Friday - February 10, 2012

Crowder In Da House

Hey, remember Steve Crowder? He’s baaaaack!

GW raps?

Posted by Drew458     on 02/10/2012 at 08:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 20, 2011

Hero of the Day

Cuban-born, Venezuelan-raised actress Maria Conchita Alonso and actor Sean Penn had a contentious exchange at Los Angeles International airport recently, in which Alonso called Penn a “communist a**hole“ and Penn called Alonso a ”pig.”

Over a year and a half after Alonso penned an open letter to Penn asking him why he supports socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the two met up serendipitously (or not so) at LAX while both were waiting to claim lost luggage.

Alonso, who starred alongside Penn in the 1988 film “Colors,” described the exchange to Steve Malzberg on WMAL.

“I go ‘Hello,’ and he smiles and says, ‘Oh, you lost your bag too?” Alonso told Steve Malzberg on WMAL.  “And I’m like, ‘No, my mother (lost her bag).’ And at that moment he recognizes me because he didn’t recognize me before, and he goes, ‘Oh, it’s you.’”

Alonso says she calmly told Penn she wanted to speak with him about the tension over Chavez when Penn blew up at her.

“He goes, ‘I don’t want to talk to you.  You speak badly about me.  You insult me on TV,” Alonso said.

Alonso says the conversation escalated when Penn accused Alonso’s brother of attempting to assassinate Chavez, which Alonso says is not true.

“So I’m like, ‘You are in favor of Hugo Chavez and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.’ Because I also saw a picture of footage from TV where Chavez and Ahmadinejad are together and Sean Penn is next to them.  And, you know, he‘s like ’I’ve never said that about Ahmadinejad.  You’re a pig.’ And I go to him, ‘And you are a communist, Sean Penn!’”

“The second time I called him a communist I said ‘You’re a communist a**hole,” Alonso elaborated.  She claims that while she regrets using profanity she is not sorry for calling Penn a communist.

“I’m not apologizing for calling him a communist because that is what he is.”

Silly Penn, the pampered Hollywood Red Diaper Baby. Go put up a few more tents in Haiti, m’kay? He should know better than to mess with those hot blooded Latinas. First she’d chew him out. Later on, a chola could cut a bitch, chu no? Watch your step. I just happen to agree with her 100%.

Video at the link.

Posted by Drew458     on 12/20/2011 at 10:16 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - June 30, 2011

New Ann’s without nu-ance

Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.

Preach it sista, preach it!

Ann Coulter writes on Glen Beck’s experience the other day where he and his family were harassed while attending a free outdoor concert in New York City’s Bryant Park.

A liberal’s idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can’t afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger’s face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people’s manners. I know I’ll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America—and not just because Obama decided to address it. It’s because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON’T FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.
...
These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.

And while the self-proclaimed “nomad member of the artistic underclass” tries to quickly cover up her physical assault on the Beck family (via wine throwing), her harassment of his body guards ("acrobatics" or mock kung-fu?), and her self promoting verbal and visual harassment (things said and posters quickly made and waved about), The Blaze does a bit of internet digging and gets at the truth even faster than she can close her accounts and try to wipe out her digital footprints. Because the lefty elitists really are so stupid that they have to broadcast their actions on Twitter etc in real-time. And the internet is forever.

If I were Beck I’d be thinking about a lawsuit. If you can’t punch these hippie scumbags in the face physically, you can at least kick them in the ass in court, right where they carry their wallets. And he can afford to lawyer this broad into penury. WTF, that would only be treating a liberal the way that a liberal organization treats any Conservative they don’t like. What’s good for the goose, and all that.

Stand up Conservatives, you have nothing to loose but your chains. Just make sure you go about in groups; being a Republican these days is like being a black guy in Alabama in 1947. Or a Christian in Egypt in 2011.

Posted by Drew458     on 06/30/2011 at 07:52 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - April 21, 2011

A double shot of Crowder

The problem with the Sarah Palin dialogue that’s gone on in this country since 2008 is that people either want to smear and destroy her, or viciously attack anybody who doesn’t adore her. That’s exactly why I’ve steered clear of it. But once folks start bringing people’s special needs children into the mix… It’s time to start putting the stamp on some elitist bastards.

The topic of Sarah Palin has been open season to the media, entertainment industry and club comics alike. Unlike the propped up golden family in the White House, the Hollywood establishment has deemed the doggy pile-on the Palin family as both safe and acceptable. All too eager to appease the establishment, we’ve seen A to Z list stars line up to take their shots at society’s new favorite whipping post.

Cowards.

There’s quite a bit more at the link.

No, I didn’t post on this story. The left abuses this woman and her family all the time. They are merciless and utterly heartless in their attempt to shut down the free speech of this citizen. And complete and total hypocrites for calling out for “civil discourse”. I don’t have words harsh enough. But I rather think some seriously torture is called for. I think “woodeling” is a term that comes to mind, an act in which a rope has two knots put in it and is tied around the victim’s head. The knots go over the eyes and the rope is twisted tighter and tighter from behind.

Does it make any difference that this was done by a “nationally recognized blogger” or a known TV talking head? No. Don’t forget how Wonkette got her start ... being a whore in DC and writing about it. Wasn’t that it? Or was that her friend and roommate, out boffing Senators at lunchtime for some quick cash and she just helped with the writing? So I never expected much from there. And then she left the blog to some team and went to work for Time magazine? Or was it Rolling Stone? That had to be 7 years ago, and I haven’t paid any attention since then.

Posted by Drew458     on 04/21/2011 at 09:45 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - January 22, 2011

weekend reading

Links offered up by Rich K.

Mark Steyn considers the end of the era, as the cultural torch gets dimmed by the very people who hold it. A half hour well spent that will keep you thinking all weekend.

Not so long ago, Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian and soi-disant Islamophobe, flew into London and promptly got shipped back to the Netherlands as a threat to public order. After the British Government had reconsidered its stupidity, he was permitted to return and give his speech at the House of Lords—and, as foreigners often do, he quoted Winston Churchill, under the touchingly naive assumption that this would endear him to the natives. Whereas, of course, to almost all members of Britain’s governing elite, quoting Churchill approvingly only confirms that you’re an extremist lunatic. I had the honor a couple of years back of visiting President Bush in the White House and seeing the bust of Churchill on display in the Oval Office. When Barack Obama moved in, he ordered Churchill’s bust be removed and returned to the British. Its present whereabouts are unclear. But, given what Sir Winston had to say about Islam in his book on the Sudanese campaign, the bust was almost certainly arrested at Heathrow and deported as a threat to public order.

Making a silk purse from a sow’s ear is no trick at all to Obama. VDH writes on Teh One’s amazing bipartisan rise in the poles in the last 2 weeks. You’re being played folks.

Two, it was politically brilliant to let the Left fully vent for five days. That way they would not be furious that they had been muzzled, and the interval would allow ample time for finger-in-the-wind testing of the national reaction to their deplorable rhetoric. When Obama did at last come forward, the Left was both satiated and discredited. And in brilliant morally equivalent fashion, the stage was set to channel growing popular repulsion at the Krugmans of the world into popular repulsion at both Krugmans and those that they libeled. A sacrificial Paul Krugman could not have wished for more—as, for example, Palin’s favorables plummeted.

As you scroll down his blog and go back through time, Hanson writes more about Palin, more about Obama, more about Tuscon, and more. A whole month of great posts. This guy is tops.

Ok, time for me to get out of here and go shopping before the temps drop down to the teens. We’re down 3 degrees already and the sun is still shining. Damn. Is it Spring yet?????

Posted by Drew458     on 01/22/2011 at 04:33 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 21, 2010

Read This

http://neithercorp.us/npress/2010/12/constitutional-judo/

Yup, I’m what he calls a Constitutionalist. I would have used the terms ”Strict Constructionist” or “Originalist”, but people are so short-sighted that many can’t see that these two terms expand beyond the legal definition to embrace an entire worldview. Or nationview. And I can not disagree with the author, that the term Conservative has been both watered down and corrupted, both from within and from without. Furthermore, attaching the “Republican” political label to any of these terms is a major misnomer. “Republican” and “Democrat” are meaningless terms at this point, when the only difference between most of the elected members of the party is a matter of degree: both sides are “Progressives” but one side has less patience than the other and wants their Socialist Utopia (with them on top) right now.

At least this fellow provides us some live ammo to fire at the “living document” crowd.

Indeed.

Posted by Drew458     on 12/21/2010 at 02:26 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Conservative Link Clearing House

A bit like Insty, only without the blended puppies.

Liberty Junkie is doing the job BlogRolling no longer does; they have a list of your favorite two or three hundred Conservative blogs. They also have links to the latest post from those blogs sorted out into 16 categories of what’s current. It’s useful, especially if you don’t want to make a huge RSS subscriber list, or plod through dozens and dozens of blogs to see what’s going on.

Vilmar’s, Theo’s, Stoaty’s, Ace’s, Steamboat’s, Cbullit’s and Lemur King’s are not on the list.  Nor are any of the other Moronosphere blogs. Nope, not Rott. No Right, Wing-Nut either. But both versions of Liberty Pundits (.com, .net) are. So it isn’t a complete list of the places I visit, but it might be useful to some of you.

Posted by Drew458     on 12/21/2010 at 09:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - November 09, 2010

One for JayD

Posted by Drew458     on 11/09/2010 at 09:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Eye-Candy • Sarah Palin • The New Conservatives • UK •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - October 12, 2010

Don’t Count Your Chickens

First, even under a best-case scenario, the Republicans taking the oath in January will not have a veto-proof majority; this means they won’t be able to repeal any of Barack Obama’s legislation. Moreover, if the RINOS among them get seduced by Lady Compromise, some more statism (albeit watered down) could be visited upon us. Thus, the best we can hope for is a GOP holding action — which, admittedly, is vastly preferable to being stimulated into socialism.

Many are aware of this, of course, and consider November merely the first step in a new conservative revolution. But while this sounds good, history and social trends tell a different tale. You see, the problem is that conservatism has always been but a holding action. And usually conservatives hold on to power just long enough for people to become inured to the last liberal Congress’ changes and ready for the next liberal Congress’ changes.

Think about it: When in modern times has there ever been a sustained movement toward the Right? Even the vaunted Reagan Revolution was really just the Reagan Defense; decades of liberal legislative triumphs remained intact while the culture continued the leftward greased-skids slide.

Thus, every year more laws — which, by definition, are removals of freedom — are enacted, the cost of government increases and its yoke becomes weightier, and the culture becomes more decadent.

And part of the blame for this lies with conservatives. The reason why a communist in the Soviet Union and a McCarthyist in the United States in 1952 could both be called a “conservative” is that the only consistent definition of the term involves the desire to maintain the status quo. Yet, not only isn’t this synonymous with defending Truth, it doesn’t even amount to preserving tradition (which can reflect Truth). The reality is that at any given time conservatives are simply defending liberals’ decades-old triumphs, as today’s status quo was born of yesterday’s leftist mo’.

Read all of it please.



This won’t be over in November. Or the November after that. Or any November for the next decade. Getting the leftist scum out of office is merely the first small step. Then we really need to hold our representatives toes to the fire, day in and day out. Massive protests. A huge and growing network of essays, blogs, and education pages. An eventual takeover of academia and all channels of the media, including Hollywood and the music industry. It’s going to be a long long fight. We will not live so long as to see final victory, but we can knock out a few bricks from that old wall every year until it stands no more.

And as the author of this article points out, it’s a fight that has NEVER been fought before. NEVER. Not by me, not by you. Not by Ronald Reagen, PBUH. Not by Bush, either one. Not by anyone. Ever.

Until each and every law that was ever written on the deliberately misconstrued meaning of the Commerce Clause is stricken from the books, the fight isn’t over. Until each and every government program and department that isn’t even close to constitutional is stripped of it’s budget, it’s people, and it’s very existence, it ain’t over. We have 100 years of garbage to pick through and throw out. With opponents screaming every step of the way and every government everywhere throwing up roadblocks. Getting rid of Crap & Traitor and ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg. There are THOUSANDS of laws that need to be repealed, DOZENS of Supreme Court decisions that need to be overturned, NUMBERLESS public attitudes that need to be reversed through education and enlightenment.

The h/t for this goes to Rich K. 

Posted by Drew458     on 10/12/2010 at 09:33 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 30, 2010

A Time To Read

This is pretty good.

Part 1: The Insurgency.

Mass political movements often begin with a single, striking event. The Insurgency began in the fall of 2008, when President Bush, Senator Obama, and Senator McCain appeared together to endorse the TARP bailout.  At that moment the lights came on for many Americans. It was glaringly obvious that both political parties jointly operated the system, and the system existed to protect the well connected at the expense of everyone else. The public opposed the TARP bailouts; the banks got their money anyway. The Insurgency, long brewing, began.

The Insurgency is a movement of citizens directed against unsustainable government taxation and regulation, and spending, both of which benefit insiders rather than ordinary people. The target of the Insurgency is a leviathan in Washington, D.C. that will ruin us all if it is not dismantled.

Part 2: The Road Ahead.

We are carrying out a once-in-a-century creative destruction of our whole politico-economic structure, and we are going to leave the rest of the world gasping in amazement.  These are exciting times, and we are lucky to be here for them.

Addendum: Adding a bit of historical perspective: The Great American U-Turn.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is seeking to close the socialism gap by expanding the American state, having already made a start in health care and, supposedly temporarily, auto manufacturing.

Yet no sooner had Obama and his supporters started down this road than the decentralized nature of post-U-turn America threw roadblocks in their path. Diverse “new media” prevented the administration from flooding the discussion zone with a uniform message and provided a channel for organizing protests, leading to the tea-party movement. Resurgent state governments have filed suit to overturn Obamacare, and perhaps shrink the scope of the Commerce Clause in the process. If successful, these suits could be as momentous a development as the Taft-Hartley Act.
...
Obama came to office hoping to found the New New Deal, but America is no longer the America of FDR. A combination of the Founders’ gift of a fundamentally decentralist Constitution and the sheer elbow room of the American continent appears to be pointing us to a third era in American history, taking the technological and civil-rights gains of the second, centralized, industrial era, but returning to the decentralized and diverse community vision of the Founding.

Posted by Drew458     on 09/30/2010 at 08:58 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - July 06, 2010

The Intellectual Activist

TIA Daily sent me this. They want me to subscribe to their journal. If this essay is any indication, it might be worth it. Outstanding.

TIA Daily • July 5, 2010

A Right to Exist If We Don’t

To Preserve Liberty, Defend the Individual’s Right to Exist for His Own Sake


by Robert Tracinski

This year, we are called upon to decide the most important political issue there is: are there any limits on the power of government? The question is not, what are the limits on government? The question is: are there any limits at all?

What we have discovered in the last eighteen months is that there is a faction in American politics that wants to sweep away all limits on the state.

We saw this in the health care debate, when Democratic congressmen were quizzed on the constitutionality of the law and answered with a collective shrug of indifference. New York Congressman Charlie Rangel spoke for his colleagues when he cited their authority under the “good and welfare clause.” I’ll pause for all of you constitutional scholars out there to rack your brains trying to remember that one. In fact, there is no such clause. What he was referring to is actually the “general welfare” clause, which states that one of the goals of the Constitution is to “promote the general welfare.” This has been interpreted by the left as an unlimited grant of power for Congress to do whatever it likes to us, so long as they tell us it’s for our own good.

Or consider another example. In a revealing moment in the confirmation hearings for Obama’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan was asked whether there were any limits to federal power under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution—and she evaded the question, refusing to give an answer.

The interstate commerce clause was originally intended, not to expand the power of the federal government, but to limit the power of the states by preventing them from interfering with interstate commerce. But as Thomas Jefferson predicted, the interstate commerce clause became a kind of political game of “the house that Jack built.” That’s the old nursery rhyme, which goes something like, “This is the dog that chased the cat that ate the cheese that lay in the house that Jack built.” The idea is that if you work hard enough, you can draw a connection from anything to anything, so there is no part of our lives, even the seemingly most personal and private, that cannot be connected somehow to interstate commerce. With ObamaCare, for example, an individual’s decision not to buy health insurance, to engage in no commerce at all, is said to affect interstate commerce. Under this kind of reasoning, there is absolutely nothing that is outside the reach of government.

Here’s one more example, and probably the biggest example: the EPA’s declaration that it has the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions—regulations that will deeply affect everyone and give the EPA power over the entire economy—without any specific authorization from Congress.

In our system of government—or perhaps I should say, in our former system of government—there was a division of power between the legislature and the executive. Our nation’s Founders knew that if the executive branch could both write the laws and enforce them, there would be no limits on its power. They knew that a system in which all power is concentrated in one institution—an institution that is not composed of the representatives of the people—is a form of dictatorship.

That is precisely what we now have, if the EPA is allowed to get away with imposing its own rules on carbon dioxide.

There is a single theme to President Obama’s term in office: his attempt to break the last of the bonds that used to limit the power of government.

That’s the practice, and behind it is a theory, the moral theory behind all forms of dictatorship and totalitarianism. The left believes that the government has unlimited power, because they believe that the individual has no moral right to his own life.

The nomination of Elena Kagan has been instructive, because it has shown that even freedom of speech—the one area of liberty the old-fashioned “liberals” used to defend—is not immune from this theory of unlimited power. As the chief lawyer for the administration, Kagan argued before the Supreme Court that “whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” Let me repeat that for you: a “balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” The key phrase here is “the societal costs.” The individual no longer has a non-negotiable right to speak. Instead, he has to petition for permission from the government, which will decide based on a pragmatic calculation of the costs and benefits to “society” of his particular “category” of speech. The basic moral assumption is that there is no limit on the power of the collective over the individual.

Kagan has also written about how it would be legitimate for the government to engage in the “redistribution of speech opportunities” to serve the government’s social goals. Notice that the party that begins by advocating the redistribution of wealth ends up advocating the redistribution of speech.

If you want to know what this looks like in practice, consider the so-called DISCLOSE Act which passed in the House recently—with the support of [Virginia 5th District Congressman] Tom Perriello, I should add. It imposes costly bureaucratic restrictions on political speech and political activism, which are selectively applied, targeting groups the left doesn’t like, while leaving its favored groups free. So for example, if you do business with the government as part of a corporation, your right to political speech will be suppressed—but if you do business with the government as a member of a government employees’ union, you are free to engage in unlimited political activism.

From the left’s perspective, this makes sense. The unions, well, they’re the good guys, so their speech serves the interests of the collective. But the views of businessmen and investors, that’s just “corporate speech,” driven by “greed” and corruption. Whatever value their speech may have is outweighed by its “societal costs,” so it can be banned.

There you see at work the basic moral premise behind this administration and its policies. Every aspect of our lives is to be judged, not according to the rights and freedoms of the individual, but according to its supposed social utility. What this means is that all of your most important, most deeply held personal values are subject to be sacrifice, casually and without notice, if they are deemed not to serve the interests of “society” at large.

The deepest issue that we’re facing this year issue is the moral issue behind all of the political controversies. That issue is: does the individual have a moral right to exist for his own sake, or are we just cogs in the collective, whose every choice to be judged according to its value to society? If you thought we settled that question once and for all, in the Cold War battle against Communism, think again. They’re back. The Obama administration has revived the moral doctrines of real, serious, consistent collectivism.

But we also have to be careful that we ourselves do not give inadvertent moral support to these notions. We have to reject any variation of the idea that the individual has no moral right to his own life and happiness, that the individual exists to serve others.

Thomas Jefferson had something to say about this. When the issue of demands for “public service” came up, he replied, in a letter to James Monroe, “If we are made in some degree for others, yet in a greater [degree] are we made for ourselves. It were contrary to feeling and indeed ridiculous to suppose a man has less right in himself than one of his neighbors or all of them put together. This would be slavery and not that liberty which the Bill of Rights has made inviolable and for the preservation of which our government has been changed.”

And so it’s no wonder that Jefferson chose to include, in the Declaration of Independence, not only our rights to life and liberty, but our right to “the pursuit of happiness.” He chose to emphasize the moral issue that the individual is an end in himself, that the moral purpose of liberty is to make it possible for us to pursue our own happiness.

Of course, Jefferson did devote a significant portion of his life to the benefit of his nation, for which all of us are deeply grateful. But to keep the issue clear, we should remember the distinction made by a later defender of liberty, the great 20th-century philosopher of individualism, Ayn Rand. As she put it, the real moral issue is not whether you give a dime to a beggar—or it’s not whether you choose to volunteer your time and effort in some other way, out of good will to your fellow man. The issue, she said, is whether you have a right to exist if you don’t.

That is a real question, and let me give you a concrete example which will also remind us that things can get worse, if we don’t take action to turn back from the course we’re on. You may all have heard about the economic turmoil in Europe, which is being caused by the collapse of the European welfare state. The worst case is Greece, which has a system that might sound familiar. There are generous unemployment benefits, a nationalized health care system, and a pension system where the average retirement age is 61 years old, but government employees can start collecting their benefits at 58—and one out of every three workers is employed by the government. The result is out of control spending, a government budget deficit that was spiraling toward 15 percent of the Greek economy, and a total debt at more than 100 percent of the country’s annual output.

This is basically what President Obama has been doing here in America, but the Greeks just went a bit farther down the road, and they ended up so deep in debt that the government can no longer pay its bills.

But the Greek disaster isn’t just a warning about the economic consequences of the socialist welfare state. Notice what happened when Greece was forced to start considering cutting some of the welfare benefits it is paying out. The recipients of those benefits rioted in the streets, throwing firebombs at banks in the financial district of Athens, killing three people. This is the real meaning of the idea that we don’t have a right to exist unless we pledge ourselves to unlimited service to “society"—which means, in practice, service to the parasites who live off of the government dole. It means that they assert a total claim on our lives and effort, and they enforce that claim through force and violence

The Greek rioters put us all on notice that as far as they’re concerned, the shop owners whose windows they smashed, the bankers whose buildings they firebombed, the poor conscientious employees they burned to death—all of these people, the ones who pay the bills for everyone else’s welfare benefits, have no right to exist.

That’s the next step on the road that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are pushing us down. It is the logical consequence of their basic moral theory, and it that theory, the collectivist view that the individual exists only to serve society, that we have to reject.

Today, this year, in this election, we are called upon to fight once again the basic issue of the American Revolution. To preserve the liberties our Founding Fathers fought to secure for us, we have to uphold the individual’s moral right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by Drew458     on 07/06/2010 at 01:00 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - May 28, 2010

This Time I Was Nice

I just got another phone call from the RNC. They wanted to thank me for my unflagging support and wanted to tell me all about the great things they were doing in DC and wouldn’t I consider contribu ...

And I cut the guy off. I told him that, while I was a card carrying Republican, I was far more in the Tea Party camp these days. That I believed in smaller government, lower taxes, much lower spending, personal responsibility, freedom, and rules and regulations that encouraged job growth in the USA, including manufacturing. Things that the Republican Party once stood for but not anymore. I told him that I was sick and tired of seeing John McCain as the face of the GOP because I consider him a Democrat. That Steele ought to step down over his “can’t find a reason for black folks to vote GOP” remark. I told the guy on the phone that I would save him some time, because they weren’t getting a cent from me until they could show me several senators and congressmen with backbone, leadership, and actual fiscal restraint who would not cave or pander. That when they could move the party, it’s chairman, and it’s elected members back towards their Radical Republican roots, back to what the party was supposed to stand for, as espoused online by Michael Zak and on radio and TV by Glen Beck every single day, then out would come my checkbook. Until then don’t bother me.

He was trying to tell me how much so and so was against Obamacare. I cut him off, asking why the whole darn bunch of them hadn’t torn the bill to shreds both in the legislature and in the press, pointing out it’s blatant unconstitutional and Socialist aspects. Why hadn’t they pushed their alternate plan, or fought to table the whole bill until a bipartisan agreement could be reached that even said what the problems were? And to heck with Obamacare, where were they when McCain-Feingold was drafted? How could they NOT have immediately proposed a new constitutional amendment when the awful Kelo decision was handed down? Don’t give me one issue, I told the guy, give me a platform that I can believe in and steady, daily evidence that your members stand squarely on it. In the mean time don’t waste my time: the current bunch are all Democrats. They only look conservative because the present crop of Democrats are all Communists.

He suggested that I look into Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann, do my research, and I might be able to get behind her. I said I would when I could, that I took it as a positive sign that I never heard a word about her on the MFM. And then I wished him good luck and hung up.

The last time they called me 2 years ago I gave them both barrels, with enough salty language to pickle a barrel full of herring. My politics haven’t changed a jot. I’ve just given up on the GOP.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/28/2010 at 02:09 PM   
Filed Under: • Republicans • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - May 02, 2010

Thanks Duane

Duane Lester emails me to check out this video he made of Pastor Stephen Broden, taking Michael Steele to task for his dopey “blacks got no reason to vote Republican” comment the other day.

So high thee hence, with alacrity, and watch.

Notice that Pastor Broden says “IF”. That man ... that man is a tea partier, I’m certain of it. He is also running for Congress, on the GOP ticket. 30th District in Texas.

A Broden quote:
What we witnessed on Sunday March 21st was nothing less than a blatant disregard for the wishes of “We The People.” The Democratic left has yet again trampled under foot our constitutional form of government. We the people must speak up in one voice against the liberal left’s attempt to push socialism down our collective throats. Mandated health care is not in the constitution. Fellow patriots, we must stay engaged and push back if we are to save our Republic.

More about the candidate here.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/02/2010 at 08:41 PM   
Filed Under: • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - April 04, 2010

the new racism

From Rich K. I’m sure y’all have a reaction, so fire away!

Since we can’t seem to escape the term “racist,” I suggest that we embrace the term, and let other Americans understand what a conservative racist is:
I’m a racist because I believe that blacks are fully capable human beings who are perpetually demeaned by the liberal theory holding that blacks cannot function without handouts from condescending, rich white people.
I’m a racist because believe that blacks are just as academically capable as any other people in America, but that they are having their abilities systematically squished when condescending, rich white people assure them that they can’t make it without assistance—a heinous approach predicated on the liberal’s implicit assumption that blacks are inherently stupid, ill-informed and ill-suited for intellectual effort.
I’m a racist because I believe that vigorous (but still constitutional) law enforcement benefits blacks, who are disproportionately the victims of crimes by other blacks.
I’m a racist because I believe that excusing harmful behaviors in the black community (whether academic failures, teen pregnancies, drug use or crime), on the ground that blacks cannot help themselves because whites have essentially ruined them, is the ultimate insult to blacks, reducing them to the level of animals without intelligence, self-discipline, moral fiber, ambition or ordinary human decency.
I’m a racist because I think liberals have sold blacks a bill of goods by convincing them that, because slavery was work, all work is slavery.
I’m a racist because I believe that a rising tide lifts all boats—which means that I believe that social programs that destroy the economy will not raise up minorities, but will ensure that everyone wallows in poverty.
I’m a racist because, in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s, I saw non-English speaking Asians fresh from the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the prisons of Vietnam, and the horror of the Great Leap forward all arrive in America and immediately begin working and studying, so that their children could enjoy the American dream—and I believe that only liberal condescension and paralyzing social programs stand in the way of both blacks and Hispanics making the same strides.

Posted by Drew458     on 04/04/2010 at 02:30 PM   
Filed Under: • Racism and race relations • The New Conservatives •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner