Small Observations from Poll Watcher Training

I recently volunteered as a poll watcher for the Republican party in my state.  I know, it’s insane to support your local party and that I should just homestead and jack-off to goat-humping instead.  Because fighting for the future in politics is for stupid people.  You need to build a community, even as you get constantly kicked out of your community for being a smart ass.

Anyway, I had a recent training session, which was really just an introductory session to what the task involves.  It was a pretty standard training session where they went over the rules and the different roles that I could fill.  But there were a few interesting takeaways I got from it:

• People were definitely asking about the electronic ballot machines and hinting at fraud.  They were definitely concerned about whether or not they were connected to the Internet.  So a lot of people were like me and signing up in order to help keep election fraud from rearing its ugly head.
• In terms of the electronic machines, there are at least four different companies who make them.  The presenter made a comment that the localities who used the Dominion machines had discrepancies that weren’t seen in localities who didn’t.
• Despite my state eliminating the Voter ID requirement, it wasn’t really gotten rid of.  In actuality, you have to present some form of identification, which can be a utility bill.  So really, most people are just going to show their driver’s license anyway because that’s the easiest one to present.
• It’s clear that the majority of people there are looking to help prevent any kind of fraud.  Even the GOP party presenter was hinting without outright saying it that there was fraud in the last election.

That’s pretty much it.  I haven’t decided if I will just be a poll watcher or an election officer.  Or whether I’ll work during the early voting times.  But I do want to help out in any way I can so that things go smoothly where I live.

What Two Party System

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the Republicans actually are:

Harry Reid just gave Paul Ryan an unwelcome endorsement for speaker.

The Democratic leader offered his surprise backing for Ryan (R-Wis.) to assume the House speakership, saying he hopes Ryan runs and wins the job because he's a "Paul Ryan fan."

It’s weird.  It’s like the Democrats are taunting the Tea Party and everyone else who might potentially vote Republican by stating that they run the damn government.

And why not?  I mean, from top to bottom, the Federal government is nothing but communist Trekkies.  They literally believe that they can fix humanity through the power of monopolized violence courtesy of your local LEO.

And still, the Republicans pretend to get along and always seek compromise with assholes who very clearly do not have any regard for human life, lie nearly all the time, and have no problems with sexual deviancy.  Unless said deviancy is committed by Republicans.  Then it’s bad.

But I digress.  It is clear that we do not have a two party system but a bifactional ruling party.  Harry Reid endorsed Paul Ryan because he knows that he can make deals in his favor with Rep. Ryan.

Yes, this may just be a bluff, but I doubt it.  Senator Reid has probably taken too many blows to the head to come up with anything remotely resembling a clever plan.  The man is so out of touch that he even proposed making prostitution illegal in his home state of Nevada on the floor of the state legislatures.  Nobody applauded.

So I’m going to take this endorsement seriously, knowing that Reid is doing this because he and Ryan agree more than they disagree.

Or they just simply share the same lobbyist friends and therefore get the same cut of the bribery pie.

Pro-Life Republican Voters Are Still Suckers

I caught some flak for my last post calling pro-life Republican voters suckers.  Here’s the tweet:

@swiftfoxmark2 @HistoryCarper This insulting blog entry is wrong. If a candidate isn't #prolife , they lack the moral compass to lead. #Ccot

— T.J. Taylor (@Galatiansch2v20) August 13, 2015

I understand what he means.  I get that you want a candidate who values human life, no matter what stage it is at.

But saying you’re pro-life and demonstrating it are two different things entirely.  The Republican party has, by and large, failed to protect the Unborn in the 42 years since it was forcibly made legal in all 50 states by an unelected body of communist activists in judge’s robes.

And yes, they have had plenty of chances to bring up the case in the Supreme Court, plenty of opportunities to pass a law that outlaws the heinous practice of murdering children to absolve women of the consequences of their bad decisions, and plenty of chances to defund the organizations who promote.

And they have not.  They have done little more than ban partial-birth abortion (later overturned by a communist activist in a black robe) and defunded foreign abortions.  Because American abortions don’t count.

This is not victory.

What should be happening is every year the case against abortion should be brought before the Supreme Court.  Hell, if you can file the case every month, it should be done.

What should be happening is the Sanctity of Life Act should be brought before Congress every year and broadcasted to the people.

And the people who do feel strongly that abortion is an abomination should be working to change the culture to view human life as sacred.  Not lions, giraffes, or any other animal of which we have dominion over, but human life.

Instead our churches don’t even address the issue.  They pay lip service to it.  Our religious organizations do likewise and just tell people who to vote for as churches aren’t allowed to affect the political process since it’s illegal in the eyes of the Federal government (a 1st Amendment violation, I know).

And still, the Republican party continues to claim to be the party of pro-life when they have done nothing to stop it here in America.  They barely fight it at all.

And still, you morons keep voting for a self-described pro-life guy while he uses his cronies to bankrupt America and doesn’t even bother outlaw abortion.

The Better Man

There is an old saying I’ve heard from Davis Aurini (though he may have taken them from someone else) about how if you can’t be a good man, at least be a better man.  In case you don’t understand the context, it means that you may be a terrible person, but if you can be a better man in terms of masculinity, you’d at least be a better person in the long run.

In the field of Republican nominees, there is not perfect candidate.  Unlike the Democrats and the Left, Republicans tend to be made up of individuals, not collective tribes, and so they are much more ideologically diverse.  While Republicans aren’t necessary Socialist, many are center-leftists despite what they might say.

So it comes as no surprise that most of the candidates for the Republican presidency are mostly worthless.  Very few have values or ideals that match up with my own and therefore they tend to be nothing more than puppets in cheap suits.

As far as the ideological spectrum goes, I have the most in common with Rand Paul.  And I will probably vote for him the primary next year.

But I have to give props to Donald Trump.  I know that I agree with him about 56% of the time, but that doesn’t stop me from seeing a man stand up to idiots in the mainstream media.  And Trump handles himself fairly well.

If Trump wins the nomination, I will vote for him.  This is not because of ideology, but because of the nature of his personality and his experience in running successful (and failing) businesses.

Trump is a multi-millionaire (or a billionaire, I’m not sure, don’t care).  He’s made more money than most people could ever possibly make.  And by all appearances, he did it legitimately under the law, though he probably bribed politicians in order to make things work.

What’s more, he was willing to speak out on things that most people try to keep their mouths shut about.  He questioned Obama’s citizenship cred.  That takes guts for a man who is in big business under the watchful eye of a communist President.

And he said what everyone was thinking when it comes to immigration: that Mexico, among other nations, are sending their equivalent of trailer trash to America.

So while Trump is by far from perfect in terms of who I want running government, he is probably the best man for a job that most people only want because they’re failed lawyers, community organizers, or failed businessmen.  None of which really applies to Trump.

And one final note: Trump has filed for bankruptcy many times in the past.  And since the US government is effectively bankrupt, that makes him the prime candidate for properly dealing that situation.

Republican Frontrunner Stupidity

The Republican elite seems to be hell-bent on putting a gun in its mouth and blowing their collective brainstems out.  As of right now, Jeb Bush seems poised to take the lead to make the Republican nominee for 2016.

I don’t know much about Jeb Bush, other than he was governor of Florida.  That is a big red flag to me right there because Florida is know as a conservative state, except when it comes to immigration, Social Security, and Medicare.  So already I am seeing a welfare state supporting open borders multiculturalist.

Most current polls seem to push him to the top.  My guess is that people are missing George W. Bush and so they think he is like his brother.  That may be the case, that may not be the case.

But Junior was nothing more than a puppet.  I suspect that Jeb is not so much, but I suspect we’d need to see what kind of people surround him.

I don’t trust polls.  Most polls are conducted with a sample size too small against the wrong demographics, usually calling people between 9 and 5 on Mondays and Tuesdays.  You’re only going to get retirees and/or welfare recipients.  They do not reflect America, despite their growing status.

Look, I know that the Republicans will pull out all the stops to get their pre-ordained candidate to win the nomination.  I know that Ron Paul probably wouldn’t have won in 2012, but at the same time, he could have secured a few states, were it not for trickery in those states (Maine comes to mind).

This is the lesson I learned from Ron Paul’s run: the Republican machine has a pre-selected candidate who will win.  They have no interest in letting a non-puppet winning because it isn’t profitable for their cronies and it takes away their power.

That is why Jeb Bush is the current frontrunner.  He may not be in a year, but he is now.  His name is recognizable but he is a fresh face.

Never mind he has done nothing in national politics in any capacity.  Never mind nobody knows what he stands for.  He’s the frontrunner.

War on White People

So there is some controversy coming from Republican Rep. Mo Brooks.  On Laura Ingraham’s show, he stated that there is a war on whites coming from the Democrat(ick) party.

Of course social media has exploded with mocking tweets from the Left and serious stories of black on white violence from the Right.  The Left paints a Republican like an idiot, which is nothing new, but the Right takes up the cause of white men.

The truth is, Mo Brooks is right.  As far back as I can remember there has always been a war on white people.  It is systemic and generally accepted by the vast majority of society.  In schools, for example, the Jim Crow era is explored in both history and literature more often than other great things that happened around that time.

You remember how the Federal Reserve was created during the Jim Crow era?  How about FDR’s New Deal?  The roaring twenties?  The Great Depression?  Both World Wars?  The Cold War?  And that’s just in the USA.

The point is that we never hear about the positive aspects of that era.  Just how badly blacks were treated.  Martin Luther King, Jr. is treated like a saint, despite his backdoor communism and organized orgies.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Jim Crow laws were laws that needed to be repealed both morally and economically.  But at the same time, I remember how as a child I was raised to think that I was racist because I was white.  Fortunately, I overcame that handicap when I got older.

President Barack Obama attended a black liberation church for 20 years.  It was a church that fostered hatred against white people.  Michelle Obama considers every white person to be racist unless you agree with her 100%.  And the Democrats in general have played the race card so much, that people are starting to check their sleeves.

Meanwhile, black kids in liberal enclaves are running around beating white people as a kind of game.  The primary group that represents Hispanics is called “La Raza” which translates into “The Race”.  And the Jewish leaders are showing a serious level of racism against the Palestinians with some Israeli officials calling for concentration camps and genocide.

Meanwhile, white Leftist hipsters are making fun of Mo Brooks.  They are children who lack both wisdom and knowledge of the world they live in, largely because they live in a white enclave.

Mo Brooks spoke the truth.  It is the first time I’ve seen a politician actually take a stand against the race card in a long time.  I really hope he doesn’t back down.

But that would require a spine.

No Conservatives at CPAC

I left the conservatives long ago when I realized that they are not nor have they ever been constitutionalists.  Like the progressives they hate so much, conservatives tend to favor constitutional restrictions except the ones they don’t like.

So after seeing the morons parade around at CPAC this week, I am not surprised to see various idiots touted as the last great hope for ‘murica.

Truth be told, I don’t think conservatives are going to last much longer.  As more and more young people realize that their conservative parents are morons who want to kill children, so long as they are foreigners, it won’t be long until the Republican party either disbands or comes under new management.

Governor Chris Christie is not the great, big, white hope conservatives are looking for.  He is pro-gun control for one thing, and he seems to very much in love with President Obama.  Just because he speaks his mind and put teacher’s unions in their place, doesn’t mean he is a conservative.

Governor Rick Perry wanted to start a little rebellion.  Which makes me wonder: what is this asshole rebelling against?  Giving young teenage girls an untested and dangerous vaccine because it might prevent cancer in less than 2% of the sluts among that demographic?

Senator Rand Paul appears to be a fan favorite, especially among younger voters it seems.  While I have my reservations about him, I suppose he is better than the two asshats I mentioned previously.  Unfortunately, he cannot win due to his father’s legacy of being pro-freedom.  The Bilderberg Group will not let him win.

It is sad though.  Ron Paul and Rand Paul both would garner immense support.  Yet somehow Ron Paul lost all those primaries and caucuses.  It’s as if none of those votes were counted.

Still, that is old news, after all.  The truth is, the Republican party is dying.  Much like its predecessor the Whig party, we see a party of corporate cronies battling each other internally and unable to make any headway against the Democrats.  They may be evil and wicked, but the Democrats have a solid party machine.

The point is, there are no good conservative leaders in the Republican party.  There are either liberal cronies or soft libertarians.  So do yourself a favor and don’t waste money at CPAC.

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Beats A Dead Horse

Ann Coulter, the mainstream conservative columnist turned Romney fan girl, has just released a new book attacking Republicans:

Best-selling conservative author Ann Coulter, who has used her nine books to launch vicious attacks on Democrats, is turning her guns on Republicans in a new book out Monday, calling Florida Sen. Marco Rubio a hypocrite, urging donors freeze contributions to the GOP, and demanding that only governors or senators run for the party’s presidential nomination.

Her point in “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 -- Especially a Republican” is to shake the party out of its doldrums in time for the 2014 and 2016 elections.

“Elections matter. We’re trying to make the country a better place. But if our candidates don’t win, we can’t do that,” she writes. “This isn’t a game. We aren’t picking basketball brackets. Bad things happen when Republicans lose elections and Democrats have veto-proof majorities,” she adds in the book provided in advance to Secrets.

Really what this book is about is yet another mainstream conservative angry with the Republican party for treating the conservative base much like how Democrats treat blacks.  Their votes are counted on because conservatives always vote against Democrats, no matter how unprincipled the Republican opponent is.

The Republican party doesn’t care about conservatism and only seeks to enrich themselves by supporting their special interests.  It doesn’t matter how much money CPAC raises because the majority of campaign monies, which are routinely swindled through unethical means, come from the likes of Goldman Sachs and Comcast, not individuals.

So until the Republican party somehow gets more money from individuals than the large, multinational corporations who also donate and whose executives tend to have a moral code that is totally alien to the rest of us mundanes, there is no point in complaining like this.  The Republican party will not advocate conservative or libertarian principles no matter how many books, videos, columns, or movies are made that urge them to do so.

Miss Coulter, I’m afraid your time would have been better spent beating a dead horse than writing this book.

The Great Gay Marriage Distraction

All over the mainstream news, the political buzz is about President Obama and his support of gay marriage.  And why would he not support it as the State is his god and he is its high priest.  So he comes out in support of gay marriage, which critics point out is a 180 degree reversal of what he said in 2008 during his campaign.  I mean, a politician does a reversal on his own campaign promises, imagine that!

The problem I have with all this is not that President Obama supports gay marriage, because I personally believe that the State cannot redefine what is considered sacred and holy before God no matter what laws it passes, but that this is nothing more than one big giant distraction.  It is a distraction from the real issues that truly matter in our society and culture and they are, namely, the fiscal issues that a plaguing the Federal government these days, the onerous Federal regulations imposed on business and labor (which only benefits big corporations all you liberals), and the horrendous violations of human rights in this nation wrought by the ever increasing police state.

Social issues in the United States these days are nothing more than political football games.  We all like to watch them and route for our favorite side but at the end of the day, nothing really gets resolved and nothing is gained.  Given the fact that most social issues involve non-violent activities such as recreational drug use, prostitution, gambling, and sodomy, any liberty-minded individual worth his grain of salt could easily recognize this.  You can make an argument for abortion being a violent activity, as I do, and I do believe that it is an act of aggression against another individual, albeit one currently engaged in parasitical activity with a host (yes, any mother can tell you that the unborn child is basically a parasite sucking up all the best nutrients but unlike most parasites, has no need to reproduce and whose only goal is to grow enough to be able to survive outside the womb).  Even so, I advocate a more Agorist approach to abortion that involves putting abortion clinics out of business due to lack of demand rather than rely on politicians to make the right decisions.

The fact is, any time politicians take up these issues, it is a clear indication that they are losing.  In President Obama’s case, it is clear that he is not expecting to win this year (a horrifying prospect since Willard Romney is just as bad but will have his agenda rubber-stamped by all Republicans anyway) and so he is taking on this issue head on.  I suspect it is largely due to the fact that he has lost a lot of the youth vote to Ron Paul and he is simply trying to take it back as gay marriage is more favorable among the younger generation.

Regardless, this is a clear indication that President Obama is losing right now and he is merely trying to mitigate the damage.  He was unable to start a new war with Iran and had to settle with continuing aggressions in Afghanistan, he has not had an official budget plan that has been approved by Congress, he has added more debt to the Federal government’s name than George W. Bush managed to do in his eight years (not an endorsement of Bush, who doubled the national debt), and he has started a campaign of terror against the American citizenry through his trollish Homeland Security Secretary Janet “Shoulder Pads” Napolitano.

And let’s be honest: despite his campaign of hope and change, nothing really changed and people have less hope for their future prospects as far as the government is concerned.  He has merely continued and expanded the policies that George W. Bush started, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.  The wars continue, with more and more aggression into more countries who don’t want our help nor have they asked for it.  Moreover, none of these nations posed any real threat to the United States.

In essence, the politician who starts throwing out social issue stances is the one who is losing.  I would encourage Republicans to not fall into this trap and merely state that as President there is nothing he can really do about it as he isn’t the one who passes the laws nor interprets them.  If they are feeling bold, they can even mention that this acknowledgement is merely a distraction from his disastrous policies that are bankrupting the Federal government and destroying the opportunities here in the United States.

Of course, I predict that many of them will use this as an opportunity to talk about how they oppose the President’s stance and will do everything in their power to thwart him.  They will do this because most people are idiots and have been conditioned to view the President as a king or a god (or both).  They will freak out about it and demand that their guy does something about.

Meanwhile, the road to economic and financial ruin draws ever closer and no one is all the wiser.

Divided Republican Party

Great story that features a Republican party operative hating Ron Paul supporters

I have always said that the Republican primary and caucus races were always between Ron Paul and Willard “Mitt” Romney.  Romney and Paul represent the two different ideologies that dominate the Republican party right now.  The first is Statism, as represented by Romney, and the other is liberty as represented by Paul.

Say what you want about Willard Romney, he is a Statist through and through.  He has more flip-flops than John Kerry and he constantly talks about how he would make government work better for everyone.  This is the language used not only by Romney, but pretty much every other candidate who ran except for the Ron Paul.  In other words, the party elite and the party loyalists are more concerned with obtaining and keeping power so they can run government their way, not rolling it back in order to provide greater liberty and freedom for everyone.  Like the Democrats, they seek power in order to enrich themselves and their friends.

Meanwhile, many young people are trying to get involved in the Republican party for the sole purpose of pushing Ron Paul.  They seek to elevate him for their own sake, as Ron Paul’s stated policies are much different from everyone else because everyone else is doing exactly what we have been doing in the past decade or more.  Ron Paul actually proposes cuts to the Federal budget, the elimination of whole departments, scaling back the military without destroying national defense, and maintaining the current promises for Social Security and Medicare while offering young people an alternative.

Think about what has gone on so far.  In the past decade both President Bush and President Obama have played the Keynesian game by pushing out stimulus packages.  In Bush’s case, he gave the money directly to the people.  In Obama’s case, he gave it to his friends and supporters.  The young see little difference in these policies and the results have been, predictably, the same.

Congress does not seem to care much about the fiscal hell-hole they have dug and they show no signs of changing.  While the Democrats have no ideas on how to properly balance the budget, the Republicans are pushing Paul Ryan’s plan, which adds debt and does not balance the budget for 30 years.  Hell, the Democrats would probably support Ryan’s plan if he was a Democrat.  But Senator Harry Reid, who basically controls the Democrats in Congress, is probably suffering from a brain tumor at this point and hence he is scorching the fiscal Earth as it were.

Only Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent his son Senator Rand Paul, have offered a real solution.  Notice how nobody is paying attention to either plan, mostly because these plans rolling back Empire Amerika and properly addresses our domestic issues.  The Federal government wants endless wars and both the Democrats and the Republicans want this as well because they can buy votes.  Meanwhile, our civil liberties are rolled back, our wealth is destroyed, and the most talented among us are taken to work for the military industrial complex.

This is why the woman in the video was so nasty to the Ron Paul supporters.  She, like so many others, wants to continue the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and any other wars we are currently fighting which escape me at the moment.  I am not saying that Ron Paul is the final answer to all the problems we face, but he is the better option for anyone who desires an end to corporatism and fiscal insanity.  A race between Romney and Obama is nothing more than two clones with slight differences, both genetically and intellectually.  A real presidential race would be between Ron Paul and Barack Obama since this would show a real difference in ideas, rather than merely parties.

Virginia Republican Primary Qualifications Legitimize Ron Paul

In my state, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, there are only two Republican candidates for President on the ballot.  They are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Apparently, while I was on vacation in the past two weeks (or while I was getting ready for it), Rick Perry and Newt Gringrich did not like that and have decided to sue.  Normally, this would not have been a big deal, since last time Virginia’s primary happened one week after Super Tuesday, but this year it apparently happens on Super Tuesday (March 6th) and so it is a huge deal.

The state of Virginia requires 10,000 signatures from registered Virginia voters where 400 of those signatures have to be from all of Virginia’s Congressional districts.  While those requirements are hefty, and probably do discourage third parties, they also ensure that only people who receive massive support from the general populace are given a chance versus the much more unpopular, but at least equally hyped, candidates.  There is no opportunity for a write-in on the primary in Virginia.

What gets interesting in all of this is the face that this is the first time it has happened, because it appears to be the first time it has been enforced:

The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent’s primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.

In other words, the state was making sure that you had to be a member of either faction of the Bank Party or suffer severe scrutiny.  That is until one person had enough and successfully sued in order to see a much more fair election result.  Now the state is forced to verify all petitions in order to ensure fairness.

I take from this whole fiasco a few things:

1. That the only viable candidates for the Republican nominee for President are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  This is because they were the only two candidates who have the widespread support needed.  All other candidates do not have the support needed to gain the nomination.
2. If Ron Paul managed to qualify in Virginia, as one of only two, that means he can win despite what Mainstream Conservatives and Neoconservatives would have you believe.
3. The party machine that established this heavy-handed system in order to make people qualify did so with the idea that people like Ron Paul could be left out.  Too bad times are changing….

I find it amusing that so many pundits still rail against Ron Paul as being an unwinnable candidate and that his ideas are fringe ideas.  Time after time, when dealing directly with people who would vote Republican and not some elderly Democrat supporter who is home on a weekday, Ron Paul brings in the numbers that legitimize his candidacy.  Yet he continues to be ignored, besmirched, or shunned because of his traditional conservative values when it comes to the role of the Federal government.

I still am skeptical as to whether or not Ron Paul will ultimately win the nomination.  I have a suspicion that most primary and caucus voters are predominantly old-guard Republican or Mainstream Conservative, neither of whom have any love for Ron Paul because he does not like bombing women and children in foreign nations (or blowing up dogs or throwing puppies off cliffs).

But I have heard that there are more and more young people who adhere to the ideals of Constitutional Conservatism, as Ron Paul does, and they are the future of this nation, unless we are conquered by an outside power within a generation (which is always a possibility no matter how remote it seems).

Even if Ron Paul loses this year and retires from the life of a public “servant”, his ideas will carry on into the future.  It seems that liberty and freedom are making a comeback and maybe we will be able to make this nation a shining beacon of hope once again.

Why Sarah Palin Cannot Win the Presidency

When Sarah Palin first hit the national scene, she seemed all right to me.  She certainly reinvigorated the lackluster campaign of John McCain up until John McCain voted for the banking bailouts.  All I am saying is that she gave John McCain a bit of a bump back in 2008 for about a week or two.

Immediately following John McCain’s failure, she was basically anointed by the conservative pundits to run for president in 2012 against Obama.  This was reinforced by how McCain’s group blamed Palin for his loss in the aftermath, which was largely unfair.  In any case, this more than solidified her as the next possible person to run for President of the United States since conservative pundits like to pretend that they are anti-Republican establishment types to their audiences.

Unfortunately, despite her appeal, I firmly believe that Sarah Palin has no chance of winning in 2012.

I have come to this conclusion not because I think she is not conservative.  I have no doubt that she is fairly conservative and could easily win over many hearts and minds in people.

This is not because she quit her job as governor of Alaska in the middle of her term.  I do believe that this hurt her, but her reasons for doing so are understandable and by and large it would not hurt her in the media.

No, I believe that she can not win for the simple reason that she is not running.  Sarah Palin cannot possibly win because she is not running for any office of any kind.  One cannot win the Presidency if you are not running for it.

I know she is appearing to run on it and I know that she has done all these events and tours which appear to be about her running.  I believe these were nothing more than attempts to feed her ego and to make money off of the Palinistas.

So that is why she cannot win.  She is not running and at this point, she will not win the nomination even if she enters the race late because it is a little late and because nobody likes a cocktease.

“This Man Will Destroy the Party”

Just after the last Republican Presidential candidate debate, Rush Limbaugh opened his Friday show by stating that Ron Paul was going to “destroy the party.”  Not only did he enrage a good chunk of his listeners (probably 28% given the Ames Straw Poll results), he followed up by saying he is not going to take any calls from Ron Paul supporters.

So let me get this straight: not only do you think that Ron Paul is bad for the Republican party, which you yourself has said is in desperate need of change, but you refuse to be confronted by listeners for your comments.  There is only one word I can think of for this kind of thing: cowardice.  Rush Limbaugh is a big fat coward.

I understand if you oppose Ron Paul.  His ideas are probably too radical these days for anyone in the looter class to take.  As talk show host Jerry Doyle put it, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are nothing more than cheerleaders for the Republican party.

Which highlights something that has been bothering about his outburst that Friday.  Notice that he did not say that Ron Paul will destroy the country, the world, our freedom, or our wealth but the party.  In other words, Rush Limbaugh admitted on his own show that he has no desire to see any change in the Republican party.

Yes, I am well aware that he has supported the Tea Party.  But you Tea Parties need to realize that Rush and Hannity and Boortz and the others only supported you in order to boost ratings.  They want you listening to them, they do not care about changing the Republican party and moving it toward a Constitutional ideology.  What they are trying to do is assimilate the Tea Party into Republican ideology because the Republican leadership cannot assimilate the Tea Party into their hierarchy like the Democratic leaders did with the Left-wing anti-war movement.

Perhaps I am just being paranoid.  But given various statements that Rush Limbaugh has said over the years, I can only wonder why he has not completely abandoned the Republican party entirely, given their continued disdain for the conservatism he originally stood for.

As far as I am concerned, though, Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a large portion of the media class, looking to create the illusion of division when the end result is always the same.  If he or his ilk ever really wanted to change things, they would run for office and really change things.

So long as we have Republican cheerleaders such as Rush, there will never be any meaningful change for the better.  It is a shame because the Republican party has largely become just another side of the oppressive sword cutting through the liberties of the common citizen.

In a Related Story: The Republican Leaders are SUCKERS!!!

So now that the debt ceiling deal has been passed and we are on the road to default now, it’s official: Republican leaders are suckers.  Speaker of the House Boehner is a total boob and a crybaby to boot.  Not only has he constantly compromised with himself, which is not a big turn on for women I might add, he had the gall to say that it was for our benefit.

Speaker Boehner had repeatedly said indicated that he did not want to shutdown the Federal government.  This is why we were doomed from the beginning to lose the battle of the debt ceiling.  Boehner knew that not raising the debt ceiling would not result in default, but in government shutdown.  This was something he did not want to happen as he did not want to be perceived as the man who did nothing while Rome burned.   On a side note, I never understood that analogy since it is not likely that any king or emperor could do much of anything to put a fire, unless they were truly divine in some capacity.

Not only that, but Speaker Boehner seems to be content with bringing more debt, debt which cannot be repaid, upon us in order to maintain the status quo.  Any benefit that was supposedly gained by this deal will not occur because those are promises on future spending, assuming that we still have the same Congressional leadership who is willing to keep up with their promises.  But we all know that the American people are, by and large, only focused on what Congress has done in the past year or so and I predict that whatever spending caps or cuts which have been passed will be removed within a year or so.  From what I understand, there were no spending cuts, so this prediction is fairly accurate.

I suspect that this is what Speaker Boehner wanted all along.  Statists always benefit from the status quo being maintained, no matter what the cost is to everyone else.  Remember, he said that he was not interested in rolling back Obamacare and I am almost certain he wholeheartedly supports it with every fiber of his being.  This is probably why he has not chosen to defund it with the continuing resolutions that were passed this year in lieu of a budget.

Speaker Boehner is a giant wussy and he needs to be called on it.  He was so afraid of a government shutdown that he refused to take on anything controversial.  He pisses himself at the prospect of a government shutdown and so he folds his hand and does not stand up to the President, all the while insulting the fiscal conservatives with both insult and sardonic assurances of spending caps.

As for Eric Cantor, he is a big idiot.  He actually stood for fiscal conservatism to a degree, but now it is clear that he is a big weeny as well.  He caved into a man who cried in public more than any other politician I can remember.  So what do you call a man who submits to ultra-wussy like Speaker Boehner?

Meanwhile, Senator Mitch McConnell openly defied the fiscal conservatives and proposed a deal that was probably the same one that was passed today.  Is it any wonder why more Republicans voted against this “deal” than Democrats?

This whole deal is nothing more than a win for Statism and the status quo.   We are going to lose this nation’s financial stability now because good men refused to fight against what is clearly nothing short of madness.  If you have ever read Common Sense by Thomas Paine, you would know that it was a propaganda piece for promoting colonial independence at that specific time.  Thomas Paine argued that if they waited a decade or two, then the colonies would become complacent in being a colony of England and thus allow a tyrannical king to do as he pleases.

Now that it is clear that no one, neither Democrat nor Republican, has the political will to take on a serious problem and instead focus of building airports or shutting down lemonade stands, it is clear that our nation is going to collapse on its own largess of wealth to people who do not deserve it.

Everyone who supported any plan on the Republican side which raised the debt ceiling is a sucker.  All that did was ensure that President Obama gets to continue his illegal bombings in Libya, his sale of guns to drug cartels in Mexico, his expansion of rules and regulations into our medical plans, and his harassment of toddlers, babies, children, and elderly people in airports.  All you have done is continue the madness that is Obama and done NOT A DAMN THING TO STOP IT!

President Obama has won.  He started out with a radical position, produced no plan, and managed to get you idiots to compromise with yourselves while he played golf.  He played you like a con artist plays a bored, greedy housewife and grifted the American people out of a successful future.

Hope is gone now.  All that remains is the prospect of default and resetting this madness back to zero.  Also, I think some violence is just around the corner since our supposed leaders are not interested in socialized conflict.

The Perfect Republican

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner is the perfect Republican. What I mean by this is that he always manages to look for the compromise whenever it isn’t needed nor even desired by anyone but himself. Boehner is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party these days and it makes me want to not vote for them because I know this dolt will become the Speaker of the House if the Republicans win this November.

Politics is the socialization of conflict. At least, that’s the best definition I’ve come across so far. In essence, you have a group of people who are talking out their issues in dealing with governance rather than fighting it out like they do in the Third World or at a vacation home that my parents-in-law are staying at (make friends with the local police as you enter that quaint vacation town is my advice). But Boehner doesn’t seem to realize this simple fact about the nature of politics.

Here’s a message to Boehner and others of his ilk: you are at war with the Democrats. They are not your friends, they are not your drinking buddies (Ted Kennedy is long dead now), and they pull no punches. Sure, you aren’t using soldiers to fight this war, they’re reserved for Third World hellholes that have no bearing on national security, but you are fighting a war against an opponent who does have different ideas.

At least that is the impression that you attempt to give us. You Republicans keep on saying that you’re different from the Democrats and that’s why we should vote for you. Yet at every turn it seems to me that we find you compromising with them rather than simply opposing them. You use excuses like Congressional deadlock and government shutdown. But honestly, maybe that’s we all want this time around. Maybe we’re all just sick your ilk letting the State grow bigger and bigger while making pathetic excuses.

As Ayn Rand once wrote, “In any collaboration between two men (or groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” In other words, if you continually capitulate and compromise with the Leftist Statists that run the Democrat(ick) Party, you will continually lose to them.

Of course, if that’s what you want, then I guess you’ll get your wish. It seems to me that the Republicans are led by a bunch of hypocrites who desire power more than principled government. They enjoy the perks of being in power and neglect the will of the people.

Which is probably why Boehner and others of his ilk said that they won’t repeal the Healthcare Bill inspired by a crazed Mormon Republican with a flashy hairstyle and a tongue designed to lick ass. I guess this means that the Republican leaders are nothing more than Statists, something I have known now for several years, and something that many people are coming to grips with.

There are still many conservative Republican Party loyalists out there and to them I say this: you’re all fools who can’t see the forest for the trees. The Republican Party hates you and would rather you not raise such a ruckus. Stop apologizing for them and start rejecting them. Vote for the best liberty-minded candidate and if none is found, then write your own name in. At least you’ll have a clear sense of conviction afterwards.

Republicans Need To Wake Up

The Democrats have done a terrible job at running the Federal government for these past four years.  Under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and now Barack Hussein “Obama” Soetoro, they have exacerbated the economic problems our nation faces, expanded government power, and done absolutely nothing to stop the state of perpetual war we are in, though they promised us all this.  Not that I am all that surprised by these outcomes because I’ve always known that they would expand Federal power and maintain the existing machine.  They like big government, after all, and it isn’t in their nature to scale anything back.

So given that we have a two-party system and a large populace that is outright angry with our current set of leaders, you’d think the Republican party would have a solid platform to stand on and be able to present their own alternatives to the issues we are facing.  Instead, when I visit the RNC website (http://www.gop.com/), I see nothing about what they plan for the Federal government or America, but I do see a link to the 2008 campaign.  As an aside, I see a section called ‘GOP Women’ which is a stupid attempt at appeasing feminist and idiots who agree with them.  You will always be considered a party of sexists in their eyes, so don’t even bother trying to appeal to them.

Right now, it is July of 2010.  Many of the candidates for the House and the Senate have been chosen to run against their Democrat counterparts and it is high time you all get your act together and start offering better alternatives than what the Democrats are offering via their governing policies.  You cannot rely on talk radio show pundits such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to hold your water for you.  In fact, they wouldn’t do that if you would actually articulate and emphasize your party’s principles more when you make public appearances.  Instead, all we get is a bunch of pandering and vague arguments on your party’s stances.  At least the Democrats have a coherent ideology and they govern based on it.

A good start would be to bring Governor Chris Christi in and ask him to provide some ideas.  He makes me want to move to New Jersey, until I remember that this is New Jersey and that he hasn’t succeeded in getting rid of the ridiculous number of overpaid bureaucrats his state has to offer yet.

Between the economic mess, the nationalization of health care, the oil spill fiasco, and the numerous potential scandals that plague Barack Hussein “Obama” Soetoro, you have a golden opportunity here to present better ideas, better courses of action, and retake both houses of Congress.  The Democrats would easily have already gained huge approval ratings (probably in the 80% range) by now with all the crap that is going.

And please, don’t whine about how the mainstream press won’t give you a fair shake.  They won’t but that shouldn’t stop you from numerous grassroots campaigns and getting your message out on the streets.  Forget the mainstream media.  They are dying a slow death anyway.  Once the majority of the Baby Boom generation is drooling on themselves in a nursing home, they’ll all be bankrupt anyway.

Seriously, is it part of the Republican party platform to shoot yourself in the face every time a golden opportunity is presented?  You all need to push back and show absolutely no political mercy.  Politics is the socialization of conflict, where instead of swords you use words.  And so far, you lack any coherent message that could make me or any other more independent minded voter pick your people.

Stop relying on the Tea Party movement and on talk radio and do your job.  Get out and present your ideas to the American people because you will win if you present them.  Any time a rational side presents itself openly, it always wins out.  Stop being reactionary and start being pro-active.

Or you could just repeat the same mistakes you made in 2004, where you won but assumed that you would continue to win based on being slightly better than Democrats.  People won’t see a clear and distinct difference between Democrats and Republicans if you do not present your ideas to the voting public.

In other words, wake the hell up and stop squandering your golden opportunity to make things right again.

Republican Voting Guidelines 2010

Being a libertarian-minded individual, I tend to vote based on principles rather than party.  Granted, that is a dangerous position to take, since you can end up with the wrong party in power wrecking our lives, but history has demonstrated that no party is really better than the other.  At least for my tastes.

This year it looks like the Democrats are the big losers.  While there is a chance for a landslide inducing October surprise, I’d say the Republicans will take the House and may secure a larger minority in the Senate.  It is unfortunate that we are faced with a obvious choice, but I’ve put together a set of guidelines that should help steer your decision in the right direction.  With many primaries coming up, it’s probably something we need to keep in mind so that we don’t get Statist Republicans running against Statist Democrats:

• If the Republican candidate has ever tried in the past to run as a Democrat, then you shouldn’t vote for said Republican.  No matter what light this person claims to have seen, you shouldn’t trust a party jumper, especially in this highly partisan political environment we are in.
• Not only should you vet the views of the candidate, but the views of the candidate’s spouse.  The person’s spouse can have a huge impact on the political outlook, whether you realize it or not.  I suspect that this is why both President Bush’s never really did much with the abortion issue despite having the power to do much more.  Both president’s wives were pro-choice and I’m sure wielded some level of influence on them.  Actually, I think President George W. Bush was the only potential pro-life person of the four and given his past actions, I hardly think he was pro-life himself.
• Check what issues they emphasize more.  If they push social issues over fiscal ones, then you have a candidate who will probably not engage in fiscal responsibility and instead focus on pushing the circular morality complex that we find ourselves in.  Given the nature of the times, now is not the time to be wasting money on the morality police when we really need to be making deep cuts in government spending.
• Does the candidate support any kind of welfare program, be it Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment “Insurance”, etc.?  If so, then this candidate is either a week-kneed coward or a Statist.  Neither one makes for a great candidate.
• Does their campaign appeal to their personal life more so than their ideas?  If so, then you may be looking at someone with some very Statist stances on key issues.
• Is the candidate a lawyer by trade?  This is probably likely but if not, then you’ve got a better choice.  The Law profession is by nature a Statist profession because legal matters are matters of State.  In fact, if the candidate has any previous experience in working for the government, you should analyze that and be aware that Statists tend to work for the state before they end up running things.
• Does the candidate appeal to emotion rather than make appeals to reason?  If so, then you’re looking at a opportunists who has no love for truth and logic, but anything that can get him or her elected.  The greatest tyrannies perpetrated upon people in the modern era has been justified through emotion rather than reason.

This is a basic guideline for choosing a liberty-minded candidate within the Republican party.  Remember these are just guidelines and I’m sure that every candidate will not meet 100% of these standards.  But it should help to eliminate the more questionable candidates.  But hey, if you’re not happy with the Republican, you can always vote third party or just write-in your own name.  I won’t fault you if you do.

A Win For Republicans, Not Liberty

I really hate to be a downer on the victory that Republicans and conservatives had yesterday, but Scott Brown’s win is not a victory for the ideals of conservatism or liberty.  I know, I’m a pessimist, but you optimists need people like me otherwise you’d all have committed suicide by now.  It’s kind of an evolutionary failsafe.

As I’ve stated before, Scott Brown was not a conservative.  He was a big liberal when he was in the state Senate.  While voting for the Massachusetts version of “Universal” healthcare is something I can forgive, because it was pushed by a popular Mormon governor, he apparently has a long record of being the most liberal member of the state Senate.  This means that he, like so many other Statists, have never met a government program they didn’t like (unless it did absolutely nothing to benefit them).

So this means that Scott Brown will probably cross the aisle to the Democrats’ side in order to pass bills that favor more government and not less.  His rhetoric is reminiscent of George W. Bush, which does draw a slight distinction from the others, but not much.  President Bush did cross the aisle to get some stupid Medicare and education bills passed.  This means that anything that doesn’t involve cutting taxes or going to war without declaring war is pretty much open season for Scott Brown.

What does the future hold, given all this?  Well, the immediate future probably means that the Senate is no longer a factor when it comes to Obamacare.  What is probably going to happen is that Pelosi will put the Senate bill to the floor of the House for a vote.  More than likely, it will fail to pass there because despite the fact that it passed last year, it barely passed through the House of Representatives, garnering only a 3 vote majority in what is an overwhelming Democrat-controlled House.

Beyond that, the Cap and Trade bill will probably fail as well, if it manages to make to the floor of the United States Senate.  In fact, I expect the next several months to be pretty docile on Capitol Hill, but this is largely typical in a mid-term election year.  Unless something big happens, like the bank bailout scandal in 2008, then I doubt any real legislation of significance will pass.  Still, being the libertarian-minded person I am, I regard any legislation passed that isn’t under the scope of the limited powers as described by the United States Constitution to be just as tyrannical as the big ones.

However, after this year’s election, we will see a dramatic shift and more legislation rammed down our throats.  It won’t matter if the Democrats keep their majorities or not.  The patterns of the behavior of Congress are fairly predictable given the past and their own ideology.

There is hope for our future, though.  Peter Schiff and Rand Paul are both in the running for Senate.  Despite the fact that I don’t completely agree with these men, I know that if they get in there, they will do everything they can to obstruct the legislative process.  At the very least they will become the “Dr. No” of the Senate.  And a single Senator can do a lot more damage to the legislative process than a single House member can.  I would’ve pulled every dirty trick I could have to derail the passage of the healthcare bill in the Senate.  I would have made them read it and I might have stuck around for it all.  I’d probably just play some MMORPG on a laptop, but no said you have to pay attention to it all.

Still, while this is a minor victory for the Republicans, I doubt it will benefit any of the American people in the long run.  The reach of tyranny is too big now.  I wonder if we can ever restore the constitutional limitations without resorting to violence.  I wonder if violence would do it anyway or it would merely bring about something new and different.  But these things will have to play out as they are I guess.

For now, conservatives should have a little celebration.  But keep in mind that they will have to work much harder this time now that they put another RINO in a Senate seat.  Democrats are easy.  Attacking the party you normally support is much more difficult.

The Default of Conservatism

In her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand discussed the problems she had with conservatives.  She viewed their ideology as flawed and based in mysticism, mostly because she was a hardcore atheist and didn’t think that using God to justify limited government was rational.  In my view it is, but only when your audience believes in God.  She also made a point that most conservatives who attain offices of high power tend to compromise their beliefs and end up not using their power to achieve the goals of limited government.

I remember reading her writings on this and thinking to myself about how much things don’t change when it comes to politics.  Sure the ideas shift from time to time, but the nature of politics and particular ideologies tends to be the same over time.  I’ve noticed that every time conservatives win major victories, they end up find that their man wasn’t all the conservative after all, just an opportunist like one of the Roosevelt presidents.  This is why I thank God that Mitt Romney bowed out last year because all the stupid talk show pundits were touting him as a true conservative when his record was anything but.

The problem with conservative politicians is that they are easily swayed by the allure of power just like anyone else is.  Or they simply weren’t conservative to begin with and only claimed to be such in order to win votes (there were at least three “frontrunner” candidates on the Republican ticket last year who fell into this category).  But despite these wolves in sheep’s clothing or weak-willed individuals who carry the conservative mantle to DC, it is ultimately the conservatives themselves who are to blame for the movement’s lack of a future right now.

Time and again, at the behest of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, the conservatives in this country are duped into believing that some significant Republican politician is a true conservative.  I remember Rush Limbaugh saying that George W. Bush was more conservative than his father.  But that proved to be factually wrong on many counts.  At least George, Sr. didn’t bailout the banks during his recession.  He merely just raised taxes.

The individuals within the conservative movement are also hung up on issues that also cause their downfall in the long-term.  I remember asking a diehard conservative if he would rather vote for a pro-life Statist-type or a pro-choice libertarian-type.  His response was the pro-life Statist.  When Dave Ramsey opened the phones last year on election day to ask who they voted for and why at least half of the callers who had voted for McCain said it was because of abortion.  Understand that I am opposed to abortion, but I dare say that a pro-choice libertarian-type would steer us in a long term direction that would eventually allow us to succeed on the abortion issue.  And never mind that the Republican party has done jackcrap about the abortion problem despite controlling the Federal government in some fashion or another most of the time since Roe v. Wade.  I just think that maybe it shouldn’t be the top priority in politics right now.  Remember that George H. W. Bush was pro-choice and made that the cornerstone of his Presidential campaign in 1980.  Laura Bush herself is pro-choice, a dirty secret that conservatives glossed over during the second Bush’s reign.

The conservative movement is dying because they continually shift ideals and compromise with the Left over things they believe are more important than liberty.  Before 9/11, the Republicans opposed the USA PATRIOT Act (although it was probably called something else).  Now they supported it but I don’t see how giving the government more power would make us safer in the long run.  There is no off switch on this kind of thing, unlike the surveillance equipment in that movie The Dark Knight.  Government programs never die and they know this, but then forget about it when it doesn’t suit their misplaced ideals.

While I view conservatives as the natural ally of the libertarian, they tend not to, mostly because of the social stances libertarians take.  Instead of accepting them as a natural ally, conservatives alienate libertarians and other fiscally conservative groups.  If they had support of the libertarians, do you think that Obama or McCain would be President now?

This is their default.  They end up allowing a Statist to win because they believe that a Statist is better than the other more extreme Statist who is running against them.  They are afraid to deny the Republican party the sum total of their voting block, which would effectively make the Republican party a “third party”.  But Statism is Statism and no matter who wins in a race like that, our liberties, our lives, and our property will be at risk.  The only real difference is that conservatives will hand it over with a smile rather than a scowl.

So Just What Is a Neocon?

For too long now, the word “neocon” has been used as a derogatory word toward whoever a liberal (or progressive) was opposing.  I think the phenomenon started back when Bush, Jr. first became President.  I am not sure who or what started using the phrase “neocon” like that, but it has been applied to just about every conservative who a moderate or leftist does not like.
The word “neocon” is obviously a short form for the word “neoconservative”.  If you are not too familiar with the prefix “neo-“ it means “new”.  So, if you are not able to put two and two together, “neoconservative” means “new conservative”.  Does that make sense?
But what is their ideology?  What is it about the neoconservative belief that makes it hip, new, and better than traditional conservatism?  It is a hard definition to find since it has been hijacked by many people and may mean different things.  However, I have found, with the help of some anti-Ron Paul posters in a forum I debate in, a pretty clear and concise summation of what they really believe.  Irving Kristol wrote about it in the Weekly Standard about six years ago in this article and he starts off by saying this:

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt.

OK, not to complain or anything, but what was wrong with the “old” conservatism?  What is it about this modern democracy that makes the old way of conservatism unable to properly govern it?

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.

If you have just read that paragraph thoroughly enough, already you can see the danger.  The point that Mr. Kristol is making here is that it is more about image and less about substance.  The Roosevelts and Reagan had a charming persona that allowed the public to adore them.  The others are tossed in the trash heap because they were ugly people.  And please, Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower were anything but conservative.  Hoover prolonged the Great Depression through government intervention, though not quite as heavy handed as FDR, and Eisenhower gave the interstate roadways, which have encourage automobiles over other forms of transportation (the environmental problems of today are the fault of government).
Now we get into some of the ideological stances of neoconservatives, because you do need some substance to hold your beautiful face together:

One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth…Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning…Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services…Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

Now I see where this is going.  Clearly, neoconservatism is nothing new.  The ideas espoused by them have simply been stolen by progressives.  It is an ideology of defeat, despite claiming to be optimistic.  It is like when Dave Ramsey talks about car payments and about how everyone always moans that you will always have one.  Instead of hoping for a better future where you are not diverting several hundred dollars a month toward a bad investment, you could be working to save that same money to buy a better car.
I really did not need to read more after that.  I knew where he was going with it and I knew that he was basically a progressive in the guise of a conservative.  Therefore, I am not going to bore you with the rest of his article.  Feel free to read it for yourself.  Bookmark it and share it with all your conservative friends.  Let them know that a neocon is nothing more than a closet liberal who has given up on fighting tyranny and instead wishes to work with it to make government better.  But you and I know that the only good government is a small one.
Oh, and just one other thing.  Neoconservatives have a word they like to use on us as well.  They call us “paleoconservatives”.  In other words, we are ancient and outdated conservatives who have no good ideas for the future of this great nation.  But I say that the old ideas (you know, the ones found in that pesky document called the United States Constitution) are the best ones.  No where in that article will you find a reference to upholding the limits of government laid out in the Constitution.  If clinging fast to the United States Constitution and the principles of limited government, also known as liberty and freedom, makes me ancient and outdated, then this 27-year-old white guy should be allowed to collect Social Security.
(I am kidding of course.  I would never, ever want Social Security unless all other options have been exhausted, and that includes selling blood, semen, black-market organs, and illicit drugs.)