Tag Archives: Conservative

In Deep with Michelle Ray

When: Friday, August 10th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight:Tonight: A Republic, if you can keep it and a quick visit from Brandon Combs on the California SB249 issue he is fighting.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War

What the Occupy DC movement failed to accomplish last November, Americans for Prosperity did quite nicely on their own last Friday. You may recall last winter when the AFP held its “Defending the American Dream” summit in downtown DC, those rollicking, goodtime Occupiers tried to storm the convention center so they could harass attendees and disrupt the conference.

That Occupy effort failed. Now that the freebies have run out, there were no Occupiers at this year’s conference. But that didn’t prevent AFP organizers from disrupting their own event.

The showcase for Friday’s session was the “Hands Off My Health Care” rally with featured speaker Cong. Paul Ryan. Shuttle buses were scheduled to take conference attendees to Capitol Hill.

I was part of a large group that waited outside the hotel for almost an hour. During that time tour buses, double–decker buses, jitneys, large vans and even Metro buses all rolled tantalizingly by, but no shuttle. Staffers informed us there was a problem— obviously — but not to worry, the rally was being delayed until we could arrive.

When shuttles finally materialized, we quickly boarded and slowly made our way to Union Station. Inside the parking garage we were told the bus would be returning to the hotel, because the rally was over.

So I have no insight on the current intensity of opposition to Obamacare, the size of the rally crowd or chances for repeal.

Fortunately the day was not a complete loss. During one panel guerrilla videographer James O’Keefe was asked what he thought was the greatest problem confronting conservatives. His answer was both pithy and pertinent: “Conservatives lack (a vulgar word for courage).”

Chick–fil–A President Dan Cathy proves O’Keefe’s point. A mere two days after conservative Americans made it a point to eat at his restaurants on appreciation day, Cathy canceled his scheduled speech in Prince William County. And he canceled every other public appearance scheduled for 2012.

That’s a fine how–do–you–do to all the customers who waited in line and helped set a one–day sales record so that Cathy and his company would know they are not alone in their struggle to uphold Biblical tradition in the face of a hostile culture.

Instead of publicly thanking them and continuing to conduct his business and professional life in a confident and visible manner, Cathy flees inside the bunker.

There are times in life, commerce and politics when you just have to buckle up and ride it out. And who would have thought that alleged squish Mitt Romney would provide a sterling example of just that.

Romney released two years worth of tax returns to braying Democrats and media (although I repeat myself) and said that was it.

Naturally, the failure to completely drop his drawers whipped the opposition into a frenzy. Democrat apparatchiks speculate on what’s Romney’s hiding. The media echoes the speculation. Sen. Harry Reid (D–Demented) escalates by claiming Romney hasn’t paid taxes for ten years.

Even the Weekly Standard and respected conservative columnists have surrendered and said it would be better if Romney released all his tax returns and ended the controversy.

But that would just be the beginning of the controversy and Romney knows it.

Frankly, Romney’s steely refusal to give in to the mob speaks well of his character and makes me a little more optimistic regarding his administration.

On the other hand Cathy’s ignominious retreat sends two harmful messages. The first is mom–and–pop conservatives are wasting their time when they try to resist the decline and decay of secular commercial culture. They will get little, if any positive reinforcement from the businesses they try to support and they will be either ignored or attacked by media and cultural elites.

The second message tells homosexual activists, other libertines and the left that they are winning the culture war. All that is necessary for final victory is to continue the pressure until the resistance of Middle America collapses once and for all.

Conservative leaders need to start leading. Conservatives in the House of Representatives should to stop ducking confrontation with an administration that ignores the law. Conservative business leaders are either going to have to start fighting back or acknowledge the fact they’ve made a career of exploiting the decline of American culture. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Tom Coburn (R–OK) and Rush can’t do it all.

Without leadership the majority of everyday American conservatives are going to leave the field to the leftists with disastrous consequences for the future. For as the Apostle Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 14:8 “…If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

The Dark Knight Rises: The Occupy Left Get the World & the Justice They Deserve

No wonder the Democrats were afraid of the Dark Knight. The final installment of Christopher Nolan’s sweeping trilogy provides a breathtaking excursion into the depravity of moral relativism and the triumph of the human spirit in the face of great evil.

The lame attempts by the modern left to commandeer a film that was billed in advance as ‘one of the most conservative ever’ was a tip that this film was not your average comic book thriller.

The left desperately tried to connect the film’s arch-villain Bane to political foe Mitt Romney by risibly suggesting that the former governor’s days building successful companies at “Bane Capital” was akin to going on a mass reign of terror. Democrat Congressman Ed Markey seized on the film as a platform to spread yet more unfounded fear about global warming. ABC News disinformer Brian Ross latched onto the name “James Holmes” to make a ludicrous connection between the Aurora massacre shooter and the tea party  to smear a benign political movement as a criminal enterprise like the Obama-endorsed Occupy movement.

Never mind all that. Although I was skeptical of advance praise by conservative critics, the film completely obliterates the shibboleths of the left of “returning power to the people” and pursuing “social justice” by getting even with the rich.

Without giving much specific about the plot away, Gotham City devolves into a pit of wanton crime and vengeful mobs after an eight-year period of peace and order, brought to them courtesy of “the Batman,” but falsely attributed to the deceased “two-faced” District Attorney Harvey Dent. Commissioner Gordon knows the truth about who saved Gotham from the Joker and his criminal minions, but made an agreement with Bruce Wayne to let the people rest securely in the lie that Harvey Dent was the hero.

In the meantime, a self-exiled Bruce Wayne languishes in the recesses of Wayne Manor, a figure unable to enjoy life without exacting justice on criminals who are the manifestations of his inner demons. The Catwoman’s character, played by the slinky Ann Hathaway, provides a powerful lens through which to view the tension between selfishness and justice.

Essentially, a “coming storm” of chaos and lawlessness brews in the Gotham City underground, as the powerful crime boss “Bane” arrives on the scene and builds an army of fanatical foot soldiers who starkly and unmistakably resemble the zombified Occupy movement. Bane is a viscerally intimidating figure with a compelling backstory that unfolds late in the movie, and develops into a nemesis for Batman.

In the end, director Christopher Nolan gives the Occupy crowd exactly what they want in vivid cinematic strokes: a world without ‘hierarchy,’ and a mob of vengeful psychopaths exacting ‘people’s justice’ on the rich on behalf of the underprivileged and poor. But the question is begged: Then what?

As more than one character battles the traumatic experiences of his and her life, it all boils down to a choice: is the injustice of life a call to seek revenge on one’s fellow man, or to grapple with one’s ordeals to be a better person, a personal protector of the poor and downtrodden, and a righter of wrongs?

The ultimate conclusion is that we cannot outsource our virtues to the government or to any demagogue that comes along. We have to be heroic ourselves.

Refresh My Memory; Is Justice Kennedy the Wobbly One?

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts prefers to dress casually in his off hours.

Last Thursday dawned bright and clear. It was shaping up to be a great day for conservatives. More than one observer — waiting for the Obamacare decision outside the Supreme Court — noticed aircraft coming in low on the horizon. Everyone assumed it was ICE drones searching for illegal aliens deserving of amnesty and a college scholarship.

But as the aircraft passed overhead the full weight of our mistake hit home. That wasn’t the Army Air Corps insignia on the underside of the wing. That circular logo was the Obama meatball and it was Pearl Harbor all over again! Obamacare was legal and conservatives were caught completely unprepared as plans to roll back Big Government exploded in their face.

Make no mistake. Chief Justice John Robert’s decision is a total, crushing and potentially unrecoverable defeat. Roberts joins with Chief Justice Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame as another Maryland chief justice responsible for a Supreme Court decision that will live in infamy.

“I always say…that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Chief Justice John Roberts

Justice Holmes, a crusty veteran wounded three times during the Civil War, was being cheerfully cynical. Justice Roberts, who appears to be suffering from PTSD induced by State of the Union criticism following the Citizens United decision and potential criticism prior to the Obamacare decision, is merely being pathetic.

Berkeley law professor John Yoo contends Robert’s doesn’t agree with his own ruling but intended to “pull the court out of political fight.”

Unfortunately, Robert’s job is to uphold the Constitution regardless of Democrat political pressure. His failure to do so removes one of the few remaining limits on the growth and expansion of federal power.

This type of judicial temporizing in the face of political pressure is the same thing that happened during the 1930’s. A gutless Supreme Court stood idly by while FDR and the Democrats twisted the Constitution and began the long, legislative march toward intrusive, domineering Big Government.

If conservatives had not been lulled into a false sense of security, much like radar observers at Pearl Harbor, the Robert’s decision earlier in the week to overturn most of Arizona’s illegal alien law would have served to warn us of impending problems.

Deluded optimists claim the decision was a clever rope–a–dope and now Obama has to run for re–election with Obamacare and its hidden tax hung around his neck for all the voters to see.

I don’t know what election these optimists have been watching, but the failure of Obamacare was already part of his campaign. Now, thanks to Roberts, he can run on the success of Obamacare, which serves to solidify a base that was becoming increasingly disillusioned. Protecting the fruit of this Supreme Court decision becomes a strong motivator to get out the Obama vote.

If this is a victory for conservatives, God save us from defeat.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) is already whining that it’s going to be difficult to repeal the entire law because it’s so complicated. But it doesn’t require a 2,400–page bill to repeal a 2,400–page bill. You could do it with a bill no longer than a single page. What it does require is a certain strength of will and Sen. McConnell is telling us he and the majority of Republicans in the Senate lack that will.

They would rather file a lawsuit and let the Supreme Court do the heavy lifting, an option that after last Thursday no longer exists. This, in fact, will increasingly complicate life for Congressional Republicans as an imperial presidency continues to trample the Constitution. The legislative branch can no longer delegate Constitutional protection to the Judiciary.

The second rationalization for our famous victory is that Roberts ended the abuse and misuse of the Commerce clause. But that’s wrong, too. As Rick Richman notes in the Commentary blog: “Part III-A of the Roberts opinion – concluding the Obamacare mandate was not valid under the Commerce Clause – was not in the portion of his opinion that represents the opinion of the Court.” Which means the Commerce portion does not set or overturn precedent.

What a difference a week makes. Last Thursday a powerful conservative fleet was ready to weigh anchor. Eager to catch the high tide of the Obamacare decision and sail to victory in the fall. Today we’re tapping on the barnacle–encrusted hulls of capsized battleships trying to find survivors.

Some are using hammers. Me? I’m using my head.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – ObamaCare, Contempt and Stolen Valor

When: Thursday, June 28th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Grass roots activist Andrew Xifos (@FigDrewton), United Liberty contributor Jason Pye (@jaseliberty) and Conseravative Daily News contributor Tj Thompson (@_TjThompson) join the discussion.

Gallup: Jobs #1 Hispanic Priority

All the news last week didn’t change the fact that Hispanics don’t put immigration as their number one priority. Instead, they are most concerned with jobs and health coverage. President Obama may want to review the most recent Gallup poll and perhaps take a pivot toward jobs during this election season.

Or not.

Maybe this is a prime opportunity for Mitt Romney and the Republicans to chip away at some of the Latino support for the current president. In fact, many would argue that current events should already help draw the strongly Catholic minority toward the Conservative side of the ballot. Hispanics may be surprised that their beliefs: conservative religious, importance of families, and strong work ethic are very in line with the GOP platform. Additionally, Republicans are not against immigration, instead they are trying to control a tsunami of illegal border crossings when so many others are waiting to enter the country through legal channels. After all, this is a country made up of immigrants.

Hispanics may also be surprised to learn that unions, who once worked hard to benefit the underpaid workers, now seem to be focused more on preserving their strength and leaders benefits and less concerned with the individuals. The caste system of places like Mexico, though less defined than some countries still make it difficult for the poor to rise to a higher bracket. Understanding this, immigrants from Central America (and Cuba especially), should be wary of a party that pushes entitlement programs.  Handouts don’t encourage personal responsibility. Instead they promote a lackadaisical attitude which takes away the desire for a better life and replaces it with an acceptance of the status quo and continued dependence on others. In the end, as in Cuba, the government owns you and everything you do. Contrast this to the many small businesses owned and operated by minorities. Independence, hard work, and the idea of growing as big as one wishes are more in line with Republican ideals than Democrats.

Now is the time for Republicans to reach out to this large voting group and let them know this is not a rich versus poor campaign but one pushing for more personal responsibility and individual rights. Job opportunities for all are a priority of the GOP.

Born here or immigrants, Hispanics we know are usually not looking for a hand out but rather the opportunity to live the American Dream.

He Said, She Said with Demetrius & Stacy

When: Wed, June 13, 10PM EST/7PM Pacific

Where: He Said, She Said on Blog Talk Radio

What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into themind of the conservative, bold, full strength, and unfiltered.

Tonight: Special guests are Kristina Ribali, Director of New Media for FreedomWorks. Twitter: @KristinaRibali. Brandon Darby, Conservative Activist and Breitbart.com Contributor. Twitter: @brandondarby

The End of American Conservatism?

American conservatives, as we have come to be called, have been blessed by inheriting one of the greatest nations on earth.  But we have been cursed by limitations, in both our language and our manner of thinking, that have doomed us to a perpetual rearguard struggle against a determined and even fanatical adversary – the American progressive, an indigenous variety of socialist.

Unlike in warfare, where one can hold the line against barbarians until the hordes expire, ideas have an eternal life of their own, and are thus immune to the earthly tactics of hand-to-hand combat among flesh-and-blood foot soldiers.  If one seeks to defend one’s ideals against an opponent, rather than advance them, one is already politically dead.

The intransigence of socialist thinking is familiar to all those who have engaged in serious discussions on the merits and flaws of socialism with a dedicated adherent.  The peculiar manner of thinking typical of the fully indoctrinated, or in more generous terms, committed socialist can best be described as opaque; it is closed to the particular counter-factuals one might offer up to erode his unwavering faith.  The socialist beats down all objections to his ideology that are based on facts, reason, evidence, and history; he is what one might call a true believer, because he is avowedly pursuing a vision of the future, and as such, is rejecting the entire past.  To refute a socialist based on particular facts is futile; it would be like arguing with a Christian about the imperfections of earth to demonstrate the flaws of heaven and God‘s divine plan.

There is one single best explanation for the intractable nature of the socialist, whether one is speaking of the Marxist or the more Hegelian-influenced Neomarxist: his faith in the ultimate triumph of socialism.  Though Kant played a key role in forming the consciousness of the modern radical by way of dislodging reason from reality and enunciating his ethic of the categorical imperative, it is Hegel who gave religious expression to the dialectical-historical process of change.  Hegel imbued teleology into his explanation of historical change, exalting the god he named Reason; and he thereby gave social science the aura of prophecy, and social scientists adopted the sub-culture of a hermetical caste. The important point is that self-described progressives always perceive themselves as advancing forward in history, while conservatives are always trying to defend the past from their supposed “advance.”

The parlance of American politics is fraught with the lexicon of the eventual triumph of progressivism, and if we are to read Hegel rather than Marx, the victory of the State over the Individual (or at least their non-differentiation). Those Americans who believe in the vision of individual liberty are ubiquitously referred to as “conservatives,” as if their ideological victory had been won with the vanquishing of the British.

Thus, the inherently emancipatory doctrines of the nation’s founders are stripped of their weight, and denied subsequent victories in the liberation of the citizenry. Conservatives are charged by virtue of their own lexicon with being rearguards of a mythologized past, one inherently more enlightened than the real-world, and thus decadent, present day.  At times, conservatives may be said to be fighting to preserve their garden of Eden from corruption, while progressives are fighting to usher in a new one.

Therefore, for the “progressive,” all evidence of the imperfections of America are damning evidence that the nation was not a utopia, as conservatives are perceived to imagine, and indeed, was corrupt from the onset.  According to the progressive narrative, therefore, women and minorities were liberated by progressive-minded Americans from the patriarchal and bigoted society of the founding, rather than the founding being the launching of a new adventure, whose fundamental underpinning of individual liberty would drive out iniquity and oppression if pursued, and not merely preserved, by the citizenry.

Further exacerbating the linguistic veiling of the significance of America’s founding are the religious overtones generally ascribed to the event by self-described conservatives.  America was founded in religious freedom, and thus it accorded all Christians, and non-Christians, the right to worship as their consciences saw fit.  This point must be acknowledged by Christians or there is no point in proceeding with the American experiment. The reason is simple, but extremely important: America’s founding is a political plan to bring about liberation in this world, and not in the next.

In no way is this arguing that the American founding is not compatible with Christianity; it most certainly is.  For as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, God gave man free will, and therefore, each man is accountable to God for what he does with that free will.  But the truth of this natural liberty neither sets man above the law of the world, nor the state above man, nor the state above God.

The reason for the religious digression is to illuminate how the progressives have the force of fervor on their side.  American progressives have a vision of a future they desperately crave to bring about, the mindset of missionaries whose adversaries are inherently corrupt and mentally trapped in a decaying, oppressive past; and an atheistic or nihilistic vacuum in their hearts that is filled up by a personal mission “greater than themselves.”  This mission trumps all, and they are the servants of it.  Individual liberty is therefore anathema to everything they stand for; indeed, it is a threat to their mental integrity, as well as their identity.

The rise of the state is fueled by selfless individuals like a furnace in hell is fed with souls.  It is no accident of history that metaphysical sacrifice is soon followed by actual sacrifice – as Ayn Rand brilliantly expounds upon in her works. Once one abandons oneself to alien or external forces, whether leaders of cult status, impersonal forces of history, religious sects, or collectivist mass movements like radical environmentalism, one’s mind is malleable, and susceptible to falling in with a mob mentality.

Crucial to dissipating this triumphalism of American progressivism, and thus depriving it of its infernal force in the minds of true believers, is to demonstrate that the ideals that animate it are far from new; and in fact, are neither liberating, nor egalitarian.  This is not the same as refuting their ideal world with real-world facts. It is refuting their ideal world with ideology.

To argue with a communist about the flaws of Stalinism, for example, will simply provoke the response that the tyrant did not “do it right,” was not a true Marxist, or that Trotsky was right, and so forth.  What is more effective is to show the ideological underpinnings of modern American progressivism and expose their roots in primitive societies, the ancient world, the Dark Ages, Christian culture, or otherwise, the pre-modern world. In order to be effective, this must be done explicitly, as Igor Shafarevich does in The Socialist Phenomenon.  Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics are excellent sources for examining the ancient sources of modern progressive ideals, and their refutations.

What we are concerned with is to deprive the particular manifestation of American progressivism of its mantle of “progress.”  This would be akin to sucking the oxygen out of a raging fire. Some attempts have been made by conservatives to do this by labeling progressives as “regressives,” or by showing how such illustrative values as environmentalism lead to an eroding of civilization. Ayn Rand, for one, demonstrates the primeval essence of American progressivism in her collection of essays entitled, The Return of the Primitive.

What is crucial is to show that history teaches that nothing is inevitable, and there is no final triumph of one belief-system over another. What we have on earth are human beings – flawed, self-interested, possessing free will. Indeed, both Marxist-Leninism, and various strains of Neomarxism, betray as much by making it incumbent to “take action” to bring about the revolution that Marxists had once claimed was “inevitable.” And if a cadre of politicians appear on the scene speaking the language of “inevitability,” we must immediately be alerted that they are making an inherently fanatical argument designed to prevent people from challenging their ideology’s fundamental assumptions.

The values and methodology of the American left, and its vanguard, the Democrat Party, are such that their close parallels to known causes of revolution make them immediately fall under suspicion that they are deliberately fomenting revolution for the sake of revolution; and as such are not a legitimate political party or mass movement pursuing the best interests of the country, but rather are subverters seeking to enthrone themselves atop a new and more oppressive political order.

So when we speak of the fervor of American progressives, we are addressing the movement’s foot soldiers, and not its grand architects, who may be motivated by extremely cynical points of view like Saul Alinsky’s “radical pragmatism.” In order to radicalize the left’s next generation of leaders, Alinsky indeed chides them of their utopian, millenarian visions by stating, “Remember we are talking about revolution, not revelation.” For Alinsky, the means and ends of political action appear to be power; and the current American president considers himself a devotee of this diabolical thinker.

Thus, our summary conclusions are two-fold. In our own regard, as those who value individual liberty, and who seek to implement it as our government’s animating philosophy, we must self-consciously cease the passivity of believing we are the “preservers,” “defenders,” “conservers,” or “consecrators” of the past, and we are rather the living, acting banner-holders and wielders of our founders’ vision, yet to be instilled on earth, and leading a charge towards our political adversaries. We are not defending anything, we are attacking the flawed bases of our opponents’ ideology with reason, facts, evidence, history and truth, yes, but also with philosophy.  Implemental in this endeavor is to cease appeal to religious argument in order to justify our views; we need only appeal to religious freedom, which follows from the value of individual liberty.  In addition, we are seeking a real-world political system, not a paradisical afterlife.

Secondly, we must deprive our enemies of the succor that their immoral actions are in the interest of pursuing some inevitable “greater good”; their immorality is just that.  What is moral to do to human beings in the particular, is moral in the universal.  If we want to eliminate human suffering in the universal, we must refrain from causing human suffering in the particular.  Causing destruction and harm are not guarantors of sweeping away “an old system,” and replacing it with a new, better system.

Indeed, the replacement of one set of flawed human beings with another set of flawed human beings is no guarantor of progress, and no permanent safeguard of any imagined utopia.  The United States Constitution was drafted with an understanding of both the inherently flawed nature of man and the delicacy of ordered liberty; and though reverence for the document may have bought the American people time, its underlying values will wither on the vine without ample watering, and the fruits of liberty will be lost. Only by exercising our free will and taking action to advance our common cause will we be able to shape the malleable and unsettled future.

The Founders are dead, but their ideals live on.  But if we do not propagate their ideals with the same force and urgency as they did, the values of individual liberty and free market capitalism will die, and the American experiment along with it. We do not merely exist for the benefit of the state. We are alive, and our liberty is our lives!

“He Said, She Said” with Demetrius & Stacy. Special Guest: Tony Katz

When: Thursday, May 30th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: He Said, She Said on Blog Talk Radio

What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into themind of the conservative, bold, full strength, and unfiltered.

Tonight: Conservative icon Tony Katz will be a special guest

The War on ALEC

I admit that I probably should have written about this long ago, but it remains a highly salient issue. For months the far left has been waging a campaign to destroy the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has only intensified in the wake of the Trayvon Martin Shooting.  ALEC is a private-public partnership of state legislators and businesses that seek to expand the principles of limited government, free markets, and economic liberty.  Left wing hatred towards the organization for advocating and promoting these principles has been a long standing tradition, but it seems the political left is taking a more aggressive approach against ALEC.    Yesterday, The Washington Free Beacon reported that liberal elements are preparing for war against ALEC.

The participants, including representatives from such far-left groups as Common Cause, Color of Change, and ProgressNow, met for lunch in a conference room at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C. The New Organizing Institute, a group that provides support and technology for political organizers, sponsored the forum. Never relent, never let up pressure, and always increase, said Aniello Alioto of ProgressNow Colorado, summing up the strategy.

One of the groups that attempted to forge a connection between ALEC and the Trayvon Martin shooting is Color of Change, a nonprofit founded by 9/11 Truther and former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones.

Color of Change Director of Strategy,Gabriel Rey-Goodlatte, has already started a phone banking and online petitioning campaign against companies associated with ALEC and companies like Amazon.com, State Farm, Johnson & Johnson, and AT&T are included on their hit list.

With the launch of ALEC Exposed nine months ago, the site has detailed some 800 bills and thousands of internal documents from the organization that includes two years worth of ALEC meetings, their attendee lists and the accompanying minutes due to Common Cause’s successful Freedom of Information Act request from state legislators.  Common Cause is “a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.”  However, as Jason Stverak, President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, wrote on Breitbart, it’s a progressive organization funded by billionaire lefty George Soros.  Seeing that ALEC was involved in crafting Voter ID legislation, Stand Your Ground Laws, Alabama’s “Papers Please” immigration policy, and Wisconsin’s revamp of collective bargaining rights, it is hardly a surprise why the left wants them gone and think they’re evil.  It’s “the vast right wing conspiracy.”

To no one’s surprise, the liberal media, including far left publications like The Nation and The Huffington re-Post, released hit pieces last summer exposing this “shadowy” organization, but it was really the Trayvon shooting that galavanized this campaign to heavily marginalize ALEC’s agenda and, therefore, our fight for economic freedom and limited government.  So far, the political left has been able to force The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Coca-Cola to drop their support of ALEC and the organization itself states it will double down on “jobs, free markets, and growth” and announced the end of their task force that dealt with non economic issues.  Hence, this means that ALEC has caved to left-wing pressure and, as Kevin Glass wrote on Townhall.com, “they’ll be shutting down pro-second amendment outreach and the pushes for voter ID laws.”  Glass continues by stating that “conservative organizations and conservative activists need to be able to reassure companies targeted by progressive boycotts that the boycotts won’t make a meaningful financial impact. The reason progressives have gone after ALEC isn’t because ALEC is particularly “extreme” or something – it’s because ALEC has been successful in passing legitimate conservative legislation.”  As we gear up to take on Barack Obama’s billion dollar re-elect campaign, we must not forget our friends and allies who are also fighting to expand conservative principles.  We CANNOT allow these people to “Acorn” us in an election year or any year for that matter.

The Free Lunch Agenda

Conservative commentators and economists, especially George Will, have given lectures and speeches and have written columns about the moral hazard that is rising in the country. If you saw it, I hope you were appalled at the new study that shows virtually half of all Americans do not pay federal income taxes. Forty-nine and half percent of Americans pay no income taxes and receive most of the benefits; thus, they have no vested interest in curbing the size of government of which they are dependent on. Conservatives have known this to be a problem for some time, but liberals ignore the socio-economic consequences. They ignore it because it is an integral part of their  agenda. More people dependent on government equalizes outcome, and you do that by getting everyone to feed on a government program.  President Obama is fully behind this agenda, hence the dark day when Obamacare was passed.

I’m glad that Jack Cafferty of CNN’s The Situation Room mentioned the decrease in tax participation on his blog this past winter.  Nevertheless, the left will stringently advocate that such expansion of government programs and reliance on them are net positives.  We see this with Valerie Jarrett and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney idiotically stating that unemployment checks promotes economic growth.  However, we on the right know that such absurd endeavors offer no incentive for the unemployed to seek employment and that spending of other people’s money to keep them perpetually lethargic is fundamentally unfair.  On ABC’s This Week last January, Austan Goolsbee, the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for President Obama, had the temerity to say that the economy had a huge boom last quarter, but is being weighed down by government shrinking too rapidly.  Is the government shrinking too rapidly?

According to MyGovCost.org, which is an affiliate of The Independent Institute, the Obama administration has permanently increased the size and expenditure of government by 16.5% in four years.  In fact, the site states that government expenditure is one-sixth bigger today than originally projected four years ago.  Investors Business Daily revealed earlier this month that government dependency had increased by 23%  in two years!  That is 67 million people reliant on a federal program.  You cannot have a shrinkage of government when 67 million people are added onto a federal program and total federal spending has increased.  Mr. Goolsbee is dead wrong.

This is the left-wing dependency agenda. It’s the delivery of free lunches for 151.7 million Americans.  To make a comparison, the number of people in 1984 who did not pay federal income taxes was at a mere 14.8% or 34.8 million Americans.  If the president wants to talk about the fundamentally unfair landscape of America, he should focus on the people who don’t contribute one cent to the government coffers.  Half pay their fair share so the other half can coast through life.  It is serfdom in all but name.  Yet, the president wants to keep expanding government spending, taxation, and destroy freedom and personal responsibility in the process.  With half of the country not paying any income taxes, it makes the future passage and signage of the Ryan budget into law even more politically treacherous, even though it strives to avert inevitable fiscal disaster.  Without a doubt, the slothful will fight to keep their goody bag as we slowly become a dictatorship of the lazy.

Is this house big enough to hold my ego?

The Palace of Versailles remains a magnet for the pretentious.

Even a property–rights conservative must admit it’s always an ominous sign when a prospective neighbor decides to give his soon–to–be–constructed house a name. There’s nothing that screams “Arriviste!” like a billboard in the front yard trumpeting the fact that your new home is so large it merits a title and will be petitioning for a Zip Code.

So it came as something of a shock to unsuspecting neighbors in the Hidden Springs community of Great Falls when Mrs. Young Yi installed a sign announcing construction of “Le Chateau De Lumiere,” when their own homes had been anonymous lo these many years.

I must confess we’ve privately called our modest shelter the “Fisher–Price House” because the siding was once bright yellow with equally arresting blue shutters. But we didn’t hang banners off the eaves announcing the fact or stock the front yard with random infants.

I believe the title of Mrs. Yi’s abode means “mansion of light” much like a bullfighter’s garish getup is called the “suit of lights.” But what the name lacks in modesty is more than compensated for by its addition of “diversity” to the blandly wealthy neighborhood.

According to the Washington Post, the 25,425 sq. foot behemoth is modeled on Louis XIV’s Palace of Versailles. This asteroid, is ten times larger than the average square footage of a house built these days for lesser mortals. And it’s almost twice the size of the Virginia governor’s mansion, which comes in at a paltry 14,000 sq. ft.

Mrs. Yi’s plans call for European landscaping and, much like an airport runway, the manse will also boast a lavish underground lighting system, hence the “Lumiere.” She will also enjoy a pool, pool house, wine cellar, exercise room, billiard room, sauna, card room, rec room, gallery and a theater with a “concession space,” which may be how she plans to offset the mortgage payment. No word as yet on valet parking.

There’s something about Versailles that’s a magnet for pretension. Back in 2000 Michael Saylor, who was briefly a dot.com billionaire, unsuccessfully planned to build a mega–edifice in Great Falls also modeled on Versailles. His was to have a football field, although if he was really serious about the Versailles connection it should have been a soccer pitch.

Continuing to mix architectural metaphors Saylor declared, “I want it to be like the White House.” Saylorville was projected to cost as much as $50 million and he described it as, “part house, part embassy, part ceremonial” and all hey–look–at–me!

It’s somewhat ironic the house causing restless nights for the neighbors is being built by the owner of 1st Class Sleep Diagnostics Center, a chain with six locations in Virginia that treats apnea, snoring, insomnia and obsessing about construction plans.

The NIMBYs, I mean neighbors, are using time–worn objections that have been employed to prevent construction of everything from bike paths to nuclear reactors: It’s an eyesore, it’s too big, trees will die, it interferes with my view, it will lower property values(!) and it makes my house look small.

It’s difficult to muster much sympathy for either side. On one hand you have the $25 million Case de Ostentation where a functioning GPS is required to find the bathroom and on the other you have people who, in the priceless words of reporter Justin Jouvenal, “deliver their own trash to dumpsters at a local school, rather than have a noisy trash truck rumble down the main road.”

More likely Mr. and Mrs. Fastidious order their undocumented landscape interns to dump the trash, which in addition to eliminating rumbly trash trucks also eliminates the need to pay for garbage disposal since taxpayers pick up the tab.

The wealthy are always appalled when reality refuses to accommodate their whims. Social disapproval does not appear to be working, so lawyers have been hired. The lawsuit leans heavily on deed covenants that were put in place to keep the lots large and woody. Unfortunately, for neighbors seeking to occupy the moral high ground (while leaving the trees undisturbed), deed covenants or restrictions have been used in the past to keep Jews from buying property and blacks from moving into a neighborhood.

The suit also contains vague charges regarding the loss of the “sylvan character” of the neighborhood and the megalith’s failure to demonstrate “conservative” aesthetics.

But mostly the controversy again proves the enduring truth of Dennis Miller’s observation that “a developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods, while an environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.”

Mitt Romney (Really) Doesn’t Have That Much Money

Romney’s “2 Cadillacs” and “my friends own NASCAR teams” stories might seem like old news now, but if he gets the GOP’s nod, you can bet that stories about his wealth will begin to circulate again in preparation for this fall’s election.  Since 80% of Conservatives seem to think he’s going to win the nomination (and he has the largest amount of delegates), this piece will focus on some the criticisms about Romney’s wealth.

Romney Doesn’t really have that much money.

As unbelievable as that statement sounds, it’s very much true.  Mitt Romney is said to be worth anywhere between $190-$250 Million.  And as hard as it is to believe, that’s just not very much dough.

To put it in perspective, let’s look at how much money some other famous people happen to be worth.

1.  Peyton Manning has a net worth of $115 Million (about half of what Romney is said to be worth)

2.  Justin Bieber has made $105 Million in just about the same amount of  time it takes to complete high school.

3.  Gossip blogger, Perez Hilton is worth $30 Million.  Let that sink in for a minute…  And if you don’t know who Perez Hilton is, consider yourself blessed.

4.  Michael Bloomberg, a lowly mayor (even if he is mayor of the USA’s largest city), is worth $19 Billion (with a “B”).  So if politicians aren’t supposed to be wealthy, somebody should let him know.

5.  But to put things into even better perspective, Allen Iverson has made (and spent) about $200 Million between his NBA salary and his Reebok endorsements.  So, if a basketball player is allowed to earn, in fourteen years, what Mitt Romney has earned over the course of his 65 year lifetime, then there seems to be little reason to begrudge the former governor for buying a couple of Cadillacs.  And if it makes you feel any better, you should know that Allen Iverson’s $400,000 Lamborghini is worth about 8 of what Mrs. Romney’s Cadillac’s are believed to have cost.

And this is just “classic Democrats”.  Remember when Barack Obama was a candidate for the highest office in the land?  As a candidate, he considered George W. Bush’s debt of $4 Trillion to be “unpatriotic”, a debt that was amassed over 8 years.  But when President Obama racked up $4 Trillion of debt in only three years, he decided to have Tom Hanks narrate a documentary talking about how heroic our current president is.  Democrats will hammer Republicans for their sins, then commit the SAME sin, only twice as worse, and then applaud themselves.  And on top of that, they get the media to tell everybody that they’re doing a good job.  …for doing the SAME thing they just hammered Republicans for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84

This is the same party who ran the richest president of all time, John F. Kennedy.  JFK was said to be worth $1 Billion (again, with a “B”), and his successor, Lyndon Johnson, was also said to be worth $98 Million.  These figures were published on MSNBC’s website, of all places, and they were adjusted for 2010 dollars.  But again, they’ll have you believe that Mitt Romney, and by extension, the Republican Party are both out of touch.  Furthermore, did you know that  William Jefferson Clinton is said to be worth $38 Million?  And last but not least, Jane Harman, a Democrat congresswoman from California who recently resigned, is said be worth between $150 Million and $430 Million.  From the looks of things, Democrats only think that being a rich politician is bad if it’s a REPUBLICAN who is the rich politician.

The hypocrisy is not only staggering, but it needs to be pointed out on a daily basis, if Republicans ever want to dispel the meme that they are all out-of-touch and 1 percenters.

So in a world where basketball players and teenage kids have earned as much (or half as much) as Mitt Romney has, and in a world where Liberal politicians can easily outspend him, it’s hard to see the outrage over Romney’s wealth as being anything genuine.  Romney’s real crime isn’t that he’s amassed money, it’s that he’s been unable to control the narrative.

Romney’s Not So Conservative Environmental Position – Just So You Know




When Mitt Romney, currently candidate for the Republican nomination for president, was governor of Massachusetts, he appointed:

  • John Holdren, President Barack Hussein Obama’s Science Czar
  • Gina McCarthy, Obama’s EPA Assistant Administrator
  • James Connaughton, head of Bush’s Council of Environmental Quality, and a long time supporter of cap and trade
  • Edward Krenik, former Bush EPA member, and supporter of cap and trade
  • Alexander A. Karsner, Bush’s DOE assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, which promoted “marketplace integration of renewable and environmentally sound energy technologies”

To be fair, Romney appointed Jeff Holmstead, who authored Alaska Senator Lisa Mulkowski’s bid to stop the EPA’s actions. He has been critical of the Obama administration’s green jobs strategy, and was critical of the Obama administration’s position on the Keystone oil pipeline, as well as the moratorium on offshore drilling.

In 2003, while governor of Massachusetts, Romney, while outside an aging, coal-fired plant, said, “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people.”

In 2005, while governor of Massachusetts, Romney hailed Massachusetts as “the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.” His administration then said, “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment.”

Mitt Romney favors ethanol subsidies. He proposes a new regulatory framework for the EPA that would “preserve environmental gains without paralyzing industry” (whatever that means), while streamlining air rules for coal plants and reforming regulations for the nuclear industry. Romney opposes abolishing or structurally changing the EPA.

So what does all of this mean? Well, right now, nothing. Mitt Romney is not president and cannot implement policies or appoint anyone. But since he garnered the most convention delegates yesterday, I thought you might like to know his past history on environmental issues, who he has appointed, and what we might expect if he does become president.

Mitt Romney at his worst would still be an improvement over what we have now!

But that’s just my opinion.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »