Ted Cruz For Liberty… Ted Cruz For President

6 Comments

“Those who aim at great deeds must also suffer greatly.”

– Plutarch

Many of us in the liberty movement saw the handwriting on the wall some time ago, as far as the Rand Paul campaign was concerned. He came in a distant fifth in Iowa, a state many thought he would win a year ago, his polling looked bleak in the other early states, and he was short on resources. He likely could have gone on, but instead, ended his campaign Wednesday morning. He’ll focus on securing re-election to the Senate, which he should easily accomplish. This turn of events has caused many of us in the liberty movement to despair, and even question the viability of the movement itself.

This must stop. What, did some of us think this would be easy? That the neoconservatives, the authoritarians, the entrenched interests, and all the rest who stand in our way inside the Republican party, would simply step aside? This sort of wishful thinking is all too common among those of us in the liberty movement. Reality is that it took over a century for the state to grow as it has, and for our liberties to be endangered the way they are now, and we won’t reverse that in a single campaign, a single election cycle, or even over the course of one pro-liberty presidential administration. We have a long fight ahead of us, and only over the past few years has it seemed as if we can begin to turn the tide. The sooner we realize this, the better our chances of making an actual impact. Our adversaries understand the value of incremental progress. So must we.

SPARTANBURG, SC - APRIL 3: Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz answers questions from local media following a town hall meeting at the Beacon Drive-in restaurant on April 3, 2015 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The Beacon Drive-in, traditionally a popular venue for campaigning politicians, was Cruz's 2nd stop of the day in South Carolina. (Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty Images)

SPARTANBURG, SC – APRIL 3: Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz answers questions from local media following a town hall meeting at the Beacon Drive-in restaurant on April 3, 2015 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The Beacon Drive-in, traditionally a popular venue for campaigning politicians, was Cruz’s 2nd stop of the day in South Carolina. (Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty Images)

To that end, we must take Senator Paul’s defeat in stride, assess our options, and recommit to the fight, supporting the best possible outcome for the advancement of liberty.

We cannot simply throw up our hands, take our ball, and go home. To do so would validate every criticism the establishment makes about liberty Republicans. That we’re not really Republicans. That we don’t understand the value of coalitions in politics. That we’re children who pitch a screaming fit the moment we don’t get exactly what we want. This will not do.

To that end, I believe wholeheartedly that liberty Republicans must work to elect Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, the next President of the United States.

Along with Senator Mike Lee, he’s stood with Rand more than anyone else in the Senate. True, he’s not perfect, but he’s very good, and we can’t let the proverbial perfect be the enemy of the good.

He’s the only candidate still in the race who subscribes to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He’s the only candidate in the race who stands firmly against warrantless surveillance. He’s made some unwise comments about ‘making sand glow’ and ‘carpet bombing’, but for the most part, he rejects the ridiculous neoconservative foreign policy agenda. He’s with us on privacy and data security. However socially conservative he might be, he understands federalism, and would leave such issues largely in the hands of the states. He’d eliminate the odious TSA, along with a host of other superfluous federal departments and agencies. He understands the desperate need for sweeping criminal justice reform. Ted Cruz is our staunch ally most of the time.

Case in point: The USA Freedom Act. While it was much weaker than the original bill, it still ended warrantless government access to phone metadata, which was the major problem. That data is still collected by phone companies, and no bill yet seriously contemplated would stop that. Yet, many liberty activists are angry because he supported that version of the USA Freedom Act. That bill was the epitome of an incremental victory for liberty. We should thank him for supporting it.

The man just rolled into Iowa and beat the ethanol lobby in its backyard, winning Iowa with flying colors. The significance of that cannot be overstated.

He missed the latest vote in the Senate to audit the Federal Reserve, but that bill had vanishingly small chances of getting the 60 votes need to invoke cloture, and exactly ZERO chance of getting the 67 votes needed to override the inevitable Obama veto. Yet liberty Republicans skewered Cruz for missing the vote! Where was he? Winning, apparently. He knows we need a pro-liberty President if such a thing is to become law.

Once one compares Senator Cruz to the competition, the choice becomes even more clear.

I won’t spill a lot of ink here dealing with Donald Trump, as it’s been done elsewhere to great effect. Suffice it to say he’s a horrible demagogue with a long history of supporting Democratic candidates and policies, and for all the world seems like the bastard political child of Silvio Berlusconi and Benito Mussolini, with a dusting of liberal Yankee jackass for good measure. No. Just no.

Marco Rubio embraces the neoconservative “Invade The World/Invite The World” policy panoply with both arms and grinning enthusiasm. So on foreign policy and immigration, he’s a fresh-faced rerun of George W. Bush. No, thank you.

Rubio, Trump, Chris Christie, ¡Jeb! Bush, and to a lesser extent, John Kasich (who is the worst of the lot other than Trump), brag about how we need get back to violating the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans to stop terrorism. All are on board, to varying degrees, with perpetual entanglement in the Middle East.

Ben Carson, while a fine man, suffers upon close examination, and has looked feckless and inconsistent in debates and on the campaign trail. His campaign is fading, and with good reason.

Carly Fiorina will be a strong surrogate for whoever our nominee is, but her moment in the sun in this race has passed. Jim Gilmore is somehow still running, effectively as a fundraiser for Boyd Marcus. He was never a real factor.

For the first time since at least 1980, we have a chance to elect a President who will actually try and make a dent in the growing leviathan state, and strike a blow for liberty. We can win! Let’s prove the doubters wrong. Let’s join the rest of the wider conservative movement, defeat the establishment catspaw candidates, and WIN.

Cruz for liberty. Cruz for President.

Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.

New York Times and Roberto Suro: Bigoted Swine With a Soapbox

14 Comments

Have you heard the latest news from the froth-flecked, gaping cock holster of New York Times contributor Roberto Suro? Despite having been born to Hispanic parents, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio aren’t really Hispanic.

Neither Mr. Cruz nor Mr. Rubio meets conventional expectations of how Latino politicians are supposed to behave.

Neither of these candidates claims to speak for the Hispanic population or derive a crucial portion of their support from Hispanics, and neither bases much of his political identity on being a Latino. To varying degrees they oppose legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a policy that is central to most organized Latino political interests and that is supported by a great majority of Latino elected officials and Latino voters.

ct-marco-rubio-ted-cruzThe obvious bigotry of this statement should be clear to anyone with an IQ higher than a turnip. In order to be considered “Hispanic” you must 1) harp on it repeatedly, and 2) support violation of U.S. law. Because Hispanics, apparently all share a brain and are incapable of independent thought, so unless you think exactly like they do, you can’t be allowed in their exclusive club.

Let’s also remember that these two men are running for President of the United States. Unlike the current resident of the White House, whom the black population of the United States claimed as their own, these men strive to represent all Americans, regardless of ethnicity. And for their desire to fairly represent the diverse population of the United States, which includes not just Latinos, but every race, ethnicity, religion and nationality, they’re somehow considered race traitors.

Suro quotes Hispanic press and some douche from Univision as somehow evidence that both men somehow shun their Hispanic heritage. Because Ted Cruz *GASP!* doesn’t use his Spanish nickname “Felito” (his first name is actually Rafael), but prefers “Ted” instead. And this is somehow proof that Cruz is not a real Hispanic!

I use my middle name too. Because my first name sounded really bad on the air when I was a disk jockey on American Forces Radio. And to avoid the confusion, the middle name thing stuck. I guess I’m not really not to be considered as Russian. My parents gave me some pretty goofy nicknames as a kid – Russians tend to do that. I eschew all those nicknames. Guess that defines my identity, eh?

If Cruz really wanted to hide his Hispanic heritage, he should have chosen to jettison his last name, which pretty much screams “LATINO!”

But neither Cruz nor Rubio hide or are in any way embarrassed of their heritage. They both freely discuss their backgrounds and their parents’ journeys to achieve the American dream, and apparently this is a problem for Suro. Because to him, identity politics is everything. The candidate must be Hispanic first – reflecting Hispanic views, as if Latinos are a monolithic entity, unable to think for themselves.

Apparently Suro and the New York Times are the arbiters of what is Hispanic. They define how Latinos should vote and what political views they should hold. Dog forbid there’s any dissent! Cruz and Rubio are not to be celebrated as Latinos who have achieved much in their lives. No, they should be shunned as race traitors who don’t walk in lockstep with the Hispanic political agenda of illegal immigration and bigger government.

The aforementioned Univision douche took cowardly swipes at both men in a recent article, in which he opined “I simply don’t understand why immigrants or the children of immigrants tend to attack those who arrived a little later. There is no greater disloyalty than the children of immigrants forgetting their own roots. That’s a betrayal.”

No, you know what’s a betrayal?

Trying to shame someone who happens to be a public official into ignoring and, worse yet, promoting illegal acts.

Trying to use ethnic guilt to denigrate someone, because they refuse to accept and praise the fact that the first act of these “immigrants” who claim to love this country is to violate its laws.

Trying to besmirch someone’s love for their culture and heritage, because they refuse to engage in political groupthink.

There is no “identity issue” with either Cruz or Rubio. They were born to Hispanic parents. They can’t change that fact any more than Barack Obama can change his skin color. The only “issue” these two need to face is their ability to govern and to fairly and justly be everyone’s American President, if elected.

Cruz and Rubio are both Americans. They represent America, in all her diverse glory! Their ethnicity only matters to racist grievance mongers like Suro.

And of course, the New York Times. Because if they refuse to acknowledge Cruz and Rubio are Hispanic, they won’t look like a bunch of racists when they excoriate them.

This election season sucks

19 Comments

Stop the election! I want to get off!

I realize people are sick and tired of the same old, same old. I understand that every politician who is promising change in Washington is almost certainly lying. I get that they have to pander to certain demographics. But why, in the name of all that is light and good, have they turned 2016 into a bloody circus? Why?

It started with the GOP clown car, filled up with so many candidates, I began to think that maybe the old Volkswagen bug would explode! Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson. Trump decided to get in the race, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie! At that point I began to ask what that poor clown car ever did to deserve such a fate, but then came the “others.”

Santorum, who finally ended his disaster of a presidential bid due to his dismal support. Get a clue, Frothy! No. One. Likes. You. My personal disdain for that anal polyp came during the last presidential campaign, when he shrugged off his drooling supporters booing – BOOING – a U.S. Soldier who just happened to be gay, and who just happened to have asked a question about DADT. While downrange. Deployed. Serving his country. In a hazardous duty zone. They booed him. And that zealot not only shrugged it off during the debate, but didn’t even bother thanking the Soldier for his service, or acknowledging that booing at a deployed troop was a sucky thing to do. Survey says: DOUCHE!

Huckabee, who apparently still wants to change the Constitution to “reflect the word of the living God.”

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, who… I have no idea why he’s running, frankly. He wasn’t a horrible governor, but he has no campaign and no support. He only recently made an appearance at a debate, and at the “kids’ table” at that, and spent half his time complaining about the moderators not giving him enough time to yap. I think he may have gotten 12 votes in Iowa. Total.

Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham (the mad dwarf of the Senate who was only “running” to stop Rand Paul, apparently), Bobby Jindal (smart guy, but with the personality and energy of a toilet seat), Scott Walker, and George Pataki, who reminded me of the Cryptkeeper all entered the race, but didn’t get much traction.

The drama started early, with Trump leading the pack with stupid statements, narcissistic demands, a drama queen boycott of the Iowa debate, and ultimately a meltdown on Twitter about how he’s just not getting the recognition he deserves after coming in second behind Ted Cruz.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Apparently coming in second after the “anchor baby” from Canada dampened Trump’s enthusiasm for the White House. Trump’s gloating after the debate he chose to skip because he was too afraid of being asked tough questions when he was allegedly leading in the polls was shortlived.

“I think we’re going to do really well in Iowa. We’re leading in the Iowa polls. And Cruz is in the second place. He got really pummeled last night. I’m glad I wasn’t there. And they didn’t even mention that he was born in Canada,” Trump said at a speech at the Radisson Hotel here in Nashua on Friday morning. “So he got beaten pretty badly last night. And I don’t know what’s going to happen to him.”

Well, what happened to him, you narcissistic, spoiled rotten drama queen, is that he handed you your toupee-wearing ass, and the mini-meltdown you subsequently had on Twitter was the icing on top of a very ugly cake you’ve been baking since this insane campaign began.

The Iowa caucuses ended in yet more drama. Carson accused the Cruz team of spreading misinformation about Carson dropping out and demanded the staffer who did so be fired. I just love it when candidates make demands. Not. Cruz apologized. Carson accepted, but couldn’t resist one last swipe at Cruz, wondering whether there was a deeper “cultural issue” with the campaign.

And while I thought that he at least had some class left after his short, gracious speech in Iowa after Cruz was declared the winner, I was apparently too quick to judge. Trump has about as much class as a hairy, syphilis-infected testicle. Never to NOT take a loss personally, this screeching bag of douche has decided he will probably file a formal complaint accusing the Cruz campaign of fraud, because HOW COULD HE, THE DONALD, HAVE LOST IOWA? HE, THE DONALD, IS AWESOME! HE, THE DONALD, DOESN’T LOSE!

Cruz apologized to Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson on Tuesday for rumors before the Iowa caucuses had finished that the retired neurosurgeon would drop out of the race, calling it a “mistake.”

Trump called it “one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen.” 

“What he did is unthinkable,” he continued. “He said the man has left the race and he said it during the caucus. And then when clarification was put out by Ben Carson saying it’s untrue, they got a statement and they didn’t put it out.”

“They apologized after the caucus was over. How does that help?”

Trump said Cruz’s actions were tantamount to “voter fraud.”

Never mind that CNN’s Chris Moody tweeted out the following:

moody

Kudos to polistick for the screen cap. 

This apparently prompted the Cruz campaign to (erroneously) assess that Carson was ending his campaign. Cruz already apologized to Carson for the mistake, Carson admitted that his staffer did say he was going back to Florida, but Trump needs retribution, so…

Survey says: DOUCHE!

In the meantime, on the Democrat side, the Clinton and Sanders numbers were so close in Iowa, that rumblings have begun about fraud. NPR explains the details here, which makes it sound less nefarious than Berntards would have you believe, but hey, CORRUPTION! Sanders then tried to pull a Trump by threatening to pull out of the New Hampshire debate, unless the Clinton campaign agreed to MOAR debates! “I won’t debate unless you commit to more debates!”

Um… what?

Well, apparently that bit of fury has been settled as of this morning, and the Bernster will participate in the New Hampshire debate, if nothing else, to make himself look even more economically illiterate than he already looks, and that’s saying quite a bit.

Now, do you see why I want this campaign over with? I’m not sure I can handle any more cray.

Explosion forces Somali plane to make emergency landing

9 Comments

Odds on this being an al Shabaab terrorist attack? I’d say they’re pretty good.

Two were injured after an explosion blew a hole in the side of a commercial plane taking off from Mogadishu.

There was no immediate explanation of the explosion from the airline or Somali government officials.

“Daalo airline was enroute to Djibouti but it landed shortly after it took off. A fire exploded and two passengers were slightly wounded,” Mohamed Hussein, an agent for Daallo Airlines, the operator of the flight, told Reuters.

Aviation website http://www.airlive.net said the explosion occurred on flight D3159, an Airbus A321, adding witnesses heard a loud bang.

Daallo-airlines_mogadishu-2Couple of things that are interesting about this.

Daallo-airlines_mogadishu-1First, from the photos I’m seeing, the explosion took place at a window seat, so I’m thinking a passenger. And unless the passenger spontaneously combusted, he was either wearing or carrying an explosive device.

Second, al Shabaab has been a bit more violent as of late, according to press. There was a beach attack last month in which 17 people were killed. A few days before the beach attack, these turds carried out an assault on a Kenyan military base. Just a few days ago, they raided a village in Kenya, killing three people.

And finally, witnesses report seeing a badly burned body fall from the sky. These reports are unconfirmed, but when examined in the context of what we do know already, I’d be willing to bet this was another terrorist attack.

I will give major kudos to the pilot for landing the plane safely, even thought that aircraft was sporting a large, scary hole in its fuselage!

I’m also amazed at how calm everyone appears as they sport their oxygen masks, while the plane makes its emergency descent!

I admit it. I’d be crying like a little girl and probably soiling myself just a little as the plane made its landing!

That airline had better had a fresh supply of extra panties to hand out to its passengers!

All joking aside, al Shabaab terrorists are quite prolific at killing. There’s a reason they’ve been designated under Executive Order 13224 as a specially designated global terrorist entity, and that reason is… they’re TERRORISTS! They carried out more than 1700 terrorist attacks in 2007 alone, and their kill count is well over 100 in 2016 already. Not a good way to start the year.

But again, you ask, why do we, the United States, care? They’re mainly staging attacks in Africa, so is it a matter of US national security?

I’d say that it could be. As African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) military forces consistently take on al Shabaab and reduce their ability to operate in Somalia, it appears that al Shabaab’s ambitions have expanded somewhat.  The Center for Strategic and International Studies assesses that the group has become more expansionist in its ideology and have committed to establishing an Islamic caliphate in Africa. And it appears they’ll do anything and target anyone to achieve that goal. Will there be a next time? A next plane? With Americans on it? Additionally, they’ve spread their poison into Kenya, and have been wreaking havoc there as well.

So yeah, we should care. We should care that they have decided to diversify and spread their slime. We should care that their goal is to establish a caliphate with their crazy. And if you think they’re going to stop at Africa, I’ve got this bridge… They’ve already called for attacks in the United States. How long before the next US-located crazy takes them up on the challenge?

I LOVE freedom… until I disagree with it

75 Comments

An interesting issue arose recently when Sarah A. Hoyt linked to my “Unintended Consequences” essay on Instapundit. A commenter with the moniker “Billy Boy” decided to petulantly request that my blog no longer be linked on Insty. Why? Because I’m apparently “crass,” and he’s upset about my language. Apparently, when he ambled over here (not sure when) to complain about what I write on my site, I failed to kiss his lily-white ass and acknowledge his superiority on matters of what should be posted on my site and how.

Please stop referencing this woman. (emphasis mine)

Even if she is correct (sometimes), her rantings are filled with rhetorical fallacies, taking ad hominem to the stratospheric heights. If you can’t make your point without profanity laced screed, then just shut up. (emphasis mine)

I posted a small side objection on her website and was met with derision and vitriol. She is a crass boor and most certainly is not interested in free and open discussion. (emphasis mine) Definitely not worthy of instapundit readers’ time.

Let’s take this apart a bit.

“Please stop referencing this woman” — Instapundit is a site that provides free content to its readers, as well as an ability to comment. Billy Boy feels himself entitled to demand that a site for which he does not pay and that does not belong to him tailor content to his likes and dislikes.

“If you can’t make your point without profanity laced screed, then just shut up.” — Never mind I make points without using profanity all the time. But aside from that little matter… just shut up? So, if Billy Boy doesn’t like your language you should just not speak out? My, my… how interesting and SJWish!

“I posted a small side objection on her website and was met with derision and vitriol. She is a crass boor and most certainly is not interested in free and open discussion.  Definitely not worthy of instapundit readers’ time.” — So Billy Boy came over here to admonish me about my language (note, I have no idea who this pedantic fucknugget is or to which comment he’s referring). On a site for which I pay. On a site that is mine. And apparently, he’s butthurt, because he was ridiculed for his entitled attitude in telling another person how they should communicate on their own site. This, of course, in his puny little mind translates to not being “interested in free and open discussion.” Let’s remember, he was not in any way moderated or prevented from making his arrogant comments. His comment was not edited (I don’t do that, and I only screen for spam and overt threats). But apparently ridiculing him for attempting to arrogantly demand that I alter my site and my language, when it is pretty clearly stated that I have no interest in making converts or conforming to anyone else’s standards but my own, to fit his ideal of a website is somehow equivalent to suppressing his ability to hold a free and open discussion. How SJWish of him!

Additionally, this presumptuous bag of hubris has apparently also made himself the arbiter of what is appropriate and what is not on Insty.

To link this screed generator from the instapundit site is far below the dignity of Professor Reynolds.

Go read some of Professor Reynolds many essays which are carried by USA Today and get back with us if you can spot the difference.

VagisilDear Billy Boy – would you like a little Vagisil for that itch?

A related issue was addressed by my friend Amanda on her blog yesterday.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I have had enough. If you want to talk about how you believe in freedom of speech, then you’d better put your money where your mouth is. Freedom of speech isn’t trying to shut down speech you don’t like or agree with. Freedom of speech isn’t trying to cost people their jobs when you don’t like what they say. Yes, they can be the biggest fucking douche-wad there is but as long as their speech doesn’t violate the First Amendment, shut the fuck up about silencing them.

Amanda made a great point earlier. Social Justice Warrior Howler Monkeys love freedom only on their terms. These same people claimed they were expanding science fiction when, in fact, they worked to silence voices that did not agree with their views. These are the same people who tried to force Baen Publishing to pressure Brad Torgersen and others supporting Sad Puppies 3 to shut up or they would be cut loose from the house. How is silencing one group of fans, because they do not agree with your point of view, “expanding” anything?

Here’s a clue. It isn’t.

Silencing your opposition is not the same as promoting your point of view.

It’s the sign of a miserable mediocrity trying to get ahead – not by producing superior writing or advancing a superior argument, but by trying to cripple its opponent a la Tanya Harding.

Demanding that others conform to your standards, and if not, that they should be silenced makes you a petty little despot wannabe, but certainly not anyone who actually loves and respects freedom, no matter how much you screech to the contrary! (And yes, I fully realize the First Amendment protects you from government prosecution if you dare speak out. However, demanding that someone whose speech you don’t like be silenced by anyone, be it an employer or a news aggregator, still makes you a petty little tyrannical fuck.)

And finally, there’s this little thing called a “mouse,” which you can use to navigate away from sites you don’t like. There are also things called “power buttons,” which you can use to turn off television and radio programs that don’t appeal to you. And, believe it or not, there are other things called “books,” which you can either close or not purchase altogether if you don’t like their content.

Those Special Snowflakes who are too lazy or too pompous to do any of the above, but who insist that others conform to their worldview to save themselves the effort of making a logical argument or opening their minds to new challenges, while demanding a safe space to hide from naughty language as an excuse for said negligence, can go fuck themselves.

Liberal newspapers love Kasich

4 Comments

…because he’s one of them, in many ways. These papers practically fawn over Kasich, while slandering conservatives. For starters, the Boston Globe:

He has a record of pragmatic Midwestern conservatism, and has demonstrated an aptitude for the horse-trading and coalition-building that’s so lacking in today’s Washington. (It’s no small irony that one of Kasich’s finest accomplishments as a congressman — joining the bipartisan deal to impose a 10-year ban on assault weapons — is one that he barely mentions now.)

Well, how ’bout that. Then, of course, we have the infamous New York Times:

…he has been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives. He favors a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he speaks of government’s duty to protect the poor, the mentally ill and others “in the shadows.” While Republicans in Congress tried more than 60 times to kill Obamacare, Mr. Kasich did an end-run around Ohio’s Republican Legislature to secure a $13 billion Medicaid expansion to cover more people in his state.

Lovely… and telling. Moving on to Iowa, here’s the Quad City Times:

John Kasich is the poster-child for all thinking Republicans left behind by a party overrun by an irrational, seething fringe. The Ohio governor is the antithesis of the shrill, bigoted screaming heads dominating the Republican Party field. He should carry the GOP standard heading into November’s presidential election, if re-injecting reason into GOP rhetoric is of any concern.
Kasich won’t wage the dehumanizing ground war against immigrants looking for work. Kasich sees immigrants as human beings, supports bolstering U.S.-Mexico border security, while providing a much-needed pathway to legal status for the 11.5 million people already illegally in the U.S.

And in New Hampshire, the Keene Sentinel:

While in Congress, he voted for an assault weapons ban and favored background checks at gun shows.
In Ohio, he stood out as a Republican governor willing to implement the expansion of Medicaid services through the Affordable Care Act. Criticized by his former tea party supporters for the move, Kasich said two things that are indicative of his leadership style. He noted the program would be paid for mainly by the federal government, including with money Ohioans had sent to Washington and deserved to see return to the state. More to the point, he noted it was simply the right thing to do to help those most in need in his state. While opposing the ACA, he acknowledges that any reworking or replacing of that law needs to include continuing to care for those Americans who have gained coverage through the program.

…and the list goes on. In nearly every editorial supporting him, they laud his ‘pragmatism’ (read: selling out to the left) and trash conservatives at every turn. As I explained a couple of months ago, Kasich is no conservative, as evidenced by his demeanor, debate performances, and rhetoric. The betrayal on the 1993 Clinton ‘assault weapons’ ban is enough to exile him from consideration from the Presidency, no matter what good works he’s done as Governor. His (at best) checkered record on federal mandates, his failure to press for right-to-work legislation, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (made exponentially worse by how he demonizes anyone interested in enforcing immigration law) and his embrace of Medicaid expansion all make him an absolute non-starter for conservatives. Let’s hope he’s out of the race after New Hampshire, the state he’s placing all his chips on.

Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.

Unintended Consequences

74 Comments

I have a buddy who works for a newspaper. Said newspaper has been covering a bit of a dustup in Pittsburg, Kansas, where some cunt-chafed twatmold decided to lodge a complaint about a banner that had graced the side of the Pittsburg Post Office since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on America – a banner that boldly proclaimed “God Bless America.” Postal employees who had served their country decided they wanted to put up the banner, and paid for it using money out of their own pockets to commemorate the lives that were lost on that horrifying day. The banner had been displayed there for the past 15 years.

Until recently.

Enter the aforementioned cunt-chafed twatmold. Its poor little eyes apparently began to burn, and its meat curtains got a particularly nasty rash at the word “God,” so it complained.

…the local branch of the post office received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, citing United States Postal Regulations that “prohibit the display of religious materials, other than stamp art, on postal property.”

Madeline Ziegler, a legal fellow for FFRF, said the complaint originated locally.

“We got a complaint from a Pittsburg resident who uses the post office who wanted some help with a religious sign,” Ziegler said, adding the sign violates the separation of church and state.

The FFRF, whose entire mission seems to be to hassle others on behalf of the perpetually butthurt, swung into action. They bitched. They moaned. They wrote letters.

And eventually, the sign came down.

blessingsBut the story doesn’t end there.

The banner was removed and placed safely in storage, but if you think the cunt-chafed twatmold’s sensitive little eyes will now be safe from ever seeing any mention of a deity, you’d be sadly mistaken.

Thursday morning, a very similar banner appeared on the fence next to local business Jayhawk Signs and Graphics, another at CDL Electric Company and social media marketing by Jake’s Fireworks promised more to come.

More have been ordered, and the company is giving the signs away to anyone who wants them, and today, the sign campaign continues. More than a thousand yard signs, saying “God Bless America” and several hundred banners started appearing all over town, according to The Morning Sun newspaper!

Here’s how you get more than you bargained for.

  1. Get irritated labia over a sign that mentions God – not any particular God, mind you, but simply a deity – paid for by private funds and meant to commemorate a horrifying day in our history.
  2. Get rabid atheist assholes to harass local post office until it takes the banner down.
  3. Piss off entire town, which then puts up signs and banners with that particular message all over the area.
  4. Wind up surrounded by the very thing you wanted to abolish.

Look, I am an atheist, so I’m keenly sensitive about church and state issues. That said, this sign in no way established a government-mandated religion, which is what the First Amendment really prohibits. It was paid for by citizens out of their own pockets. It doesn’t even mention any specific religion – merely a deity. No taxpayer money was spent on said sign. Yes, it mentioned a “God,” but so do many songs, including the one whose title mirrors the sign. Should that song never be sung in a public venue?

This is stupid.

This Freedom from Religion Foundation appears to be dedicated not just to ensuring that no religion is imposed on those who don’t want to exercise it, but to demeaning and belittling those who believe in a God.

“Separation of church and state” – a principle this FFRF organization claims to be dedicated to protecting – is a phrase that was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists to assure them they would be protected from the state nosing in their business.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Basically, Jefferson told the Baptists, “Hey! See that dictate that says the government will not establish a religion and that it won’t prevent you from exercising it how you see fit? Yeah… it’s like a wall between you guys and the government. Ain’t no one going to make you worship a certain way or forbid you from worshiping how you please.”

Yes, that also means the government won’t prohibit you from not worshiping, as religion “lies solely between Man and his God.”

But you know what it doesn’t mean?

It doesn’t mean your fragile sensibilities should be protected from seeing the word “God” in public.

It doesn’t mean others can’t use their own money to hang a simple sign for which no taxpayer dollars were used on a public building.

It doesn’t mean you can force others to not worship or even display their regard for whatever God they want.

The sign was displayed on that post office for 15 years without a shred of controversy, according to the paper. Now, all of a sudden, some Special Snowflake decided to get offended?

Come on! That’s just stupid.

This FFRF organization has done some legitimately good work, including halting public funding of religious studies and other religious activities. Atheists pay their taxes, just like everyone else does, and their tax dollars shouldn’t be used to fund others’ faith.

But this? A banner put up by post office employees at their own expense that does nothing to force anyone to worship in any particular way and doesn’t endorse any kind of specific religion? Maybe it was a violation of the establishment clause. I don’t see how, but I suppose a legal case can be made that it was. But this strikes me as petty – kind of like barring a singer from performing “God Bless America” or the National Anthem, whose last stanza includes the words “In God is our trust” in a public building.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov’d homes and the war’s desolation;
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Personally, I couldn’t care less if there’s a sign saying “God Bless America” on a post office. Just like I couldn’t care less if our money says “In God We Trust.” I don’t, and that’s fine. Seeing that on a penny isn’t going to all of a sudden force me to go to church. I’m secure in my atheism, my lack of faith isn’t threatened by a word on a banner, and my sensibilities are not offended by that word. There’s no right to be offended, no matter what the social justice warrior howler monkeys may try to tell you.

So if the Special Snowflake is truly offended by that sign, by making a petty mountain out of an inconsequential molehill, it’s now going to be seeing that word a lot more than what it bargained for.

The butthurt Snowflake broke a cardinal rule of living in society: don’t be a dickhead. So now, it’ll have to deal with the consequences.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: