Malignant Liberal Idiocy

I don’t usually read David Brooks’ pieces, but I have heard quite a bit about his, ahem, “opinions” while listening to The Laura Ingraham Show. Apparently Mr. Brooks takes offense at the notion of principled conservatives leading the Republican Party. If the Republican Party is to one day rise from the ashes like the Phoenix, according to Mr. Brooks at least, they must follow “the Reformers.” (Note: By the Phoenix, I do not mean Arizona senator John McCain, although I’m certain David Brooks would include him in “the Reformers.”)

“The Reformers” sounds like a powerful group that a principled conservative could possibly support, right? Not so fast, as John McCain would say, “my friends.” “The Reformers” that are prescribed by Dr. Brooks as the cure for an ailing Republican Party are indeed nothing more than the RINOs that have played such a large role in the fall of the party. (Disclaimer: I am just a working man that graduated from Southern Illinois University so naturally I wouldn’t understand the complex thinking of those that , for example, graduated from the schools that gave us the Obamas.)

To overcome the odds and drag the once-great party back to the pinnacle of American politics, “the Reformers” must vanquish the enemy of progress. You may be thinking, “I thought liberal Democrats referred to themselves as progressive.” You would be correct, but there is not a lot of difference between liberal Democrats and the valiant “Reformers.” Just who the enemy is, David Brooks describes in today’s NY Times column, “Darkness at Dusk.”

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

The enemy has been identified, “the Traditionalists” with their antiquated principles and rustic attachment to conservatism. This menace must be eradicated if the Republican Party is to ascend to the heights envisioned by Brooks and RINO snobs everywhere! The party can only hope to survive if it makes itself completely indistinguishable from the Democrat Party. Make sense? Not to me, but then again I put more stock in common sense and values than I do an ability to identify wine.

Who knows why Brooks writes the things he does? Perhaps he is a Republican because his parents were Republican (much like the Democrats whose parents told them, Republicans are for big business and Democrats are for the little guy.) Perhaps the New York Times needed a Republican columnist and he is pretending for the sake of a paycheck. It could be that the bully who beat him up as a child grew up to become a principled conservative. Maybe it is as simple as elitist snobbery and the refreshing rise of Governor Sarah Palin pushed Mr. Brooks and fellow snobs over the edge.

Brooks describes the philosophy and attributes of the brave “Reformer”:

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

While I can agree with the benefit of appealing to younger voters, I disagree that the party should sell its collective soul in order to accomplish this! If liberal policies are what a voter of any age, or demographic seeks, why wouldn’t he, she, or it (transgendered?) simply align with the real Democrat Party? Why would said voter choose the cheap substitute that once was the Republican Party? Doesn’t the Democrat Party already cover the bases with the global warming scam and the manufacturing killing plans to combat the false crisis? I believe open borders advocates as well as those seeking to capitalize on perceived “inequalities” can meet there needs with the real Democrat Party.

Here is a suggestion for David Brooks and the rest of “the Reformers.” Please take your educated sensibilities to the party that already fits the description of your ideal and leave the Republican Party to be rescued by principled conservatives. Also, don’t let the door hit you on your way back to the more educated and sensibility enjoying coast!

This post is a collection of annoyances I have thought about recently. It may take more than two minutes to air out, but we might as well start practicing before “Big Brother” Barry has the tele-screens installed. The idea that George Orwell’s vision of society in “1984″ can come to be realized in the U.S. is still far-fetched, but as Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama gets closer to the presidency, the notion seems less far-fetched. If there are indeed enough American voters that would vote for Obama, let alone vocally support this leftist, then it would appear that our nation is ripe for oppressive governmental control. Therefore, in honor of the future “leader” of this nation, “Big Brother” Barack Obama, here is my “Two Minutes Hate”:

Minute One:

I hope Mike Huckabee enjoys the profits he earns as a commentator and host on Foxnews. It is unfortunate that his position with the cable news channel would not be possible without his devastating run for the Republican nomination. How, one might ask, was Huckabee’s run devastating? His hatred of Mitt Romney and his nanny state ideals provided a path to the worst case scenario for a Republican Party that desperately needed someone behind who they could rally. The scenario was realized when, through the process of elimination, faux independent voters in open primaries, and Huckabee’s desire to stick it to Mitt Romney, The Republican Party got stuck with John McCain as a nominee. As I said before, Huckabee believed in the nanny state and therefore was disqualified from the support of many conservatives. Romney was an acceptable alternative to many conservatives when it became apparent that their first or second choice would not make the cut. McCain was a nightmare from which I still hope to wake.

There are times when McCain seems worthy of support. His naming of Governor Palin as his running mate, for example, gave conservatives hope. The problem is that McCain refuses to win. I don’t know if he is just so stubborn that he can’t take advice… or perhaps he has surrounded himself with moron RINOs that aren’t capable of giving good advice. Sometimes I even think McCain’s disdain for conservatives runs so high, he doesn’t care whether he wins or loses. If he wins, he has the office he felt he deserved. If he loses, he sticks the conservatives with the most ridiculously leftist president this side of Venezuala. This is probably not the case, but when I see how McCain campaigns, I can’t help but wonder.

Minute Two:

I was just watching a little of FOXNews Sunday and heard Chris Wallace interviewing Brooks Jackson, Director of Factcheck.org. Jackson mentioned that factcheck was part of The Annenberg Public Policy Foundation at The University of Pennsylvania. I don’t know how I had missed hearing about this connection in the past… I had heard that factcheck.org seemed to lean left, but didn’t know of the connection to Annenberg. I think any fact checking done regarding this election should be viewed through an “Annenberg” filter since the Annenberg Foundation is at the heart of the Obama-Ayers controversy.

There should be no surprise that Factcheck.org poo-pooed the controversy in its treatment of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book “An Obamantion.” How about a little truth in advertising, doesn’t Factleft.org sound better?

Cross-post from my other blog: Conservative Common Man

This excruciatingly pro-longed election season has been a mental and emotional roller coaster for most that follow it closely. I can only speak from my personal conservative perspective and say that the current situation might qualify as a crisis. This crisis demands action… yet who knows which course of action is in the best interests of our nation? This particular day, September 11, is a reminder of what has been done to our nation and what we are up against. Today’s reminder of the threats we face makes the conservative voter’s decision making even more difficult.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines crisis as:

1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; turning point.

2. A sudden change in the course of an acute disease toward improvement or deterioration.

My personal ride on the “Election 2008″ roller coaster began when Rudy Giuliani was being touted as the front-runner for the Republican nomination and peddled by “political strategists” as the only one that could beat Hillary Clinton. Soul searching and self-examination convinced me that I could never cast a vote for a candidate that believes it is acceptable for a mother to request that her child be killed as a matter of “choice.” Once The Republican Party’s preference was eliminated as an option for me, I began to search for a candidate. I found that I could stand firmly behind two candidates while a few more would have been acceptable if the candidates I agreed with were no longer in the race. There were also a couple of candidates for which I doubted I could actually support.

I chose to do everything I could to help the best man in the race, Representative Duncan Hunter, win the nomination of the party to which I believed I belonged. Energized and filled with “hope” (not Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama’s brand) I worked as hard as I could for the candidate I still believe to be the best choice for our country. Conservative ideals were not to be heard on public airwaves as the party and talk show hosts decided to push “moderates” with money. Eventually Congressmen Hunter and Tancredo ended their campaigns, leaving a choice between less than conservative Republicans.

While disheartened, I decided to support the most conservative of the remaining candidates. Unfortunately the combination of early “open” primaries and Huckabee’s hatred of Mitt Romney combined to leave one man standing at the end of The Republican Primary fiasco. The low point in the track had been reached as John McCain, champion of illegal aliens, enemy of free speech, and passenger on Al Gore’s anthropogenic global warming bandwagon was left as the the nominee. Naturally, I felt the nausea sometimes associated with a sudden descent, but this time the ill feeling lingered much longer.

MORE

Cross-posted from Conservative Common Man (my other blog.)

In a time when the liberal media should be rejoicing in their impending presidential victory (regardless of which sub-par candidate wins) or focusing on their primary task of campaigning for “Big Brother” Barry Obama, they still get distracted by the perceived unjust treatment of lawbreakers. Both presidential candidates are open-borders, no sovereignty type guys, but apparently the lib media doesn’t think that is good enough. You see, illegal aliens are being caught currently and their sad tales must be told. Imagine the horror that the most recently detained illegals faced, they could not attend the wedding reception for Ellen and “Ally McBeal’s” Nell (the other newsworthy garbage in The San Francisco Chronicle.) Actually, most of the illegals in Iowa probably wouldn’t have made the trip out of “the shadows” to attend the gay (that means happy, right?) couple’s nuptials.

The AP article in the San Francisco Chronicle is heart-wrenchingly headlined, “Small town Iowa struggles after immigration raid.” A gut response might be, “so what?” There is no valid reason for a town to struggle because of an immigration raid. Those that claim otherwise conveniently ignore the most basic fact, illegal is illegal. If there are jobs to be done, they can be done by people that are here “legally”, which means those without the “il” as a prefix to their status. Perhaps the business owners should pay higher wages and subsequently charge more, or perform the tasks themselves… oh shoot, I used common sense there. Forgive me, it is a bad habit of mine.

More

Juliet Eilperin and Steve Mufson of The Washington Post have a column today, “Climate Bill Underlines Obstacles to Capping Greenhouse Gases.” I suppose this column would be more aptly described as an unpaid ad for the Lieberman-Warner S.2191 (which should be called the Environmental Socialism Act of 2007.)

When the Senate takes up landmark climate legislation this week, its backers can be sure of just one thing: The obstacles they face show how hard it will be to enact a meaningful cap on greenhouse gases — probably under the next administration.

The next administration, not this one, because even supporters of the complex, extensively negotiated 494-page bill say that there is little chance that it will win Senate approval, less chance that the House will agree on a similar measure and perhaps no chance that President Bush will sign it if it reaches his desk.

“In some ways, this is a dress rehearsal for next year, but I still think it will be a useful thing for the Senate and Congress, because at some point we have to deal with it,” said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who says he has yet to decide how he will vote.

So our senators are earning their pay performing dress rehearsals? I suppose it could be worse, they could actually be passing the devastating legislation! I wonder who will pay the $1.2 trillion the CBO estimates the law would bring into the federal government? Don’t worry about giving your money to the government however, because the CBO also estimates that they will do what they do best and spend most of it ($1.13 trillion.) Of course actual spending would probably be considerably more as this is our inept, bloated, bureaucratic nightmare government we are discussing.

It is not difficult to see that this plan’s affect on American manufacturing is potentially devastating. I assume that people who support this bill, like the libiots at The Washington Post, believe that American manufacturing is too strong and needs to be put in its place. Maybe someone should investigate whether or not the Chinese government contributed to the election funds of these libiot senators. This bill obviously would benefit Chinese manufacturers at the expense of American companies. Hey union members, keep supporting the Demonrats as they push you out of a job by pandering to the Environmental Socialists and for good measure, flood the labor pool with illegal aliens!

Perhaps the supporters are looking out for the common man, you know (as Barry Obama says at the beginning of almost every sentence) the people whose livelihoods might depend on producing, selling, or servicing manufactured products. That would make sense in a sick and twisted (in other word, libiot) way. If the goal is to have a socialist society, a certain amount of dependence on the government is required. Perhaps we have already stepped off the cliff as related to government dependence, since there seems to be so little public outrage any time the government, federal or state, snatches another chunk of our liberty. Do people actually desire the life of standing in line for food rations, gas rations, or Vodka rations? Oh, I forgot to include Carbon rations!

The three libiot presidential candidates support this treacherous intrusion upon our independence and barring a miracle (McCain saying “just kidding” and stepping aside at the convention) it is too late to hope that there will be a president that respects this nation’s independence or its Constitution. Barry Obama is possibly the most frightening of the three as his “hope” for “change” is almost overtly communist (more on that to come.) McCain’s idea of “straight talk” is to say the things he hopes the media and his liberal counterparts want to hear on issues other than spending and the war. Hillary is still included and will be until we find out if she sues the DNC for her party’s nomination.

In my humble opinion, the best way to deal with the cap and trade issue is to cap carbon dioxide emissions. I would limit the capping to those coming from government buildings and campaign events. It might also be useful to cap those emissions generated by the parrot press corps. It would be truly pleasant if the Marxist libiots would shut the hell up, thus limiting their own CO2 emissions. If that were to happen, the American people might see things as they are as opposed to as the socialists would have us believe.It would appear that most Americans are too busy to pay attention to the intrusions of government, but if the CO2 emissions of the libiots aren’t capped, many of us will be out of work and have more free time on our hands.

As for the trade portion of cap and trade, I would love to see the Marxist libiots traded to Venezuala or some other nation where they would be more comfortable for people that cherish liberty.

I am hard on John McCain because I have very little confidence in the man who would have considered being John Kerry’s running mate and has fought hard over the years to hamper liberty and harm our sovereignty. Today I will give the man who would be president some credit. Senator McCain has, to this point not supported a measure to nationalize reinsurance for catastrophic storm damage. This bill which passed the House and is now in committee in the Senate is named to sell, the “Homeowner Defense Act of 2007” (H.R. 3355, S. 2310.)

Drudge has a link to a Wall Street Journal article by Elizabeth Williamson, “Taxpayers May Face Hurricane Tab.”

WASHINGTON — As hurricane season begins, Democrats in Congress want to nationalize a chunk of the insurance business that covers major storm-damage claims.

The proposal — backed by giant insurers Allstate Corp. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., as well as Florida lawmakers — focuses on “reinsurance,” the policies bought by insurers themselves to protect against catastrophic losses. The proposal envisions a taxpayer-financed reinsurance program covering all 50 states, which would essentially backstop the giant insurers in case of disaster.

The program could save homeowners roughly $500 apiece in annual premiums in Florida, according to an advocacy group backed by Allstate and State Farm, the largest writers of property insurance in the U.S.

Please don’t think the Dems, the major insurers, and Florida Governor “Crispy” Crist want the United States taxpayer to open their wallets without limits. On the contrary, the libiots in the House are looking out for us in Title III, Sec. 304:

(Sec. 304) Sets the maximum aggregate potential federal liability for payment of claims under all reinsurance contracts sold in any single year at $200 billion, or such lesser amount as the Secretary determines based on review of the reinsurance market.

The article indicated that the blatant Socialist presidential candidates, Barry Obama and the wife of The Rapist, support this plan. One is left to wonder if they realize that there is a limit to taxpayer liability for the decisions of others. Perhaps Barry and Hill will take what redistribution they can get, even if it isn’t entirely up to their desire for complete nationalization of property (and all other forms of) insurance. Nikita Kruschev would certainly approve of this piecemeal approach.

“We can’t expect the American People to jump from

 Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their 

elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, 

until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”
                                             

-Nikita Khrushchev

The Drudge Report has a link that reads: JUPITER IN THE BALANCE: Recent ‘red spots’ likely due to climate change…

I would like to know what the parishioners of Al Gore’s Church of Climate Change (formerly known as Church of Global Warming, but that was before even the libiot supporters of this religion started to realize that wee seem to be entering a cooling cycle) are going to do to fix this problem. Will donations to be directed such that The Goreacle can commission the construction of a green space shuttle (hybrid, of course) that would enable the round one, himself to fly to Jupiter and seek out the culprits? I’m guessing the shuttle would have a catchy name like “Inconvenient 1″ or “Mean Green Flyin’ Machine.”

Is there human life on Jupiter? I guess there must be, since human activity causes climate change. I wonder what the global citizens of Jupiter call SUV’s? Perhaps it is too far fetched to think that there are people living on Jupiter and causing catastrophic, spot-altering, climate change.  Perhaps the citizens of The United States of America, in our greed and selfish desire to live, are causing climate change on Jupiter with our nasty habits of driving and exhaling! Yes, that must be it! Barry Obama and John McCain must ensure that their respective (but certainly not respectable) campaign platforms deal with this crisis! Will Sheryl Crow endorse whichever candidate has the most environmentally socialist plan to stop our emissions from affecting our galactic neighborhood? She could write a campaign song, “Just One Square For Jupiter.”

I can almost hear the speeches now. John McCain will tell us that Theodore Roosevelt new the value of preserving the climate of Jupiter and it would be grossly irresponsible to not strangle American manufacturing in order to deal with Jupiter’s possible crisis. “Big Brother” Barry will say we can’t eat what we want and drive our SUVs and make personal decisions for ourselves and expect the rest of the solar system to just say OK.

I do at least hope Al Gore attempts to travel to Jupiter and assess the situation. I also think the entire nation might benefit as many of the global warming libiots as possible join him.