Monthly Archives: October 2010

Tom Tancredo the Next Governor of Colorado?

The latest Rasmussen Poll has Dan Maes (R) 5%, John Hickenlooper (D) 47%, and Tom Tancredo (ACP) 42%. The margin hasn’t changed much since Wednesday.

Tancredo had to overcome difficult obstacles to get here:

“The high-paid Republican lawyers managed to present a case that was weaker than their candidate,” Tancredo said in a statement. “Their attempt to impede my candidacy has now failed in the courts as well as on the campaign trail. Now our focus must turn to the liberal mayor of the sanctuary city of Denver.”

And now, he might actually win.

: Tancredo 43, Hickenlooper 47, Maes 7
Magellan Strategies: Tancredo 42, Hickenlooper 43, Maes 9
Public Policy Polling: Tancredo 44, Hickenlooper 47, Maes 5


Tancredo for Governor


I registered my disappointment at the upcoming election in my last post  but starting this month I will be in the process of a little activism which I hope will improve our nation’s politics.

I’m going to try and convince my county board to approve a resolution to call for non-partisan state legislature i.e. members are elected without party designation, just like county board members and other local government officials are across the state. If they approve it, hopefully it can become a resolution at next year’s Wisconsin County Association state convention. Ideally, Wisconsin state legislature would like Nebraska’s which is non-partisan or would be like Minnesota and Nevada’s legislatures used to be.

What dominates our politics now is akin to parlimentary system without a parliment. Party-line voting and political tactics within legislative systems has wrecked good public policy and made it hard for independent lawmakers to do what’s right when they are so worried about maintaining the “party line”. Such thinking, truly is a socialistic methodology that has crept into our nation’s governance and is the kind of threat George Washington warned us about in his Farewell Address, the so-called “spirit of the party” crippling government.  Its why I’m supporting Michael Krsiean, independent for Congress on Tuesday and I’d like to thank Mike for influence on my thinking on this matter.

My latest article on expands this topic. I hope you all can support me in this endeavor.

Here’s some other articles for your consideration:

J.J. Jackson’s latest at Liberty Reborn:  “Greedy Leftists Decry American Dream”

At BATR, The Radical Reactionary column:  “The GOP landslide Tuesday and what it will mean.”

And Chuck Baldwin’s latest: “What’s More Important, Liberty or the Entity that protects it?”

John McCain Fought for Amnesty

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007: proposed by McCain and Kennedy, it “would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.”

In 2006 McCain voted for the Manager’s Amendment (SA 4188) which essentially removed the border fence from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 that passed the Senate (but not the House) and had been co-sponsored by John McCain.

In 2005 McCain and Kennedy introduced the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act which similarly would have granted amnesty but was never voted on.

Since he’s up for reelection this year, McCain has frequently declined to vote on immigration. However if allowed to safely retain his seat, McCain will only return to the same old voting pattern. Entrenched Washington politicians, especially liberal “Mavericks” who actively fight for amnesty, must be punished.

Ian Gilyeat is a better candidate.

Continue reading

Shake-up in the Alaska Independence Party

Rather than recounting all the gory details, just read this including the comments. It sounds like there are some major personality issued involved and maybe some policy issues.

The former AIP Vice Chair, J.R. Myers, has resigned from the AIP and is attempting to start an official Constitution Party affiliate in Alaska. While not technically an official CP state affiliate, the AIP has in recent years essentially served as such. They gave Michael Peroutka their ballot line in 2004 and Chuck Baldwin their ballot line in 2008. They participated in the 2008 CP National Convention as official credentialed delegates.

I do not have a detailed understanding of all the personality issues and internal intrigue involved here, but in a vacuum I do think that it would be better for the AIP to officially affiliate with the national CP than for a new Alaska CP to be formed. Not only does the AIP have a history compared to a new start-up party, but as a Southerner I like the fact that an openly secessionist party exists and is still active, and I would really like for such a party to be affiliated with the CP so as to keep the CP honest on the matter of secession.

Ian Gilyeat: Independent Conservative Alternative to John McCain

We received the following e-mail from Ian Gilyeat, an independent Senate candidate in Arizona. We are more than happy to give some publicity to any conservative willing to oppose McAmnesty:

I’d like to invite you to cover my campaign and report on the traction and support occurring all across the state of Arizona.   There is enough momentum in the campaign that media coverage interviews have occurred on the following shows and stations – all within the last several weeks:

 KFYI       Mike Broomhead

KFYI       Terry Gilberg

KFYI       Jim Sharpe

KYCA     Dr. Terry Lovell

KYCA     Jennifer Campbell

KTNR     Paul Lavoy

KBLU     Cody Beason

KFNX     Political Funhouse

KXXT      Van the Radio Man

KRIM     Rick Raven

KQTH     Jon Justice

Channel 13 TV   Yuma


Blogtalkradio Tea Party Talk with Van the Radio Man with Marcus Kelley

White Mountain Independent newspaper

InMaricopa magazine (interviewed not yet published)

AZ Capitol Times (interviewed not yet published)

Please take a look.  Information can be found on each of the links shown below.




Forget the Constitution

Why forget the Constitution? Because it’s dead, says Kirkpatrick Sale. Not only do the Feds ignore or misinterpret it when convenient, the document itself is designed to mislead us toward creeping centralization:

Let’s look at some of the dangerous elements of the “real” Constitution.

It starts off with a phrase that, right there at the start, sounded alarm bells in those who, having experienced the powers of the individual states as sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation, saw that it was not to the states but to “we the people” that power would be given. “What right had they to say, ‘We,the people’,” cried Patrick Henry to the Virginia ratification convention, “instead of, We, the states?” He saw that the phrase gave power to an amorphous “people” whom the new government could define and use as it chose, bypassing and undercutting the states. If “the people” spoke through the Congress, it could willy-nilly ignore the individual states.

So as the power of the States is diminished, DC stands ready to usurp power. That’s why today we have an overgrown bureaucracy in DC micromanaging Americans’ daily lives, plotting wars and domestic reconstructing projects designed to weaken self-government and boost the power of the Federal government.

That’s why “restoring” the Constitution is useless and secession is the only viable option.

The pre-election blues

I’m writing this from a hotel room in blustery, snowy northwest Wisconsin this morning after covering s sporting event for my newspaper/media group.  I say this because I have been without TV service for the past few months, so yesterday was the first time I could sit down and flip channels for a while.

Given the fact there were election ads on for every single commercial it seemed during the local news, I’m glad I’ve gone sans television, at least until the election is over. One half-night was more than enough for me.

But the flip side is it leaves you disconnected from what’s going on in the campaign and quite frankly I’m starting not to care about the whole thing.  Busy at work and the pleasant distraction of the University of Wisconsin football team this fall has added to it as well. This is not true in all races. I wish I could have done more to help Mike Krsiean, the independent conservative running for the House in my home district in Wisconsin but I have not the time nor money to do anything really extensive. Certainly a Tom Tancredo win would be a political earthquake and still fit the independent conservative profile. A B.J. Lawson win in North Carolina would be huge too because he’s one of the few candidates running a Ron Paul Republican campaign not even his son wishes to partake in. And of course, who wouldn’t want to see Nancy Pelosi go down to RPer John Dennis?

And that’s why, even if the GOP wins back control of Congress for example, it doesn’t look like it will mean a whole lot, except in one respect which I will ponder in separate post. Conservatives should know by now after 30 years winning elections doesn’t always mean what you think it does. Certainly 30 years ago one would have not expect the America of today compared to back then.

There are some GOP candidates who are taking a skeptical view towards interventionism which is a good thing albeit limited. There are Democrats who won’t be toadies to the White House if elected, also a good thing if they were more consistent, regional and coherent in their views. But for the most part Republican wins will be based in large part on disatisfaction with bad economy and tribal loyalty, not on anything they could really base a mandate on. It’s disappointing not to see candidates calling to “End the Fed” and its disappointing to see foreign policy play zero role in the campaign, giving the Obama Administration a pass to do what it wants. There was an opportunity for a broader based campaign which could have swept the board with real victories and led to real action in the next Congress. The GOP may still do so if the turnout models are right or it could be they simply gain back the ground they gave up in 2006 and 2008 leaving us back to square one and next two years basically a waste of time.

  • Needless to say, I won’t be up on election night watching the returns because there will be very little to watch literally and practically. I’ll sleep well.
  • Good Polling News for Tom Tancredo!

    This is from the Tancredo campaign:

    Another poll has been released and the news just keeps getting better.

    This time the poll comes from the left-leaning Public Policy Institute Poll and it has us within 3% points of Hickenlooper: 47% to 44% with Maes dropping to an all-time low of 5%.

    This is within the margin of error — and the sponsor of the poll went on radio and said this race could be a “major upset.” We plan on making those words come true.

    The other good news is that the momentum is all ours — we are on fire out here!

    Crowds are turning rowdy with excitement. And impressive endorsements come in daily — today, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman joined our team!

    What an amazing run we have had — thanks to you! Let me repeat — Thanks to you!

    4 out of 5 recent polls say this race is a toss-up! And that one random bad poll came from the Denver Post, who endorsed the Hickenlooper campaign last month.

    We can win this race! We just have to get our vote out –and that is what we are doing now!

    I will be touring this state right up to Election Day, and our volunteers will be manning the phones day and night to get the vote out.

    But the state is huge, and we are going to need to pay for professional phone banks to make certain every one of our voters casts a ballot. This is going to cost another $45,000.

    We are so close to winning.

    And while I hesitate to ask again, I simply must.

    We are too close to winning this race to slow down now.

    So I must ask if you would help us pay for the strongest possible get-out-the-vote program that will put us over the top next Tuesday with a $30 or even just a $15 contribution!

    I will keep you updated on our progress. And please know how truly grateful I am for all you have done for me during this historic campaign.

    God bless you and God bless America!

    Tom Tancredo

    Daily Reading (and open thread)

    From the Third Annual Mencken Club:

    Steve Sailer:  “Can HBD Trump PC?

    Srdja Trifkovic:  “Eastern Europe Versus the Open Society

    James Kalb: “PC: The Cultural Antichrist


    Paul Gottfried defends Thilo Sarrazin.

    Srdja Trifkovic notes that Geert Wilders’ legal victory is ambiguous at best.

    Derek Turner calls attention to David Cameron’s con-job on immigration.

    Patrick J. Buchanan applauds the return of tribalism to Europe.

    James Fulford argues that current immigration policies have a dysgenic effect and discusses the late W.D. Hamilton’s views on dysgenics, eugenics, and educational romanticism.

    Heather MacDonald discusses the a federal judge’s crusade against the NYFD.

    Patrick Cleburne exposes Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8) for the open-borders traitor she is.

    Volkmar Weiss, a German geneticist, social historian, and genealogist, reviews Thilo Sarrazin’s new book.

    Blogger “Recluse of the Hills” discusses a possible alliance between orthodox Christians and pagans.

    Roissy in DC reports how America’s future soldiers are unfit for duty.

    Richard Spencer writes about the currency war endgame and discusses Cain Velasques’ “brown pride.”

    Brenda Walker discusses the Democratic Party’s new strategy of pushing for non-citizen voting, notes how Tom Tancredo asks his Republican rival in Colorado to drop out of the race, and brings attention to a recent interview with German writer Udo Ulfkotte who thinks Islam and the West are incompatible.

    Jeff Taylor writes about his adventures with sausage.

    Classics Corner:

    Thomas Fleming:  “Counting People and People who Count


    Byron Roth writes about Angela Merkel’s epiphany.

    Shake Up at First Things

    Daniel McCarthy reports that Jody Bottum is out as editor of First Things.

    For those unaware of First Things, it is a neocon journal with a religious focus, but they are much more interested in the gospel of liberal democractic capitalism with the US military as its prophet than they are the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    I don’t follow First Things that closely so if anyone knows if this is good, bad or indifferent from our point of view let me know.

    The Independent Conservatives

    I’m endorsing an independent conservative for the Third Congressional District in Wisconsin, Michael Krsiean. Hopefully he can do well enough to encourage other conservatives to run more independent campaigns which may fit them better than being locked into one political party or another.

    It’s easier, I suppose for independents to run in a state like Wisconsin  compared to other states but all to better to start such a movement in such a state.

    In fact, its already starting to spread. Former GOP candidate Dan Mielke is running a write-in campaign as an independent for Congress in the 7th Congressional District. Hopefully more will follow.

    Regionalism the new test for political success?

    One of the last of the conservative Southern Democrats evaluates candidates by a new standard: not by what’s good for the party, nor what’s supposed to be best for the whole Empire, but instead what’s best for the people of his State:

    Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, declined over the weekend to endorse Barack Obama for a second term for president or Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as Senate majority leader in interviews with Politics Daily….

    “I’ll support the person who supports West Virginia,” Manchin told me when I asked if he would vote for Reid as Senate leader. When I asked if Harry Reid supports West Virginia, Manchin repeated, “I’m going to support the person who supports West Virginia and I’m not going to support the person who doesn’t support West Virginia.”

    The increasingly disconnected, quarreling peoples in all 50 States can no longer accept a uniform “single best way” to govern themselves. As in the Old Soviet Union, secession is emerging as the only possible path, and more people, including pundits and politicians, are realizing that.

    Ronin Movie: A Warrior Needs a Master

    Jean-Pierre: The Forty-Seven Ronin. Do you know it?
    [Sam shakes his head]
    Jean-Pierre: Forty-seven samurai, whose master was betrayed and killed by another lord. They became ronin – masterless samurai – disgraced by another man’s treachery. For three years they plotted, pretending to be thieves, mercenaries, even madmen – that I didn’t have time to do – and then one night they struck, slipping into the castle of their lord’s betrayer and killing him.
    Sam: Nice. I like that. My kind of job.
    Jean-Pierre: There’s something more. All forty-seven of them committed seppuku – ritual suicide – in the courtyard of the castle.
    Sam: Well, that I don’t like so much.

    Jean-Pierre: But you understand it.
    Sam: What do you mean, I understand it?
    Jean-Pierre: The warrior code. The delight in the battle, you understand that, yes? But also something more. You understand there is something outside yourself that has to be served. And when that need is gone, when belief has died, what are you? A man without a master.
    Sam: Right now I’m a man without a paycheck.
    Jean-Pierre: The ronin could have hired themselves to new masters. They could have fought for themselves. But they chose honor. They chose myth.
    Sam: They chose wrong.

    Source (1998). Continue reading

    Strauss: “Life-Giving Delusion”

    Disclaimer: I’m no Straussian. I don’t intend to encourage the reading of Strauss either.

    From page 25-26 of The rebirth of classical political rationalism: an introduction to the thought of Leo Strauss:

    The decayed Hegelianism with which Nietzsche was confronted preserved Hegel’s “optimism,” i.e., the completedness of the historical process. In fact, its “optimism” was based on the expectation of infinite future progress or on the belief in the unfinishable character of history. Under this condition, as Nietzsche saw, our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as relative as all earlier principles had shown themselves to be; not only the thought of the past but also our own thought must be understood to depend on premises which for us are inescapable, but of which we know they are condemned to perish. History becomes a spectacle that for the superficial is exciting and for the serious is enervating. It teaches a truth that is deadly. It shows us that culture is possible only if men are fully dedicated to principles of thought and action which they do not and cannot question, which limit their horizon and thus enable them to have a character and a style. It shows us at the same time that any principles of this kind can be questioned and even rejected.
    The only way out seems to be that one turn one’s back on this lesson of history, that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth.

    It is in this way that Nietzsche may be said to have transformed the deadly truth of relativism into the most life-giving truth. To state the case with all necessary vagueness, he discovered that the life-giving comprehensive truth is subjective or transtheoretical in that it cannot be grasped detachedly and that it cannot be the same for all men or for all ages.

    In other words: reason has no answers. There is no objective view. Even if Christ is rejected, He is still needed. Continue reading

    Patriotism or Nationalism?

    The difference is vital, argued Joe Sobran:

    Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being “the greatest family on earth” (whatever that might mean) or for being “better” than other families. You don’t feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don’t feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.

    While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it’s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.

    The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other’s foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.

    The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot’s irreverent humor annoying.

    What better example than the chickenhawks who defended W’s every act of aggression against Iraq in the name of “global democractic revolution”? That evil philosophy was based on the leftist mindset that one’s country is defined by the nobility of certain ideals, rather than shared history, language, and culture. Little wonder this country was convulsed with policies and institutions reminiscent of ideological tyrannies, such as the USA Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and, most ominously, government warnings against those who do not conform to approved orthodoxy, which made multiculturalism the state religion,as well as official domestic and foreign policy.

    Fallout From NPR Firing of Juan Williams

    Just to be clear, I am not a huge fan of Fox News and neither are any of the other bloggers here as far as I know. I disagree with Fox’s support for our counterproductive interventionist foreign policy and their simple-minded cheer-leading for the GOP. That said, for better or for worse and whether we like it or not, Fox News is a kind of surrogate for Red America just as NPR is a surrogate for Blue America. And in this particular story Fox News is the good guy even though I have problems with them from my paleo point-of-view.

    NPR is apparrently getting a lot of negative feedback. Some even from liberals. I think some liberals are upset because what Williams expressed was his own personal feelings and not necessarily a political point-of-view. To use a cliche, Williams was being “transparent,” and he got canned for it.

    NPR also looks inconsistent in their rationale. They say he was fired not because of what he said but because he was engaging in punditry. If a station wants to maintain this policy fine, but they must do so consistently and across the board. I think it is an increasingly difficult standard to maintain in the new multi-media world. But William’s firing was clearly in response to the content of what he said (and perhaps where he said it – Fox News) and NPR’s protestations to the contrary are not credible. 

    NPR and the liberal media seem genuinely taken aback by the strong reaction to this. I think this is part of a positive trend. Red America is increasingly fighting back against liberal elitist groupthink. (I also think that part of what is at work here is that Red America has not yet incorporated Muslims into the liberal panoply of designated victims groups so it is harder to arouse their white guilt.)

    I would also note that I seldom agree with Juan Williams who is a center leftist. I do think, however, that he is not a cookie-cutter black liberal talking head.

    Here is NPR’s own take on the backlash. Also note that Williams has received a contract extension and a raise from Fox News.

    Williams appeared Thursday night on The O’Reilly Factor, the same Fox program where he made the initial comments that seeing fellow airline passengers dressed in Muslim garb makes him nervous.

    This time, Williams told host Bill O’Reilly his remarks were misconstrued but that his ouster by NPR was about something else altogether.

    “I don’t fit in their box,” Williams told O’Reilly. “I’m not predictable, black, liberal. And let me tell you something else, you were exactly right when you said you know what this comes down to, they were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I’m appearing on Fox News. They don’t want me talking to you.”

    Here is NPR’s original take on the firing. (Notice the number of comments.)

    Here is NPR’s Ombudsman on the issue. He agrees with the firing but thinks it was “handled … poorly.” But read the article to see what he has to say about the angry backlash.

    And several prominent Republicans have called for defunding NPR, something that should have been done long ago.