One of the greatest things about law school is all the free junk that gets thrown your way; I’ve seen a vast improvement over the free junk I got in undergrad. Not a beer coozie in sight, but here’s your free 2 GB jump drive! (INVALUABLE. LOVE. Sell my soul to Westlaw? Sign me up!)

But still, it’s not really free. My tuition pays for access to Westlaw, which certainly in turn pays for those jump drives. Still, it feels free, so I use it and I’m happy–saves me the time and added expense of running to electronic-store-Hell and shelling out 20 bucks for the same thing.

There’s no such thing as free. Even if it’s free to me, someone somewhere is paying for it; that’s why I tip bartenders for free drinks, servers for free food, and cab drivers for free rides. (I embrace the whole “I’m a girl” thing.) I’m about as wiped of the entitlement culture as a person my age can be, which is why I literally cheered out loud in the library when I read this piece in the Sun-Times:

There is no “free” lemonade.

“You must charge something for the lemonade,” I explained. “That’s the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs — how much the lemonade costs, and the cups — and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money.”

Long story short, this guy rolled up on a lemonade stand; the girls running the stand were giving away the lemonade, as well as candy, for free. Hopelessness and #facepalmity ensued when neither the children, nor their nanny–how twee–understood the concept of earning money. Naturally, he wrote a column about it, and naturally, that column inspired a litany of #outrage and #righteousindignation and #omgbutthechildren and #whydoyouresentthecharitablegivingofinnocentsnowflakes.

…and naturally, he replied:

Giving is great, but lemonade stand should teach entrepreneurship.

Clearly there is a great misconception that entrepreneurship and generosity are incompatible. But that’s far from the truth. Just look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett — two of our country’s greatest entrepreneurs, who are in the process of giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to causes they think are worthwhile. But first they had to earn that money!

HOO-RAY. Seriously, I’m all for indulging the charitable nature of children, but I support what this guy is saying 100%. I’m going to be a jerk for a second and make a few assumptions: first, anyone who has a nanny for their kids probably has money to burn; second, anyone who would provide their kids with 3 types of lemonade, chocolate candies, and cups to give away probably has even more money to burn; and third, the fact that these girls glazed over when confronted about their “charity” says to me that they have no real concept of what it takes to earn a dollar because their parents are vapid enough to just fork over the goodies.

Yes, I’m harsh…but then again, so is life.

I’m not a parent, so I can’t say for sure, but I’m reasonably certain that if my kid bounced up to me and said he wanted to set up a stand and give things away for free, I’d have to step into the next room and have a nervous breakdown. Not because I’m against charity, but because I’d have to figure out a way to sit down and have a discussion about economic responsibility with my 12 year old, without crushing any future sense of social responsibility.

I think it’s fine to donate time, money and stuff to people who need it–voluntary acts of kindness are the legs we conservatives stand on when it comes to fighting compulsory progressive handouts. We should encourage this mindset in children, along with common-sense principles of entrepreneurship and smart money management. The purpose of an allowance is to learn about saving; the purpose of a lemonade stand is to learn about profits.

The lesson is simple: when life gives you lemons, make lemonade–but don’t be afraid to exploit the hell out of that lemonade, demand payment, turn a profit, and embrace the #evilcapitalist within. It feels good…I promise.

First, watch this:

Now, listen to this:

It’s not often you see a politician show emotion while under fire; normally, that’s reserved for the activists and the pundits and the people who don’t have to worry about campaign commercials showing them sobbing into their waffles every 28 seconds. Emotional leaders make people uncomfortable–especially those people who rely solely on soundbites when forming their opinions about hot button issues.

In this case, however, I think Governor Brewer’s obvious anger is a good thing, because it finally shows–if I may be so bold–that Jan Brewer is OVER IT. She’s done the dance, sung the songs, met with the bureaucrats, and what has it gotten her? A pretty lawsuit, and a battalion of Obama’s flying monkeys bearing a friggin’ POWERPOINT presentation.

The situation is so devolved it’s almost comical. On one hand we’ve got the President of the United States throwing together a slideshow basically telling a fellow executive officer to go jump off a bridge; on the other, we’ve got idiot politicians rolling over for the minority vote, and US cities feeling completely comfortable with giving the finger to federal immigration laws. I’m sure if a third hand were involved, it would be using a copy of the Constitution to line the cage of an oil-ravaged pelican. (Won’t somebody think of the pelicans?)

The point is, it’s time to stand behind Jan Brewer. Jan Brewer is not perfect; she will say and do things that you will not agree with. She may say the wrong thing, or let a gaffe fly. This is to be expected–she is human. I’m not advocating giving the woman a free pass, but I am asking you to stand behind her on the issue of illegal immigration.

I say this because right now, Obama is daring Jan Brewer to defy his Administration. If you don’t believe me, watch the video again, and consider the abominable way in which he has treated her. He grimaced his way through the preliminary meetings and press conferences, and now he’s playing his cards, the first of which being his pet lawsuit against the State of Arizona. He controlled the forum, he’s controlling the debate, and now he seeks to control the result.

Standing behind Jan Brewer means standing up in the court of public opinion. It means not keeping your mouth shut when you hear people talking about that disgusting bunch of racist pigs down in Arizona. It might mean losing friends; I personally have lost two over this whole mess, but I’m okay with it if it means that by doing so, I regained little bit of control over the debate.

I firmly believe that Jan Brewer is ready to fight; I will fight with her, because I’d rather go down with this ship than have to look back and admit that I gave up and took orders from a man–nay, a movement–that showed more deference to an angry mob than to the honest efforts of people forced to work alone to contain an ever-growing threat against my country.

Confession time.
I am sometimes…mean…on the internet. I’m not sure I’ve ever gone more than a day without making a sarcastic comment, challenging a point, or posting an ironic LOLcat when words simply fail me. It’s just a part of the blogging culture, along with drinking enormous cups of coffee, having a love/hate relationship with Bill O’Reilly, and simultaneously shouting at the TV and tweeting election results. It’s just what we do.

The best part about internet flame wars is that 6 hours later, nobody cares. I personally forgot all about the last flame war I was in; I made my point and moved on. (Too bad the idiot whose blog I was posting on felt the need to delete my final comment and add his own, making it look as though I had kow-towed to his superior intellect /cough and run away…) Even the really bad arguments just sort of fade to black with the advent of the next Big Stupid Thing© the government tries to pull.

On that note, I’d like to introduce you to David Jungerman: farmer, conservative, and initiator of the ultimate flame war.

…He’s not the kind of guy who posts on Twitter or has a Facebook profile.

So when the 72-year-old Raytown man wanted to speak out politically, he used what he had handy: a 45-foot-long, semi-truck box trailer.

He planted the trailer with its professionally painted message in his Bates County cornfield along heavily traveled U.S. 71 about an hour south of Kansas City. He wanted lots of people to see it.

I love it. What better way to send the left into a fit of the vapors than to flame them on your own personal property. That way, you have your say, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it!

…except, of course, if arson is on the table.

That’s right. In an effort to counter Jungerman’s free speech, a few of those friendly, tolerant (I’m assuming) progressives slithered in in the middle of the night and torched the trailer. Twice. When that didn’t shut him up, the arsonists came back and set fire to one of Jungerman’s (albeit empty) homes.

The worst part about all of this is that I’m not at all surprised. Appalled, yes—but shocked? Absolutely not. Our culture is changing. The way people react to the world is changing. Michelle Malkin was dead-on when she titled her latest book Culture of Corruption. This new wave of cool presidents and Big F**king Deals© and entitlement programs for everybody and their illegal brother is dragging society down and corrupting the very way we (and I use the term “we” loosely—I know there are many of us who rise above the lemming herd) interact with one another. It explains how we got from free speech, to this:

This man has a right to do what he did, but around here some people might wonder at what point do you cross the line?

This is crossing the line? THIS IS CROSSING THE LINE? A man paints a politically charged slogan on a piece of personal property, and that is “crossing the line?” You have to wonder if the woman who made that statement (incidentally, the wife of democrat state senator Harold Caskey) was suggesting that Jungerman was asking for it. This is the same nose-in-the-air, sanctimonious crap we get every day from the left—one can only wonder how long it’s going to take for someone to demand an apology from Jungerman, while aiming a flamethrower at his personal home. Your move, FASCIST SCUMBALL.

As I said, our culture is changing. Whoever burned Jungerman’s trailer and house obviously snapped—and yet, this type of deviant behavior is consistently treated not as abnormal, but as a product of our environment. It’s studied and explained away and in the end, the people who are hurt end up being the ones who are blamed for the whole crazy mess.

Get your property burned down by a nutcase with a grudge?
Well, maybe you should have been more sensitive to his feelings regarding political parties!

No.

No, I will not be more sensitive to your feelings regarding political parties. No, I will not be more sensitive regarding issues of race, gender, sexuality, or economic status. No, I will not pander to your fragile little progressive brain so that I might spare you the discomfort and strain of actually having to think. I do not want to hold your hand; I want to arm wrestle.

Follow Jungerman’s example. If someone burns you down, rebuild. There are idiots out there who will make it personal, cause damage, then run away and hide while the liberal talking heads spread the blame around to everyone but the actual culprit. Don’t listen to them; defend, preserve, and protect what you know to be right, and forget the rest…because there’s nothing more satisfying than flipping the #outrage right back on those who are incapable of firing back a coherent response.

And now, for your daily dose of OUTRAGE and RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION:

Hatemongering Mayor Throws Bottle Cap, Minorities Seek Justice…or something

Mayor Tommy Battle, acting in frustration with councilman Richard Showers, threw a plastic bottlecap into the dais at the end of Thursday’s city council meeting. A member of the audience, the Rev. Mitchell Walker of Church Street CPCA, later that night sent a strongly worded email to Battle, as well as dozens of church and community leaders. Walker demanded an apology.

Well, I can just say for me,” wrote Walker, “to see an elected authoritative Caucasian male mayor totally lose his cool and have the utter gall to throw something at or near a senior African American male Councilman … I’m just speaking for me … very much carries ‘racial’ overtones.

The gall. The utter impertinence. The horror!

I quit the world…again. For real this time. Done. Over it. The next person to use the R-word is going to end up in an uncomfortable confrontation with my left stiletto.

Something racist is about to happen

I’m not going to preach to the choir on this one. Everything that follows is for those of you out there who insist upon injecting the color of your skin into every stupid situation that barely smacks of controversy.

Either get a new meme, or stop talking.

When you open your mouth to inject race into a completely non-racial discussion, you make a mockery of common sense. You destroy your credibility, and harm rational people’s ability to address racism where it actually exists. Using the N-word is racist. Stupid greeting cards involving cartoon characters talking about space are not racist. Not hiring someone because of the color of their skin is racist. Losing your temper and throwing a small piece of plastic and a hunk of wood is not racist.

Not racist. Not even a little bit.

I’ve been sitting here for the past 20 minutes trying to figure out why in the world race was injected into this situation. the article doesn’t give a whole lot of background, but it does tell me that Mayor Battle immediately apologized for publicly losing his temper. It doesn’t seem like he flew off the handle because of personal issues, but because of a bureaucratic disagreement.

Therefore, barring any leaked scandal involving Grand Wizard Battle and a white hood, I have to assume the good Reverend rattled his race saber just to see if his allegations would catch on. If true, this indicates a complete lack of respect for Battle–just because of the color of his skin. Now that smacks of racism!

I’m not going to stand here and say that racism in America is dead; anyone who would is either delusional or has his head firmly planted in a large pile of sand. What I will say is that racism doesn’t rear its head in every situation, and it is certainly not one-sided. The battle against racism is fought every day by honest people just trying to put an end to ignorance and hate; why in the world would you make a joke out of their efforts by looking for racism where it does not exist? Impugning the character and motives of everyone you meet with race-baiting garbage does not help your cause–it makes you look like an idiot who has nothing better to do but throw crap against a barn door just to see how much sticks. It’s insulting to people–like me, incidentally–who couldn’t care less about what color your skin is. How can we be expected to fight racism and intolerance when any misstep on our part is sure to bring down a hailstorm of baseless accusations?

In short, your actions preach the very doctrine you rail so vociferously against.

I’ll say it again–I am done. I am tired of defending myself every 15 seconds to glaring, race-baiting zombies looking for any excuse to ding me with a “THAT’S RACIST!” I lost a friend I loved very much to race-based dogma; nothing you say about me or do to me could hurt as much as that did. So do your worst. Call me racist. Call me intolerant. Scrutinize my every move, and scream and rail about my hatred every chance you get. Do what you will, but don’t expect me to turn the other cheek and defend you next time someone looks at the color of your skin and decides it’s time for a fight.

When it comes to California, if you hear hoofbeats, assume unicorns:

California Spends $800K to Bolster Green Initiatives

California is currently mired in a fiscal morass that seems almost intractable, with many in the Golden State blaming overspending by government for the state’s fiscal woes.  Assembly Democrats have proposed plugging the state’s budget hole via $9 billion in loans, whereas Senate Democrats want to suspend $2 billion in corporate tax reductions, among other measures; the state budget deficit, meanwhile, is reportedly as big as $19 billion.

The “feebates” program is a CARB priority, however.  The agency sees slapping a tax on new, higher-emissions cars purchased by Californians, while offering a rebate on new, lower-emissions cars, as a key to combating climate change.

Excellent job, California. Any academic not studying at a leftist-haven university would be banished from the lab for conducting a study that assumes the very underpinnings of the research itself. They’re singing the same old song, touting a plan of action that has yet to prove effective. However, nailing big business and taxing the serfs to death is consistent with the sanctimonious progressive liturgy, so why consider any other alternative?

Read More →

Grab a helmet and get your popcorn ready:

Iranian Aid Ships to Set Sail for Gaza

Summer would be SO BORING without this whole #flotilla scandal. I don’t know what I’d do without it, honestly. If it weren’t for the TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR and/or TOTALLY HATEFUL AND SO RACIST Israeli strike on the so-called “Freedom Flotilla,” all we’d have to look forward to is the inevitable rumor about an Elena Kagan sex tape. (If John Edwards has a sex tape, anything is possible.) Helen Thomas would still have a job, the starving children of Gaza would have their allotment of grenades, and I wouldn’t be getting 10,784 tweets about how much I hate Palestinians. (As opposed to the mere 5,692 tweets I receive about how much I hate black people/immigrants/Blackhawks fans/people who drink Labatt Light as opposed to regular Labatt…)

In all seriousness, it’s about to get real over there. Up until now, the blowback from Israel’s enforcement of its blockade has been pretty standard—just more screaming about how those damn Jews are oppressing our innocent terrorist friends, it’s all a plot to take over the banks, blah blah blah, something about racism, etc. etc. Par for the course, nothing to worry about. But when I read that short news blip about Iran sending aid to Gaza, I got a tiny little “warning” chill down my spine.

I’m not the kind of person that tends to have that sort of reaction to things that cause me concern. A year in law school has trained me to look at things objectively, tease out important facts, and reason through a solution to whatever problems may be presented. So far this summer, I have answered handwritten pleas of murderers, rapists, and drug pushers, and come into contact with people so foul and dangerous the officers at the courthouse are required to shackle them to the wall, rather than risk their escape. I’m fine with that. It’s real life, and I deal with it, warning chill-less.

This, however, is different. This is Iran, and we all know we can trust Iran about as far as Obama can throw a baseball. As I read the article, I couldn’t help but wonder what Iran expects to gain by ruffling Israel’s feathers on this one. Then I realized, that’s all Iran hopes to do—ruffle feathers. Provoke. Threaten. (Because let’s face it, anything coming towards Israel from Iran could be seen as a threat.) If this is really what Iran is thinking, it’s brilliant, because it puts Iran in some big humanitarian limelight, makes Israel look like the bad guy, and helps Iran gain points with the rest of the world–including bleeding heart idiots in the US—by proving that, deep down, Ahmadinejad is all lollipops and pixie dust.

Politicians, pundits, and other supporters of the “Freedom Flotilla” gained major traction by ignoring damning footage of weapons on board that boat, and emphasizing the “humanitarian crisis” that resulted from the loss of the supplies on board. They ignored the fact that Hamas refuses to distribute aid to the people it claims to protect so jealously, and pushed the idea that because of Israel, thousands of Palestinians will die of hunger and disease. These are, of course, all lies, but don’t confuse me with the facts—people were shot! The people of Gaza are dying, and it’s Israel’s fault! If the same dishonest word vomit is allowed to dominate the discussion regarding the Iranian aid ship, the results could be ten times more harmful and dangerous to Israel and her allies. Our current president has already gone to great lengths to bow down and lick the palms of Iranian leaders, all the while distancing himself from the people of Israel, denying Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers even the appearance of having an ally in the United States. Any sort of incident with this aid ship will give the enemies of Israel a perfect excuse to take the tension surrounding the Gaza conflict to the next level.

This country has a choice to make. As for me, I stand with Israel, because I am not the kind of person who allows herself to be manipulated by en vogue social movements in order to avoid screams of protest from borderline-genocidal “peace activists.” As for Obama and his administration, however…I am simply not sure. Time and again, our President and his merry band of thugs have spoken out against Israel, and allied themselves with leaders of countries who would love nothing more than to turn Israel into the world’s largest bazaar.

Israel is strong, and will defend herself to the last man. I fear, however, that even that great amount of heart will not be enough if her allies turn their backs on years of friendship for the chance to kiss the rings of men who would not hesitate if offered the chance to blow an entire nation of people right off the map.

Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.
~Deuteronomy 31:6

h/t to Caleb Howe

“1L,” or the first year of law school, is supposed to be the hardest year of any aspiring lawyer’s life. I was assured of this no less than 57 times during the course of my first day, which also introduced me to the concepts of “cold calls,” and “wetting your pants in public and, surprisingly, not being ashamed or judged for it”–which of course followed seconds after the first cold call.

It wasn’t as bad as everyone said it was going to be, but it was sort of an exhilarating exercise in self-hate. It was hard work; we cried, and passed out exhausted in the library, and set alarms reminding us to eat. We spent massive amounts of money on casebooks, supplements, and legal pads, made down payments on bar review courses, and accumulated years of sleep debt. It was a bonding experience, and—with the exception of only a few—we made it out on the other side.

Now, I’m wondering if two more years of abuse is really going to be worth it. Of course, this is a wry, snarky thought at best, but this morning, after about 5 hours of working on my casenote for law review, a friend happened to shoot this video my way, and it really made me want to light something on fire:

All of a sudden, the “I’ve thought about dropping out of law school at least 10 times today” Facebook group doesn’t seem so sarcastic. I know that this video is from the UK, and I know that we’re not quite on their level yet, but it’s definitely where we’re heading. Pleasure tax? VAT tax? Everything in that video is the product of progressive mental masturbation, and I don’t think anyone with a reasonably functional brain can deny that we’re seeing an awful lot of that in this country.

After the urge to destroy my research abated, I attempted to make a list of occupations where I could at least avoid the massive income tax hikes being thrown around by this Administration:

1. marauding vagrant
2. stripper with a heart of gold, not residing in Nevada
3. SEIU rep (see also, “marauding vagrant,” supra)
4. Health and Human Services Secretary (ahem)
5. being Wesley Snipes, Nicholas Cage, or an illegal immigrant (racist!)

That’s pretty much it, though I’m pretty sure that Obama will find a way to start taxing those train-jumping hobos any day now. At any rate, those occupations still wouldn’t help me avoid VAT or pleasure taxes.

I am officially angry. I can see massive taxes heading my way, because (forgive me) I’m setting myself up to earn a substantial amount of money when I graduate. When I see how hard I work, and how hard my friends work, the whole thing just pisses me off even more. Before I started my professional degree, I didn’t get how hard it is, and how stressful it is, to incur so much debt (monetary and sleep) just so you can practice in a career you’ll enjoy. Before law school, I knew that “leveling the playing field” and “spreading the wealth” was fundamentally wrong and anti-American, but I didn’t fully understand that “leveling the playing field” means downplaying and impugning the efforts of people who spend decades working toward a dream, while exhorting the downtroddenness/minority status/sob stories of people who spend decades sitting on government aid—provided by the lawyers and doctors of the world!

I’m not going to quit law school; I love it too much to let Obama and his thugs browbeat me into giving it up. However, I have a new goal: if I can use my law degree to do so, I will do everything I can do put a stop to the progressive takeover of the hearts and minds of the American people. There is no equity in income redistribution. I should not have to work six out of eight hours (who am I kidding, with my proposed eight hour days) to provide food, clothing, and shelter to people who cannot provide for themselves. This is not anti-human, or anti-Christian, or anti-anything; it is the embodiment of the ideal that one’s right to life, liberty, and property does not create an automatic duty in others to surrender the fruits of frustrating, exhausting labor to others who have done nothing to earn them.

For anyone out there who still feels entitled to a chunk of my future salary, I propose a challenge: sometime over the next two years, spend a day walking in my shoes. I’ll gladly let you spend the day briefing cases until you’re cross-eyed and getting your ass kicked by professors whose job it is to make you feel like you’ve been hit by a truck. Then, at the end of the day, I’ll happily inform you that, of the 20 or so hours you just dragged yourself through, only 6 or so of those hours were actually spent working toward your own ends. The remaining hours were spent working to provide a more comfortable lifestyle for people who did not care to earn it.

The whole point of being in Congress is to represent the citizens who reside in your district. It’s a reasonable assumption that a Congressman’s effectiveness is only as strong as is his dedication to his district; it would also be reasonable to assume that the #1 indicator of dedication to a district is residence in that district.

So, what do you do if you, an opportunistic politician, see an easy-mark election in a remote district? You move there, of course! What better way to manipulate the residents of an outside district into thinking you care than to become one of them!?

This is exactly what Jason Allen, MI-1 Congressional candidate, has done. Although this sort of thing is seemingly commonplace in Congressional races, the people of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula deserve to know just how dedicated Jason Allen really is. Allen claims to be a resident of Michigan’s first district, yet up until just recently maintained two alternate residences outside MI-1. This is Allen’s Lansing Home:

As of today, this home is not for sale. His second “outside” residence in Traverse City was just recently put up for sale. However, Allen has yet to change his primary residence from his former Traverse City home to his home in the First District.

The best argument Allen can muster for this sudden sale of his Traverse City property (for our purposes, his “previous principle residence”) is that he is attempting to be a smart taxpayer, and collect a Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) on that property. This gives him a huge break on the property taxes he pays.

Seems as though Mr. Allen got caught hedging his bets, but he forgot to let the tax collector in on the caper.

I’m not trying to demonize Allen for having more than one property. To me it’s just a question of commitment. He seems committed enough to Lansing to keep his home there. And he seems committed enough to Traverse City to keep that home designated his personal residence. But by just renting a home in the First District, he’s signaling that he’s not really in this for the people of the First District. Rather, he’s in it for himself.

Therefore, I would like to encourage residents of MI-1 to call Jason Allen and ask him why exactly he feels more qualified than any other candidate to represent the citizens of a district he didn’t give a second thought to before he figured out that he’d be more likely to win there than in his own home district.

As if he hasn’t made enough of a spectacle of himself already…

As Economic Worries Worsen, White House Puts on the Glitz

I have a lot of feelings about this, none of which have very much to do with how much money was spent entertaining a man who had the unmitigated gall to hold the floor of the Congress for the sole purpose of flaming America, its (legal) citizens, and its fundamental way of life.

/deep breath

Anyway, the money thing I can get over, because one must not host foreign leaders looking like one outfitted one’s State Dinner with the help of the fine people over at The Party Tree. I can even handle the big tent, with its date rape lighting and politically insensitive-yet-ironic Monarch (snort) butterflies; it was pretty, in a gay-bar-meets-garden-party sort of way. The thing I can’t get over, though, is the utter spectacle of it all. Beyonce? Really, O? You host a zillion dollar State Dinner and invite the be-Spandexed Single Lady to wiggle her butt around for what is purported to be the world’s elite, in a makeshift nightclub on the White House lawn? Hell, I’m in! Pass the Hpnotiq, Rahm!

I mean, really? I love Beyonce, and I love going out dancing with my single ladies, but I try to keep the booty-poppin’ separate from my professional life, which at this point exists solely within the realm of the law building, where sweatpants are sanctioned and professors spot the post-lecture libations. The point is, ONE DOES NOT POP, LOCK, AND DROP IT IN THE PRESENCE OF DISTINGUISHED GUESTS. I think it’s a rule, and besides, does this not look awkward as hell?

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of what happens when you get to the bar way too early, and are forced to watch the creepy people who are already two-stepping to “Sweet Child of Mine,” which is not even a song you can dance to, but they’ll be damned if they’re not going to try really hard to make it happen.

To put it succinctly, this whole soiree was just a big pile of classless inappropriateness. I know that Obama is supposed to be all cool and hip and down with the hot new Jay-Z tracks (speaking of which, I’m seriously disappointed in the lack of hot new Jay-Z tracks…), but there is a huge difference between hosting a town hall meeting in shirtsleeves and inviting a foreign leader (however classless and inappropriate and reprehensible he may be) to sit in your tent with you and ogle a pop star.

This isn’t even about my dislike for Obama and his policies. This is a different sort of issue; he’s changing the way the world looks at America with regards to even the most superficial little things. If President Bush had done this, I’d feel the same way. This feels so Marie Antoinette—let them eat mole! I would rather America be perceived as fat and lazy and obsessed with Ryan Seacrest than as a titillated, decadent joke.

But, alas. After all that this man has done, from endorsing Beyonce’s Spanx to presenting the English Prime Minister with plastic helicopters, I am convinced that nothing will change until the White House is occupied by someone who embodies a sense of propriety beyond that of a frat boy planning the next kegger.

Promoted from the diaries by Caleb

Oh my little Congress critters, we have been naughty, now haven’t we?

I’m really not sure I should continue this post, as it may or may not be exempt from the newest regulations allowing the Gestapo KGB federal government to break down the door to my apartment and arrest me for subversive behavior. (God forbid they see my twitter feed—I’ll be following Justin Bieber’s 647,832 daily updates from the confines of a lovely prison cell.)

Okay, so it’s not that bad … yet. But the language in this DISCLOSE Act (here’s the short and dirty version) does present ambiguity with respect to those of us floating around in the blogosphere. In a nutshell, the DISCLOSE Act is a reactionary pile of garbage born out of leftist panic over Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the SCOTUS held that the government cannot ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions. (It’s a great opinion. Read it here .) What the Act does is require disclosure of corporate and union political speech; however, the Act also includes exemptions for:

“a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

This language is either embarrassingly sloppy, or endearingly sneaky, considering Justice Kennedy explicitly stated in the majority opinion that media outlets are not to be given deferential treatment. Whoops!

I’ll admit, the blogger/reluctant activist in me wants nothing more than to swoop down and joyfully wipe the floor with the drafters of the DISCLOSE Act. The law student in me wants to do the same (sloppily-written legislation ruins lives…and exam grades), but from a more objective standpoint … I’ll compromise and do both.

Read More →

This was originally posted at The Minority Report, and went out with a TaxDayTeaParty e-mail blast.

I was sitting around today, ironing my white hood and thinking racist thoughts when, lo and behold, I saw Eric Cantor on my TV talking about how someone shot a bullet through a window at his campaign office. I want to know more! I hopped on the internet and was inundated with countless articles talking about reconciliation, the tea party movement, and the violence that has recently erupted as a result of the new health care legislation. I was shocked by what had happened; angered that someone would so recklessly endanger the life of another human being; I began to worry that the graduation from bricks to bullets could lead to more dangerous attacks on people who are, when it comes down to it, people. Not commodities, or chattel, or be-suited reincarnations of Adolf Hitler. People.

Then, however, I began to giggle when I realized that Cantor, Republican Whip and scourge of the progressive seas, is Jewish. My giggling turned into a near-guffaw when I put 2 and 2 together and realized that whatever idiot decided to take a pot shot at a Senator committed…a hate crime.

RAAAAACIST © !

If you haven’t been following the news lately, you will undoubtedly fail to see the reason for my unbridled glee. Let me be clear, ANY attack on ANY person for just about ANY reason is appalling, and I really hope they catch the guy who did this. However, I laugh freely because recently, a great many progressives have pinned the RAAAAACIST © meme on the Tea Parties, and have attempted to use that meme to control the debate on health care. Need proof? Check out a few e-mails sent to Eric Odom, organizer of some of the earliest Tea Parties:

“Keep up the s–ty work. You are all a bunch of racist scumbags pieces of s–t! Have a great day you teabagger scumbag!”

This one is also nice:

“Hey Eric, you racist homophobic f@%k
Your party is white trash!
I voted for Obama, a black man
what are you gong to do about it?
Come on over and call me names and watch what your face does
Get the f@&k out of my country a@%hole
F@&K YOU”

Read More →

My good friend Ryan Kazmierczak threw this up on Facebook today; rather than let it founder in a sea of bar pictures and Farmville updates (incidentally, the “little lonely black sheep” is Raaaaacist© ), I decided to share it here.

My fellow Conservatives, I am sure that you are faced with endless
comments on how “healthcare is a right” and how the passage of this
Bill is a good thing. I thought I would try to explain from my
perspective how this point of view, while held by well intentioned
people, is extremely dangerous. This viewpoint, if it were forced onto
the American people such as through this current Bill which will
either be ruled to be unconstitutional or will be repealed by
Republicans in the future, is always catastrophic for society.

Healthcare is not a right. A quote from Neal Boortz explains why in
very simple terms: “Logic cannot support the premise that health care
is a right. Health care is a service that is administered by another
human being with the requisite skills and knowledge. To claim that
healthcare as a “right” is to claim a right to the services of the
health-care provider. In effect, this means you are claiming a “right”
to a portion of that person’s life – both a portion of the time
already spent developing his skills, and a portion of the time spent
practicing those skills on you.”

Often people ask how a Bill such as this one is any different from a
not for profit hospital which takes care of poor sick people through
funds given through charitable donations. It is different because
there is a huge difference between the private charity of a not for
profit hospital (which is backed by the optional generosity of private
citizens), and the requirement by the force of law that a citizen
purchase health insurance or pay a fine to the government and
additional requirement that someone’s hard earned money be taken from
them by the force of law to pay for health insurance for others. The
people of this great country are the most generous in the world with
regard to charitable giving to churches and community groups and that
is the right way to go about fixing this problem. Using the federal
government and the force of law is not.

During my pharmacy rotations I worked in several community health
clinics where I saw this charitable giving at work. Is the system
perfect? Absolutely not, but it works 10 times better than the
nightmare stories from England and Canada where people have pulled
their own teeth with pliers because they cannot get in to see a
dentist for 4-5 months. Do we need change and reforms in our
healthcare and health insurance systems? Absolutely. The Republicans
have never been against doing anything as the mainstream media would
have you believe.

Think of it this way as well; in countries such as England and Canada
people are routinely denied treatments that are deemed to be too
expensive by the government. If this Bill is somehow not ruled to be
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as I believe it will be, what
will the “right to healthcare” segment of the population say when the
inevitable happens and women with advanced breast cancer are denied
life saving drugs as they are in England? What about their so-called
“right to healthcare?”

I want to tell you a story to further this point about a lady named
Barbara Wagner. Barbara Wagner lived in Oregon and was a part of the
state of Oregon’s state run health plan. She had a recurrence of lung
cancer, so her doctors prescribed a drug that they thought would help
her live longer and, at the very least, enjoy what was left of her
life. There was a problem though, her insurance refused to pay for the
drug. Oregon did have legalized assisted suicide and Barbara was
informed that the health plan would pay for the costs to help her kill
herself.

Barbara did not want to kill herself! She had little hope at this
point however, until the drug company stepped in and gave her the drug
free of charge.

There you have it. Private charity vs. the government. While they are
noble and well-intentioned; people who make the statement “healthcare
is a right” simply do not understand the implications of this
viewpoint when their view of morality is imposed on a society through
the force of law. The same Democrats that say “healthcare is a right”
will set up rationing boards like the one in Oregon in order to save
the always limited resources of the federal government. It is
inevitable. When Governor Palin spoke of death panels she was
absolutely correct; Barbara Wagner could attest to this statement.

I especially like what Ryan has to say about charity vs. government handouts. Taking it one step further, I believe (via a Hohfeldian analysis) that the creation of this new “right” creates a duty in others, which is where the real violation stems from. This sort of “creation of a right” is essentially a legal and societal fiction without a correlative duty to back it up. Keep this in mind the next time you get into this sort of a debate: not only is the government overstepping by “creating a right”; it’s also creating and imposing upon you a duty to facilitate its dangerous and overreaching policies.

Raise your hand if you’ve taken a truckload of garbage over your views on BambiCare.

…yes, that seems like just about everyone. You can put your hands down.

The votes are in, and the thing we hoped and prayed would not happen has happened. Since the vote, I have been cajoled, jabbed, and called names. A friend and colleague called me naïve and retarded—which, in the end, was worth it because he misspelled “retarded” and ended up looking like a…well, I digress.

The point is, this sucks. It’s election night all over again, and all I have left to cling to is a bottle of Goose and a well-worn Snuggie that’s seen worse and lived to tell the tale. I walked into my Constitutional Law class yesterday (cruel irony) and half expected a THREE WORD CHANT! THREE WORD CHANT! THREE WORD CHANT! as I walked in the door, and all the while I couldn’t help but wonder, if this bill, which for all intensive purposes is a blank piece of paper, can pass with thunderous applause, what’s next?

Then I went on the internet, clicked over to my favorite aggregate news source which shall not be named here due to lefty and otherwise supercilious content, and saw the future staring right back at me:

Free Speech in Canada–a Fairy Story

Long story short, Canada is attempting to censor Ann Coulter. Here’s the letter she received from University of Ottawa (all emphasis mine):

Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
François Houle.

(FYI, this guy’s contact information is attached to the letter, so follow the link and give this guy hell.)

Anyway, we need to talk about this, first and foremost because it’s going to be AWESOME to watch Ann neuter this guy, and second, because this crock of crap is exactly what we’re being fed by progressives in the Administration, and at large. Look closely:

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.
…
Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

This is real life. Listen, I have a lot of friends from Canada, and I can tell you with unequivocal certainty that “free speech” means something different to them than it does to you and me. (Not to mention the fact that their “conservative” party makes the Pelosi-ites look like a bunch of missionaries hailing from a southern baptist church in Texas.) “Offending people”–at least in the sociopolitical sense—is just NOT something that is an option to most of my Canadian cohorts.

I’m not saying this to hate on Canada, or suggest that Canadians live in some sort of totalitarian Nazi regime where speaking your mind can land you in jail. (At least, I’m not suggesting the “Nazi” part.) I am, however, suggesting that Canadians have been living with a muzzle for so long that they are now inclined to defend the actions of this university administrator, rather than truly welcome the free, civilized exchange of ideas they pretend to guard so jealously. (Read the comments…there’s an awful lot of “Coulter should be allowed to speak if…” hidden in there.)

I do not think it’s out of line to suggest that if we lovers of personal freedom and expression do not stand up soon, this is our bleak, bleak future. I also do not think that this Administration (or it’s progeny) will go so far as to completely strip the American people of their right to speak freely. I do, however, completely and without reservation, believe that progressives in this country are working very hard to establish the simpering standard embodied in Houle’s letter to Coulter. One more time:

Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

We see it every day. Progressives decried any intellectually honest debate regarding the piece of crap legislation that was passed this weekend because it would discriminate against/threaten/offend/upset/ruffle all of the unwed mothers/minorities/orphans/vegans/homosexuals/feminists/art students who so desperately need my unborn children to pay for their 15 completely non-elective abortions. Discussion of immigration reform is not allowed, because any solution other than “let everyone in, and make everyone who is here a citizen” is Raaaaacist©. Talking about the moral objections to gay marriage is hate speech, and any mention at all of Christian principles, or even the beliefs and goals of our founding fathers, is deemed unacceptable.

…and these people are in charge.

This weekend, teh Wons in power proved to the country and to the world that they are not afraid to strong-arm their way into heading the next great Nanny State. They took a stand against the will of the people, and in the face of enormous opposition, furthered their selfish ambitions with a piece of legislation that contains clauses and provisions yet unknown to even its most stringent supporters. The first step to restricting speech altogether is to make the true exercise of free speech itself meaningless, and this is what the progressives think they have succeeded in doing.

What happened this weekend is bigger than health care, or “leveling the playing field,” or any other stupid meme the progressives choose to attach to this monstrosity we’re stuck with. This bill represents the progressive desire to restrict, repress and control personal freedom, personal preference, and personal responsibility, all in the name of the “greater good.” This is why we fight; because they’re the one’s defining exactly what it is that means, and that definition will eventually mean the difference between cherished liberty, and unsustainable tyranny.

I’ve taken a lot of flack for my involvement in the Tea Party movement. The fact that I added “Proud 9/12′er” to my activities on Facebook caused a two-day commotion, in which I was labeled a racist (by default), a misogynist (why not?), a militia-loving anarchist, a homophobe, and (the horror) a Paul-ite Libertarian.

I was able to get over it, except for the thing about me being a Libertarian.

At any rate, the slurs didn’t bother me, because I believed (and still do) that the Tea Party movement is important to maintaining a sense of hope (not to be confused with Hope© ) and motivation within the conservative base. They shouldn’t bother you either—people fear what they don’t understand, and the front page of today’s New York Times provides conclusive proof that people—at least the sort of people who work at the Times—do not understand the Tea Party movement.

It’s not just the Times, either. Dinner last night turned into a 2 hour affair in which I and three of my girlfriends hashed through current events, and how they relate to relative Left and Right ideology. It was interesting to see how public perception of the Tea Parties and the grassroots conservative movement at large has shaped how even my friends see me with regards to political ideology. For a movement that has been classified as “directionless” and “disorganized,” I heard an awful lot of comments about the Tea Parties start with phrases like “they believe” and “what it all comes down to is…” as if the benevolent VRWC is some sort of Dollhouse-esque (nerd points!) brainwashing club, where our hero Glenn Beck sits us down in a chair and imprints us with dangerous and angry ideas about Constitutional rights and freedom from tyranny.

I did my best to quash the Lefty-version of what the Tea Parties stand for, but mid-rant I discovered that defending the Tea Parties against every criticism is nearly impossible to do, simply because of the movement’s “directionless” and “disorganized” nature. Since I was with friends, it was a bit easier for me to explain where we’re coming from, since they pretty much know I’m not a violent anarchist who hates on black people and thinks Pat Robertson has a good point about Haiti. The issue at large, however, is a difficult one to tackle, and this is evidenced by the subtle mudslinging and disparaging commentary provided by this morning’s Times.

I’ve got to hand it to them—this piece wasn’t as bad as I anticipated. When I sat down to read it, I half expected to be choking on my Fat Tuesday donut (don’t judge) by the end of the first column. The whole thing lacked the usual venom (they only mentioned Bush twice!) but at the same time, was extraordinarily…backhanded. Sneaky. There are few truthiness problems—apart from the sweeping generalizations we’ve come to know and love from our friends in New York—but what I take issue with is the web the author weaves between your average Tea Party activist and separatist/militia/crazy pants extremist groups, extreme anti-tax groups, Ron Paul (I’m sorry, I can’t, don’t hate me), and the fine people over at WorldNutDaily.

Unlike most people who like to talk trash about the Tea Party movement, I actually went to a Tea Party last April. (SHOCK. AWE. GASP. Lock the doors and hide your children.) I will be the first to admit that the Tampa gathering was not free from conspiracy theorists and racially insensitive signs. However, what I will say, and what the Times piece conveniently fails to mention, is that the honest patriots greatly outnumbered the witless jackasses, and it was those honest patriots who avoided the witless jackasses like the plague. By the end of the rally, we’d made it abundantly clear that their brand of “patriotism,” motivated by fear and anger, was not welcome in our midst. We were all working for change (not to be confused with Change© ), but their brand of change was not consistent with our brand of change. Their motivation and end was anger; our motivation was for reform born from a frustration with the status quo. Their goal is destruction; our goal is tearing down and rebuilding in a manner consistent with the Constitution, American values, and ideas of individual liberty.

I do not fear the government—I do not have enough respect for the government to fear it. I am not a birther or a truther or a rabid, paranoid protestor, and I do not want anything to do with any movement that seeks to promote one person’s liberty at the expense of another, even if that means fighting tooth and nail for Markos Moulitsas’ right to post disparaging comments about Trig Palin on a daily basis. (Yikes. I know.) I am, however, a reluctant activist who believes that the current Administration is corrupt, and that my President plays second fiddle to the whims and worries of very small men. I am not a violent extremist, but I will fight on behalf of the Constitution if I see that its principles are being threatened by irresponsible legislation and out-of-control executive power grabs. I don’t promise this because I hate Obama (I don’t) or because I’m still bitter about Republicans losing power (I’m not,) but because I hate any policy that treats the Constitution like yesterday’s garbage.

I wonder what the New York Times would have to say about that?

h/t to Warner Todd Huston

Is this real life?

Captain America Says Tea Parties are Dangerous and Racist

Facepalm. Whargarbl. ZOMG, WTF, etc. Throw in a little #SNOMG.

I couldn’t really care less whether or not raving liberals call me names; it’s what they do best, and who am I to rob them of one of their few sources of entertainment? This, however, is outrageous: they’re using a cartoon–a kid’s superhero–to influence the court of public opinion against a movement that threatens to crush their destructive “progressive” agenda.

Amazing that a hero who once fought for liberty of speech and expression could flip-flop faster than Olympia Snowe (R-idiculous) faced with health care legislation.

I don’t know what else to say other than, “fight this.” Break taboos–argue about politics. Be a jerk about it if you have to. It’s time to show the left that we mean business. To do anything else is to roll over and allow this garbage to seize the hearts and minds of the American people, and acquiesce to the leftist dream of a lock-stepping zombie populace.

I love the military.

I don’t come from a military family per se, but my daddy was a SEAL in Vietnam, and I’ve been taught a healthy respect and gratitude for the men and women who keep me safe everyday.

I do not tolerate careless, salacious, or hypercritical, ignorant comments about the United States Military.

So, needless to say, when I saw this little gem today (h/t to Janis for bringing it to my attention) I not only spat Diet Coke all over my laptop…I also fought the urge to puke onto my keyboard:

The Death Book for Veterans

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”

Lovely. A while into the article, Jim Towey gives us a few glowing examples of exactly what’s included in this friendly little document:

“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”

I’ll give you a minute to clean up the vomit.

Until I Googled it, I didn’t really know what the VA “Death Book” was. Now I know, and I’m afraid of it. I have to admit that until today, I haven’t really been afraid of what’s going on in Washington. I’ve been concerned, and I’ve made a lot of noise about what I feel are irresponsible policy decisions, but I never even came close to fear.

This thing scares me, and here’s why: if the Administration holds such little regard for the lives of people who put their lives on the line to defend America’s right and ability to exist, how does the Administration regard my life? (Sounds selfish, but I’m really not. Just hear me out.) America’s soldiers are heroes: they spend a great deal of time living in the gutter of global society, putting their lives on the line (and sometimes even taking lives, which is unimaginably horrifying no matter how you look at it) so the rest of us don’t have to go to bed at night wondering whether or not there will be a tomorrow.

And these are the people that the self-righteous bastards inside the beltway want to put to sleep, just as they would an old, lame dog.

I can’t imagine what they’d do to me if I was somehow incapacitated or otherwise rendered useless to the well-being of society, or however it is they’ve decided to sugar-coat this monstrous initiative. Wake up call! I wonder if any of the people who support this policy have thought about it that way.

Since I’m in the mood to make dramatic declarations, here’s one you can write down and hold me to:

I promise, here and now, that if I can use my law degree to do so, I will take down each and every one of the disgusting, soulless monsters who wrote and support this despicable document. I will be graduating law school in 2012 (go figure) so if Obama gets reelected, I’ll have my work cut out for me. I will not in good conscience allow this sort of thing to happen if I do indeed have the power to fight it.

Got that? That means you, Dr. Robert Pearlman, and you too, President Barack Hussein Obama. I am not prepared to be nice about this. What you have done with your death book is demean, impugn, and disrespect those for which you should fall to your knees every night and thank God; without them, you might be dead. Or under the rule of a totalitarian dictator. Without them, our country would have gone down in flames a long time ago–and you would have gone down with it.

Crossposted at The Minority Report

I don’t normally pay a lot of attention to people I don’t particularly care about. I’ve been called enough names and accused of enough BS to know that the battle usually isn’t worth my time.

But this one was just too much fun to pass up.

If you know me or my writing at all, you’ll know I have a bit of a history regarding the writings of the lovely Meghan McCain. To make a long story short, we tend to disagree on…things, and stuff: namely, on the fact that she’s a conservative, and that I am an extreme right-wing meanie who hates gays and wants to shoot illegal immigrants as they come across the border.

Par for the course.

At any rate, Meghan recently put out her latest finger-wagging admonition against the GOP in the form of a formal declaration of war against Michelle Malkin, people without tattoos, and “the extreme right wing.” Interesting concept, considering 1) people like Michelle (and I) are nowhere near “extreme” and 2) Miss McCain herself claims to be absolutely conservative. Cute how that works out.

Personally, I don’t really care whether or not Meghan McCain shuts up or keeps flapping her jaws until the day she dies. What I don’t appreciate, and what I think most conservative pundits who have come under fire for criticizing her don’t appreciate, is the fact that she does exactly what she abhors and condemns in the “far right wing” of the GOP: the seeks to realize her agenda by way of pushing other people out of the party! Her telling me to shut up is the same as me telling her to shut up.

In short, her logic fails. Miserably.

Anyway, let’s wade through this thing and rip her apart, shall we? I know it’s what you’ve been waiting for.

So Michelle Malkin successfully rounds out the trifecta of extreme female conservative pundits, following Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, who believe that I, and Republicans like me, need to shut up and get out of the party…What do Malkin and the other conservative pundits hope to accomplish by arguing that people “like me” have no place within the Republican Party? And who exactly are people “like me”? Young people? Moderate people? Young female people? People with tattoos who go to biker rallies?

True…the trifecta of fabulous conservative snark is indeed in play. First of all, I’d like to say that women tend to be a little…bitchy…when it comes to criticizing the work and wisdom of other women. I know I am, which is fine, as long as you can back up the bitchiness with crazy things like facts and smart commentary and whatnot. This is not the case with Meghan. Is she not, essentially, telling people to shut up and get out of her way? Is that not what she complains about every 15 seconds on Twitter? Fantastic.

Then comes the “I’m going to SHOCK them with my tattoos and bad behavior!!!!!” part of the post. It’s really my favorite part, because 1) she’s assuming that all young people are just like her and 2) that no conservative in the history of the universe has ever gotten a tattoo or ridden a motorcycle. Also, cute how she accidentally labeled herself a “moderate”…did you see that? At least she’s finally admitting it.

I don’t know exactly what about me threatens them so much, other than that people are listening to me. Malkin has the No. 1 book on The New York Times bestseller hardcover nonfiction list, but I have nearly twice as many Twitter followers as she does. And trust me, Twitter is more of an indication of where young people are than books published by the hyper-conservative publisher Regnery—which will be bringing you Carrie Prejean’s new book and published one of Ann Coulter’s.

Okay…exactly who is threatened here? Comparing NYT bestsellers to Twitter followers? Really? Trust me, Meghan, if you took away people like me who follow you for pure entertainment purposes, you’d be significantly less proud of your follower count. (Which applies to all of us, actually, but who cares?) Plus, young people aren’t the only people who count. And for the record, I’m young and I read books, so there goes that piece of logic.

There is a place for the far right in this party, Malkin included, and I respect their right to be heard. But the Republican Party will continue to lose elections unless we start reaching out in a more effective way to people my age and to moderates. Barack Obama won the last election on the slogan “Yes We Can,” and there is no reason why Republicans can’t go forth and win elections with equally positive messages. We will not get anywhere by continuing to sell hate and fear…The old conservatives of the past need to start accepting that this is a new era and I am a part of a new generation. I am as sick of the infighting as everyone else, but I would like to point out that I am not the one starting this fight or demanding that the other half of the party leave.

Uh huh. There’s a place for me, a member of the “far right” crazy mob, but we should probably shut up so we don’t offend the sensibilities of those members of the party with questionable morals and an overwhelming desire to please everyone. Got that, everyone? Moe? Erick? EPU? STOP OFFENDING PEOPLE! It’s your fault we’re losing elections. Wake up, think young, and get serious. We, the youth of the world, have our iPods, our motorcycles, and our tattoos, and we’re taking over. And we’re going to be POSITIVE about it, because God knows all of your hateful fear mongering over the years has completely destroyed any chance the Republicans have of kissing the butts of people who live to destroy conservatives. UGH. Now my buzz is totally harshed. Thanks a lot.

It’s true that Democrats make being a member appealing in a much different way than the Republican Party does. The Democrats seem to have mastered inclusiveness—whereas Republicans, like a country club, seem to require a litmus test.

Ah. This is it. The motherload. The epic finger-wag we’ve all been waiting for. I’m so…ashamed of myself. I mean, here I was, sticking to my principles and working hard to prove that it’s possible for young people like myself to appreciate conservatism without compromising every time our values contradict someone else’s life choices, when all of a sudden my eyes are opened by this little gem of wisdom from a young, progressive conservative just trying to make a difference in this crazy world. Wow!

The only reason the Democrat party is more appealing to the population at large is that they require no commitment. Their values and goals change with the winds of “popular opinion,” which means that the have no real mission other than to appeal to the whims of the majority. Sounds like something I’d like to be a part of.

Right…If I were a flaky idealist with schmutz for brains and a compulsive need to validate my existence with meaningless rhetoric and shock value.

Which I’m not. So I guess as far as all those young, hopeful, progressive conservatives are concerned, I’m a lost cause.

Sorry, Meghan.

Crossposted at The Minority Report

You know, every once in a while these people redeem themselves. Juuuuust a little bit.
Ordering Pizza in 2010

I don’t know about you guys, but I got tense just listening to this. It might sound ridiculous, but after everything that’s been revealed since January, I can see this happening in America. With the amount of rhetoric that’s spun every day by Obama and his goons, it would probably be pretty easy:

In order to fully serve the citizens of this great nation, all service operations will be plugged in to a cross-country grid.

In order to ensure efficiency within the grid, all citizens will be assigned a national ID number. This is mandatory.

In order to fully repair (read: regulate) our struggling economy, all bank card purchases will be tracked.

In order to completely revamp our national health care system, we will require your measurements, a detailed list of your eating habits, and full access to your medical records.

…

In order to ensure compliance, anyone refusing a national ID number/participation in the services offered within the grid will be subject to property confiscation and reeducation.

Crazy? Of course. Impossible? I think not.

Originally Posted at The Minority Report

Things are changing.

The distinction between “left” and “far left” is getting more and more muddied. Center-left liberals may turn their noses up at hardline leftist activism, but they’ll go along with it and defend it with their last breath. Conversely, most true conservatives abhor the sort of “activism” espoused by the far right, and condemn extremism. However, the left has taken control of this dialogue of extremes, and has all but eliminated any practical distinction between conservatism and right wing extremism. As a result, there’s been a lot of chatter about conservatives believing this and advocating that and enthusiastically participating in the screwing-over of women, children, minorities, the disadvantaged, the infirm, the oppressed, the wretched, and the disenfranchised.

I’m not bringing it up because I’m particularly bothered by it, but because I’m afraid that our leadership is content to let the left define our own agenda. Our illustrious representatives address the constant vicious attacks in passing, but no one really seems to have the guts to really stand up for conservatism not only as an ideal but as a movement. Maybe it’s because they’re chicken, or maybe it’s because the majority of them have abandoned ship in favor of nice-guy politics; but either way, something needs to change. Embracing the status quo will mean the destruction of conservatism as a legitimate movement. We’re already in trouble in the eyes of the public at large; people hear “conservative” and they immediately think “racist, gay-hating, bible-beating warmongerers WITH GUNS! For God’s sake, LOCK THE DOORS!”

I’m sure the problem at hand is obvious: this does not define, in any way, conservatism. The fact that people associate people like us with ideologies like that is conclusive proof of the pervasive nature of “progressive” thought—it’s hitting people from all sides, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. We can only hope to counter the barrage with our own solid talking points. What I’ve done here is provide a brief, three-dimensional look at some hot-button issues in order to encourage constructive dialogue. I can guarantee not everyone will agree with what I’ve said, but one of the beautiful things about being a conservative is not caring at all about the opinions of others.

GUNS
The Liberal* Perspective: GUNS WILL KILL YOUR CHILDREN!
The Right Wing Extremist Perspective: I may or may not kill someone with this gun…and that is exhilarating to me.
Amy’s Conservative Perspective: See the Second Amendment. Furthermore, I could kill you just as easily with this knife/baseball bat/Bic pen/my thumb (come closer and I’ll show you.) So, seriously…shut up. If you’re afraid of guns, then stay away from them for everyone’s safety; but keep your hands off of mine!

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING
The Liberal Perspective: We will rebuild communities…or else.
The RWE Perspective: Burn it down, and use the land for a training camp.
Amy’s Conservative Perspective: I don’t hate black people. Or Mexican people. Or people of Asian descent. I’m even alright with the Europeans. I think helping out struggling communities is okay, and that after-school programs are worthy of everyone’s support. What I DO hate, however, are race-hustlers who do nothing but look for fights. I’m all for helping out struggling families and at-risk children, but please, stop making it all about race. I don’t feel bad about being a white kid from the sticks, and I never will. Nothing you can do will change that. So please, let me volunteer and support the charities of my choice in peace. I want to help, but I sure as hell am not going to give my time and energy to an organization that is happy to accuse me of racism just because of the color of my skin. (I’m looking at you, ACORN.)

ABORTION
The Liberal Perspective: Would it be in poor taste to print coupons for this?
The RWE Perspective: Would it be in poor taste to shoot doctors over this?
Amy’s Conservative Perspective: Imagine the most disgusting, the most abhorrent, the most horrifying crime one could commit—the willful, intentional murder of a child. Now, imagine that a very large group of your peers has decided that murdering a child is acceptable if the child’s death would somehow add a measure of convenience, safety, or happiness to the life of his mother. That’s how the majority of conservatives feel about abortion. It’s not about privacy or sexual liberation or anyone’s “right” to have control over her body. It’s got nothing to do with politics, or ideological dogma. It does, however, have everything to do with that tiny person living inside someone’s uterus.

THE ENVIRONMENT
The Liberal Perspective: Save the whales, to hell with the people!
The RWE Perspective: BURN THE EARTH!
Amy’s Conservative Perspective: This one is difficult, because I’d like nothing more than to torpedo the boat the “Whale Wars” idiots float around on, then head back to shore and spray a can of Aqua Net into the air while burning a precious redwood and drinking bottled water (FOREVER in a landfill. FOREVER, people ) out of pure spite.

Okay, snark OFF.

But seriously. Common sense, people. Should we do our best to take care of dear Mother Earth? Of course we should! But enacting regulations to save the planet at the expense of the people living on it is asinine. Life is not an extended version of The Giving Tree; I firmly believe God blessed us with life on this planet, and intends us to use its resources to their full potential. We’re not going to hurt the Earth’s feelings if we drill for oil, use non-sulfate-free shampoo, or neglect to find a recycle bin for that plastic bottle (THE HORROR.)

My advice? Respect the Earth, but don’t be afraid to use it. Take care of the animals, but don’t be afraid to use them for food, or to defend yourself, your family, or your property against them. Clean up after yourself, and remember that you’re not the only one trying to survive here.

Oh, and one more thing. Al Gore is full of crap.

HATE CRIMES
The Liberal Perspective: WHARGARBL!!!!111!!!!1!!!11!!!!!1!
The RWE Perspective: ~points gun at the liberals, waits calmly for a reason~
Amy’s Conservative Perspective: No one should have to live in fear because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, affiliation with the military (yep, I said it), or any non-pervasive lifestyle choice. We’ve seen some horrific hate crimes; nobody is arguing that. But when it comes down to it, when a crime has been committed, it has been committed against a PERSON. Bringing race, etc. into the mix muddies the waters. It causes people to look for specific reasons for hate when none exist, and makes racists out of people who committed crimes against minorities without considering the protected status of their victim.

HEALTH CARE
The Liberal Perspective: It’s free, except that it’s not! See how simple our plan is?
The RWE Perspective: When I’m finished with ‘em, they won’t need a doctor.
Amy’s Conservative Perspective: I do not advocate allowing someone to lie dying in their bed because they cannot afford to pay a doctor. I do not have a problem with hospitals treating trauma patients who could never in a million years pay for the care they will die without. I do not think it is okay to stand by while another human being is suffering and in pain. When it comes to looking out for people, I consider it tax dollars well-spent. However (I say “however” a lot…it drives my liberal friends CRAZY) I do not, in any way, advocate taxing the life out of more fortunate citizens so that the less-fortunate can milk the system for preventative care and “wellness” promotion. You know what I do to promote health and “wellness” in my life? I take care of my body. What a concept! Exercising and eating right can do wonders for a person.

I know what you’re going to say. “But Amy, some people have MAJOR health problems! Like cancer! Are you going to give those people an apple and send them on their way, you hateful fascist drone?????” No, I do not wish to send cancer patients on their way. This issue for me is tricky, and I don’t claim to have all the answers; but what I do know is that it is 100% out of line to force hardworking American citizens to foot the bill for universal coverage via some sort of “public plan.”

FOREIGN POLICY
The Liberal Perspective: Iran has some good ideas! And besides, those nuclear power plants are part of an emerging energy program.
The RWE Perspective: NUKE EVERYONE but us. Right now. I’ll push the button.
Amy’s Conservative Perspective: This one is really the mother load. I did a whole diary about it a while back, and I stand by what I said. I think that America is the greatest country on the planet, and I’d give my life to defend her. I don’t take that responsibility lightly; I’ve seen what happens in places where people don’t defend themselves and their ideals, and I’d rather die than live like that. I think that democracy and capitalism are good, and that if we’re not careful Socialism will take over and destroy this country. I don’t advocate sending in the Marines every time there’s an uprising in a foreign county, but I do think it’s okay to intervene when situations spiral out of control and threaten the security of this great country. I think President Obama is wrong every time he panders to foreign leaders who hold no respect for him, and that it is dangerous to screw around with people who actively sponsor the destruction of other countries. (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you have been called out.) American exceptionalism has nothing to do with being “better” than others on a personal level; it only means that we believe that what we’re doing as a country is good, and that we want other countries to apply the lessons we’ve learned to what they’re trying to do.

I have been accused many times of being part of the “fringe.” According to some, I’m one episode of the “Glenn Beck Program” away from donning a swastika and marching on the NAACP headquarters. What I have learned is that people who say these kinds of things do not understand what it means to exist on the extreme fringe of any ideology. Those who truly exist on the fringe seek to achieve their ends through hurt, fear, and destruction. Right wing extremists seek to divide through violence, terror, and racial, “religious” (careful, now) and ideological tyranny. The far-left claims to achieve equality, but ends up creating social and political divides through guilt, theft (income redistribution, anyone?) and ideological capitulation.

Here’s what I know: today’s liberals confuse honest efforts for improvement with a desire for power and control. When they look at true conservatives, they confuse differences of opinion with hostile power grabs, and prudence of thought with laziness and ambivalence. They confuse our concern over their drastic policies with hatred, and an insatiable desire to marginalize and impugn.

(Of course, this is not true of any person who actually cleaves to rational conservative doctrine, but it’s so much easier to assume than to get the facts. But then again, if most liberals did indeed take the time to get the facts, they would not be liberals at all.)

Today’s liberals deny the fact that “fringe” liberals are in charge of many of the institutions they put their faith in; they claim that the liberals I speak of are not part of the majority, but part of the fringe. Let me just say, for all the token liberal trolls out there: if you say that what I believe to be the liberal majority is in fact the liberal fringe, then your fringe is pretty mainstream.

I am not calling for a frenzied power-grab by the men and women currently attempting to represent conservatives in this country. To be perfectly honest, we’re not ready for that. In order for something like that to work, the people in charge must be prepared to defend and be proud of conservatism. They must be prepared to defend conservative people, and not be afraid to stand up for the conservative constituency. It will take a lot of work. We’re going to have to stop doing stupid things like helping Nancy Pelosi ram through irresponsible legislation, or throwing wayward governors under the bus just as the left sinks its teeth into a delicious scandal.

The fact that sites like this exist and flourish is proof that the conservative population at large is ready for its own brand of change (and hope…don’t forget the hope.) The fact that “conservative” leaders beat around the bush and make deals and compromise on the most fundamental issues is proof that the establishment is not yet ready for an overhaul. It’s up to us to facilitate the change we wish to see, and to hold our leaders accountable for their choices and actions. It’s up to us to fiercely counter liberal lies with conservative truths, and to hold ourselves accountable so that conservatism can once again become more than a harried whisper in a room full of booming discourse and broken promises.

*Yes, I realize that not all liberals feel this way. Relax, and learn to recognize snark when you see it.

Crossposted at The Minority Report

A while back, I posted a diary about how the GOP (and, in a way, the conservative movement as a whole) needs to ramp up its message in order to reach people of my generation. As I was sifting through the comment threads and other responses I got (I assure you they were many and varied,) I got to thinking about the core values of conservative ideology, and how those values are misunderstood and misrepresented amongst people my age.

After a lot of time, an entire legal pad, and a lot of caffeine, I realized that everything we conservatives tend to feel misunderstood about can be traced back to one, all-important core conservative value: one that has been twisted, sullied, and bastardized almost past the point of no return.

That “value” is the one of American Exceptionalism. It seems like more and more, the liberals in Washington—with the help of their friends in the MSM and their trusty minions in the field—are attempting to make it abundantly clear that it is no longer appropriate (or even acceptable) to regard America with anything more than a vague sort of partiality based only in necessity and relative fondness.

It disgusts me.

I do not believe that the conservative movement can once again take hold of this country without clearing away the liberal mythos surrounding American exceptionalism. As I said in my previous diary, this can’t happen without reaching out to the people of my generation. We’ve been steeping away in a sea of liberal dogma ever since we learned about self-esteem in conjunction with our ABC’s. Since I can remember, I have been encouraged to learn about other countries, embrace other cultures, and above all, to never put myself above others. I was told I was unique and special—just like every other unique and special kid in the room.

I don’t believe this sort of mindset works when it comes to preserving and protecting a place that is firmly planted in the sights of every hostile country with a missile powerful enough to reach our shores. It must be shaken loose. It’s time for this country’s world to be rocked, and I think we would do well to begin the rocking with my generation.

When I first got the idea for this diary, I made a note on Facebook which posed a simple question: How do you feel about American exceptionalism? I’ve posted a few of their responses below, along with my own pithy commentary, because I could not simply let them get away with everything they said, even if they are among my closest friends.

I think that American Exceptionalism is very much alive and well and perhaps ridiculous. While it’s nice to walk around our continent feeling smug and wonderful because we are not easily accessible by train to the French, this country’s attitude has changed from being “the land of the free” to the “land of the privileged and if you’re not from here you should be mowing…” What really irks me recently, is the turned noses at anything un-American; such as when Bollywood creates spectacular films or foreign carmakers are inventing hybrids or energy efficient cars that are completely ignored. It’s ethnocentrism, and the media (tv, films) have portrayed other countries and cultures as clichés for so long that Americans are beginning to believe it. It’s kind of dehumanizing… So yeah, exceptionalism is cool, because we can believe that we are striving to be exceptional and different and the best in the world, but lately it’s ridiculous…

My friend here has a completely valid point. From what I’ve seen, we live in a time that embraces cultural diversity when it’s related to something new or trendy. (Think belly dancing lessons, or those Chinese character tattoos people were so crazy about.) This in itself is disappointing; people who miss out on other cultures miss out on much indeed. However, I think his accusation regarding America’s “attitude” is somewhat off-base. I can only assume that he is referring to the so-called “conservative” viewpoint that America is the Land of the Americans, so by all means let’s build us a fence and keep them damn foreigners out before they take over (‘cause dammit you know they’re tryin’!) What so many people don’t get is that there is a difference between believing that this country is great, and believing that everyone else’s country sucks.

I’m going to have to go once was, but is no more. I think the erosion of our desire to be exceptional is partially due to becoming complacent with our success. Also, I think a lot of it has to do with the (let’s just say it) liberal media and borderline socialist academic institutions that shape the minds of our leaders. That and the fact that we’ve gradually but surely forgotten that this country was founded on self-reliance and limited government. The prevailing mood in this country (at least temporarily, the pendulum swings back and forth) is that we are merely just another country in the world, one of many. That could not be farther from the truth. It was the American Revolution that indirectly overthrew the monarchies of Europe and led to democracies throughout the world. No country in the history of the world has done more to further the human condition (economically and politically) than the United States of America. It’s a shame that our president does not understand this.

Overall, I think he’s right…at least on a philosophical level. The pendulum has indeed swung back into Leftie territory. People have disregarded history, forgotten how we got to where we are, and refused to acknowledge what we have to do to keep ourselves going. What I disagree with is that American exceptionalism is “no more.” I think that, just as it always does, the pendulum will swing back to a place where it will once more be acceptable to love your country (and your neighbor) as you love yourself.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with being proud of our achievements. We’ve been the light of the world for a very long time, and certainly remain so in many ways. The problem occurs when we become guilty of hubris. Just because we have a great country with a grand tradition doesn’t make it all right for us to run roughshod over the other people, err…countries, on the block. By all means, we should remain bold and wise, and we should certainly retain our place as the leading nation of nations. But we should retain our humility, even as we recognize our excellence. To break it down to a sports analogy, take Peyton Manning as opposed to Michael Vick. Both are exceptional athletes. Both have lead teams down the road of victory, and garnered great accolades. Michael Vick was too cool for school, and believed he was above the rules. He often showcased at the expense of his team. Peyton Manning has his flaws, but he owns up to them, and is the focal point of his team because of his leadership and humility. He knows that while he is the best person on the team, he is still only as successful as his O-line, his receivers, his running back, and his defense. One of them has a Superbowl ring. The other has an ankle ring. Perhaps attitude has something to do with it?

I started off nodding along with this one, because I firmly believe there’s a difference between believing in your country, and damning/bowling over/laying waste to the rest. Then I got to the part where we’re owning up to our flaws and being humble, and I could have sworn that Barack Obama was masquerading as one of my Facebook friends! (I kid! I kid!…mostly.)

Listen. I, along with most reasonable people, do not believe that America has a mandate to crusade around the globe, converting the savages and building Wal-Marts in third world countries. However, the moment we stop acting like “the light of the world” and start shuffling around with a sheepish look on our face is the moment we lose our credibility when it comes to standing up to sleazebags like Ahmedinejad and Putin. For so long, America has been the exception proving the rule. Our self-realized uniqueness as a global power has been integrated into foreign and domestic policy for a very long time; once we start backtracking and making reparations (yes, I said REPARATIONS) for years and years of legitimate ideological conflict, people might just begin to wonder if America really stands for what she says she stands for—and if she might be bent into submission.

American Exceptionalism is an esoteric term that is easily translated into another esoteric term, “jingoism”. It is a narrow minded, knee jerk response to charges of hypocrisy when the City on the Hill does something while proactively prohibiting the same actions from others. So, in short, I say “nay.”

Yes…there’s really nothing to say to this. I mean, I suppose I could mention the fact that American exceptionalism dates back much farther than the conservative-hating, finger-pointing, spoon-banging smear “doctrine” liberals cling to. I could also mention that there is a fundamental difference between believing your country is perfect, and believing that your country is special. However, that would be pointless because people who espouse this belief also hold fast to the idea that people like me are nothing but deluded, warmongering, dogmatic hypocrites…so why bother? (Note: the person who wrote this response is indeed a friend of mine. When it comes to politics, we oscillate between complete détente and occasional saber-rattling. The impossible…now possible!)

That would be hell yes. And I’m so disappointed that our current President disagrees. He cries about how we are 5% of the world’s population but use 25% of the resources like that’s a bad thing. He would like us to be more like Zimbabwe. I’m glad that I live in the greatest country in the world and know that our country is not so great at the expense of others, but that our country is incredibly supportive of other countries such as President Bush’s Africa AIDS assistance.

HELL YEAH!

Here we are: the few, the proud, the young Americans who are willing to stand up for the greatness of this country without conditions, exceptions, or equivocations. Who can say without a guilty conscience that America is indeed the greatest country in the world, and that we got where we are by honest sweat, blood, and gumption.

Maintaining the integrity of this viewpoint is so, so important. All the frustration with President Obama aside, this really gets to the heart of what American exceptionalism means. It’s not about running roughshod or imposing values, or using and losing our allies when it’s convenient. It’s not just waving a flag on Independence Day, or proving a point by sewing a patch on your backpack next time you travel to Europe. What it is about is falling in love with America, and having faith in the ideals she was founded on. It’s about standing up for her principles, and defending her when those principles are threatened.

I had a long discussion with a friend about all of this, and I think he had a great point when he said that he was fine with sitting down and discussing solutions and issues with other people, as long as at the end of the day, you can still tell those other people that they’re wrong. It goes back to the fundamental idea that we are indeed exceptional, and that means that we aren’t obligated to go along with solutions that are inconsistent with our ideas of right.

So, here’s what we’re up against. This is what we need to fix before we can even begin to regain a conservative hold on the hearts and minds of young Americans. It won’t be easy, and it might take a while, but I think it can be done—because sooner or later, people will realize that while it’s fine and dandy to always play nice with the rest of the world, it’s going to take a lot more than “robust debate” to maintain our reputation as a City on a Hill.

Crossposted at The Minority Report