Friday, December 24, 2010

Courtesy of

I don't think these clowns get it. The more "productive" a congressional session is, the more it impedes our freedom. Gridlock = good -- productivity = bad. Congressional infighting = good -- civility = bad. I don't give a flying fig what those egg-sucking weasels in congress are able to "accomplish" as long as I'm free to live my life the way I want to. And whatever it is they are "accomplishing" now, I don't think it's "the people's business."

Friday, November 5, 2010

On Compromise

I can't really say anything about Christine O'Donnell, Nancy Pelosi, or MSNBC that hasn't been said already.  Not my place to weigh in, but as a struggling American who's doing worse now than at any time during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, my feelings can be summed up in two words:

Screw Compromise.

Whiny liberals just got their collective ass handed to them on election day, and now they're the ones crying to Mommy that the big bad conservatives didn't play fair?  If you crybabies want to pack up your toys and go home, then go right ahead.  Let the big boys and girls undo the damage you've done.  My Twitter feed is chock-full of all sorts of "righteous" indignation, and I'm getting a little tired of it after three days.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Mister Robertson and Paddy Power

Or:  "The Luck of the Irish Be With Ye, Lads."

I found it rather curious that the Washington Times would run a story like this, but being a Kelly and 1/4 Irish myself, I found it quite amusing.  From writer Stephen Dinan:
Saying there's no way Democrats can keep control of the House, Ireland's largest bookie on Wednesday said it has already paid off all bettors who wagered the GOP would capture the chamber.

“In our opinion this race is well and truly over with nothing short of a miracle stopping the Republicans taking down the House," said Ken Robertson, communications manager for Paddy Power, the Irish bookmaker.
In aggregate, the bookmakers are practically never wrong, but they don't pay bets off early as a rule unless the bets stop flowing in and there's no conceivable way to make them pick up again.  The ramifications in this for Dems are rather dire.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Review: World of Warcraft 4.0.1

I've been taking a badly-needed break from punditry the last few weeks.  Unfortunately, today is Tuesday.  That means it's regularly-scheduled maintenance downtime for the only online game I subscribe to.  It's the perfect time for me to air my opinion of all the latest changes Blizzard has made to World of Warcraft in anticipation of the big December 7th release of World of Warcraft:  Cataclysm.

Without a doubt, the changes in the last content patch have been the most radical that Blizzard has made since the beginning of the game.  The talent trees have been streamlined, character statistics have been completely revamped, and a lot of players have been left with a horrible feeling that they have to learn the game from scratch.

The problem with creating game expansions for MMORPG's is that, practically by defintition, an expansion must contain new content.  With new content usually comes increasing levels of complexity.  Blizzard has apparently decided to handle this problem by going in the other direction with Cataclysm in the hope that they will attract more new players than they alienate.  I think it could work, if only because Blizzard's fanbase will surely be curious about the new and radically altered face of Azeroth.

Overall, I am reserving judgment concerning the new patch until Cataclysm is released.  If you play World of Warcraft already, I hope you will join me.  If you've never considered playing an MMO in your life, Cataclysm might be a good time to give Blizzard and Warcraft a second look.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Power of the Purse

The kindest thing you can say about this Democratic congress is that they're incompetent.

From Andrew Taylor and Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press:

A deeply unpopular Congress is bolting for the campaign trail without finishing its most basic job - approving a budget for the government year that begins on Friday. Lawmakers also are postponing a major fight over taxes, two embarrassing ethics cases and other political hot potatoes until angry and frustrated voters render their verdict in the Nov. 2 elections.
 Those of you who think that government should regulate more and more of our lives, take note.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

To My Detractors





I've been called a lot of things over my qualified support for Christine O'Donnell in Delaware -- mostly by fellow "conservatives."  But this morning, at a nationally-known conservative blog, a conservative stalwart, whom I have defended on more than one occasion, flung an epithet my way that really took the cake:

"Myopic Twit."

You see, it would seem that O'Donnell has a LinkedIn profile that is quite inaccurate.  The author's first thought was that O'Donnell is, in fact, a "serial liar."  This was further proof to Ms. Diane Suffern that not only is Christine O'Donnell unelectable, but that she is of morally questionable fiber, and generally unfit for office.  I, along with a few others, pointed out that Diane and others seemed almost eager to be doing opposition research for the Democrats.

Well I have news for you conservative stalwarts all of a sudden worried about "honesty."  It doesn't matter if you want to help Coons win.  That is what you are doing.  The people who think that conservative harping on McCain didn't help Obama in 2008 are worse than  myopic twits; they are insufferably delusional fools.

And I hope I get the apology I have coming to me.  It would seem there are legitimate questions about whether O'Donnell or her campaign even had anything to do with that false LinkedIn profile.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Prognostication of Punditry

The idea that polls, a month-and-a-half out, can allow one to reliably predict the outcome of an election, annoys me to no end. At best, polls give the chattering class something to talk about while giving the political class an idea of how they should change their strategies. At worst, polls can be pushed and manipulated to make news instead of reporting statistics.

There is only one poll that counts: November 2, 2010. We won't be going to Abilene this time, folks.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Suck it Up, Karl

Until now, I've avoided commenting too thickly on the Delaware primary, mainly because I don't live there.  I have more immediate concerns to worry about in November, but all-in-all, I'm pretty pleased with how things turned out in the republic's oldest state.

What bothers me now are the open displays of sour grapes.  Long-time Republican political advisers, so used to taking polls and predicting the outcomes of a certain action thus, are seeing their control slip away.  That is, if they were really in control to begin with.

Suck it up, Karl. A lot can happen between now and November.

John Hawkins and the Ten Questions

Over at, John Hawkins has a great piece on the ten questions you're not supposed to ask about Islam.  It seems as though several of his commenters missed the rhetorical nature of his questions, but follow the link and you can be the judge.  I'm going to address John's question's seriously.
Why do so few moderate Muslims speak out against Islamic extremism? How can we get more moderate Muslims to speak up and amplify their voices?
Why always the assumption that there are numerous moderates out there who aren't speaking up?  Implied in this question is, I believe, the possibility that maybe there is actually a vast majority of Muslims who support violent Jihad.  As a conservative, I tend to look for the simple answers.
Of the "moderate Muslims" who have spoken out in favor of moderation or against terrorism, a number of them have later been tied to terrorist groups or have advocated radical policies. This causes a great deal of difficulty for people who want to ally with Muslim groups because the "moderate" they're talking to today may very well make them look bad by advocating radical policies in a month or two. What's the best way to deal with that?
It's time that dar es al-harb (the non-Muslim "house of death") stop trying to hard to prove its good faith.  The burden should be on dar es islam (the "house of submission," or more to the point, the Islamic world) to prove good faith after all the times it has broken good faith.  True, we in America would not subject any other religion to such scrutiny, but no other religion in America subscribes to such an anti-constitutional political ideology, either.
Because of the concept of Taqiyya, many non-Muslims believe that Muslims have few qualms about lying to non-believers. Is this a legitimate concern? If not, why not?
Mohammed Atta attended strip clubs and drank alcohol in the weeks leading up to 9/11.  Trust in "moderate Islam" is a sentimental exercise for liberal fools.
When it comes to immigration, how does the United States tell the difference between radical Islamists and moderate Muslims? If we can't tell the difference, should that affect our immigration policies?
Only if one believes in the continuing integrity and sovereignty of our republic.  All immigrants, regardless of religious or ethnic status, enter our borders, remain within our borders, and attain our citizenship at our pleasure.  There are no constitutional protections for non-citizens -- ever.
Widely accepted practices in large swathes of the Islamic world -- like shariah law, honor killings, and death for apostates -- are absolutely, unconditionally incompatible with western civilization. Should we be asking Muslims if they oppose those practices before we allow them to enter our country? Granted, they could lie, but the very fact that we would publicly label those customs as barbaric would send a strong signal.
Why not?  As an American citizen, if I lie on an employment application, my employer has the right to terminate my employment years after the fact, if it takes him that long to find out.  That would be a good model for American immigration policy.  You lie, we deport you.
Why does Islam have such "bloody borders?"
Bloody borders are a cultural phenomenon stemming from the conquests of the prophet himself (peace be upon him).  They will not rest until the world is dar es islam, and most Muslims have no moral qualms whatsoever about using violence to achieve that end.  Does that mean they all engage in violence?  Not necessarily.  Most of them don't have to.
Much of the Islamic world has an extremely backward attitude toward women. Is this something that goes along with Islam or is it a cultural issue in the nations where Islam happens to have taken root?
I don't view this as an either-or question.  Islam is what Islamic authorities say it is.  Concern for the "why" more than the "what" sounds like more of a liberal concern to me.  Deepest apologies to John Hawkins.  I know better than to think he's gone sour on us.
Why is there so much rabid anti-Semitism in the Muslim world? Pointing to Israel doesn't seem to be much of an answer, given that what Israel does or doesn't do has no impact whatsoever on the day-to-day lives of 98% of the Muslim world.
It's the same reason President Obama is demonizing "the rich" and numerous corporations (banking and otherwise).  The imams and mullahs keep their hold on power by blaming someone else.  It really doesn't matter who the someone else is, but it's a defining factor of tyranny.  In the Islamic world, it serves as a distraction from kleptomanic plutocrats like the late Yasser Arafat.
Islam, as it's practiced, SEEMS to be an EXTRAORDINARILY intolerant religion. Yet, non-Muslims are constantly being told we have to be tolerant to Islam. Why should non-Muslims be so tolerant of Islam when that tolerance is not being returned?
This question is most definitely rhetorical.  We are a nation of religious freedom, distinct from tolerance.  I have no problem with Muslims desiring to worship in the manner of their choosing, but they are probing us to see just how tolerant we are of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.  The Park51 mosque is just the beginning -- if we let it happen.  Why should we be so tolerant of Islam?  Short answer:  We shouldn't.
While there are certainly individual Muslims who seem to fit in very well in western society, Europe has had a great deal of difficulty assimilating Muslims. So, it seems natural to ask: Is Islam on a widespread scale compatible with the freedom, openness, and traditions of western civilization?
No!  At least in America, everything Islamic is anti-Constitution.   Everything constitutional is anti-Islam.  Peaceful co-existence between dar es islam and dar es al-harb is not just a taqiyya-based deception.  It has laid bare the amazing capacity of liberals for self-delusion.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

"Religion" is Not the Problem

I had a stimulating exchange with a Facebook friend of mine who had been having a twitter debate with the king of skeptics himself, Penn Jilette.  While I have great sympathy for Penn's small-l libertarian leanings, I think he is too smart-by-half in his indictment of "religion" as the problem that brings on most of the world's suffering.

Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and virtually every other mass-murderer of the the twentieth century was an avowed atheist.  Penn probably wouldn't disagree out-of-hand, but I do believe that government has been at least as dangerous, if not more, in terms of sheer numbers killed, than "religion" as a whole.

Is it true that the 9/11 hijackers were inspired by religion?  Not really.  They believed in a certain religion with certain rules and precepts.  Set aside the question of whether they were "true Muslims;" the important thing to remember is that they were professing Muslims.

And lastly, it bears mentioning that if all "religion" is the problem, then any religion is the problem.  That is why I am starting a crusade to stamp out the last vestiges of Pastafarianism.  I am making a link available through for you, fair reader, to purchase copies of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which we may all subsequently burn on November 3rd, 2010 in celebration of our forthcoming electoral victory.

Pastafarianism is of the Devil!

Monday, September 6, 2010

Sanity, or Lack Thereof?

I had some thoughts today on the planned book burning by a Christian church to commemorate 9/11.  Suffice it to say, I think it's a mistake.  God knows I'm not about appeasing Muslims; anyone who has graced the pages of this blog for any length of time can probably figure that much out.

As usual, Glenn Beck encapsulates my own thoughts quite nicely over at his new website, The Blaze.

The money quote comes from the last paragraph:

The only thing this act would prove is that you CAN burn a Koran.   I didn’t know America was in doubt on that fact.
I don't know if this act by the Dove World Outreach center will be detrimental; General Petraeus sure seems to think so.  Regardless,  I don't believe any good will come of this.  And so, we return to Gryph's first rule of moral and ethical decision making:

When uncertain moral or ethical issues arise, don't act on a doubt.

Follow the Money

John Byrne has a fascinating piece this morning at about money shifting in modern politics:

Major political action committees and employees of the nation's largest business empires have dramatically shifted their money to the right. A detailed analysis of 2010 campaign cycle contributions by the Houston Chronicle shows that Republicans are catching up with Senate Democrats in campaign fundraising. Donations to the Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)-led Senate Democratic Campaign Committee (DSCC) have dropped 25 percent this year alone.
I've always maintained that the political make-up of a company's board of directors is a far better indication of the company's political leanings than where they donate money too.  Even though donations tend to be rather lopsided one way or the other, the vast majority of American corporations, in fact virtually all of them, do play both sides of the aisle.

The problem of corruption in politics doesn't stem from money.  Corruption in politics comes from a series of laws passed since 1913 that turned government into a protection racket.  Under President Barack Hussein Soetoro-Obama, it's only going to get worse.

You don't break up protection rackets by confiscating the victims' money.  You break up protection rackets by charging, trying, and convicting the racketeers.  Are you listening, America?

Thursday, August 26, 2010

More Wit and Wisdom From Lance "D.C. Douglas" Baxter

I can honestly brag that D.C. Douglas attempted to leave a comment on this august blog.  Since I didn't allow him a forum here, there's no way that it would hold up in a court of law, but you can take my word for it, fair reader.

D.C. is up to his old tricks once again.  Although I normally make it a policy not to link to left-wing sites here, I'll break with my self-imposed tradition; Tommy Christopher describes it so much more elegantly than I ever could.

Stay classy, Lance.  I'm sure with your numerous other voiceover jobs, you won't have to starve.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

In the National Spotlight

There's been a lot of blather in the news today about President Obama's iftar al-Ramadan remarks concerning the Ground Zero Mosque.  Needless to say, Obama approves of the Cordoba Initiative's project.  But for those who seem to think that Obama's remarks are nothing to be exercised over, how about what Obama said about the Gates affair?  Or any other number of matters that Obama himself said were "local?"

A word of advice to liberal apologists:  If the president has to say "it's a local matter," commentary should stop forthwith.  He doesn't need to say anything else, nor should he.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Who is this Guy?

I'm from South Dakota. I'm also a registered independent who self-identifies as an objectivist-conservative. My proclivities at the ballot box lean heavily toward the Republican party, as does my entire home state.

South Dakota's political history is blood-red by today's standards. South Dakota has held the longest uninterrupted party control of any state's gubernatorial office, since Bill Janklow assumed office in 1979. Including M. Michael Rounds, the current sitting governor, there have been 31 governor's in the state's history. Only six of those administrations were not Republican, and of those, five were Democratic.

The presence of Democrats in South Dakota's federal congressional delegation is somewhat anomalous, but Senator Tim Johnson has pull in the farm bill appropriations process, and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is part of a political dynasty that dates back to her grandfather's two years in the governor's chair, from 1959 to 1961.

So why does Al Franken, the junior senator from our eastern neighbor Minnesota, seem to think that supporting Nancy Pelosi is something to brag about? Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Dakota politics will probably agree that this gaffe was utterly needless and painfully stupid. Franken may have just sealed Herseth-Sandlin's electoral doom.

At any rate, I hope so.

H/T to and National Journal's Hotline On Call blog.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

The Naked Ape, or Animals of Reason

I had an interesting exchange this evening in what turned into a roundtable discussion with a couple of fellow-guests of my good friend Douglas V. Gibbs on his BlogTalkRadio show. The subject of tonight's show was the role that a creator-god played in the founding of our country, and the future (or future-absence) of that role.

The discussion got me thinking the sort of things that I felt quite compelled to write. For you atheists and agnostics out there, I'm not going to hammer on the particulars of Judeo-Christian philosophy. Instead, I hope to be able to address a fundamental question that I believe is posed by all religions: How is humanity different from the other creatures of creation?

The following list is by no means comprehensive, nor can I claim that it is 100% correct with any philosophical certainty. Comments are welcome, but as always, will be moderated.

Islam: Humans are slaves to Allah, and will submit to his will or be destroyed in a torrent of otherworldly suffering.

Judaism: Humans are made in the image of God and share in his dominion, but can choose to live as animals and reject his grace. (cf. Adam and Eve, from the opening chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis)

Christianity: Essentially the same as Judaism, but the sacrifice of God's son in the person of Jesus paved the way for personal relationships with God that transcend traditional Jewish notions of nationalism and law.

Buddhism: Humans are unique among creation in their ability to rid themselves of of the impurities that drive their rebirth.

Taoism: Humans are unique among creation in their ability to resist the "tao," or natural flow of the universe (literally "the way").

Additions? Corrections? Critique? Feel free to comment, but please keep it civil.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Funky Spunky Junk

Because it's my blog, and I can, I give you the hottest funk act ever to come out of Scotland, The Average White Band:

Monday, August 2, 2010

The Stark Truth

Fortney Hillman "Pete" Stark has been in Congress since 1973. While I don't believe that his militant atheism necessarily disqualifies him from office, Stark is buck-naked in his utter and complete contempt for the United States Constitution.

This is a shining example of why your vote will be so important in November. Stark can not possibly be the only congressman with this level of contempt for the constitution, but he is probably the most honest. I think Stark deserves to enjoy his retirement beginning in 2011.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Dear Price, We Hardly Knew Ye

I found out today that one of my favorite TV shows is taking a different direction starting this fall. I come from the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school, and I find the changes rather disappointing.

In light of the recent sniping concerning Drew Carey's job performance as host, I should say that Drew isn't my biggest disappointment. I think that the changes in TPIR mirror larger cultural changes as well as a general trend towards progressivism and away from tradition.

Bob Barker and Johnny Olson were professional broadcasters. Drew Carey is and always will be a comedian. Viewed through those filters, I think the differences between Carey and Barker make a lot more sense. I also believe professionalism in broadcasting is long-gone, and that is unfortunate.

From Rich Fields' open letter to his fans:
Mike [Richards, current TIPR executive producer,] explained to me that he loves having the "house bands" and "live performers" all the time on TPIR and that he hopes to make it more of a "variety show within a game show". He believes that having a comedian at the announcer's position from now on will enhance this new change in direction.

The problem with "new directions" is that they necessarily take the show away from its roots in a sort of golden age for game shows. Mike Richards was born in 1975; Bob Barker started hosting TPIR in 1972. It makes sense, but that doesn't make it any easier for me to live with.

I really hope that Fremantle Media hasn't consigned The Price is Right to a slow, painful death. It used to be one of my favorite TV shows. It's not anymore.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

What's the Angle, Angle?

I've been fielding a lot of questions about my thoughts on Sharron Angle, and the fairly large amount of friendly fire directed her way.  I don't live in Nevada, so I'm limited in my exposure to Nevada party politics, but I'll do my best to express myself on this rather touchy matter.

I have seen a lot of accusations leveled at Angel from the usual suspects.  The Huffington Post, U.S. News, and The Washington Post are the usual suspects when it comes to criticism of Republicans, but I note the large numbers of conservatives that seem to nod their head in agreement.

Is there a single bit of friendly fire that's involved the quality of Angle's ideas, rather than the quality of her campaign?  I haven't heard it yet. 

These People Want to Run Your Health Care

From the Associated Press via Yahoo! News:

$9,100,000,000 in Iraqi oil money...and $8,700,000,000 is unaccounted for.

As a conservative, I've always believed that the military management is a proper role for government.  If our military can't manage a few billion, how is our civilian government going to manage 1/6 of our entire economy without lousing it all up?  They won't.  They can't.
 The audit found that shoddy record keeping by the Defense Department left the Pentagon unable to fully account for $8.7 billion it withdrew between 2004 and 2007 from a special fund set up by the U.N. Security Council. Of that amount, Pentagon "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6 billion."
 If this doesn't smash the media narrative of "government professionalism," America is truly beyond hope.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

No More Apology

There's been a big flap over the Shirley Sherrod affair.  Unfortunately, since I am posting on vacation, I am not currently able to provide a large number of supporting links.  Links and further commentary will be forthcoming when I get back home and have a more functional internet connection.

For sites that broke the story with Brietbart's incomplete video, such as Hotair, I think that the worst thing that can happen is for the Rightosphere to start apologizing where no wrong was committed.  Sherrod didn't, and to the best of my knowledge never has worked for Hotair or any of Breitbart's blogs.  It was only within their power to question her character, which they did.  When the full video was released, the truth was made known and there was nary a peep from Breitbart or anyone else on what kind of person Shirley Sherrod was/is.

For the record, I continue to believe that the only germaine question is whether Shirley Sherrod is more of a racist, or classical Marxist class warrior.  Sounds to me like her inner class warrior won out, but only barely.

My opinion of Shirley Sherrod isn't going to flip because of the video's I-saw-the-light addendum, but my opinion ultimately doesn't matter.  And neither does Andrew Breitbart's, or Ed Morrissey's, or anyone else's except Shirley Sherrod's employer.  The Obama administration brought pressure to bear on Shirley Sherrod with incomplete information.  That doesn't bode well for the first black president, who also happens to be the smartest man in any room he graces with his presence.  [/sarc]

Monday, July 19, 2010

The Plebes and the Pubs

Rush Limbaugh brought something to my attention today.  It's not often that anyone is able to challenge my beliefs, and so far it's always been a conservative giant like Limbaugh who's managed, but he did so today in spades.  El Rushbo quoted quite extensively from a piece by American Spectator writer Angelo Codevilla, from the July-August issue, and reproduced in its entirety at  Unfortunately, the piece is far too long for me to quote extensively.  For me to quote even a few parts simply doesn't do Codevilla's genius justice, so I will try to explain it the best I can and encourage all of my readers to read it from start to finish.

The thrust of Codevilla's column/article consists of detailing the relationships between what he calls "the ruling class" and "the country class."  It started me thinking about the relationship between the Plebeians and Patricians of ancient Rome.

I also started thinking about the article in terms of broader modern understanding.  Although I still believe in the Overton Window as strongly as ever, until recently I thought that President Obama's administration had been a victim of wrong assumptions.  I was naive enough to believe that Obama saw certain things as culturally acceptable, inside the Overton Window in other words, when they really weren't.  You might want to bookmark this blog entry if you haven't already, just for the shear joy of reading me say that I was probably wrong.

Is it really more likely that Obama is bucking cultural trends because we will learn to love him?  Is it more possible that Obama really doesn't care what anyone thinks of him?  Does he really stand a chance of re-election in 2012?  My inner cynic is screaming to be let out of its cage.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

MSNBC Gets Break From Worst Person in the Network

Mediaite reports that King Bathtub is taking a couple weeks off after the flap. Lawrence O'Donnell, you've got an awfully big bathtub to fill. I hope you're up to the task.

 Can you believe they pay someone over at The Daily Caller to watch King Bathtub? Every weeknight, from start to finish? I wish I could land a job like that. I could quit my day job catering to beer drinkers and cigarette smokers at that gas station for minimum wage, since I would accept nothing less than a living wage for a job like that.

While you're at it, check out

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Dishonest in Print -- Again


The director of ICE, John Morton, is encouraging states to avoid enacting their own immigration laws.

The second-to-last paragraph in this article reeks of journalistic dishonesty:
Opponents have said the law will lead to racial profiling, and so far seven lawsuits, including one from the federal government, have been filed to try to stop its implementation.
The implication is that the federal government has filed a lawsuit on the basis of racial profiling and discrimination, when in reality, there is no mention of racial profiling at all in the federales' complaint.  Try again, Boston libtards.

God Bless Charlotte

From The Las Vegas Review Journal obituary section, July 13, 2010 (emphasis mine):

Charlotte M. Tidwell McCourt, 84, of Pahrump, passed away July 8, 2010, after a long illness. She was born Dec. 25, 1925, in Wellington, Utah, and was a 40-year resident of Nevada. Charlotte held a zest for life and loved serving her family of five children; 20 grandchildren; and 65 great-grandchildren. She had been the wife of Patrick L. McCourt for 67 happy years. Active in her community, she assisted in many political figures' campaign efforts. As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Charlotte served as a leader in the Relief Society for over 20 years. She and her beloved husband also served a full-time mission in the Cabanatuan Mission in the Phillipines. Charlotte is survived by her husband, Patrick; children, Pat and Nellie McCourt, Dan and Lanny Shea, Bill and Marsha Sortor, David and Sherry d'Hulst, and Tom and Ann McMullin; and many grandchildren. A memorial service was held Saturday, July 10, at the LDS Chapel, 921 E. Wilson, in Pahrump.  We believe that Mom would say she was mortified to have taken a large role in the election of Harry Reid to U.S. Congress. Let the record show Charlotte was displeased with his work. Please, in lieu of flowers, vote for another more worthy candidate.
I have no more to say except, RIP Lady Charlotte.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Mort Zuckerman: Media Shill

From Ed Driscoll via

Mort Zuckerman, majority owner of the New York Daily News and editor-in-chief of US News and World Report, isn't a partisan shill.  How do we know?  Cause he said so:

Kidding aside, is this the beginning of the end for the media veneer of impartiality? Or is this going to be written off because Mortie was talking to Neil Cavuto on Fox News? I would think that if Zuckerman was one media-whoring Obama speech writer, he probably wasn't the only one.

An Apple a Day

The Consumer Union released a report yesterday outlining the reasons that they couldn't recommend purchase of the fourth-generation Iphone.  I find it very curious that most of Apple's statements in the last couple of weeks seem to have been smoke and mirrors:

Our findings call into question the recent claim by Apple that the iPhone 4's signal-strength issues were largely an optical illusion caused by faulty software that "mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength."

The tests also indicate that AT&T's network might not be the primary suspect in the iPhone 4's much-reported signal woes.
 But such is life, I suppose, when we live in a world more concerned about image than substance.

Friday, July 9, 2010

How the Game (and the Fan) is Played

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a sports fan.  But for all the completely unwarranted hoopla surrounding Lebron James' decision to play for the Miami Heat, I think the phenomenon speaks to important cultural landmarks, ergo I feel somewhat urged to comment.


...tonight, it felt like everyone involved — LeBron, ESPN, Bing, the University of Phoenix, Stuart Scott, the man who once chastised fans for having the audacity to boo, Jim freaking Gray — treated the millions of people watching like stupid, mindless consumers, empty lemmings ready to follow Sport into the abyss. Here, here are the Boys & Girls Club props. Here, here is your search engine. Here, here is your online college, Here, here is your Athletic Hero. Eat. Eat. Consume. You like it. You love it. You'll always come back for more.
 If we (meaning: Americans) are not mindless consumers of athletics, how else would you describe the state of professional gamesmanship?  The days of kids being plucked from obscurity in some midwest baseball farm team and making the newsreels are over.  We live in the age of instant information.  Love him or hate him -- and I'm really as neutral as you can get -- LeBron James understands that.

That leads me to wonder if the same people complaining about the "hype" are the jerks that complain about LeBron and others "making too much money."  To them I say:  Suck it up.  If you've ever sat down in front of a TV to watch a Cleveland Cavaliers game on cable, that's all it takes to contribute to these guys' salaries.  You can watch commercials; you don't have to buy tickets to see a game live in order to be plunking down your hard-earned cash.  The advertisers are happy to be the middle-men.

So you feel like you got suckered?  We're all getting suckered.  Don't like the hype?  It's always about hype.  LeBron James was just a little more honest this time, and I think he made us confront some uncomfortable truths about ourselves.  As much as I wish it were otherwise, I won't count on our culture to change anytime soon.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Yay. (yawn)

Via USA Today:

John McCain wrote an essay today declaring his opposition to the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  If I believed this would have any bearing on the outcome of her confirmation hearings, I would be overjoyed.  As things stand, I am more inclined to view this as yet another example of the crass political opportunism that has littered the landscape of John McCain's political career.

"Captain" Ed Morrissey, writing on the subject for, states:

I don’t believe in judicial filibusters except in circumstances of incompetence or corruption.  Barring those conditions, Presidents have the privilege of appointing jurists to the federal courts as a consequence of their election.

Under normal circumstances, I would be inclined to agree.  These circumstances are unfortunately anything but normal.  The fact that Kagan wouldn't admit to writing a memo that she conceded was in her own handwriting speaks directly to questions of competence.  I think you could make a pretty good case that the content of the memo itself speaks to enormous corruption and an absolutely terrible judicial philosophy.

Does this mean that Republicans will do everything in their power to block Elena Kagan's nomination?  I doubt it.  I couldn't help but roll my eyes when I finished reading McCain's essay.  Several fellow conservatives have already asked me, "What else did you expect him to do?"  I reminded them that this McCain is up for reelection, and that's really why I rolled my eyes.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Reality-Based Law Enforcement

H/T: From the Washington Post by way of

It looks like The Justice Department's suit over Arizona's SB 1070 is imminent. I cheered Governor Jan Brewer right along with many of her fellow Arizonans, but now will probably be a good time to buy stock in a popcorn company if you haven't already; this could drag out for quite a while, and will definitely raise some interesting legal questions.

As Ed Morrissey points out, Basic Immigration Enforcement Training already seems to assume that local law enforcement will partner with Federal authorities. Immigration policies of non-enforcement, along with Federal-local partnership in drug law enforcement, all serve to weaken the preemption case even further.

In all the reading I've done on matters of federal-state-local preemption, I have yet to find a case where de facto policy was diametrically opposed to the law. At some point, I would imagine that a federal agency is going to have to admit that.

Arizona: Doing the jobs that the Federal Government just won't do!

Saturday, June 26, 2010

With Much Thought and Reflection

Joseph P. Overton was a genius. His untimely death at age 43 in a light aircraft accident left the Mackinac Center and the whole world a little emptier for the tragedy.

Okay. I'm done with the gushing. The truth is, as much as I've discussed The Overton Window, I've been doing even more thinking about it lately. I've come to the conclusion that every major policy shift in my lifetime, and for quite some time beyond, can be attributed to either a movement of the window, or a misunderstanding of what the window means. To that end, I would like to share with you readers a few truisms that will hopefully enlighten you and stimulate some critical thought.

Democrats attempt to move the window towards less freedom.

I never really understood Glenn Beck's distaste for Woodrow Wilson until I understood what Wilson had in common with virtually every other 20th century "progressive liberal." It is this simple fact that makes the modern democratic party so dangerous, and it also explains Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality. The gulf oil spill represents an important watershed moment for all of America, since our response to Obama's responses will have a lasting cultural impact that will live for decades beyond even a two-term Obama presidency.

Republicans don't want to move the window towards less freedom, but they are ill-equipped to stop it and ignorant of how to get it to move the other way.

Those few conservative-sounding and successful Republicans today understand this truism, though virtually all of the Republican establishment is in gross denial of it. The relationship between cultural acceptance and policy is something that Ronald Reagan was keenly aware of; unfortunately, his attitude towards the greater masses of people seems now like an anomaly in 20th century Republican politics. While I don't believe that the Republican party is irreversibly corrupt, I do believe that it's badly broken, and this conveniently explains why.

In the last fifteen years, both parties have not been equally guilty of corruption, but they have been equally blind to the realities of the Overton Window.

Democrats could take better advice from me than what they get from paid political advisers. There is truly nothing new under the sun, and the Democrats are actually making the same mistake the Republicans made in 1994: they assume that their electoral victory meant that the window moved in their favored direction. For the Republicans, it was toward the "more freedom" side. For the Democrats, it was toward the "more government" side. Regrettably for the future of our republic, both parties were equally wrong.

In the congressional campaign of 2010, our goal as freedom-loving conservatives should move beyond the election of like-minded individuals. If those individuals of like-mind ascend to the halls of Congress to find that the Overton Window is outside their own comfort zones, they will vote the policy in the window every single time. This is not a problem of poor ethics or corruption (although it can certainly lead there), but rather a problem of perception -- ours as well as the politicians'. First we kick out the bums who seem hellbent on ignoring the window altogether, then we work on changing cultural norms. Only then will our republic be on the right track, away from serfdom and tyranny.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Welcome to Dearbornistan

 I'm pretty sure this is old news, from round-about the 18th or 19th of June, but I found this post yesterday at The Power Line Blog about cops literally enforcing sharia law in Dearborn, Michigan.

Under Sharia law, it is forbidden to proselytize to Muslims, and no Muslim can leave the faith. Dearborn, Michigan, is home to a substantial Muslim population, and there is strong evidence that local authorities now enforce sharia in preference to the Constitution of the United States. 

I think it's worth noting an important distinction here: The cops that were aiding in this Dearborn debacle were derelict in their duty to the United States Constitution. Sharia and the US Constitution are absolutely mutually exclusive of one another.

Beyond the obvious though, I think this raises some pretty interesting philosophical questions. Allahpundit over at raises some questions of his own about the cops' behavior, even though he is an avowed atheist, himself. He has every right to do so, and I welcome his aid in the cause of freedom.

But why "freedom?" For someone to turn around and say "because it's in the Constitution" seems as lame to me as someone turning around and saying, "because God said so" to an atheist. I believe that as conservatives, we are at our best when we are able to defend our positions. Unfortunately, I am not seeing as much of an effort to that end as I would like to see.

Freedom is not a universal human trait. The presence of human freedom throughout history is relatively rare. It is the yearning for freedom that never changes, as surely as the deep-seated needs for food, sleep, religion, and sex (not necessarily in that order of importance). One doesn't need to believe in the Judeo-Christian God to believe that freedom is a moral imperative.

"Freedom" isn't just another platitude. It's even more than an attitude. It is a way of life. If someone asked you why freedom is important to you, what would you tell them?

Thursday, June 17, 2010

What's Wrong With This Picture?


Now that The London Times is going to a pay-for-content model, Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation fame is using some creative methods to rope people in to shelling out, most of which include some form of freebies.

Murdoch’s News Corp., which this week offered to buy the rest of U.K. pay-TV operator British Sky Broadcasting Plc for 7.8 billion pounds ($11.5 billion), is pushing a business model with clients paying for content as a driver of revenue growth. He’s using that same strategy at the Times and the Sunday Times. The Times is now offering paying subscribers access to free events and discounted products through its ‘Times+’ service in an effort to build customer loyalty.

I'm certainly no business wonk, but it seems to me that if you have to entice people to pay for something by giving them something else of even more value, your business model is a bit suspect.  Some people might be willing to hold on to your service after spending their freebies, but how long could your revenue remain outpacing your costs?

Irrespective of the practical issues involved, I agree with Rupert Murdoch in principle.  He has every right to change for the content that he and his investors have put their hard-earmed money on the line for.  The problem is that the Internet is the world's most perfectly realized exchange for unfettered information.  Anyone who has tried to research through any of a number of unreliable reference sites can attest to that.  Just because Rupert Murdoch sees paid content in his future, doesn't necessarily mean that's the future of all content everywhere.

Perfectly realized unfettered information exchange means perfectly realized competition.  The competition isn't just between papers of like size and circulation anymore.  I hope for Rupert Murdoch's sake, he's taken all of these factors into account.  Now that the internet is almost as pervasive as the television set, it may be even more influential -- and no one man will be able to dominate the medium. Viva la web!

Life Vests?!

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Government is the enemy of anything better than mediocre.

I mean, come on! Oil skimming ships with veteran professional crews were stopped so they could be checked for life vests! I believe that BP has done everything they could do under some very difficult circumstances which were necessitated by hundreds of *reams* of government regulations, but every time I see a story like this, I dig in the conservative trenches a little bit deeper.

I'm more than happy to concede that Obama might have personally had little or nothing to do with stopping those ships, but that doesn't make me feel any better about government's role in all this.  We're talking about layer-upon-layer of hellaciously mind-numbing bureaucracy, barely able to handle the day-to-day running of the country -- let alone a major disaster.

Good luck, Louisiana.  Good luck, Governor Jindal.  You'll all need it down there.

H/T to and ABC News.

A Door Closes, a Window Opens

In the interest of fairness, I have to say I haven't read Glenn Beck's novel yet, but it has awakened a new sense of urgency in my desire to help change our society.

"The Overton Window" is a model that describes how policy changes as acceptable levels of freedom change. For any public policy issue, there is a range of acceptability in the spectrum from total tyranny to absolute anarchy, and politicians are generally hesitant to push policy outside of that range (the "window") -- until now.

Obama's approval numbers now are as bad as they've ever been, and I've come to realize that at the very core of his hubris, he may believe that he is much more capable of moving the window than he is. Because of this, I would strongly caution my fellow conservatives to exercise restraint in calling for more government intervention in the gulf oil spill.

People seem most amenable to moving the Overton Window in times of national trauma. World War I brought us the income tax and the Federal Reserve, both of dubious constitutionality. The Great Depression, worsened as it was by government malfeasance, brought the New Deal and all manners of hellish bureaucracy that we are still dealing with today.

Every effective political philosopher has had the patience to move the window. Obama may not be very patient, but that doesn't mean the window won't move. The trend over the last 100+ years has been towards less freedom rather than more, but it's not too late to save ourselves -- yet. Let's move the window back.

A special thanks to the late Joseph Overton and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

BOOM! Gotcha!

Is the Obama administration doing everything in its power to help the people of the gulf coast in their hour of oily need?

Clearly not.

I've gone from believing that this wasn't a personal failing of Barack Hussein Soetero-Obama to desperately wanting to believe that it wasn't a personal failing on his part. If things continue like this, my opinion of him is going to get incrementally worse, and that's saying a lot.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

In Other News...

Looks like "Touchdown Jesus" is no more.  The Big Butter Messiah was struck by lightning last night and burst into flames.  And from the sound of things, the Statue of the Christ (sorry Mel Gibson) was beyond help by the time anyone was able to get there. Looks like we know which side of the graven-images debate God comes down on.

In memory of the giant cream-colored curiosity, a song from Mr. Heywood Banks:

The Nature of Celebrity

It's always sounded to me like Al Gore and Laurie David were made for each other, but if Laurie David denies it, it must not have happened.

Kidding aside, although this might not hold up in a court of law, Laurie's denial is the strongest evidence to me that it's true?  Anyone else care to weigh in?

Monday, June 14, 2010

I'm not British...

...and even I find this offensive.

From the UK Mail Online via Drudge, we find that Barack Obama has compared the gulf oil spill to 9/11, and the Brits aren't very happy with him for it.

  • 9/11 was a deliberate attack on United States soil by a band of terrorist madmen. The gulf spill was an accident, caused at-worst by gross negligence.
  •  9/11 saw almost 3000 of our countrymen murdered in that deliberate attack.  The gulf spill claimed 11 lives, and likely will claim no more than that (at least not directly).
  • 9/11 and the response was presided over by someone seen as a hero in the immediate aftermath, if not exactly in the following years.  The gulf spill came on the heels of a massively unpopular health care bill amid slipping approval ratings for all three branches of American government.
I think this was a not-so-subtle attempt by Obama to distance himself from the "Obama's Katrina" meme.  If that's the case, he failed miserably in my eyes.

I think most Americans on either side of the aisle are missing the true significance of the government's response to the gulf spill; it's not Obama's personal failing.  It's the people expecting the government to do things that it was never equipped to do.  There will be a role for the federal government in mediating litigation between BP and aggrieved citizens, most likely through the courts.  Unfortunately for him, Obama can't be anymore of a savior to Louisiana now than George W. Bush was five years ago.  It's not Obama's job, and the sooner the rest of America learns that, the better off we'll all be.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Good Question, Charles

Charles Krauthammer has a brilliant column at in which he asks an elementary question about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in the lead paragraph:

Heres my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

The short answer is: cause we're running out of other choices with each potential oil field the government closes off, often at the behest of enviro-kooks.

Libs are awfully quick to point out that there are no laws expressly mandating deep-water oil drilling. This is true. It's also true that BP and TransOcean may not come out of this smelling like roses, either. Be that as it may, a business is in the business of making money; it behooves all involved to clean up this spill as quickly as possible and minimize risk in day-to-day operation.

The next time you see a disaster like this one (attributable to human error), it's worth looking for how our government has its fingers in the pie.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Thoughts on Islam

Today is "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day. I thought that since I'm a lousy artist and have no desire to attempt a drawing of Islam's greatest prophet, I would share with you some of my thoughts on the institution of Islam itself.

In order to understand Islam, one must understand the concept of Islamic law, or "Shariah." At its very core, shariah is pure theocracy. It is the opposite of everything embodied by American "separation of church and state," because Islamic church and state are one-and-the-same. Neither is there a presumption of innocence, equality under the law, or much of anything else that American leftists claim to hold dear in the arena of freedom.

Those who enforce shariah in Muslim theocracies wish to see it spread. Terrorist attacks, while devastating to the western world, are not the only weapons that jihadis (the holy warriors of Islam) have in their arsenal. Americans, including many self-professing conservatives, have been quick to point out that Rima Fakih, as winner of the Miss USA 2010 pageant, has been a prime example of a liberated Muslim woman; what they forget is that Mohammed Atta, in the lead-up to the 9-11 attacks, had started attending strip clubs and drinking alcohol in order to conceal his Islamic faith, according to the doctrine of Taqiyya (lawful Islamic deception), which is another of these weapons at the jihadis' disposal.

Of course, the use of the word "weapon" implies some sort of damage. At times, like after 9-11, the damage was raw and highly-visible. At other times, like the approval of a mosque to be built within a stone's throw of ground zero, the damage is not so apparent, but it is still there; it is damage is to our way of life. And when that way of life is gone, the theocratic enforcers of shariah will be there to fill the void -- no freedom except the choice to either live as Muslim or dhimmi (subserviant to Islam); submission to Allah, or submission to those who have submitted to Allah.

To those who would suggest that "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is unnecessarily provocative, I would say this: Those who seek to enforce shariah in America know that acceptance is a first step. Nidal Hasan, Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Faisal Shazahd, and Anwar al Awlaki know that our own citizenship laws can be used as another weapon against us in the war to establish American shariah. The mullahs and imams (leaders and teachers of Islam) may not have to kill us to destroy our way of life, but we can still respond in-kind when we simply and explicitly refuse to submit.

There is no time like the present to stand against any enemy, foreign or domestic, who would erode the constitutional underpinnings of our great republic. The most insidious weapon in the jihadis' arsenal is our own complacence. The choice to allow them to use it is up to us.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The Apology Tour Continues

Eric Holder hasn't read it.

Janet Napolitano hasn't read it.

And now it would seem that no one in the State Department has actually read it, either.

I'm not talking about War and Peace, The Iliad, or Homer's Odyssey. I'm talking about Arizona's SB 1070. So now you have the context of Michael Posner's remarks to communist Chinese officials.

November 2012 simply can't get here fast enough.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Why I Like Chris Christie

I don't live in New Jersey. I don't live anywhere near New Jersey. In a lot of respects, my home state is the anti-New Jersey. But I still like Chris Christie, and following is a shining example of why:

"Like it or not, you guys are stuck with me for four years."


Friday, May 7, 2010

Inspector Clouseau

So the White House hasn't ruled out sabotage in yesterday's market plunge, and I'm a kook for wondering why a SWAT team was sent to the gulf oil spill last week?

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Enough is Enough?

On April 28, speaking before a crowd in Quincy, IL, President Obama took his eyes off his teleprompter long enough to ad lib this gaffe-tastic gem:

I don't think his prepared remarks were actually a whole lot better:

"Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy."

Even Obama's prepared remarks belie a gross misunderstanding of the economy; a business exists to make money for those that have invested in it: a single proprietor, a group of partners, or public shareholders.

Ah, but I digress. Certain things about Obama can plausibly be chalked up to ignorance, but as is so often the case, you have to listen to what he says and what he doesn't say to get the big picture.

Who decides what is "fairly earned" success? Who determines how much money is "enough money?" Obama may try to put our mind at ease by implying that he speaks for the common people, but he makes it clear to me that he thinks he is somehow smarter than the collective wisdom of over 300,000,000 people. While Obama crows about things like "enough" and "fairly earned," he should be worrying about what is legal. He shouldn't have to look any farther than The Constitution to determine that.

Friday, April 30, 2010

On Hold

My cohost Heidi Joy and I will both be indisposed this weekend, so there will be no live show.  Whether you have listened before or not, you are welcome to listen to our archives through the BlogTalkRadio widget to the left of the page, and we'll be back on May 9, 2010.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Papers, Please

Pundits of all stripes, from anarchist-libertarians to diehard leftists, have been crowing about the "nazi overtones" of the law in Arizona that will supposedly allow cops to harass ordinary citizens for their "papers." Bearing in mind that a valid driver's license is sufficient for the purpose of Arizona's law, I have compiled a list of instances in which I, personally, have been "harassed" for my "papers:"

  • At the pleasure of the doormen or bartenders at virtually every nightclub or other drinking establishment I've been to since I've turned 21
  • Every time I have applied for a new job (two independently verified forms of ID)
  • Renewal of my ID card (which requires three independently verified forms of ID under new federal rules, since I don't drive a car)
  • Doing business with the federal government at the local Federal Building (including a metal detector and pat-down at the pleasure of the security personnel)
  • Establishment of a bank or credit union account
  • Booking a hotell room
By no means a comprehensive list, but these are all instances in which I have personally been asked for my "papers," and I don't have a drop of hispanic blood in me.  I live less than a ten-hour drive from the Canadian border.  Spare me the whiny nazi BS.  I don't buy it.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Incest, Washington-Style

While Ron Paul is splitting hairs over the definition of "socialism," Goldman-Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has been visiting the White House during a nine month fraud investigation.

And of course, Obama is keeping the campaign money he received from Goldman-Sachs. Why bother if it's not technically illegal?

“Anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record, again in 2007 and 2008, pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business,” he said.

That doesn't put my mind at ease, Mister President. Of course you made it clear that you wanted to take over Wall Street, but that's when you cross the line from campaign donation to protection money.

Good luck in 2012.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Lance "DC Douglas" Baxter: Buh bye!

Today, Lance Baxter, better-known in the voice-over industry as DC Douglas, was fired from his job as a noted (if not by name) voice from many of the Geico commercials that have run for the last 15+ years.

I'm a little late to the party, but it turns out that one week ago today, on April 14, 2010, Freedomworks posted a voice mail that DC left in their system:

While there is no love lost between myself and Dick Armey, this whole episode makes me question DC's mental faculties more than anyone else's. The dude works for one of the nation's largest auto insurance firms, and piddles it all away in a fit of completely moronic and misdirected anger.

Such a shame, in a way. I was familiar with a lot of his work before I even knew who he was. I wonder how radioactive this will make him in hollywood now...? Probably not very. I hope Lance "DC Douglas" Baxter enjoys his electoral trouncing in November.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Bandwagon Riding

You know, when Felix Ortiz sounds like an idiot trying to defend his proposed salt ban, at least I don't have to live in New York City. When Mitt Romney bloviates about why his health care reform in Massachusetts was a good idea even though he can't campaign on it nationally, I thank God that I don't live in Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, such stupidity is more infectious than the plague.

All politics is local. First it's our salt in the name of "health." What next? Where does this end?

Monday, April 19, 2010


From the fine folks at Right Wing News:

Warner Todd Huston warns us that Mitt Romney...

" one of the main influences for Obama's socialist takeover of America's healthcare system."

I doff my hat to you sir. Correct.

However, after a video which Huston uses to make his case, he goes on to say:

"There is NO difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. None."

Technically not true, sir. There is nothing in the Federal Constitution of the United States of America that forbids states from doing what Romney did, ergo Romneycare is not unconstitutional on the federal level. Is it a good idea? No. Is it something that Massachusetts should have allowed to happen? Hell no! Unfortunately, I have to call Huston on the carpet for this technical mistake.

" 2012 the only way we'll win the White House away from Obama is to run against Obama. With Mitt Romney as our nominee that will be utterly impossible and he will cause us to lose in 2012."

Again, I disagree. But here, I think that Huston is vastly underestimating the people's discontent with President Obama, as well as underestimating the amount of damage that Obama can do betweenn 2010 and 2012. Absent a Perot-esque third-party vote splitter, Barack Hussein Soetero-Obama will lose in 2012. Which candidate Republicans run will merely determine the margin of said loss.

I understand the depths of Huston's anger. From a strictly philosophical standpoint, I share it. The fact still remains, however, that no one is forced to live in Massachusetts. That is one not-so-insignificant difference between Romney's baby and Obamacare: We can't escape socialized medicine now. There's no place left to run to.

All this having been said, while I don't share Huston's zeal for keeping Romney away from the 2012 presidential nomination, I think we can find far better candidates -- and Romneycare is one reason of several I feel that way.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Yeoman's Work, Freepers.

On principle, I'm rather hesitant to link to it...

But some massive tool by the name of Jason Levin has been inciting leftists to crash tea party events and make them look bad with all manners of violence and other malfeasance.

Fortunately, the men and women of are on the prowl, and they have exposed the truth of just who this guy is.

I don't normally like to make rash assumptions, but it's getting harder and harder for me to believe that tea parties are capable of violence. Everywhere I look, the only worms and insects I see crawling out from under the rocks are leftist.

For more details about Jason Levin and the company he keeps, check out and show the Freepers your support.

Friday, April 9, 2010

"Crazy" Alan Grayson

From by way of Hotair.

Displaying more of the class and grace that has made him a household name, Alan Grayson crashed an Orange County Republican Executive Committee meeting on Thursday, April 8.

As you watch this video, please bear in mind that these are Grayson's constituents that he is condescending to, although "condescension" hardly seems to cover it, in my opinion.

And then, in an absolutely ingenious oh-crap moment, Grayson decides he'd better leave when he realizes he's being recorded for posterity (at around 3:00 in the second video).

Cowardly and condescending don't quite cover it, do they?

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

A Triumph for Freedom...?

This morning, a three-judge panel from Washington, DC tossed out a cease-and-desis order against Comcast, Inc. Read more at

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to begin.

A brief history of the internet:

In the wake of the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was founded in 1958 in order to ensure that America would be at the forefront of such technological surprises in the future.

Leonard Kleinrock, working in theoretical research at UCLA along with Vint Cerf's hardware architecture, pioneered the packet-switching technology that gave birth to ARPANET (the forerunner of our modern internet) in late-1969.

In 1989, the last of the first-generation Interface Message Processors was taken offline, and ever since then, every router on the modern internet has been privately-owned.

So aside from the technological minutiae, ask yourself: Do you trust the same government that runs Social Security, Medicare, and the education system to make decisions about what information your internet providers make available to you? I sure don't.

Update (4-6-10 1:20 PM CDT): A dear friend of mine pointed out that some routers are owned and maintained by state governments, and others are owned and maintained by state-run colleges and universities. I have to concede that doesn't qualify as privately-owned by the strictest definition, but my larger point is that there is no federal control over the internet. That point still stands.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Don't Report It

Don't report what? From, The White House clearly has something to hide. I wouldn't mention that here if it wasn't a fact, but speculation in the blogosphere is running rampant. I can't help but wonder if perhaps this is being engineered to make the tea party movement look bad.

Tread with caution, fellow bloggers. The truth will out, eventually.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Are We Overtaxed?

Anne E. Kornblut, writing at, documents an interesting Obamaism in response to a simple yes-or-no question.

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a "wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care" package.

"We are over-taxed as it is," Doris said bluntly.

Apparently, President Obama doesn't think he has a problem with overexposure yet. His answer to Doris started thus:

"Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have," the president said.

..and went on for 17 minutes and 12 seconds. 2,500 words.

Hand it to the president. Money isn't the only thing he has a talent for wasting.

But is this idiocy, or is it purposeful obfuscation? Time will tell.

Friday, April 2, 2010

O'Reilly's Glory Days

A very dear friend of mine, Miss Daria DiGiovanni, has a brilliant piece on Bill O'Reilly's treatment of the tea party movement at today. Although I don't necessarily share her zeal (I like to think I don't upset easily), the substance of Daria's column is spot-on.

I think the key to understanding O'Reilly's admittedly poor understanding of the tea party movement stems from his days as an investigative journalist:

The journalistic ideal, of course, is "neutral point-of-view." Such an ideal is a near impossibility in anything except encyclopedic writing, but it is the ideal that journalists the world over now aspire to.

Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist. As the video above shows, he was a journalist as recently as 1995, shortly before Fox News came on the scene.

Most Americans are not ideologues. They are just folks who want a fair system and a noble country.

Spoken like a true journalist, and true even as far as it goes, but it kind of misses the point. When you hold a neutral point-of-view as your highest possible journalistic achievement, then anyone with a strong opinion becomes an ideologue.

I truly believe that O'Reilly fancies himself a journalist, when in truth, he was hired by Fox News Channel as a pundit. Pundits ought to ground their opinion in truth and in fact, but pundits don't have to maintain that neutral point-of-view. I think it tends to be destructive to the conservative movement as a whole, and the tea party movement in particular, when pundits (and that means you, Bill O'Reilly) try to be something they are not.

Get over the self-loathing, Bill. The left will call you an ideologue whether you claim to be one or not. Might as well embrace it.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

The Mass Exodus

The mass exodus from the ranks of trained doctors, that is.

Elizabeth Vliet is giving serious consideration to quitting, and by the time it's all done, the number of practicing doctors in America could plummet by almost half.

Hey, all you Republican voters who stayed home in 2008 to teach the GOP a lesson? Thanks a ton.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

More From Mike Malloy

Mmm. Yummy. It's been some time since I've been able to use an alliterative headline like this one. So much fun!

Pounding the drum on the subject of liberal douchebaggery, we once again turn to the pages of Brian Maloney's Radio Equalizer to see just how bad it can get:

I'm not one to normally attribute the worst possible motives to my opponent, so I'm going to assume for the time being that Mike Malloy is simply a moron beyond my ability to describe.

I have never called for armed insurrection, nor am I about to start. In any event, what I say in these pages probably won't make all that much difference. I am standing against principles that I disagree with, and those that really know me (Mike Malloy not being among that number) will know that I am just as quick to warn my colleagues away from excessive Republican cheerleading as well.

I am motivated first and foremost by love for humankind and the ideals that our country was founded on 234 year ago. I am not the one calling for the death of my enemies, outside of perhaps the slow and painful metaphorical deaths of a few political careers, but even that will be so much more fun to watch when we can hear the liberals whine about how they were misunderstood.

Remember in November!

Thursday, March 25, 2010

In a Candid Moment

This is too funny. Got this video from my dear friend (even though he doesn't know it yet) Brian Maloney over at Radio Equalizer.

What makes this particularly galling to me is that some years ago, not long after "Big Eddie" Schultz started broadcasting out of his hometown of Fargo, North Dakota, I started listening to him on the same local affiliate in my hometown that was broadcasting Rush at the time. Unfortunately, there are no stations left in my hometown that broadcast Rush, but Ed was taken off of his affiliate here after less than a year.

Schadenfreude, anyone?

The Neon-Pink Glow of Max Baucus' Idiocy

Can't embed it, but here's a little gem from RealClearPolitics:

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Old Folks Gone Wild

From MyFoxNewYork:

73-year-old Iraida Palmieri has a bullet wound on her forehead.

Police arrested 81-year-old Maria Cartagena on charges related to the shooting.

Mrs. Palmieri is the wife of Latin jazz great Eddie Palmieri, and apparently she and Mrs. Cartagena have had a quite a history together in their Rego Park apartment building.

Funny thing is, my grandmother is in her eighties...and everytime I try to imagine her doing something like this, I just can't.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Another Broken Promise

Barack Obama signed the mammoth health care bill within 36 hours of it having been passed by congress. For your viewing pleasure:

Five days? Real nice Mister President. Real nice.

Monday, March 22, 2010

The Beginning of the End...Of What?

Stupak and the lot of them are whores. Common money-grubbing sell-out whores. I can't say I'm terribly surprised that the vote broke down along party lines. At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a "moderate Democrat." You might as well go looking for heffalumps and woozles.

So now what? I can happily point out that not a single Republican voted for this legislative abomination, but Republicans always talk a good game when they're out of power. I won't get my hopes up until I see "Boner" Boehner and the crew govern with something vaguely resembling a spine in 2011.

We need the likes of Mark Levin more than ever.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Ellie Light Redux

Or: Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining.

I can handle a difference of opinion. You lose me when you treat me like a child who doesn't know any better. I come from a blood-red state, at least when it comes to presidential politics, but even my local newspaper has fallen for crap like this.

And "Mary J. Perpich" is also shilling for Obamacare in the pages of the most-circulated paper in my home state.

We're on to your games, libs.

Special thanks to Big Journalism and The Drudge Report.


Oh yippee! Howard "I Brokered the Canal Treaty" Baker and Jimmuh "Peanuts For Brains" Carter are complaining about the supposed lack of collegiality in the senate.

"The hard partisanship and division that now exists is unprecedented," Carter said.

Baker, from Tennessee, added that "collegiality is virtually nonexistent in the Senate now."

"You've got to have a decent respect for the other person's point of view. There's a fair chance he's right. And it appears that doesn't exist now," Baker said. "The idea of the benefit of the doubt appears to be missing."

Well let's set aside the idea that the hyperpartisan wrangling really is unprecedented. I don't believe it is, but even if this is the worst it's ever been, I'm more worried about a few other precedents being set here by "The Unprecedented President" himself:

  • Nowhere does the government, on any level, require the purchase of a product by the citizenry under pain of fines and possible jail time -- unless health care passes.

Yes, I know there is the niggling matter of auto insurance. But guess what? I don't have auto insurance, because I don't drive a car! Most people are intelligent enough to figure out that if you're in a little fender bender, it's a lot cheaper in the long run to pay out of pocket, if you get it fixed at all, so you can keep your insurance premiums from rising! Who knew that those auto insurers were every bit as evil as their health care counterparts?

  • The government has never, under either party's control, "deemed" an entire bill passed without a floor vote.
But what about all the tu quoque we've been hearing from the Democrats on this one? The constitutionality of using parliamentary maneuvers on amendments to bills is debatable and even somewhat suspect, but presidents don't sign amendments. They sign bills. And the Constitution is pretty plain on how that is to be done.

  • No political party has failed to move legislation with a solid filibuster-proof majority in both houses -- until now.
This is the most glaring precedent that makes Carter and Baker look like whining wusses to me. If you can have a sixty-vote majority in the Senate and still not be able to get anything done, the problem is clearly not with the opposition party.

"You've got to have a decent respect for the other person's point of view. There's a fair chance he's right. And it appears that doesn't exist now," Baker said. "The idea of the benefit of the doubt appears to be missing."

Good advice for the Democrats to heed in dealing with each other.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Another Ball Dropped

So it turns out Nidal Malik Hassan had no business being in the Army. Is anyone going to seriously keep pretending that his Muslim religion had nothing to do with why he was promoted?

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged in the Fort Hood shootings, was too fat and "chronically" unprofessional during his psychiatric training, according to internal e-mails exchanged by his superiors.

We know what happened. The question on everyone's mind should be, "Why was this allowed to happen?"

Affirmative action kills!

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Pushing the Envelope

...or, "Praise the Lord and Pass the Salt Shakers..."

Steve Barnes, a senior writer at has a brilliant blog piece on New York City assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D. Brooklyn.) Apparently "Mashed Potatoes-for-brains" Ortiz wants to ban adding salt in any way shape or form to foods made in New York City eateries, including but not limited to restaurants, delicatessens, and bakeries.

As I do not cook, I can't say very much authoritatively on the culinary implications of banning salt during cooking. Speaking from personal experience, however, my own grandmother did just the opposite of what Ortiz is proposing (she never had salt at the table, but added it in small amounts only during cooking).

I'm sure that in New York City, as well as the rest of the country, a large percentage of salt intake occurs from commercially processed foods such as processed lunch meats, pickles, salty (and some not so salty) snack foods, and so-forth. Does Mr. Ortiz plan on making all commercially processed foods contraband in his city?

It's also worth noting that salt is an essential part of the biochemistry of virtually every multicellular organ.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we are in for if Obama's health care mandate passes. One could argue that virtually any human behavior can be regulated as a health matter. Isn't poison just a matter of degrees?