Category Archives: Republican Party

Establishment Hack Republicans in Georgia Legislature Attack Liberty Minded Republican

This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.

In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to  arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.

Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.

And here.

And here is one that gets it wrong.

I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.

Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.

I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.

Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.

New York Times Attacks Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods etc.

The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.

Lew Rockwell responds here

Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)

Tom DiLorenzo responds here and here

Bob Wenzel (Economic Policy Journal) responds here and here

Ralph Raico here

Chris Rossini here

Update: Walter Block replies here

Tom Woods replies here on YouTube

Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?

My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:

Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.

Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.

Read more…

I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.

Update: This article has now been added to my personal blog.

For the 1000th Time … Martin Luther King Was Not a Conservative

Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.

MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.

The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.

First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.

That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.

Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.

The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)

Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.

Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.

Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.

Potential 2016 GOP Candidates not Looking Good

Here is a Townhall 2016 straw poll. Vote if you like. It’s quick. You do have to enter your e-mail which will get you on some e-mail list, but I already get Townhall e-mails so no biggy. You can also always unsubscribe. I post this mainly to illustrate how abysmal the potential 2016 lineup is. I voted other/none of the above because write-in were not allowed.

Here is the list of candidates:

Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
Benjamin Carson, Doctor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Other/None of the Above

What a sorry lot. Rand Paul is the closest to acceptable. As I said before, we need to start talking up potential acceptable GOP primary candidates and potential Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates.

Here is the comment I left.

There is no one in this list that represents non-interventionist conservatives. Rand Paul comes the closest, but he has already drifted too far away from the principled non-intervention of his father. I will not vote for a GOP interventionist. If they don’t do better than this it will be third party for me in 2016.

Rubio Giving Up on “Comprehensive” Immigration “Reform”

Rubio appears to realize that a big “comprehensive” immigration “reform” bill isn’t going anywhere fast in the House. Now he is suggesting a piecemeal approach.

Politico is declaring immigration “reform” dead for 2013.

It is easy to get discouraged, but we can sometimes make a difference. Washington does listen to the people when we make them. Like they are doing here, and like they did on Syria. That doesn’t mean it’s not coming back, but I doubt it will ever pass a GOP controlled House.

Did Rand Paul Flub the ObamaCare Battle?

I thought he was flubbing it all along. He was too tenative and wishy-washy, and he let Ted Cruz get way out ahead of him. He voted no on the final bill, but at that point his no vote was an easy call.

Steve Deace agrees. His thoughts are very similar to my thoughts. The Rand Paul part is one of ten “Lessons Learned.” The whole article is worth a read.

Rand Paul is still not sure who he is

He almost always votes the right way, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is certainly not his father—for better or for worse. He gets much closer to gray areas than his father ever did, flirting with disaster before eventually choosing the right side. He did on both the big fights this year—first with scamnesty and now with the defund Obamacare effort. He appears to be trying so hard to make himself a national figure in time for a 2016 presidential run that the identity that launched him in 2010 is being lost in the process. Is he the heir to his father’s revolution or has he become Ditch McConnell’s sidekick? You can’t be both. It appears he has yet to decide, but he better decide quickly. The passive-aggressive act is wearing thin with many liberty people I know, let alone dampening his efforts to successfully reach out to social conservatives.

Even Paul’s post no vote statement was weak and uninspiring.

Sen. Rand Paul today voted no on H.R. 2775, as amended, that will suspend the debt ceiling until February 7, 2014 and fund the government thru January 15, 2014.

 ”Tonight, a deal was struck to re-open the government and avoid the debt ceiling deadline. That is a good thing,” Sen. Paul said. “However, our country faces a problem bigger than any deadline: a $17 trillion debt. I am disappointed that Democrats would not compromise to avoid the looming debt debacle.”

And this is after he had already tried to straddle the fence. See here and here.

I’m not a fan of Ted Cruz’s foreign policy, but Rand got played by Cruz here.

Rand is being too cautious for his own good. Someone needs to remind him that he’s an Eye Surgeon. He’ll still be able to make a living if he loses his current job.

My Quick Thoughts on the GOP Surrender

You can argue whether this was the right way to pick a fight, but once you’ve picked it, you’ve got to go down swinging. (Personally, I think these manufactured crises are silly. But I say that as someone from the right who thinks they should just vote for a budget that has significant cuts in it.) If you are going to play a game of chicken, you have to be willing to crash and burn. But the GOP got stood down by Obama because they picked a fight they weren’t man enough to finish. So the GOP ended up doing the impossible. They made Obama look like the real man in this battle. Pride and self-respect alone should have motivated them to vote no.

An ObamaCare Word Problem

I sometimes have to help my daughter with here math homework. The most common type of problem she needs help with are word problems. That has got me thinking in that mode. So here is an ObamaCare word problem:

There are 46 Republicans in the Senate. Only 19 Republican Senators voted against cloture on ObamaCare. Therefore, how many Republicans are RINOs? (Or alternatively – Therefore, how many Republicans deserve primary challenges?)

Ted Cruz is (Sort of) Filibustering ObamaCare: Call Your Senator and Tell Them to Vote No on Cloture Tomorrow

Ted Cruz is filibustering (sort of) ObamaCare at this moment. The technical details of why this isn’t an actual filibuster are here.

There will be a cloture vote tomorrow (Wednesday 25 Sept 13). All that is needed is 41 votes to defeat cloture. There are more than 41 Republican Senators. This should be an easy victory. No Republican Senator should want to be responsible for supporting cloture and foisting ObamaCare on their base which hates it. But alas, we still have a lot of Establishment Republicans who are more interested in staying in the good graces of Beltway centrists than they are the good graces of their base.

Call or e-mail your Senator and tell them to vote against cloture.

US Senator Misquotes GK Chesterton, Makes Fool of Self to Putin

In a recent reply to Putin’s hard-hitting New York Times article Jim DeMint, a former US Senator, writes:

As a British admirer of America, G.K. Chesterton, once put it: “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed.” We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans.

DeMint is citing Chesterton’s “What is America?” However, Chesterton was writing critically, not in support, of America’s ideological nationalism. Chesterton continues in the same essay:

Now in America this is no idle theory. It may have been theoretical, though it was thoroughly sincere, when that great Virginian gentleman declared it in surroundings that still had something of the character of an English countryside. It is not merely theoretical now. There is nothing to prevent America being literally invaded by Turks, as she is invaded by Jews or Bulgars. In the most exquisitely inconsequent of the Bab Ballads, we are told concerning Pasha Bailey Ben:

One morning knocked at half-past eight A tall Red Indian at his gate. In Turkey, as you’r’ p’raps aware, Red Indians are extremely rare.

But the converse need by no means be true. There is nothing in the nature of things to prevent an emigration of Turks increasing and multiplying on the plains where the Red Indians wandered; there is nothing to necessitate the Turks being extremely rare. The Red Indians, alas, are likely to be rarer. And as I much prefer Red Indians to Turks, I speak without prejudice; but the point here is that America, partly by original theory and partly by historical accident, does lie open to racial admixtures which most countries would think incongruous or comic. That is why it is only fair to read any American definitions or rules in a certain light, and relatively to a rather unique position. It is not fair to compare the position of those who may meet Turks in the back street with that of those who have never met Turks except in the Bab Ballads. It is not fair simply to compare America with England in its regulations about the Turk. In short, it is not fair to do what almost every Englishman probably does; to look at the American international examination paper, and laugh and be satisfied with saying, “We don’t have any of that nonsense in England.”

We do not have any of that nonsense in England because we have never attempted to have any of that philosophy in England. And, above all, because we have the enormous advantage of feeling it natural to be national, because there is nothing else to be. England in these days is not well governed; England is not well educated; England suffers from wealth and poverty that are not well distributed. But England is English–esto perpetua. England is English as France is French or Ireland is Irish; the great mass of men taking certain national traditions for granted. Now this gives us a totally different and a very much easier task. We have not got an inquisition, because we have not got a creed; but it is arguable that we do not need a creed, because we have got a character. In any of the old nations the national unity is preserved by the national type. Because we have a type we do not need to have a test.

Chesterton even includes in the closing paragraph:

I am very far from intending to imply that … there is no danger of tyranny becoming the temptation of America.

So, in arguing in favour of ideological nationalism, DeMint quotes a critic arguing the opposite. It’s at least heartening that Heritage might have a real conservative in the woodwork, since DeMint is provided a quote by Chesterton instead of Horowitz. If readers aren’t aware, Chesterton is one of ours. DeMint is President of The Heritage Foundation, the same that asked Jason Richwine to leave for having written this brilliant study.

Hopefully DeMint learns from this embarrassment and takes the path of Harvard political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, in asking, “Who are we?

How can we stop you from looking behind the curtain?

Unpatriotic Americans are steaming over continuing revelations about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying. Thanks to that trouble maker Edward Snowden, Americans are now aware of what their government is up to, and what good can come of that? Everyone knows we’re all happier when our handlers and protectors can do what has to be done without having to worry about the common folk finding out.

Here’s the latest: Seems many of those “accidental” peeks at Americans’ private communications weren’t all that accidental. As the Guardian reports:

US intelligence analysts have deliberately broken rules designed to prevent them from spying on Americans, according to an admission by the National Security Agency that undermines fresh insistences from Barack Obama on Friday that all breaches were inadvertent.

A report by the NSA’s inspector general is understood to have uncovered a number of examples of analysts choosing to ignore so-called “minimisation procedures” aimed at protecting privacy, according to officials speaking to Bloomberg.

Defenders of the welfare/warfare national security state realize their work is cut out for them. Fortunately, they work within a political system where the vast majority of citizens accept the regime’s notion of what constitutes acceptable political thought. Politically, you can be anything you want, as long as it’s Democrat or Republican.

Or, as I like to phrase it, housebroken liberal or housebroken conservative.

So, as these embarrassing revelations heat up the blogosphere, regime apologists are focusing on their base, and do so through the most transparent flattery. Housebroken liberals fancy themselves morally superior because they are so darn tolerant. Therefore, their designated handlers portray the whistle blowers as “racist.” And no one beats the “racism” drum like Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. Check out the Lizard King’s latest counter-attack on critics of government spying: The Convergence of Glenn Greenwald and Rand Paul’s “Southern Avenger.”

Liberals have a gut-deep hatred of anything Southern, so left-leaning defenders of the DC Empire equate critics of government spying with “racist Southerners.”

On the other hand, housebroken conservatives imagine they’re morally superior because of their patriotism and traditional morality. So DC’s right-leaning apologists slam whistle blowers as traitors. And to keep the heartland distracted, The Other McCain has been uploading multiple posts on this story of under-age lesbians acting badly. Never mind the NSA — Look! Lesbians!

Con men know they must customize their acts by distracting their targets with different ruses. It all depends on the target audience.

Who Should I Write-in in 2016 Presidential Polls?

OK, so the 2016 polls are starting to appear in my inbox and as pop-up ads, etc. The current list of potential candidates is abysmal and depressing. It includes RINOs like Chris Christie and so called conservatives like Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint who are just mainstream movement cons of one degree or another and are therefore wrong about all the things mainstream cons are wrong about (foreign policy, surveillance/police state, trade deals, etc.) Rand Paul is the best of the lot, but is off my list because of his PC pandering and waffling on immigration and foreign policy.

The problem is, as far as I know, there aren’t any rumored paleoish candidates to talk up. Worse, there aren’t really even that many paleoish figures who aren’t rumored that can be credibly talked up. I’m sure our constant critic Sav and others would say this points to a failure of paleoism and perhaps they would be right, but that doesn’t solve our immediate problem of who to tout as a potential candidate.

Here are a few thoughts. Let’s discuss it.

Potentially Serious Candidates:

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions comes to mind. I haven’t heard him talked up as a candidate, but if he did run he would be serious because he is  a Senator. He has been by far and away the best person in the Senate on the immigration issue. The problem is that Sessions is generally wrong on foreign policy and police state issues. But because Sessions has  been so out front on immigration, a vote for him could be seen as an endorsement of immigration restrictionism. As an actual vote, it might be hard to justify, but as an exercise in immigration issue message sending a case could be made for writing him in. (For the record, I consider immigration the most important issues because all the other issues [abortion, taxes, spending, etc.] hinge upon its outcome. Unless current demographic trends are halted, the GOP and by implication any further right alternative party will become irrelevant at the national level.)

Semi-serious Candidates:

Tennessee Rep. John Duncan and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones come to mind. Neither have the voting record of Ron Paul, but both are know as Republican (relatively) non-interventionists so a vote for either would likely be interpreted as an endorsement of non-interventionism. As far as I know, neither has been seriously discussed as a possible candidate.

Actually Rumored Message Candidates:

Judge Andrew Napolitano has been widely discussed as a possible candidate. He is a natural heir to the Ron Paul Revolution, especially for those unwilling to support Rand Paul. As a widely known Fox News commentator, he is a semi-plausible candidate. A vote for him would be the most direct way of endorsing the continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution. The major problem with Napolitano is that he is absolutely horrible on immigration. He has completely swallowed the libertarian Kool-Aid on the issue.

Ted Nugent has thrown his own name out there. Besides guns and not liking Obama, I’m not sure I know exactly where he stands on other issues, and I’m sure I’m not alone with that. But where The Nuge stands on every issues is hardly relevant. A vote for Nugent is simply a way to stick a great big thumb in the eye of the Powers that Be. As I said before, Nugent is a visceral Red and a vote for him would be an endorsement of visceral Redness.

Pure Message Candidates:

If you want to send a single issue immigration message then you could write in Tom Tancredo. He’s not good on war and peace issues, but since he is so identified with the immigration issues, the message of a vote for Tancredo would not be missed. An alternative might be to vote for Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta, who is also closely associated with the immigration issue but likely not as well known as Tancredo.

Tom Woods has been suggested as a possible candidate and has even addressed the issue. I think Woods would be an excellent candidate. He is articulate and funny. He would put nullification and secession on the table, and since he is a Traditional Catholic he could appeal to cultural conservatives and couldn’t be accused of being an amoral libertine. Also, like Judge Nap, a vote for Woods would be an endorsement of the continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution.

If you wanted to send a pure ideological message of the whole no-compromise package – non-intervention, immigration, Constitutionalism, abortion, anti-Lincoln, etc. – you could write in Chuck Baldwin. Since he has actually run before, the idea isn’t quite as out there as it might otherwise be. Or, on that note, you could write in Michael Peroutka. Peroutka has been the center of some controversy recently since he is now on the Board of the League of the South, so a vote for him would be an even bigger rejection of the status quo.

Those are some of my preliminary thoughts. Discuss.

(FTR, I limited my choices to people that actually could conceivably run for President. So no Patrick Henry for example. If we have a problem of no rumored candidates we can get behind, we might as well start rumors about people who could really run.)

RNC Votes to Boycott CNN and NBC Presidential Debates

Reuters has the story.

The U.S. Republican party resolved on Friday to boycott any 2016 presidential debates sponsored by CNN and NBC if the networks go ahead with plans to make special programs on Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination.

Delegates to a meeting of the Republican National Committee voted for a resolution that included the boycott and said the programs would be “little more than extended commercials promoting former Secretary Clinton.”

I certainly have my issues with the RNC, but here they are actually acting like they have a spine. Let’s hope CNN and NBC cave or that the RNC doesn’t.

Ann Coulter Can Do Math…

unlike GOP amnesty an immigration supporters.

We keep hearing insistent claims that if Republicans don’t pass amnesty yesterday it will be the end of the party.

Can I see the math on that? I can see why bringing in 30 million new Democratic voters would be good for the Democrats, but how does it help Republicans? Maybe conservatives shouldn’t blindly trust the calculations of the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy.

If I were a Democrat, I would have tried to sneak this bill past Republicans by proposing amnesty only after reaching some easily rigged benchmarks. But, apparently, Chuck Schumer knows elected Republicans better than I do.

Step One: Everyone’s amnestied. Step Two: After they’re amnestied, they can bring in all their relatives.

If Hispanics voted 50.1 percent for Democrats, amnesty would be a bad deal for Republicans. But, in fact, they vote 70 percent to 80 percent for Democrats. How did it become an urgent priority for Republicans to bring in 30 million new voters, 80 percent of whom will vote Democratic?

Democrats want 30 million new voters and they will say anything to get there:

Read more…

16 RINOs Vote to Defeat Paul, Cruz, Lee Filibuster Against Gun Control

Here is the list of traitors. Give them a call and let them know what you think.

  • Lindsey Graham (SC)  (202) 224-5972
  • Lamar Alexander (TN)  (202) 224-4944
  • Kelly Ayotte (NH)  (202) 224-3324
  • Richard Burr (NC)  (202) 224-3154
  • Saxby Chambliss (GA)  (202) 224-3521
  • John McCain (AZ)  (202) 224-2235
  • Tom Coburn (OK)  (202) 224-5754
  • Susan Collins (ME)  (202) 224-2523
  • Bob Corker (TN)  (202) 224-3344
  • Jeff Flake (AZ)  (202) 224-4521
  • John Hoeven (ND)  (202) 224-2551
  • Johnny Isakson (GA)  (202) 224-3643
  • Dean Heller (NV)  (202) 224-6244
  • Mark Kirk (IL)  (202) 224-2854
  • Pat Toomey (PA)  (202) 224-4254
  • Roger Wicker (MS)  (202) 224-6253

Notice that Jeff Flake, who is often described as “libertarian leaning,” was amoung the traitors. So was Pat Toomey. Remember him? He is that raging right-winger everyone was supposed to be so excited about when he challenged Arlen Specter. The most surprising to me is Tom Coburn. He is generally one of the better Senators. Every one of these clowns needs a primary challenger.