► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category

Elizabeth Warren supports Corporate Welfare

by Rodan ( 163 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

elizabethwarren

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.

A Bitter Aftertaste by Thomas Sowell From National Review

by Mars ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Anti-Jihad, Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Conservatism, Democratic Party, George W. Bush, Guest Post, History, Iraq, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Middle East, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, September 11, Terrorism, Tranzis at June 18th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Putting this up as per request. Thomas Sowell skewers nation building and compassionate warfare.
Mars.

The news from Iraq that Islamic terrorists have now taken over cities that American troops liberated during the Iraq war must have left an especially bitter aftertaste to Americans who lost a loved one who died taking one of those cities, or to a survivor who came back without an arm or leg, or with other traumas to body or mind.

Surely we need to learn something from a tragedy of this magnitude.

Some say that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. Others say we should never have pulled our troops out when we did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible government in charge.

At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the notion of “nation-building,” especially nation-building on the cheap, and to the glib and heady talk of “national greatness” interventionists who were prepared to put other people’s lives on the line from the safety of their editorial offices.

Those who are ready to blame President George W. Bush for everything bad that has happened since he left office should at least acknowledge that he was a patriotic American president who did what he did for the good of the country — an assumption that we can no longer safely make about the current occupant of the White House.

If President Bush’s gamble that we could create a thriving democracy in the Middle East — one of the least likely places for a democracy to thrive — had paid off, it could have been the beginning of a world-changing benefit to this generation and to generations yet unborn. A thriving free society in the Muslim world, and the values and example that such a society could represent, might undermine the whole hate-filled world terrorist movement that is seeking to turn back civilization to a darker world of centuries past.

But creating such a society, if it is possible at all, cannot be done on the cheap, with politicians constantly calling for us to announce to the world — including our enemies — when we are going to leave. The very idea is silly, but everything silly is not funny.

We haven’t yet announced when we are going to pull our troops out of Germany or Japan, and World War II was over more than 60 years ago. Turning those militaristic countries around was one of the great achievements in human history. Their neighboring countries have been able to enjoy a peace and security that they had not known for generations.

Perhaps what was achieved in Germany and Japan made it seem that we might achieve something similar in Iraq. But “the greatest generation” that had fought and survived the horrors of war around the world was under no illusion that trying to turn our defeated enemies around would be easy, quick, and cheap. Creating democracy in Germany and Japan was a goal, but not a fetish. Creating a stable and viable government amid the ruins and rubble of war was the first priority and a major responsibility. You cannot create instant democracy like you are making instant coffee.

There are prerequisites for a free society, and the foundations of democracy cannot be built on chaotic conditions with widespread uncertainty and fear. To hold elections for the sake of holding elections is to abdicate responsibility for the sake of appearances. The biggest danger is that you will create a government that will work at cross-purposes to everything you are trying to achieve — a government you cannot rein in, much less repudiate, without destroying your own credibility as representatives of democracy. That has happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

By contrast, in both Germany and Japan, power was turned over to elected officials at such times and in such degree as conditions seemed to indicate. Eventually, both countries resumed their roles as sovereign nations. But we didn’t publish a timetable.

Today, with terrorists threatening to at least fragment Iraq, if not take it over, it is a sobering thought that Barack Obama and his key advisers have a track record of having been wrong about Iraq and other foreign-policy issues for years, going back before they took office — and no track record of learning from their mistakes.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2014 Creators Syndicate Inc.

The Politics of Science Fiction Awards

by Mars ( 110 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Art, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Communism, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Second Amendment, Socialism, The Political Right, Tranzis, Weapons at May 30th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

This is going to a long article. I have posted the entirety of a blog post by my favorite sci-fi/fantasy writer Larry Correia. Mr. Correia is an amazing writer and is well known for his conservative views. He is also ex-sheriffs dept, CCW trainer, and an accountant. Recently he was nominated for a Hugo Award, and that’s where the fun begins.

An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy
Posted on April 24, 2014 by correia45

A few days ago the finalists for the Hugo were announced. The Hugos are the big prestigious award for science fiction and fantasy. One of my books was a finalist for best novel. A bunch of other works that I recommended showed up in other categories. Because I’m an outspoken right winger, hilarity ensued.

Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck.

The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety.

I wish I was exaggerating. Don’t take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles too. They’re fantastic.

Of course, none of this stuff is true, but it was expected. I knew if I succeeded I would be attacked. To the perpetually outraged the truth doesn’t matter, just feelings and narrative. I’d actually like to thank all of those people making stuff up about me because they are proving the point I was trying to make to begin with.

Allow me to explain why the presence of my slate on the Hugo nominations is so controversial. This is complicated and your time is valuable, so short explanation first, longer explanation if you care after.

Short Version:

I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
Point made.

I’ve said for a long time that the awards are biased against authors because of their personal beliefs. Authors can either cheer lead for left wing causes, or they can keep their mouth shut. Open disagreement is not tolerated and will result in being sabotaged and slandered. Message or identity politics has become far more important than entertainment or quality. I was attacked for saying this. I knew that when an admitted right winger got in they would be maligned and politicked against, not for the quality of their art but rather for their unacceptable beliefs.

If one of us outspoken types got nominated, the inevitable backlash, outrage, and plans for their sabotage would be very visible. So I decided to prove this bias and launched a campaign I called Sad Puppies (because boring message fiction is the leading cause of Puppy Related Sadness).

The Hugos are supposed to be about honoring the best works, and many of the voters still take this responsibility very seriously. I thank them for this. But basically the Hugos are a popularity contest decided by the attendees of WorldCon. I am a popular writer, however my fans aren’t typical WorldCon attendees. Anyone who pays to purchase a WorldCon membership is allowed to vote. Other writers, bloggers, and even publishing houses have encouraged their fans to get involved in the nomination process before. I simply did the same thing. This controversy arises only because my fans are the wrong kind of fans.

For the people saying that I bought votes, or made up fake people, or bought memberships for a couple hundred imaginary relatives, nope. For those saying I committed fraud, put up or shut up. That would be extremely easy to prove if it were the case. I’ve been up front and public the whole time. Sadly, the thing which has so damaged your calm consisted of a few blog posts and I drew a cartoon. And I’m a terrible artist: http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/14/sad-puppies-2-the-illustrated-edition/

Eventually one of my friends colored the cartoon in PhotoShop and one of my fans thought it was funny and made a video. Sorry, outrage crowd. No big evil conspiracy. An evil right winger is treading in your sacred halls because of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzGKlOkQsxY

I mean, seriously, my spokesman was a manatee. No. I’m not making that up. So Sad Puppies 2: Rainbow Puppy Lighthouse The Huggening got my fans involved. Really, that was what we called it. Because writing is such a serious business.

Even last year’s winner, John Scalzi, has said that I did nothing different than what he and other authors have done before. And Scalzi and I seldom agree on anything. Tor.com wrote a scathing bit condemning my actions (and implied what a horrid writer I am). Of course, the very same website did the exact same thing explaining to Wheel of Time fans how the rules allowed them to nominate all 14 books as a single work and encouraged them to get involved. And a cursory Google search by my fans found dozens of other places where authors, reviewers, and bloggers had pushed their favorite works and tried to get fans involved.

We always hear about how fandom is supposed to be inclusive… Only apparently my fans are the wrong kind of fans. They don’t care about the liberal cause of the day. They don’t care about Social Justice. They like their books entertaining rather than preachy. They probably vote incorrectly. That sort of thing.

The last few days have been kind of awesome. I said that for the Hugo’s the writer’s politics were more important than the quality of their work. I was called a liar. Yet, within a couple of hours of the announcement there were multiple posts from the other side where groups of SJWs were strategizing how to make sure No Award beat me, and how to punish every other artist I recommended as well. Others were complaining that the rules needed to be changed to keep the undesirables out. All of this was while they proudly bragged how they had not read me, nor ever would… because tolerance. Hell if I know.

For those who have heard that I’m a terrible, undeserving writer whose mere presence is a mockery of their sacred system, but haven’t read any of my books, I’m actually pretty decent. Feel free to judge for yourself. For the record, my novel that is nominated, Warbound, is the final book in a trilogy that has sold extremely well, been translated into a bunch of other languages where it has also done well, gotten tons of positive reviews (out of the thousands of reviews for this series from across all the various different places I’m still at 4 ½ stars) won and been nominated for other awards, is one of the bestselling and most praised audiobook series there is, has won two Audies, is currently nominated for a third, and been a finalist for best novel in other countries where I don’t speak the language and can’t campaign, so there is that…

But everybody knows bad people can’t create art, says the side that keeps showering Roman Polanski with awards.

In closing, I would really like everybody who is a voting member of WorldCon to actually read the works in each category and vote based upon which ones they think are best. I fully expect Wheel of Time to win my category of best novel. It is a fourteen book epic written by two authors over twenty six years. Duh.

Personally, my goal has been reached. I got the thought police to show the world their pretty pink panties. :)

##

Long Version:

Now here are the behind the scenes details for whoever wants the whole story.

Bias and Motivation: In this business, most writers who are conservative, republican, libertarian, or devoutly religious have needed to keep their head down so as to not rock the boat and damage their careers. This damage comes from two directions, the publishing industry which is based in Manhattan and which is uniformly left wing, which will hurt careers out of spite, and also from the small, but extremely vocal left wing fans who swoop in to crush all dissent. I like to call them the Social Justice Warriors.

If right wing authors share their opinions, they will be openly chastised and attacked by very vocal, very angry people. Any deviation from the approved narrative is met with scorn, mockery, character assassination, and because the author doesn’t want to damage his career, he will usually fall back into line and shut his mouth. Basically if you step out, they form an angry mob and attack you until you roll over and apologize for something that shouldn’t be apologized for. Once you’re apologizing for your principles, they own you. They really don’t know what to do about people like me.

This squashing worked for them for years, which helped establish this vision that genre fic, much like Hollywood and the rest of media, was monolithically left. In reality people like me sell a ton of books. SJWs became a powerful voting block for the Hugo’s and pushed their favorite topic of the day as the best works. Many regular readers became turned off or annoyed. Genre fiction fans are as diverse as the rest of the country. As time has gone on, more and more of us creators have gotten pissed off and started being open about our beliefs. I sold machineguns and did gun rights lobbying before I got my first book published, so being in the closet about my politics was never an option for me.

My first realization about how messed up this system was dates back to when I was first starting out. One of the smaller voting blocks at WorldCon is made up of Baen fans. They got me a nomination for the Campbell award for best new author. I was brand new, hardly anybody except for them had heard of me. No problem… Except then people looked to see who these new guys were, and they discovered that I was a Mormon, who owned a gun store, and who’d done gun rights lobbying for the Republican party, and had been running a gun nut political blog for years… Whoops. The SJWs had a complete come apart and began warning each other what a terrible, awful, horrible, bad person I was. (most of them were downright gleeful to proclaim they would never read any books from someone so despicable). A reviewer declared that Larry Correia winning the Campbell would “end literature forever”. They hadn’t read my book. The funny thing is that I was actually much more polite to my detractors on the internet back then. Within 24 hours of the announcement I knew that I would be dead last. People who believed this stuff physically avoided me at WorldCon because they’d been told how I was unsafe.

But there is no bias.

After that I got back to the business of writing books. I’ve published ten more since then. I probably would have been content to ignore awards and just keep on cashing my royalty checks, but the SJWs had to just keep on annoying me, by mocking and insulting me and my friends. A writer can only be told they’re not a *real* writer (because of their badthink) so many times before we say screw it and hoist the black flag. If you’re curious how come my fans ponied up perfectly good money to get involved, it is because they’ve been watching this transpire in the comments here, on my FB page, and on Twitter for several years. They felt invested.

This SJW angry mob inquisition has been a gradual and relatively recent development in our culture, mostly as a result of the anonymous and instant internet. It isn’t just for writers, but the demand for a rigid conformity which is expected from the entire entertainment industry. There are many on the left who cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints or philosophies, so when they arise, they must be stomped down. Any deviation from conformity is met with immediate outrage. They have been doing it to people on my side for so long that it is simply expected by us. We are used to it.

However, it comes as a shock to reasonable people on the left when so emboldened the SJWs begin to do the same thing to people on their own side. Stephen Colbert says something they don’t like. Outrage. Patton Oswalt simply agrees with someone on my side. Outrage. Jonathan Ross might say something in the future. Outrage. Patrick Rothfuss says maybe fandom shouldn’t be so quick to outrage. Outrage. Wil Wheaton simply retweets Rothfuss. Outrage. So on and so forth. It doesn’t even matter that all of these people are staunch allies of the outrage crowd, the mob has been programmed to attack, so they do.

Responding to the insults: I wasn’t joking about Google searching my name and reading the comments. Holy moly, it really is enlightening what we’re dealing with here.

First off, I know it doesn’t matter what I say here, because we’ve already seen hundreds of time that they’ll ignore my actual words and just make up new ones for me.

The thing is everybody who knows me knows that I’m actually a nice guy and all that stuff is a bunch of crap. Yes, I am extremely rude to people who attack me on the internet. It saves us all time that way. Six years of this has worn away my thin veneer of civility. Don’t show up, call me a racist teabagger, and then expect reasoned discourse. We all know where we are going to end up eventually, so why not skip all that passive aggressive foreplay and get down to where we’re going to end up anyway, with you making up stuff, and me kicking your ass.

Many of my writer friends who’ve had the option of keeping their heads down and their beliefs secret think that I’m crazy to be so public. I have a response ready for them, I usually pick out whatever topic it is that I know they personally feel very strongly about, but which goes against the accepted group think of the Social Justice Warriors and ask them to go write a blog post sharing their honest beliefs, and then see what happens. Of course, none of them ever take me up on it, because they know that the caring and tolerant crowd would immediately and blindly lash out.

The funny thing about the misogyny, racism, and homophobic allegations, is that I was a self-defense instructor for the better part of a decade and certified literally thousands of people to carry concealed firearms. I taught women, minorities, homosexuals, didn’t matter, often on my own dime, all because I think people who would try to drag anyone to death behind a pickup truck will have a difficult time doing so after they have a pair of hollow points placed into their chest cavity at high speed. Unlike the SJWs, I don’t just pay lip service to empowerment.

Since I’m a prolific political blogger, with thousands of posts to pick through, you’d think these people would have some actual example of where I’d been racist, homophobic, or misogynist, but they don’t. Go figure. In reality, all of us right wingers simply know that the outrage crowd attacking us is so boringly predictable that we have a checklist ready to go for them: http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/

Politically, I’m more of a libertarian than anything. Of all the things I’ve been called over the last few days, the most hurtful thing said was that I was a NeoCon who believed in big government welfare (that’s a bit more offensive than the woman who insinuated I’m a wife beater). If they’re looking for homophobia on my blog, they’re always sad when they discover that I’m not against gay marriage, mostly because I’m far more frightened of the overreaching federal government telling people what to do than I am of gay cooties. The angry privileged white man bit is kind of funny since legally I’m not white and I grew up in a poor immigrant community. But facts should never get in the way of a good narrative.

It is kind of sad that some republicans getting nominated is far more controversial than actual communists and socialists winning. Last time I looked those particular philosophies had killed over a hundred million people over the last hundred years, but there’s absolutely no bias in the awards…
Allegations of fraud: I also had another goal, which I never shared publically during my campaigning. I had heard many allegations of fraud in the nomination process from other authors. Tossed votes, far lower than expected counts, that sort of thing. I am a full time author now, but I am a retired auditor. I love looking for fraud. I do spreadsheets and statistical analysis for fun. So I wanted to see if votes were being tossed. When Sad Puppies 1 launched I kept track of who said they were voting, kept a tally, and then kept their emails so if necessary I could ask for their registration receipts. My suggested slate in other categories would help provide check figures in the smaller categories. (But for the record, everything I suggested was something that I read, enjoyed, and thought was of superior quality and deserving of an award).

The final numbers for last year were within the expected deviation. No red flags. LonCon has struck me as perfectly honest in my dealings with them. So I’m happy to say that I see no evidence of dishonesty in the nominating process. That is excellent.

So me being accused of making up fake voters is kind of funny since you can go through my blog and Facebook comments and see all the real live genre fiction fans I’ve been collecting.

Applying a little critical thinking to this (something Social Justice Warriors struggle with) I’m a popular author. I have more daily blog readers than the total attendance of WorldCon. And not only that, my fans aren’t casual, they are hardcore. I just did a Kickstarter and sold over a hundred thousand dollars worth of merchandise related to one of my book series. (still waiting on those last 70 coins, dang it, stupid broken molds!). That’s not a typo, over $100,000 of merchandise on one project in a month… My last Kickstarter before that did $85,000. So what’s more likely, my fans are hard core and have enough disposal income to drop $40 to make a point to an annoying group of people who despises my fans, or that I spent thousands of dollars of my own money to make up imaginary relatives?

Please, keep in mind, my fan base is the same group that routinely is able to sway the entire ranking system of the biggest online book retailer in the world. Once a month, I pick a book, Book Bomb it, and my fans move it onto the Amazon bestseller lists. I’d say that the evidence suggests that A. I’ve got fans. B. They like books. C. Many of them have money.

I find it fascinating that many people on the left end of the spectrum actually believe that their beliefs are the norm among genre fiction readers. They’ve created an echo chamber to validate each other. They’ve taken over SFWA and dominate the conversation there. They’re right and good and any who disagree are evil and bad. They formed a powerful voting block in the most prestigious awards and once a year they could reinforce just how brilliant and important they are by nominating their friends to the various categories. In the last Sad Puppies post’s comments my fans collected a whole bunch of the SJW’s tweets demonstrating this mindset, where conservatives are these anti-science flyover country barbarians who are dying off… Yet, they’re totally oblivious to the fact that guys like me sell a lot of books because there is a big market out there who is tired of being preached at about the SJW cause of the day, and just wants to enjoy their fiction again. They can’t wrap their brains around the fact that people like me are more popular than they are out in the world.

Storytellers win where it counts, BOOK SALES. The SJW contingent wins awards. If the barbarians start taking awards from them they’ll have nothing left.

No wonder they are so angry.

EDIT: I must add the best new bit of character assassination… Larry Correia’s Sad Puppies was where he threatened to kill puppies if his fans didn’t vote. :D

The Controversial Slate: For the record, I’m only the second most hated man who got a nomination. The most despised is Vox Day by far, however, I’m the one who suggested him to my fans who were participating in Sad Puppies 2. So if he’s their devil, I’m the antichrist.

Let’s back up. The reason Vox is so hated is that he is the only person ever kicked out of SFWA. He makes me look cuddly and diplomatic. He was expelled from SFWA because the powers that be decided he was a racist, in fact, it was so obvious that he was racist that it only took a thirty page thesis explaining how stuff he said was actually racist, including the leadership of SFWA searching through the vile cesspool that is Stormfront until they found some nazi skin head who used similar words, and then holding him accountable for things that posters said in his blog comments (us right wing bloggers don’t believe in censorship so we don’t “manage” or “massage” our comments like they do) then they kicked him out for misusing their Twitter account.

Basically, he called Nora Jesmin an “ignorant half-savage” and that pissed everybody off. See, Nora, is a beloved libprog activist and Social Justice Warrior, and all the reports of her victimization at the hands of the villainous Vox usually leave out the parts where she’d been hurling personal insults at him for years. Myself? I thought that comment might be a bit over the line, but then again, Google search my name and see what the SJW’s have been calling me for the last few days. It is way worse that ignorant or savage, and I think I’m darker skinned than K. Tempest Bradford. I’ve yet to see any SJWs condemning those comments about me. Tolerance is a one way street with them.

I didn’t really know the guy that well before he started pissing so many people off, but having been character assassinated myself, I’ve learned never to take the internet’s word about somebody’s character. Having actually talked with, and then gotten into long arguments and debates with Vox, he is a contrarian, can be a jerk is extremely opinionated, but I honestly don’t think he’s a racist (He’s also not a white guy, but most of the people attacking him don’t know that). We’ve had some long, heated debates on different subjects now, but since I’m not a panty twisted liberal, I can handle differing beliefs.

We disagree about a lot. I disagree with him on some fundamental philosophy. His “rabid hateful” views on homosexuality match about a third of America, most staunch Catholics, and he’s far more moderate on the issue than any devout Muslim or average European villager. So I disagree with him, but he’s not the out there whackadoo his detractors make him out to be, but then again, these same people say I want to drag gays to death behind my truck, so take the hate with a grain of salt. He thinks I’m nuts on several topics, but the dude is smart, and he can write. As for the people saying he “bought” the awards… Holy moly, you’ve got no idea what his day job is. If the man wanted to simply buy votes, he’d be up for everything from Best Novel to Motor Trend Car of the Year.

So when I was putting together my slate and looking for ideas, I remembered his novelette that I read earlier that year. I was surprised by how good it was. I found it to be a really good story (it is actually about love and friendship, with a moral philosophy based on Thomas Aquinas, so not really what you’d expect from such a supposed hatemonger of hatey-hate). I plugged it to my fans earlier this year, which meant that a lot of them had read it as well. To be fair, it was only my second favorite work I read of that size this year, but that’s a tough one because I believe that Brad Torgersen is the best new sci-fi writer around. So I threw them both on the slate.

Yes, I will totally admit that I knew this would spur additional outrage. And oh, how I was proven right. His existence offends them. They aren’t going to read his work. They’re proud to admit it. In the spirit of the awards, a certain Tor editor—who has no problem marching with communists—is pushing for everyone to automatically vote No Award over Vox. Stay classy, noble Social Justice Warrior, but once again, there’s no bias.

The thing is, even if what these people say about Vox is true,(and I personally think it is as grossly exaggerated as anything else these people decide to attack) what they’re declaring is that assholes can’t make good art… Well, the entire history of art would like to disagree with you. Truly brilliant works of art have been created by people who are bat shit crazy. So now that it is nominated, how about you goose stepping morons try reading books instead of burning them?

The SJW contingent isn’t just outraged that these vile hatemongers are on there, but since I’m popular and I riled up a whole bunch of normally uninvolved fans, most of the stuff I suggested also wound up on there too. My other nomination for best novel was for Sarah Hoyt’s (a Latino immigrant woman) story with a gay male as its main PoV character and hero… It checks all their boxes! Oh, but wait… Sarah’s a libertarian and I only nominated A Few Good Men because it was a really good book and not for social justice. Only not as many of my fans had read that one yet, so it didn’t make the list. So much for that monolithic group think thing we’re supposed to have going on over here.

Normally, media tie in fiction, as in books relating to games, movies, etc. is considered contemptible by the WorldCon voters. Tie in writers are looked down on and sneered at by the literati. You’ve got writers who’ve written hundreds of books, like Anderson, Stackpole, or Zahn, with some of them being brilliant, but it would be a cold day in hell before some media tie in fiction got any respect at WorldCon. In any normal year a work of tie in fiction getting a nomination would be extremely controversial. This year it doesn’t even make a blip on the radar.

Peter David writes Star Trek novels, comic books, and other things. I saw a post from him lamenting how sad it was that a racist got on the ballot but tie in fiction can’t… Little did he realize that my slate pushed the excellent Butcher of Khardov by Dan Wells, which is Warmachine tie in fiction, and got it a nomination for Best Novella. As far as I’m aware, in the history of the Hugos this has never happened before… So you’re welcome, Peter. My “wrong kind of fans” broke new ground for you on the very same slate.

It has made me sad to see Dan Wells getting caught up in their hate. Dan is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, and he’s a political moderate. I nominated Butcher because it is excellent. It is a story about a homicidal maniac that made me tear up at the end. And now the same people who despise me without having ever read my fiction are conspiring against this brilliant, creative, artist simply for the crime of being recommended by a bad person like me.

But there’s no bias…

I thought it was interesting that the Fanzine category, which is normally dominated by the same handful of groups year after year, taking turns giving each other the Hugo, is actually totally shaken up this year with new nominees… Because last year I demonstrated what happened when a creator simply asked their fans to get involved, so people did. And those little categories can be swayed by a couple dozen votes. Of course, those old Fanzines with their closets full of Hugos simply love me now. :)

Toni Weisskopf is one of the most successful and prolific editors in publishing. She’s edited some of the most successful authors in genre fiction, discovered tons of new talent, and runs one of the biggest sci-fi publishing houses in the country… Everybody in the industry knows Toni. The woman is brilliant. Yet did you know that she’d never gotten a Hugo nomination until I launched Sad Puppies? Back during Sad Puppies, some Fanzine (that had like 30 Hugo nominations) was offended by the uncouth barbarity of me asking my people (the wrong kind of fans) to get involved, but even they had to admit that Toni Weisskopf deserved a Hugo.

Meanwhile, the Tor editor who is cool with his followers organizing to vote No Award against the barbaric interlopers? Ten nominations. But there is absolutely no bias in the awards.

I actually got Marko Kloos nominated for the Campbell as well, but it turned out he had his first pro sale in 2011 so he was ineligible. I nominated him because Terms of Enlistment was a really good debut novel. So of my slate, I only missed a single category.

And as they scream and rail against me, this is what my fans accomplished while mildly amused and a little annoyed. Keep attacking us with crazy accusations and maybe I’ll do this again next year, only with more manatees.

Actually reading the books. Crazy idea, I know. The people warning others not to read the nominated works because of badthink. Good. They’re simply demonstrating that they are the small minded, bigoted, control freak, censorship loving, statists I accused them of being.

Now for everybody else who isn’t a jerk, I would encourage you to read the works for yourself and rank them accordingly.

Brandon Sanderson posted about this. Most of the WorldCon voters really want the Hugo to be about quality and art more than politics, and they take their voting very seriously. I agree with him. His fans are being attacked in some quarters as well because they are outsiders. I thought his response to this was very well reasoned. Brandon is a class act. I look forward to his inevitable mud stomping of me and the other competitors.

I actually had a Stross novel on my nightstand to be read when the announcements were made. I’ve read Mira Grant and think she’s a solid writer. I’d encourage anybody who signed up because of Sad Puppies to read and vote based upon the quality of the work.

Tor owes me. Now, in any normal year, the entire fourteen book series of the Wheel of Time, written over 26 years, by two different authors being nominated as “best novel” would be by far the most controversial thing about the Hugos. Instead most of the outragers are spending their energy praying Vox gets cancer.

You are welcome, Tor. Now please go down to Tor.com and tell some of your idiot bloggers to at least try and get their facts straight before they make shit up about me. And to that one junior editor who supposedly could only make it through the first 20 pages of Hard Magic, part of being an editor is finding sellable talent, and I’ve sold the hell out of this series in multiple countries now, so you must really suck at your job.

The rules allow WoT to be considered a novel, so it is there. I’d ask readers to judge the works accordingly. If you love the WoT, vote for it. But please, actually read some of it and don’t vote for it simply because Rand was awesome when you were in middle school. It is bad enough to be outnumbered 27 pages to one, but none of us can compete with 12 year old you’s nostalgia.

That said, my money is on Brandon. :)

The Actual Awards. To the morons who keep talking about how they wouldn’t “feel safe” if I attended WorldCon, you may untwist your panties. I’m not going. That’s the same weekend as GenCon, which is actually fun (and has an excellent writing track by the way). If I’m going to go all the way to England, it is going to be to play tourist around a beautiful country, not sit around being lectured on the dangers of cismale gendernormative fascism and neocolonial patriarchy.

And seriously, when you “feel unsafe” in real life you usually end up calling somebody like my average fan to come save you, so quit the drama queen act. It is annoying as hell.

I don’t expect to win anything, and don’t really care. I got my trophy as soon as the Social Justice Warrior contingent demonstrated to the world that they’re a bunch of hypocritical little fascists.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/24/an-explanation-about-the-hugo-awards-controversy/

Mars Attacks: White Privilege Conference Part 4

by Mars ( 92 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Communism, Conservatism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis, Unions at May 27th, 2014 - 3:00 pm

WPC14 UNDERCOVER VIDEO➙ White Student Booted From White Privilege Session – His Race Was Too Offensive

Posted on Friday, May 16th, 2014 at 12:10 pm by Kyle Olson

Editor’s Note: Part 4 of 4

MADISON, Wis. – When one looks through the rhetorical veneer of the White Privilege Conference, hypocrisies abound.

The White Privilege folks say Christianity is oppressive while the violent Muslim Brotherhood is just a “political party.” Capitalism is bad even though conference organizers hawk facilitator guides for $99. And nothing says “I’m oppressed” quite like a $50 polo shirt!

Other aspects include segregated workshops open to only some conference participants, based solely on the color of their skin. The reason? An organizer told our investigator: “It can feel, for some people of color, unsafe. Not universally – like in your group everybody was fine, but for some people it can feel like, oh, I don’t … ”

“Because I was white they would feel unsafe?” our reporter asked as he was led out of the workshop.

“Exactly. Exactly,” the organizer said. “And it’s not because you’ve done anything. You seem like a perfectly fine person, but it’s because of experiences they’ve had with others.”

If a white person displayed that attitude with any person of color, it would be called racism. If, for example, an elderly White woman clutches her purse a little tighter in a parking lot when a black man is approaching – because she recently heard about a rash of purse snatchings – she’s a racist.

But if a person of color isn’t comfortable sitting in a room with a White person because of something another White person may have done to them, well that must be racism, too.

But perhaps the most ironic and contradictory occurrence was Victor Woods’ sweet ride.

Woods, convict-turned-best-selling author, wouldn’t tell the audience all of his secrets.

You’d be surprised how many people say, ‘How’d you do it?’ I guarantee you someone in this session will walk up to me when everyone’s gone and say (inaudible) and I will let you know, and it’s in the book for $24.95!

Woods’ red Corvette could be seen parked in the most privileged spot in the parking lot at the conference hotel.

But Woods’ main message was likely lost on attendees.

This is America! … Anything you want to do you can do. … I wrote this book: “Successfully Achieving Your Vision.” Eyesight’s what’s in front of you. Vision is what you see down the road. Work ethic. Perseverance. Do you know how long it took to write this book? Five years. .. See the world opens up for a man or woman who knows where they’re going.

That’s a wise and lasting message for true victims of racism and oppression. But purveyors of the White Privilege Conference would instead have them wallow in pity, anger and ultimately, failure.

Do the White Privilege people really believe they are doing black children any favors by teaching them that America hates them, and there’s no hope for them in this racist society?

Authored by Kyle Olson

http://www.progressivestoday.com/white-privilege-victim-drives-his-corvette-to-the-conference-and-other-hypocrisies-abound-exclusive-video/

Conservative?

by coldwarrior ( 123 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Conservatism, Debt, Economy, government, Immigration, Libertarianism, Open thread, Politics, Regulation, Republican Party, taxation, Tea Parties, unemployment at May 16th, 2014 - 1:12 pm

Then I guess I ain’t one. No mention of deregulation at the federal level. No mention of any fiscally conservative issues like, oh, I don’t know, getting the budget and spending under control to avoid the obvious wall we are going to hit in a few years. No mention of tax reform. No mention of State’s rights. No mention of personal liberty. No mention of limiting the Federal Government’s role in our lives. These should be the ‘Agenda’ for the GOP. These should be Bedrock Issues.

 

But, predictably, No…It’s Abortion, ‘the family’ (not sure why fedgov needs to be involved in that), and illegal immigration. Now, if its up to me, abortion is up to the states where they could really make some headway like is being made on the second amendment. Mexico would be read the riot act and forced to close their side of the border, we would seal our southern border and the northern border. Hiring managers and HR and CEOs would do hard time for hiring illegals. There would be a path to citizenship, but it would be hard, and there would be work permits but they would only seasonal. Easy fix. took me 5 minutes.

 

Instead the usual crowd met and they talked about family values and abortion and fags. THE ECONOMY IS WRECKED!!!  WE HAVE 25% REAL UNEMPLOYMENT!!! WE ARE GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY IN A FEW YEARS!!! REGULATION IS KILLING US!!! FEDGOV VIEWS THE CITIZENS AS CATTLE!!! But no, let’s beat our chests about abortion and fags.

I have begun to ask myself, why does this  GOP ‘conservative wing’ not want to focus on why America is becoming poorer and losing ground by the minute while stacking up debt by the minute that will enslave our kids and grand-kids? Do they not see or not care about the train wreck that is coming for the economy? Why does this group have a willful disregard for economics and liberty? Having Grover Norquist natter on and subscribing to the economically illiterate idea of a balanced budget amendment does not address the serious fiscal issues that we face. Not even close. If these guys were the board and GOP was a corporation, they would be fired by the shareholders for negligence.

Although many Republicans are optimistic about their chances in this year’s elections, some of Washington’s leading conservatives gathered Thursday to privately vent frustrations about what kind of party they will be left with after November.

The group, alarmed by a resurgence of the GOP establishment in recent primaries and what activists view as a softened message, drafted demands to be shared with senior lawmakers calling on the party to “recommit” to bedrock principles.

Some of those principles laid out in the new document — strict opposition to illegal immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion — represent the hot-button positions that many Republican congressional candidates are trying to avoid as the party attempts to broaden its appeal.

Several attendees said they fear that elected Republicans, even if they succeed in retaining control of the House and winning the Senate majority, would cast aside the core conservative base.

“Conservatives ought not to delude themselves that if Republicans win the Senate majority, it will somehow be a conservative majority,” said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center, which monitors perceived media bias. “We should have no expectation whatsoever that they will listen. That’s why we’re fighting.”

Others worry that a toned-down campaign message by the party would dim GOP turnout and undercut Republicans in competitive races.

“I’m terrified that Republicans will blow this election if they are not going to stand for something,” said Michael A. Needham, the chief executive of Heritage Action, a conservative group.

Stand for something!?! How about standing for State’s rights, personal liberty and less regulation/federal control as ‘Bedrock Issues’? Why not restrain Fedzilla and get them off of our backs as a Bedrock Issue? They can start with USDA agents with machine guns and bullet proof vests then move to the BLM and ATF and EPA. How about standing for not selling our kids and grand-kids into debt slavery as a Bedrock Issue?

Debt is slavery and regulation is the whip.

Liberty is a gift. Liberty is a real and universal family value.

Debt and Liberty weren’t on the agenda.

 

*SO, this is what drives me mad about these people who call themselves conservative* Where is the liberty? Where is the reduction of enslaving debt?   Makes me crazy…so don’t get all out of whack over this post. It is for illustration purposes only.

 

Oh well…have a great friday and weekend yinz!

2014 NRA Annual Meetings

by lobo91 ( 212 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Election 2014, Libertarianism, Patriotism, Politics, Second Amendment, The Constitution, Weapons at April 27th, 2014 - 2:00 pm

It’s that time again. That disturbance in the force you may have noticed over the past few days was caused by the gathering of 70,000 supporters of the Second Amendment in Indianapolis for the 2014 NRA Annual Meetings!

While I wasn’t able to make it there in person this year, I thought I’d spend a few minutes gathering together some of the major speeches from the 3 day event. First up: NRA CEO and Executive VP Wayne LaPierre’s opening address from Friday’s Leadership Forum, in which he challenged the members to counter Michael Bloomberg’s astroturf spending:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF8oCOV5kUc

A number of politicians addressed the Forum audience, as well:

Gov. Bobby Jindal: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTNMFETOdPs

Gov. Mike Pence: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXioqe8aqXA

Sen. Marco Rubio: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m2cWZBuLZ0

Former Sen. Rick Santorum: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBTXaG3YHM4

Sen. Dan Coats: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MQM7o2MKvs

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7px7Uo-876A

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJBnAlE7ix4

And the keynote speech from the afternoon, byt Mark Levin: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUWfqbkDvHQ

Saturday, there were two major events. In the monring, there was the Meeting of Members, which is the official business portion of the convention. There were three main speakers:

Wayne LaPierre: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCFB0N_jzMk

Chris Cox, the director of NRA-ILA (the lobbying and PAC arm of the association), who I personally believe is being groomed to take the reins when LaPierre retires: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhfpGiFA5PI

NRA President Jim Porter: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4yayLmoRfE

Finally, Saturday evening, Sarah Palin addressed the crowd at the Stand and Fight Rally: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVlQTYDFTTo

While nothing quite compares to the experience of being there in person, hopefully, this will give everyone a taste of what took place!

The thrill of tyranny.

by Guest Post ( 290 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Progressives, Tea Parties, The Political Right at April 22nd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Guest Blogger: The thrill of tyranny.


Lois Lerner may be gone, but her legacy looms large in the minds of Marxist tyrants pretending to be Democrats.

IRS revokes conservative group’s tax-exempt status over anti-Clinton statements

The Internal Revenue Servicehas revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative charity for making statements critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, according to a USA Today report.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released Friday by the IRS.

The IRS said the center acted as an “action organization” by publishing alerts on its website for columns written by its president, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The IRS pointed out a column that appeared to be published by Townhall on April 2, 2004, in which Mr. Aldrich wrote, “if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere,” the Free Beacon reported.

Another article cited by the IRS was a 2005 piece titled “Stop Hillary Now!,” which rallied “Clinton haters” to inform voters of Hillary Clinton’s “atrocious conduct,” USA Today reported.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in an interview with The Washington Post last week that the IRS and Treasury Department are likely to rewrite controversial draft guidelines to better define “candidate-related political activities.”

“My bottom line is that it’s in everyone’s interest to have clarification,” he said. “My position since I started more than four months ago is that we ought to have clarity, and that any rule that comes out ought to be fair and easy to administer.”

Conservatives have argued that the proposals are just another way for the Obama administration to target right-leaning groups.

A Fox News poll published last week revealed that 49 percent of American voters believe the IRS intentionally targeted conservative organizations.

What is important to note here, is that at this particular point in time, neither John F’ing Kerry nor Hillary Clinton are declared candidates for anything. Thus rending the IRS act’s preemptive at best, and an illegal suppression of free speech at the barest of minimums. In short, this action by the IRS is nothing less than a expansion of the tyrannical overreach of the federal government that the Obamanation Administration has nurtured. Just as with the recent case witnessed in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch, these actions fly in the face of every word written by America’s Founding Fathers, not only in the Constitution itself, but in every one of their written documents in which they went to excruciatingly pains to make their position crystal clear on.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that the dust up in Nevada is a one off exception to the rule event for the BLM, think again.

BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.

“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.

The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”

Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.

Is is really any wonder, with the Federal government consistently acting with such a blatant disregard for the United States constitution, that so many American’s are getting fed up? And then, to add insult to injury, we have a Senate Majority Leader calling those who object to the Federal governments illegal and unconstitutional action “Domestic Terrorists”?

‘I blame both sides,’ Oklahoma militia members join fight against feds

OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.

He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.

Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”

However, not everyone agrees.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said, “You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.”

I should like to point out the blatantly and painfully obvious to Scott Shaw, the moment any State enacts a property tax, it has illegally seized all privately held property in that state, since the penalty for failure to pay a property tax is seized and forced sale of the property in question the act of enacting a property tax instantly transforms the property owner into a tenant leasing or renting the property from the State.

As to Sen. Jim Inhofe’s bullshit, it is really no surprise to see a member of America’s self anointed Aristocracy aligning himself with the Federal governments Brown shirts against the average American citizen, while simultaneously berating American’s for being offended by the acts of a tyrannical government that has long since lost it’s moral or legal authority to govern.

That Congress can and does pass legislation that violates the United States Constitution and then uses the judicial branches and various Law Enforcement Agencies to apply it’s monopoly on violence to enforce those Unconstitutional laws is nothing new. Slavery was after all once legal as were all of the Jim Crow and Blue Laws.

What is relatively new, is the American People standing up and saying, NO, you have gone to far.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Rick Perry challenges Andrew Cuomo to a debate

by Rodan ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Democratic Party, Libertarianism, Progressives, Republican Party, Special Report at April 22nd, 2014 - 12:19 pm

The Libertarian leaning Governor of Texas Rick Perry has issued a challenge to NY’s Fascist Governor Andrew Cuomo. In a trip to NY, he wants to debate ideas for job creation. He wants to use stats showing Texas has economically outperformed NY in recent years.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who will be arriving in New York this afternoon for a trip trying to lure businesses to the Longhorn State, offered a Texas-sized takdown of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s record on job creation this morning and challenged him to a debate.

“I’d be more than happy to sit down and have a thoughtful conversation, a debate with Gov. Cuomo over the issues that face us as a state and talk about the economic policies and compare New York to Texas,” said Mr. Perry, speaking on New York Post columnist Fred Dicker’s Live from the State Capitol radio show. “I think that would be not only interesting and fun, but a thoughtful way for us as a country to have a discussion between two of the major states in America, talking about which one of these policies are actually better for our people.”

Mr. Cuomo has made a point of emphasizing tax cuts and job growth as he runs for re-election, but Mr. Perry quickly brushed aside those efforts. Asked about a campaign Mr. Cuomo has been running advertising the state’s new tax-free zones to lure new businesses, Mr. Perry ran through a list of companies that had relocated or expanded into Texas recently, and also pointed to New York’s high net migration rate.

Man up Andrew and take Perry up on his offer.

 

 

Bob Shrum trolls Republicans in support of Jeb Bush

by Rodan ( 157 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Libertarianism, Republican Party at April 22nd, 2014 - 7:00 am

Before the 2008 election, Democrats and their media allies lamented that the GOP does not nominate men like John McCain. When he did get the nomination, the media turned McCain into an racist and a bigot. Before the 2012 elections, the Democrats and their media allies complained the republican party did not nominate people like Mitt Romney. Article after article claimed Romney would be unstoppable in a general election. when he did get the nomination, the media thanks in part to Romney’s rhetoric during the primaries turned him into the 2nd coming of Adolf Hitler. History is now repeating itself with a former Governor from Florida many us can’t stand.

Bob Shrum who is committed to one thing only and that is victory for the Democrats, play the roll of concern troll with Republicans. Shrum writes a false flag article claiming that Jeb Bush is the GOP’s best shot for 2016.

Does anyone really believe Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Chris Christie can contend against Hillary Clinton? At least Jeb, the establishment’s establishmentarian, would put up a fight.

The GOP may have to return to the Bush leagues.

Here’s why.

In presidential nominating contests, the Republican establishment has always won out—from the first Bush, to the tried but tired Dole, to W., then McCain, and most recently Romney, who nonetheless had to labor mightily to emerge from the weakest field of candidates in either party, ever.

[....]

And they weren’t wrong. Sure, as the unskewed polls unraveled, Mr. 47 Percent lost—with just 47 percent of the popular vote. It was a fitting end; but any of the other GOP hopefuls, except for the forgotten and mortally moderate Jon Huntsman, would have turned in a far bleaker performance.

In the aftermath, those who traditionally dominate the Republican nominating process realize they are weaker than before and are therefore anxious.

[....]

So inevitably the centripetal force of the establishment GOP will move toward Jeb Bush. He may not run—or he may spurn his mother’s advice and plunge in. He says he will decide by the end of the year. He may bear the burden of the Bush name and his brother’s failed presidency, widely reviled in both parties. But he wouldn’t bear the burden of the Ryan budget. And he would have his brother’s advantage in 2000, which brought W. within an inch of the White House, where Jeb and a partisan Supreme Court could push him over the line: Jeb could campaign as the reworded version of a compassionate conservative, the last GOP theme that tracked the mainstream. He could even reprise the tactic of pledging to end gridlock—to transcend the “the bitter arguments of the last few years… to change the tone in Washington,” as George W. promised in his 2000 speech accepting the GOP nomination.

[....]

If Jeb reaches for the nomination, there will be a titanic battle between the party establishment and the Tea Party. Steve Schmidt, McCain’s strategist in 2008,insists that in the end Republicans usually settle on the most electable candidate. To get by, this Bush may be forced to trim his positions, although the cautionary tale of Romney suggests that he would have to tack artfully and carefully for the sake of the general election. Certainly he will have the resources to outlast, discredit, and disqualify his rivals.

Finally and inadvertently, Hillary Clinton may help Jeb navigate this rocky road. If, and in my view when, she runs she will be “the inevitable Democratic nominee”—and voters will know it. Then the latest New Hampshire right-wing confab may be more a case of sound and fury than a predictor of the ultimate outcome because in states like New Hampshire, where independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, they will be drawn to the undecided race, free to take a GOP ballot—and cast it for a Jeb Bush. And then it will be up to him and his allies in the party establishment to do the rest. After protracted and bitter months, we will know whether Republicans want a real chance again in presidential contests.

I agree with some of Shrum’s assessment about the difficulties the current version of the Republican Party has in Presidential elections. I am even of the opinion no Republican can realistically defeat Hillary in 2016 as current conditions stands. But Shrum is full of garbage in his analysis.

Jeb Bush who is a Porky Pig clone,  has not run a campaign since 2002. He is washed up and out of touch with today’s electorate. bush also has a toxic last name based on the failures of his father and brother’s presidencies. A Jeb vs. Hillary match up will feature defections to the Libertarians party and a 45 state blowout win for Hillary. Shrum knows this and is just hoping Republicans take him serious and crash and burn with Jeb.

 

Freedom Week: The Mystical Meaning Behind The Ancient Secret Of The Second Amendment

by Flyovercountry ( 255 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Fascism, Libertarianism, Progressives, Second Amendment, Uncategorized at April 21st, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

It has always been a source of great amusement for me, that our debates in this nation over the Constitution have tended to center around the concept of what the Founding Fathers meant when they put it all together. After all, they did not frame this document in a vacuum. They debated it vociferously, recorded their debate, argued with one another via written letters, and even took the measure to defend their work and explain it all, in great detail by the way, in a collection of news paper articles. Yet, even with all of that, we still get some down right zany explanations as to how their true intention was to limit personal freedom and build a top down nanny state with an overbearing government in control of even the most mundane daily decisions of everyone who happens to be a citizen of these fruited plains.

While there are certainly many areas of contention, none, in my humble opinion can match the beating over the years, taken by the Second Amendment. This particular safe guard against tyranny is the holy grail for the political left, and they’ve been after it since the very birth of the progressive movement. I want to make something perfectly clear, not all who advocate for gun control deserve ridicule. I do not doubt the sincerity of most of those that I meet and debate with. Most of the people we meet are honest in the way that they debate about any issue, and gun control versus the Second Amendment is no exception to that rule. The vast majority of the debate from the other side is being delivered by people who while they may be wrong, are none the less sincere in their thinking.

That’s important for a number of reasons, the most important of which is centered on how you defeat their ideology. Making it personal will not ever be a winning formula, they were led to where they live via their emotions, and the appeals to those emotions. What will work however, is a complete nonacceptance of their flawed straw man talking points. We need to back the train up, and refute them there, rather than trying to refute each individual piece of Tom Foolery that finds its way to the light of day.

For example, when Governor Cuomo screeches, “you don’t need x number of bullets to kill a deer,” simply remind the world that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, killing deer, or target shooting. When the next mass shooting, and there will be a next one, takes its place in the never ending news pummeling, point out how it happened, as always, in a gun free zone. When the great Joe Biden gives his brilliantly thought out treatise on how merely firing off a shotgun blindly into the night will be sufficient to scare off any home invader, making any other type of firearm unnecessary for protection, remind him that home protection was not at all the intention of the Second Amendment. When Michael Moore intones his preposterous theory that the Second Amendment means that the Framers of our First National Law intended for citizens to be gifted with permission to carry front loading muskets only, laugh at what is truly, museum grade stupidity.

Here is the truth about the Second Amendment. It was not placed in the Bill of Rights so that people who were in militias could form paramilitary organizations to assist in national defense. It was not put in the Bill of Rights so that the people living in that age would be able to hunt for food. The Founding Fathers were not worried about citizens being able to ward off burglars, or even bandits in a wild and lawless frontier. They were not particularly frightened of the Indian population suddenly and without provocation marauding within the original colonies. They wanted to make certain that the citizens would be every bit a well armed, and even better armed, than any army that a central government would be able to put together.

When the Constitution was presented initially to the Legislatures of the individual states, it was not ratified. The individual state legislatures wanted some additions to the agreement codified into the deal, prior to signing on. One of the Amendments demanded was authored by George Mason of Virginia. It was the Second out of Eight, (the last two Amendments that rounded out the Bill of Rights were authored by James Madison, as a response to the discussion concerning the first Eight.) Of all of the quotes concerning the Second Amendment and what it really means, perhaps the best and most succinct belongs to the fellow who wrote the thing.

Here’s what George Mason had to say about the people’s right to keep and bear arms:

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.

If you still have doubts as to what was intended by the Second Amendment, we’ll let the author of the Constitution discuss it, at length. Here is the last paragraph from Federalist number 46, authored by James Madison, with emphasis added after the fact by myself:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

It is clear, or should be to anyone of even a slightly intellectually honest nature, that our founding fathers not only wanted our citizens to be armed to the teeth, but wanted private citizens to be a greater force than any military that our nation could muster. They wanted the private citizens to be able to defeat any military force Washington could send against us. So the short answer to the hyperbolic question, “do you think the Founding Fathers wanted private citizens to have nukes?” is an undeniable and resounding yes. They wanted the citizens to have access to anything our military, or any military has, at any time now, or in the future.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.