Subway, the Anti-Rush Limbaugh Boycott and the Sad Debacle That Is #UniteBlue

A late lunch with 10-year-old daughter Reagan at Subway today.

The entirely negative and destructive agenda of the Left — they hate America, and if you love America, they hate you — has turned its focus to attempting to destroy Rush Limbaugh by boycotting his advertisers. The so-called “Stop Rush” campaign was recently commercialized by Democrat Party consultant Zack Green, who on Friday put up a post called “Boycott @Subway until they dump Rush Limbaugh” at his 140Elect.com firm’s site. Zack Green is also the founder of “Unite Blue” (@UniteBlue or #UniteBlue), about which he had this to say in February:

In August of 2012 we launched UniteBlue.com to connect the Left on Twitter. I wasn’t interested in another top-down organization. UniteBlue is a bottom-up attempt to empower activists to push their agendas. . . .
We are growing rapidly, would love to bring others on board. . . . We are also in the process of becoming a 501c4 non-profit.

The anti-Subway/anti-Limbaugh campaign would seem to be a demonstration project by Green intended to showcase the effectiveness of (a) his online prowess as a Twitter consultant, and (b) his group, Unite Blue. If he can take out this one advertiser, Green wins — he’s the Big Dog and, presumably, he gets more consulting clients.

Well . . . Hello, massive fail: Rush Limbaugh has millions of radio listeners, while Green’s supposedly influential online organization @UniteBlue has only about 18,000 followers on Twitter (fewer followers than I have as an individual) and Rush’s listeners quickly put together their own “Rush to Subway” campaign that led to crowded dining rooms and lines out the door today at lunch time.

There is a problem that the anti-Limbaugh crowd can’t seem to understand: Bad causes attract bad people. Trying to shut down the most successful talk-radio program in America — to silence dissent against the Democrat-Media Complex — is a very bad cause indeed.

Is it therefore surprising to know that one of the key activists in #UniteBlue — indeed, a board member — turned out to be a drug dealer who was fighting child pornography charges? William “Bill” Talley was exposed in May after Zack Green and #UniteBlue tried to quietly dump him from the board and hush up the scandal. On May 29, Talley was sentenced to prison at a hearing in Nashville:

Detective Chad Gish testified to THOUSANDS of images and videos William Talley had in his possession, including children as young as THREE . . .
Detective Gish also testified to credit card receipts found on Talley’s PC as proof he had been buying access to child pornography . . .
Detective Gish: “These videos were so reprehensible. A three year old girl screaming while she was being raped”

Are we really surprised that a drug dealer who buys child pornography of 3-year-old girls getting raped is a progressive activist?

And are we surprised that people like that hate Rush Limbaugh?

Sure, Rush sometimes says things that are controversial. But given a choice between America’s Truth Detector and scum like “Unite Blue,” I think decent people know what side they’re on.

Also, those Subway sandwiches were delicious.



 


Former Disney Child Starlet News

Post-Disney Deviance Syndrome deserves scrutiny as a cultural phenomenon. As a parent, it seems like one minute your children are watching some cutesy little kiddie sitcom on Disney Channel and then — fast-forward — topless photos, DUIs, rehab and nervous breakdowns.

Lindsay Lohan’s Getting $2 Million From Oprah

Britney Spears — My New Las Vegas Show Is Real Hip!

Selena Gomez Talks Justin Bieber
Breakup: I Was “Way Stressed Out”

Do you see the pattern? You could probably do a gossip site — DisneyStarletBreakdowns.com — devoted to nothing else. It’s as if they’re all getting career advice from the same sociopathic managers: “Ditch that squeaky-clean ‘wholesome’ image, kid. What you need is a drug habit, a mental illness and a series of ex-boyfriends.”

Or maybe ex-girlfriends. And if obtaining a sordid reputation is necessary to overcome whatever taint of “nice girl” might be left over from your Disney child-star career, to completely alienate and offend the Mom-and-Dad crowd …

MILEY CYRUS, CELEBRITY LESBIAN!

Or not. But she didn’t exactly go out of her way to deny those rumors, and she’s been acting so skanky the past couple of years it’s not like any normal guy would want to marry her and have a family, so why not flip her middle finger in Middle America’s face, eh? And if that doesn’t do the trick, there’s always . . .

WHO WANTS TO SEE HANNAH MONTANA’S NIPPLES?

You stay classy, ex-Disney starlets. I have no problem playing this for cheap clicks while laughing at your silly gestures, but you’ve actually got to live that life, and I’m pretty sure it’s not really funny at all.

 

Just Another Law-Abiding Citizen of Beautiful Downtown Realville

“Fred, I’m gonna be very honest with you here: People like you are a problem. . . .
“You can get mad at me because I’m pointing things out, but you’re just getting mad at fact, and you’re making extrapolations or interpretations that I didn’t make nor intend. I’m not trying to distract anybody. I’m the mayor of Realville — and what I mean by that is, I live in the world of reality.
“The truth is all I care about.”

— Rush Limbaugh, July 16, 2013

Having been mentioned two days in a row on the most popular radio program in the world is kind of cool. All I did was write a 700-word summary of reporting and research, most of which had previously appeared at The Last Refuge a.k.a. The Conservative Treehouse.

“People like you are a problem,” Rush told his caller Fred yesterday and, as usual, Rush was absolutely right. Outsource your thinking to the media, jump to a conclusion based on what other people are telling you, and then refuse to consider the possibility that there may be facts that contradict the pre-fabricated conclusion you have been spoon-fed by a pack of hired liars. Above all, never pay attention to the demonstrable pattern of deception, the way in which all the artful falsehoods and deliberate distortions point you toward the same political prejudice: Vote Democrat!

Are these media people ideological liberals, or are they just Democrats? How do we distinguish liberal bias from crude partisanship?

You have to wonder about that, when you see everyone on CNN nodding in agreement while Rachel Jeantel recalls how she warned Trayvon Martin that the “creepy-ass cracker” George Zimmerman might be a gay pedophile predator.

Holy stereotypes, Batman! On what planet do liberals so much as acknowledge the possibility of the existence of gay pedophilia? But let this lecture be delivered by a 19-year-old black high-school dropout — “Run, Trayvon! Dat creepy-ass cracker gonna rape you!” — and all the “liberals” react as if this were the apex of wisdom.

Try to imagine if something like this had been said on CNN by a Republican politician or some redneck Baptist preacher who talked like Larry the Cable Guy. Outrage! Homophobia!

But when Rachel Jeantel says it, Piers Morgan doesn’t bat an eye, his liberal audience nods in agreement, and anyone who points out that Rachel Jeantel is an idiot . . . RAAAAACIST!

There’s no way to win. If you point out the double-standards and hypocrisy, this only proves you’re a “right-wing extremist,” see?

Liberals are always like Fred, who objected to Rush Limbaugh’s reference to the facts of Trayvon Martin’s juvenile criminality. They’re prejudiced — they’ve bought into the pre-fabricated conclusion — and your attempts to enlighten their benighted minds are rejected as signifying that you are a bad person, because only bad people dispute the liberal worldview that leads to false conclusions.

Bad motives (mala fides) are always ascribed to conservatives. You must be a racist, a sexist, a homophobe or some other kind of evil person, says the liberal, or otherwise you’d be liberal, too. And that kind of “argument” (the scare-quotes necessary because these are not actually arguments in the sense of formal logic) is entirely acceptable to people who have never set foot in Realville. (No low-information voters here.)

The problem, of course, is that liberals dishonestly attempt to persuade us that they possess a monopoly on intellectual prestige. It’s like the global-warming consensus: If you carefully purge from the ranks of “respectable” scientists everyone who disagrees with the consensus — demonizing dissent — then it becomes possible to say with a straight face that All Respectable Scientists Agree.

“The science is settled!”

And it’s a goddamned tautology.

Whatever happened to skepticism, huh? Whatever happened to the admiration of intellectual curiosity and the mischievous idea that perhaps the status quo Conventional Wisdom is wrong?

Why, for example, are educated people willing to accept without question the idea that what happened to Trayvon Martin can only be explained as a consequence of racism? Is it not possible that Trayvon’s own ignorance contributed to his death? Even if we stipulate that George Zimmerman was wrong to pursue Trayvon — “We don’t need you to do that,” as the 911 dispatcher said — was this teenager completely without fault in that fatal encounter?

Three days after a jury declared Zimmerman not guilty of murder, CNN continued its wall-to-wall coverage of the case Tuesday, misinforming its audience about basic facts. Over and over, CNN’s hosts and commentators brought up Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, despite the fact that this law enacted in 2005 had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. But issues that may have a lot to do with the trial, the networks are willing to ignore. The one thing that CNN and the rest of the media establishment have refused to discuss is the path that brought a teenager to his fatal encounter with the neighborhood watch captain of that townhouse community in Sanford, Florida.
Trayvon Martin was not from Sanford, Florida. This is perhaps the most important fact of the entire story, in part because it may explain why the teenager was so disturbed at being followed by George Zimmerman. Trayvon was from Miami Gardens, the largest majority-black city in Florida, where the population is 76 percent black and 22 percent Hispanic and “creepy-ass crackers” are quite rare. Crime is commonplace in Miami Gardens — the crime rate is about 70 percent higher than the national average — and Trayvon Martin was one of the criminals. . . .

Please read  the whole thing at The American Spectator.

Welcome to Realville, where the laws of logic are strictly enforced. Rush Limbaugh is the mayor, and I’m just a law-abiding citizen.





 

 


Mega-Dittos, @RushLimbaugh! Credit Where Credit Is Due and More Questions

“So what you had here was a bureaucracy that was intent on making itself look good, and they were playing games with numbers.
“So real crimes would be committed by students, not just Trayvon, and rather than being categorized as such they were just pushed over here into another column on the spreadsheet that said ‘disciplinary actions.’ . . .
“The upshot is that criminal activity wasn’t punished.
“And so the perpetrators were never held to account, nor did they ever have to come to grips with the severity of their actions.”

— Rush Limbaugh, “The Left Throws a Temper Tantrum Over the Zimmerman Verdict”

When I heard that Rush Limbaugh had read my American Spectator article — “How a Miami School Crime Cover-Up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin’s Death” — on his radio show today, obviously credit was due to many others. It was Pamela Geller who called my attention to it Sunday and, in doing so, she mentioned that Andrea Shea King and Pat Dollard had been calling attention to it before. But the yeoman’s work in exposing this cover-up was done months ago by The Last Refuge blog.

What did I do? Well, I immediately recognized it as newsworthy. And, rather than just blogging it here, I realized The American Spectator would be ideal because everybody knows Rush Limbaugh reads The American Spectator. Could I have written the same article here, or at ViralRead? Yes, but I put it where I hoped Rush would see it.

So, I recognized it as legitimate news, and decided to write it where it would have the best chance of attracting high-profile attention, and then I wrote it as clearly as I could: “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Part of the reason it was difficult to get that story across was that it wasn’t easy to explain. It’s a complex story and boiling it down to less than 700 words took me several hours, because I had to sort through a lot of stuff and double-check basic background facts. And here is the most important fact of the whole story:

TRAYVON MARTIN WAS NOT FROM SANFORD

The liberal media keep leaving that out, don’t they? And why do you think that is? Because if they told you he was from Miami Gardens, more than 240 miles from Sanford, then the media would have to explain why Trayvon was in Sanford the night of Feb. 26, 2012.

Sometimes, if you pull one thread of a story, the whole narrative unravels and this question — “Why was Trayvon in Sanford?” — is one that the liberal media don’t want to talk about.

This is how you know it’s probably the most important question of all.

Strange as it may seem (or not), the liberal media broke this story before George Zimmerman was ever arrested but never followed up. Frances Robles of the Miami Herald reported it on March 26, 2012: “Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin.”

And then . . . nothing. Even while Robles’ story triggered an internal investigation within the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department (MDSPD) that helped eventually to bring about the resignation of MDSPD Chief Charles Hurley, nobody else in the mainstream media thought Trayvon Martin’s school record relevant to the story.

Because they are a disgusting pack of cowardly liars, that’s why. Some of them were down for the left-wing agenda, and some just let themselves be mau-maued by the thug mob that was demanding George Zimmerman’s prosecution. In fact, the Miami Herald actually quoted leaders of the thug mob in its March 26, 2012, article:

“It’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” said attorney Benjamin Crump. “They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”
Trayvon, who was a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had never been arrested, police and the family have said.
“We think everybody is trying to demonize him,” Crump said. . . .
Trayvon’s parents viewed the new reports as an orchestrated campaign to demonize their son as a “junkie and thief,” a routine occurrence in such cases, the Rev. Al Sharpton said at an afternoon press conference. Zimmerman, Sharpton said, had no way of knowing about Trayvon’s school record — “because he didn’t interview him before he shot him.”
“The only thing that’s relevant is what Zimmerman knew,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not play this double standard of trying to damage who is dead and sanitize who is the cause of the death.”
Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said her son never had any problems with gangs or the police. In fact, she said, when she transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home, the school wanted him to stay at Carol City because they liked him and he was a good student.
“They killed my son, and now they are trying to kill his reputation,” Fulton said.

Let’s leave aside for now this accusation that the only reason anyone would care about Trayvon Martin’s school disciplinary records was because they wanted to “demonize” the dead teenager and “kill his reputation.” Instead, let me call your attention to this: Sybrina Fulton says “she transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home,” but Sybrina Fulton lived near Ben Franklin Park, and it doesn’t take a genius to check Google Maps: Carol City High School is at 3301 Miami Gardens Dr, Miami Gardens, FL — 7.4 miles from Ben Franklin Park — while Krop High School  is at 1410 County Line Rd, Ives Estates, FL, 8.1 miles from Ben Franklin Park.

Whatever reason Trayvon transferred from Carol City High to Krop High, being “closer to home” doesn’t really seem to explain it. Maybe there’s some other explanation that I don’t understand, but we know that Trayvon was suspended three times from Krop High. It might be interesting to know more about Trayvon’s years at Carol City High, besides his mother’s claim that “the school wanted him to stay at Carol City because they liked him and he was a good student.”

I’m just sayin’ . . .

You never know the answer to a question you never ask, and after this one story by Frances Robles in the Miami Herald, it seems that the media stopped asking questions about Trayvon. But that one article by Frances Robles pulled the thread that unraveled an important story, and for a long time, the only people who kept digging on that story were the bloggers at The Last Refuge.

MDSPD Chief Charles Hurley was suppressing the truth about the crime problem within the Miami-Dade school system, and this was why Trayvon Martin never got arrested for his crimes. Instead, he got suspended from school, and I repeat:

TRAYVON MARTIN WAS NOT FROM SANFORD

The reason Trayvon was in Sanford, Florida, more than 240 miles north of his home in Miami-Dade County, was that he had been suspended from school, and was staying in a townhouse community known as The Retreat at Twin Lakes. Trayvon was staying there with Brandy Green, who was dating Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, which brings us to another story the media doesn’t want to report.

Trayvon Martin comes from what used to be called “a broken home,” back in the days when most Americans got married and stayed married, so that kids had a Mom and a Dad and brothers and sisters — y’know, what we used to call a “family” once upon a time — instead of a kaleidoscopic arrangement of stepparents and half-siblings, Baby Daddies and Mama’s New Boyfriend and so forth. Call me old-fashioned, if you will, but I tend to think it might be relevant when we learn that a Troubled Youth comes from a Broken Home.

Well, let’s not be judgmental. And while we’re not being judgmental, say the mainstream media, let’s just not even mention these facts, because we don’t want to demonize anyone, see?

Start asking questions about Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin and Brandy Green — hater! — and you have no idea what you might find because, quite frankly, nobody in the national media seems to have asked any questions about these people. This is why, for example, you may not know that there was a stepmother, Alicia Stanley, who says she practically raised Trayvon Martin for 14 years before she got shoved aside for Tracy Martin’s new girlfriend, Brandy Green.

How many other wives or girlfriends has Trayvon’s father had? How many brothers and sisters and half-brothers and half-sisters and step-brothers and step-sisters did Trayvon have?

Damned if I know the answer to those questions, because it seems like nobody covering this story ever asked any questions like that. This kind of explains why I didn’t know until Sunday:

TRAYVON MARTIN WAS NOT FROM SANFORD

Because if the media had made a point of mentioning that, people might wonder why a kid from Miami-Dade County got shot dead in Sanford, more than 240 miles away. And the weird thing about it is, before this turned into the Murder Trial of the Century, there were people who actually reported some of these facts:

The night his son was killed, [Tracy] Martin, 45, was out to dinner with his fiancée, Brandy Green. Martin, who was divorced from Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, in 1999, is a truck driver from Miami who has a long-distance relationship with Green, a resident of the Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision in Sanford where Zimmerman also lived.
Martin would visit Green on weekends, making the four-hour drive to the Orlando suburb of Sanford. In late February he was able to bring his son because Trayvon, a junior, was serving a 10-day suspension from Miami’s Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School. He’d been caught with a plastic baggie that contained traces of marijuana.

That article by Reuters reporter Daniel Trotta was published April 3, 2012, and  it included important facts that subsequently disappeared from The Narrative of this story, which is what tends to happen to facts that don’t fit The Narrative. Once the liberal media decide to turn what had been strictly a local crime story into a politicized Morality Tale, some facts are more equal than others.

So “a truck driver from Miami” was in “a long-distance relationship” with “his fiancée, Brandy Green,” and there was this 17-year-old son whose mother had been divorced by the truck driver 13 years earlier. While the two lovebirds Tracy and Brandy were out to dinner, Trayvon walked to the store for Skittles and Arizona Tea, and got shot to death by Zimmerman, who was the captain of the neighborhood watch that had been formed in this community a year earlier in response to a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood.

And in October 2011, six months before he was killed, Trayvon had been caught at school in Miami-Dade County with jewelry coincidentally matching the description of items stolen in the burglary of a house about a half block from school. But this wasn’t treated as a crime, because MDSPD Chief Charles Hurley wanted to reduce the number of reported crimes in the school system, see? This evidence was therefore listed as “found items” and the Miami police investigating the burglary didn’t even know this evidence existed, because nobody charged Trayvon Martin with a crime. Instead, it was just a disciplinary infraction and he was suspended from school not for suspicion of theft, but for the act of vandalism (“mischief”) that had led the school police officer to search Travvon’s backpack.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along . . .

Sometime in the past year, the media decided to join this cover-up, evidently agreeing with Al Sharpton that Trayvon Martin’s background was irrelevant to The Narrative, in the same way it was irrelevant that Trayvon was three or four inches taller than George Zimmerman, who said he shot Trayvon in self-defense.

Never mind that, and never mind that George Zimmerman’s mother is Peruvian. Never mind those who knew Zimmerman and said he wasn’t a racist — none of that fits The Narrative, and if you so much as mention any of these irrelevant facts . . . RAAAAACIST!

This explains why I never knew until Sunday that Trayvon Martin was not from Sanford, and why people who have been following this story for months had never heard of MDSPD Chief Charles Hurley. So they can be excused for not realizing that when Chief Hurley started an internal affairs investigation, trying to find out who leaked the facts to the Miami Herald, a series of dominoes began to topple, leading eventually to Chief Hurley’s resignation in February.

No, you never knew about that, even though The Last Refuge had been trying to call attention to it, because the media decided that this is a story about civil rights and racism: Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black, and a half-Peruvian neighborhood watch captain was a fitting symbol of White Racism and Social Injustice, and facts that did not support The Narrative were irrelevant.

Meanwhile — more facts nobody is supposed to mention — President Obama last August signed an executive order that would, in effect, “mandate racial discipline quotas,” so that the methods employed by Chief Hurley are now likely to become nationwide policy.

What could possibly go wrong?

Trayvon’s father divorced Trayvon’s mother when Trayvon was 4. The Miami-Dade schools didn’t want to report Trayvon’s crimes as crimes. So instead Trayvon was suspended from school at age 17, which was why he was in Sanford on the night of Feb. 26, 2012, while Trayvon’s father went out to dinner with Brandy Green.

What could possibly go wrong?

But never mind any of that. Some facts are more equal than others, and Our Moral Superiors in charge of The Narrative know what’s best.

Thanks for the shout-out, Rush. There are some people who need to demonized, and they’re called “liberals.”

 

Rush Is Right: Media Can’t Hide Their Disappointment Over Zimmerman Trial

The murder trial of George Zimmerman was required only to satisfy the national media demand for it. You may recall that Zimmerman was not initially charged with any crime in connection with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. But then various civil-rights activists began agitating, and their agitation was echoed and amplified by the national media and so prosecutors charged Zimmerman with a crime of which, as the trial has shown, he can never be convicted.

Andrew Branca argues that the defense’s motion to acquit should have been granted. Given the weak case presented by the prosecution, all the defense now has to do is avoid errors and Zimmerman walks. So what is the media doing now? Hoping for riots:

DAN ABRAMS, ABC NEWS: “If Zimmerman is found not guilty, is your office ready for that?”
SANFORD POLICE CHIEF CECIL SMITH: “I believe we have plans that will be able to deal with issues as they arise.”
ABRAMS: “I assume the worst-case scenario, then, would be riots?”
SMITH: “Yeah, and I will say it again: You know, we are not talking about riots. We’re talking about rallies.  If people choose to come to Sanford and voice their opinions or if they want to come and rally, we welcome that. We want people to have the opportunity to express themselves.”

After playing that on his show last week, Rush Limbaugh did a montage of media commentators discussing the possibility of Zimmerman being convicted of a lesser charge:

Isn’t it amazing? Here comes the media begging, “Can we at least do manslaughter? Oh, my God, we’re not gonna get murder one, can we get manslaughter?” This guy’s gotta get convicted of something. We’re too invested in this. And short of a conviction, the media is saying, “Oh, it would be so, so sad if we had riots.” You can see what’s being stoked out there.

Listen to this 4-minute segment:

Hat-tip: The Jawa Report. I doubt there will be riots in a relatively small town like Sanford, Florida. More likely you would see eruptions of violence in big cities. Of course, if they riot in Chicago, how would it be more violent than any other day in Chicago?

UPDATE: The screaming voice on the 911 recording? Zimmerman, say seven witnesses for the defense. Ace reiterates the obvious:

The media’s role in this has been shameful. It is obvious now as it was obvious then that this was a racial prosecution, pure and simple, and yet they cheerleaded for it just the same.

Everybody knows this, even the media themselves, but such is their emotional investment in the narrative, they can’t let go.

 

By God, @SarahPalinUSA Is Right!

Last week, a Breitbart News article highlighted Sarah Palin’s criticism of the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill, and on Sunday, she wrote a Facebook post excoriating this “bipartisan” sellout:

Great job, GOP establishment. You’ve just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this amnesty bill, and we needed them to “enlarge that tent” of which you so often speak. It’s depressing to consider that the House of Representatives is threatening to pass some version of this nonsensical bill in the coming weeks.

Palin went on to say that many Americans, herself included, “are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party,” denouncing both parties as “dysfunctional political machines.”

Hear! Hear! Attagirl, Sarah! You tell ’em!

Then, in response to my friend Josh Painter, Governor Palin said she liked his suggestion of joining forces with Mark Levin to create a new “Freedom Party” if the GOP continues its drift toward abandoning a commitment to core American values. This comment was picked up by the Daily Caller’s Jeff Poor (who has always hated Sarah Palin with a blind fury) and was in turn seized on by a Red State diarist who, in order to illustrate his post, used a Photoshopped image to mock Palin.

By a strange chain of events — having missed the build-up of the brewing controversy — I learned of this via Stacy Drake, who slammed the dishonesty of the Red State attack. Quite frankly, a lot of Palin supporters have been bitter toward Red State since 2011, when Erick Erickson went out of his way to mock them. But let us lay aside these ancient quarrels to ask: Is Sarah Palin right?

Not only is she right to oppose this amnesty sellout, but the resentment toward GOP leadership she expresses touches on key aspects of a criticism that the most astute minds in the conservative movement have been making for many, many years. Readers already acquainted with this critique will excuse me for taking time here to explain to new readers the historical and philosophical background.

The perennial problem of the Republican Party is that they are a party of ideas, whereas Democrats are a party of people. That is to say, the GOP since the era of Reagan has been devoted to a philosophy of conservatism — an ideology — while by contrast, the Democrats sit around identifying specific voter groups (labor union members, women, blacks, gays, etc.), telling them that the Republicans are their mortal enemies, and then pitching them with promises: “We’re on your side. We’re your friends. Vote for us and we’ll give you X, Y and Z.”

Republicans succeed when they are led by spokesmen who can clearly articulate a conservative philosophy, and who consistently point out the Democrats’ history of dishonesty and failure: Even if you could trust Democrats to do what they say they’re going to do (which by the way, you can’t) their policies don’t work, have never worked and never will work. People who vote Democrat in the belief that Democrats will fix their problems always end up with worse problems.

Want to see what Democrats do for their “friends”? Go to Detroit.

Republicans fail when they lack confidence in their own beliefs and instead offer voters a “Me, Too” agenda of Democrat Lite. This has been a GOP problem since the era of Herbert Hoover, at least, and was a basic reason why William F. Buckley Jr. and a number of other like-minded people organized what we now know as Movement Conservatism during the 1950s. It is a sad fact that many of those who today claim to be conservatives have never really studied the development of this movement. Too much of this history has either been forgotten or twisted by liberal authors (e.g., Sam Tanenhaus) so as to be unrecognizable to those familiar with the actual facts.

Many of my friends of the libertarian or traditionalist persuasion (“Old Whigs,” so to speak) scorn Movement Conservatism as weak tea, a pragmatic compromise with electoral politics that lacks the radicalism of a fighting creed which can inspire a true revival. As one of my late acquaintances liked to say, the conservative movement is an oxymoron; it conserves nothing and doesn’t move anywhere.

Well, “steady licks kill the Devil,” as they say. We have seen in the past half-century that, if properly organized and properly led, the conservative movement can make real changes. But personnel is policy, and too often the ambitions of individuals — careerists seeking to make politics the vehicle of their own personal success — have put the wrong kind of people in key roles, enabling them to prevent success (and then, of course, to scapegoat others for the failure).

Ability and ambition are not always accompanied by virtue and wisdom. Quite commonly in political life, we encounter selfish people who cleverly present themselves as principled idealists, zealous for The Cause, while enriching themselves and enhancing their own influence behind the convenient camouflage of political purity.

Al Regnery once summarized this problem by saying that the success of conservatism had created opportunities for opportunists.

In other words, back when “conservative” was an unpopular label and a misunderstood idea, people could not get rich or build careers for themselves by parading beneath the banner of conservatism. But the success of the conservative movement during the Reagan era and beyond made it a popular thing — both for Republican office-seekers and for various sorts of political functionaries — to identify themselves as “conservatives,” to claim to speak for conservatism, and to assert that their particular ideas were True Conservatism.

This influx of opportunists has not only confused the public as to what “conservative” means, but it has erected an organizational infrastructure of the movement staffed by careerists more interested in their own advancement within this hierarchy — “The Ziggurat of Ambition,” as I’ve called it — than in conservatism itself.

Sarah Palin’s career on the national stage has involved some misfortunes, which the Red State diarist imperfectly summarizes:

I’ll admit, for a brief moment in 2008, I thought John McCain might actually have a chance at winning the White House. That moment was at the end of Sarah Palin’s RNC convention speech during which she took a mere 45 minutes to eviscerate the 18 months of image building that was Barack Obama’s campaign.
In 2008, to me, Sarah Palin was the “hope” and “change” the GOP could have used. Palin seemed to be more the ‘maverick’ than McCain ever was or could hope to be.
However, shortly after her convention speech, the McCain campaign took over, the Left attacked, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Now, after four years of being the quasi-professional bomb-throwing GOP outsider, Palin is tossing the idea out there that she’s open to supporting a third party.

This certainly summarizes a perception of Palin that many people might agree with, if they haven’t bothered to study Palin’s biography and to assess the fundamental problem: What happens when a successful but relatively obscure Republican with no previous exposure to high-stakes national politics is suddenly thrust into the spotlight — and finds herself surrounded by the sort of vicious backstabbing crapweasels who were running John McCain’s campaign?

Seriously: If Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace are the future of the Republican Party, we are doomed beyond all hope of redemption.

Criticize Palin however you will — say she was “not ready for primetime,” call her a “bomb thrower,” accuse her of greed or excessive vanity, impugn her temperament, whatever — but you must understand this: Sarah Palin is not what’s wrong with the Republican Party.

And while I do not mean to endorse a third-party effort in 2016, Governor Palin has put her finger directly on a key problem for conservatives, namely that such leaders of the Republican Party as have joined The Gang of Eight Liars are betraying the people who elected them with the belief that those voters have no alternative.

Controlling the party apparatus and able to hire plenty of “conservative intellectuals” to endorse their betrayal as essential to the future success of the GOP, these Republicans proceed on the assumption that conservative voters are so lacking in devotion to principle that they will always vote Republican no matter what.

Governor Palin can’t say this, but I can: F–k you, “Republican leaders.”

And while we’re at it, f–k anybody who says we should roll over and accept this kind of phony “conservative” bulls–t as inevitable.

No, by God, I say we fight these bastards with everything we’ve got.

Fight them until Hell freezes over, and then fight them on the ice.

Tomorrow is the Fourth of July, a fine occasion to declare our independence from these vicious backstabbing crapweasels.

If Governor Palin is willing to help lead this fight — inside the GOP so long as there is hope, but outside the GOP if we must — then I say, “Patriots! We must conquer here or die! Rally on the Alaskan!”
 

WOLVERINES!

 


Selling Out Early To Avoid The Rush

— by Wombat-socho


If this looks like a Confederate Nazi to you, you might be a UCLA law professor.
If this looks like a Confederate Nazi to you, you might be a UCLA law professor.
Ripped from the pages of this morning’s Memeorandum, we have this piece of half-witted blogging by Professor Bainbridge, in which he masks a none-too-clever slam at Sarah Palin and Mark Levin with a reference to an entirely too long and (toward the end) insanely boring alternate history series by Harry Turtledove. Look, Professor, is it too much to ask that if you’re going to call people Nazis, you just come right out and say it? Has the law school business collapsed so quickly that even Distinguished Professors of Law are trying to land gigs on MSNBC? And if that wasn’t your motive, what the hell compelled you to post this?


Taylor Swift: A Fornicating Whore?

For years, Westboro Baptist Church has been accused of homophobic hatred because of their infamous “God Hates Fags” protests. Finally, they’ve decided to get serious about heterosexual sin:

Yes, that’s right: THE WHORISH FACE OF DOOMED AMERICA, the pop-country star formerly known as Taylor Swift, has been guilty of “hopping from one young man to the next and strutting across the world stage like a proud whore,” according to the WBC press release. . . .

Read the whole thing, because I think we can all agree on this.

God: A uniter, not a divider, you fornicating whores.