► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category

Rep. Vance McAllister cauight on tape kissing a staffer

by Rodan ( 18 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Headlines, Republican Party at April 7th, 2014 - 7:25 pm

Rep. Vance McAllister (R-LA) who ran as a paradign of virtue and holy perfection was busted on tape kissing a female staffer.

Freshman GOP Rep. Vance McAllister (La.) – who ran as conservative Christian – has been caught on video in a romantic encounter with a woman believed to be on his congressional staff just before Christmas.

The Ouachita Citizen, a newspaper based in West Monroe, La., posted a Dec. 23 surveillance video purportedly from inside McAllister’s district office in Monroe.

The video shows McAllister kissing a woman identified by the newspaper as a congressional staffer for the first-term lawmaker. Federal payroll records show she is a part-time aide who began working for McAllister the day after he won his seat last year.

Politicians running on virtue get themselves in trouble with their holier than thou acts. They are human and incidents like these is why politicians should not run as the paradigm of virtue.

Update: Here is the video of the Congressman kissing his female staffer.

Writer’s block

by Speranza ( 36 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Conservatism, Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ronald Reagan, Tea Parties at April 7th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Do not think that for one second that the same media which trashed Hillary Clinton for daring to seek the nomination in 2008 instead of passively making way for the Young Messiah will not  protect her in 2016.

by John Podhoretz

When it comes to Obama-era scandals, the American Right’s predominant emotion is frustration — a frustration that causes hypertension levels usually seen only in Cubs fans and the unfortunates hired to do PR for Lindsay Lohan and Shia LeBoeuf.

Liberals dubbed Ronald Reagan the “Teflon president” because they felt nothing ever stuck to him. President Obama is the Scotchguard president; the would-be scandals that ought to be dogging his administration simply seem to bead up into little droplets before they are briskly wiped away.

Conservatives will tell you, and rightly so, that this is happening because the mainstream media — the prestige press and the network television commentariat — are committing sins both of commission and omission. At times, they act as the president’s blocking tackles in some respects, speaking with contempt and dismissal when the scandals are even mentioned.

When they are not actively working in his defense, the media’s managers are downplaying the scandal stories as a general rule — and the failure to pursue them aggressively has the effect of quieting them down.

Why is this happening? Ironically, the mainstream media heavyweights may feel liberated from the responsibility of covering Obama administration malfeasances because of the existence of the alternative conservative media that have arisen over the past 20 years — talk radio, Fox News, and multiple websites.

Mainstream media types loathe the conservative media as much as the conservative media loathe them. The mainstream thinks conservative media are hysterical, ideologically driven by bad or stupid or evil ideas, and are simply after liberal scalps. They do not want to join those they consider jackals.

But the conservative media serve a second purpose, not only for their audiences but for the mainstream. The existence of the Right media means that the stories are being covered by someone, which relieves them of some of the responsibility they might otherwise feel to do the job themselves.

Even better, from their point of view, they also believe the stories are being covered in such a way that the mainstream media can dismiss them and attack them.


Well, did you know that the Attorney General of the United States was held in contempt back in June 2012 by the House of Representatives for refusing to provide documents to oversight committees regarding the demented Justice Department program that peddled guns to drug dealers later used to kill a federal agent?

That was no small thing — in fact, never before has such a sanction against a sitting cabinet member been declared by Congress. An unprecedented event is the very definition of news, and yet it went all but unacknowledged when it happened — dismissed as an election year stunt to harm the presidential candidacy of a man 90% of those who work in the media voted for.


Amazing to think it was only 11 months ago that the Internal Revenue Service admitted — on its own! — that it had outright targeted conservative groups for special (i.e., hostile) scrutiny in considering their applications for tax-exempt status. The matter seemed so serious that the president himself said he was outraged by it: “It’s inexcusable and Americans have a right to be angry about it and I am angry about it.”

Though he promised to hold the guilty parties accountable, and though several people resigned and/or retired, what has gone on since looks very much like stonewalling.

The IRS’s general counsel answered “I don’t recall” 80 times — 80 times! — when members of Congress asked him about what went on.

The now-retired person specifically in charge of the matter has repeatedly resorted to Fifth Amendment silence rather than answer Congressional questions.


And the once-angry president? He isn’t so angry any longer. There was “not even a smidgen of corruption” at work there, he told Bill O’Reilly.

Obama’s attitude is the mainstream attitude. Move along, nothing to see here.

This week, the former deputy director of the CIA acknowledged that he had disobeyed his then-boss, David Petraeus, and edited the administration’s talking points about the attack on an American consulate in Benghazi in September 2012 to remove reference to a terrorist attack.

You may not have heard about it. Why? Because the media long ago decided it was not interested in Benghazi. More that that: the one star reporter who was, Sheryl Atkisson of CBS News, found it necessary to quit her job earlier this year amid reports she couldn’t get airtime because her boss disapproved of the story.

The person serving as Obama’s secretary of state when the attacks happened actually demanded to know what difference the details made about the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi. That person is now the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

She, too, will get 90% of the media vote.

Obama is Scotchguarded because the people who are supposed to be holding him to account are the ones holding the spray can.

Read the rest -  Conservative media is unintentionally protecting Obama

Another Palin Prediction Comes True! Where’s Her Apology From The Entire Political Left?

by Flyovercountry ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Republican Party, Russia, The Political Right at March 5th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

I have a vision in my mind of Darth Vader addressing a scared Luke Skywalker, who just screwed up by letting slip that Leia was indeed his sister, and coincidentally the daughter of an uncaring Vader. “And now his failure is complete,” really said it all.

As Russia rolls its tanks and troops into Crimea, I am reminded of other events within my life time that saw similar happenings. Not that today’s aggressive behavior is in any way the same as those dark days of the Cold War, when the Soviets sent their military into Poland, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and Chechnya. Today’s act of aggression you see came after the Bamster and Hillary gifted some Russian apparatchik with that famed, “reset button.” Right on cue, our leader’s, (and I use that term loosely,) in Washington are shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that the Russians have taken the Obama Administration’s foreign policy as a sign of American weakness.

Charles Krauthammer said it most eloquently in about a minute and a quarter last night.


Here’s the transcript of Krauthammer’s analysis:

Remember the speech he gave at the U.N. when he started his administration? He said no nation can or should dominate another. I mean, there’s not a 12-year-old in the world who believes that. And he said the alignment of nations rooted in the cleavages of the long ago Cold War make no sense in this interconnected world. As our Secretary of State said today, or yesterday, after all this, this is a 19th century action in a 21st century world. As if what he means his actions where governments pursue expansion, territory domination, no longer exist in this century, as if that hasn’t been a constant in all of human history since Hannibal. They imagine the world as a new interconnected world where climate change is the biggest threat and they are shocked that the Russians actually are interested in territory.

The parallels to Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy are too strong to not mention. Carter, like Obama, spent his time as President traveling the globe heaping praise upon America’s adversaries while chiding and ridiculing America’s allies. He too was shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that the Soviets would invade Afghanistan when it suited them to do so. I guess that the lesson we can all take from this is the same one we’ve learned every time there’s a Democrat in the White House, which is that the Kumbayah School of foreign policy leads to unmitigated disaster for us and the rest of the world as a whole.

What ever level of intervention you feel United States involvement should exhibit or forgo is not what caused this. What caused this latest example of Russian aggression was what always causes such things. They took a good look at a President with a foreign policy that can be labeled most generously as feckless, and a U.S. Secretary of State who declared that the completely farcical myth of global warming was our nation’s most feared enemy, saw that our Teleprompter in Chief was moving forward with his plans to reduce our military to ashes, and determined quite correctly that we were in no position to defend anyone or anything. Crimea is now paying the price associated with that reality.

yes, for my Russian friends, the Cold War is over and the Russians have eschewed the Socialism that once plagued their economics. Vladimir Putin however is a veteran of the Cold War, and as a former leader of the KGB, it would appear, at least to the casual observer, that bringing back the old Soviet Satellites to an existence within the fold may be one of his objectives. Achieving that end by force is something he is perfectly comfortable with. Our discussions on this particular part of our foreign policy need to accept that reality. Especially since some of the former Soviet Satellites are now member nations of NATO, Ukraine being one of them.

Just one more thing to point out here. Remember how Sarah Palin was so roundly ridiculed for being, “stupid,” when she predicted this exact event way back in 2008? Remember how Barack Obama, “the smartest guy in the room,” won major snark points for his line that the 1980′s had contacted Mitt Romney and demanded their cold war mentality back? I guess we can officially put those two memes to bed now.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Happy Birthday Tea Party!

by Flyovercountry ( 128 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Republican Party, Tea Parties, The Political Right at February 28th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Hat tip to Rodan:

As a child growing up in West Virginia, I would often times find myself in disagreement with others in my neighborhood. Sometimes, those disagreements would need to be settled via fisticuffs. Many times, I was on the losing end of those endeavors, but there were still lessons learned which made me a stronger and smarter person today. For that fact, I am grateful. Often, the person who threw the first punch was surprised that the favor was returned, usually within mere moments. Today, when the Republican Establishment refers to the Tea Party as Wacko Birds, they are surprised to find themselves facing primary challenges. When members of the Tea Party primary a member of the Establishment, they are surprised to read unflattering descriptions of themselves in the papers and such. I lost track of the reasons for those fights fought so long ago, or even who started them, but I thank each and every one of my partners in combat, if for nothing else, the lessons learned.

Yesterday, I read what I believe to be the most important article written within the last few years. This is a must read for anyone who identifies themselves as being on the right side of the aisle, politically speaking. It is a brilliant description of how we must all find common ground with our allies, if self preservation is an instinct which we possess. That is to say, if the survival of our nation as a Constitutional Republic is something that you feel is important, then it is time to put the nation first., and help heal the coalition of Reagan.

This is not a, “Rodney King why can’t we all just get along moment,” that I’m calling for here. It is more of a, “if we don’t get our crap together and stop this from happening we’re sunk,” moment. I’ve written about this before, and been blasted by both sides by the way. So, I’ll spell it out plainly. Republicans, you need the Tea Party, and you need them to be enthusiastic about your candidates, or you’ll never win another election of consequence again. Without the Tea Party, you will not amount to anything so small as a hill of beans, ever.

Tea Party, you need the Republican Party, because your values, principles and superior knowledge of policy and economics will mean nothing unless you are capable of governing in some fashion. Our freedoms are being legislated away, and as of now, there is not one gosh darned thing that we can do about it. We need for people who agree with us to win elections, and a lot of them. All of the talk about third parties are a waste of time, too late, and worse than that, it represents nothing more than the same old persona we’ve come to loathe merely wishing to consolidate power for themselves, and not some altruistic appeal to the betterment of our society.

Here is a small snippet from the article linked to above.

Can the marriage between the Tea Party and the GOP survive?

My answer is: It better. The White House is occupied by a lifelong anti-American radical who has done more to bankrupt this nation’s economy, take us down as a military power, and destroy individual liberty than anyone would have thought possible in January 2009 when he took office. And it’s worse than that. Obama is the head of a Democratic party that has moved so far to the left over the last 46 years that it has become anti–free market, anti-individualist, anti-constitutionalist, and unready to defend America’s sovereign interests at home and abroad. We cannot afford to let such a party run our government for another four or eight years. The world cannot afford it.

So how do we hold together the conservative coalition opposing this national suicide? How do we make this marriage survive? First of all, by recognizing that the basic difference between the Tea Party and the Republican party is a matter of tactics and temperament, not policy and ideology. To understand what I mean by this, one has to go back to the flashpoint that has made the possibility of a Republican schism a topic of the day: the famous alleged government shutdown by tea-party hero Ted Cruz. I probably should acknowledge here that I am a huge fan of what the Tea Party represents, though not always what it does. I believe the emergence of the Tea Party is the most important political development in conservatism in the last 25 years, and is possibly the last best hope for our country.

The government shutdown was the alleged result of Senator Cruz’s filibuster of a continuing resolution to fund the government. In fact, the House had passed a resolution to fund the government but not Obamacare. In the Senate, however, Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped the Obamacare-funding ban from the bill. Cruz conducted a one-man filibuster to express his opposition, both to Reid and to the Republicans who voted to fund Obamacare rather than join him. And so Republicans attacked each other instead of the real culprits.

You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.

Here’s a second important point that applies to all the frictions between tea partiers and Republican regulars. The conflict among the Right about the Obama shutdown was not about policy. It was about tactics. Every Republican in Congress is opposed to Obamacare, with no exceptions. Not a single Republican legislator voted for it. Not a single Republican legislator would support it. The issue is how best to defeat the Democrats and repeal a monstrous law — how to defeat the socialist party that now controls our government and is hell-bent on bankrupting our country, crippling our military, and destroying the culture of individualism and opportunity that has made this nation what it is.

Understanding that what divides us is tactical, not fundamental, is crucial to keeping the marriage alive. A tactical difference is no grounds for divorce.

Some introspection is necessary here. We must ask ourselves, how is it possible that after a century or longer of absolute failure of every liberal policy that has ever been inflicted upon any one any where, that these people continue to win elections proposing the same exact things that have always failed so miserably in the past. The great society failed, Social Security failed, Medicaid and Medicare failed, and socialized medical care has failed. yet here we are, and every political pundit and his uncle are predicting the inevitability of Hillary Clinton as the 45th President.

The problem of course, is what our nation might become once we get treated to 8 or even 4 more years of these people legislating and then governing? In my travels across the fruited plains and across the various internet forums, I have seen several various and distinct groups of people who self identify as conservatives. Each one has claimed the mantle of being the true conservative group, and each group has helpfully added that all other groups are peopled with rinos, not worthy of playing in the same sandbox. The problem is that while we’re standing around arguing over who’s more worthy of being in the sandbox, discussions are being held about how the sandbox is going to be turned into a medical waste land fill.

Pretty much, what usually defines us as members in good standing among the political right is our shared belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a free market complete with unfettered rights to the fruits of our labor, free speech, religion, and a resistance against government tyranny. Our biggest disagreements are over how we get there, and not where there happens to be.

The Tea Party is five years old today. Even though we have all read several times in recent years how the movement is dying, or worse yet dead, I would just like to point out that this is baloney. The Tea Party has made incredible strides towards having its voice heard in terms of the direction of the Republican brand. Just because things are not progressing in the immediate term, does not mean that for a five year old movement, the progress to date is not impressive. The Republican establishment is reacting so vociferously precisely because of that success to date. When people feel their jobs being threatened, or in this case their power base, they will react forcefully. At the same time, my fellow inhabitants of the Tea Party, we must recognize that our influence begins and ends within the boundaries that exist on the right side of the aisle. As much as we know what the right answers are, it will remain meaningless should we fail to get Republicans elected to positions of legislative and executive authority. While that may not make you happy, it is still in fact reality.

We need each other. What’s even more important is that the nation as founded needs us together as well.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Things Are Looking Up For The Right!

by Flyovercountry ( 134 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Economy, Libertarianism, Regulation, Republican Party, Tea Parties, The Political Right, Uncategorized, unemployment at February 27th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

I believe some perspective might be in order, so that the significance of this next item may be fully appreciated in its broader context. Harry Reid it seems went to his fellow minions in the Senate, and as their minion leader, found that little more than half of his sub minion drones were on board with the latest bit of class warfare du jour.

I am referencing of course the proposed federal minimum wage hike to $10.10 per hour, euphemistically referred to as, “giving America a raise.” For purposes of perspective, let’s discuss what these little bits of class warfare truly are, and especially the minimum wage hike. They are the go to plays within the Democrat play book that are pulled out whenever electoral trouble is spotted on the horizon. The minimum wage hike is the Democrat equivalent to the Steelers running their bubble screen each and every time they face a second and long and are down by a touchdown or more. They are the equivalent of Peyton Manning coming to the line of scrimmage and declaring authoritatively, “Comanche,” every single time his offense faces a third and long. The minimum wage hike is the go to play, and before now, it has worked every single time, (in terms of electoral politics anyhow. Economically, it has always resulted in disaster.)

From the Hotair article linked to above:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday delayed action on legislation raising the minimum wage, the centerpiece of the Democrats’ 2014 agenda.

The Nevada Democrat made the surprising move amid escalating Democratic resistance in the wake of a Congressional Budget Office report released last week estimating that hiking the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could cost the equivalent of 500,000 jobs by late 2016.

Reid has not yet unified his caucus on the issue, which is a constant in the Democrats’ election-year playbook. Of the 55 senators who caucus with the Democrats, only 32 have signed on as official co-sponsors of Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) bill.
Let’s get this straight. This is Obama’s highest domestic agenda priority item, and the chamber which his party controls can barely get half of their caucus to sign onto it? That’s some genius work at the White House. Who’s their legislative liaison these days?

The issue, of course, is that the CBO actually scored the proposal before Reid could advance the bill. Their estimate of 500,000 jobs lost in just two years would be a boat anchor on any legislation, but especially in an economy where workforce participation looks like this:

The Democrats who still have jobs in Washington, and are not tenured enough in their careers as professional wielders of power are worried. They have internal polls, and those internal polls are telling them to forget about 2016, but worry instead about 2014. They can read the tea leaves and those tea leaves are telling them that America is not in a mood to elect Democrats to the office of county dog catcher. This is the reason why we are seeing a huge increase in the retirements from the demographic of Democrat Congressional Leaders. These fine folks are not interested in being in Congress and not being afforded the opportunity to wield power to the degree that they feel entitled.

What we’ve just witnessed, to continue the pro football analogy, is the first snap from scrimmage during a playoff game sailing over the head of the quarterback, while the whole stadium anticipated and feared the bubble screen. The Democrats tried to label Obamacare bi-partisan, and that will never work. Then they tried to laud it as a giant success, that won’t work either. Next they tried the whole populist play book, and received a bizarrely luke warm reception from a nation fatigued with previous consequences from earlier forays into populism. After that, the calls to fix rather than scrap Obamacare were sounded to various focus groups. The response of course was this:

“You can’t fix this car Spicoli!”

The tried and true minimum wage hike was supposed to be their go to play. The good news is that as of now, they can’t even sell it to their own. Demonizing political opponents is all they have left now. Expect to see that soon. It may work, and it may not, but one thing is clear, reports of the death of the GOP may have been premature, once again.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

How Republicans need to fight the Left

by Rodan ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Libertarianism, Republican Party, Special Report, Tea Parties, The Political Right at February 26th, 2014 - 2:32 pm

David Horowitz writes an excellent article about the relationship between the Republican Party and the Tea Party. His conclusion is that the differences are base don tactics, not necessarily philosophy. But the key to this article is his advise to to Republicans on how to fight Democrats and use their own tactics against them.

Can the marriage between the Tea Party and the GOP survive?

My answer is: It better. The White House is occupied by a lifelong anti-American radical who has done more to bankrupt this nation’s economy, take us down as a military power, and destroy individual liberty than anyone would have thought possible in January 2009 when he took office. And it’s worse than that. Obama is the head of a Democratic party that has moved so far to the left over the last 46 years that it has become anti–free market, anti-individualist, anti-constitutionalist, and unready to defend America’s sovereign interests at home and abroad. We cannot afford to let such a party run our government for another four or eight years. The world cannot afford it.

So how do we hold together the conservative coalition opposing this national suicide? How do we make this marriage survive? First of all, by recognizing that the basic difference between the Tea Party and the Republican party is a matter of tactics and temperament, not policy and ideology. To understand what I mean by this, one has to go back to the flashpoint that has made the possibility of a Republican schism a topic of the day: the famous alleged government shutdown by tea-party hero Ted Cruz. I probably should acknowledge here that I am a huge fan of what the Tea Party represents, though not always what it does.


You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.


Twenty-five years after the most oppressive empire in human history collapsed because socialist economics don’t work, 49 percent of American youth, according to a recent Pew poll, think socialism is a good system. That’s a political failure on our part.


Actually, it’s not that difficult if you are willing to be aggressive, if you are willing to match their rhetoric and be called extremist for doing so. Every inner city in America of size is run by Democrats and has been for 50 to 100 years. Detroit is a good example. It is 85 percent black. Fifty years ago it was per capita the richest city in America, the industrial jewel of an industrial superpower. Fifty years ago Democrats came to power in Detroit and began implementing their plans for social justice.

Fifty years of progressive policies and Democratic rule has bankrupted Detroit, and ruined it. A third of its population is on welfare. Half its population is unemployed. Its per-capita income has plummeted so far that it is now the poorest large city in America. It has been depopulated. More than half the people who lived there are gone. Everyone has fled who can. It is a giant slum of human misery and despair. And Democrats did it. Democrats are Detroit’s slumlords and the authors of the racist policies that have reduced a once great city to its present squalid state. Democrats are cynical liars and rank hypocrites when they claim to be interested in the well-being of minorities and the poor, whose necks bear the marks of their boot heels.

The Republican Party should fire losers like Karl Rove and hire people like David Horowitz. The Tea Party would be well wise to heed his advise, chill with their rhetoric and spend more time coming up with winning tactics. Sadly, I doubt anyone will heed what Horowitz wrote.

Operation American Spring

by Guest Post ( 147 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Tea Parties, The Political Right at February 25th, 2014 - 5:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey

Operation American Spring – Website – Col. Harry Riley, USAprepares.com

OPERATION AMERICAN SPRING – Washington, D.C. in the cross-hairs – The Out-of-Control Government Leadership Must Be Stopped


(Please add the above title and some or all data from below to your FB, Twitter, Blog, Email list)

TO: Patriots (black, white, red, yellow, brown, male, female, civilian, military, truckers, bikers, militias, veterans, old, young, every American that loves freedom and liberty)

Mission: Restoration of Constitutional government, rule of law, freedom, liberty “of the people, for the people, by the people” from despotic and tyrannical federal leadership.

Millions of Americans will participate.
American veterans and patriots are energized to end the tyranny, lawlessness, and shredding of the US Constitution.
Government is not the target, it is sound; corrupt and criminal leadership must be removed.
Those in power will not hesitate to use force against unarmed, peaceful patriots exercising their constitutional rights.
Patriots may be killed, wounded, incarcerated.
There is no hope given today’s technology of secrecy for the effort nor do we want it secret.

Concept of Operations:
Phase 1 – Field millions, as many as ten million, patriots who will assemble in a peaceful, non-violent, physically unarmed (Spiritually/Constitutionally armed), display of unswerving loyalty to the US Constitution and against the incumbent government leadership, in Washington, D.C., with the mission to bring down the existing leadership. Go full-bore, no looking back, steadfast in the mission.

Phase 2 – One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holder removed from office.
Consistent with the US Constitution, as required, the U.S. Congress will take appropriate action, execute appropriate legislation, deal with vacancies, or U.S. States will appoint replacements for positions vacated consistent with established constitutional requirements.

Phase 3 – Those with the principles of a West, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, should comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Ron Christie is utterly delusional.

by Guest Post ( 171 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Libertarianism, Republican Party at February 11th, 2014 - 4:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey

Ron Christie is utterly delusional, like most politicians, he has lost sight, if he ever even understood, how how representative government was and is intended to work.

The people elect individuals who will act in good faith to represent the will of the people. It is not, nor was it ever intended that the people would submit their will to the political party leadership of any political party.

Elected officials are not and were never ever intended to be aristocrats for whom ruler-ship became a divine right upon achieving elected office. Their ability to remain in office is and always was intended to be subject to the will of those whom they represent.

GOP Base Would Rather Take Out Incumbent Republicans Than Beat Democrats

Interviews with those on Capitol Hill and in the conservative movement reveal antipathy toward each other that could cost the party the midterms.

With the president’s approval rating low, the economy faltering and Obamacare dropping consumers from their health care plans by the day, one would think the GOP’s prospects would be strong heading into the 2014 midterm elections. But this may not remain the case.

In the past few weeks, I’ve noticed a widening rift between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party activists who swept John Boehner into the House Speaker seat and put Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell within striking distance of a majority to effectively cement President Obama’s lame duck status.

In conversations with members of Congress, lobbyists, and the chattering class on television–none of whom wished to speak on the record–many grassroots activists would rather take out an incumbent GOP officeholder in a primary challenge for perceived disloyalty to the base at the cost of Democrats winning the seat. That this switch of support by grassroots activists would occur less than four years after the GOP rode a massive wave of voter disillusionment with Washington is fascinating. The question is, what was the triggering event that created hostility between many conservative members of Congress and their constituents who elected them?

Not surprisingly, I’ve discovered that the effort–or perceived lack thereof–to defund Obamacare late last year served as the catalyst in which grassroots activists decided their conservative allies in Washington had gone native by increasing the size and scope of government without a meaningful fight to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Last week, a prominent activist from a well-known and well-financed advocacy group told me:

What was once a happy collaboration united to defeating Democrats and Obama’s agenda has turned into a nascent civil war for control of the Republican Party.

“I think the thing that set many of these groups off was the repeated promises by [House Majority Leader] Cantor and [Senate Minority Leader] McConnell to repeal Obamacare. When the time came to fight, they caved to the Democrats and told us they would fight hard the next time. Total B.S. that we’re not buying anymore.”

Not surprisingly, a senior Republican close to the House Leadership saw the conflict in a different manner. He told me: “You can vote with these guys 99% of the time and the one vote you are seen as being against them, they try to take you out in a primary. I’m glad [House Speaker] Boehner finally told them off.” Despite the Speaker’s decision to effectively shelve immigration reform efforts until after the 2014 midterm elections, tempers remain close to the boiling point on both sides.

Some, like Media Research Center head Brent Bozell, aren’t waiting for the midterm elections to act. Ostensibly, Bozell founded the 501c(4) group ForAmerica (www.ForAmerica.org) with the lofty principles to: “[R]einvigorate the American people with the principles of American exceptionalism….” What it appears to do in practice, however, is seek to replace Republican Leaders in the House and Senate through a “Dump the Leadership” petition drive. Prominently displayed on the group’s homepage is a collage with the likeness of Boehner, Cantor, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, McConnell, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, and John Thune, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. A tagline above the men’s reads: “America Deserves Better. It’s Time to Dump the Leadership.”

501c(4) groups are explicitly prohibited from advocating for the election or defeat of any specific candidates yet last summer For America began running a series of ads in Kentucky and prominent online outlets seeking to target McConnell for the 2014 election. Could McConnell, a fierce opponent of limits on funding for federal elections, face a difficult path back to the Senate with groups such as FreedomWorks and ForAmerica urging for his defeat? Robert Maguire from the Center for Responsive Politics thinks this is something to keep an eye on for the upcoming midterm election. In regards to 501c(4) groups such as ForAmerica, Maguire offered the following:

“What’s interesting about these groups–and we’re having more and more of them. They are running ads around the country saying this is part of their social welfare issue advocacy spending and not trying to defeat a particular candidate. The group will say they are talking about the issues–average voters who aren’t lawyers would say this is meant to defeat a candidate running for office.

“They raised a good bit of money and claim it is all for educational purposes. If you look at the ads they’re making, they are mentioning candidate and casting them in a very unfavorable light.”

I’ll leave it to lawyers better steeped in campaign finance reform to debate the legality of issue advocacy groups seeking to replace Republican office holders in 2014. What I do know is that a breach of trust has occurred between grassroots activists across the country with the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate. What was once a happy collaboration united to defeating Democrats and Obama’s agenda has turned into a nascent civil war for control of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Fools like Ron Christie have apparently never read the American Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Many forget the importance of this document, unlike the United States Constitution it may not be the law of the land, but make no mistake, it was and is a legal document of the most profound and important stature.

It holds within it, the foundational bedrock of American political ideology. That all men have the inalienable right of self determination and that inseparable from the right of self determination is the right to representation. The very reason that elected officials must face reelection is that they are not aristocrats they are employees of those whom they represent. Like every other employee, they must periodically prove to their employers that they have done a satisfactory job of representing the employers interest, or face dismissal from their position of employment.

No amount of playing political games, can, at the end of the day, change this basic and fundamental dynamic between elected official and constitute. The constitutes of any elected official owe that official no loyalty, they are not his serfs or subjects, they are his employers and the terms of his or her employment are very specific. Every two, four or six years, depending on the exact elected position, every elected official must give an account of his or her actions to their constitutes in such a manner as convinces those constitutes to reaffirm the terms of the elected officials employment for another term.

If at any time, enough of your constitutes decide that you have done something that offends them, that betrays them, or fails to represent their interests, then they owe you absolutely no loyalty, have no responsibility, regardless of any political machination or manipulation you might chose to attempt, to retain you as their representative.

It is painfully obvious that many who work within the political class and especially those who are elected officials are incapable of grasping these simple and basic facts. It does not matter how hard election staff personal, campaign advisers or anyone employed by any politician works. The terms of the contract between an elected official and their constitutes is predicated upon delivery of satisfactory representation. It does not matter how much you believe in the candidate you work for or support, if that candidate, that elected official fails to deliver satisfaction of representation, then no matter how hard you worked, or how much you believed, the constitutes of that elected official owe you nothing for your efforts.

Like it or not, that is how it is, and how it was always intended to be. All Americans elected officials were intentionally put in this position because the Founding Fathers considered the notion of an American Aristocracy to be utterly repugnant and unacceptable. So much so that not only did they place these restrictions and burdens on those who would lead America, but they even went so far as to make any form of Aristocracy in America illegal.

So yes, you can vote 99% of the time the “Right” way, and when you do eventually do cast that one single vote that offends your constitutes, you are damned right you are out of a job and nobody owes you a damned thing. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, you are not a king, duke, prince or member of the aristocracy, you are a extremely well paid employee who get’s paid for delivery of satisfactory representation, not for playing god.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Ethical Resistance Part 1

by The Kraken ( 220 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Libertarianism, Progressives, The Political Right at February 11th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Ethical Resistance in a Constitutional Republic


Are we in the grip of domestic enemies of the Constitution? I believe so.  Because I believe so, I have a duty to consider action to defend the Constitution.  Much hinges upon two questions:

  • Am I correct?  And if so,
  • What action is appropriate?

I will attempt to answer both of these in a train of thought I call Ethical Resistance.  More pointedly, I will try to set up a framework for answering these questions rather than answer them specifically, and hope thereby to teach a man to fish, rather than provide fishsticks.  Finally, I’ll do it a little at a time and adjust fire as necessary, as people have said that I reading what I write is like singing stereo instructions.


Employees of the United States Government — including all members of Congress — are required to take the oath specified in the following public law before assuming elected or appointed office.

5 U.S.C. 3331:

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

It is clear that there is a duty to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies.  In discharging any duty, an amount of diligence is required, or dereliction may still be found even in the most fervent but ignorant and misguided pursuit of “duty”.

I have intentionally not relied upon any formal legal opinions, as I am woefully unqualified to do so, and resistance is only really justified if our system of laws is sufficiently compromised or ill-equipped to deal with the threat.  That is a question for another day, but a good one to keep in mind just the same.  I wish to rely upon those clear pillars of liberty; government limited by the Constitution, and the Constitution defended by a free citizenry.  The key difficulty in legal opinions is that a string of case law may provide a legal basis for a point of view, but it is no guarantee that the point is ethical.  There is a reason this article is not called “Legal Resistance”, and that is that civil disobedience may be required.  I can certainly foresee departure from regulation or the breaking of laws as necessary components of defending the Constitution.

I contend that a good-faith effort, well-defended with reasonable arguments, by reasonable people, is sufficient diligence to pursue duty without being reckless.  We may risk much for great goals, but not for small ones.

Duty commands those bound by an oath to defend the Constitution to let the remaining chips fall where they may.  In any conflict between orders and the Constitution, leaders and the Constitution, or government and the Constitution — the Constitution of our oath wins.  The key to duty here then is to be very sure what that means, and duty may not be carried out in ignorance of that distinction.

That is what this series will cover.

The Obligatory Republican Suicide Post. Brought To You By The Letter S, Which Is For Stupidity

by Flyovercountry ( 125 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Elections 2016, Libertarianism, Republican Party, The Political Right at February 4th, 2014 - 2:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

This is not meant to be a discussion on the topic of immigration per say, that discussion will happen with the next post that I do. This is about the politics of those discussions in the narrow sense, and in the broader sense, it is about the complete inability of the GOP to engage competently engage in, much less win, any battle that occurs in the political arena. The on again off again flirtation with immigration reform that keeps getting brought up by the GOP House Leadership, despite the clear and demonstrable fact that America does not want it, their voting base does not want it, the vast majority of the membership of their own caucus does not want it, is that perfect demonstration of the suicidal tendencies that the GOP has, when ever clear victory is almost guaranteed by every readable tea leaf that floats at the bottom of tea cups across the fruited plains. Before any of you start chiming in with how they’ve given up attempting to stick us with this particular albatross, just remember back to the summer of 2009, when the Affordable Care Act was declared to be dead at least five times before its passage at the end of that year. Declaring unwanted legislation to be dead is the political equivalent of a deceptive cop chanting, “move along people, nothing to see here,” while the whole mess is pushed through under the smoke filled, glad handing, favor granting, cover of darkness.

Such is the state of the American Political System these days, cynical does not begin to cover it. Right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, what the will of the citizenry actually is, these are considerations for lesser minds than those ruling elite who have descended from Mt. Olympus itself as our intellectual superiors, taking it upon themselves to organize our society for us, and to show us the error of our foolish ways. They know better than we mere mortals, what is in our best interests, which happily coincides with that which allows for gratuitous payoffs, bribes, nepotism, and graft on their part. As things in our political world descend further and further down the moral rat hole, blame and electoral benefit are not evenly distributed. Many have blamed the main stream media for this effect, but once again dear Brutus, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings. The media, such as it is, also has an interest to serve, which is their assured invitation to the party. As for me, I blame the GOP establishment for its seemingly endless wish to lose, and to always seek the role of subservience.

Americans can easily be divided into two camps. There is the camp that sees the excess of government, its inefficiency, the graft, the cronyism, the misery that it creates by inflicting its wisdom upon a populace who has long succeeded without its intervention into their lives, and wishes to constrain that government to only the barest of functions for which private measures have not yet successfully manifested. Then there is the other camp, that sees the same things, and declares that the answer is to create an even more powerful government, except with different people in charge, who will act in an even more beneficent and wise manner.

In order to serve those two constituencies, we have formed two major political parties. It is here that I wish to center my discussion. One political party, Democrats, the one that purports to serve the latter constituency, pretty much stays true to what they claim to represent. They promise to inflict us with a larger more powerful centralized government, and further promise to put different people in charge. For the most part, whenever they have won electoral success, that is exactly what they have gone about the business of doing. The second political party, Republicans, the group that purports to seek a smaller more limited central government, one that is constrained by the consent of those governed, and more importantly, an original literal translation of our Constitution, is peopled at least in part by those who use this as electoral rhetoric, and once elected seek to help build the very same massively powerful centralized government.

Before anyone takes this as a, “pox on both their houses,” essay, let me make it clear that there are plenty of honorable folks inhabiting the party of smaller government. Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Rob Portman, John Kasich, Rudy Giuliani, Thad McCotter, Duncan Hunter, and Marco Rubio, to name a few. It just also happens that there are plenty who’s brand of Republicanism does not include a smaller government view, but rather, “a we’ll get there slower than the other side,” view. What we are seeing with the whole immigration reform push however is something else entirely. It is a, “we wish to lose elections,” maneuver. The news so far this year has been so bad in terms of the Democrats electoral prospects, that every Democrat and his brother who is facing election this year has taken to resignation. That way, they can enter their new careers as lobbyists with the claim that, “no, I was not fired, but decided on my own for a career change.” Republicans have been given a gift, unlike any other, rarely seen in the world of political battle. The political left has implemented every aspect of their governing wish list, and each and every thing that they’ve implemented has failed in spectacular fashion. The failures of liberalism have been laid bare, and what’s more, not a single GOP fingerprint can be honestly connected with that failure. Bipartisanship was not necessary for Obamacare’s passage, and it was not sought.

Each day in America, somebody else awakens to the reality that not only have their insurance premiums increased two or three fold, or that they were forced to find and purchase new policies with price tags doubled or even tripled, but the deductibles associated with the new improved policies have become so steep, that in most instances it is no different in terms of what people are being forced to spend than not having any health insurance to begin with. Americans are angry with this realization, and justifiably so.

When you look at Judy’s premium plus deductible, she will pay out of pocket $20,320, before she sees a penny of benefit from the insurance company to help her with any bills that she may incur. Don’t blame the greedy insurance company for this however, since this law was a)ostensibly passed to deal with that greed. This whole thing was sold to us with the claim that this law would make life more fair for Judy, and b)most of that $20,320 will not be filling the coffers of the insurer, but the coffers of our government in the form of compliance fees, regulatory costs, and subsidization for others. Others by the way who as of yet have not successfully been signed up to benefit from Judy’s involuntary generosity. Americans are angry. They are angry at being fleeced, fooled, swindled, and most importantly, with liberalism itself. The only thing that the Republicans need to do in order to capitalize on this political aligning of Jupiter and Mars, is to not screw the pooch by focusing on issues that nobody wants to discuss, implement, or even consider.

This is the precise reason that I label the latest undertaking of the House GOP leadership as both stupid and suicidal. Hardly anyone in the nation wants immigration reform. The vast majority of citizens want to see enforcement of our national laws, and does not want blanket amnesty for however many millions of people living here who have arbitrarily decided that our laws simply do not apply to them. Now, you might feel as though you have some insight as to what my views on immigration are as a consequence of reading what I have written on the subject so far, and I would caution you that you are probably not correct in your thinking. This is more about the politics of taking this up now, and consequence of going about it in the wrong manner.

For the true conservatives in the GOP who find themselves elected to represent us in Washington D.C., please contemplate this theory as to why John Boehner has chosen this moment to push this latest bit of idiocy.

From the Hot Air article linked to above:

If a fight is inevitable, have it now rather than a much messier one in 2015. Maybe the Senate Democrats won’t be able to swallow a bill with tougher enforcement provisions and without a path to citizenship, and they will own part of the death of immigration reform. Or maybe they’ll pass it, and the issue will be partly cleared off the table for an election year. For an establishment Republican, that’s win-win…

What I am saying is that they [the GOP leadership] are closer to neutral about big [midterm] gains than we might think, given the problems that the surge in base enthusiasm caused for them after the 2010 elections. So if they check agenda items like this off the list now and still get a landslide, great. But if they end up cooling off the base’s enthusiasm and get a narrow, establishment-based Senate majority and keep the House, well, that’s not the end of the world either. In fact, it would mean a more docile caucus in both Houses, which is good for those who run those Houses.

emphasis mine.

Now to my point:

I have suffered insults due to my loyalty to the GOP cause. I have suffered insults due to my lack of loyalty to the GOP cause. Since it is literally impossible, as I have learned many times over the years, to satisfy everyone, I do not care. I have always said that we should all vote for those candidates who represent our values and wishes, while keeping in mind that without winning elections, and a lot of those, we will never get our way on anything. With that being said, this really ticks me off. I receive in the mail, no less than three pleas for money from the Republican National Committee or some other GOP cause or candidate each and every week. They ask my opinion, tell me to help them fight the radical agenda of the political left, and then turn around and eschew those principles in as public a manner as is possible. This is nothing short of the House GOP establishment flipping me the middle finger.

The answer is not in forming a new political party to replace the Republican Brand as a the other major party in American politics. That would eventually leave us with the same problem, a two party system, for which our choices would be limited to the lesser of two evils. A continuing world of political concerns trumping quaint ideas of right vs. wrong. Our nation has undergone some fundamental shifts over the 230 years since our humble beginnings as a fledgling republic. One of those shifts was in our Legislative Branch becoming a full time endeavor, and moving away from private citizens with day jobs sacrificing their personal time to tend to our national business. Another such shift was the establishment of a government mandated monopoly of two major political parties.

There has been much debate recently about the perils of allowing private donations to help political candidates get elected, or the dangers of PACs, which might be used to amplify the voices of the rich and powerful, because we little folk are so incapable of making up our own minds or speaking them. But what of the government’s role is establishing the Democrat and Republican Brands as constant monopolies in a world where our choices for representation are predetermined by an approved list of viable candidates that total in number at two? I have stated often that a third party would solve nothing. One will never be allowed to rise to the level of viable in this world of two party subsidization. Third party votes are a waste of time, effort, and serve only the opposition of the side from which those votes were pulled. If the last Five years have taught us nothing else, they have taught us that. A way to solve this problem however would be to end the true graft of money in politics. It is time to put an end to the government’s mandate of holding the number of major or viable political parties to two.

Personally, I do not mind political parties, but I believe that we need dozens, if not more, with the very same open competitive spirit with which our economic system professes to encourage. As long as the two major parties are allowed to write the campaign finance rules, the viability of third party success will remain a wish, and not one thing more. The current gift of tax payer money to political candidates was put in place so that fairness could be maintained, removing the advantage unfairly garnered by having well to do friends unduly purchase influence. That was the claim anyhow, the reality is somewhat different. The Republican Brand is filled with some who quite frankly do not care what their voting base wishes, after all, they run a government approved monopoly and under the current rules, there’s not one gosh darned thing that can be done about it. If you want to inject electoral honesty back into our political parties, end public subsidy.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.