhall: Your book, as David Limbaugh said in the forward, is a “blueprint for victory.” How did you go about creating this roadmap?

Deace: Living in the first of the nation caucus state of Iowa gives you a front row seat to the sausage making factory. I’ve had a chance to be behind the scene or even participate, you know, volunteer or work for campaigns from president to state legislature. Iowa provides a very unique cross-section of political activism in your own backyard, where you don’t have to go anywhere to be involved in either federal, state, or local politics.

This blueprint is essentially a compilation of everything I’ve seen work and not work. There’s nothing new under the sun, but what I really wanted to do was put it together in a package where it could actually be something that would be a coordinated plan of attack. Something that would work in accordance with our worldview and not the other sides’. Because obviously if you’re putting your playbook out there you don’t want people to steal it from you so you wanted to craft it in a way that even if they tried to utilize it it wouldn’t work because it really is only for those that have a belief system based in the principles of American exceptionalism. Then you have to put it together in a way that is applicable and manageable.

Several times throughout the book you talk about a need for “3-D Thinking.” Can you explain what you mean by this?

I think that if we don’t have three dimensional thinking, then I don’t think any plan of attack we have will work. It helps us to understand both our own belief system and then what we are up against.

The first dimension is to understand why you believe what you believe. If you’re a Christian this is a commandment in the New Testament. St. Peter says you have to have an ‘apologia,’ or an apologetic reason; a ready defense for the hope that you have in your faith. So I think we have to know why we believe what we believe. That lays the foundation so that we can actually communicate in a relevant way that connects with people and changes hearts and minds and not just become talking point regurgitators.

The second dimension is, you need to know why people believe what they believe. What is it that the other side of an argument or a conversation or a debate is coming to the table with? There is someone who might be in the middle and may be undecided. Why are they undecided? What is it that they believe that would cause them to then take the positions that they take? Again, this helps to establish a relationship which is really key in changing a lot of peoples’ minds.

And then the third dimension is to know why people believe what they believe about what we believe. What is it they think about what we think? What are the cliches, the stereotypes that they have in mind as they are engaging us? Where do they think we are coming from? So that we have an opportunity to go after, to tear down those strongholds and actually have a pertinent conversation where substance is being discussed and it’s not just ad hominem, or it’s not just a series of red herrings, or stereotypes, or demagoguery.

You discuss in the book why conservatives are losing, but can you flip that around and tell us why Democrats are winning?

Democrats are winning because the No. 1 thing they understand that we don’t, or that we don’t understand as shrewdly as they do, is that really it is not the base of an organization that determines how good it is. It is the head.

If you look at the trends, you would wonder: ‘why are we losing the country? Because in many areas it seems as if we’re winning.’ The movies that feature our values are dominating the box office, like “American Sniper.” We’re selling more books than ever before, we have more conferences to equip and encourage each other than ever before. We have more infrastructure to mobilize our grassroots than ever before. Most of the most successful media in the country at least leans our way.

Right now we have the fewest Democrats nationwide in the legislative branch that we’ve had in 86 years. That’s before the Great Depression. It doesn’t make much sense that the government doesn’t seem to shrink. Wages remain stagnated and the culture continues to spiral towards Gomorrah despite those things. I believe it’s because what the Left has done is they have practiced the principle of headship. They have realized that if you control the power center of an organization, it doesn’t matter what the base thinks. So, for example, we outnumber them five years in a row now we have been the dominant ideological group in Gallup polling as self-identified Conservatives, that’s never happened before in the history of a Gallup poll.

But what’s happened is they control the influence centers in academia, pop-culture, government, and now increasingly corporate America as well. And so even though we outnumber them, they outflank and therefore outmaneuver us. Until we get better leaders who are willing to do what it takes to win. Willing to take the criticism for doing that, and then have the winsomeness to change the hearts and minds of our countrymen, nothing is going to change regardless of the outcomes of elections and how many successful cottage industries we spawn.

If you could pick just one issue for conservatives restrategize, what would it be?

It would be the judiciary. That is because that has been the weapon of mass destruction of the Left for a generation. Everything that they have done the most damage to American exceptionalism has come via the courts. Every last thing. From illegal immigration, those are court rulings saying that children born of illegal aliens here are now citizens, those are court interpretations. Or that taxpayers have to pay for illegal aliens, much of that is Plyler v. Doe, for example, a court opinion. If you look at the marriage issue it began with Lawrence v. Texas on state sodomy laws, which the Supreme Court used foreign court precedent as the rationale for that decision.

Obamacare is still only the law, because John Roberts, a Republican appointee, literally rewrote the bill to be a tax even though the Obama attorneys claimed in their testimony before the High Court that it wasn’t a tax. He rewrote the bill as a tax to make it legal under the 16th Amendment, setting the precedent that if the government calls it a tax they can do to you whatever they want. I mean that is the height of judicial activism.

And the most infamous of them all: Roe v. Wade. State sanctioned child killing–nationwide with basically no limits.

These are all things that would not have passed muster at a ballot box, but have all been imposed by unelected judges via fiat, with no basis or constitutional standing or grounding at all.

I don’t care how smart your arguments are, I don’t care how principled you are, how much money you raise. If continue to allow your opposition to, unabated, pound you with their most potent weapon of mass destruction, you are going to lose.

Your book is all about how conservatives to win again. What will it take for conservative candidate to win in 2016?

You have to look at really what is the genesis of today’s political environment. It really is 1980. That was the ushering in of the Reagan Revolution, that was the beginning of the South to trend more conservative and therefore more Republican. That really was the ushering in of the current political landscape. And the reality is, since the 2000 election, the electoral college is pretty static. The presidential election for Republicans comes down to Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, you have to win those three states. So you have to look at the trend line that began your current environment and that is 1980.

If you look at every presidential election since 1980 that Republicans have won, they all have two things in common: No. 1, the nominee rallied the masses of evangelicals in the base during the primary. And then No. 2, the nominee was at least able to compete if not win middle class voters in the general. So any Republican presidential nominee who cannot energize the masses of evangelicals in the base, and/or compete for or win middle class voters in the general, cannot win.

It’s not the marriage issue, or the life issue that is hurting Republicans. What is killing the Republican Party more than anything else is that people in the middle class see them as a bunch of corporatist shills who don’t care about their needs or their plight. And they reinforce that when they do things like, ‘well we’re not going to raise the minimum wage’ (which I agree with) ‘but we are going to vote for a bunch of corporate welfare.’ You can’t do stuff like that and then expect people to vote for you in general elections. (townhall)

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Them’s Fighting Words

Very good advice, that even I, your cynical host should take to heart…

Oh my goodness, the 2014 election victories didn’t end the war! You mean the progressives are still out there dreaming of a future full of hugs and goosestepping? You mean the GOP Establishment hasn’t just given up its power and knelt before us, begging to be forgiven for its craven crony corporatism? You mean the fight’s not over?

No, the fight’s not over. So stop whining that you can’t go back to sitting on your rear end – we have a long campaign ahead. I know you’re tired. I know you’re frustrated. And I don’t care.

Some people want to throw in the towel just as we are approaching the knockout. News flash: Our opponents punch back. Time to take the hit and drive on.

We’re winning, only we haven’t won yet. So pick up your (figurative) weapons and follow me. The fight’s up ahead, and we’re going to keep moving to the sound of the guns.

Writer Brian Cates has the right idea. Jolted into action by Andrew Breitbart, as so many of us were, he watched conservatives win in 2010 and things marginally improve. Then 2012 moved us backwards. Then 2014 moved us forward again as we retook Congress. Then, last week, he watched Team Boehner and McConnell roll over on immigration funding after utterly botching their strategy in a manner that would make the French Army proud.

So, like all of us, he had reached a decision point. His options: Give up or fight on. In a brilliant series of tweets, collected here, he chose to fight on. (Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds)

Yeah, the GOP stinks. Yeah, there is a contingent within the GOP that prioritizes its own power and position over conservatism. Well, welcome to human nature – a certain percentage of human beings simply suck. You can cry about it like Nancy Pelosi at a Bibi speech or you can man-up and deal.

The only viable strategy is this – complete the seizure of the GOP’s infrastructure, turn it completely conservative, and then go and defeat the liberals. And that’s hard. And that won’t happen overnight. And we’re going to be disappointed – probably a lot. But the alternative is to cede the country to the liberal fascists who want to force us to live in carbon-free huts, steal our sacred Constitutional rights, and peer into our bedrooms lest we commit felony cisnormativism. (The assumption that a normal person’s gender identity is the same as their sex assigned at birth)

I’m not willing to let that happen. What about you?

Understand that if you quit now because your widdle feewings got hurt cuz you didn’t win a particular fight means you have quit on America. Suck it up and drive on – I don’t care if you’re sad, mad or frustrated. Your feelings mean nothing. Fight.

I didn’t title my book Conservative Insurgency: The Struggle to Take America Back 2009 – 2041 because I thought we would have this all wrapped up last November.

I’m a military guy, so I deal with the facts as they are, whether I like them or not. And here are the facts:

1. We conservatives have made huge, undeniable strides since 2010. There are more conservatives at every level of government except the presidency than there have been in a century. That’s tangible progress we can’t just fritter away.

2. At this moment, the GOP controls Congress, not conservatives. But the GOP is more conservative than it was, and every election it gets more so. We have fired many RINOs. We will fired more. No, they aren’t all gone yet, and because they are the Old Guard they, by definition, hold positions of seniority. But the next stop for people with seniority is the pasture – they are going away, slowly but surely. In a decade, McCain, Hatch and a bunch of other pseudo-cons will be just a vaguely troubling memory – and the generation coming up behind them is decidedly unsquishy.

3. There isn’t going to be a third party. The GOP has an infrastructure that is powerful, that is effective, and that we need to take over to use to promote conservatism. We can’t build a third party from scratch without giving the liberals the country for a couple decades, at the end of which our third party is likely to be outlawed anyway.

4. We are outworking, outthinking and outbreeding our withered, hateful, failed opponents. They are defending the status quo, and who is happy with that? The trends go our way. Look at the loser they are wheeling out in 2016 – an elderly, hypocritical cryptolibfascist email-shredder reeking of corruption and decay, whose satyr of a husband will undermine her by nailing every tramp he can get his gnarled paws on from now until election day. Bring her on. Oh yeah, we’re ready for Hillary.

5. In 2016, we are likely to nominate a conservative. Establishment darling Jeb Bush’s innovative strategy of alienating the people who actually vote in the GOP primaries is failing. He’s a loser. The only people excited about his candidacy are squishes who can write million dollar checks, Democrats and their mainstream media catamites, and Jeb Bush himself.

Victory is in sight, yet the pouters have to come out every time we don’t slam dunk a win and start their defeatist muttering.

“Oh, I’m sick of being fooled by the GOP!” Well, if the GOP fooled you, then you’re a sucker and an idiot. What would possess you to trust people who are not as conservative as you to be as conservative as you? We’re using them because at this moment we need them. We can often compel them through fear of our votes to hold their nose and vote our way, but ultimately we need to replace them and that takes time and effort. Until then, we need to deal with GOP noodle-spines with our eyes open and with a whip and a chair in hand.

“I’m never voting Republican again!” You tool. You just promised to actively support the destruction of our country and Constitution. That’ll show ‘em! You know, after liberals hear that kind of loser talk they want to cuddle and have a cigarette.

“The Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same!” Don’t be stupid. Obama is on defense because we took the Congress. Yeah, he’s pushing the envelope of the Constitution, but at the margins. His hopes for new grand fiascos? Gone. Sure, President Failure can make an executive order here and there, but cutting funding for, say, the FCC or the IRS to stop noxious executive actions doesn’t have the horrendous optics of defunding the Department of Homeland Security. By the way, if Team Boehner and McConnell are so tactically inept that they thought it was going to work to threaten to defund the entire DHS, why would we imagine they are tactically savvy enough to beat us over the long run?

I don’t want to hear about how hard this fight is. I don’t want to hear how sad you are. I want to hear how you went out and replaced that time-serving hack on your local GOP central committee.

Stop whining. Our country is at stake. This is going to be hard. Too bad. Now ruck up and move out. (Kurt Schlichter)

He’s right, you know.

Alinsky’s Rule 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.

Here that Prince John? 🙂

King Obama??

Prince Harry?

Queen Hillary??

🙂

 

The Rubber Stamp

How do you think Republicans would have done in the 2014 elections if they had told the truth about what they intended to do when they took over the Senate? What if they had campaigned on working hand-in-hand with Obama to enact his illegal alien amnesty while supporting his budget priorities, confirming a new Attorney General who thinks everything Obama is doing is fine and promised they would do nothing while he illegally bans ammo, cripples the Internet, and lets the EPA run wild? Republicans are even gearing up to SAVE OBAMACARE if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies.

But they are just doing what Democrats do, Tell a Lie often enough and people will believe you. 🙂

Conservatives complain endlessly, with good reason, that Barack Obama is acting like a dictator. What’s left unsaid is that he’s only able to do it because Republicans in the House and Senate are standing by impotently and allowing him to do whatever he wants. Despite winning two huge victories in 2010 and 2014 by promising to fight against Obama, the GOP has shown nothing but rank cowardice in every confrontation with him. It’s hard to understand how men like John McCain, who showed such great courage in war, can be so cowardly when they’re asked to stand up for America against the Democrats. What kind of Republicans would rather fight their own supporters and constituents than stand up to Barack Obama?

In fact, we should consider ourselves lucky that Obama hasn’t gone even farther, because who’s going to stop him? The Republican Leadership in the House and Senate?

Please.

Why would Prince John wanna do that?

Barack Obama could declare that he is going to tear down the Lincoln Memorial to make room for a giant statue of himself and Republicans would end up funding it because they’re so petrified the media would blame them for the shutdown that would ensue if they didn’t go along to get along.

True. Surprised he hasn’t.

John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers are our leaders in the House and Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, John Thune and John Barrasso are our leaders in the Senate. These are the sort of people C.S. Lewis spoke of when he wrote, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

Expecting people without a spine to suddenly go one.

Conservatives all know that our leaders in Congress are yellow; they can’t talk, can’t strategize, can’t tell the truth or do anything else that most of us expect from men worthy to lead. However, the “traitors” part of that quote is apt as well because they just betrayed their constituents, conservatives, and the Republican Party to help Obama implement his illegal, unconstitutional amnesty.

Back in late 2014, conservatives were begging the GOP leadership to pass a short-term continuing resolution so that the GOP would have more leverage after we controlled the House and the Senate. They refused to do it, but conservative complaints about Obama’s amnesty were so loud that the GOP Leadership couldn’t immediately capitulate and were forced to do something. So, they declared that the DHS wouldn’t be funded unless Obama buckled on amnesty and they gave their solemn oaths that they’d fight tooth and nail once the GOP controlled the House and the Senate.

They lied. Just like Obama does. “well he said 22 he couldn’t do it and he did” so we’ll repeat over and over again that we’ll fight it, but we won’t.

The tell tale signs were there. After 2010 when the Tea Party helped the Republican win the biggest change over in 80 years the Democrats acted like it never happened and the new “leadership” almost immediately ostracized the Tea Party Republicans. They used them again 2014 by lying about how “conservative” and “principled” they were going to be even though the last 4 years they hadn’t even come close to that. It was down with “well what else are you going to do, let the Democrats win?” in a very cynical ploy very much out of the Democrats play book.

Then predictably, when Obama refused to give in, the GOP Leadership barely put up a fight before they caved in and gave him exactly what he wanted. Mitch McConnell worked with Harry Reid and John Boehner worked with Nancy Pelosi to fund millions of work permits and tax rebates for illegal aliens. They also effectively signed off on 5 million illegal aliens getting Social Security cards and drivers’ licenses that they could very possibly use to VOTE in our elections! The GOP Leadership called it illegal, they called it unconstitutional, they claimed to oppose it – yet they fought to fund it! If a judge in Texas hadn’t unexpectedly blocked DHS from carrying out the amnesty, something that could end at any time, Obama would be moving full speed ahead with the blessing of the Republican Leadership in Congress.

Don’t just take my word for it on how the GOP leadership sold you out; listen to Ted Cruz.

“Since December, the outcome has been baked in the cake. It was abundantly clear to anyone watching that leadership in both houses intended to capitulate on the fight against amnesty,” Cruz said, adding, “It was a strategy doomed to failure. It’s an old adage in Washington: Never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot.”

And they are prepared to shoot everyone of you out there, for their own survival.

“There was no chance, zero, that Republicans were going to fail to fund the Department of Homeland Security because Republicans care deeply about homeland security,” Cruz continued.

“If we had been serious about this fight, and we should have been, the continuing resolution [under which DHS funding expired in February 2015] should have focused on the EPA, or the IRS or the Department of Labor,” Cruz said. “Now, those are departments which a majority would be prepared to allow funding to temporarily expire in order to use as leverage.”

Conservatives so opposed amnesty that the GOP leadership couldn’t pass it themselves; so this was their attempt to help Barack Obama implement it. It was a dishonorable, rank betrayal of conservatives. All members of the GOP leadership along with every Republican who voted for a clean DHS bill deserve to be publicly horsewhipped for what they did.

Sadly, we can’t get away with horsewhipping public officials any more, no matter how much they may deserve it, but we don’t have to vote for them. We don’t have to fund their campaigns. In fact, we can primary them, we can protest their donor meetings, boo them in public, leak information that hurts them to the press and undermine them at every opportunity. We can demand that our representatives vote against Boehner and McConnell if they want our support. We can do everything we can within the law to make life rough for them.

Then they’ll take the millions in booty they got for betraying us and tell you more lies and you’ll believe them, right? 🙂

There are a lot of Republicans who will vote for anyone with an “R” beside his name, no matter what he does on the theory that he’s better than the Democrat. There is a lot of merit to that thinking and I have argued for it myself on many occasions, but we’ve gotten to the point where Republicans in D.C. are taking advantage of it to such a ridiculous degree that it should no longer apply.

Agreed.

They lie to us, they think we’re stupid, they trash groups who represent us, they hold us in complete contempt and then they mock us by saying, “Ha, where else are they going to go?” That’s bad enough, but we’re now getting to the point where it’s like we’re being asked to vote for Benedict Arnold on the theory that he’s better than voting for the British.

It’s precisely what the Democrats do. It’s straight out of THEIR playbook. It has been said in the past that there is no difference between them, well, now that is absolutely true.

Difficult though it may be to hear, the God’s honest truth is that it’s not enough to get rid of Obama and replace him with a Republican. At a minimum, we need changes in the leadership of the Republican Party in the House and Senate to have any hope of making progress.

You think we’re going to repeal Obamacare with Boehner, McConnell and their cronies in charge? You think we’re going to crack down on illegal immigration and control our borders? You think this nation will be able to stave off bankruptcy with men in command who can’t lead, can’t talk and won’t fight anyone but conservatives?

I don’t.

Prince John and company, the Sith Lords in Training, not a chance. They are already (or will be) Progressives in Elephants suits just to save themselves (or they really aren’t even conservatives to begin with).

I think Barack Obama is on track to fundamentally transform America, not because what he’s doing is right, popular, or successful, but because conservatives aren’t willing to DEMAND that their representatives in Congress stand up, speak out and stop him. The time for playing nice with the GOP’s incompetent, ineffective, disloyal leadership in Congress is at an end. The only way the country has a bright future is if the current Republican Party Leadership in Congress has no future in politics. (John Hawkins)

AMEN!

 

Why it is…

This guy Christopher Cook from Western Free Press nails it. It’s a great summation of what I have said over and over again in this blog for the last 5 years.

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.

My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.

They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.

Or one of my favourites: “you should stop watching Faux News” end of discussion.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.

Anything short of full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is therefore, racist. Anything less than full compliance with Global Warming fearmongering is “denial” and also Racist (according to the EPA Director).

Face it, disagree with a Leftist on basically anything, eventually you’ll be  a racist. Period. End of Discussion. 🙂

When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?

Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: The believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.

To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.

That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Utopianism
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.

Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”

But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?

Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?

Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?

Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]

Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

 

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.

You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

utopia

“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”― Russell Kirk

the Ministry of Truth It is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres into the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” There is also a large part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after they are put down memory holes. (Hard Drives crashing anyone?)

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

154418 600 Obamas Piece Prize   Reposted cartoons

Psych Test

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. –Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014

New York magazine has figured out why conservatives don’t believe climate change is an imminent threat: we have a serious psychological problem.

As a result, environmental activists are working with shrinks to retool their message for the red states:

[S]ocial scientists have shown in laboratory settings that there are ways to discuss climate change that nudge conservatives toward recognizing the issue. Research is proceeding along a few different tracks. One of them involves moral foundations theory, a hot idea in political psychology that basically argues that people holding different political beliefs arrive at those beliefs because they have different moral values (even if there’s plenty of overlap). Liberals tend to be more moved by the idea of innocent people being harmed than conservatives, for example, while conservatives are more likely to react to notions of disgust (some of the conservative rhetoric over immigration reflects this difference).

I assume the “innocent people” in this study don’t include the unborn, though I agree that most conservatives are disgusted by abortion. The article provides zero examples of conservative disgust on the immigration debate. Most of the arguments I’ve seen focus on economics, security, and national sovereignty. But no worries — greenies have discovered other mental defects to exploit:

Another promising route that researchers are exploring involves the concept of “system justification.” Put simply, system justification arises from the deep-seated psychological need for humans to feel like the broad systems they are a part of are working correctly. It doesn’t feel good to know you attend a broken school or inhabit a deeply corrupt country — or that your planet’s entire ecology may be on the brink of collapse.

People tend to deal with major threats to their systems in one of two ways: taking a threat so seriously that they seek out ways to neutralize it, or “finding ways to justify away problems in order to maintain the sense of legitimacy and well-being of the system,” explained Irina Feygina, a social psychologist at New York University. This latter route is system justification.

Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on system justification, but there’s strong evidence they do it more than liberals. “There’s a lot of research that just goes out and asks people what their opinions and preferences are, and pretty consistently — I don’t actually know of any examples to the contrary — people who tend to report being further on the conservative end of the spectrum also report having greater confidence in the system and greater motivation to justify it,” said Feygina.

Researchers found positive responses to phrases such as “being pro-environmental allows us to protect and preserve the American way of life,” and “it is patriotic to conserve the country’s natural resources.” That’s nice as far as it goes, but doesn’t touch the heart of the left/right disconnect.

I know many, many people on the right, but don’t believe that I’ve met any who aren’t conservationists. We have always wanted to “conserve the country’s natural resources” and “protect and preserve the American way of life.” That these psychologists were unaware of this truth reveals they know little about conservative beliefs. Perhaps they’ve bought into the tired liberal caricature of greedy oil tycoons strip-mining national parks as rows of smokestacks belch soot hither and yon.

Unlike many leftists, we pick up after ourselves, try to save fuel, and enjoy the great outdoors. We vote for clean drinking water and don’t want smog-choked cities or garbage-filled lakes. That is a far cry from believing that man-made climate change has doomed our fragile planet to a nightmarish hellscape that will kill us all.

Partisan psychologists have a lot of work to do if they want to move conservatives from “it’s nice to save energy” to “we need a one-world government with 90 percent tax rates or the planet will melt.” (Ricochet)

P.S. Oct 1st marks 18 years without global warming.

“there is still a strong belief system that greenhouse gases control the climate, and so if that is your belief system, then it doesn’t really matter what the evidence shows.”-Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville.

“Proof denies faith, and without faith I am Nothing”– Douglas Adams.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Tough Love

I know a lot of people are giddy at the prospect of Republicans taking the Senate this November, but that’s becoming less and less likely. It’s not because Democrats are rallying around a particular mission or set of candidates; it’s because Republicans and conservatives aren’t.

Thanks, Jar Jar! (Boehner)

It seems like I’m always writing on issues no one wants to hear are mistakes, such as messaging or social issues. But I don’t care. These things have to be said. If these columns are received like a gaseous cousin on a long car trip through the desert, so be it. Crack a window…

If things continue on their current course, the GOP will not retake the Senate. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.

Or is a 24/7 News Outlet with too many “analysts”.

There are many reasons for this: tough primary fights, the “establishment vs. Tea Party” meme, stubbornness, arrogance, ignorance, ego. You name it, a segment of the center-right coalition suffers from it.

Too many people and groups on the right are content to take their ball and go home because their candidate lost a primary and/or the nominee doesn’t pay enough attention to whatever pet issue they care about most. They may vote, but their email lists sit idle and their wallets remain closed.

GET OVER YOURSELVES!

Have the Republicans gotten addicted to losing?

As upset as you may be, this election is not about any of the candidates you dislike. This election is about the following things, and the following things only – Barack Obama, Harry Reid and the Supreme Court.

I don’t care where someone lives or who their Senate candidate is … if you don’t support the Republican candidate, for whatever reason, with everything you have, you are voting to retain Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.

In spite of what you may have heard, the Senate is very much in play and too close to call. As unpopular as Barack Obama is, that isn’t enough to win. You have to be involved – through donations, volunteering, talking to everyone you know – or else Democrats will win.

I’m not making this up, I’m not trying to scare you; these are real numbers in real races that will make the difference. And they don’t look good.

The next two years can be spent either forcing an unpopular president to veto popular, pro-growth, pro-liberty legislation, acts that will harm his party for years; or spent with an unfettered activist president complaining about a do-nothing Congress while he initiates executive actions to implement a radical agenda and worse – packing the Supreme Court.

Live in Kansas and think Pat Roberts is a squish? Tough! Suck it up and support him.

Live in Kentucky and think Mitch McConnell is awful? Get over it and support him.

Live in Iowa and not a particular fan of Joni Ernst? Grow up and support her come hell or high water.

Live in Colorado and don’t think Cory Gardner is for you? Who cares? Support him or you are supporting Harry Reid.

Live in Arkansas and wish Tom Cotton wasn’t the nominee? So what? He’s the nominee, support him or lose more than that one race.

100% “my guy” or I’m taking my ball and going home. How petulant are you?

It doesn’t matter where you live—Louisiana, Michigan, Alaska, West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, anywhere—if you don’t suck it up, fight and work like your candidate won, you will be handing the Senate back to Harry Reid and the power to President Obama he has always sought – to fundamentally transform America.

It’s not the Senate that’s on the ballot this fall; it’s the Supreme Court.

In the last two years of his presidency, Barack Obama could appoint as many as three new justices to the Supreme Court. Would you like to see retiring justices replaced by young activist progressive nominees rubber-stamped by Harry Reid? Then work!

Yes, a Supreme Court nominee must overcome a filibuster according to Senate rules. But those are current rules and, as Harry Reid demonstrated for all other federal appointees, those rules can be changed at a moment’s notice and by a simple majority to fit whatever he and the president want at any time.

If you stay home, or if you simply vote and that’s it, you might as well be working for Harry Reid and Barack Obama. If the Supreme Court is lost, it will be lost for at least a generation. Then it won’t matter who you elect or who the next president is, the progressive agenda will be locked in as the law of the land for the foreseeable future.

You have a choice this fall: Sit on the bench or work to defeat whoever the Democrat is running for the Senate in your state. One choice is a vote for Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader and more cover for President Obama’s abuses of power. The other will at a minimum apply pressure on the hemorrhaging wound from which our liberty is seeping.

The damage done to this country in recent years won’t be reversed by one election. No ship as big as the United States can be righted immediately. It will take time. But it can’t start being corrected until it stops getting worse. It can stop getting worse this fall if you vote and work to get others to do the same.

If you’re unhappy with your choices this fall, if your candidate didn’t win, you face a simple choice this November: Check your ego, pull your head out from where your hands are and get in the game. Or just quit. Which way are you going to go? (Derek Hunter)

Amen!

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

153983 600 Nice Work If You Can Get It cartoons

The Twinkie Clue Game

Thomas Purcell: As the fictional Senator Smith once said ‘Well, you all think I’m licked. Well I’m not licked.  I’m going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause, even if this room gets filled with lies like these! When the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place, somebody’ll listen to me”

That’s right, the conservatives need to hunker down and look themselves in the mirror and start bringing up candidates that can properly defend the American ideal of a smaller government, free markets and a strong defense. They need to bring that argument to the American people again and again and pound it home, and realize that you’ll never do it with candidates like Mitt Romney; you do it with candidates like Ronald Reagan. The American ideal of conservatism can’t be sold and packaged out of a corporate boardroom with slick ads and jingles; it has to explain in simple terms and by giving Americans reasonable explanations and facts.
It’s not about moving to the right or the left, it’s about truth. It means we need to reach out to minorities and not say ‘you are wrong’, it means you say ‘here’s why we are right’. It’s about fighting the good fight with people who believe in the cause of minimal government, not wealthy industrialists who see to increase profits at the expense of ideology.
The Republican Party needs to change; it needs to find itself and the roots of what they believe in. It needs to get off the mantra of appealing to special interests, from the religious right to the boardroom babies. You won’t find that ideology or those persons in the Rockefeller Republicans, it’s got to come from the Goldwater and Reagan crowd. It comes from unifying the party factions from the Federal Bank Paulites to the pro-marijuana Libertarians to the hawkish maverick McCain’s.
Getting back to the roots of conservatism means it hat to start at the bottom, like the liberals did. You have to run for the school boards and local councils before you run for President. Real societal change comes from these places—you can’t hope to win a Republican Presidency if the man in the street has been taught to hate what he stands for. The liberals did not sell their bill of goods with Obama with one election, it was 25 years in the making.
I will fight as I know how best to—with my heart and mind and conviction, on one simple fact and basic message of conservatism: That government that governs least governs best, and that all power eventually corrupts those that wield it.
I’m not going anywhere; I’m going to get louder. I’m going to fight leftism in the schools, the radio, and the papers. I’ll fight them on the beaches, in the mountains and in the halls of state houses. I’ll fight them with blood, bone and sinew. I’ll fight them until the last breath; the last ounce of strength escapes me, until government silences me by smothering me with the pillow of Obamacare. You want to roll over and just die, be my guest. Not me, I’m not quitting. I refuse to accept that people want to live in a leftist police state; not when I know they merely have been fooled into thinking that government is the fountain of all that is good.
I plan to be the iron bar of conservatism, till death do my part, and only until the rest of this strange and wonderful country starts thinking that way, will things ever change for the better.
Smith had it right-  “And in this world today, full of hatred, a man who knows that one rule has a great trust… you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any others. Yes, you even die for them”
So go ahead and make your deals Mr. Boehner. The left can continue to spread its vile lies that government knows best. 
I’m not going anywhere. Neither is conservatism. Eventually, somebody’ll listen. Hopefully it won’t be too late by then.
But I doubt it.
Why?
Simple. Listen to what Richard “I’m not a Psycho” Trumpka of the AFL-CIO had to say about the liquidation of Hostess Brands on Friday…
“What’s happening with Hostess Brands is a microcosm of what’s wrong with America, as Bain-style Wall Street vultures make themselves rich by making America poor,” Trumka said in a public statement. “Crony capitalism and consistently poor management drove Hostess into the ground, but its workers are paying the price.”

He’s either completely dishonest, disillusion or insanely partisan to the point of Orwellian deceit.
And thats the Left for you.
After all, how many Crony capitalist failures in “green” energy have they had? Or Union Bailouts? and no one cares about them at all??
And that’s the din we have to shout against.
I don’t think the Republicans have the balls for it.

Last week, thousands of Hostess union member employees went on strike because of cut wages and benefits, The Associated Press reported Friday.

Hostess has said the company was unprofitable, in part due to union workers’ demands. (The workers who went on strike were members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.)

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh fired back at Trumka on his radio program Friday.

“[Obama] gets to blame Romney, Bain Capital and the Republicans for the fact that the company’s failed. And at the same time he gets to blame capitalism, crony capitalism. That’s Trumka’s word here. Crony capitalism, Bain-style, Wall Street vultures,” Limbaugh said, according to a show transcript. “See, you and I, we sit here, we hear that, we say nobody is gonna believe that, until we stop and realize that over half the country already thinks it.”

Limbaugh said that Trumka was rehashing the same old attacks that unions and the left have used against Romney, fitting a story line most of the public is already familiar with.

“Trumka didn’t have to even tell his voters, they already know. He was just confirming it for ‘em. Al-Qaeda’s alive, Twinkies are dead,” Limbaugh said.

The kicker?

“But Osama was killed by Obama, and Hostess was killed by the Republicans,” Limbaugh said. (Politico)

So if the Republicans roll over and kiss Liberal ass they will weaken themselves and if they stay strong, EVERYTHING that the left does to destroy this country will be their fault. (and if they weaken themselves EVERYTHING will still be their fault but they’re will evidence to point to just like the Debt Ceiling Cave-in.)
And ONLY the Republicans will be “partisan” and “divisive” and “obstructionist”.
That’s why this election was the end of America.
Simple as that.
It was a Twinkie in Texas with a Ministry of Truth sledgehammer…
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The New American Dream

There was, however, another closely tracked number which perhaps is far more indicative of the economic “growth” in the past 4 years, which certainly had a delayed release. The number of course is that showing how many Americans are on foodstamps, and usually is released at the end of the month, or the first day or two of the next month. This time the USDA delayed its release nine days past the semi-official deadline, far past the election, and until Friday night to report August foodstamp data. One glance at the number reveals why: at 47.1 million, this was not only a new all time record, but the monthly increase of 420,947 from July was the biggest monthly increase in one year. One can see why a reported surge in foodstamps ahead of the elections is something the USDA, and the administration may not have been too keen on disclosing. (zH)

Well, this was to hide the dependency on the Government drug that Obama has created and thus got re-elected by.

That and the Hatred and fear waves.

That is the new “campaign of ideas”. 🙂

Finally, going back to the start of the official start of the depression in December 2007. In the 57 months from then until August 2012, there have been 4.6 million jobs lost even as Americans on foodstamps and disability have risen by 21.2 million.

Comment on the site that illustrates the disease: NO ONE COMPLAINS ABOUT GIVING TRILLIONS TO THE RICH, BUT YOU GIVE JUST ONE MISERABLE DOLLAR TO A POOR PERSON… There were plenty of people around here saying its not a good idea to bailout the IB’s and don’t throw money at Solyndra, Fisker, A123 etal. Those are all run by the rich.

Being rich and successful in American now is a sign of the devil, of pure unfettered evil.

The New American Dream: Don’t work Hard, expect the government to take care of you, and Eat The Rich!

The Founding Fathers would be proud of you.

Thomas Purcell: What went wrong is that the GOP picked a candidate that simply no one could figure out what he stood for at all. The man that worked to develop Romneycare was saying that Obamacare was bad; the guy who was accepting money in his companies for corporate loopholes was saying loopholes should be closed, the guy that wanted to talk about foreign policy at the debate barely touched upon the DNC failures. Everyone who looked at the situation analytically knew Obama was going to win, everyone that was claiming landslide was looking at Romney with rose colored glasses.

In short, people just shrugged their shoulders and for a large part GOP voters simply stayed at home and rubbed their signed pictures of Ron Paul for good luck.
That’s no way to win election fellas, and now the DNC is walking around like they own the place because the minorities came out in droves to support them. They think the majority want to see capitalism fail; when it’s really because the entitlement crowd came out to vote while we failed to inspire our side of the argument.
As the fictional Senator Smith once said ‘Well, you all think I’m licked. Well I’m not licked.  I’m going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause, even if this room gets filled with lies like these! When the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place, somebody’ll listen to me”
That’s right, the conservatives need to hunker down and look themselves in the mirror and start bringing up candidates that can properly defend the American ideal of a smaller government, free markets and a strong defense. They need to bring that argument to the American people again and again and pound it home, and realize that you’ll never do it with candidates like Mitt Romney; you do it with candidates like Ronald Reagan. The American ideal of conservatism can’t be sold and packaged out of a corporate boardroom with slick ads and jingles; it has to explain in simple terms and by giving Americans reasonable explanations and facts.
It’s not about moving to the right or the left, it’s about truth. It means we need to reach out to minorities and not say ‘you are wrong’, it means you say ‘here’s why we are right’. It’s about fighting the good fight with people who believe in the cause of minimal government, not wealthy industrialists who see to increase profits at the expense of ideology.
The Republican Party needs to change; it needs to find itself and the roots of what they believe in. It needs to get off the mantra of appealing to special interests, from the religious right to the boardroom babies. You won’t find that ideology or those persons in the Rockefeller Republicans, it’s got to come from the Goldwater and Reagan crowd. It comes from unifying the party factions from the Federal Bank Paulites to the pro-marijuana Libertarians to the hawkish maverick McCain’s.
Getting back to the roots of conservatism means it hat to start at the bottom, like the liberals did. You have to run for the school boards and local councils before you run for President. Real societal change comes from these places—you can’t hope to win a Republican Presidency if the man in the street has been taught to hate what he stands for. The liberals did not sell their bill of goods with Obama with one election, it was 25 years in the making.
As for me I like lost causes. My hero in Casablanca isn’t Rick, its Victor Lazlo, a man who always does the right thing regardless of circumstance or ideology or consequence. I’m not going to go away, I’m going to get louder, and I’m going to fight harder, even if that eventually means I go to camp for re-indoctrination or put on a train to labor camp. 
I will fight as I know how best to—with my heart and mind and conviction, on one simple fact and basic message of conservatism: That government that governs least governs best, and that all power eventually corrupts those that wield it.
I’m not going anywhere; I’m going to get louder. I’m going to fight leftism in the schools, the radio, and the papers. I’ll fight them on the beaches, in the mountains and in the halls of state houses. I’ll fight them with blood, bone and sinew. I’ll fight them until the last breath; the last ounce of strength escapes me, until government silences me by smothering me with the pillow of Obamacare. You want to roll over and just die, be my guest. Not me, I’m not quitting. I refuse to accept that people want to live in a leftist police state; not when I know they merely have been fooled into thinking that government is the fountain of all that is good.
I plan to be the iron bar of conservatism, till death do my part, and only until the rest of this strange and wonderful country starts thinking that way, will things ever change for the better.
Smith had it right-  “And in this world today, full of hatred, a man who knows that one rule has a great trust… you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any others. Yes, you even die for them”
So go ahead and make your deals Mr. Boehner. The left can continue to spread its vile lies that government knows best. 
I’m not going anywhere. Neither is conservatism. Eventually, somebody’ll listen. Hopefully it won’t be too late by then.
AMEN!
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson