Category Archives: Republicans

The Take Offense Offensive

John McCain, Left-Liberalism, Reason, Republicans

Yesterday it was Elijah Cummings, today it’s John McCain who took The Offense Offensive on the road.

Like any good lefty, Sen. John McCain has officially taken offense at Young Turk Ted Cruz—but not for slights against his own sanctimonious self. No. Our noble neoconservative is too big for such pettiness. He’s taken up The Take Offense Offensive over slights Bob Dole is alleged to have been dealt by Cruz.

McCain the insufferable:

Sen. John McCain said Friday he doesn’t mind criticism from Sen. Ted Cruz, but he called on the Texas Republican to apologize for comments he made about former Sen. Bob Dole in a speech Thursday.

The Arizona Republican said he spoke with Cruz on the Senate floor after his remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday.

“I spoke to Ted Cruz. He and I have a cordial relationship about this,” McCain said on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on Friday. “He can say what he wants to about me, and he can say anything he wants to, I think, about Mitt [Romney], Mitt’s capable of taking it. But when he throws Bob Dole in there, I wonder if he thinks that Bob Dole stood for principle on that hilltop in Italy when he was so gravely wounded and left part of his body there fighting for our country?”

Cruz made fun of McCain, Romney and Dole’s failed presidential campaigns on Thursday, joking about “President McCain,” “President Romney” and “President Dole” in urging Republicans to stand for their principles and not repeat past mistakes.

McCain said Friday that Cruz should apologize.

Cruz is right. McCain is a distraction.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: CPUKE 2014 Is Upon Us

Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Republicans, Sarah Palin

At least the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPUKE) is a little lighter on the bimbo factor, this year, but heavier with the weight of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. (CPUKE usually showcases retards like S. E. Cupp and assorted twits.)

The megalomaniacal Donald Trump, however, is pretty scary. “The business mogul is motivated by the sense that the nimbus of great power that surrounds the US is dissipating. It hasn’t occurred to him to search closer to home for the causes of America’s economic anemia—at Fanny, Freddie, and the Fed, for a start. Since Trump has no idea what’s potting, and is not eager to look in his own plate — he blames OPEC and China for the burdens of doing business in the US.” (From “Sinophobia Trumps Common Sense”)

The Trump plan to reclaim global greatness and glory includes a strategy America has yet to try: the use of force, of course. Strutting around on the world stage, showing those Russians, Saudis and Chinese who is boss: this may serve as a perfect panacea for the deficiencies in Trump’s persona, but is hardly a solution to US woes, at home or abroad.

Sadly, most other Republicans will echo these themes. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) promise to be the only impressive individuals in the scheduled lineup.

And Sarah Palin, once a real beauty, may have tampered with her face.

That’s about all from CPUKE.

UPDATE: Ted Cruz tells CPAC: ‘Stand on principle’:

“There are a lot of D.C. consultants who say there’s a choice for Republicans to make: We can either choose to keep our head down, to not rock the boat, to not stand for anything, or we can stand for principle,” he said. “They say if you stand for principle you lose elections. The way to do it — the smart way, the Washington way — is don’t stand against Obamacare, don’t stand against the debt ceiling, don’t stand against nothing. I want to tell you something — that is a false dichotomy. … ”

… Those principles, he said, include defending the Constitution, abolishing the IRS, expanding school choice, establishing term limits and combating “lawlessness” and corruption in the government.

The crowd for Cruz’s speech, which came first in the conference, was fairly small at first as attendees waited in line to get in. But it grew throughout the speech — and the biggest applause for Cruz came when he said the GOP needs to “repeal every word of Obamacare.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Procedural Mishap Turns Democrat Elijah Cummings Into M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed Person Ever)

Democrats, Politics, Republicans, Taxation

It’s in the nature of politics in this country. The terrifying Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has targeted conservative non-profits and conservative individuals. Yet a procedural silliness has made Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings the focus of attention, as the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed Person Ever) in the IRS scandal. (The IRS is a scandal.)

Long story cut short: The American President’s Woman, Lois Lerner, who was likely involved in the “agency’s improper targeting of conservative groups,” has once again refused to talk, taking “the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination nine times during the House Oversight Committee hearing,” a constitutional right that ought not be available to state officials.

Rep. Cummings of Maryland began carrying on like a crazed man when “Congressman Darrell Issa of California” “shut down the committee hearing on Wednesday when the IRS official at the center of the scandal” refused to talk.

Issa … defended his actions and told reporters after the hearing: “He was not directing questions toward the witness and the committee [had] already adjourned.”

He later told Fox News that Cummings “was simply endlessly slandering the efforts of the committee.”

Members of both parties, though, have apparently criticized Issa’s actions.

MORE mindlessness.

UPDATE: Search engines are probably biased. It is not easy to find the text of the emails released in 2013, that “show that Lois Lerner “specifically singled out applications for tax-exempt status from organizations that described themselves as right-wing ‘tea party’ groups, and ordered that the politically sensitive requests should be held in limbo until the IRS could develop a coherent policy to address them.”

The Daily Mail online has excerpted fragments of the incriminating emails, barely:

The ‘Tea Party Matter [is] very dangerous, Lerner instructed her IRS colleagues in February 2011. ‘This could be the vehicle to go to court,’ she added, on the question of whether a Supreme Court ruling about the status of political donations from corporations might also apply to nonprofit groups.
‘Counsel and Judy Kindell [Lerner's top advisor] need to be in on this one … Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.’


And at The Blaze.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Analyze This: On ‘The Factor,’ Psychologizing Passes As Analysis

Conservatism, Democrats, English, Foreign Policy, Reason, Republicans, Russia

Bill O’Reilly, star of Fox New, has this Pavlovian response to any suggested comparison between Russian and American military bellicosity: he foams at the mouth. Why is it absolutely verboten, on The Factor, to compare Russia’s “excursion” into Ukraine to America’s naturally illicit and illegal occupations of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, on and on?

You’re in for a treat. In defense of their reflexive rejection of the reasonable, if inaccurate, comparison—for decades the US has been far more aggressive than Russia in its foreign policy—don’t expect argument from Bill, Juan Williams and the gang. What you get is a form of ad hominem, or psychologizing.

President Vladimir Putin, said (today, Monday, March 3) Bill, is a thug. That’s why he can’t be compared to “a good country” like the US. (Childish doesn’t begin to cover this stuff.) Apparently Bush and Obama are never to be called thugs.

Why, Billy? Because they’re American?

The other “argument” for the lack of validity of said comparison was that Putin seeks the recrudescence of the Russian empire (my usage; Bill and the gang did not use that word. Read about Bill’s valiant but botched attempts to promote English). Bill has read Putin’s mind, and knows he wants Russia to be an empire again. Hence we cannot compare the actions on the ground of the two countries.

If ever you doubted that liberals and conservatives are situated on the same foreign-policy continuum, listen to the prescriptions for Ukraine of leftist Juan Williams. On the same silly segment, the Fox News “analyst” recommended that the US freeze the assets of individual Russians, stateside and abroad, expel visiting Russians and stop Russians from traveling to the US, all in retaliation for the presence of Russian forces in Crimea (which is dominated by a Russian-speaking population). Williams, naturally, also wants to see economic sanctions placed on Russia.

Williams is an “analyst” in the same way Bill O’Reilly is a thinker.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Bill O And Barack O’s Zero-Info ‘Sparring’

Barack Obama, English, Media, Republicans

During his interview with Barack Obama, which he had advertized non-stop for weeks, Bill O’Reilly acted his trademark abrupt. Nobody much minded given who was sitting opposite him.

Also trademark Fox News was the heavy focus not on the infractions of the healthcare law and the law-makers who midwifed it, but on the technical glitches.

When Obama began bandying about bogus numbers of people who’ve signed up for healthcare, O’Relly might have nabbed him but … didn’t. Instead, on the broadcaster noodled about the need to fire Kathleen Sebelius.

O’Relly did get to the, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance” lie, but let it slide without resolution.

For the rest, the interview is vintage Bill O’Reilly bluster. A lot of bravado and noise from O’Reilly; but not much more.

Thanks to Fox News for finally offering a transcript. I usually leave the page when I see one of the network’s big fat pictures of a video clip I’m supposed to watch. Some of us still prefer the written word.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

MORE Exchanges On Mark Levin

Constitution, Media, Natural Law, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, States' Rights

Contrary to ML, the libertarian reader who was annoyed with me for giving Mark Levin the time of the day (a premise with which I’d agree were Mr. Levin anything like the rest of the radio mouths; the tele-twits and teletwat, but he isn’t)—another reader, a fan of Mr. Levin, is angry that I dared question The Great One.

He quotes this from “Secession, Not Convention, Offers Salvation”:

The healthiest and most intuitive response to deep-seated, irreconcilable unhappiness – political or personal – is not to hold a constitutional convention, Mark Levin, but to leave, to exit the abusive relationship.

The reader then swats me down, as follows:

Ms. Mercer,
Have you even read The Liberty Amendments? Doesn’t appear so and it doesn’t appear that many posters on the WND website have either. Article V is pretty clear and so is the logical and rational arguments made by Mark Levin. Whose credentials, I would put up against all. Your gratuitous remarks about this “radio mouth” are vapid.

You, along with James McClellan portend there is “no mechanism to compel congress to act” (?) Wrong. Both of you need to go back and reread Article V again. It says “shall”. Not maybe, or might, or could, or probably. SHALL. There’s no gray area here and congressional involvement is limited to 1. putting the process in motion and 2. “as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed”. That’s IT. Just because the states historically, haven’t exercised this power means nothing. They certainly have the power to do so.

At the Mt. Vernon Assembly back in early December 32 states had representatives in attendance. This assembly was put in motion way before Mr. Levin ever started talking about his book. People are starting to wake up and understand the “real and present danger” this country is in. Mark Levin concisely lays out how the process would work, what the process would include and how it would be enforced. He also proposes amendments that are directly relevant to the runaway government we have today. If the convention devolved into the so called “runaway convention” enough states withdrawing from the convention to breach that 34 state threshold would end it right there. 33 States voting for “something” would mean nothing. Not to mention the 38 state threshold for ratification.

What is inexplicable Ms. Mercer is your wrongful rationale to shelve our Constitution and in turn, OUR country. Perhaps you should rethink the affinity you have for a nation that welcomed you with open arms with rights and freedoms unfamiliar to your homeland of South Africa. And while “the healthiest and most intuitive response to deep seated, irreconcilable unhappiness” may be best for personal reasons, it’s absurd to apply that rationale to this issue. The analogy is useless.

In closing, we don’t have to wait for a runaway convention. We have one NOW. A “coup d’etat”. Without one shot fired. This regime is pushing lawlessness and a quite anarchy so as to bring this nation to the breaking point. Which is exactly what they want. Don’t think for a split second that obama is not frothing at the mouth to implode this society so that he can declare Marshall Law and do away with the rest of the Bill of Rights. What other plausible explanations can there be for this man’s actions and those of his party? Our Constitution is being amended unlawfully on a daily basis and should be abundantly clear to anyone. We can do this the civil, lawful way or the uncivil way. Do you think that BO would just let us walk away? You’re not paying attention if you answered yes.

Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments provides the answer and the road map. Not the absolute anarchy that would come about from your solution.

Time constraints being what they are, here are some of the points made in my short answer (I chose to leave unchallenged the silly, quintessentially Republican notion that the unraveling began with Obama):

Dear D.,

I appreciate your passion, if not your emphasis on legalistic, positivist law, as opposed to the natural law. The first has failed us:

It all began with Mr. Levin’s hero, Abe: &

MORE here.

As to your claims about secession causing “anarchy”: The only reason chaos—which is what I presume you mean by anarchy—could come about when people, peacefully, go their separate ways is because the central government would launch Total War against peaceful separatists. Consider that! You and Levin would argue that such a war is legal. Maybe so, but such a war [like the War of Northern Aggression] is never naturally licit.

The great Yorktown Patriot Dr. James McClellan has long since passed. He was easily and indisputably one of THIS country’s greatest constitutional scholars. More on McClellan’s constitutional take on secession:

Mark would have to agree, however great our disagreement, that this immigrant is a patriot. He should appreciate any immigrant who has fought for the American Creed as this immigrant has for so long.

I appreciate Mark as a potentially powerful anti-establishment force (witness the fact that he is seldom asked to join the Idiocracy on TV), and as the intellectual the rest (Savage, Prager, Medved, Rush, Laura, etc.) are not.

ILANA Mercer

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint