A bad word, by any other name, should smell as rank.

I’ve been so irked by the recent “sl** heard round the world” that I’ve distanced myself from politics. Well, not exactly by the original usage itself, but by the resulting Democratic War Against the Truth. I guess that, for a proper thesis, I should constrain myself to discussing only how the Left has twisted the debate. But first, let me ask, didn’t “sl**” used to be a bad word?

I don’t agree with Limbaugh using said word, not because Sandra Fluke doesn’t deserve it (she does), but because kids might be listening. What about the dad who is sitting in the drive-thru at McDonald’s, waiting on their Happy Meal, and listening to Rush? When Rush speaks his most provocative phrase of the last month, the kid asks,

Son: “Dad, what’s a…?”

Dad: “Well son, it’s a woman who can’t keep her legs closed.”

Son: “Does it only affect women? Can a man be one too?”

Dad: “Yes, son, a man can be one too. It’s not a good thing to be. It means they’re lost and looking for meaning in their lives. It means they want companionship, but are always alone, no matter how many people they meet.”

Son: Lowering his head, “I don’t understand.”

Dad: “You will some day, sport. When you’re ready. It’s a disease known to end relationships, the kind of love your mom and I have.”

Son: “And it keeps you from closing your legs?”

Dad: Chuckling, “Yes, and it keeps you from closing your legs.”

Son: “I don’t wanna catch that.”

Dad: “Hey look, your nuggets are here.”


Searching Google, I can tell you that this word has been used – uncensored – by ABC News, Yahoo News, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, the Washington Times, Forbes (who stole our Shakespearean reference), and that’s just the first page of results! Maybe I’m just old for my age, but there used to be a time when this word was whispered, and never would have been used in the headline. Limbaugh’s original usage likely would have made headlines, but because people would have been shocked at the common indecency of using such a word on the national airwaves! The reason the usage itself isn’t shocking is because the Left has long controlled the Media, and they revel in vulgarities. This is where I segue into the rest of my post: how the Left is controlling the dialog.

You’ve probably noticed how there’s a new “War on Women.” I’ve been a registered Republican for many years, and nobody ever told me we were going to war! Maybe I’m just out of the loop, or maybe the Dems are making things up once again. Here’s a list of what they’re doing/saying:

Regulating vasectomies

Regulating viagra


The idea, of course, is to skew the argument onto their terms. We’re not arguing how Rush can get away with using vulgarity on the airwaves (though he’s definitely tame by most standards of cable television). We’re barely even able to argue our main point: that I shouldn’t have to pay for your evening activities.

You know what I do in my free time? I read comics! Why isn’t Sandra Fluke paying for my comics? Why does she can’t afford birth control, but she can afford the tuition at Georgetown? Why does she get to say “slurs won’t silence women“? Why does CNN get to do such a poor job on their editorials? Go ahead, click through to the last link, and see where they’re linking to. Don’t wanna? They’re linking to the Center for American Progress!!! Don’t click that link. They may get ad revenue. It’s just there for reference.

Point is this: birth control (the pill form, which is what we KNOW we’re all talking about) is nine dollars. NINE DOLLARS! A month!  At Target! Wal-Mart too! Not at Waldo’s Fake Drug Emporium! Chaps my arse. This woman, ANY WOMAN, can afford a first rate education, but not $9/month pills? Now that I’m nice and riled up, let’s look at why this is a “woman’s issue.”

Because Democrats want to brainwash people into thinking women are all pro-abortion and pro-promiscuity, that’s why! Men have to pay child support or face jailtime, garnished wages, and general social revulsion. Condoms are in a man’s best interest because men get STDs too! Some men even – I’ll dare to say the unspeakable here- care about their children! Yet we’re all constantly told that this is a “woman’s issue.” This is because the Left is trying to skew the debate.

They don’t want us to ask why old vulgarities are the new cool. I’m sure they take great pleasure in seeing “sl**” get used in national headlines. They certainly don’t want us to ask why birth control has nothing to do with men. That would give men meaning and importance, and they hate that. All of America’s presidents have been men, so we have to pay the price by paying for Sandra Fluke’s birth control pills – which she apparently buys on Rodeo Drive. These laws they’re passing are a diversion. We all know they don’t mean them to actually be passed, but it forces politicians to debate them, and therefore to speak on the Left’s terms.

Refuse to do so. Refuse to play the Marxists’ game. You can do so by standing by your principles, by speaking the truth, and by knowing you are not alone. They are lying. Call them liars.

The Man We Lost

I’m listening to Grassroots Colorado, a local talk radio show that airs out here. They opened their show talking about Andrew Breitbart. The hosts discussed how they had a short-notice need for a speaker for their local 09/12 rally. One of the hosts, before he even was a host, was referred to Andrew. He called him up and asked if he’d mind flying out and speaking. Andrew made his demands: pay for his flight, his hotel room, a dinner, and a beer. That’s it. There was no speaker’s fee for thousands of dollars; he just wanted his basic expenses covered and a beer. That’s the man we lost.

This 09/12 event was before the radio show, which only started last year. The hosts spent several hours talking to Andrew. He was happy to stay a few extra hours to get to know fellow conservative activists. That’s how the two hosts first got to know each other. One of them said that, “in a roundabout way, Andrew was responsible for me sitting here right now.” That’s the man we lost.

Jon Caldera, of the Independence Institute, went on the show and said that he thought of Andrew as “the opposite of a pundit.” I realized then why his death was so meaningful, not just to me, but to all of us.

Andrew Breitbart got his hands dirty. I was discussing his death today with a coworker, who remarked that Andrew was more conservative than he had been led to believe. I’m not sure where he’d gotten his information, but Andrew wasn’t like all those other pundits. He never discussed his own views much.  I’d recently read that the HuffPost people originally thought they could get along with Breitbart because he had some socially liberal views. I don’t know what those were, so :shrug:. My coworker’s mistake was understandable. He was, as James Taranto has often remarked, the perfect Alinskyite. Breitbart realized that making a positive claim left one open to analysis. He realized that, if you seek authority, then the Left will have ground on which to stand in their quest to destroy you. So he never sought authority. He never made positive claims: I support X because of Y and Z. Instead, he beat the Left at their own game. He purposefully gave up any pursuit of his own authority, which is why the Left’s attacks against him never worked. He never sought the moral high ground or acted like he was God’s greatest gift tot he Truth. He just made the Left look stupid, and he was brilliant at it. That’s the man we lost.

Andrew Breitbart got the President of the United States to fire Shirley Sherrod with a single, well-edited video. Imagine that! A simple blogger/pundit/journalist/whatever he was got the most powerful man in the world to act rashly and drastically! That’s the man we lost.

Andrew Breitbart got Representative Weiner to resign. At the press conference, the uninvited Breitbart grabbed the mic and launched into a long tirade against the Leftist Media, sitting right before him. That’s the man we lost.

Andrew Breitbart stood before 2 thousand Occupiers. As they screamed their drivel at him, he shouted back: “Behave! Behave! Stop raping!” That’s the man we lost.

On Twitter today, I saw a woman say that Breitbart not only responded to her once, but followed her back. He responded to me once on Twitter too. He had mentioned Arianna Huffington. I asked him if she’d ever apologized to him for her hypocrisy and for throwing him under the bus for his HuffPost article. He replie, “No she hasn’t. Thanks for asking!” He made sure to keep her tagged in the response so she could see it. That’s the man we lost.

All this shows why Andrew’s death has hit us all so hard. It’s not just that he was so young, or influential, or passionate. There’s a lot of conservatives out there who fit that bill. Andrew was something special, because he got his hands dirty: not just once or twice, but over and over again. He stared the lion in the maw as it roared, and he roared right back.

That’s the man we lost. There will never be another just like him, but he left us all with a lot of lessons to learn. When the Left shouts, shout back. Don’t be afraid to speak the truth. Obama is a radical, so say it! The Government is corrupt and bloated, so say it! When they call you racist or stupid, shrug it off and keep shouting! Fight for what you believe, and help other conservatives do the same, because you never know what kind of impact you can have. That’s the man we lost, but with his death, we can gain a million more.

One last thing crosses my mind. The nice thing about being a conservative is that you don’t have to apologize for believing in God. You don’t have to hide it. So we leave you with this: a tornado in Heaven, Andrew Breitbart is with God now. Make him proud.

Liberals Hate Science Pt.1

John Locke: Not a Marxist

About a month ago, I read this little gem. I’ll save you the trouble of reading it (though please feel free to). The author, a Mr. Tom Chivers, argues that “Republicans turn their back on the Enlightenment.” His evidence is that a slim majority (52%) or Republicans reject the Theory of Evolution. In short, you hate science (assuming you’re a Republican or at least fall somewhere in line with the GOP presidential candidates. He describes you as “anti-intellectual.” Please note that only a dumbass would use the term “anti-intellectual.” Anyhoo, his premise is that you hate science. Since my degree is partly in philosophy, I have studied the Enlightenment at least a bit more than most, and would like to retort Mr. Chives’ and his assertion that people who question global warming are anti-smartness.

The Enlightenment began with Descartes. He’s largely remembered for his phrase “cogito ergo sum” or in English, “I think therefore I am.” Descartes also offered a couple proofs of God. The post-modern philosophical establishment hates Descartes because, within all this, he came about with what is called “Cartesian Dualism.” That’s a fancy term that just means there is a soul which exists separate from the body. Realize with whom you’re dealing: people who bother to come up with terms like “post-modern.” We used to call that “the future,” but go figure.

Anyway, the Enlightenment included not only Descartes, but John Locke as well. You may remember him for his arguments on property rights. He discovered the notion that a man is entitled to the value of his labor: his property. He wrote, “The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” That capitalist pig! Of course, back in his day, the King taxed a great deal of what a person made – nothing like today, where Congress does it. John Locke was not only one of the Enlightenment’s great thinkers, but was also the a large part of the inspiration for our Republic. He wrote during the late 17th century, and our Founders knew him well. Were our Founders wholly in Locke-step? No, of course not! They wouldn’t be famous if they were, but they knew that a basis of property must be established.

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. ~ John Adams

The idea of God and private property are entirely within the realms of Enlightenment thinking. In fact, it is the Left which wants to do away with them. They’ve created a whole society with which to go about it: the post-modernists. These post-modernists seek to demolish all thought of God, or property, or anything either substantial or universal. They stand against the Enlightenment. C.S Lewis refuted them in The Abolition of Man.

This is the end of Part 1.  Please join us for Part 2, where I show how conservatives value science more than Leftists.

The Twelve Days of Obamas









On the twelfth day of Obamas,
Obama sent to me
Twelve teleprompters,
Eleven hippies toking,
Ten volts a-burning,
Nine illegals voting,
Eight wads of wheatgrass,
Seven higher taxes,
Six czars a-czaring,
Five huge headaches,
Four union thugs,
Three Saudi bows
Two fake jobs bills,
And a tanking economy



Better watch this quick before they take it down as hate speech

Page looking squishy?

If you’re using IE 9, it’s possible that this page will be looking all squished up. To fix, go to the address bar; to the right you’ll see a little icon which if hovered over says “Compatability” — hit it, and voila. Your results may vary. Let us know if the problem persists, or my instructions are too wonky.

Choose Your Warrior!

Libertarians: Heart and Soul of the GOP, or Progressive Screw?

Ronald Reagan famously said ”the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Yet Ron Paul’s ascent in the recent Republican primaries has given focus to the rift between the libertarian wing of the GOP and it’s more traditionally conservative base. The young Republicans who support Ron Paul do so with great fervor, but seem to have little patience for any other Republican candidates. Meanwhile, supporters of those other candidates discount Rep. Paul as a viable candidate, and many openly declare they won’t support him if he wins the nomination. Still others think “What about the children?!?” ”Why can’t we all just get along?!?” So who’s right? Me, of course! Sadly, explaining why I’m right requires an essay/blog post/this thing you’re reading.

There are things I like about Paul and things with which I don’t agree. I think that’s true of pretty much all the candidates. Still, Paul’s record on predicting the economic failures of Government involvement is stellar (though it’s really not hard to have a good record here, you just always bet against the Government). First, we should see where the differences of opinion lie between these two branches of the Republican base.

Perhaps scariest of all, Paul has spawned a Blue Republican movement, whereby Democrats register Republican to screw around in business that isn’t theirs. This is because Paul wants to legalize marijuana. Well, kinda sorta anyway. He just doesn’t want the federal Government to keep it illegal. It should be a states’ rights issue. He thinks the same is true for gay marriage and abortion. Note that this doesn’t mean he morally supports any of these issues; he just doesn’t see any Constitutional authority for the federal Government to give decrees from on high. Yet what scares his conservative opponents the most is likely his stance on national defense/foreign policy. As such, this is the issue I’ll tackle.

Paul is against American action in Libya (and was against it in Iraq as well). He often has his views labeled “isolationist.” Perhaps worst of all, he somewhat blames America for 9/11. That’s a tough pill to swallow for any patriot. At one of the thousand primary debates this election season, Paul got booed for making this claim. Since I’m both tired and lazy, I’m not going to keep searching for a transcript of the debate , nor am I willing to transcribe it myself. You can read his position here.

Paul’s primary claim is that terrorists hate us because we’re in their hood. There’s some evidence to prove this claim (like al Qaeda saying it, if you consider them a trustworthy source) but there’s also evidence against this premise. Like when Egypt killed a bunch of Coptic Christians. But given the fact that the Muslim nations with which we’re dealing apparently know even less about the world than MSNBC viewers, I think Paul’s claim deserves at least a bit of respect. If you didn’t know about a provoking incident like 9/11, and then some people showed up with bigass guns and tanks and bombs, you might be a little ticked off too. Surely SOME terrorists mostly hate America because they want us out of their country so they can keep cutting up vaginas and stoning young girls for the audacity of getting raped. Since so many of these people are obviously completely off their rockers, we think Santorum has a good point that a lot of them hate us simply because we’re not batshit crazy. As such, our conclusion is that both men are right.

We know that’s not the answer you want, but it’s the truth. Paul’s views deserve a good look because we spend a lot on national defense – often without question – but we can’t ignore the fact that radical Islam contains a lot of idiots who just want us dead because we like to play Halo 3 and listen to Garth Brooks and not treat our women worse than our dogs. Fact is, those “let’s all get along” people are right too, and I’m one of them. His Holiness the Obamalama is ruining our country (and costing me a fortune in anger management classes). You know who would ruin our country a lot less? Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, a rabid wombat, etc. You don’t have to agree with every candidate on everything. You can debate their supporters all you want, I encourage it! The Founding Fathers had a whole heckuvalot of debate about independence. But, in the end, they got it done. We have to learn from them. We can vigorously argue and foam at the mouths with each other, but in the end we’re all united in the cause for independence against King Obama.

Tune in next week (or whenever we get around to it) for our next post: How Liberals Want to Roll Back the Enlightenment. See you soon!

Paul on Detention

Sen. Paul (the sane one) holds forth on American detention legislation:

The Bill of Rights, Today

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless current fashion dictates that the views of that religion are politically or popularly incorrect, in which case, it should be ridiculed, and discriminated against, in the public square, especially during the winter holidays, or if some non-believer has his feelings hurt.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless it’s using “public airwaves”, “The Internet” or other commonly held properties assumed to be in the ownership domain of Congress. Then, all bets are off, and you’d better watch your step.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless we don’t like the “shape” of your scary Arms, because everyone knows that an “Assault Weapon” is much more dangerous than a regular semi-automatic rifle. Also, complex rules and regulations, training and licensing, tracking and supervision, are not “infringements”; they are for your own good, children.

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. This one we’ll honor, for now.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized — unless you happen to be in an airport, train-station, give an officer any lip, or otherwise look suspicious. That includes you, Grandma.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in states that don’t want to go to the bother;

Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, unless it’s a tax matter;

Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, again, unless it’s a tax matter;

Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

NB: By public use, we mean public use OR private use by one of our friends who can better utilise your property and perhaps generate more tax revenue for us to spend on ourselves. Don’t worry, we’ll give you “just compensation” – trust us, we’re the Government.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, (unless the judge wants to close the hearing, or the lawyers decide to delay things, you know what I mean) by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, (by which “impartial” shall mean that they can’t consider the justice of the law being prosecuted, and they will in all cases follow the advice and admonition of their Betters, of the Bar), etc. etc.

7. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Right.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Except in tax matters. Don’t mess with our money.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Except if Congress or the Courts decide otherwise; obviously the People are too silly to be allowed retained rights.

10. 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, unless somewhere else in the Constitution, the Courts or the Congress or the Executive can find a tiny clause that allows it to drive a Mack truck through the rights of the States respectively, or the people. See Commerce Clause.