Regnat Populus

The people rule.

Archive for the ‘Rants’ Category

The site has moved.

Posted by Max Barron on June 1, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am pleased to report that the new website is now officially live. This wordpress blog will no longer be updated. All new (as well as old) content will be posted on the new website located at:

I hope that you will continue reading my posts and passing them along to your friends. Thank you all for your continued patronage and I look forward to seeing you all over at Uncanned Response.



Posted in Full Of Win, Personal, Politics, Rants, Religion, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Another One Bites The Dust…

Posted by Max Barron on May 26, 2009

Another one bites the dust.  If Queen had been watching Maryland’s economic high rollers over the last year that is precisely what they would be singing.  Maryland, who in 2008 had roughly 3,000 millionaire tax filings.  Now?  Closer to 2,000.  This is no phenomenon.  Maryland is joining the ranks of other tax fleecing states that soak the rich such as California, New Jersey, and New York. 

Trading Places

Trading Places

The tax and spend redistributionists will point their crooked fingers at the recession, which may share some blame, but their missing the mark.  Each of those states (and I am certain that there are more – I just don’t have numbers on them yet) have soak the rich tax codes and redistributionist policies.  Coincidence?  I think not. 

The successful and wealthy are simply tired of carrying more than the lion’s share of state burdens, and who can blame them.  They are punished for their success and their earnings are fleeced, swiped, stolen and captured… in the interest of fairness

Is it really fair that successful people who are productive and already carry the burdens of the unsuccessful and unproductive leachers be required to pay even more?  I don’t think so, and apparently neither do they.  The productive and successful people, who provide jobs, income and tax revenues have no fear of packing their bags and moving to a less bloated and punitive state.

When the wealthy leave, the middle class is forced to take up the slack for the burgeoning population of bureaucrats and entitlement leeches.  Inevitably, the  middle class either runs out of money or runs to another state.  See New Jersey, New York and California.  All of which are on the verge of collapse.  Maryland is next, if it doesn’t straighten out its act – and by that I mean kick the statist left out of office and replace them with solid conservatives.

These events should put every state with a bloated government on notice…. You’re next! 

…and another one gone, another one gone, another one bites the dust.

Posted in Politics, Rants | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hey Ahnuld! Time To Go T-1000 On Some Entitlements

Posted by Max Barron on May 21, 2009

arnoldpulpitOn Tuesday the people of Calee-for-nya delivered a decisive blow against the Governator’s plans to hike even more taxes to pay for the ever-growing state debt.  Debt that has been run up through decades of political abuse, entitlements, illegal aliens and above all liberal union back-scratching. 

Long ago when Arnold first arrived on the scene in California… He kicked open the door Terminator style and went after the wasteful and bloated spending of state politicians.  Unfortunately, Cali is a solid deep dark-blue state.  As such, the deeply entrenched liberal left whipped out their very own T-2000 in the form of various unions and delivered lethal blow after lethal blow to the then Governator.  Union-T-2000 soundly beat down the Governator’s reforms, and reduced the would be Action-Hero turned politician, to nothing more than a common governor and politician.  Since then, Ahnuld has adopted the RINO stance as a matter of survival.  Unfortunately, in so doing he has effectively helped kill his state. 

All is not lost though!  For yours truly, in true conservative form, has a solution.  Instead of following through on the doomsday threats to cut education, emergency services and human services – which won’t fly anyway, thanks to the death grip of unions.  Let’s try something far more novel. 

For starters, the obvious tax cuts.  Income tax, sales tax and property taxes should be hacked to death.  Then move to cut funding of entitlement programs.  First up would be state funded services for illegal immigrants – they shouldn’t be receiving them to begin with.  There are enumerable programs that can and should be cut… permanently.  They can be identified by seeing what: a) redistributes wealth and b) what gives something for nothing.  Cut ’em, give those programs a death sentence by stopping, immediately, all of their funding.

Next up we’ll move on to the environmentalists.  California is a veritable corn-of-copia of environmentalist nutbag regulations… let’s dispose of those – and recapture all of that funding.  They aren’t necessary.  Especially when compared to keeping police on the streets and preventing the shut-down of fire stations across the state.

Then move on to beauracrats.  Take a look at numerous “red state” governments… see where California has an overabundance of agencies and beauracrats – then terminate them with extreme predjudice.  Also consider that once the environmental regulations are cut to resemble more reasonable states, and funding for numerous tree-hugger programs are cut, there will be entire departments within the government that can be cut. 

It’s a novel approach to balancing the budget.  Instead of under-funding the essentials.  Cut funding from the non-essential.  From entitlements to regulations and regulators all the way to Sacramento itself, there is a smorgasbord of profligate spending that can be removed completely.  Oh, and if you still want to sell state property… once those unessential and wasteful agencies have been cleared – you can sell off the buildings to productive businesses, that will no doubt return if the taxes get cut.

This plan will work, Arnold.  All you need do is upgrade your systems to T-3000, gird your loins, stiffen your spine and rack up some testicular fortitude.  You will no doubt take a political beating… but the Governator can take it.  Of course, you may also want to invest in a comfy couch at home – but then, that’s your fault for marrying a Kennedy to being with.

Posted in Politics, Rants | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Americans Have A New Nanny – Nanny Frieden

Posted by Max Barron on May 15, 2009

441988382_fcfd084b29_oThomas “Nanny” Frieden has been appointed to head the CDC by Nanny-in-Cheif Obama.  Frieden is hailed by the administration as an expert in epidemic prevention and electronic health records.  He is also an expert on making us tempestuous children eat our veggies, cut out fat and quit smoking.  This may sound like a good thing to the granola munching bicycle riding health activists… but it sounds like a recipe for disaster to yours truly.

Here we have a guy who is on a crusade.  A crusade to rid us mere infants of the hazardous choices of life.  Worried about caloric intake?  Fear not!  There will be a calorie listing right next to the menu item at your local restaurant chain.  Worried about trans fats?  Fear not!  Nanny Frieden will ensure that all local restaurants rid their foods of the unhealthy substance.  Worried about carcinogens?  Fear not!  You’ll be bombarded with tobacco taxes, stop smoking commercials, anti-smoking legislation and smoking bans until you submit. 

Like a naughty child subjected to an old school English nanny, you’ll be bludgeoned and bullied into doing what’s “right,” whether you like it or not!  Nanny Frieden believes in public shaming as well.  For if you disobey and find yourself with diabetes… your name and blood sugar levels will regularly be submitted, on-line, to various physicians.  Like a report card to your parents. 

Nanny Frieden has gleaned a bit from the education system as well.  So there is no shock in knowing that there will be community finals testing.  Whereby you children will take part in a Health and Nutrition Exam Survey.  This will help your parents on Capital Hill decide what further sanctions to impose upon us infantile children… of course, it’s for our own good.  Because we are children, under the ever watchful eyes of our politician parents, and far too naive and ignorant to know that fast food is fattening, smoking is bad for our health, exercise is important, and that we should cut fats and eat our veggies.

Let your worries be eased and rest your weary eyes, children.  For Nanny Frieden will ensure that nothing bad happens to you.  He won’t let the boogie men get you.  You won’t ever have to worry about doing something unhealthy… because you won’t ever have to make the choice.  Nanny Frieden will do it for you.

If you think this is far fetched or can’t happen… it already did in New York, and soon in a community near you!

“Hush little babies, don’t say a word…”

Posted in Politics, Rants | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Tax Those Calories Away!

Posted by Max Barron on May 12, 2009

biggulpYou’ve heard of “Sweatin’ to the Oldies,” “Weight Watchers” and the “South Beach Diet,” all of which claim to help you cut those unwanted pounds and reduce your caloric intake.  But soon you could have a whole new diet…”Skimpin’ cuz the Taxes.”  Not long ago NY Governor Patterson discussed creating a soda tax – which would tax high sugar content beverages – to discourage their consumption.  Outraged, New Yorkers and the beverage industries stomped that idea into oblivion.  But not before the Mighty Fedzilla’s super-sonic hearing picked up on it.  Now, Fedzilla – oddly aroused by the idea – is contemplating creating a soda tax to help pay for their health care initiatives – a backdoor to single payer, government rationed health care. 

The idea behind the tax is, as usual, purportedly for our own good.  The idea is to tax the drinks to dissuade people from purchasing and consuming them, in the name of our health.  Basically they believe that if they tax those deliciously sugary beverages that it will reduce the amount of obesity and diabetes, thus lowering the costs of health care.  Supporters of this kind of tax believe that it will actually curtail consumption… it won’t.  Not only will the tax be ineffective, but it will also not produce the kinds of revenues needed to off-set the gaping chasm of a money pit that is nationalized health care.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this Soda Tax would produce roughly only $24 billion over the next four years.  That isn’t even the tip of the currently estimated $1.2 trillion health care initiative iceberg – which I consider to be a remarkably conservative estimate. 

From the standpoint of health care funding, the soda tax is completely pointless.  It will reach much further than the guilty pleasures of an ice cold Pepsi or Coca~Cola, though.  It will dip into numerous other drinks such as Gatorade, Capri-Sun and Powerade to name a few.  As the tax is aimed at calorie content… not sugar syrups.  And anyone who says that Gatorade and the like cause obesity is a liar and an idiot.  Pepsi, Coca~cola, Dr. Pepper, etc don’t either for that matter.  No, it is people that make people obese by not observing moderation (people with medical conditions like thyroid deficiencies not withstanding).  Again, it isn’t the funding that this tax is all about.  Mr. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, brings that point home.

“Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it’s something government should discourage the consumption of.” 

It is about some statist oligarch telling the American people how to live their lives.  Because they know better than we mere plebes.  This isn’t to say that the soda tax will be effective in that mission either.  It won’t.  People will continue to consume them en masse because they have no personal sense of restraint or moderation.  And it isn’t for the government to moderate those lifestyle choices.  Which, if this tax slides through, we can all look forward to more of.  Look at the bright side, though.  When you order a steak, if that you can afford the taxes on it, you won’t have to worry about telling the server how you want it prepared… Capital Hill will have already decided that for you.

To turn a phrase “let them eat cake – let them be fat!”

Posted in Rants | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

When in The Course of Federal Elections: Arguing the Case Against Social Conservatism

Posted by Max Barron on April 30, 2009

***In the interest of full disclosure: I am a rock-ribbed Conservative, both fiscally and socially.  I am also a fervent Constitutionalist and Federalist.  With that in mind – please read on.***

When in The Course of Federal Elections: Arguing the Case Against Social Conservatism… At the federal level.

Over the last several days the debate, or argument rather, about where so-called “moderate Republicans” stand in within the GOP tent has resurfaced anew.  In all of the back and forth in-fighting there has been but one clear, logical and applicable statement from which we can derive an answer.

ronaldreagan“We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”

“As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”





Wonder of wonders, it was none other than Olympia Snowe that pointed out this quote.  Ironically she fails her own litmus test – as do Collins and Specter, I digress.  What she did get right – and what should be highlighted – is the last sentence in particular.  What Snowe got wrong is the application of that particular pearl of wisdom. 

Before the discussion on the place of “moderate” Republicans, we must first know what a Republican is.  “Our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”  Please note that there are no “or”s in this statement.  That is because there is no room for discussion regarding these principles.  In order to be a Republican, one must believe in “D) All of the above.”

What does this mean for “moderates?  It means that they are either Republican or not.  If they do not pass the Reagan litmus test then they are not, in fact, Republicans – and are irrelevant to this discussion.  If they do pass, then they are Republican.  It is important to note that there is a difference between “Moderate” and “RINO.”  A “Moderate” is a Republican, but may not necessarily be a social conservative.  A RINO is a Democrat with an “R”. 

Beyond our core beliefs – which make it easy for us to determine who is a Republican –  is where we get into the weeds.  Social issues.  Social issues are the bane of the current GOP.  There is a simple reason for that: A progressive social agenda directly interferes with the aforementioned core principles.  However, that doesn’t mean that socially conservative values should be a litmus test for our Congressional and Presidential candidates.  Please make note: this is NOT in defense of Specter, Snowe, Collins and their ilk.  As previously stated – they are not Republicans at all, and are therefor inconsequential to the purpose of this discussion.

However, this is in direct conflict with many of the social conservatives that have been foaming at the lips, rabid with blood-lust, and seeking the heads of any Republican that disagrees with their dogma with regard to social issues – all in the name of cleaning out the RINOs and rebuilding the party.  To those that seek to behead our candidates (and in some cases those currently serving in Congress) for these social views… Slow down and take a deep breath because you are wrong.  The fierce riptide of emotion associated with social issues has pulled asunder the better sense of reason.

As a party we have gone astray and forgotten the words of the “Gipper.”  “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”  These are important words.  Many will take this pearl of wisdom to mean that we should allow the socially liberal openly into our ranks.  Others, myself included, see a greater meaning. 

First it means that we shouldn’t be wielding pitchforks and torches and chasing down our own candidates.  More importantly it means that the social issues should be non-issues to begin with… at the federal level.  Because these issues should not be decided in the halls of Congress nor the offices of the Executive.  Instead they should be decided by the people.  More specifically by the people in their given states.  The founding fathers and framers designed our Constitution in a manner that enforced the rights of the states. 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Asking our candidates to define their stances on any of the myriad of social issues is antithetical to the Conservative principle of governance.  Instead the question should be “are you a Federalist?”  The proper Republican will respond to any social issue question by stating “my personal stance is immaterial, as that is a matter that is Constitutionally left to the states and has no place at the federal level.”  Or something along those lines.  Obviously, the only exception to this is the matter of abortion.  This is ONLY because an activist SCOTUS made it a federal issue.

Essentially by involving ourselves in social issues, no matter how strongly we feel on them, we are undermining our own principle of liberty.  The entire essence of liberty is the right of the people to self-governance.  Simply put, the people should be deciding.  Not courts and certainly not the federal government.  This also acts as a stiff bulwark against statism.

As for the debate of the so-called moderates themselves.  If they pass the Republican litmus test as outlined by Reagan, then they should be kept.  Because if they pass the litmus test, it is impossible for them to be socially liberal… as fiscal conservatism and liberty are the antithesis of social liberalism.  One will always override the other.  Reagan knew this.  He also understood that if Republicans campaigned and legislated on social issues that we would lose.  Not because the people disagree, but because the people want to choose – they will inherently reject restrictivism in any form – thus siding with the pandering Democrats.  Reagan ran on Federalism, as designed by our founding fathers, and so did the majority of successful Republicans during the Reagan Revolution.  It works, because it is right.

So in the future, fellow Conservatives, we should look for candidates that embody the Republican core beliefs and have a federalist stance on governance.  Leaving the social issues to the states.  These candidates may not necessarily agree with all of the dogma of social conservatism… but they will also resist allowing the opposite to be legislated as well.  And they will insist that the issue be left to the states, where it rightfully belongs – and in most cases the states will swing to the right.

Posted in Politics, Rants, When In The Course Of Elections: | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Hyphenate This!

Posted by Max Barron on April 27, 2009

american-flagThe PC liberal left has been hyphenating America for far too long now.  So long, in fact, that pretty much everyone in America does it.  Some without even realizing it.  It’s the politically correct thing to do, after all.  It is ironic though.  The entire purpose of hyphenating America was to give some form of validation to “minorities” and help create a more tolerant culture – by acknowledging their lineage.  Perhaps it helped, perhaps it didn’t.  That isn’t material at all.

What is material is: What is it doing now?  That is the million dollar question.  Ironically, it promotes racism.  It promotes division and discrimination.  Because it forces people to think of race… not only of race but also of the PC term for that race.  It is destructive to liberty and diversity – which is the exact opposite of  what was intended.

It also has a deeper impact.  It takes the pride out of our country and puts emphasis on another country.  Much like flags on a flag pole.  The highest flag, the one raised first, is given the most importance, the position of honor.  The one below simply signifies respect.  Simply showing respect for America is unacceptable.  Frankly put, if some one is American then they should be just that.

Why put any emphasis on race, religion, creed or country of origin?  It simply furthers divisiveness and undermines the core of American culture.  The beauty of American culture is being American.  Please note the lack of a hyphen.  Perhaps as a nation we have lost sight of that.  Lost sight of the ideal that being an American is not just locality, but also a state of mind.  As such a person cannot be both African and American, Chinese and American, Mexican and American, Canadian and American, etc.  A person is one or the other.  Irregardless of where an individual’s ancestors or they themselves originated, if they are American, then they are American.  So drop the hyphen and stop telling Americans that they are something else other than American.


Posted in Rants | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Maher & Garofalo: Called – You Were Meant To Be.

Posted by Max Barron on April 24, 2009

Detestable human being.

Detestable human being.

The LATimes ran an opinion piece from Bill Maher, the host of HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.  As anyone who has ever seen Bill Maher’s show or seen him in an interview would expect… it was filled with invective.  Humorless invective at that.  Much like Garofalo, Maher is characterized as a comedian and entertainer.  Yet, much like Garofalo, Maher couldn’t even make his vile race baiting and class warfare filled diatribe even the least bit funny.  It’s almost as if he saw all of the attention, negative attention as it were, that Janeane got for her tripe, and decided that he would join in.  After all, ratings are in the tank and he needs a boost, right?

Well, Mr. Maher, I sincerely hope that you enjoy being the butt of the joke… If you want to know what that’s like, just ask Chris “the tingle” Matthews.  And by butt of the joke, I mean the little dark hole in the center… you know, the one that spews feces?  That’s you, Maher.

Of course, Mr. Maher, you have to know that I’m going to respond.  But unlike Matthews, the only tingle that you’ll be feeling is the splash-back while I piss in your Cheerios.

If conservatives don’t want to be seen as bitter people who cling to their guns and religion and anti-immigrant sentiments, they should stop being bitter and clinging to their guns, religion and anti-immigrant sentiments.

First and foremost this country was founded and preserved by men who clung to religion and guns.  What’s wrong with that?  Why are you anti-Christian?  Why do you hate guns, or more importantly, gun owners?  One of the greatest aspects of this country is the fact that we can practice whatever religion we want.  We also have the right to bear arms.  If you don’t like religion, fine.. be an atheist.  If you don’t like guns, don’t own one.  Outside of that, sir, feel free to keep your condescending ignorance out of everyone else’s lives.

As for anti-immigrant sentiments… It is painfully clear that you’re just another blowhard touting the liberal propaganda meme.  Conservatives support immigration.  We have no problem with immigrants.  We have a serious problem with ILLEGAL immigrants.  Please note the capitalized word – illegal.  It means against the law.  We want our laws and borders upheld.  They are there for reason.  There is no quarrel with people coming here legally.  Unless, of course, you count our wanting said LEGAL immigrants to conform to OUR society and not the other way around.  Like NOT flying the American flag upside down under the Mexican flag, at an American school where we teach them in their native language, not ours.

It’s been a week now, and I still don’t know what those “tea bag” protests were about. I saw signs protesting abortion, illegal immigrants, the bank bailout and that gay guy who’s going to win “American Idol.” But it wasn’t tax day that made them crazy; it was election day. Because that’s when Republicans became what they fear most: a minority.

If you don’t know what the Tea Party protests were about, then you are just plain ignorant, and willfully so.  I won’t bother to explain in detail what the protests were for… if you can’t figure out Google, then perhaps you should do the world a favor and refrain from procreating.  The last thing this world needs is more ignorant race-baiters.  Which is precisely what you are, as proven by your own words.  If we’re to believe you, then every Conservative is a racist that fears minorities…  Do you and Janeane Garofalo get together on the weekends and go bowling or something?  Sure seems like a page out of her book.

Get your own lines, Bill, that one’s used up and tired.  Moron.

The conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because … well, nobody knows. They’re mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore. Even though they’re not quite sure what “it” is. But they know they’re fed up with “it,” and that “it” has got to stop.

We’re angry for a lot of reasons.  Chiefly, the D.C. spending spree and ridiculous economic policies being rammed down our throat.  Everything from the TARP, TARP II, Recovery Act and proposed budget… The trillions of dollars that we are borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia, etc to pay for them.  Not to mention the trillions in interest we’ll be paying on those loans.  Of course, that was all in the name of the economy… that’s still tanking.  Just like we said it would.  By the way, where DID all of that money go, anyway?  No idea?  Exactly!  Not to mention the nationalization of banks and industry.

Essentially the problem is the stripping of my children and grand-children’s future earnings, and the stripping of American liberties.  You’re damned right we’re angry.  You should be too.

Here are the big issues for normal people: the war, the economy, the environment, mending fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law.

Well, you got one thing right.  Those are the issues.  Those are the things that we’re upset about.  You’re just too drunk on the Kool-Aide to realize that we’re preaching the solutions to those problems; and the current administration is making them worse.  The irony here is that you mention rule of law.  Considering your aforementioned stance on ILLEGAL immigration.  By the way, if you still think that that our current enemies in the middle east are interested in “mending fences,” then you are even more willfully ignorant than I thought.

And here’s the list of Republican obsessions since President Obama took office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy, Europeans like him, he gives inappropriate gifts, his wife shamelessly flaunts her upper arms, and he shook hands with Hugo Chavez and slipped him the nuclear launch codes.

I believe that the birth certificate issue was raised, and pressed, by a Democrat lawyer by the name of Phillip Berg.  I also haven’t seen a Conservative blog, write or even talk about it since before November 4th.  Just another case of not knowing how to Google, eh, Bill?  We also don’t say that he uses a teleprompter too much… it isn’t an issue.  It’s a joke, Bill.  You haven’t told a good one in a long time, but you should still remember what they are.  Personally, and I’m sure that everyone else is with me here, I couldn’t care any less about Michelle Obama’s upper arms.  I believe that it was the main stream media drooling all over them.  Just ask the idiots at MSNBC, their janitors are still mopping up the slobber.

As for the foreign heads of state gaffes.  Guilty as charged.  I cannot fathom why anyone would NOT have a problem with the President bowing to the KING of Saudi Arabia.  It wasn’t some “Saudi guy.”  It was a monarch.  U.S. policy dictates that no American, especially the President, ever bow to a Monarch.  Bowing shows subjugation.  So, yes, I have a problem with that.  Naturally, I have a problem with Obama getting nice and cozy with a tin pot dictator that is vehemently anti-America.  Chavez funds narco-terrorists, denounces our country, and allies himself with the likes of Ahmadinejad.  Who, by the way, also funds and supports terrorists and denounces the U.S.  I also have a problem with Obama cow-towing and apologizing to their ilk, especially when we have NOTHING to apologize for.  If you, Bill, were anything other than a Kool-Aide drinking oligarch… you would have a problem with it too.

It’s sad what’s happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of the big tent; now they’re the party of the sideshow attraction, a socially awkward group of mostly white people who speak a language only they understand. Like Trekkies, but paranoid

It is sad what happened to Republicans.  It is sad that they left their principles at the door and started acting like Democrats.  That is very sad indeed… for this country.  Naturally you don’t get it, you think that our principles ARE the problem.  They’re not.

Then again, you also think that we’re just a bunch of paranoid angry white people.  It is also only natural that you do not understand the language of principle… the language of our founding fathers.  You’re an oligarch, what do we expect, other than race-baiting — which you didn’t fail to deliver on either.

The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is not afraid to say publicly that thinking out loud about Texas seceding from the Union is appropriate considering that … Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on 5% of the people? I’m not sure exactly what Perry’s independent nation would look like, but I’m pretty sure it would be free of taxes and Planned Parenthood. And I would have to totally rethink my position on a border fence.

You say “Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on 5% of the people?” like it’s a good thing.  The top 5% already pay more than 60% of the income tax.  It is class warfare and socialistic redistribution of wealth.  It is the very opposite of what our founding fathers envisioned and protected with the Constitution.  You do know what the Constitution is, right?  It’s that paper that you and your ilk like to wipe your asses with…

If you ask me a republic without income taxes and Planned Parenthood sounds great!  I know that’s where I would like this country to be.  Wait!  Isn’t that how the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, constructed this republic?

But Obama hasn’t made any moves toward taking anyone’s guns, and with money as tight as it is, the last thing the president wants to do is run a camp where he has to shelter and feed a bunch of fat, angry white people.

He may not have made any moves to take our guns, but given his stance on firearm regulation, and the stance of his Attorney General, I won’t be surprised at all if he does.  Since money is so tight, and Obama is so worried about it, then why is he pushing forward with socialized health care?  Which, if Europe and the UK are any kind of indicators, will run up a tab far greater than all other social and military programs combined.  The fact of the matter is, he isn’t worried about money at all… He can just get it from the rich, right?  He also doesn’t want to just “shelter and feed a bunch of fat, angry white people,” he wants to shelter and feed the entire nation.  Naturally, from your standpoint conservatives are just fat, angry white people… I’m beginning to think that Garofalo should sue you for plagiarism.

But it’s been almost 100 days, and your country is not coming back to you. She’s found somebody new. And it’s a black guy.

I’m glad that your white-liberal-guilt can finally be satiated knowing that we have a black president.  I got passed the historical nature of it after he was sworn in.  Right now, it is about what the President does in office.  Frankly, I couldn’t care less what color he is.  In fact, I don’t know of a single Conservative that does.  The ONLY people that I see harping on race is… well, the Left.  More specifically you and your soul mate.

The healthy thing to do is to just get past it and learn to cherish the memories. You’ll always have New Orleans and Abu Ghraib.

Wow, just wow!  So, now, somehow Conservatives caused the hurricane in New Orleans. Ohhh wait, I get it.  We hate black people, right?  Funny, isn’t it, how easily vile invective and racism drips from your tongue.  Of course, to believe you we would have to overlook the fact that at that time the Mayor of New Orleans was Ray Nagin, a Democrat.  And the Governor during Katrina and the fiasco that followed was Kathleen Blanco, also a Democrat.  We would also have to forget that even though ordered to evacuate, many people CHOSE to stay behind… Some due to transportation issues.  That too is the fault of Conservatives right?  Whoops! I forgot that there were lots filled with buses but Nagin and Blanco refused to get them on the street to bus people out.  I guess that’s Bush’s fault, right?  Do you even bother to research anything before you spout off at the mouth?

Abu Ghraib was also Bush’s fault right?  Let’s forget about the small fraction of Army soldiers that committed those acts.  Let’s also forget that when the Republicans in Congress and White House found out about it, those few were immediately placed under arrest, charged and many were consequently found guilty and punished.

I wouldn’t expect you to remember that, after all, you can’t use Google.  That’s probably a Conservative’s fault as well, right?

Mr. Maher, in short I find you a detestable, vile, ignorant, racist oligarch with the mental acuity of a jackass – which is rightfully your party’s symbol and precisely what you are.  Your reprehensible remarks and distasteful bitterness make it easy to see why you are so inconsequential and why your ratings are about floor level.  You and Janeane are just perfect for each other… just… please don’t breed.  I’ll even send you condoms for life… just promise me that you’ll use them.

Posted in Rants | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

You Need Me On That Wall!

Posted by Max Barron on April 23, 2009

Col. Nathan R. Jessep, protrayed by Jack Nicholas

Col. Nathan R. Jessep, protrayed by Jack Nicholas

Every time the issue of torture use resurfaces for more debate, I am reminded of the famously angry and potently visceral monologue of Col. Nathan R. Jessep.  The character played by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”.  I’m not referring to the now overly used cliche: “You can’t handle the truth!”  No, I am referring to the far more appropriate dialogue that followed.

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

The monologue is especially apropos to the current political faux outrage over the use of water-boarding on captured terrorists.  Granted, Col. Jessep is talking about the ordered hazing of an under-performing junior Marine.  Change “Santiago” to “terrorist”, “death” to “interrogation”, and “Marines” to “CIA” and you have a perfectly apropos statement. 

The simple fact of the matter is that Col. Jessep, or rather the writers, have it right.  The world does have walls, and they need vigilant, armed guards on them.  People who don’t stand on those walls have the luxury of not knowing, or rather, they prefer to ignore  what it takes to keep them safe.  Most politicians have an idea of what it takes, but prefer to look the other way until it becomes politically untenable.  However, once the story breaks they turn on the ones that have kept them safe… because it’s the “right” thing to do.

Just how right is it?  The masses demand their freedom and safety, yet once they hear of what it takes to accomplish that, they turn on those that they demanded provide freedom and safety.  However, if those “grotesque and incomprehensible” men-on-the-wall did not do everything, including “torture”, to ensure the safety of the general public and an attack occurred — and it would — these same individuals would demand the heads of our men-on-the-wall for NOT dragging the information out of terrorists by any means necessary.  It’s astoundingly hypocritical.  The hypocrites won’t admit to it though. 

At least most of the fervently “anti-torture” crowd have given up the “torture doesn’t work” argument.  Because it does.  Even the Executive Editor of lefty site, Gary Kamiya, admits it.  Of course, he goes on to say that it still isn’t appropriate.  Unless, it is a “ticking bomb” situation, and then it’s debatable.  The “ticking bomb” scenario is one in which you have all certainties.  The suspect DID plant a bomb.  The bomb WILL go off at a specific time.  Accurately, Gary states that this doesn’t actually happen in the real world.  However, he errs in using this assertion to defend the stance that while torture works, it is never justified.  I’m going to have to disagree there.  I draw particular issue with his statement that breaking up terrorist networks is not the same thing as stopping the attacks.

No one can say whether those captured would have carried out other terrorist attacks. There are too many unknown factors. Dick Cheney recently argued that classified documents will show that the use of torture stopped “a great many” terrorist attacks. But unless those documents reveal a “24”-like situation in which the use of torture somehow actually stops an imminent attack from taking place, a situation that has never come up in the real world, his statement is false. Breaking up terror networks is not the same thing as “stopping” terrorist attacks.

There is plenty of history to show that had the terrorists not been captured, or had been released, they would certainly carry out other attacks.  It’s a given.  A known quantity.  It is as certain as death and taxes.  To deny it is show a certain naivete.  Also, to state that a “24-like” scenario has never played out is presumptuous at best.  There are a great deal of classified operations that we know nothing about… and a “24-like” scenario isn’t too far fetched in today’s world.  Furthermore, breaking up terror networks IS the same thing as stopping terrorist attacks.  It is actually better.  Terrorists terrorize.  It is what they do, it is what they signed up for.  There is no other purpose for a terrorist organization than to commit acts of terrorism.  One cannot sit back and hope to simply stop an ongoing attack.  It is that mentality that led to 9/11.  Conversely, the post 9/11 policy of being proactive is what has kept this country safe from attack for the last seven years.  The evidence to the contrary of Mr. Kamiya’s statement is illustrated by the fact that some 70% of released detainees immediately return to terrorist cells.  Breaking the networks IS the same as stopping an attack.  Rest assured that if the networks are not stopped there WILL be an attack.

However, the populists don’t want to recognize that.  They don’t want to know about it.  They would prefer their heads collectively remain in the sand.  They want the benefit of the Bush interrogation policy… without the policy.  Absent the latter, they would simply rather not know about it.  Making the second half of Col. Jessep’s monologue all the more fitting.

You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

That is the plain and simple truth of it all.  As regrettable as it is to need “enhanced interrogation methods”, we do need them.  Without them, terrorists would not give the information necessary to thwart their plots.  They won’t talk if you ask them nicely or even forcefully.  They won’t talk because they truly want and wish for us to die.  There is no leverage to use against a terrorist to coerce information… outside of the enhanced interrogation methods.  

Personally, as someone who has experienced water-boarding many times, being stuck in the hot box for hours on end, stress positioning, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, wall standing and a myriad of other supposed “torture” techniques.  I can state flat out that those things are NOT torture methods.  Things that were done to Nazi prisoners, POWs in Korea, China and Vietnam were torture.  Water-boarding, the harshest of the methods, does not even compare.  Many still argue that it is, in fact, still torture.  Even if it were, how is saving American and innocent lives not justification for causing discomfort to an enemy? 

Populists can rest their case on supposed “moral authority” but just how moral is letting your own people die so that a politician can say that they don’t support torture?  At the end of the day the only thing that that “moral authority” has gotten them will be a bunch of dead Americans and a smiling enemy.  It goes without saying that  I would also much prefer a terrorist be water-boarded than have a plane hijacked and crashed into a populated building… or worse.  The entire civilized world knows this, the only difference is, they don’t put their methods on public broadcast – so that the populists can pretend it doesn’t happen. 

Perhaps the populists should pay attention to what Col. Jessep had to say…  As I am certain that those who are being drug through mud right now, for the sake of politics, share the sentiment.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way.

In closing, If I may, myself, borrow a line from the Colonel.  Mr. Obama, when you released those memos and started a fire-storm on Capitol Hill for your own political gain… “all you did was weaken a country today. That’s all you did. You put people’s lives in danger. Sweet dreams, sir.”

Posted in Rants | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

In response to Mickey Edwards.

Posted by Max Barron on January 26, 2009

I have a few things to say in response to Mickey Edwards’ LA Times hit piece entitled “Reagan wouldn’t recognize this GOP.”  I will not rehash the entirety of the tripe, but I will highlight a few areas with which I take exception.  First, I will agree to the title of his Op-Ed.  He is right in saying that Reagan would not recognize this GOP, but for the wrong reasons.  Reagan would not recognize it because once again, the Republican party has left him.  The GOP is but a homogenized version of what he eventually brought the party back to being.  There are very few other statements in which Mr. Edwards and I are in agreement.  The vast majority of Mr. Edwards’ dribble is just that, dribble.

On the premise that simple is best, many Republicans have reduced their operating philosophy to two essentials: First, government is bad (it’s “the problem”); second, big government is the worst and small government is better (although because government itself is bad, it may be assumed that small government is only marginally preferable)

This statement is a misrepresentation of conservative ideology at best, and pure fallacy at worst.  The fact of the matter is conservatives do NOT believe that all government is bad.  We do believe that bureaucracy is inherently flawed, and we do believe that over-reaching government is bad.  Over-reaching government (intrusive) is the polar opposite of liberty and independence.  As conservatism is based on the premise that liberty and independence are the driving forces of our society, it is fair to say that intrusive government (not all government) is “the problem.”  There is a tendency to use the terms “big” and “small” when describing government, the terms are not used literally, as Mr. Edwards ascribes here.  The literal quantity or size of government does not accurately encapsulate the conservative stance on “big government.”  The size of government, as described by conservatives, is relative to the scope and power of government.  Big government is one of extended and over-reaching scope and excessive weight and power over the people (i.e. intrusive).  Conversely, small government would be one of a more limited scope, as described by the Constitution.  We are not anarchists.

Limited government is not no government. And limited government is not “small” government. Simply building roads, maintaining a military, operating courts, delivering the mail and doing other things specifically mandated by the Constitution for America’s 300 million people make it impossible to keep government “small.” It is boundaries that protect freedom. Small governments can be oppressive, and large ones can diminish freedoms. It is the boundaries, not the numbers, that matter.

This statement is largely correct, and describes precisely what we mean by the term “small government.”  Again, it is not a literal use of the term “small.”  All forms of government can be oppressive.  This is precisely why conservatives fight the initiatives and policies of the Democrats.  Their policies expand the scope of government beyond the limits set forth by the Constitution.  I will, however, say that typically the number of bureacracies is directly proportional to the scope of government power.

“In the present crisis,” referring specifically to the high taxes and high levels of federal spending that had marked the Carter administration, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” He then went on to say: “Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work.” Government, he said, “must provide opportunity.” He was not rejecting government, he was calling — as Barack Obama did Tuesday — for better management of government, for wiser decisions.

First and foremost comparing the late great Ronald Reagan with Barack Obama is like comparing Thomas Jefferson with Karl Marx.  Obama could not possibly be more different from Reagan.  They stand for completely different ideas.  I would bet dollars to donuts that when Mr. Edwards arrives at the pearly gates, Reagan will be waiting with a few choice words for him.

Secondly, Reagan was also the man who said “As government expands, liberty contracts.”  Which, as Mr. Edwards has seemingly forgotten, is one of the primary ideological stances of conservatism.  There are myriads of choice Reagan quotes on the matter of expansive government and its inherent infringement of personal liberty, but quoting them here is unnecessary.  I’m sure that Mr. Edwards, a man who spent a great deal of time with Reagan, could take his Alzheimer’s medication (there could be no other explanation for such egregious and apparent utter lack of memory), delve deep into his clearly vacuous mind, and remember Reagan’s words.

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Edwards, a self-described “true” conservative and Reaganite, was and is an Obama supporter.  (If I recall correctly Mr. Edwards stated in a radio interview that he voted for Obama —If this is incorrect, please let me know).

With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent — more antithetical to true conservatism — than to do nothing.

I agree that to do nothing would be imprudent and antithetical.  However, nationalizing industry and turning over to the Secretary of the Treasury, hundreds of billions of tax dollars, with no afforded protections, no reasonable or responsible oversight, and to do so without discretion or direction is far more antithetical.  Perhaps Mr. Edwards was napping when conservatives proposed their own answer for the economic fallout.  One that was indeed founded on conservative principles and would undoubtedly stimulate the economy.  One that was much akin to Reagan’s plan that DID work.  Perhaps Mr. Edwards was still napping when the Democrat controlled Congress refused the plan outright, and further refused to incorporate many of its elements into the bailout.

The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.

Mr. Edwards, is again correct with his first sentence, but all wet with the rest of it.  The party is not the party of Reagan – as previously mentioned.  However, it is also not the party of the “Conservatives in Good Standing” mentioned by name here.  The reason for this is because the party does NOT listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Newt Gingrich.  They instead listened to the McCains and W. Bush’s of the party.  The fact that Mr. Edwards lumps George Bush in with Rush alone reeks of uninformed RINO-ism.  While, I will defend George Bush as a good man and better President than portrayed, he is NOT a leader in the conservative movement.  George Bush is a social conservative with a fiscal policy that is antithetical to actual conservatism.  He is a Republican, and thus he is OF the party in disrepute.

I would suggest to Mr. Edwards that he stop conflating conservatives and Republicans.  They are NOT one and the same.

Last year’s presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism’s worst sense).

What?  Anti-intellectual? Nativist? Populist?  Apparently, Mr. Edwards spent entirely too much time viewing MSNBC.  Conservatives are NOT anti-intellectual.  Simply because we do not subscribe ourselves to the doctrine of beltway elitists and ivy-league intelligentsia, does not me that we are anti-intellectual.  We just disagree with Mr. Edwards’ definition of the word.  We do not consider the likes of William Ayers to be an intellectual.  I assume that nativist is in reference to our penchant for obeying the law, as in not supporting ILLEGAL immigration.  The key word is illegal, our reason for being unsupportive is self-explanatory.  I fail to see how populism falls on the heads of conservatives.  The only recollection of populism that I have, is the rhetoric of the Democrat that was running for office.

Over the last several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness.

Once again, Mr. Edwards has made the mistake of confusing Republicans and conservatives.  Republicans have, by and large, turned inside out and about faced on limited government.  Conservatives have done no such thing.  If Mr. Edwards bothered to listen to true conservatives like Bobby Jindal, Rush Limbaugh, Eric Cantor, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford, John Boehner, etc, then he would know this.  Instead he has apparently contented himself with the common media narrative that all Republicans are conservatives.  As for exclusion, division and nastiness… I wonder if Mr. Edwards has been comatose for the last eight years and even completely forgotten the Reagan years.  The left has been spewing vitriol, hate, lies, and divisive bile towards any and all Republicans and conservatives for decades.  The very notion that the politics of class warfare and nastiness are the sole onus of conservatives is an egregiously erroneous statement.  Some Republicans may ascribe to those politics, but by far or near the primary offenders are on the Left.  Conservatives, simply do not do that.

And, watching, I suspect Ronald Reagan is smacking himself on the forehead, rolling his eyes and wondering who in the world these clowns are who want so desperately to wrap themselves in his cloak.

I suspect that while President Reagan is undoubtedly directing such wonder at a healthy portion of Republicans, he is directing it at Mr. Edwards as well.

Posted in Politics, Rants | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »