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.

My Point, Made

I've been hearing for 8 years about how important it is for me to hold my nose and vote for the assclown with the 'R' after his name, if for no other reason than to assure that the Supreme Court isn't taken over by "dangerous" Liberal elements. My principled stand has been that voting for anyone whom you truly believe to be a bad choice is worse than not voting at all. What was needed was a test case to show I was right.

Today I was proved right.

Republican George W. Bush -- for whom I was told to hold my nose, shut up, and vote -- appointed alleged "conservative" John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during his reign of error. And it was Chief Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote that made the Constitutional horror show that is Obamacare the law of the land.

Do not EVER again tell me to vote for a candidate who doesn't reflect my vision of what this country should be "to protect the country from a Liberal Supreme Court" -- or for any other reason, for that matter. In fact, do yourself a favor and stop voting entirely. All you do by voting is to lend legitimacy to the charade.

A government that can force you to buy health care is a government that can force you to do anything. We have officially passed from citizens to serfs. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

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).

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.

The circus is in town

The execrable Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is holding hearings ostensibly to discuss how the US can mitigate the terrorism threat emanating from radical Islam. This is the same Peter King who for decades was an open supporter of the terrorist organization, Sinn Fein.

A periodic perversion of America's ideals, regrettably witnessed at the U.S. Capitol, is an "investigation" in which Congress labels people as unAmerican because of ethnicity, religious belief or conviction.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, used to defend the Irish Republican Army as a "legitimate force" and once declared: "The British government is a murder machine."

Now, as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, King is staging hearings on ""Muslim radicalization" aimed at exposing what he calls a "violent enemy from overseas . . . which is recruiting people from a community living in our country."

William Grigg details King's hypocrisy much better than I can in this meager post (see here).

Let's put this whole thing in its proper perspective. King isn't seeking a solution to radical Islam. King is seeking to stoke the fires of intolerance in order to fuel the war machine.

In my opinion it is King who should be subjected to hearings and jailed for his support of a terrorist organization. Let us not forget that the IRA was blowing innocent men, women, and children to smithereens long before Al Qaeda existed. Peter King has the blood of those innocents on his hands. It is the height of absurdity that this terrorist-supporting thug can hold hearings of this nature.

And yet, so-called "conservatives" are all gung-ho for the hearings and stand foursquare behind King. Last night on the drive home, I heard Spencer Hughes of Fox News Radio defending the hearings. He actually uttered this ridiculous line, "If you're Islamic and you're not involved in terrorist activities, you have nothing to be afraid of." Uh huh. Just like the innocents in Waco who didn't shoot at the ATF had nothing to be afraid of.

I'm becoming more convinced every day that the vast majority of "conservatives" are complete morons dancing to whatever tune Fox News is currently playing. In that aspect, they're every bit as dangerous to the survival of this country as the radical Left they so despise.

And just as stupid.

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.

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.

---

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!

Suing for -- what?

If this isn't the damndest thing.  The federal government tries to pry itself into every nook and cranny of our lives, to regulate every single minute facet of of our existence.  Perversely, enforcement of our borders, one of the few powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, is the one area where the federal government has no interest in inserting itself.  So when Arizona attempts to do it for them -- they sue. 

The federal lawsuit against Arizona's tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority.

The feds have basically stated, in so many words, that not only are they not interested in enforcing our borders, but they'll be damned if they'll let anyone else do it!

And before you "conservatives" start jumping on the "blame Obama" bandwagon, don't forget that your champion, King George the Dim, was worse than Il Duce on border security, and your last candidate for President, "conservative" (ha! in a pig's eye!) John McCommie was the driving force behind Scamnasty.

Our "leaders" don't care to enforce our borders.  Is cheap labor really worth the dangers to which the citizens of borders areas are subjected? 

I. just. don't. get. it.

As the Team Elephant Establishment Spins

The latest soap opera offered for your entertainment and bemusement is called "As the Team Elephant Establishment Spins".  You see, the anointed candidate in Kentucky, Trey Grayson, lost to libertarian Rand Paul.  Wait, let me rephrase that.  Trey Grayson got his clock cleaned by Rand Paul.

This has to be a huge disappointment to folks like Elephants in the Blue Grass, about whom I wrote last month, who were gung-ho for the Establishment guy.  I will say of Mr. "Grass" that he was extraordinarily gracious in defeat.

But others weren't, particularly Elephant establishment leader Mitch McConnell (via his spokesmouth).

“The electorate is pissed,” said Mike Shea, a long-time political adviser to McConnell. “Rand did a really good job of tapping into those themes and tapping into that anger. Trey is a nice guy, but in his commercials and everything else, he seemed completely unable to generate any kind of dialogue to indicate he was tapping into that. If you meet him, he didn’t seem like he was angry.”

Oh. That's what it was. It wasn't that the electorate liked Paul.  They just wanted to vote for an angry guy.

Those of us of a certain age recall that in 1994, when Team Elephant took the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, Big Media (the BM for short) spun it as "revenge of the angry white man".  Is that really where you want to go, Mr. McConnell?  Because you're every bit as expendable as anyone in Washington.

Tired establishment candidates and RINOs went down to defeat.  This has to have the Elephant elites banging their heads on the wall.  The last thing they want is for their party to be coopted by mundanes.

They needed a study to figure this out?

File under "incredible grasp of the obvious".

A conservative think tank and criminal defense lawyers are forming an unusual alliance to try to get Congress to quit writing criminal laws so loosely that they subject innocent people to unjust prosecution and prison.

They're just now noticing this? Where have they been for the past 40 years?

Next thing you know they'll be telling us that many of the laws Congress has passed are patently unconstitutional.

When it comes to a grasp of the obvious, no one beats Conservatives.  No one.

Further proof "conservatives" don't get it

I frequently receive email advertisements from NewsMax.com.  It's what happens when you don't pay attention to checkboxes when you "register" for a website.  I could unsubscribe.  But then I'd miss gems like this.

It is remarkable that Theodore Roosevelt (TR to his friends), who has been beloved as an iconic patriot and president, would become a controversial figure today.

This unusual development is largely due to the rise of Glenn Beck.

Glenn has been right on many issues and his views are resonating with Main Street.

But he is wrong on one big issue: Theodore Roosevelt is not, as he claims, the root cause of President Obama’s intrusive, “big government” policies.

It is no accident that TR’s face is chiseled into Mount Rushmore along with those of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, as he is rightly regarded by historians as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

As TR himself might say, "Balderdash!"

TR is on Mount Rushmore because President Calvin Cooledge was adamant that, in addition to the Father of our Country, George Washington, the monument must include two additional Republicans and one additional Democrat.  Since Republican Presidents not named Reagan have been uniformly dreadful, TR was settled upon as the second Republican, the tyrant Abraham Lincoln being the first.

Notice that the two Democrats chosen for the monument had been dead in the neighborhood of 100 years at the time they were chosen.  You really do have to go back that far to find a Democrat who was worth a damn.

Back to TR.

I've been reading a book called American Progressivism.  It's a tough read; it mostly consists of the speeches and political writings of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  Mr. Ruddy, TR was everything Glenn Beck says he was.  He may even be worse than Beck has alleged.  Roosevelt was actually proposing grander Fascist policies during the 1912 Presidential campaign than Wilson was!  While Roosevelt may not have brought about the world's first Fascist government -- that was left for Wilson to accomplish -- he was instrumental in setting the table for Wilson's abuses.

So why is Ruddy so adamant in defending Roosevelt?

A few words of disclosure here: I am an ardent Theodore Roosevelt devotee and have been a longtime member of the Theodore Roosevelt Association (the membership roster has me listed after another TRA member, Karl Rove).

And my brother, Daniel Ruddy, a historian, is the author of a new book called “Theodore Roosevelt’s History of the United States” (published by Harper Collins). It draws upon TR’s own words to construct a unique history of the United States based on Roosevelt’s colorful insights and provocative views.

Ah, now it becomes clear! His brother has written a "history" of Roosevelt. The word "history" is in scare quotes because we're all familiar with the kind of "histories" we get when authors with a predisposition to adulation for the subject of their work write.  They tend to produce slavering paeons that conveniently omit the subject's peccadillos.

Anyone who calls themselves a conservative but thinks that TR was peachy keen is no friend of freedom.  No one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- who loves freedom can justify the policies and pronouncements of this smug, "I know best what's good for you the sheeple" elitist a-hole.

Of course, that's the kind of disinformation we get from the Team Elephant mainstream these days.  Get used to it.  Because, notwithstanding all pronouncements to the contrary, this Elephant hasn't changed its spots.  It's every bit the Donkey Lite party in 2010 that it was in 2008.

Sean Hannity has no sense of irony

As I recently lamented, my morning commute is a poorer experience since the stuffed shirts and empty heads at Fox Sports Radio replaced Steve Czaban with Screamin' A. Smith.  Today I hit the perfect storm of commuter radio hell: all of the usual radio shows I listen to went to commercial break simultaneously.  I punched my way up the XM radio dial until I came to America Right.  They were playing a replay of yesterday's Sean Hannity show.

Now, normally I wouldn't listen to Hannity on a dare.  But, because of the commercial break syncronicity, I decided it was better than listening to Viagra ads. 

The segment I caught was vintage Hannity.  The questionably Constitutional new law in Arizona regarding illegal aliens was the subject du jour.  I find myself somewhere in the middle of the continuum between Hannity's cheerleading for the measure and William Grigg's excoriation of same, though, in truth, I'm much close to Will Grigg's viewpoint than that of the simpleton, Hannity.

As Hannity's unabashed cheerleading screed droned to a close, he welcomed a guest with whom he wanted to discuss the measure: none other than Scamnesty cheerleader John McCommie!

To my utter amazement, Hannity and McCommie discussed the bill for several minutes without once mentioning that McCommie is the leading proponent tool supporting Scamnesty.  To Hannity's credit, he DID ask McCommie at the end of the interview if he (McCommie) had any second thoughts about having supported Scamnesty during King George the Dim's regime.  But he spoke to McCommie for at least 2.5 minutes -- an eternity on radio -- without acknowledging McCommie's immigration stance.

Not only is Hannity intellectually challenged, he is completely untouched by irony.  Who else would fail to see the irony of a segment in celebration of a crackdown on illegal immigration that features John McCommie?

I feel dumber for having listened to that segment.  That's 5 minutes of my life utterly wasted.  Utterly.  Wasted.

The trouble with elephants

I approach this post with a little bit of hesitation.  I don't want to look like I'm picking on a fellow blogger and singling him out as being...how do I say this delicately?...easily duped.  But the posts of this blogger go a long way towards proving a point I've been trying to drum home for some time now.  Please indulge me a little on this one.

The blog to which I refer is called Elephants in the Blue Grass.  Now, I'm sure Mr. "Grass" is a nice enough fellow.  But he needs to cut down on his Kool-Aid intake.

Mr. "Grass" has a real issue with Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son and candidate for the Senate from Kentucky.  I am aware that "Grass" is touting another candidate for Senate, Trey Grayson, who I'm sure is a swell fellow.  And far be it from me to get my panties in a wad because an individual supports a candidate other than the one I would favor.  But I can tell when someone has gone beyond hyping their candidate and "downing" the opponent to a nasty place from which they can only produce hyperventilated girly smear.  You know, the stuff we usually get from Team Donkey.  Thank I'm kidding?  How would YOU characterize his calling Mr. Paul "part of the blame America first crowd."

Mr. "Grass" is quite unhappy with the desire on the part of Mr. Paul (and his dad, I might add) to scale back the mission of the US military to that of....wait for it...defending the nation.  You know, abandoning the Bush doctrine of War Without End.  This causes Mr. "Grass" to lapse into fainting spells. 

He's also just a wee bit butt hurt that Mr. Paul has vowed to vote to repeal the Patriot Act.  Personally, I can think of nothing more patriotic than repeal of the Patriot Act.  But I'm more concerned with personal liberties than in creating an All-Powerful Staat in the image of the Team Elephant Pax Americana pipe dream.

I hate to pick on the guy.  I really do.  He's done nothing to wrong me.  But his wrong-headed jihad against Paul is just baffling.  Rand Paul sounds to me like exactly the kind of guy the Tea Party folks are trying to get elected.  But Mr. "Grass" and the Team Elephant elites are fighting him tooth and nail.

And therein lies my point - the point I've been hammering on like a jackhammer on steroids most of this year.  If you're a person who believes in the principles of the Constitution as written by the Founders, a person who wants to live in the nation they envisioned, you need to leave the Republican party.  Team Elephant is not your friend.  Team Elephant does NOT represent small government, personal liberty, and fiscal responsibility.  They represent intrusive Überwachenden-style snooping, War Without End, and spending til the cows come home...just spending on different stuff than the Donkeys want to spend money on.

A party that thinks Romney-Palin would be a swell ticket for the Presidency is a party in need of euthanasia.  And those who put their faith in such a party need to get used to the idea of serfdom.

A wolf in Caribou Barbie clothing

Those who were reading this blog way back around the time of the 2008 Presidential election (both of you) are aware that I was quite taken with Sarah Palin at that time.  I remarked that, of the four individuals on the major party tickets, she was the only one with redeeming human qualities.

But over time she started to wear on me.  I think the final straw for me was her whiny performance when Rahm Emmanuel dared to use the word "retard" to describe Congression Democrats.  Personally, I can't think of a better word to describe them.  And whining about words is not what freedom fighters do.

And yet, even from that previous low, she has managed to reach a new one.

Conservative superstar Sarah Palin opened the door yesterday to joining forces with Mitt Romney for a 2012 White House run - a hot ticket that has some Republicans licking their chops at the prospect of unseating President Obama.

“Sounds pretty good,” Palin declared at yesterday’s Tea Party Express rally on the Common when asked about pairing up with the former Bay State governor - giving the idea a big thumbs-up as she left the stage after her headline speech.

Last night, as Palin stopped for cannoli at Mike’s Pastry in the North End, she said she was “serious” about the idea.

“I have a lot of respect for Mitt,” she told the Herald.

You have a lot of respect for Mr. Taxachewsetts health care?  You would accept the second-banana role on a ticket under Mitt "I have no principles" Romney?  Madam, have you no shame!

Tea partiers, beware.  Anyone trying to sell you "Mitt Romney, Conservative" is no friend.  That she would do so exposes her as a fraud.  Do not trust her.  Do not put your confidence in her.  Find other, more principled leaders for your movement.  She is not one of you.  She is one of them.

So where DO we go for leaders?  Have they all been compromised, save for one 74-year-old man, marginalized by his own Party, actually hated by some Conservatives, and ignored by Big Media (the BM for short)?

I'm not optimistic for the future.  Who can be?

Ron Paul as Rodney Dangerfield

I tell ya, he just don't get no respect.

Almost as interesting is that Ron Paul only lost to Romney by a single vote. It looks like the Paulistas continue to infiltrate these GOP conferences and demonstrate outsized influence.
[...]
Maybe it just reflects a fundamental split. A quarter just want someone who can win, a quarter want to completely overhaul the GOP in Paulist direction, and half are split up among various socially conservative long-shots.

Sorry, but no. You're completely wrong, wrong, wrong.

There are, in fact, a number of schizophrenic camps masquerading as Team Elephant.  But the breakdown (and boy do I mean breakdown) is more like this:

• Rockefellerite elitists
• All war, all the time Neocons
• Big government in our image Republicrats
• RINOs
• People who want to blow up the GOP and start over

Everyone from the first four categories hates Ron Paul.  H-A-T-E-S him.  Hates him to the point where they'd vote for a liberal Mormon who advocated a Massachusetts health care debacle before they'd vote for him.  Hates him to the point where they disparage his supporters as Paulistas (like some sort of insurgency) who "skew" the results of their precious straw polls.

But you "conservatives" just go ahead and continue to waste your votes on these creeps.  I'm the crazy one, because I walked away from Team Elephant when I realized that they didn't give a rat's ass about anything but the acquisition and exercise of power.  You know, just like the "bad guys", Team Donkey.

One final note on the SRLC.  Ron Paul upset the assembled Elephants by speaking the truth regarding the economic policies of Il Duce.

Republicans and tea party activists are fond of accusing President Barack Obama of being a socialist, but today party gadfly Ron Paul said they had it wrong.

“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

Gadfly. There's that "no respect" thing again.

For those of you a little unschooled in economic systems, Corporatism is the official name of Fascism.  Fascism is the name that gained popularity as the description of the Corporatist economic model in the 1920's due to the success (to that point) of the original Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, in making it work.

But Team Elephant would rather Red bait than speak the truth, so Socialism it is.

The case for a third party

There is a particular litmus test I have for whether or not someone is serious about restoring this country to its former state as a Constitutional Republic.  That test is this: are you opposed to the creation of a third party whose purpose is to elect candidates committed to a return to the Constitutional rule of law?  If the answer is "no", then you've shown yourself to be yet another duped sheeple drinking that Team Elephant Kool-Aid.  I cannot in good conscience take you seriously.

Many blathering heads take umbrage with my stubborn insistence that the current political parties are totally co-opted and cannot be reclaimed.  They quote Ronald Reagan, who said, waaaay back in 1977:

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over.

Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.

At this point they follow up with a rather childish, "See? See? The great Ronald Reagan said it! We need to stay Republican and save the Party."

There's only one problem with that illogic: Reagan failed.

For all of the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan as President, he was unsuccessful in his quest to fundamentally change the character of the Party.  Look at the last four candidates for President in the post-Reagan era:

• George H. W. Bush, Rockefellerite
  


• Bob Dole, Big Government true believer
  


• George W. Bush, Neocon
  


• John McCommie, RINO
  

That's not the slate of candidates a party espousing individual liberty and small government foists upon its followers.

"But Vulture!  The Republicans have changed!  They've really changed going in the 2010 elections".

No, no they haven't.  They haven't changed one bit.  You know how I know that?

• Michael Steele is still the RNC chairman
  


• John McCommie is being pushed by Party elites over J. D. Hayworth because he's "more electable"
  


• Party elites are still pushing for Mitt Romney to be the standard-bearer in 2012
  

Here's the rub.  We know that Team Donkey wants power to implement their vision of Big Government.  But the same is true of Team Elephant - they want power to implement their vision of Big Government.  Neither gives a rat's ass about you or your personal freedoms.

A strong third party will offer a chance for real change in Washington, if done correctly.  It can be a haven for small-L libertarians, small government conservatives, and independents, as well as for current members of Team Donkey fed up with the Fascist takeover of their party by the toxic 60's generation.

Perhaps even more import is the impact it would have on the two big Parties.  Both would be forced to move from their current entrenched positions - either further to the Left or drawing back to the Right - in order to attract voters away from the new party.  For the first time since Reagan, libertarians and conservatives wouldn't have to hold their noses to vote.  That alone is reason enough for me.

Think I'm full of it?  Hit me with your best shot.  I'm dying to see where you think I'm "wrong".

Radio Wasteland

It's been four months since the stuffed-suit programming geniuses at Fox Sports Radio canned Steve Czaban.  I knew it was going to make for a worsened morning commute.  I had no idea how much worse.

The local radio options are spotty at best.  Elliot in the Morning?  Good gawd no!  The last thing I want in the morning is a cackling moron.  The Sports Junkies?  Yeah, they're awesome.  They're also on a station whose signal is so weak that I'm 20 miles into my commute before I can pick up the signal.  They also, unfortunately, have the longest commercial breaks of any radio show I know of.

But wait!  Vulture, you have XM radio!  You have options!  Eh, not so much.

Rawdog comedy is fine for the commute home...but sometimes in the morning I'm not in a comedy mood.  The music channels?  Again, great for the commute home.  But I can't do music in the morning any more than I can do cackling morons in the morning.

What about Czaban's replacement, Steven Screamin' A. Smith?  Child, please!  His act was tired at ESPN.  I wouldn't listen to him on a dare.

So I'm left with the "other" talk show options XM has.  They're a little thin.

There's Coast to Coast, Art Bell's old program, where you are "enlightened" about UFOs, aliens, various government cover-ups, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, etc.  Not exactly my cup of tea.

There's alleged conservative "intellectual" William Bennett.  Intellectual.  Right.  The last time I listened to him...and I mean the last time...he went on a three minute rant that can be summed up in two sentences.

• Both political parties are venal, corrupt, and compromised.
  
• That's why it's so important to vote Republican this Fall and not waste your vote on a third-party candidate.

If your response to this "brilliance" was "huh?" or "WTF!", you understand how I felt as portions of my brain melted at the sheer illogic.

So I'm pretty much left with Quinn and Rose.  They're okay in small doses.  But they, like most "conservative" blatherers, are still drinking that Team Elephant Kool-Aid.  Once they start in with the "only Republicans can save us from Obama's communist agenda" nonsense, I have to switch stations.

It used to be so easy.  Get in the car.  Make sure XM-142 is on.  Listen.

Eff you, Fox Sports Radio.  Eff.  You.

Long time no post

Your friendly neighborhood Vulture has been under the weather of late.  The sinus infection from Hell has left me feeling like warmed-over carrion for the past several days.  And while warmed-over carrion might be considered a tasty snack for a scavenger bird, feeling that way isn't any way to go through life.

It's not like there's been much going on worth blogging about anyway.  Obama Mussolini-Care is now the law of the land - hey, how 'bout that?  Il Duce dissed Benjamin Netanyahu - hey, how 'bout that?  At least the administration is finally taking terrorism seriously...oh wait, no they're not - arresting "Christian militia" members in Michigan?  Seriously?

If it seems like I'm maybe a little disconnected from the events of the day, it might be because I am.  I hear a lot of "blah, blah, blah" regarding our government's steady march to Fascism (which the TV blathering heads insist on mis-labeling as "Socialism"), but I don't see much in the way of action.  I hear a lot more about how awful the health care takeover will be for the economy than about how it destroys what's left of our personal liberties.  I guess so-called "conservatives" would be happy with the legislation if it only took away our freedoms but restored the economy.  Or am I misreading the situation?

In any regard, I thought I should post SOMETHING today, just so you'd know I'm still out there (some might say "WAAAAAAAY out there", but that's their interpretation).  I'll post again soon once my health and my attitude are doing better.