► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

A rational Foreign Policy

by Rodan ( 111 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, George W. Bush, Marxism, Progressives, Republican Party at July 30th, 2014 - 9:05 am

There was a time when this nation had a rational foreign policy. During the Reagan era the Peace through strength doctrinaire kept America out of war, while defending its interest against Soviet aggression. The result was the collapse of the Soviet Union without a major war. Since then our foreign policy has become deranged.

Starting with the Clinton Administration, the US foreign policy became oriented in the service of Islamic interest. The US/NATO bombed Christian Serb forces in Bosnia to prevent the defeat of Bosnian Muslims and their al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps allies. In 1999 the US/NATO bombed the Serbs again to created an Albanian Muslim Narco-terror state of Kossovo. We did nothing about the slaughter of 2 Million Sudanese Christians and forced Israel to give Southern Lebanon over to Hezbollah. All this, while the very same Islamists we supported were attacking us. The culmination of these attacks was 9/11.

When 9/11 happened, instead of identifying Islamists as our enemy, President Bush praised it as a religion of peace and through the diversity visa program, gave Islamic nations immigrant preferences. We overthrow the Taliban, but replaced it with a Narco-Islamic state that is flooding the world with heroin. In Iraq we decided to overthrow Saddam and yes there was justification for that, but we immediately began building schools and roads, while our soldiers were getting shot. Even worse, we installed a Pro-Iranian Shiite Islamic regime which was ethnically cleansing Christians before the rise of ISIS. The obsession with Islamic democracy and nation building was a geostartegic disaster.

Under the Obama Regime, the foreign policy of this nation became even more deranged. The US/NATO attacked Qaddafi, who after giving up his WMD’s was an ally against Islamists. The result is that the ISIS franchise Ansar al-Sharia now controls the Western 1/3 of Libya and other Islamist Militias are causing havoc. Supporting the Pro-Iranian puppet regime of Malaki resulted in a  Sunni backlash to the rise of ISIS. The same insanity applies with the Obama Regime’s support of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. We  now treat one of our closet allies Israel as the unwanted step child to appease Islamists and the International left.

In the Ukraine which has been part of Russia’s sphere since the 1600′s, the Obama Regime with the backing of elements of the Republican Party supported the European Union’s alliance with Ukrainian Neo-Nazis to overthrow the legally elected governmnet to seize that nation’s resources and confiscate people’s wealth under the guise of the IMF. The result is Russia pushing back by taking Crimea and supporting Rightwing wing Russian militias in the Eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, we turned our backs on Christian Conservative and Libertarian anti-Regime protests in Venezuela. The very same Republicans who were pounding their chests like baboons over a confrontation with Russia to help out Euro-Socialists and Neo-Nazis, did nothing to assist their ideological brethren in that South American nation. Standing by the Venezuelan people would have been good PR for Republicans and put Obama in a predicament for going on the record in backing a Marxist dictatorship

Our foreign policy has vacillated between appeasement and nation building. We no longer define what our interest are and pick the wrong causes to get involved in,. What is needed is a return to our traditional foreign policy that rejects nation building and appeasement.

Today there is a torrent of redundant evidence for the Macmillan axiom. When British prime minister Harold Macmillan was asked what caused him the most trouble, he supposedly replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” He certainly used the phrase “the opposition of events.” Events, from Ukraine to Syria to Gaza, are forcing something Americans prefer not to think about, foreign policy, into their political calculations.

Having recoiled from the scandal of the Iraq War, which was begun on the basis of bad intelligence and conducted unintelligently, Americans concluded that their nation no longer has much power, defined as the ability to achieve intended effects. The correct conclusion is that America should intend more achievable effects. 

Obama has given Americans a foreign policy congruent with their post-recoil preferences: America as spectator. Now, however, their sense of national diminishment, and of an increasingly ominous world, may be making them receptive to a middle course between a foreign policy of flaccidity (Obama) and grandiosity (his predecessor).

If so, a Republican presidential aspirant should articulate what George Washington University’s Henry R. Nau calls, in a book with this title, “conservative  internationalism.” This would, he says, include:

the liberal internationalist goal of spreading freedom, but doing so “primarily on the borders of existing freedom, not everywhere in the world at once”;

the realists’ use of “armed diplomacy” against adversaries outside of negotiations; and

the “conservative vision of limited global governance, a decentralized world of democratic civil societies” rather than “one of centralized international institutions as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt advocated.”


In eleven ruinous years, beginning with the invasion of Iraq, Republicans have forfeited their foreign-policy advantage and Obama has revived suspicions that Democrats are uncomfortable with American power. There is running room for a conservative internationalist. 

The appeasement of the Obama Regime has resulted in failure and help create the chaos we see in the world. However, the calls from some in the Republican Party for more nation building and permanent war is not the answer either. The GOP needs to ditch the Jacobin concept of endless wars and realize that America can’t save everybody. We need to define our sphere of influence, make sure the governments in that sphere are friendly and base our interest on economic needs. A combination of realism and humility but based on strength is the foreign policy that the Republican Party should embrace.



Being ‘hip’ is everything to Progressives

by Rodan ( 216 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Entertainment, Hipsters, Progressives at July 28th, 2014 - 11:00 am

Recently on the show True Blood, there was an episode based on fundraiser for Ted Cruz. Republicans were portrayed in bad light and became objects of ridicule. This is one of the Progressive movement’s most potent weapons, the use of the popular culture to deride their political opponents and define what is cool.

If you took great offense of the recent episode of HBO’s True Blood in which two vampires crashed a Ted Cruz fundraiser — at the Bush Library no less — and said some bad words about Republicans, I have some advice: Lighten up.

The other week I wrote about how the standard conservative critique of the popular culture is just a bit too tightly wound. This minor kerfuffle strikes me as a good illustration of my point.


And that I think is the source of the real problem here. By any objective or commonsense measure, the uptight Republicans slaughtered at the Ted Cruz fundraiser are happier and more productive members of society than virtually every other character in the show. From the sympathetic white-trash werewolves to the corrupt human rabble-rousers, from the vampire aristocrats to the endless string of slatternly young women and men who come and go with regularity, the show focuses on creatures who are, variously, decent-but-doomed, evil, stupid, or morally, spiritually, or intellectually lost.

The one thing these people have going for them? They are cool — at least by the glandular, knee-jerk liberal, fashion-forward, standards of the show’s producers and its niche pay-cable audience. In other words, to the extent the show is politically appealing, it is an irrational hot mess (much like the goo vampires turn into when struck with a wooden stake). It’s like it was written for Bill Maher’s studio audience, a group that doesn’t care about real facts or arguments — they just want to hear how they’re awesome and the people they hate aren’t.


Once you start looking for it, it’s amazing how much liberal commentary — particularly about sex and religion — boils down to a kind of sneering self-satisfaction that liberals are hip and conservatives are squares (just think about how much “analysis” of Obama has been rooted in the assumption he’s cool).

Progressives view themselves as cool and hip. This view is perpetuated by their control over the popular culture and mistakes the Right has done in the culture wars. This episode of True Blood is just a microcosm of the advantages the Left has in defining the political narrative.

How, “Never Again,” Is Much Better Than, “#StopFiringRockets,”

by Flyovercountry ( 185 Comments › )
Filed under Gaza, IDF, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Palestinians, Progressives at July 25th, 2014 - 11:00 am

This is one of those instances where I’ll hear someone, or a couple of people, state a Universal truth in such a manner that it makes even better sense to me, and helps me to clarify my perspective. I’ve written before about the sheer idiocy of the, “proportional response,” a term invented by our friends who reside on the left side of the political aisle. This is the concept that says, regardless of the fact that side A initiated the hostilities with an unprovoked act of violence, the response to that attack can only be as heavy, as violent, or as destructive as an arbitrarily agreed upon level, determined by completely biased world observers. So, when Hamas fires 8000 rockets into Israeli residential neighborhoods, the UNHRC has determined that they are allowed to arrest somebody, provided that this somebody, is not an Hamas Leader. Never mind that this is a prescription for eventual suicide by the Israelis, a measure guaranteed to foment their demise, them’s the breaks. On to our video.

There seems to be some confusion in the world over the term, “never again.” Even as a child growing up in the 70′s, one of the few people of Jewish faith to live in West Virginia, I can remember that mantra being recited not only by those of us in the Jewish Community, but by almost all of our Christian neighbors as well. The phrase referred to the Holocaust, an event in history in which a maniacal demagogue attempted and came much too close for comfort in actually succeeding, to completely eradicate from the planet every person of Jewish descent, along with all others he deemed undesirable. 6 Million Jews, and 5 Million assorted others were systematically and efficiently killed by a ruling Socialist government, with no more thought than bureaucratic drones blindly following orders. Almost all of the 11 Million people who perished, did so peaceably, doing what the authorities had told them to do, right up until the bitter end. I have no idea what could possibly have been going through their minds as they followed the program laid out for them, but on some level, there must have been a faith that their fellow man would suddenly rediscover their humanity.

My Brother’s Father in Law is a survivor. The last time he saw his mother, she got into the other line, the one headed for the showers. At his mother’s instructions, he had stood on his toes at the age of 12, so that he would appear tall enough to work. He lost siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and grand parents, all so that he could listen to a growing population of morons claim that the whole thing never happened. What’s most ironic about the whole, “it never happened,” mantra of course, is that it is mostly being spread by people who are attempting to do the very same thing today. In case you did not know, or in case you didn’t pay attention to the video, Hamas is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the same fine group that includes a still vibrant Al Qaeda. It also counts CAIR, MSA, ISNA, and several dozen other supposedly moderate groups here in America as members. The Muslim Brotherhood was initially funded by Adolph Hitler, and as a group, has endorsed the genocide of all Jews on the planet since their inception. That has not changed.

The term, “never again,” simply means that we Jews will not go peaceably next time. If you want to kill all of the Jews, you’ll need to take us on fighting next time. And by the way, there always seems to be a next time. I realize that many in the world at large are somewhat confused by this concept, that Jews are not simply willing to be killed en toto. There are many in the world who view any act of self defense on the part of Israelis specifically or Jews generally, as an abridgement of the rules of politically correct moral equivalence. That is simply hard cheese that such people will have to swallow. They can not, nor should they be, helped. This belief that any people any where should just sit back and accept any attack leveled upon them, and answer it with restraint is nothing short of a sickness of the soul. This sickness threatens the very humanity that leftists claim unites us all and is the natural scientifically designated end of our evolutionary path. It is the people leveling those initial acts of aggression that deserve disdain, and quite frankly, deserve what ever response happens to be sent their way. I personally would shed zero tears should all who live in Gaza suddenly find themselves referred to in the past tense.

The term, “never again,” does not refer to the world sitting around a drum circle singing kumbayah. It does not mean that people are really nice now, nicer and more evolved than they were in the 1930′s and 40′s. So nice in fact, they’d never dream of doing the exact thing that they are doing in Israel today, which is attempting a genocide.

By the way, Israel left Gaza about a decade ago, so now what happens in Gaza, how its economy performs, how its people are fed, how their health care system works, all of it is Gaza’s and Hamas’ own doing. Yet the only thing Gaza and Hamas seem to feel worthy of their effort and resources is firing attacks against it neighbor, a neighbor by the way that boasts the highest per capita GDP in the region. A per capita GDP that dwarfs its closes competitor, and would love nothing more than a viable economic trading partner who would rather see goods and services crossing the border in place of rockets and troops. Hamas however is not interested in such trite details as the well being of her own people. The Muslim God has a blood lust, and to fully awaken this beast, they must finish the final solution their hero started 80 years ago.

Some of you out there may be saying to yourselves, “whew, I’m not Jewish, so I have nothing to worry about.” Unfortunately for you, we’re just where this blood lust starts, you’re where it all ends. The Caliphate can’t happen, the Twelfth Imam can not appear until all of the world’s Jews are dead. The role of the Twelfth Imam of course will be to rid the world of what ever remains that isn’t Muslim, and that doesn’t sound like much fun either.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Hollywood having a bad Summer

by Rodan ( 200 Comments › )
Filed under Movies, Progressives at July 24th, 2014 - 7:00 pm

The Summer block buster season is where Hollywood gets its money for the season. The profits off these films helps funds Hollywood’s leftist propaganda films they feature the rest of the year. These Marxist themes movies tend to bomb at the Box Office, however the revenue gained from the summer films offsets the financial loses from the propaganda films that bomb at the box office.

The profits from this year’s summer are 20% to 30% off from last season. This is making Hollywood nervous since they really need the profits from the summer season to help fund their other movies the rest of the year.

Less than six weeks before Labor Day, hopes for recovery at the North American summer box office have evaporated. The season is expected to finish down 15 to 20 percent compared with 2013, the worst year-over-year decline in three decades, and revenue will struggle to crack $4 billion, which hasn’t happened in eight years. As a result, analysts predict that the full year is facing a deficit of 4 to 5 percent.

Comparisons in North America are tough, considering revenue hit a record $4.75 billion in summer 2013. It didn’t help that Fast & Furious 7 was pushed from July to April 2015 following the death of Paul Walker or that Captain America: The Winter Soldier opened in early April. But even bullish observers are grim. “Moviegoing begets moviegoing, and we have lost our momentum,” says Rentrak’s Paul Dergarabedian. “People aren’t seeing trailers and marketing materials. They still want to go to the movies — they just want to go to really good movies.”


Also contributing to the malaise is a lack of family product (including no Pixar movie), the allure of TV and myriad ways consumers can view entertainment in their homes. (Laments one studio executive, “I wish I worked at Netflix.”)


For the summer to hit $4 billion and finish down only 15 percent, revenue needs to match last year’s through August. That puts pressure on Dwayne Johnson‘s Hercules (July 25), Scarlett Johansson‘s Lucy (July 25), Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy (Aug. 1) and Paramount’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Aug. 8). But it’s a tall order, considering last summer ended with a bang. “I don’t know if we have a major sleeper left this year, other than Guardians,” says Dergarabedian.

The only movies I have seen this summer are Godzilla, Transformers 4 and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I usually wait for films to get on Netflix of Blue Ray to see them. Going to the movies are becoming expensive due to ticket and concession prices.  I have to really be into a movie in order for me to go to the theater. I can imagine other Americans feel as I do.

Another factor is the economy is not a great as the media is proclaiming it is. Yes its good for Wall Street types and government workers but for the average Joe, its stagnant with lack of wage growth. It would help if Hollywood stop with their Marxist anti-American propaganda and started making good movies ahain. There is only so many remakes or sequels Hollywood could make into movies.

Remarkable To Behold, Like Swiss Watches Are Our Socialist Friends

by Flyovercountry ( 97 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Progressives at July 24th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

I caught this one on my news feed yesterday, and I seem to have remembered reading it before. In fact twice before. The first time was in the Spring of 1980, and the second time during the Clinton Presidency. I remember vividly the 1980 story, because Mr. Ruthers, my history teacher at the time graded a report I did based upon that Time Magazine piece. (I was a flaming liberal in those days of life without consequence.) The main crux of the argument went something like this, “the current President we’ve helped to foist upon the American People is obviously still the smartest guy in the room, and while we acknowledge that his Presidency is an abject failure, on every conceivable level, we still maintain that if he can’t do it, nobody can.” In the world of the leftist, it’s never the fault of their failed policies, only that the right people didn’t implement them, or that the citizenry at large failed to appreciate what was being bestowed upon them, and acted too greedily. In the words of the late Senator Hal Heflin, “there’s too much consumin goin on out there.”

Just in case you thought today’s main stream media was above recycling old news stories in order to perpetuate their mythology, ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza.

From the Washington Post article with emphasis being mine:

Being president is the most powerful job in the world. At which you will almost certainly fail.

Why? For lots of reasons up to and including:

* The decline of the bully pulpit as a persuasion mechanism

* The deep partisanship present not only in Congress but also in the electorate more broadly

* The splintering of the mainstream media/the rise of social media.


Take the last 96 hours (or so) of the Obama presidency as illustrative of the broader impossibility of being president.

On Thursday, in the immediate aftermath of the Malaysia Airlines plane being shot down over Ukraine, President Obama delivered a cautious statement mourning the tragedy and promising he would get to the bottom of the situation. Conservatives immediately criticized that statement as insufficiently strong, comparing it unfavorably to how President Reagan handled a similar situation in 1983. (As The Fix’s Philip Bump explains, the Obama critique is not entirely fair.) Seeking to counter that narrative, Obama delivered another statement on Friday — and took questions from the press. He was far more aggressive in his tone about the possibility of Russian involvement. Over the weekend, the story of Secretary of State John Kerry’s on mic but off camera comments before a Fox News Channel interview drove much of the chatter. On Monday, Obama was back on TV with an even more aggressive stance on Russia — “What exactly are they trying to hide?” he asked about Russian separatists reportedly limiting access to the crash site — while also juggling an executive order banning discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation among federal contractors, hosting a town hall aimed at pushing his “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative and trying to cajole Congress into helping him deal with the ongoing crisis of undocumented children at the country’s southern border. Oh, and he also was trying to walk a fine line between defending Israel’s right to defend itself with somewhat critical comments about the number of Palestinian civilian deaths occasioned by the military operation in Gaza. And, double oh, he and his staff will have to continue to fend off Republican criticism of a three day fundraising tour he leaves on tomorrow — a cash-collection trip that GOPers believe looks unseemly amid the various domestic and international crises happening at the moment.

Did you get that? It’s not that Obama’s policies led to these failures, but that these failures just randomly happened. It’s really unfair of you ungrateful brats who make up the American Electorate to expect that a man who campaigned for the job, be held to any type of standard in performing the duties that go along with the gig. Barack Obama promised hopety change as Senator Obama, that he would heal our national divide by being the only transcendent figure in our nation’s history who could get people who agreed on nothing to find ample common ground to solve every perceived and make believe problem that he could think to tell us we had. So, after two years, when our nation via a mid term election, served Barack Obama a restraining order in terms of his infliction of his agenda, he naturally blamed Republican obstructionism for his failure to get a single other piece of legislation passed, including a fiscal budget. In his first point, Cillizza laments the decline of power held by our nation’s chief executive. (Yes, that statement caused a stream of coffee to shoot towards my computer screen upon reading it.) Perhaps Mr. Cillizza should read the Federalist Papers, which would tell him that our nation’s founders never saw the Presidency as the power position that it is today. The entire reason for making the Legislative Branch a bicameral body, and one that had two separate origins for election to it, including differing lengths of tenure, was precisely because it was designed to be the more powerful Branch of government, and those measures would limit that potential. Everything in our Constitution is designed to limit power of the federal government, and more specifically, to prevent power from consolidating itself with one specific person or group. The President is not supposed to have a bully pulpit, and allowing Presidents to have bully pulpits has only ever led to trouble. Putting all of that aside for the moment, in what Universe has the power of Barack Obama’s personal use of the bully pulpit diminished? This is the same man who announced at his last State of the Union Address that if Congress failed to do what he wanted them to do, he would act unilaterally. He has done more damage with his executive action than all previous Presidents combined. The EPA has run amok, Obamacare has granted HHS power to regulate our diets, who gets treated for illnesses, who can own guns, (we haven’t seen this manifest itself yet, but it’s in there,) how we heat our homes, how much light we can use at night, virtually every aspect of our daily living. The CFPB has authority to regulate home prices, determine who gets to live where, fix prices in the Financial Industry, determine who will be allowed to invest, what investment options will be available to what class of citizenry, who will be allowed to loan money, and who will be allowed to borrow. Whether you agree with these laws or not, it’s hardly indicative of diminished executive power.

The social media argument is so vacuous, even typing this sentence is an embarrassment. I’ll just leave you with this, people talking amongst themselves about anything in general, and about politics in particular should never be considered a bad thing in any nation that views itself as free. Barack Obama used social media to his great advantage while campaigning for office, and if that same media is also able to point out his flaws to a greater number of people, that’s just hard cheese for the Bamster.

Someone should tell Mr. Cillizza that the conservative reaction to our President’s tepid statements on the matter of a passenger jet being shot out of the sky, which included by the way more time giving shout outs to supporters and talk show style jokes than actual acknowledgement of a tragic even transpiring, was more about the fact that his feckless foreign policy probably contributed greatly to what is happening in the Ukraine than any other factor. This didn’t just happen. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative and a man with imperialistic aspirations, as in wanting to reassemble the old Soviet Empire, saw plainly and clearly that the United States was not even remotely interested in checking his aggression. When Barack Obama sent that message back to Putin via Dmitry Medvedev, the one that said, just tell Vladimir that I’ll have more flexibility after the election, Putin read a whole lot more into that, and by the way he was correct in his assertions. He saw a weak American President who was more concerned with his electoral prospects than with his role as the protector of the free world, that shield against unchecked aggression, and the last hope of nations not capable of defending themselves against an aggressive and reawakened Soviet neighbor. He saw a vacuous man so devoid of substance, who’s ineptitude was matched only by his arrogance and vanity. There’s a reason why these examples of thuggish tin pot aggression only happen during Democrat Administrations, and that reason is a complete lack of respect for those Democrats we’ve mistakenly chosen to be Presidents. Barack Obama is an unserious man, and the only people who fail to see this are Americans. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin was able to see through it immediately, and he endeavored to make the times far more serious in nature from the moment our man child President joined him on the world stage.

There’s something else I’ve found troubling about this President, and Cillizza manages to mention it as a perk, one of those unfair demands we mere mortals place on this impossible task he’s undertaken for our ungrateful benefit. Every time some piece of bad news hits this Administration, the next day we’ll see a heavily covered news story on almost every network about the President addressing the least important piece of minutia available in our collective subconscious. When the separatists shot down a passenger jet with the support of Vladimir, Barack Obama made a big showing the next day of signing an Executive Order dealing with homosexuals working for federal contractors. As the world burns, our President isn’t playing the violin, he’s arranging, for the umpteenth time, how the chairs in the auditorium are aligned. When the IRS commissioner testified in Congress that Seven Hard drives randomly crashed causing an obstruction to a very pertinent investigation, our President spent the next day in front of a bank of microphones discussing the importance of children’s school lunches, and how important it was for his wife to monitor how well I was feeding my kid. Mr. Cillizza, that’s not juggling the important duties of the Presidency, that’s dodging the responsibilities of the job.

With that out of the way, the crisis on our Southern Border as well, is the direct result of this President’s purposeful incompetence. He wanted to create this crisis in order to cajole Congress into passing his immigration plan. In that regard, he has succeeded. We have the crisis he wanted. He deployed our border patrol agents 40 miles inside our borders so that anyone trying to come here would be able to, and once caught, would face hearings and court proceedings with an appointed defense attorney, rather than being turned away. He gave Central American nations our tax dollars to help them ship their kids here, and advertised for them to do so, telling them what to say once here, so that they would have a greater chance of avoiding deportation. Our President has governed with the philosophy that it is far easier to establish his will when we fear a crisis. So, of course these past six years have been a continual crisis, with America skating from one emergency to the next, each one culminating with the consolidation of increasing amounts of power, all flowing to that diminished bully pulpit Cillizza seems so worried about. This current immigration crisis is no exception to that rule, and I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until the beneficent Bamster picks up his magic pen and once again flouts the Constitutional constraints placed upon his office.

As for, “walking the fine line,” with respect to his treatment of our only true ally in the Middle East, someone please clue Mr. Cillizza into the fact that this is precisely the problem with Barack Obama’s foreign policy, encapsulated to its purest form. Our ally, Israel, has been under attack since they pulled out of Gaza in 2005. Since that time, over 8,000 rockets have been fired into Israeli civilian neighborhoods, and if it were any other nation on Earth, no one would have urged restraint in the response, that any answer be proportional, (which I still maintain is the dumbest concept ever to have been developed by man kind,) Our ally is under attack, and the only possible end to this attack would be to the unconditional surrender of an evil enemy. The only way that that will happen is if they deliver an overwhelming military show of force, breaking their enemy’s infrastructure, killing their soldiers, and destroying their will to commit further acts of violence. It is an enemy by the way that is not interested in peace, coexistence, or allowing any Jews to live ever, on the entire planet. Walking a fine line to borrow the idiotic phrase penned by the author of this article, is exactly the problem, and its one that’s been shared by American Presidents for the entirety of Israel’s existence, (with the exception of course of Richard Nixon. I find it strikingly odd that the one President who showed unwavering support for Israel also had the reputation as being an Anti-Semite.) Doing the right thing may sometimes cause the world to react negatively, especially since moral equivalency has found its way into much of the public discourse, but that does not mean that we should shrink away from that course of action. Part of a President’s job is to make the right decisions, even if it means a loss of international popularity for him personally.

You may recall that after Carter, we had Reagan. Carter was hailed as a genius, the most intelligent man, in terms of sheer IQ to have ever served as our President. Reagan was hailed as an affable oaf, a man so dumb it was a miracle that he could put his pants on all by himself. Yet somehow, after the Time piece about how it was impossible in the modern world to succeed as President, somehow the dim witted Reagan, (sarcasm intended,) did just that, and he made it look easy. No Mr. Cillizza, it’s not impossible to succeed as a President, one only needs to implement policies that divest power from Washington and return the freedom that built this great nation to those very people who make it all work. That’s the difference between Reagan and Carter, or for that matter hopefully, Obama and who ever follows.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Elizabeth Warren supports Corporate Welfare

by Rodan ( 357 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Hipsters, Libertarianism, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tea Parties, The Political Right, Tranzis at July 23rd, 2014 - 10:48 am


The Progressive movement’s darling of the hour; Elizabeth Warren aka Fauxahontas rails about big corporations and the 1%. When push came to shove, she defended the interest of the same entities she denounces. An alliance of Social Conservatives/Tea Party and Libertarian/Fiscal Conservative Republicans are blocking the renewal of the corporate welfare based Export-Import bank. This is nothing but a form of welfare to prop up big corporations, many of whom outsource jobs overseas. When invited to join opposition to this from welfare, Elizabeth Warren defended the EX-IM bank.

It was a really nice try.

Heritage Action (the activist arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation) invited Senator Elizabeth Warren to speak at an event dedicated to phasing out the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im, as it’s known inside the Beltway, has become a favorite target of populist forces on right.

The Ex-Im gives U.S. taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to the foreign customers of giant U.S. corporations that don’t need the help. It socializes the risk while privatizing the profits. Basically, it’s free money for big businesses like GE, Caterpillar, and particularly Boeing (hence the outfit’s nickname, “the Bank of Boeing”). Even Barack Obama, shortly before he became president, derided Ex-Im as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”


As first reported by Bloomberg News, Heritage sent Warren a letter asking her to speak against Ex-Im “and the political favoritism it engenders.”

“We, like you, are frustrated with a political economy that benefits well-connected elites at the expense of all Americans,” Michael Needham, the head of Heritage Action, wrote. “Your presence will send a clear signal that you are going to fight the most pressing example of corporate welfare and cronyism pending before Congress right now.”

Warren didn’t take the bait. Her spokeswoman told Bloomberg, “Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank’s operations.”


I’m not so sure there’s a contradiction here. Rather, I think we’re seeing why there will never really be a bipartisan Left–Right alliance against crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

The Right’s “libertarian populism” wants to separate big business and big government. That means no more “too big to fail” and no more of government picking winners and losers.

The Left’s anti-big-business populism is very different. It doesn’t want to cut the government’s incestuous relationship with big business; it simply wants to bring business to heel. Big business should do what Washington tells it to do, and when it does, it will get treats. When it doesn’t, it will get the newspaper to the nose. But big business will never be let off its leash, if the Left has its way.

The Progressive rhetoric against big corporations, is just all talk. In reality the Progressives are tied to the hip with big companies like Goldman Sachs and GE. In a heavily regulated economic structure, politically connected big corporations thrive, while medium and small firms die. This is the reason why Silicon valley, Wall and Corporate CEO’s support the Democrat Party. They ensure the government prevents competitors from rising, thus hindering the free market and destroying economic mobility.

Elizabeth Warren’s support fior the corrupt and Fascist like Export-Import bank shows that Democrats despite their rhetoric love big businesses. Fauxahontas is fraud and hypocrite like all Progressives. They just want to control those corporations to do their buidding.

If the Republicans would stop obsessing with Gays in comic books or other useless cultural crusades, they might actually be able to hit the Democrats on their Achilles heel of being the party of the well connected. Americans are hurting economically as take home pay is less than it was 14 years and many people have lost hope for the future. I will not hold my breath expecting The GOP to embrace a Libertarian-Populist ideology, hammer the Progressives on their Fascist ideology and promote a POSITIVE future oriented agenda to benefit all Americans.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren is laughing all the way to the bank!

On another note, I really recommend reading Pat Buchanan’s new book: “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create a New Majority.” It shows how the Republicans after their 64 debacle were politically resurrected by Nixon. Richard Nixon for all his faults, helped the GOP adapt to the electorate that existed and forged a coalition that would go 5-1 from 1968 to 1988. This is a lesson the GOP of today can learn if they were a serious entity.

The IRS Has Openly Flipped Us The Bird America. What Should We Do Now?

by Flyovercountry ( 180 Comments › )
Filed under Corruption, Democratic Party at July 22nd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

I was all set to do something on Fauxcahontas’ Eleven Commandments for America’s future today, and then I saw this one. So now it seems as though 19 IRS computers magically crashed, obscuring incriminating emails and other proofs of nefarious communication betwixt Lois Lerner, and basically everyone she communicated with.

From the Daily Caller article linked to above:

IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel Thomas Kane said in transcribed congressional testimony that more IRS officials experienced computer crashes, bringing the total number of crash victims to “less than 20,” and also said that the agency does not know if the lost emails are still backed up somewhere.

The new round of computer crash victims includes David Fish, who routinely corresponded with Lois Lerner, as well as Lerner subordinate Andy Megosh, Lerner’s technical adviser Justin Lowe, and Cincinnati-based agent Kimberly Kitchens.

For those of you keeping score at home, this now raises the odds against to an astounding 1 in 10^57. We’re talking about a number so large, it actually eclipses the number of stars in the known Universe, all of it. Yet, equally as astounding, this has received no credible coverage on the alphabet media circuit. Thank goodness for outlets like the Daily Caller to actually report on this stuff.

Let me add something here. With a failure rate of 3.5% per year, per computer, the odds of any specific drive failing during a specific week, are 1 in 1000. The analysis of the odds used are the result of a simple calculation based on the manufacturer’s published parameters. For each computer added, the exponent increases by one. So, when the second specific computer needed went down at the precise moment it was needed, the odds of those two melting down in the manner described by Congressional testimony became 1 in 1000 squared. That’s how we get to where we are, with 19 computers, that’s 1000 raised to the Nineteenth power, enjoy!

I’m positive that on tonight’s or tomorrow’s episode of, “The Five,” either Bob Beckel or Juan Williams will repeat that tired old mantra, “there’s no evidence of any wrongdoing here, computers crash and that doesn’t mean they’re hiding anything.” Talk about a statement that makes me want to literally jump through my television and choke somebody. What more do any of us need.

To put the number 1 followed by 57 zeros in perspective, I’m going to propose the following thought experiment. Let’s pretend, just for the moment, that you have a super dexterous tongue. Your tongue, and jawbone for that matter are capable of counting digits at the same rate that subatomic particles vibrate, which would be 10^20 digits per second. putting aside for the moment the happiness extended to your spouse or significant other, let us further pretend that you’ve been counting since the proverbial big bang, some 20 Billion years ago. No breaks or vacations, no meals, and no sleeping, only counting has filled your time. You still, as of today would not have reached a number as large as 10^57. In fact, you would need to replicate your effort to date another 317 Quintillion times in order to reach your target. (If you wish to see this expressed in exponential form, it is 3.17 x 10^20.) Those are the odds that the IRS has claimed happened in a completely random manner.

At some point in time, we as a people must call Bullshit. Our Internal Revenue Service has told us in very clear language that we are their subjects, and they are not accountable to the laws inflicted on we mere mortals. If ever there were a group of people worthy of torch and pitch fork, these guys are it.

Actual testimony of an IRS Official

Anger no longer covers this, but please liberals, continue to tell me how George W. Bush was an imperial President, just be sure to defend that sentiment within this context, I need a good laugh.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

30+ Reasons (aka Why Ignorance Is Dangererous)

by Bunk X ( 142 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Bigotry, Christianity, Free Speech, Islam, Judaism, Politics, Progressives, Religion at July 16th, 2014 - 6:00 pm

Christian Privilege 1

1st Amendment of U.S. Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I was forwarded a link to a “feminist website” that crossposted the writing and artistry of a Mr. Samuel Killermann, a self-described “activist comedian.” He has no mention on Wiki that I can find, but he’s apparently popular in some circles and seems to have a focus on promoting alternative sexual life styles (read LGBTQIA+WTF) while making sure his audience knows that he is a straight heterosexual. He must be important, as he spoke in front of a TED audience once.

I’ve never heard of Killermann until recently. Many of you have never heard of me either, but when someone uses the phrase “gender changes over time,” and claims to mean it,  I tend to morph into bigass eyeball-rolling mode. That’s bizarro Charlie Manson stuff.

In 2012, Mr. Killermann  posted an article entitled “30+ Examples of Christian Privilege” that includes a cartoon of his own creation insinuating that Christians in the United States prevent Hindus, Jews and Muslims from entering this country, and followed with a list of his own “examples” based upon the same premise.

Here’s the original source:


Normally I ignore this kind of vapid tripe, but because it was sent to me by someone I know and care very much about, I thought I’d share it. Mr. Killerman’s words are in italics, my responses are not


Following is a list of privileges granted to people in the U.S. (and many western nations) for being Christian.

Sam Killerman

If you identify as Christian, there’s a good chance you’ve never thought about these things.

In response to the ever-increasing “War on Christianity” headlines, I thought it prudent to create this list.  Try and be more cognizant of these items and you’ll start to realize how much work we have to do to make the United States a place that is truly safe and accessible for folks of all belief systems.


If you’re a Christian in the US, these are a bunch of unearned benefits you get that members of other faiths (or non-religious people) do not. It’s not about shame. It’s about understanding.

  1. You can expect to have time off work to celebrate religious holidays.

Jewish, Muslim and others all have Christian holidays off. Jews are allowed additional religious holidays, as are Muslims. Implying otherwise is a lie.

  1. Music and television programs pertaining to your religion’s holidays are readily accessible.

And vice-versa – there are religious media for all major religions. Moot poin

  1. It is easy to find stores that carry items that enable you to practice your faith and celebrate religious holidays.

This is a disingenuous argument. If there are no local stores to offer items for Zoroastrianism, it means that there is too small a market for Zoroastrian items to support a store in that locale. Order them from Amazon instead.

  1. You aren’t pressured to celebrate holidays from another faith that may conflict with your religious values.

Strawman argument. Nobody is pressuring Zoroastrians to celebrate Wiccan holidays. If the majority of observed religious holidays happen to be Christian holidays in a region with a large population of Christian, is that a surprise to anyone?

  1. Holidays celebrating your faith are so widely supported you can often forget they are limited to your faith (e.g. wish someone a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter” without considering their faith).

Holiday greetings are nothing more than cordial holiday greetings. If someone is offended by a greeting of “Happy Hanukkah” or “Merry Christmas” or “Ramadan Regale” that’s their bigotry problem, not mine.

  1. You can worship freely, without fear of violence or threats.

Another strawman. Synagogues, temples, churches and mosques have all been sites of attacks in the US. This is not unique to non-Christian places of worship.

  1. A bumper sticker supporting your religion won’t likely lead to your car being vandalized.

Again, a vehicle sporting a bumper sticker in support of Christianity is not exempt from vandalism.

  1. You can practice your religious customs without being questioned, mocked, or inhibited.

No person, religion, government official, etc., is exempt from questioning or mockery in the U.S. It’s protected speech and freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which also makes religious inhibition illegal.

  1. If you are being tried in court, you can assume that the jury of “your peers” will share your faith and not hold that against you in weighing decisions.

Another strawman. “A jury of your peers” doesn’t mean a group of people who belong to your religion, creed, sect, splinter group, or clan. A jury on a trial involving a female gangbanger facing criminal charges is not a panel of other female gangbangers.

  1. When swearing an oath, you will place your hand on a religious scripture pertaining to your faith.

It’s an antiquated formality that is superseded by the laws against perjury. It’s required by all those who testify as a symbolic gesture that one swears to tell the truth. It’s got about as much legal power as swearing on a deck of cards, until the perjury statutes start cooking.

  1. Positive references to your faith are seen dozens of times a day by everyone, regardless of their faith.

Strawman. Dozens of times a day? It’s easy to find negative references as well, and that applies to any and all religions.

  1. Politicians responsible for your governance are probably members of your faith.

This is a matter of demographics. In a region with a large Jewish population, there are more Jewish men and women in governance.  Ditto other religions.

  1. Politicians can make decisions citing your faith without being labeled as heretics or extremists.

Again, the 1st Amendment allows citations, but with the exception of rule of law.

Christians of all sects are labeled as extremists on a regular basis in the main stream media. Look at the attacks on Mitt Romney for being a Mormon; JFK for being Catholic.  Same thing is going on with Dr. Benjamin Carson. Barack Obama’s beliefs are hidden, until you hear the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for at least 20 years.

  1. It is easy for you to find your faith accurately depicted in television, movies, books, and other media.

Strawman. It is also easy to find disparaging depictions in all media.

  1. You can reasonably assume that anyone you encounter will have a decent understanding of your beliefs.

Disingenuous argument. It assumes that any group of people in any locale is homogenous in religious belief and should understand Zoroastrian doctrine and other religions.  It’s an impossibility given the thousands of religions and sects.

  1. You will not be penalized (socially or otherwise) for not knowing other people’s religious customs.

No idea what to make of this one.  It’s unreasonable to demand that all people know what arbitrary custom is offensive to another.  If I use my left hand to scratch my right forearm and someone interprets that as an insult in someone’s ethnic book of offenses, that’s not my problem.

  1. Your faith is accepted/supported at your workplace.

Accepted and supported are two different things. Current laws require religious acceptance, but there is no law requiring an employer to support one’s religion, and as long as one is not proselytizing in the workplace, the problem doesn’t exist.

  1. You can go into any career you want without it being associated with or explained by your faith.

Again, no idea what the point is as no examples are given. Sounds like bigoted stereotypes, nothing more, and I won’t guess what the author means.

  1. You can travel to any part of the country and know your religion will be accepted, safe, and you will have access to religious spaces to practice your faith.

Too vague. If you’re a Zoroastrian and you wander into the Mojave, you’re not going to find many religious spaces.

  1. Your faith can be an aspect of your identity without being a defining aspect (e.g., people won’t think of you as their “Christian” friend)

Divisive strawman argument that’s too absurd to deserve a response. “Some of my best friends…”

  1. You can be polite, gentle, or peaceful, and not be considered an “exception” to those practicing your faith.

“Polite,” “gentle” and “peaceful” are not exclusive to the tenets of any religion with the exception of some extremist factions who don’t want to be “polite,” “gentle” and “peaceful.”

  1. Fundraising to support congregations of your faith will not be investigated as potentially threatening or terrorist behavior.

This one is politically loaded, and it not-so-subtly refers to radical Islam. Since radical Islam is a genuine threat to this country and others by its own admission, and that it is rooted in the archaic belief that infidels who don’t accept the rule of shari’a law (i.e. Christians, Jews, and Western Civilization in general) should be put to death by the Sword of Allah, investigating such radical sects and mosques that promote the same is not only warranted, it is necessary.

  1. Construction of spaces of worship will not likely be halted due to your faith.

Strawman, unless the writer is referring to the Victory Mosque that was proposed within a few blocks of the horrific attack on in NY 911 perpetrated by radical islam.

  1. You are never asked to speak on behalf of all the members of your faith.

Vague. The writer cites no examples. No group of people is homogeneous.

  1. You can go anywhere and assume you will be surrounded by members of your faith.

Strawman. No one can assume that, no matter what faith.

  1. Without special effort, your children will have a multitude of teachers who share your faith.

False argument. The term “special effort” is not defined. Secular schools exist for all faiths, and “special effort” is required to find and enroll one’s children in religious schools. It may involve relocating, or starting a new school, but there are no legal prohibitions.

  1. Without special effort, your children will have a multitude of friends who share your faith.

False argument. The term “special effort” is not defined, and it depends upon demographics.

  1. It is easily accessible for you or your children to be educated from kindergarten through post-grad at institutions of your faith.

False argument. The key word is “easily,” and private secular schools are not inexpensive, but that’s a private choice. Wiccan schools and universities are very rare, but home-schooling is a viable alternative for some.

  1. Disclosing your faith to an adoption agency will not likely prevent you from being able to adopt children.

Vague argument without citation or example.

  1. In the event of a divorce, the judge won’t immediately grant custody of your children to your ex because of your faith.

Vague argument without citation or example.

  1. Your faith is taught or offered as a course at most public institutions.

False argument. Any institution of higher learning that offers courses in the history of civilization, must examine the positive and negative influences of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and other major religions by default. Whether or not the classes present the history accurately is a different discussion.

  1. You can complain about your religion being under attack without it being perceived as an attack on another religion.

Vague. No idea what that one means.

  1. You can dismiss the idea that identifying with your faith bears certain privileges.

I dismiss the idea, because the author of this list has not made a single point that supports his opinion. He posts vague accusations without backup, is obviously unknowledgeable about mainstream world religions, their tenets and history, and doesn’t understand The First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Samuel Killermann is a self-described “comedian activist ” who’s written posts entitled:

30+ Examples Of Male Privilege

30+ Examples Of Heterosexual Privilege

30+ Examples Of Middle To Upper Class Privilege

And that means he’s an idiot who’s smarter than the rest of us who don’t buy into the class envy doctrine promoted by the ultra left. Got it.

I suggest that Samuel Killermann should have a private conjugal relationship with himself and not tell us about it.

Conservative Democrat Sighted In Alaska!

by Flyovercountry ( 451 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2014, Progressives at July 16th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Cryptozoologists the world over have been seen dancing in the streets the last few nights. With the rumored sighting of the mythical creature known as a Conservative Democrat in the state of Alaska, this group of tin foil hatted survivalists and pseudo scientists are now claiming that other mythical creatures can be proven to exist by the often used rule of nonsensical extension. “That’s all the proof we need to state that Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Chupacabra are all real,” insisted Dick Dire, a self proclaimed professor of cryptozoology from the pretend University of Transylvania, located in upstate Washington.

Here’s the sighting from earlier this week that kicked off the jubilation.

Senate Democrat’s reelection pitch to Alaskans: I’m a thorn in Obama’s side

BARROW, Alaska — When Sen. Mark Begich talks about his role in American politics, he describes himself as a sharp object, sent to Washington to jab at President Obama.

“I’ll be a thorn in his [posterior],” Begich (D-Alaska) said in an interview. “There’s times when I’m a total thorn, you know, and he doesn’t appreciate it.”

That metaphor is at the heart of Begich’s political self-image — and, now, his reelection campaign. Begich is running in an age of congressional weakness. Earmarks are dead. The Hill is gridlocked. So Begich has little hope of doing what Alaska always expects its politicians to do: bring home boatloads of money through legislation.

Instead, Begich is running on his power to nag.

Begich tells voters that, as a Democrat holding a Senate seat in a red state, he is a man the president has to listen to. And he says he uses that access to badger the administration for things that benefit Alaska, such as more permits for oil and gas drilling.

emphasis mine.

Interesting that Begich notes that the President has to listen to Senators from his own party situated in red states when it comes to granting permits for new oil exploration, seeing as that as of today, there has not been a single instance of such a permit being granted, for the entirety of either Begich’s nor Obama’s term in office. Even with that however, exactly what has Mark Begich done in six years that might even remotely be considered to have annoyed the President in the slightest manner, let alone rise to the level of thorn in his side?

Pryor voted for Dodd/Frank, Obamacare, Cap and Trade, every Obama Judicial Nominee, has not said one word to oppose the beyond amok expansion of the EPA, said nary a peep when Barack announced that he has a pen and phone, and those two tools alone will allow him to ignore the Constitutional constraints of his office. I’m not sure if there’s a single instance of Mark Begich bucking his President and voting in any manner against the man or his agenda. On the IRS targeting scandal, silence from Begich, as with Fast and Furious. We’ve not heard one thing from Begich’s office regarding Pigford, nor did he chime in on Solyndra, and all of those numerous examples of financial catastrophe known as the green fairy’s list of subsidy. So, where exactly does the thorn-in-his-side mythology gain its life?

The answer of course is political necessity. Begich won his election through chicanery, and now he faces his prospects for reelection without the confluence of bizarre circumstances that enabled him to win election in the first place. So, for that reason, as with many Democrats during election season, Barry Goldwater becomes someone to the left of Vladimir Lennon just long enough to fool voters into believing the myth. Mark Bagech isn’t a liberal you see, you’ve gotten it all wrong. He’s going back to our nation’s capitol to oppose the Bamster, which is easier done as a memeber of the Bamster’s own party, rather than adding to the ranks of those who oppose him out rightly somehow.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Before We Climb On The, “Sarah’s An Idiot,” Train, Bear In Mind That She’s Right

by Flyovercountry ( 378 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Corruption, Eric Holder at July 14th, 2014 - 11:00 am

First, the redefinition of treason from being a subversive act designed to overthrow the government, to merely pointing out that our President has violated enough of our nation’s laws sufficiently to face some form of accountability. We’ll discuss this in greater detail later on.

Before we get to the crux of the argument, here is count number two of the Articles of Impeachment brought against Richard Nixon:

“endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

That should, at least for anyone at all interested in their own personal intellectual honesty, be sufficient to illustrate that our current President does indeed deserve to face some form of legal accountability for his actions these last six years. Since Presidents can not be charged as the rest of us would when being accused of a crime, that leaves the only option spelled out in our Constitution. This manner of trial for Presidents only, sought to guarantee that no single person, regardless of how powerful, would ever be above the law, nor exempted from answering to it.

Before we go any further, I just want to state unequivocally, that Sarah Palin is 100% correct in her assessment. Were we a nation of laws, were our founding principles in tact, were our nation indeed functioning properly, and were the concept of doing the right thing for the nation placed above petty political considerations, Articles of Impeachment would have been drawn against Barack Obama long ago. Now, before the leftists out there lather themselves into a tizzy over this statement, Impeachment is a trial, and the Bamster would be allowed to provide a legal defense. In order to prove the validity of this point, looking back at our history at the three times when Impeachment did occur, only two trials took place and the President was found to be not guilty in both instances. Even more noteworthy however, both men won reelection during their next bid for continuing in their post. Impeachment is merely forcing that accountability to the law that all citizens are held to.

There is something else that I wish to disclose here, and that is that in the case of Bill Clinton, I was most certainly against that Impeachment, although not for the reasons others were against it. Bill Clinton was charged with a process crime due to a frustrated Ken Starr, while looking at a man with a lifetime of association with obvious felonious behavior, could not tie his subject to a single crime, instead decided to charge him with a process crime. One by the way that should have embarrassed even the most severely prudish of prosecutors. My personal opinion is that all process crimes should be summarily dismissed as a matter of law, should no underlying charges be proven, or at the very least brought. (If you’ve followed the link, in the three cases I’d cited, Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, all were charged with process crimes in situations where sufficient evidence could not be obtained during the investigations that any laws pertinent to those investigations were even violated. Clinton was never charged with anything related to White Water. No one involved with the Stewart Case was ever charged with Insider Trading. No one was charged with outing a clandestine operative in Scooter Libby’s case. In the case of Scooter Libby, the actual name of the person who leaked the information was known prior to Libby’s questioning, which manages to add an even more sinister twist to the whole affair.

When asked to comment yesterday on Palin’s statement, House Speaker, John Boehner, answered in as dismissive a manner as possible that he disagreed. His short curt answer, complete with clownish facial expression, let everyone know that he not only would not be seeking to hold this President to any sort of behavioral standard, (but instead has filed a bizarre law suit which legally has zero chance of accomplishing anything,) but he also was perfectly willing to participate in my favorite game. “Is the conservative evil, stupid, senile, or crazy? The Democrats have branded Sarah Palin as stupid, and John Boehner has jumped on that bandwagon not only with both feet, but also with his crying eyes in full bloom.

Now, my fellow members of the political right, a group by the way that every Republican and his uncle, even John Boehner, claim to be members in good standing of, I am perfectly willing to listen to well reasoned arguments as to why Impeachment would be a bad idea. You might say that it’s counter productive, since there’s zero chance of securing a verdict of guilty in the highly partisan and Democrat controlled Senate. That’s true. You might argue that you’re afraid of political backlash, which you inaccurately blame for electoral defeat in 1996. (Bob Dole and Ross Perot were the causes of that defeat, and the proof in that pudding lies in the fact that the GOP actually gained seats in the Legislative Branch during an election year in which they failed to win the Presidency.) I may not agree with those arguments, but at least they’re somewhat substantive. Stating that Sarah Palin is stupid however is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, something by the way that is usually reserved for the party of the left. More importantly, it also fails to address the fact that Sarah Palin happens to have gotten this one right.

There’s something else to consider here with this latest bit of sophistry coming from the good folks at MSNBC. The want Sarah charged with Treason, simply for pointing out that evidence exists to support our President be charged with a crime. She’s not calling for a mob to overthrow our government, nor endeavoring for such on her own. She merely wants our President, a man who according to our Constitution by the way, be held to account in the only manner a President can be held to account, for charges stemming from very strong evidence that he’s acted outside of the laws that every citizen is expected to live by.

This departure by MSNBC is even more troubling than most of their highly partisan crapola disguised as objectivity. (A disguise by the way that could only fool the terminally moronic.) The gracious host of this news programming offers his helpful opinion as fact, that Treason be redefined to include anyone who dares to ask that a sitting President not be placed above the law. So much for the First Amendment guarantees in the NBC Universe. At one time, our press was described as being a fourth branch of government, a supposed watch dog, holding our elected leaders to some form of honest ethical standard. Those days would seem to be long gone my fellow inhabitants of the People’s Democratic Republik of Amerika. I’ll soon see you in the reeducation Kamps my comrades. Don’t worry though, in every movie depicting a Dystopian Society in which government has run amok, television screens used in those kamps are huge. So we’ll doubtless get to see MSNBC hosts on drive-in-movie sized detail. A fifty foot tall version of Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris Perry, I can hardly wait.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.