… but you’re led by narcissistic cowards, what do you do?
You find your Churchill or your Reagan. Fast.
… but you’re led by narcissistic cowards, what do you do?
You find your Churchill or your Reagan. Fast.
Ace has decided to dump on us social conservatives again:
I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.
Homosexual attraction may or may not be genetic (and thus unavoidable). Actual homosexual conduct is avoidable. Its harmful public health consequences are well-documented. Open homosexual conduct’s corrosion of a society founded on the nuclear heterosexual family is also well-documented.
Further, government has a rational basis for encouraging childbirth, as maintaining the population of contributing members of society allows that society to continue (duh). Since it’s well-documented that children raised by married monogamous heterosexuals turn out better/healthier/more productive/more peaceable than children raised in other environments, government has a rational basis for encouraging monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and whateversexuals will put their naughty bits where they want to. Government can’t stamp that out, nor should it try (there are too many more important tasks for it to accomplish, tasks which it currently neglects). But at a minimum, government should refrain from subsidizing, celebrating, or normalizing such socially corrosive conduct.
If you choose to warp this argument into “teh creepy Jesus peoplez want to round up teh gayz!!!1!” … well, I can’t stop you. I can sure as hell ridicule your intellectual foolishness, though.
The American electorate appears determined to join the Free Shit Army™, while preening in the mirror over its collective refusal to recognize corrosive conduct for what it is. So be it. Spendthrifts will eventually run out of money, and libertines will eventually reap the whirlwind of chaos. We social conservatives will be here to rebuild once reality’s finished pimp-slapping some basic sense back into y’all.
Let it burn.
The Congress responded to the fiscal cliff it created by passing a bill that raises taxes by $41 for every $1 of spending cuts.
Our alleged “budget hawk,” US Senator Rob Portman voted “yes.” From our US House delegation, John Boehner, Bob Latta, Bill Johnson, Steve LaTourette (outgoing), Steve Stivers, and Pat Tiberi all voted “yes” to increase your taxes. These gentlemen all deserve to be primaried out of office when they stand for reelection in 2014.
Kudos to Ohio’s Republican US Representatives who stood strong and voted “no.” That would be Steve Austria (outgoing), Steve Chabot, Bob Gibbs, Jim Jordan, Jim Renacci, and Jean Schmidt (outgoing).
I’ll post the text of the bill once it’s available. You see, Congress also violated its pledge to post all legislation for public review online for 72 hours before voting on it.
Is it any wonder that Congress has a 5% approval rating?
If the Rules Committee has its way at the Republican National Convention, the party’s presidential nominee will be able to substitute delegates of his or her choice for the delegates from each of the states and territories duly chosen by the local parties.
Here’s the e-mail I sent to Ohio’s two representatives on the Rules Committee.
I’m writing to you in your capacity as one of Ohio’s two delegates on the 2012 RNC Rules Committee. I am a registered Republican in [city redacted], OH. I’m also a grassroots conservative activist & blogger. This major problem caught my attention today:
I OPPOSE the rules change that will give future presidential campaigns control over who gets to be a delegate (current RULE 15, but being renumbered to 16) and I OPPOSE the new RULE 12 which allows the RNC to change the rules at any time between conventions.
The grassroots members of the GOP should select the delegates, not the party’s nominee. I urge you to sign the minority reports on Rules 15 & 12.
We are paying attention back here.
If you’re a conservative Republican and want to take action before the Rules Committee slides this change into effect at 2 PM on Tuesday the 28th, you’d better get moving. Follow that link to Michelle Malkin’s site up above and read the whole post. You can find your state’s two delegates on the Rules Committee here.
Yes, it’s annoying. The RINOs are counting on you being too annoyed, busy, and distracted to resist their power grab. Just copy and adapt my message to your needs and let them know you oppose cutting the grassroots out of the nominating process. Two e-mails from you can yank them back to responsible behavior.
Thank you for your email. The good news is that with your help we have been able to kill the changes you objected to. The rule would not have had impact in Ohio, however, as usual Ohio’s voice and leadership was sought and you helped provide it.
Tomorrow the full rules committee will eliminate the change in the rules regarding the delegate selection process and thus eliminate the need for the minority report. Your point was well taken.
Thank you again for your email.
8/29 Update: The grassroots have been stomped by the GOP establishment. Again.
The effort to choke off funding for Obamacare continues in the U.S. House of Representatives. Yesterday morning I e-mailed the following question to Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) via his 7th District campaign’s Facebook page
Why didn’t you sign this letter pledging to defund Obamacare?
Obviously I’m totally against Obamacare, I have voted 33 times to repeal, defund and different parts etc. The reason I didn’t sign on to the letter to leadership because the letter stated to include defunding Obamacare in every piece of legislation going forward. This week we are doing defense appropriations and I can’t support holding funding up for our troops and national security, essentially holding our troops hostage. Also I’m completely fed up with the spectacle of the dog and pony show here in DC, I’m working for real results not being part of a circus.
Seems reasonable. My only quibble is the implication that Rep. Jim Jordan is running a circus. The Republican Study Committee is nothing of the kind.
Would Democrats have quietly rolled over if Bill Clinton had appointed Ken Starr as his campaign’s legal advisor? What if Al Gore chose well-known manmade global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen to be one of his key staffers? Would Democrats tolerate Barack Obama hiring Glenn Beck for … well … any reason whatsoever?
Now imagine Mitt Romney choosing a fan of Obamacare to be the man in charge of the transition to a Romney Administration after a victory in November. This Obamacare fan would likely end up as the White House Chief of Staff in January. Would you doubt Romney’s honesty about wanting to repeal Obamacare? Would you be upset?
Well, there’s no need to imagine it because Romney’s already done it. Say hello to former HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt.
Over at Ace of Spades, Drew’s complaint treads rather lightly on the problem:
So Leavitt’s concern about ObamaCare was that Kathleen Sebilius might not be aggressive enough in using the power given to her by ObamaCare? Was that your first reaction or the reaction of any conservative/Republican you know?
Romney’s camp says don’t worry, only Mitt makes decisions and he’s on board with repeal.
Romney says the right things about ObamaCare (usually) but his actions on healthcare reform, including picking a transition director who is thought to be a leading candidate to be his Chief of Staff often are at odds with his words.
That’s awfully understated, Drew. Ben Domenech elaborates on what Leavitt’s been up to:
Over the past year, Leavitt and his staff have repeatedly tangled with conservative and libertarian think-tanks and advocates who oppose him on [state-level health care "exchanges"], understanding that there is no such thing as a state run exchange under Obamacare, and that this represents the primary front for states in the battle against Obamacare’s implementation. This hasn’t stopped him from lobbying all over the country for it.
The reaction from the Romney team — so far — is that Leavitt’s not in charge. Romney’s the boss and will pursue the repeal of Obamacare, say his staffers.
I don’t buy it. Governor Romney’s instincts are not conservative. He’s the father of Romneycare after all, upon which the Democrats built Obamacare. One of his key health care advisors from his time in the Governor’s office in Massachusetts actually helped write the monstrosity that is Obamacare.
To understand an executive’s priorities, look past the policy pronouncements and look at who they hire. Personnel is policy. It’s not enough to defeat Barack Obama and turn the U.S. Senate conservative. To repeal Obamacare, to tear it out by the roots, Mitt Romney must constantly be reminded that words aren’t enough. He must know in his bones that the people who can put him in the Oval Office will never accept anything less than his personal, aggressive leadership in the repeal effort. Effective leadership demands wise personnel choices, and delegating essential duties to an Obamacare shill like Mike Leavitt stands in stark opposition to Mitt Romney’s stated goals. Either Romney is not 100% committed to repealing Obamacare and reducing the size and scope of the federal government, or he’s deluding himself about the danger of giving Leavitt enough power to undermine Romney’s work from the inside. Neither possibility is acceptable.
Romney is the only credible alternative to four more disastrous years of Barack Obama. While evicting the Oval Office’s current occupier ranks first on the priority list for those who love the U.S. Constitution and the American Dream, that doesn’t mean Mitt Romney should have carte blanche to indulge his progressive instincts.
The Republican establishment will shriek in angry panic if constitutional conservatives forcefully oppose Mike Leavitt’s role on Romney’s campaign team, and they will warn that all opposition to Romney helps Obama (we’re at RINO Threat Level Blue, in other words).
Not true. If constitutional conservatives keep Romney on a short leash, his election chances will actually go up. This is not an optional fight.
Contact the Romney campaign and demand that Mile Leavitt be excluded from any and all positions that have any influence on the effort to repeal Obamacare.
3:50 PM update: More detail from Ben Domenech here.
Sparked by Michelle Malkin’s summary of a newly-released ebook for conservatives planning ahead for the inevitable GOP infighting during a potential Romney Administration, I came up with a variation on a familiar theme.
It neatly summarizes our predictions for how the Republican Establishment will justify its opposition to constitutional conservatives over the next several years, if we manage to put them back in power.
Now hear this. Now hear this. Set RINO Threat Level Blue. Check status of all conservative principles. That is all.
Have you noticed that every candidate in the GOP primary is a “conservative” now?
Clearly, they know what to say. They might even know what to do. But getting them to actually do what’s needed most – take the initiative to rein in federal spending – means voters will have to wise up.
Ohio’s Congressional District 2 is represented by Jean Schmidt, who calls herself a conservative and boasts of big-name endorsements and high scores from conservative watchdog groups.
What is conservative about earmarking $14.6 million, the most of any Greater Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky member of the House, in 2007’s congressional spending bills? (Source: Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 7, 2007)
How can one claim to be a fiscal conservative while supporting $25 million in federal spending on a local park? (Source: Cincinnati Enquirer, May 1, 2007) Note that this occurred when the federal debt was approaching $9 trillion.
In 2009, Rep. Schmidt requested more than $10 million in District 2 spending as part of a pork-laden bill, prompting nearby District 8’s Rep. John Boehner – who has publicly sworn off earmarking – to urge President Obama to veto the entire bill. (Source: Cincinnati Enquirer, Mar. 6, 2009)
Interestingly, in 2010 Rep. Schmidt cited Congressional overspending as her reason for voting against extending the Bush tax cuts. (Source: Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 18, 2010) The problem for her, it seems, was that everybody except Rep. Schmidt was spending too much money.
Yet, as Rep. Boehner’s record illustrates, a Congressman does not have to treat the U.S. Treasury as a personal printing press in order to get re-elected.
In fact, as the video Alo kindly linked below explains, 85 percent of Congress consists of “safe seats,” solid-red and solid-blue districts where the winner of the right primary is virtually certain to win in November.
Add that only 1 in 10 registered voters participate in the primaries, and it’s clear that only 5 percent of the electorate (or, a majority of primary voters) actually chooses most of Congress.
So, all a GOP incumbent has to do in most districts is convincingly don the “conservative” mantle through the primary, then go back to politics as usual. Congress is full of such representatives. They get high scores from ACU and other organizations, but they don’t actually take initiative to get Washington under control. Why bother, if the primary voters aren’t paying attention? It’s hard work, turning a ship that big around.
But that’s what will have to happen. Voters will have to realize they’ve been sending the same go-alongs and earmarkers to Congress every two years, expecting a different result.
Some incumbents, such as Rep. Schmidt, actually have credible primary challengers this time around. Many incumbents do not. Hence, the attention this particular contest has drawn from people concerned about the impending fiscal disaster that few in Congress seem ready to head off.
Are you a primary voter? Are you ready to change the course of Washington? Your chance occurs on March 6.
Campaign for Primary Accountability
2:15 PM Update (Alo Konsen): Hello, Representative Schmidt. Nice to see you.
Riiiiight. Sure you are, Mitt. Here’s a word cloud of his speech, which you can click on to zoom.
Courtesy of the NY Times (click image to zoom):
Is Mitt Romney’s nomination inevitable? Hardly. He’s won a mere 71 of the required 1144 delegates. He’s not even 7% of the way there.
On to Maine and Nevada we go.
If Norm Coleman’s prediction comes true, kiss the Republican Party goodbye.
Norm Coleman – the former senator from Minnesota and a prominent advisor for Mitt Romney – suggested over the weekend in an interview that no matter who the Republican nominee is, they are unlikely to fully repeal Obamacare.
The conservative base of the GOP did not bust its butt to return Republicans to control in the House because we like pragmatism, bipartisanship, and tinkering around with Obamacare in an effort to “fix” it. The majority of Americans want it repealed. Obamacare is a malignant tumor on the Republic. If the GOP proves unwilling or unable to cut out that tumor before 2014 — when it goes into full effect — then we conservatives will eviscerate the GOP as a political entity and start over. The party cannot survive without us. Google the sad fate of the Whig Party; it can happen again.
If the GOP doesn’t bleed to get Obamacare repealed, we’ll bleed the party dry. Bank on it.
The document below the fold is purportedly John McCain’s opposition research report on Mitt Romney from the 2008 presidential campaign.
This post by Steve McCann has fouled my mood much more than the clouds and rain could ever do.
There now appears to be an inevitability surrounding Mitt Romney and the Republican nomination for president. Are the American people prepared to sit through another term of George H.W. Bush? The chances are that Romney would be the last Republican president, as the Party may fly apart under his rule. The country would then have to face another round of the Left-dominated Democratic Party in charge and the inevitable collapse that would bring about.
At no time in the past 150 years has the nation needed a bold and decisive leader that could not only initiate change but be honest with the American people.
Yet the current governing class and in particular the Republican establishment is treating this election cycle as if it were no different from any other during the past sixty years. Their reaction to the Tea Party movement is indicative of this mindset, as they choose to denigrate and dismiss this grassroots uprising as just another passing crusade by conservative ideologues. They fail to understand that the appeal of Ron Paul is that he is willing to stick it to the ruling class. The primary concern of the establishment, either Republican or Democrat, is to retain power through the control of the purse strings, and to put off any difficult decisions while “compromising” with the opposition.
The campaign strategy of Mitt Romney mirrors that of all the past moderate nominees chosen by the Party. The formula: speak the language of the conservative majority in the Party, claim only a moderate can get elected, divide the vote among the conservatives running for the nomination, mobilize the media to destroy any real conservative challenger, and overwhelm these same challengers with money from the deep-pocket establishment contributors.
If Romney were to lose the election, there will be a grass-roots revolt against the Republican Party which will spell its demise. If he wins and the nation, through the mis-directed policies of Romney and the Republicans in the Congress, continues on its current path of compromising and nibbling around the edges of the nation’s problems, then Romney will be the last Republican president and the specter of the Democrats re-assuming power will be a reality.
This is not only the most important election for the nation in over a century but also one that will determine the fate of a political party founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery and the corruption in the Democratic Party.
But hey, maybe I’m just a Romney Denialist or a Bitter Clinger or some such.
Thankfully, my copy of Mark Levin’s newest monster bestseller Ameritopia arrives today. I’m going to read it with my highlighter in hand, just as I did with Liberty And Tyranny.
There are many things I don’t get. Here’s one.
Mitt Romney is Obama’s dream opponent. He’s a moderate, a squish, a watered-down statist, a Democrat Lite™. So why would voters elect an imitation leftist when they can have an authentic Marxist who’d like four more years to destroy the republic? If we’re all forced to choose between driving off a cliff with the cruise control set, or launching into the abyss at top speed, the people egging on the drivers will choose the daredevil. Those of us who want to hit the brakes aren’t going to work very hard for the wuss who wants us all to sit politely as we coast into oblivion.
We’re not interested in playing by someone else’s rigged rules. If the Republican Party establishment sticks us with Romney, we’ll change the rules to our advantage. They should remember one word, and tremble.
8:00 PM Update: Hey, our dose of fiscal arsenic just got reduced from “rapid death” to “slightly less rapid death.” Best we can do. Declare victory and drink up, boys.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker!