RedStateEclectic

Breitbart Lives! And The Hypocrisy Lives, Too

Check out these carefully crafted disclaimer paragraphs from the Breitbart site's story about the fact that apparently Obama sometimes pretended that he was born in Kenya:

Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama's ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.

Fair enough.  But we all know what happens when we engage try to engage there, and start writing things that start like this:

Ron Paul was never a "truther," and he has never advocated the narrative of "trutherism." In fact,he believes, as we do, that Islamic terrorists attacked our towers on 9/11/2001.

 

Yet Paul also believes that bloated and inefficient government was lax in examining credible evidence in advance of the attacks, and carefully crafted an investigation that ultimately and intentionally underplayed the role that the government's negligence played in the success of the attacks.

 And I could do "anti-Semite" too. But what's the point?  People aren't interested in the truth nearly as much as they're interested in being right.

New Egyptian Necrophilia Law? It's A Hoax

Unless this is the only site you read, you were probably inundated (and hopefully repulsed) yesterday with the news that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was on the verge of legalizing necrophilia for up to six hours after the death of a wife.

Turns out it was a hoax. 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0426/Egypt-necrophilia-law-Hooey-utter-hooey

Might as well bookmark this, because the Freepers et al have undoubtedly added this to their talking points, much like the "Afghanistan men marry toddlers!" meme that is every bit as alive and well as the belief that Iraq had WMDs.

If you doubt me, go look around and see how many bloggers have issued retractions.

And of course, these were by and large the same blogs that didn't say a single word about the US military dollars keeping us safe by funding pedophile parties in Afghanistan.

Sigh. 

 

 

The Lack Of Privacy On Facebook

isn't always a bad thing.  Here's a chuckle from the comments section on an article in the Detroit News about the new Dodge Dart.  

 

Actually, the concept of being excited about a new Dart is in itself amusing.  I wonder how it handles on astroturf?

"Ron Paul Republicans Must Vote For The GOP Nominee"

That's quickly becoming the talking point.  While I have my own thoughts on that, I spotted this floating around Facebook and thought I'd share.  Allegedly it was written to radio host Lars Larson, in response to the title sentiment which was expressed on the show.

********************

Hey Lars,

Last week I caught just a small piece of a conversation you were having regarding the need of Ron Paul supporters to support whoever the Republican nominee ends up being. Don't hold your breath.

This is not a personal attack on you. I listen to your show daily, and agree with much of what you say. I am, however, growing weary of the tiresome disconnect or misunderstanding there seems to be between Republicans and Libertarians. While both tend to be conservative, there are differences that Ron Paul supporters are no longer willing to ignore.

It may be helpful if we first define a few things.

1.We are not (and I can't stress this enough) Ron Paul supporters. We are supporters of Constitutional government and of the principles laid out by the founders. Ron Paul happens to be the guy who represents our core values.

2. Ron Paul is a horrible political candidate. He has all the persona of a dead fish. He's not pretty. He's not a smooth communicator. And if I'm not mistaken, he turns 174 sometime next year.

3. We do not support Ron Paul. He supports us. That is why he starts off almost every speech he gives by thanking us for allowing him to join our "revolution". We are not beholden to a candidate or party, we are beholden to a cause - the original cause this country was founded on.

4. Ron Paul's foreign policy is not his. It's George Washington's. That is a convenient little fact that is helpful for many to ignore.

Now, with that said, here is why this "Ron Paul supporter" will never vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich - they are all progressives. They believe that it is the role of the President to lead the federal government in an effort to shape society. That premise is 100% the opposite of what the founders intended. While some may attempt to debate that point, those of us who support Ron Paul for president simply won't debate it anymore. We believe that any debate on that point requires a level of intellectual dishonesty that we, quite frankly, are tired of. Entertaining the debate lends an unworthy credibility to it.

At this point, I'm going to assume (as you do on your show) that you'd like some examples?

Here you go.

Romney - At no point, prior to it being politically expedient, did Romney oppose the healthcare insurance mandate. His only opposition back in 2009 was the public option. The fact that Romneycare even exists, is a testament to his willingness to leverage the power of government to shape society.

Gingrich - This poor guy actually espouses progressivism as a virtue, as he has likened himself to Wilson, Roosevelt (both of them - and both were progressives), and he has gone on record as saying that FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. With friends like him, the Republicans don't need any enemies, do they? But you have to admire his sharp tongue and quick wit at times, don't you?

Santorum - He is one disturbing guy. He genuinely believes that he can/will leverage the power of government to shape the morality of society. He has a track record of promoting big government spending. And what I find the most alarming is his amazing ignorance of America's role in the Middle East since WWI.

Not a single one of them is willing to address what is the number one danger to America - sound currency. Not one of them has anything remotely close to a serious plan to address the number two danger to America - national debt. Not one of them has presented a serious plan to roll back the role the federal government plays in our day to day lives, which is the third largest danger to this country. I submit that a strong and honest currency along with a flourishing economy coupled with the right to self-determination would make the threat of Islamic Terror as bothersome as a mosquito (and that may be giving mosquitos too much credit).

Finally, we Ron Paul supporters are no longer willing to pretend that there are differences (outside of rhetoric) between the Republicans and Democrats. While you guys are more than willing to debate the merit of small trends over small periods of time, we are not willing to ignore the consistent trend, by both Parties, away from the Constitution, sound currency, and founding principles over the last 100+ years. A Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich presidency may slow the tide of Marxism, but will only replace it with their own version of some big government (see oligarchical) utopia.

Like I said, don't hold your breath in hopes of Ron Paul supporters compromising their values. We've been doing it for generations and look where it's gotten us. No more.

If Americans, due to ignorance, fear, dependency, etc. vote not to save/restore America, it won't be because Ron Paul supporters didn't compromise. We've compromised too much. It will be because Republicans weren't willing to listen.

I'm looking forward to
your show on Monday!

God Bless,

Shane Driscoll

 

 

So, You've Been Targeted For Assassination!

From Boing-Boing, a family friendly, civic minded guide on how to cheerfully comply with your government's decision which was obviously made in the name of the greater good! 

 

(Hat tip to Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed)

LCR: When Does The State Have A Legitimate Interest In Telling Someone What To Do?

That's the headline on a post over at Left Coast Rebel.  It is written by Progressive Republican Frank Hill, who has a resume that is (sadly) far more politically impressive than most.

For me, the post could have been titled, "Sunday Morning Head Explosion."  I'm still on my first cup of coffee, and simply in no mood for a smarmy liberal do-good politico calling himself a Republican telling me it's my duty to behave in a manner that benefits his interests in his definition of "the common good."  I wrote a hasty response over there, then found myself wishing I had posted my response here instead, partly because I can't edit over there.  Like I said, I'm still on my first cup.  So I'm reposting it here, hoping you'll forgive me for switching from the third person to the first person here and there, and of course encouraging you to go read the original article.

 

Conservatives - real conservatives, not the Democrat-lite big government brand that want to run our lives as well as the entire world - ask questions like, "why should I pay your bills?" However, with this smug soliloquy, Mr Hill has shown us he represents the wing of the party that the Democrats sent over. He and his ilk have done damage to both the brand and the country that we may literally never recover from. Their spin on that question, "why should I have to pay your bills if you don't behave in a manner that suits me?" is exactly the same argument that the Democrats are now beginning to make - how health care needs to be rationed to benefit the thin, the young and the workers. 

First of all, aside from the cost to the proud legend of rugged American individualism and self-sufficiency, the approach he is suggesting, that government "trim the fat," undermines market forces. It provides the health care market absolutely no incentives to develop new, less expensive treatment options. For that reason alone, most of the readers would happily opt of of their future benefits if they were allowed that option. But since our generation (Hill's and mine) depend on those young beefcakes to fund our health care programs, he's not ever going to recommend that approach.

Instead, he's saying that the state has an interest in ensuring that my children, who will soon be entering the workforce, not provide benefits to me in my old age. Instead, their contributions should be routed to him because he considers himself a more-worthy recipient of the fruits of their labor.

As to the question, "Aren't you going to draw from it when you're old?" I suspect that most of the readers of this blog would happily opt out of they were only given the option, a choice that would also benefit the system in multiple ways. However, what Mr. Hill suggesting with that snide misdirection is that although we're forced to pay into a system we don't want to contribute to, we're somehow hypocrites if we remove our contributions at a later date. Seeing as that it's very likely we're also going to take spend more federal money that we contributed to the program, one has to wonder why you feel entitled to make a case for depriving people of their entitlements based only on your criteria of choice? 

If we go down that path, we quickly find that people are financially forced into those programs, because government intervention has driven the price of cost up beyond anything rational. Allowing the small government minded to opt out of Medicare and Medicaid would lessen the burden long term, as well as allowing at least a small section of the almost-dead free-market to function in the way it was intended.

The "state has an interest" is a horribly frightening phrase, and here's why: The state doesn't have a legitimate interest in me, you or my Aunt Millie, nor should they. You're making the case for specific welfare, while pretending it's the definition of the general welfare. All you're really saying here is "I want a bigger piece of pie, and I want the government to take it away from someone else !!!" 

 

 

 

Politico Provides My Afternoon Laugh

 

Click here if you don't get it. 

Beaucoup Bucks For Begala From Obama Super PAC

What with all the chatter about Obama suddenly reversing his position and encouraging people to donate to his Super PAC, I decided to take a quick peek at who was running it.

Two guys - William "Bill" Burton and Sean Sweeney started it.  Both guys were between good gigs, so they teamed up to cash in on the newest moneymaker in town.

Looking at the numbers, it looks like they each made about $70,000.00 in salary for the period from July through December, and probably got their health insurance paid on top of that. No biggie, really - I'm all about the free market.  

But another name caught my eye: CNN host Paul Begala.   Since July, Begala has earned $160,000.00 (plus another $13,000 in travel expenses) in consulting fees from Obama's Super PAC.  Which might be surprising to CNN, because their Begala web page makes this statement:

 

 

Uhm, yeah.  No conflict there, because Obama's Super PAC totally isn't a candidate's committee. Right?

AMA Proposes Forced Participation In Vaccine Trials

Disclaimer: I am not an anti-vaccine parent. My kids got their shots, including the new-at-the-time chicken pox vaccine. However, I think parents, and not the government, have the right to choose. It's that simple for me.

Not so much for the American Medical Association, who cite the world's most accomplished medical mind computer geek as a source in the opening sentence.  (By the way, did you know Bill Gates has a massive amount of money invested in vaccines? Not donated. Invested, As in, hoping to profit from.  )

A couple of choice quotes. 

"...relying on altruism alone to facilitate clinical trials is potentially unsustainable and ethically contentious."

Uhm, yeah. Ethically contentious. What a great phrase.

"...consensus has generally dictated that payment for volunteers’ trial involvement be modest and limited to compensation for travel, time, and inconvenience only."

So, the logical solution of paying people to test your products is, apparently, too expensive also ethically contentious. 

"Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration."

This should be a "Heh," but it's not funny.  According to the AMA, it's unethical to simply pay people who would volunteer to be test subjects in clinical trials, but it's just peachy to use government to force them to test your product.  

Couple that with the assumption that these vaccines won't be distributed free of charge, and you can easily imagine a shiny new model of capitalism corporatism emerging -  one where we are forced into being guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical companies who will then turn around and charge a premium price to the government's new health care system for the final product.

At least PETA will be happy. 

 

 

What About This? Rand Paul On The Romney Ticket

All week long, I've been quietly noticing a change in tone across the media waves and blogosphere. Suddenly, the bloggers aren't all calling Ron Paul nuts. The media is telling us that he is important in the race. Sarah Palin even mentioned that the party needs to embrace his support and listen to what he is saying, and she didn't get ostracized for it. 

Also, the debates have been a little odd.  Romney is the only candidate that Ron hasn't gone after.  Ron was also the first to defend Romney against the Gingrich/Perry attacks on capitalism.

So, during a blog-n-brunch this morning, DH and I happened to read  Smitty's piece, and an idea formed - one that made my eggs flip one more time.   What if Rand Paul is on Romney's short list of vice presidential picks?

As always, here's the thing: Who can bring more voters? 

Rand Paul is a staunch pro-life Christian conservative, with one amazingly beautful wife and several adorable kids. He can bring in Social Conservatives who might otherwise shy away from Romney's Mormon faith.

Of course, he's also the heir apparent to almost the entire libertarian wing of the GOP, which happens to be the only wing that's actually growing at the moment. (It also raises a whole lot of money.) And while part of that growth is in the youth who don't tend to vote as often as we would like, another sector they're capturing is the independents, and those are  the votes that the GOP desperately (and I do mean desperately) needs to capture if they stand any chance at all in ousting Obama. 

But here's the kicker: Rand Paul is also a legitimate TEA Party conservative. And not the pathetic GOP inflitrated, Gingrich supporting Judson "I want to make a million" Phillips type of TEA Partier, either. Nope, Rand brings the people who actually are sick to death of the spending and actually do want less government, not just more control of big government. 

So I ask again - who can bring more voters? Who else can bring the unification ticket to fruition?

I hear the names Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio bounced around, and while it's true they could bring some female / Hispanic voters in, as well as the TEA Party, are there enough of them to swing the election?  

Of course, there's a down side. It's entirely possible that such a move, if it were to happen, could actually be the GOP's way of getting pesky Rand Paul out of the Senate, opening the door for a more "agreeable" Senator to fill the chair. 

But we know that Ron Paul is a historian, and as such we can assume he knows that the Vice President is also the President of the Senate.  If memory serves me, up until Spiro Agnew left the Vice President had an office in the Senate and spent a good deal of his time actually driving the legislation that the executive branch was pushing for.  Sarah Palin even mentioned that she wanted to return to that model if she was elected to that office.  Is it possible that Romney would let Paul assume that role, which would be especially fulfilling if the GOP regains the Senate majority?

Practically speaking though, while I find it more than just a little amusing that they might be forced into it, would the same GOP that fought hard to keep Rand Paul out of the senate would, in less than two years, suddenly hand him the second highest position of power in the land?  It seems like an awfully risky move for a party that's not known for adapting well to change. 

There's certainly more than a few Ron Paul suporters who would never vote for Romney, period. But to be perfectly honest, I'm suddenly not sure that I'm among them.  After all, the Bush/Rockefeller wing of the party was swept in on Reagan's coattails. Would it really be so wrong for us to return the favor?