Disingenuous much, Rupert?

An old adage intones, "Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it."

Rupert Murdoch is signaling displeasure with Team Elephant's choice of Presidential candidate.

To hear Rupert Murdoch tell it lately, Mitt Romney lacks stomach and heart. He “seems to play everything safe.” And he is not nearly as tough as he needs to be on President Obama.

Mr. Murdoch’s thoughts on the Republican presidential candidate’s prospects? “Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from the team.” Chances of that? “Doubtful,” he tapped out in a Twitter message from his iPad last weekend.

Then, on Thursday, Mr. Murdoch’s flagship newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published a blistering editorial criticizing Mr. Romney’s campaign, accusing it of being hapless and looking “confused in addition to being politically dumb.”

Mr. Murdoch has never been particularly impressed with Mr. Romney, friends and associates of both men say. The two times Mr. Romney visited the editorial board of The Journal, Mr. Murdoch did not work very hard to conceal his lack of excitement. “There was zero enthusiasm, no engagement,” said one Journal staff member who was at the most recent meeting in December.

You'll pardon me if I pause here to soak in the schadenfreude.

You see, it was Murdoch's Fox News that has served as the leading cheerleaders for Romney for the past year. It was Murdoch's Fox News that declared Romney the front-runner well before the primaries started and continued to label him the front-runner through the early primaries notwithstanding the obvious lackluster response to him from the electorate. It was Murdoch's Fox News who declared Il Dilettante the only candidate who could defeat Obama. And it was Murdoch's Fox News that served, effectively, as Romney's unpaid propaganda machine.

NOW Rupert decides he isn't that into Romney? NOW?!?!?!?!?

You created this situation, Rupert. You can like it, or, like the rest of us, you can lump it.

But don't try to sell us your belated regrets now. Anyone who has been paying attention ain't buying it.

Response to friendly taunting

A little over a week ago I noticed that The Modern Pharisee had resumed blogging. In his post The Lesser of Three Evils, he essentially laid out the case that Ron Paul supporters owed it to themselves and their country to choke back their bile and disgust and vote for "the best conservative candidate on the ballot" this Fall, citing the experience of King David.

In The Pharisee's view, David chose "the lesser of three evils" when given a choice.

While I was reading the post, a paraphrase of Carly Simon's 1970s hit song You're So Vain kept running through my head. "You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you, don't you, don't you, don't you?"

Well, uh, yeah. I did think that post was about me. Hugh and I have had that particular discussion before. But whether or not it was vanity became irrelevant when I received this Google message from Hugh.

Hugh: I'm back to blogging, and this is for you (and a few others)

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2012/04/lesser-of-three-evils.html.

That got a smile out of me. Okay, taunt accepted. Now it's my turn.

I like your analogy. But it's a bit flawed (sorry, Hugh). David was forced to choose between three horrible punishments, while we may choose between three options that, while not pleasant, are certainly NOT horrible punishments. David's three choices were (a) seven years of famine, (b) fleeing his enemies for three months, or (c) three days of pestilence. Our three choices are (a) vote for the incumbent Corporatist thug, Il Duce, (b) vote for the winner of the Republican primaries Corporatist dilettante hand-chosen by the Team Elephant elites, or (c) stay home and flip 'em both the bird. In our case, choice (c) is not only no punishment, but satisfying, in a juvenile sort of way.

Hugh's analogy further breaks down. David did NOT choose the punishment that befell his people. He chose one of the three options that he absolutely did not want to occur. He left the final decision up to the Lord.

I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

One way or another, in our situation, we have to choose (a), (b), or (c).

We know that choice (a) is out of the question. Il Duce incorporates all of the worst traits of horrendous presidents of the past, including thug Woodrow Wilson, messianic Franklin Roosevelt, "Great Society" Lyndon Johnson, and bumbling Jimmy Carter. But is choice (b) really that much better? Sure, Il Dilettante has great, presidential hair. But he's flip-flopped on every major issue over the past 20 years. If he's a conservative, then I'm Conrad Hilton. The elites moved heaven and earth -- including turning Fox News into the official Romney for President communications organ -- to push Romney through. Why so much effort? It's because...wait for it...NOBODY (and I mean NOBODY) wants him. Okay, Ann Coulter wants him. She can have him.

Choice (c) looks better and better to me all the time. I've already stated that this country is too far gone for any single individual operating as President to fix it.

Four years ago I reacted angrily when The Hausfraurer said that he would no longer vote, because, by voting, he was lending legitimacy to this phony, Corporatist system. Four years later, I completely agree with him.

The game is rigged. There isn't a dime's bit of difference between the "two" candidates. They both love big government; they only disagree when it comes to how big and who pays.

Sign me up for choice (c).

Is there a cure for blogger ennui?

It's been two months since my last, half-hearted post on this blog. I'm sure some of the dozen or so regular followers of this blog have been wondering where the hell I've been, why I've been so quiet, and why, with so much going on in the world, I haven't stuck my opinionated viewpoint into the middle of the goings on.

I've been here before. I've blamed it on "no interest in current events". Another time it was "burnout". Still another time I explained it as "inexplicable indifference". Then there was "my give a damn tank is on 'E'".

But I think the first extended period I had with no posts is the time I captured the essence best: "blogger ennui". It's a certain blend of general indifference coupled with the knowledge that one is powerless to do anything about what's going on.

"Take the red pill", they said. "You'll be able to see through the bullshit", they said.

Yeah. See through the bullshit...and see how hopeless any chance of correcting course is. For every person who has had the scales of cultural and political propaganda fall from their eyes so that they see clearly, there are 99 who not only don't see clearly, but are totally happy with the status quo.

Libs love the ever-encroaching socialist dystopia. "Conservatives" love the expansion of the military-industrial complex. "Bomb Iran - killing people makes them love and respect us". Every day freedoms are lost, in the name of the "common good", or "to protect us from" the current boogie man in the cross hairs.

Even if a libertarian were elected President with a libertarian majority in both houses of Congress, we wouldn't be able to fix the mess that is the USSA. Too many people are locked onto the guvmint teat -- both individuals and corporate looters -- to save this sinking ship.

But, hey, let's have a primary election coronation for Mitt Romney, so that we can have "Clinton-Dole" and "Obama-McCommie" redux. Let's pretend like the tea party hasn't been completely co-opted by the Elephants. Let's pretend that Occupy actually means something more than a bunch of spoiled 20-somethings whining that life isn't fair.

If I could still pretend, I'd be blogging. I can't pretend.

I'm not calling it quits. I'm just acknowledging the futility of it all.

New Tizona Post

Ron Paul's self-inflicted wound

And here I was worried that the media, the Team Elephant establishment, and the other GOP candidates were going to take down Ron Paul. It appears he's pretty good at it himself.

Read more at The Tizona Group.

New Tizona Post

And it begins...

The pattern has been played out over and over. A potential Team Elephant presidential candidate starts to rise in the polls. A bulls-eye is affixed to that candidate. A combination of Republican elites, their allies in the punditocracy, and Big Media (the BM for short), which simply can't help itself when an opportunity to dump on a Republican presents itself, begin hammering on any and all perceived defects of said candidate. Next thing you know, the new frontrunner is cast on the scrap heap, either to quit (like Herman Cain) or to flounder haplessly trying to regain momentum (like Michele Bachmann and Governor Perry Gardasil).

Now that Newt Gingrich is dropping faster than shares in Freddie Mac, Ron Paul has surged into a virtual tie and perhaps even the lead in Iowa.

That's bad.

Read the rest at The Tizona Group.

Soliciting nominees for Wiener of the Year

In two short weeks I will be naming the Wiener of the Year. As such, I am soliciting nominees for the "honor" from readers.

Among this year's candidates are Il Duce, Big Media (the BM for short), Congress, the TSSA*, the inaptly named "justice" system, the Occupy movement, Team Elephant, plus a mystery nominee I'm keeping to myself.

Feel free to add your nominees via the comments link, or email me.


* You can't abbreviate Schutzstaffel without the double 'S'.

New Tizona Post

Romney. *shakes head ruefully*

Yeah, he’s trying to appeal to everybody. He certainly appeals to the Elephant Elitists, who have all but anointed him as The Chosen One. But if you really examine who he is and what he represents, he certainly won’t appeal to YOU.

From each according to his ability...

Welcome to Amerika!

Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.

Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.

I'm not at all surprised that 70% of Donkeys support wealth redistribution. I wish I could say that I'm surprised that 30% of Elephants support wealth redistribution...but I'm not. See McCain, John.

Of particular interest is the way men and women view wealth redistribution. Only 42% of men, regardless of political party, approve of it, while 52% of women think it's just ducky.

That any American citizen finds wealth redistribution acceptable saddens me. It is yet another example of how the public schools have failed us. Stealing from the productive does NOT end poverty. It just spreads it.

Vulture Droppings: Budget negotiated, or theater of the absurd

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

At one point in the budget negotiations, Il Duce said, "It's time for adults to take over the budget talks."

As if!

Sadly for We the People, there are no adults in Washington. It makes for a lousy government. But it also makes for great theater, if "theater of the absurd" is your preference.

This edition of Vulture Droppings looks at the absurdities of the past week's negotiations.

---

First, a little history.

Normally a budget is proposed shortly after the State of the Union speech and approved well before the end of the current fiscal year in September. Last year was different. Even with a Donkey as president, a Donkey-controlled House (by a big margin), and a Donkey-controlled Senate (with a 60-40 supermajority), Congress was unable (or, more accurately, unwilling) to complete a budget prior to the end of FY10. They elected to punt. The government has run on "continuing resolutions" for this entire fiscal year.

Fast forward to March. NOW all of the sudden it's the end of the world if the budget doesn't get passed! Mark this down on your score card as Childish Act #1.

---

But that was minor league compared with what would follow. Over the past two weeks we've been treated to juvenile behavior the likes of which is seldom seen in any government at any time.

First it was the Elephants, trying to slip in targeted cuts based on pure ideology. Oh, don't get me wrong: the government has no business giving tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), or the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Each and every one of those things need to have their funding cut. But, by playing the ideology card during a period in which the stated goal was to avert a shutdown (and the resultant boost to a wounded and vulnerable president: see Clinton, Bill), the Elephants proved yet again that they are the Stupid Party.

---

Not ones to let an opening go to waste, the Donkeys used the de-funding of Planned Parenthood as the focus of their retrenchment strategy. Or as an excuse to come unhinged, depending on your viewpoint.

Sen. Charles Schumer roared, "The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.” Never mind that your dangerous, ideological spending on Planned Parenthood is part of our debt problem. Schumer also got in a cheap shot against the Tea Party, saying, “What we have here is a flea, wagging a tail, wagging a dog,”

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter said that Republicans are "here to kill women". Get hysterical much?

Nevada's curse on the country, Sen. Harry Reid, said, "Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there's nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged." Srsly, Harry? That was stupider and more hysterical than Congresswoman Slaughter. He also took a shot at the Tea Party, saying, "[T]he Tea Party...is trying to push its extreme social agenda, issues that have nothing to do with funding the bill." Extreme? Really, Harry? This from the guy selling "Republicans support cancer in women"?

And, as carefully choreographed as it always is, professional protesters appeared on the scene, complete with hysterical signs like, "Republicans! Stay away from my vagina!

You can't make this stuff up.

---

The Elephants were more restrained, but still managed to underwhelm. House Majority Leader Boehner haughtily sniffed that the Donkeys weren't serious about cutting spending. Various members of Congress sniped at the idea of our troops not getting paid. Uh, whose fault would THAT be, exactly?

To the Elephants' credit, Sen. Paul Ryan presented a serious budget plan that would result in eliminating the debt. This plan, of course, was met with hysteria by none other than the former Air Force 3, Nancy Pelosi, who called the plan "a path to poverty for America's seniors [and] children and a road to riches for big oil". Damn, Nancy! You hit two hot button moonbat issues in one fell swoop.

For the record, Sen. Ryan's plan has a snowball's chance on the plains of Hell of passing.

---

Bottom line, nothing real was accomplished. The Elephants and their sycophants at Fox News are trumpeting a GOP victory. Victory? Srsly? You reduced spending by $31 billion in a budget whose deficit alone is $1,500 billion! That's a victory?

No, that's sad.

Coming soon: the rematch, as the Elephants and the Donkeys renew their kabuki dance with the looming debt ceiling brawl. Hilarity will ensue. Sadly, hilarity will ensue.

---

So-called conservative comments on CPAC

In case you missed it, Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC, with Hairdo Healthcare finishing second. The indignity of this result was too much for one of Fox News' legion of Neocons to bear.

The top three winners of this weekend's CPAC straw poll will not win the 2012 presidential nomination. And if any of the top three do break through to prove that prediction wrong, none of them will go on to win the White House in 2012.

This year's top three placeholders in the poll were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeat their standing from the 2010 poll as No. 1 and No. 2, respectively.

If the results of this straw poll do not sufficiently demonstrate the bizarre nature and overall oddity of this year's gathering of "conservatives," nothing else can.

Ron Paul, though technically still a Republican, has given up his GOP identity to embrace the chance to be the poster child for the more libertarian streak that has run rampant through CPAC, largely unabated for the past two years. Mitt Romney, the virtual author of Obamacare, and 2008's third-place finisher for the GOP nomination, is weighed down by the fact that his universal health care mandate in Massachusetts has largely failed – with the exception being the $50 state-subsidized abortions. Gary Johnson was only added to the lineup at the last minute, his presence stoking the flame of immoral libertarianism that actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.

In other words, this year's CPAC wasn't about advancing conservatism. Rather, it exposed the radically disrespectful element of the libertine.

It has been the inclusion of the libertarian aspects of the past two years that has thrown the message of conservatism askew in a widely disproportional way.

It is the libertarian in attendance that produced the free pornographic calendar passed out to attendees in 2010. It is the libertarians in attendance who openly promote the inclusion of groups like GOProud, largely as an attempt to silence groups who would speak in strong support of traditional moral values. It is the libertarian in attendance who slandered President George Bush, by claiming his appreciation for the Constitution was best summed up as a "damn piece of paper." It is the libertarian in attendance that proclaimed the war to prevent terrorists from regathering strength and coming after our homeland as "illegal." And it is the libertarian in attendance that eschewed, booed, cajoled and screamed "war criminal" to Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who served his country with commitment and still attempts to help the world understand the threat of the radical Islamic element devising plans to eliminate us and our allies.

Now the libertarians stuffed the ballot box of the CPAC straw poll, and for the second year in a row made it the laughingstock poll in the eyes of the voters. (This year's voters are perhaps more engaged, more aware and more plugged in than ever before.)

In head-to-head polling going back a full year to last year's CPAC, neither Ron Paul nor Mitt Romney has consistently topped a head-to-head match-up against a greatly weakened President Obama. Romney has only topped the sitting president once in that 12-month period. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a no-show at CPAC for the past years, has beaten the president head-to-head in nearly every poll taken.

David Keene, the American Conservative Union’s outgoing president, gave a lengthy discounting of this year's poll in the lead up to it. That should serve as a very clear indicator that next year's CPAC needs some significant changes if it is to become the great conference it has been in past years.

Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

And it is not consistent with the average conservative voter in America.

Libertine? Legalized pot? Advocating behaviors? Not consistent with the average conservative voter in America? How extraordinarily rich! But my favorite part of his meltdown was this.

Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Seriously? "Amoral desire to promote any behavior"? Where does this jerk get THAT from? No libertarian is actively promoting ANYTHING except freedom from government.

His whole article is an attack against liberty-loving people everywhere. His thesis is predictable, because it's the Team Elephant establishment and Neocommie platform: war without end, big government in our image, and "you're either with us or against us".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you're a conservative, Team Elephant is NOT your friend. And Fox News is NOT conservative: it's nothing but the organ of propaganda for the Neocommies.

Meet the new boss

Most Republicans were extremely pleased when RINO Michael Steele was unable to retain his position as RNC Chairman. Steele was unpopular with the Team Elephant elites. He was even more unpopular with the Tea Party.

But is the new RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus, any better? Eh, not so much.

While Priebus boasted, during his campaign for RNC chairman, of his good relations with Wisconsin tea party groups, the leaders of those groups give his tenure mixed reviews, with some accusing him of giving only lip service to the movement while stacking the deck against its candidates, shutting them out of the process or working to absorb them into the GOP.

“Priebus will do whatever it takes to co-opt the tea party movement,” said Mike Murphy, chairman of a tea party-allied 527 group called The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, founded in late 2009.

In the midterm elections, Murphy’s group supported tea party candidates, including some who were undercut by the state GOP, which largely ignored long-shot tea party candidates and endorsed the primary rivals of others at its May convention — months before the primary election.

As The Who famously sang, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

I wrote yesterday that the Tea Party made a gargantuan mistake by not forming a third party or joining forces with one of the existing third parties. Their movement was co-opted by Team Elephant, just as I said it would be. The new Chairman is further proof that I'm right.

But Mike Murphy isn't going to just roll over and let the elitists roll the Tea Party. He's starting to see things my way.

“He didn’t allow for conservative voices that didn’t jibe with the establishment view and if he charges down that course (at the RNC), the tea party people will wake up and it may very well split up the Republican Party” coalition that powered the GOP’s 2010 landslide, said Murphy.

Let's hope for the future viability of the Tea Party that he's right.

Il Duce sets a trap

Il Duce gave his State of the Union speech last night. Deadeye watched the speech. I went to bed - 4:30 AM comes early, ya know. She said Il Duce did a good job. Good for him. [/sarcasm]

I read the transcript. It's the best way with these kinds of speeches. It's just so easy to get caught up in the applause lines and rhetorical flourishes otherwise.

The speech was actually quite good. Give credit where credit is due. But he also set a trap for the Republicans, a trap they'd be wise to avoid.

Now, I have heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about our new health care law. (Laughter.) So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses. (Applause.)

What I'm not willing to do — what I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.)

I'm not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I'm not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business man from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their patients' — parents' coverage. (Applause.)

So I say to this chamber tonight, instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and let's move forward. (Applause.)

Let's fix what needs fixing and let's move forward. Yeah.....

If Team Elephant's so-called leadership falls for this "please don't throw me in the brier patch!" tactic, they deserve the electoral slaughter they'll incur in 2012.

Il Duce is trying to set up a situation where the abortion that is Obamacare becomes associated with Republicans as well as Democrats. If he gives a little here and there but keeps the essential structure of Obamacare intact, he reasons, when people face the nightmare that health care will become, their ire will be bipartisan.

Of course, the RINO leadership in Congress is just stupid enough to fall for this transparent ruse.

I said some time ago that the Tea Party made a gargantuan mistake by not forming a third party or joining forces with one of the existing third parties. When I'm right, I'm right.

Demagoging tragedy

Frankly, I don't know which sickens me more: the abhorrent mass murder committed by a sicko-psycho in Arizona that also left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded, or the reaction to her wounding in the media.

Big Media (the BM for short) -- the same BM that demanded that we "not rush to judgment" following the Ft. Hood mass murder by a sicko-psycho -- rushed to judgment bigtime this time.  "Right-wing rhetoric" was blamed by some, an ironic claim, it turns out.  The shooter was described as "quite liberal" and a "political radical" by classmates.

Turns out when it comes to hateful rhetoric, the left doesn't fare too poorly itself.  Caribou Barbie hung in effigy.  Il Duce quoted as saying, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". Ironic.

  Sarah Palin Caribou Barbie was blamed for "putting a bulls-eye on Rep. Giffords", an ironic claim, it turns out.  A Daily Kos blogger said that Giffords was "dead to me" just two days prior to the attack.  Not quite a bulls-eye, but ugly nonetheless.

Of course, Faux News came out all in defense of Caribou Barbie.  What?  You expected differently?  Regardless of where you get your news, children, you're gonna get spin.

Naturally, the Tea Party was blamed as well.  Yeah, all of that "hateful rhetoric" about sticking to the Constitution really makes folks want to kill their Congress-critter [/sarcasm].

Naturally, the Succubus of State had to weigh in, calling the shooter, "an extremist".  Takes one to know one, I suppose...

But the simple fact is that the shooter is mentally unbalanced.  How unbalanced?  Enough to where his college classmates were scared of him.

No one is blaming Caribou Barbie, or the Tea Party, or even Calvin Klein for this kook who castrated a journalist.  Not the right political angle, I suppose.

Look, it's no secret that I hate Team Donkey and Team Elephant equally.  Anyone who thinks that either of them is "the good guys" is drinking the Kool Aid.  But the partisan demagoguery on display the past two days has been nauseating.  And frankly, you have to ask, if the wounded Representative had an 'R' after her name, would there be all of this finger pointing and whining about "hateful political rhetoric"?

I think you know the answer to that question...

Put up or shut up

The small-L libertarian has for years sat on the sidelines when it comes to our ability to actually effect change in Washington.  That has effectively changed.

After years of blocking him from a leadership position, Mr.Paul’s fellow Republicans have named him chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, which oversees the Federal Reserve as well as the currency and the valuation of the dollar.

Finally! This is awesome news. But, as Vox Day so adroitly noted in his WorldNetDaily column published today, getting the position means it's "put up or shut up" time.

Ron Paul, sound money champion and author of "End the Fed," has been named chairman of the House subcommittee for monetary policy.

Note to Paul: I am your biggest fan at WorldNetDaily, but put up or shut up time has now officially arrived. There is no time for meandering lectures on the theoretical advantages of a gold standard or esoteric soliloquies regarding the correct definition of money. The American people just want the facts about their money and where it has gone. They need the facts. And then they need action.

He's absolutely right. It's one thing to "talk the talk", something we small-L libertarians have been limited to in the past. Now he has to "walk the walk".

I have the utmost faith that Representative Paul is up to the task. Where I have my doubts is with the Team Elephant leadership. Will they allow him to do the things he needs to do -- like, for instance, a complete audit -- in order to bring the Fed to task for their crimes against the U.S. economy? Lest you think I'm being over-the-top hysterical in referring to "crimes", let me remind you that the U.S. Dollar has lost 96% of its buying power since the Fed came into being. If that's not a crime, tell me what is?

Go to town, Dr. Paul. Slay the dragon.

A change in talk radio?

I don't normally listen to Quinn and Rose in the morning.  Oh, sure, I used to on occasion, if for no other reason than for confirmation of the latest "conservative" talking points and for their histrionics about "the most importantest election ever!", whichever election it might be.

But this morning Mike Church went to commercial and The Sports Junkies were in a commercial break as well, so I tuned in Q-n-R.  What a surprise!  Rose (of course it wasn't Quinn!) was waxing wroth against a dangerous man.  And it wasn't Il Duce!

Rose read from an article written some months ago by WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah.  The last sentence of the article reads,

There is perhaps no more dangerous man in America today than Mitt Romney. If he succeeds Obama, it will be the final nail in the coffin of American liberty. You've been duly warned.

That Farah, a man of principles, would say this about Mitt Romney is not unexpected.  Farah isn't one of those "vote for the guy with the 'R' after his name or we'll all die!" pseudo-conservatives.  He sees the Elephants for what they are.

But for Rose to read his article -- and agree with it wholeheartedly -- is something of a "man bites dog" moment.

Is there something happening out there in Talk Radio land?  Have the blathering heads seen the writing on the wall and started distancing themselves from the Rockefellerite elitists of Team Elephant?

It's too soon to say for sure.  But I, for one, hope that, like the old folk song says, "the times they are a changin'".

Vulture Droppings: Electoral Defeat

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

Some of you are going to read the title of this point and come to the conclusion that I've finally gone around the bend.  You're going to assume that I've completely LOST IT.  While you may, in fact, be right about my failing sanity (until you've lived a workload like I've had for the past 4 months, you have NO IDEA what insanity really feels like), I am speaking from the heart here.

This edition of Vulture Droppings deals with my analysis of the 2010 elections, which are, thankfully, finally over.  If I had to watch one more ad for Candidate A in which Candidate B was painted as Hitler's more evil twin, followed apace by an ad for Candidate B in which Candidate A was painted as worse than Stalin, I think I would have stuck a pencil in my eye.

---

It is said that a pessimist views the glass as half full, while the optimist sees it as half empty.  So what does that make me?  I see the glass as nearly empty, leaking, and what little water remains in it is polluted.

What most so-called conservatives are touting as a major electoral victory is nothing of the sort.  Team Elephant won the House - hey, how 'bout that?  "Oh come on, Vulture!  Even you have to concede that the historic taking of the House is a major victory!"

No.  No I don't.

The House will make for a nice, boisterous legislative soap opera for the next two years.  But the Senate is still under the control of Harry Reid (more on that later), and the White House is still in the clutches of Il Duce.  Good luck getting anything constructive done in the next two years.

---

What constitutes victory? What defines defeat?  Let me take a stab at it.

• Victory would have included a major purge of Team Donkey leadership.  

See Harry Reid?  Still standing.  See Nancy Pelosi?  Sure, she's no longer the Screecher of the House...but she's still standing.  See Barney (Elmer Fudd's evil twin) Frank?  Still standing. Team Elephant might not have had a legitimate chance at taking down "Air Force 3".  But that senile old fool Harry Reid was ripe for the taking.  And Barney Frank was extremely vulnerable, given his cozy relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  But the elitist snobs that run Team Elephant (into the ground, I might say) weren't about to lend any material support to a commoner like Sharon Angle.  She wouldn't fit in at a Washington cocktail party at all!  Neither was there any real effort on the part of the Elephants to take down Frank.  You leave Harry Reid and Barney Frank standing -- that's not victory.

• Victory would have included a change in the kind of candidates elected by the Elephants.  

Set aside for a moment Rand Paul's win in Tennessee.  See anyone else "different" winning anywhere?   I don't.  And, no, Marco Rubio doesn't count.  I think he's every bit the faux conservative that John Boehner is.

Sharon Angle?  Joe Miller?  Christine O'Donnell?  They were undermined at every turn by the Elephant elites.  Face facts, conservatives: your side threw the game.  They were happier with losing those races than with dealing with commoners in their midst.

But don't worry.  John McCommie won reelection.  Yeah....

• Victory would have set the stage for the dismantling of Obamacare.

You can't roll back Obamacare with just the House.  Face facts -- we're stuck with it.  In 2 years, even if the Elephants win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they'll throw up their hands and say that Obamacare can't be rolled back because too many people are dependent on it.  That's Washington DC Realpolitik.

---

You're going to think I've lost my mind, but I'm actually sorry that Russ Feingold lost his Senate seat in Wisconsin.  Yeah, he's a big Lefty.  But he's an HONEST big Lefty.  And he was one of the few in Washington willing to stand up to the abuses of the DHSS (you can't spell Schutzstaffel without the double S).

---

One final observation on the election.  No matter the political climate.  No matter the economic parameters.  Even if the very survival of the human race were at stake, it just wouldn't matter.  The People's Republic of Maryland will vote Democrat.

The Elephants didn't even bother to field a candidate against Senator-since-Reconstruction Barbara Mikulski.  Yeah, there was some guy's name with an 'R' next to it on the ballot.  But I wouldn't recognize him if he was standing in my kitchen carving the turkey at Thanksgiving wearing a sweater with his name embroidered on it.

6 of 8 Congressional districts went Donkey.  The 2 that didn't?  Frederick County and points west, and the Eastern Shore, both heavily agricultural.

Martin O'Malley, quite possibly the worst governor in the State's history, won in a crushing landslide against former governor (and RINO) Bob Erlich.

Yeah, I'm ready to move.  You can't live in Libtardia for 20-plus years and not have it affect you.

---

Vulture Droppings: Most Importantist Election Ever Edition

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

There's an election tomorrow.  Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm]

"Shame on you, Vulture!  It's the most importantist election ever!"  Uh huh.

"Vulture!  It's all different this year!  The Tea Party is gonna change everything!"  Really?  How so?  The Tea Parties have been completely co-opted by Team Elephant.  Why would I say that?  What evidence do I have of such a thing?  A sampling:

Some traditional Republican consultants are advising — with a straight face — that newly elected Republican members of Congress "reach across the aisle…and "work with the Democrats."

John Boehner "rallies the troops" with empty (and limp) words "backing" Tea Party principles.  He swears spending will be rolled back to "pre-bailouts levels".  Seriously?  Going from $1.5 trillion deficits to $1 trillion deficits?  Oooooh!  I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO impressed!

And worst of all, the Queen of Inside the Beltway faux conservatism "celebrates" the Tea Party as having "saved" Team Elephant from King George the Dim.  Ms. Noonan, for those of you who weren't paying attention, was one of King George's biggest apologists during his 8 year reign of error.

---

"Vulture! Even YOU have to admit that we're better off with Republican-co-opted Tea Party candidates than with the Dhimmi-crats who have rammed a 50-year wish-list of Progressivism down our throats the past 4 years!"

Better?  Better HOW?  BETTER would have been for the Tea Parties to have come together as a third party or under the umbrella of one of the existing third parties (Libertarian or Constitution, for example).  BETTER would be for those candidates to be able to enter Mordor on the Potomac (hat tip: Mike Church) with a clean slate and a fresh canvas than to walk into the clutches of Mitch McCommie and John BaneTurd.

---

Here's the big reason I'm so unenthusiastic.  I'll lay it out in a single sentence.  The co-opting of the Tea Parties by Team Elephant guarantees the failure of the principles that brought those people together.  Guaran.  Effing.  Tees it.

There is no principle that Republicans will not run from, no compromise they will not accept, no stand crucial enough for them to make.

What happens to the Tea Parties after their "champions" are relegated to the Congressional equivalent of the Back Bench, and the John Boehner Business-as-Usual express continues propping up Crony Capitalism?  What happens after Mitch McConnell compromises for the umpteenth time on a point of principle that just SCREAMS for men of courage and conviction to just say "NO!"?

You kill this once-in-a-political lifetime awakening of the sheeple, and you kill any chance we ever have of wresting power away from the looters.

But that's the idea really, isn't it?  That's why the GOP has co-opted the Tea Parties.  They like the gravy train that is "public service" in Washington every bit as much as Team Donkey does.

---

Pledge to America is lame

Nearly assured of a massive victory at the polls in November, Team Elephant did what it does best: it undermined its own chances for success.  Their chosen mode of self-immolation this election: Son of Contract With America.

This propaganda masterpiece, called  A Pledge to America, is a real head-scratcher.  There is no reference to nor acknowledgment of the Tea Party.  Why would the Elephant elites give any credit to people they both loath and seek to discredit?

A lot of slick pictures accompany the propaganda piece.  These are images meant to elicit an emotional, patriotic response from the reader.  It made me sick.

The document is divided into sections tailored at issues the elitists think are important to ordinary Americans. The promise in the preface to "honor the Constitution" and "those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment", is broken right away in the Foreword, where they state that, when it comes to spending cuts, "common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops" will be made.  Business as usual, anyone?

Here's the worst from each section.

Section 1, Job Creation.  Job creation.  Job creation.  They still think the GOVERNMENT creates jobs.  Nevertheless, the steps they propose to take, while hardly representing job creation, do at least improve the business environment to where employers MIGHT consider hiring.

Grade: B

Section 2, Reduce the Size of Government.  The people who gave us King George the Dim's War Without End are trying to sell us reduced government spending and the size of government?  That's rich. 

They promise to "act immediately to reduce spending" (yawn).  They promise to cut government spending to "pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels".   Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm]   Pre-bailout levels?  That's it?  WTF!  I think the American people -- and particularly the people who make up the Tea Parties -- want more than that.  Much more.  This "promise" is a joke.

They want to put "limits" on the growth of Government.  Limits?!?!? On growth?!?!?  Are you effin' kidding me!  A real plan would seek to reduce the size of government by at least 15% JUST FOR STARTERS.

They plan to hold weekly votes on spending. Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm] And this dog and pony show will achieve what exactly? 

But it's the last "promise" that really set my teeth on edge.  "We will make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations".  You can't make this stuff up. 

Grade: F

Section 3, Health Care.  They promise "repeal and replace".  70% of Americans support repeal.  But replace? 

Part of what constitutes "replace" is to "ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions."  I kid you not.

Grade: D-

Section 4, Reform Congress and Restore Trust.  I laughed my ass off when I read that.  Seriously?  Among the promises in this section is a promise to "adhere to the Constitution".  How, precisely, do you plan to do that AND "ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions" AND "maintain entitlements", neither of which is Constitutionally permitted?

Grade: F

Section 5, National Security.  I can summarize this in two sentences.  Spend more money on defense systems like missile defense.  And continue the War Without End.  There is also a hollow promise to "enforce our immigration laws".  Nobody believes that.  Nobody. 

Grade: F

Section 6, Checks and Balances.  The shortest section, this is yet another attempt by the Elephant elites to sucker us.  I can sum this section up in two words: "Trust me".  The right answer -- No way!

Grade: F

There you have it.  Aren't you impressed?  Doesn't this steaming POS make you just long to rush to the polls to vote for the guy with the 'R' by his name?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll get a shower.  I feel dirty.

Topic revisited -- Team Elephant's "reformation"

I last spoke on this subject some days before the primary elections.  Now the primaries for Delaware, Maryland, New York, and various other states are complete.  Let's see what Team Elephant has been up to in the time since my last taunt post.

Wanna see true colors?  See this.

In an extraordinary move, the state Republican Party began automated phone calls attacking O'Donnell in the campaign's final hours. The calls feature the voice of a woman who identifies herself as Kristin Murray, O'Donnell's campaign manager in her 2008 unsuccessful Senate campaign, accusing the candidate of "living on campaign donations — using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt."

O'Donnell's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republican officials have said privately they intend to write off the seat if O'Donnell is victorious against Castle.

The establishment would rather lose than support a candidate whose views aren't those of John McCommie, Lincoln Chafee, and other stalwart "conservatives".  What is it you're not seeing here, conservatives?  These people hate you and hate everything you believe in.

Most telling was the establishment response to O'Donnell's win.

However, a top Republican official told CNN on Tuesday night that O'Donnell will have to show she can generate viable support before the national party will give her money.

"It is now incumbent on Sarah Palin, (U.S. Sen.) Jim DeMint and the Tea Party Express to help support her," the official said on condition of not being identified by name. "They got her here. Now make it happen."

After the establishment said they wouldn't support O'Donnell financially, she made her own pitch -- and picked up $1.5 million dollars just since Tuesday!  You're looking bad, Rockefellerites!

New York posted a stunning upset as well.  Carl Paladino upset RINO Rick Lazio.

The Team Elephant establishment is grossly out of touch with its base.  I would say DELIBERATELY out of touch; they really would rather see grassroots candidates lose.  They will only support "their kind".  WHY you people still affiliate yourselves with that party, I cannot understand.

Still believe? Fool!

You silly Republicans!  You really believe that your party has, like Jake Blues, "seen....the....LIGHT!"

I'd like to take this opportunity to shatter that illusion.

Forty Jim DeMints or 60 Lindsey Grahams? Forty Christine O’Donnell’s or 60 Mike Castles?

These are questions conservatives have to think about when they see polls like the latest Rasmussen, which has Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican thoroughly unloved by tea partiers, leading Democratic nominee Chris Coons 48-37 while conservative Republican Christine O’Donnell trails Coons by the same eleven-point margin, 47-36.

And if you think that O’Donnell can turn those numbers around in two months, you owe me a pretty good argument.

So, again: would conservatives in Delaware rather win, or send a message?

"Win"? Win WHAT exactly?  What in the name of all that is good is remotely "victorious" in electing someone who is 180 degrees opposed to everything you believe in just because he has an "R" next to his name?

Vox Day has the correct answer to Mr. Foster's question.

For actual conservatives, the only rational answer is 40 DeMints. Daniel Foster has asked a misleading question. The correct one is, would conservatives rather elect a false conservative majority that will vote against conservative principles while ensuring that a Democratic majority succeeds it when the inevitable reaction comes, or continue building towards a genuine and committed conservative majority?

You Elephants go right on believing in your John McCommies, your Lindsay Grahams, your Olympia Dukakases.

Suckers!