Sunday, November 15, 2009

RE: The Last Best Hope for the Last Best Hope

Some additional thoughts: George Washington in his farewell address had many strong words to say about parties. He called their rivalries despotism and described in 1796 our present situation as a result of the party system. I would love to see the disintegration of the party system. The alternative is their dismantling, and that would come along with the worst possible outcome for our present experiment in liberty.

I believe we are a long way from that outcome. However, we are at least as distant from my preceding hope. There is at least one political party that has put its own interests above those of the nation. Personally, I think the other one simply has no aim, currently. Before political factions can be safely done away with, conservatives need to put this county back on its Constitutional foundation. To do that, we gain control of the Republican Party and use it as a tool to fix what needs fixing. Think of the Republican Party as a crowbar to dislodge the liberal Democratic infestation from our Federalist government.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Last Best Hope for the Last Best Hope

Ronald Reagan famously quipped on more than one occasion, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." Today, many conservatives feel the same way about the Republican Party. While they may be right in some respects, their timing couldn’t be more wrong.

Just as many registered Republicans are getting fed-up with their party for drifting away from conservative principles, many Democrats are waking up to the realization that they, too, have been left by their party; in some cases, left long ago. Add to that the number of so-called moderates who vote left on a number of issues, but still lean right on the fundamentals, and we are witnessing a conservative shift in the American voting population. But don’t take my word for it: on October 26, 2009, Gallup reported that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative while 37% consider themselves as moderates. Now they are all looking for a politically conservative place to call home.

So, where will they go?

Not to draw too heavily on Reagan, but he did have a way of putting things. In his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” he included an anecdote about a Cuban refugee recounting his escape from Castro to some Americans. "We don't know how lucky we are," remarked one of the Americans. The Cuban replied, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." Reagan concluded this tale by declaring America the last stand on earth for freedom. Some minutes later, he concluded his speech, evoking the words of Lincoln and again naming America the last best hope on earth. (I suggest you listen to or read that speech. It is astounding how much is the same as it was 45 years ago.)

Though he doesn’t say it, I suspect Reagan looked upon the Republican Party as the last best hope within the last best hope. If he had thought it possible to steer the Democratic Party back onto a conservative course, I expect he would have stayed put. Instead he moved to where he believed his voice would be heard and his conservative ideas considered.

What does all this mean to conservatives?

For years it has been accepted as fact that there is no difference between Republican and Democratic Parties. If this were true, Democrats would not be working so hard to change the Republican Party. They tell Republicans that they need a “big tent” to attract more voters, that they should be less conservative and more moderate, that they must be more tolerant and bipartisan. I could go on a tangent about what “big tent politics” really means in regards to the Republican Party, but many others already have.

This “advice” from Democrats to Republicans serves to illustrate the difference between the parties. If the opponents of conservatism claim that it must be thrown out of the Republican Party, then that party must be a bastion for it. And if they claim Republicans are intolerant of “other” (read “progressive”) ideas, it is only because Democrats are intolerant of conservative thinking.

There is one other difference between the parties. It is the greatest Republican strength and it is also their Achilles' heel. Republicans hold their leaders to a certain standard. They don’t believe that the ends justify the means. They hate corruption within their party and Democrats know it.

My friend Jonathan Cousar has written an ardent piece about how Democrats exploit the Republican longing for perfection at election time. By picking out the flaws in a minority of Republican officials, Democrats are able to make Republican voters lodge their protest by staying home and not voting at all. Stop and think about how effective that is at promoting conservative policies. While Republicans wait for perfect conservatives to swing this country to the right, Democrats put less-than-perfect progressives in office, slowly inching the country left.

I am not saying that Republicans ought to compromise their ideals to win elections; precisely the opposite. Conservatives ought not to blindly accept Republicans as they are now. Rather, conservatives need be more involved in the party to insure it reflects its conservative base. Less desirable elements do need to be weeded out of the Republican Party, but in general, Republicans need to become better gardeners.

Let me explain: I’m not talking about “sowing the seeds” of conservatism. They’ve been sown and it is no trouble getting them to take root. Neither am I talking about “cultivating” conservatives by voting in local elections and primaries. We all already know all that grassroots stuff. But where conservatives stink at gardening is in the weeding. Sometimes we don’t weed enough; we need to vote out RINOs in the primaries and replace them with Constitutional conservatives. But conservatives also have a tendency to pull up flowers with the weeds. Democrats don’t have this problem since, politically speaking, all they cultivate are weeds.

Case in point, Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton: I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard conservatives or Republicans say that, while electing the first woman VP or President would be great, they wouldn’t want that woman to be Sarah Palin because she doesn’t live up to everything they could want in a female candidate. Meanwhile, when it looked like Hillary had a shot at the White House, I heard no liberals or Democrats make any such claims. Hillary already had everything a PC-minded leftist could want in a female candidate for president, a vagina.

I’m not advocating voting for the “lesser of two evils.” I am saying that it is better to vote as conservative as possible and to know what the important issues are. That is to say, if you are turning down a tax-cutting, defense-minded Constitutionalist because he thinks abortion is too nuanced to tackle in broad strokes and he got a DWI in college, you really need to examine your priorities.

What all of this is aimed at is the notion that conservatives ought to start up a third party. Liberals and progressives didn’t start up their own party; they took over the Democratic Party. Why, then, should conservatives tackle the Sisyphean task of launching a new party when a perfectly good vehicle for their ideas already exists? If conservatives are to tackle the monumental task of returning our government back to founding principles, wouldn’t doing the same with our political party be the test run?

There may be problems with having a two party system, but right now conservatives need to gather beneath a single banner. Preserving the last best hope is first the priority.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

ABC's V - If the left hates it, then I love it!

ABC’s new primetime drama “V” premiered last night to better-than-expected ratings, pulling in 14 million viewers, mainly among the coveted 18-49 crowd. Apparently it pulled in a rating of 5. I don’t know what that means, but it was translated for me as “very, very good.” In other words, ABC has a hit on its hands.

Now come a bunch of “Why?” questions. Why was showrunner-exec Scott Peters demoted and replaced before the pilot even aired? Why did his replacement Scott Rosenbaum receive two-year, seven-figure deal as part of the change? Why was production halted after only four episodes? Why was the original pilot tweaked to redo the final fight scene before air? Why do the writers need a hiatus lasting until March to “fine-tune” upcoming scripts?

I’m sure there are some perfectly good answers for many of these questions. But one certainly does wonder why an apparent out-of-the-gate success would be immediately burdened with so many obstacles that could likely drag it down. Another theory might hinge on the entertainment industry’s thinly veiled political stance and/or some early reviews from the old media.

As for my own review, I was thoroughly entertained. Like so many others, I couldn’t help but draw parallels between the show and current events. Despite the fact that the only overt connection to real-life was an off-handed reference to universal health care, leftist media outlets were quick to trash the show. Many made no effort to hide that their protests were in defense of another known well by a monogram-moniker.

This story from BigHollywood sums up the show and the left’s reaction pretty well: Left Lashes Out at ‘V’, Obama-Friendly ABC Purges Showrunner…

UPDATE: Jeffery Jena, who is acquainted with the show's developer, shed some light on the subject at I admit, some of my insinuating questions jumped the gun. But then again they were in response to the leftist media and the way they jumped the gun. It's interesting to see who is making what kind of connections.

Friday, October 16, 2009

John Mayer threatens to sodomize Vulture editor

This John Mayer interview is too good! I had to repost it.

Last night, Vulture had the pleasure of running into world-renowned blues legend John Mayer at a party at the Elle Decor-sponsored Armani/Casa party, where he was playing host. Since he's known for political outspokenness and the trenchant commentary of hits like "Waiting on the World to Change," we figured we'd ask his opinion on health-care reform and Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Our freewheeling conversation touched on seventies mustaches and his new album, and concluded, naturally, with the threat of forced sodomy. Enjoy!

What do you think about Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
I think it's fantastic.

Why? What's your overall opinion?
Do you think I'm smart enough to be able to articulate to you why our president receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a bit early for things? What's your overall opinion?

I think it's a bit premature. Someone compared it to giving an Oscar to someone still making a film.
So you don't think he should have it.

I don't think it's a bad thing, but maybe someone else deserved it more.
Who? If you don't know who else should have gotten it instead of Obama, I love you, you're beautiful, but shut your fucking mouth.

What do you think about health care? Would you take the public option?
Have you ever heard me play guitar? I'm really fucking good. You know what I'm bad at? Answering questions about public health care. This is not in my wheelhouse. Do you have any questions about music? I almost got a mad need to lighten up. You need to lighten up, because the questions you asked me were all troublemaking questions. If someone gave me the Nobel Peace Prize, and I didn't deserve it, I would just shut my mouth and enjoy the hell out of it.

Which I'm sure he's doing.
What's he going to do, send it back? It's like I'm getting a wrongful bulge in my pants and everyone's thinking I've got a nine-inch cock. I'm not going to argue with them, I'm going to let them think I have a nine-inch cock.

How about a style question?
Yes, this seems to be apropos. Do you get paid for this?

I do it more for fun.
You do this for fun? That's like me saying ... never mind.

What do you think about guys with seventies mustaches?
I don't give a fuck about who wears their face what way. If I could grow a beard, I'd have some nutty things going on on my face.

You can't grow a beard?
It's a pituitary thing. I know you're not that much of a moron.

These are questions my editor wanted me to ask. I'm trying to build my journalistic career here.
You're not building a journalistic career. You're making yourself look like a moron and you're not a moron. Who's your editor?

Jada is making you sound like a moron in front of people.

Why don't you tell me about your new album? You've been in the studio for a while.
I have a record coming out November 17.

Any particular theme or inspiration behind this one that makes it different from previous albums?
Look what we're doing right now! We're connecting right now! This is great! Yeah, it's going to be quite melodically bright, but the themes are all about heartbreak.

How is that different? Haven't you written a lot about heartbreak?
I think most artists do, but this is really breaking into the theme of it as a concept.

Is there hope behind the heartbreak?
The melody is the hope. The lyrics are the heartbreak, the melody is the hope. If you have the lyrics being the heartbreak and the music as the heartbreak, your editor made you ask stupid fucking questions! You're standing in front of me acting as if these questions are fair, but now we're talking about something real. So there was stuff I wanted to put on the record that just didn't fit the concept. So the next record will have that concept.

What concept?
More political things, worldly things.

Such as?
Nothing rhymed with public option.

You don't always have to rhyme, though.
I'm going to forcefully sodomize your editor.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

More on defining "Climate Change"

The term “global warming” is more than just a failed theory, it represents at least 20 years of fear mongering used to promote restrictive regulations and anti-growth legislation. And now it seems that those who have been leveraging the term are just going to shrug it off as though it never happened. Instead, they want to rally around “man-made climate change” as the new threat to the future, taking pains to leave it as undefined as their previously concocted phantoms.

Should the appropriators of the global warming hoax be allowed to simply drop the subject and be let off the hook? Ideally, no. Anyone who attempts to continue arguing a lost debate by playing semantics should properly be called out and made to admit their error. However, the debate over man’s effect on the environment is not structured. The self-proclaimed defenders of the environment need only toss out claims without fear of having to defend them. That is because the debate doesn’t occur behind paired podiums, but in the realm of public opinion.
As far back as this author can remember, one environmental scare has followed another, each with its prescribed political solution and each ecological problem magically going away once the political goal is attained. When is the last time anyone heard about acid rain or the ozone hole? According to various groups on the internet, these things are still problems plaguing us this very moment, but it seems the media stopped worrying about them near the time amendments requiring smokestack scrubbers were added to the Clean Air Act (mid-1990s) or once the UN adopted the Montreal Protocol (1987). Is it possible that if the United States had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the subject of global warming would have vanished from the major news outlets then?

While it would be fun to rub the fallacy of global warming in some faces, it would likely accomplish little. A better approach would be to counter dubious claims with facts. If the public receives a counter to every climate change claim that is made, more and more they will dismiss the claims out of hand without even waiting for the refutation. Like it or not, no one is going to overtly declare a victor, unless one declares it for his own side. Obviously, claims that the debate was over did not make it so. The fact that the term “global warming” is falling out of favor is about as much victory as one will see.

Now, this is not all to say that the term “global warming” should be left to die. In much the same way the global cooling scare of the 70’s is referenced in debunking global warming, both can be used to demonstrate that the ones crying “man-made climate change” have no idea what they are talking about.

The goal isn’t to convert the “true believers” of man-made climate change. No evidence will sway those ones. The goal is to reach the discerning individual who is looking for answers. It is to make him ask, “Why would one make such unfounded claims?” From that point, all the evidence needed exists to show how environmentalists for years have perpetrated their scare tactics to push onerous legislation and regulation that inhibit freedom and enhance government authority.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Obama wins Nobel prize for Participation

Like the fat kid in a grade-school track meet receiving his participation ribbon for showing up, U.S. President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize on the basis of what he is trying to do.

According to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the prize was given to Obama for his "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy," his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and for inspiring hope and creating "a new climate in international politics."

As further justification, Norwegian Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said, "If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do," "We are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," and “[The prize] is a clear signal to the world that we want to advocate the same as he has done to promote international diplomacy."

In more realistic terms, they’ve awarded him the prize because he delivers a good speech. What peace-loving politician does not desire all the things just named? If the Nobel Prize were meant to award good intentions, then all good people should win.
Fortunately, there remain those who remember that awards such as the Nobel Prize is intended to reflect accomplishments, not intentions.

"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast -- he hasn't had the time to do anything yet." - Lech Walesa, anti-communist Polish leader and winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
"President Obama has yet to prove that he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in Afghanistan and many other issues," - Mairead Corrigan Maguire, 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner, also said she was "very sad" to hear of the award

"He has achieved nothing. He's stumbling. He hasn't achieved any of his promises and nothing is working. He promised to close Guantanamo and now that's not going to happen, and the Arab-Israeli conflict looks like it's going to get very nasty." - Hisham Qasim, Egyptian democracy and human rights activist

“It seems premature to me. I think the committee should be very careful with the integrity of the prize… Sometimes of course the prize is awarded to people who are in the process of making history, so to speak, but in this case I think it is too early to know that.” - Nils Butenschon, director of the Norwegian Center for Human Rights at the University of Oslo

“Good intentions are something and good deeds are something else. And creating reality is not achieved by good intentions; it is by good actions.” - Saad al-Ajmi, former Kuwaiti minister of information

These are just a few prominent individuals with the credentials to put massive weight behind their criticism of the Nobel Committee’s decision. I could go on and on with the words of commentators and pundits who are just as astonished.

Instead, I will sum it up in the President’s own words, “I don’t believe I belong in the company of the transformative figures that have been honored by this prize." At least we can agree with the President on that.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Defining "Climate Change"

“Whoever defines the issue controls the debate.” –Timothy Cummings
Environmentalists have dropped the term "global warming." Maybe not completely, but there is a shift in the environmental movement that moves away from talk of "global warming" in favor of discussing "climate change." This is an insidious move because the term lacks any clarity on what it might mean.
I'm not saying that anyone working to debunk the global warming myth is wasting their efforts. But I am warning that conservatives do not want to appear "out-of-date" on this issue. Rather soon, I believe, environmentalists will concede that global warming is not a threat. But the caveat will be that they are still right in their premise, that human activity may* be affecting the global climate (another meaningless term). Indications of cooling temperatures will be co-opted into climate change theory, regardless of the actual causes.
As for "global warming deniers," they will actually be credited for realizing the “true” climate change trend. But their premise, that climate change is a constant with or without human activity, will be disregarded. Anyone who continues using the term “global warming” after that will be ridiculed as out-of-touch, behind-the-times and compared to Confederate flag waving southerners fighting long ended battles.
Case in point: The EPA website has no page devoted to global warming any longer. You will not find the term on the EPA home page. With help from’s Wayback Machine, I’ve determined that the phrase “global warming” has been gone from the EPA homepage since about January 25, 2006. In fact, you can’t find the term on any page directly linked to the home page. It takes a minimum of three clicks to locate the term “global warming.” Nor will you find it on the EPA topics page:
When searching the EPA website for the term “global warming,” the first result links to the following URL: On that page, one will find the following blurb: “Climate Change or Global Warming? The phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures."
My premise is that I think it would behoove conservatives to step away from global warming debunking and move toward defining the term “climate change” within a logical framework before it enters the common lexicon. There is no denying climate change is real, we see it with every passing front and each year with the change of seasons. Our planet has undergone epochs of tropics and ice. Deserts and forests have literally migrated across Earth’s surface within recorded history.
But the environmental movement has glommed onto the term “climate change” and is beginning to charge it to suit its ends. We, as conservatives, can help shape the general understanding of those words so that they will be rendered ridiculous in any conversation attempting to link climate change with human activity.
An example of where this has not happened is with the term “greenhouse gas.” Greenhouse gasses are normal, natural things essential to our atmosphere’s proper functioning. True, human activity does emit some of these gasses, but in amounts so overwhelmingly insignificant, it ought to be laughable to think our contribution is meaningful. However, the average Joe thinks our factories and automobiles are spewing immeasurable quantities of some unnatural pollutant called CO2, simply because they only understand the situation with the definitions they have been given.
*Note: The expression that human activity may contribute to climate change is commonly used. Many environmental agencies that wish to retain credibility shy away from making this connection directly, since they know full-well that their premise has a sandy foundation at best. This is a chink in the armor of the environmentalist stance. Exploit it.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Pirate O

Upside Down Obama

An interesting thing happens when you turn the Obama "O" logo upside-down. Is this a hidden message? Pirate Obama!

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Obama Heartbreak

He promised change, but what Obama delivered was more of the same. It's okay to be disappointed. Commiserate with the rest of the voters he let down and proudly declare that Barack broke your heart.

I Broken Heart Obama shirt
I Broken Heart Obama by mobwear
Many more t-shirts online at

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

For True Blood fans

Taking a break from politics for a moment, I think HBO's True Blood is a fun and entertaining escape. Here are some designs inspired by the program.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

I'm with the Angry Mob

Democrats, liberals, and the media called us an angry mob, just because we exercise our right to free speech and protest. Tell them what that means! They work for us, it's time they behave.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

M.O.B. - Make Obama Behave

Democrats, liberals, and the media called us an angry mob, just because we exercise our right to free speech and protest. Tell them what that means! They work for us, it's time they behave.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Is the United States a Christian Nation?

Is the United States a Christian nation or is it not? It cannot be disputed that this nation was founded by God-fearing men, mostly Christian. And it seems that they believed the destiny of this nation was linked to the Faithfulness of its inhabitants and their leaders. However, they established a secular Constitution. Why would they do this?

The state religions of Europe were utterly disastrous with indoctrinated hypocrisy and rampant persecution. Where they were not tools of the state, they were the state, a situation that corrupted one or, more likely, both parties. Obviously, this was an unworkable model if the sanctity of either were to be preserved.

But our Framers held other beliefs, as well. They believed in free markets and the open exchange of ideas. If the government could be kept out of any and all religions, they would stand or fall of their own merits. Every religion could spread their message and integrate into the communities. Churches (or whatever) would gain or lose followers based on the same principles that make goods or services successful, or that promote an entertainer or politician. Perhaps even the one true faith would prevail. The Framers may have expected this of Christianity, but they knew well enough not to force an outcome.

Therefore, in answer to whether the U.S. is a Christian nation, the nation is whatever its people are. Currently, the largest religious preference in the United States is Christianity, at over 78% in 2007. This number includes all forms of Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicals, et al. The second largest group is “no religious preference” at about 16%. This would lead one to believe that we are indeed a Christian nation.

As such, one would expect in a Federalist system that laws and ordinances of such a nation would reflect the values of Christianity along with due respect given to those outside of this majority. Heck, if a particular group wanted to, they should be able to go form a community governed by Sharia law within the United States. This thinking wouldn’t be dissimilar to what settled the Mormons in Utah.

Unfortunately, the separation of the State from the Church* has not been maintained. Freedom of religion has been contorted into freedom from religion. This twisted interpretation of the First Amendment finds that any expression of faith in the public arena becomes a tacit endorsement of religion by the State. Any such endorsement is, by this logic, verboten; therefore any such expression needs be quashed. The unintended consequence of this is a tacit state endorsement of Atheism.

*I propose preference for use of the phrase “Separation of State from Church” to summarize the religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

"Religious Composition of the U.S.". U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2007. Retrieved on 2009-07-28.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Second Class Citizen

Smokers' Rights: Blow it in their faces

You can't kick the habit, so Big Brother keeps kicking you around. You may not be able change the status quo, but you can let everyone know what it has made of you. Be proud to be second class citizen!

Modern Don Quixote

tilting at turbines

Whether you feel renewable energy is the impossible dream or a fool's quest, this simple design is open to your interpretation. Wear it as a conversation starter or to spark a lively debate.