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 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.
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.
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?“
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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:
I’ve tried to explain pro-wrestling a few times, but always failed. Folks need their separation, and Jesse Ventura is just an exception to the rule. Anyway, news that Kane might run for Senate in Tennessee is welcomed.
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.
This post recently appeared on Dale Peterson’s Facebook page. It is a bit cryptic, but take from it what you will.
Dale’s wife, Kathy, here. For some time, I have been posting updates to Dale’s facebook page. Today, due to circumstances only the real Big Guy understands, Dale is going off line. God bless all of you for supporting my buddy. He definitely is worth every ounce of support each of you can muster. BTW, we celebrated our 35th anniversary last Monday. I love my “cowboy” so much. As for me, we are a team and our country, state and grand children are worth the fight. While Dale is fighting the problem that is confounding his memory, he has passed the baton to me. This is about all of us. Never quit on your partner and never quit on your country. Go to Kathy-Peterson for further updates. Kathy Peterson
Wow! Finally a Republican consultant who can do math. I’m shocked.
“You can support immigration reform for moral reasons, for philosophical reasons, or for economic reasons. But if you are a Republican and supporting it for political reasons, you are an idiot who cannot read or understand survey data.” ~ Mike McKenna
What is going on here! Remember Dale Paterson? He was the Alabama Ag Commission candidate with the gun toting videos. See here. Well he has been arrested for shoplifting?! Twice?! There has got to be some sort of back story here? Is the guy having financial problems? Does he have some sort of mental illness? Is he an alcoholic? This is just insane. The guy endorsed Herman Cain, which knocked him down a notch or two in my book, but I still loved the way he horrified Blues. I pray that he gets whatever issues he has settled.
Update: Here is Peterson’s explanation for the peanut (second) incident. It’s plausible. Maybe he is getting a little senile. Maybe the Powers That Be are out to get him. From what I have read on Facebook from a few people who say they know him, apparently he is a bit eccentric/peculiar, but this is out of character. Anyway, I hope this gets worked out because I want Peterson to stay on the scene.
Sorry this is a little delinquent, but I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to get this post up. Most of you probably already know that Rand Paul stirred up a bit of a hornests’ nest when he spoke to a Hispanic organization on Tuesday where he endorsed a path to legal residence. The speech was typical pro-immigration cliches and platitudes. Intially it was reported that he had endorsed a path to citizenship, but Rand protested and said he hadn’t. What he had actually endorsed was a path to legal residence which is only marginally better. So this generation of illegals won’t get to vote for bigger government, but their birthright citizen children will. Great, we get to put off our electoral irrelevance for a few more years.
I really do not believe that Rand Paul is the master political operator many seem to think he is. The filibuster was a masterstroke of political theater, but I’m not convinced he didn’t just bumble into it. There is no way he could have anticipated what happened. I think he was primarily trying to throw a bone to his libertarian base that he had pissed off with his hamhanded handling of the Hagel nomination.
On immigration, Rand doesn’t seem to know what he has gotten himself into. The best thing he could have done politically would have been to either keep his mouth shut on the issue and let his past campaign statements stand or repeat simple secure the borders boilerplate. He should have let Rubio and the rest of his potential rivals step out in front on amnesty, then in the end (2016) he could have said he was the only one still holding the line. It seems to me that he didn’t want Rubio and company to get too far out in front of him, but at the same time wanted to split the difference. Hence, a path to legal residence vs. a path to citizenship. (A path to legal residence was actually the position that Jeb Bush endorsed in his book then fell all over himself to reject once it was published.)
There are a bunch of articles I could link to since his flip-flop has been so much discussed. VDARE in particular is ripping into him. Here are a few of the better ones.
Michael Thompson at WND documents that this is, in fact, a flip-flop for Rand.
John Derbyshire takes Rand to task, and praises Ann Coulter.
Washington Watcher isn’t pleased either.
If CPAC is any indication, maybe so. (Link to the always insightful James Kirkpatrick.)
Ann Coulter distinguished herself from the Conservative Inc. herd at CPAC by declaring herself a single-issue amnesty voter. (Link to the always solid Ilana Mercer.)
“What public policy will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment, change America permanently in negative way, and is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway?
Amnesty for illegal aliens.
Half of the elected Republicans support it, most conservative talk radio and TV hosts support it: You want the Republican establishment? That’s the Republican establishment.
There are many negative consequences to amnesty. The one that I think ought to concern this crowd is: If amnesty goes forward, America becomes California and no Republican will ever win a national election [IM: that goes for libertarian candidates too].
As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican.
I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why are Marco Rubio and the endless Bushes supporting it? [IM: that should be obvious.]
We cannot get the votes of a dependent society without changing our principles…”
What is so frustrating is how obvious this should be to any remotely thinking Republican.
Update: Here’s more from VDARE.
And to give credit where credit is due, Rush Limbaugh remains solid on immigration.
Senator Rand Paul won the “C”PAC vote, which is both impressive, and a reminder that the bad guys are onto him.
Back in the day, Ron Paul folks had to actually travel and buy tickets–but then they got to boo Dick Cheney and Rummy, so I can see how it would be worth the price for a little political theater.
Senator Rubio came in second, and must be feeling concerned about the whole Amnesty Bill he is promoting with Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
The paleo simply notes that without a dog in the fight, there is only one potential free agent, Rand Paul, who might take some tactical advice.
This whole article from VDARE is well worth a read. My how far Conservative Inc. has fallen.
Apparently the organizers (and funders) of CPAC, like the innumerate GOP pro-amnesty caucus, either have a death wish for their causes and their party or they can’t do simple math.
The demographic shift unleashed over the last 40 years by massive immigration—legal and illegal—is on course to crush Republicans and conservatives utterly.