The Case Against Prosecuting Governor Walker

While Establishment liberals bemoan “frivolous lawsuits” and “knee-jerk” accusations of lawlessness against President Obama, they seem to be playing the very same games they hang their opponents with. First, it was the indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry – which even most reasonable Democrats think was baseless. Now it’s the supposedly “bombshell” emails released by an appellate court on behalf of a special prosecutor that allegedly incriminate Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in serious campaign finance violations. While the prosecutor continues to insist, amidst a firestorm of criticism, that Walker isn’t even the target of this investigation, a court filing released Friday seems to be aimed at doing everything to destroy him. The mainstream media (Politico, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, et al.) eagerly pounced on the leaked information (much of which is blacked out), sensationalizing it as a “must-read” exposé on Walker’s Nixonian campaign tactics. Upon first glance, it would seem a bit disconcerting, even to administration partisans, that Walker coordinated with a tax-exempt social advocacy group that wasn’t supposed to be directly involved with him or his campaign.

And it wasn’t.

The Club For Growth, a prominent free-market think tank, ran ads for Walker after his campaign reached out to donors and advised them to contribute to this organization (which Politico, embarrassingly, referred to as a SuperPAC before being forced to correct themselves). None of that is remotely criminal. Walker was neither a donor or consultant for this group. His team suggested that Gogebic Taconite, Donald Trump, and others support them with lavish donations. But why wouldn’t Team Walker want “soft money” donors to support a group agitating on its behalf? It’s standard practice. Politicians of both parties take advantage of this loophole, considering that donating unlimited sums to social welfare organizations (which don’t have to disclose donor lists) and SuperPACs (which do) is perfectly legal, while donating unlimited sums to an individual campaign is not. Whether exploiting this loophole is the right thing to do is a separate issue. Even if you believe it’s immoral, in this case, it’s more than likely legal.

Hence is the mundane and futile nature of campaign finance restrictions. Politicians and special-interest groups always find ways to sidestep rules that put limits on how much can or cannot be contributed to any given campaign: if they can’t do it directly, they’ll do it indirectly. That’s just the nature of things. Circumventing laws through perfectly legal means isn’t some novel idea. As long as government cripples free enterprise through onerous tax and regulatory policies – extending preferential treatment to some businesses over others through tariffs, subsidies, taxpayer guarantees, and other mercantilist policies  – entrepreneurs will always lobby, fundraise, and advocate for either one of two things: to keep the government off their backs, or to undercut competitors through government-imposed distortions of the marketplace.

Is it surprising, then, that Gogebic Taconite, a mining corporation, cut a handsome check to a political organization that had already made up its mind on whether or not the governor should sign a bill easing up on mining restrictions in order to make way for projects in Northern Wisconsin? Is it surprising that Walker’s campaign team would encourage the Koch Brothers to support an organization that shared the Koch Brothers’ ethos? Is it surprising that Team Walker would direct supporters to an organization that doesn’t have to disclose its donors, and can accept virtually unlimited sums? Again, whether one thinks this is morally just or not is a separate issue. The issue here is one of legality, and Walker’s critics have a lot more work to do if they wish to bring out the prosecutorial knives against him.

What if Walker did break the law? A true proponent of individual rights – conservative, libertarian, or even free speech-loving liberal – would object that Team Walker was merely disobeying laws that shouldn’t exist in the first place. One should not be faulted for peacefully uniting advocacy groups, donors, and citizens around a common cause – one that all parties involved find noble and just. Can George Soros no longer donate to Organizing For Action, ThinkProgress, Media Matters or other groups that agitate on the president’s behalf? Can President Obama no longer attend fundraisers or accept invitations to speak on behalf of these same organizations? Just as the Tea Party and dissident Right has resisted the McCainiac wing of the Republican Establishment when it comes to incumbent protectionism disguised as campaign finance law, the liberal grassroots should resist their own purported leaders when it comes to ensnaring a governor they may otherwise detest, in the fear that this will be used as a bludgeon against their own brethren. It may not be the politically expedient thing to do, but it’s the right thing.

He’s Back…

As Todd Akin makes his sudden and unexpected reemergence onto the political scene, in a searing exposé that seeks to expose the media hysteria surrounding his completely reasonable comments about children conceived in rape deserving the same protections as every other child, the Republican Establishment is treating him with a kind of scorn they’d never treat Democrats. (Perhaps more controversially, he also pointed out that psychological trauma can interfere with reproduction, essentially agreeing with the Mayo Clinic on this one.) Todd Akin’s unapologetic attitude has the RNC’s collective boxers in a twist, with one GOP operative telling him to “move to Europe” for awhile. He rightfully points out that, moments after the media defamed him and completely destroyed any political future he had, Clinton – a serial predator who has done things to women that good-natured family man Akin would never do – was invited as one of the headline speakers at the Democratic National Convention. Who’s the real misogynist here?

Taking a position that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul, and Susan B. Anthony once took is now political heresy in this twisted age of ours. Try to defend Akin on any political forum – even one that’s supposed to be friendly to traditional conservatism – and see how far that gets you. No, Akin was not alone in the wake of the media’s self-righteous feminist crusade against him: Mike Huckabee, the Susan B. Anthony List, Tony Perkins, and the real, grassroots pro-life movement in this country all came to his defense. Even if that wasn’t the case, his supposedly “medieval” comments about women and their bodies should be examined on their merits, rather than willfully distorted, as many in the mainstream press were so eager to do. It’s completely conceivable that after someone is raped, the emotional distress can cause basic biological functions to go haywire: the build-up of stress-induced cortisol and the beating the heart takes can certainly interfere with the development of a young child. So yes, the body has ways of “shutting that whole thing down,” no matter what anyone wants to believe. All Akin was saying is that healthy babies need healthy mothers. The outrage!

Todd Akin proved a threat to the political Establishment in more ways than one: he’s done the unspeakable by comparing taxation to legalized plunder and railing against the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. For this, he has been crucified – even by members of the dissident Right who should know better. This is all just a bunch of sensationalized tripe. Akin was destroyed for telling the truth. Akin was destroyed for defending all life, regardless of its origins. Akin was destroyed for a one-sentence slip-up that, while not the most eloquent, was one of the most refreshingly honest things a politician has ever said. Redemption and forgiveness are apparently not in the Republican lexicon: the party of family values apparently makes exceptions when it comes to the advancement of their own self-serving political interests. This party is on the road to complete annihilation, and rightfully deserves it. A party that can no longer defend life is not one any self-respecting conservative should support.

Is the Tea Party’s Twilight Hour Upon Us?

As predictably as dawn turns to dusk, the Republican Establishment is again trying to obliterate any influence the Tea Party has over the financial treasure-trove of largess and goodies in Washington, which has quite a substantial portion of it reserved to K Street and the Chamber of Commerce. In North Carolina, Greg Brannon - an unwavering defender of life who promised to seal the border and nullify unconstitutional federal statutes - was creamed by a turncoat nobody named Thom Tillis.

Brannon, you see, with his ties to FreedomWorks, the Paul Dynasty, the Senate Conservatives Fund, and other non-Rove-affiliated groups - was an extremist monster who needed to slayed and buried with all the other ghastly “outsider” beasts the Republican Party has betrayed over the years. Everyone from Ned Flanders, prototype Christians to bubbly school teachers fell prey.

And family-supported businessman Mark Bevin is next, according to an RNC insider who used to work for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Zuckerberg-owned Renee Elmers clobbered Frank Roche, who apparently couldn’t withstand his public flogging by the ex-amnesty lieutenant for John McCain (now a back-benching, mush-for-nothing Boehner staffer). Speaking of Boehner, he was, apparently, triumphant over smooth-talking J.D. Winteregg, Taunted Team Jeb “Who’s crying now?

And then, just to pour motor oil on a wound full of petroleum, liberty-loving Matt Lynch was slammed with a “BOOM” after losing to corporatist David Joyce by an NRSC adviser. The same people who righteously pontificate about “Reagan’s 11th Commandment" don’t, apparently, follow their own advice. 

Not only is Matt Bevin stumbling upon a freakishly thin tightrope. Justin Amash is, too. Even his Michigan colleague in the House, Devin Lunes, has had some choice words for Amash. He is - I kid you not - “al-Qaeda’s best friend in Congress.” All because he doesn’t believe the debt ceiling is just some hollowed-out construct that represents a mere accounting error when the credit card comes due. All because he doesn’t believe spraying titanium bullets and arming terrorist-sponsored rebels and dictators is such a great idea. All because he didn’t thinking balancing the budget in 10 years, rather than five or three, was a bold enough road-map.

You’re not supposed to challenge an incumbent, but the Establishment does. You’re not allowed to speak ill of fellow Republicans, but the Establishment does. Does “wacko birds" ring a bell? How about "coddling terrorists?” “Waxing semihysterical?” How about the numerous accusations of fraudulence and lunacy imparted upon the distinguished Ted Cruz by neoconservative ring-kisser Peter King?

Meanwhile, the Establishment is getting a bit ornery outside of the primary field as well. Ohio Governor John Kaisch, for instance, defends expanding health coverage at public expense under ObamaCare - a bill he supposedly disdains - because mentally ill people, drug abusers, and peasants will revolt if they don’t get their freebies. Or something like that. Talk about delusional. Apparently, the conditions for accepting that money back is a complete non-consideration. And it’s not just the ACA expansion of Medicaid he’ll fold on. Common Core, too - a data-mining, government-idolizing, hyper-centralized set of academic “standards” - conveniently comports with his allegedly “conservative” principles. We all think the public school system sucks, right? So let’s have the federal government arbitrarily devise some uniform, non-experimental, largely untested tablet of standards to resolve the issue once and for all!

Let’s not permit the Republican Establishment to have the last word on the “electability” of their well-polished men of uber-sophisticated class versus the market “fundamentalists” and “anarchist” fanatics who occupy the Tea Party. As Mark Levin so eloquently put it, as relayed by Breitbart:

While candidates backed by Tea Party members like Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio won in 2010, candidates heavily supported by Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, and Wisconsin all got clobbered in 2012. He also said that the Republican establishment holds the blame for the GOP’s minority status in the Senate, but that its leadership wants to twist history to absolve themselves of that blame. 

"All backed by Rove. All backed by McConnell. And all losers," Levin said of the GOP candidates who lost in 2012, including Mitt Romney. "We must not allow the Republican establishment and their friendly media to work with the liberal media to spin.”

"But for the Tea Party, you’d be nothing, as you were before," Levin told the Republican establishment. "But for the Tea Party, Pelosi would be Speaker."

Rush has some great insights, too. But while a House Ways and Means Committee investigation found that an astonishing 10 percent of Tea Party donors - higher than the national average, mind you - were singled out for audits and questionnaires by the IRS, all is not lost on this unshakably unintimidated movement. Against all odds, those who dared to expose, denounce, and resist the imposition of Common Core in Indiana swept the House primaries. Tea Party godfather Jim Demint is starting a news agency of his own, complete with provocative, right-wing editorials and opinion-filtered news coverage for balance. All as an outreach effort to people who wouldn’t so much as consider voting Republican.

Breitbart News may be an “insider organ" in the judgment of the Mississippi Establishmentarian who chairs the state’s GOP, but it is this and other unorthodox publications - along with WorldNetDaily, The Daily Caller, and Drudge - that allow the Tea Party to spread the message across the nation as far as possible, while managing to organize like-minded activist groups at the grassroots. (For even more “heretical” news sources, try Infowars and The New American.) As long as Republicans keep spending like perverted drunks in a strip club, distributing our tax dollars to corporate cronies, and permitting illegals to stampede across the border with not a single soul held accountable, the Tea Party is here to stay. With or without their support.



Katie Couric’s War on Sweets, Soda, and Pretty Much Everything Else

Progressive Food Nazi Katie Couric is once again making the rounds on the moralizing, “centrist” media circuit - the same one that glorified her as a feminist trailblazer before she was resigned to mere bit-player. Along with Dr. Mark Hyman, she clopped her heels right onto the set of CNN Tonight to talk about her latest documentary, “Fed Up" (which will be a box office blowout, I’m sure.) Apparently, the food industry is the new Malboro Moose, summoning black death and spreading illness across the globe.

Could it be the way fast food restaurants, like McDonald’s, package their kids’ meals? You know, with all the ponies, animated movie stars, and anthropomorphic trucks? Could it be the way soft drink makers, like Pepsi, bury important details about everything from caffeine content to the inclusion of aspartame in their beverages? Could it be the way that Cookie Monster isn’t eating enough carrots on Sesame Street?

I don’t know, but whatever the case, a so-called “lack of action” is not the problem here. One California county already banned Happy Meals. Michelle Obama schmoozed and sweet-talked a quarter of the food industry into slashing 1.5 trillion calories from their products - in less than a decade, it turns out. The World Health Organization has already instituted “global health guidelines" to crack down on the trafficking of dangerous drugs to impressionable children - like salt, fat, and sugar.

If a prestigious, high-minded intellectual like Couric compares the food industry to Big Tobacco, you know it’ll go down as one of the biggest villains in all of historical officialdom. Never mind, of course, that Big Tobacco’s sworn enemies have often been more gruesome, murderous, and morally depraved than they are. As Patrick Semmens observes:

Rodrigo de Jerez, one of Christopher Columbus’s sailors, was thrown in jail for seven years by the Spanish Inquisition for smoking the “Devil’s weed” which he brought back with him to Europe after Columbus’s historic 1492 journey.

Since that time governments have excommunicated, slit the lips of, and even poured molten lead down the throats of those who defied smoking bans. Despite being a pack-a-day cigarette smoker in his youth, Hitler came to consider smoking a Jewish habit and had the Nazi government launch an all-out campaign against tobacco.

Back then, America sent its boys to war with a pack of cigarettes as part of a soldier’s daily rations. Today our tobacco policy more closely resembles that of Nazi Germany. Even the U.S. military, which defeated the Axis with cigarettes blazing, announced this summer it was considering a total smoking ban for soldiers.

In an age where health gurus and smooth-talking doctors (gabbing like an army of mass-produced Ken Dolls) dominate the airwaves, fast food chains serve up apples and reduced-fat milk with every kids’ meal, water pills to reduce weight gain are all the rage, and the First Lady dances to her very own exercise videos (along with Joe Biden and her husband, apparently), you’d think we’ve already been bombarded with enough sermons about the dangers of one of the Bible’s Seven Deadly Sins. Which, of course, just begs the question. “Obesity” and overeating aren’t some modern-day phenomenon (although we’re much better off having children packing on the blubber than starving to death in Ethiopia). No, this goes all the way back to the days of shepherds, sheep, and wooden stables.

So, we’re already very much acquainted with this self-righteous song and dance, Miss Couric. You’re centuries late, and we have all of recorded history to prove it. 

But, hey. While we’re at it - why don’t we throw in something obnoxiously contrarian? Like a study by government statistician and data analyst Katherine Flegal showing that obese people live longer and are much healthier all around? Or the fact that half of all basketball stars are “obese” by the government’s much-acclaimed Body Mass Index (BMI) metric? So is Tim Tebow. Even Michelle herself publicly dresses down her children for not having the most slender and flab-free existence. It’s a wonder how she even lets them breathe the same air as her.

So spare us your preachin’. It seems that some people are just destined to use their seat of power to remold citizens into dashing, unblemished beauty pageant contestants. They stay awake at night, perturbed by visions of carbonated bubbles popping in peoples’ stomachs and small grains of sugar making their way through children’s bloodstreams. For a bunch of Tumblr-esque social justice warriors, they sure aren’t very image or body-positive. We want to befriend these people and let them live in peace. The Obama Zombies want them exterminated through jumping jacks and diet books. 



Unrighteous Indignation

The screwballs at the Washington Post have managed to outdo their usual shtick. What would be horrifyingly cringe-worthy to a sane person is apparently just par for the course in this hyper-“polarized” media landscape of ours. President Obama, you see, is trying to restore balance in the political universe. If we were to believe these delusions of nonpartisan grandeur, all Obama wants to do is strike some common ground with sensible Americans and drown out the “divisive” soapbox that is The Daily Caller, FOX News, and Cliven Bundy’s YouTube supporters.

Rule #1 in fashionable political etiquette, of course, is that objectivity is the providence of Jon Stewart, Brian Williams, and Bill Nye the Science Guy. Anything that strays too far from the Establishmentarian matrix is disruptive, knuckle-headed, intolerant, and spiteful.

The White House monitoring Breitbart News is apparently not supposed to be even the slightest bit creepy. And apparently it’s not at all creepy that the Washington Post actually bemoans, in their own writing, that “cable news networks and editorial pages offer markedly different takes on the news.” 

The horror.

Limousine liberals apparently are disheartened that their media empire - the central command base for allowable opinion, acceptable discourse, and the dissemination of unitarian, “centrist” ideology - is now being outshadowed by the flowering of intellectual diversity. Rather than having a multi-dimensional, multi-geometrical, fully unsanitized political spectrum, the puppetmasters of the subversive PC spinmasters in cable news officialdom would rather have a milquetoast, Bible page-thin spectrum of unapologetic socialists firmly on one side and, on the other, steely-eyed, number-crunching policy wonks who only hiccup out platitudes in the middle of boring the nation to death.

Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe sums it up pretty well: “The media gets more disaggregated, people get more options to choose from, and they self-select outlets that speak to their preconceived notions.”

Heaven forfend the American people “get more options.”

So what does the President and his crypto-Soviet brain-trust plan to do in the face of this epidemic of wide and varied selection? Forget news conferences. Try “late-night comedy, daytime talk shows, ESPN, and MTV.”

Because nothing brings a nation together more than IQ-numbing subliminal messages and social conditioning disguised as entertainment. Three cheers for psychological warfare.

Where did all this hentai come from? I’m pretty sure that’s not part of my default subscription.


May 4th 1979: Thatcher becomes Prime Minister

On this day in 1979, Margaret Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. She is known for her conservative policies which are now commonly referred to as ‘Thatcherism’.  Her Conservative party’s victory in the 1979 general election came twenty years after she was first elected to Parliament to represent Finchley. Upon becoming Prime Minister, Thatcher had to deal with high employment and financial problems that crippled the country, to which her government responded with deregulation, privatisation and reducing the power of trade unions. She also led Britain during the Falklands War with Argentina in 1982, which propelled her to re-election in 1983. Thatcher’s popularity waned and she was eventually challenged for the Conservative leadership by others in her party and thus resigned as Prime Minister in 1990. Known as ‘the Iron Lady’, Thatcher was the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th Century. She died from a stroke in 2013 and remains a very controversial and divisive figure in British history.

(via nicewranglers)

(Source: cultureshift)

Why Rick Santorum is Wrong About Libertarianism, Rand Paul is Wrong About Social Conservatism, and Ted Cruz is Right About Everything

Rick Santorum recently tried to throw cold water on the idea that some form of modified libertarianism might very well be one of the Republican Party’s saving graces. This, of course, was part of a broader effort to delegitimize and dismiss Tea Party darling Rand Paul’s presidential aspirations. The insinuation here seems to be that libertarianism and conservatism are incompatible. The Old Gipper himself would take issue with that: it was, he, after all, who coined the whole “Libertarianism is the very heart and soul of conservatism" thing.

Being a member of the “Leave Me Alone” coalition certainly doesn’t preclude one from being a Cultural Warrior or adherent of whatever lingers of the Religious Right and Moral Majority in this country. As Jack Hunter notes, many of libertarianism’s most ardent defenders are also old-style traditionalists. Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, and others often, not only subscribe to NAP and other libertarian syllogisms, but also find themselves on the side of unwavering Christian apologists, mass immigration skeptics, self-proclaimed adversaries of the gay mafia, socially “regressive” haters (as designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center), right-to-lifers, racial realists, and conservative advocates of civil disobedience who agitate for resistance against the contraceptive mandate, LGBT-approved “anti-discrimination" laws, and a host of other issues. So, libertarians need not be antagonistic toward Phyllis Schlafly or the Alliance Defending Freedom.

What that means is Rand Paul needs to stop pussyfooting around issues like abortion, which will go down as one of the blackest stains in American History, along with Jim Crow and slavery. Whether or not a human being lives or dies, after all, is much more important than whether the capital gains tax is adjusted downward or upward by a tenth of a percentage point. And yet it seems to be the prevailing wisdom - of Republican strategists and Karl Rove-aligned pollsters alike - that the latter is the key to victory and the former is political poison.

If the Little Sisters of the Poor are harassed over their refusal to pay for abortifacients that exterminate innocent lives, so be it. If a wedding photographer, adoption agency, bakery shop owner, florist, or priest is harassed by a gay couple for not violating their Christian ethics, so be it. And don’t dare you denounce the local Human Rights Commission for reprimanding such reprehensible thought crimes. Those who are insufficiently tolerant, open, and accepting of others should be disciplined and incarcerated. Vaccuming out a child’s fetal organs? No problem. Injecting their hearts with poison? Quiet now, you’re gonna blow our chances. Severing off their heads? Don’t go there. Snipping off their spinal cords? Hey, you woman-hating Neanderthal! That kind of talk is the reason we keep losing elections.

This is where the logic of “de-emphasizing” social issues ultimately leads. As Tony Perkins would have it:

Obviously, no president has the power to unilaterally ban abortion, but he does have the power to make the issue a priority - something most Americans assumed Rand Paul would do. Regardless of the GOP’s pick, conservatives expect their nominee to use the Oval Office to advance a culture of life. Changing minds is important, but what better way to accomplish it than using a national platform to talk about its importance?

The Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby are outspoken about the “polarizing” issue of contraception because the State is aggressively trying to make them pay for things they find morally objectionable. Christian business owners are outspoken about LGBT “rights” only because they’re being blackmailed into baking cakes, hosting wedding ceremonies, providing decorations, and doing photo-shoots for gay and lesbian couples. The Family Research Council is outspoken about “pray away the gay” therapy because Chris Christie is forbidding parents from ever seeking that treatment for their children. At every turn, the Cultural Left is trying to impose its will on us through the courts, and freedom-loving people everywhere are resisting it. Why do they keep telling us to “mind our own fucking business,” when they won’t mind theirs?

On the topic of heteronormative marriage, there’s a reason it has withstood the test of time: dual gender parenting - a mom and a dad - provides a balanced, “best of both worlds” approach to the upbringing of our youth. It sows the seeds and lays the groundwork for ordered liberty, civil government, and moral restraints on the insatiable appetite for avarice and sin. It is where division of labor, separation of responsibilities, disciplinary action against unruly behavior, unwritten codes of conduct, a rugged work ethic, self-sufficiency, and self-governance originate. It is a sanctimonious and wholly organic institution.

Men and women, though it is not some unwavering biological imperative in all cases, are genetically and biologically different - mothers typically being more nurturing, empathetic, and emotionally in-tune, and fathers typically being more stringent - stressing achievement, discipline, and hard work above all else. Fathers are generally more geared toward what’s rational and this-worldly, mothers toward what’s spiritual and transcendent.

We needn’t wilt or capitulate before the mob: Biblical truths and inviolable institutions are forever - much more important than elections, ambitions of power, prestige, or social acceptance. On that, Santorum is absolutely right. It’s too bad social conservative-libertarian fusionism is off-limits for him.

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, gets it. Perhaps that’s why he’d be much more equipped for the presidency than either Paul or Santorum put together.