Weapons Grade Stupid

16 Comments

If you haven’t heard of Heidi Yewman yet, it’s about time you acquainted yourself with this numbskull, who decided to become a “good guy with a gun” for 30 days and document her trials and tribulations in MS Magazine.

So instead of educating herself, getting some training and documenting objectively her 30 day experience, this one chose to paint gun ownership in the most negative light possible without actually breaking any laws.

Yes, I bought a handgun and will carry it everywhere I go over the next 30 days. I have four rules: Carry it with me at all times, follow the laws of my state, only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing and carrying, and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.

Can you already tell which side of the gun control debate Heidi Yewman falls on?

Me, a board member of the Brady Campaign. Me, the author of a book about the impact of gun violence, Beyond the Bullet.

I will say this: judging by this inane, imbecilic attempt to demonize gun owners and gun ownership, I can already tell that her little book on the impact of gun violence is likely a biased, subjective piece of dreck on which I wouldn’t bother spending money.

Additionally, when someone tells me the reason for her little “experiment” is curiosity about “what would it be like to be that good guy with a gun? What would it be like to get that gun, live with that gun, be out and about with that gun. Finally, what happens when you don’t want that gun any more?” after Wayne LaPierre astutely noted post-Newtown that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” I have to wonder why Heidi thinks that being a “good guy with a gun,” means an absolution from her responsibilities as a gun owner.

Getting the permit to carry a concealed weapon was simple. I filled out a form, had my fingerprints taken for a background check and paid $56.50. No training required. It took far longer to get my dog a license.

I started my 30-day gun trial with a little window-shopping. I visited a gun show and two gun dealers. I ended up buying a Glock 9mm handgun from Tony, a gun dealer four miles from my house. I settled on this model because it was a smallish gun and because Tony recommended it for my stated purposes of protecting myself and my home.

It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway. The whole thing took 7 minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.”  Too easy. I still knew nothing about firearms.

Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment.

I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought through.

I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it. I asked him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was and how he had one just like it.

The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.

So to summarize:

Idiot buys tool and gets concealed carry permit.

Idiot rejects any responsibility for owning said tool.

Idiot gets no training and acquires no knowledge about said tool.

Idiot is appalled she passed the instant background check to purchase said tool.

Idiot is incensed that her state has no laws preventing her from being an idiot, and that the store where she bought said tool will not take action to prevent her from doing stupid things.

Idiot publicizes stupidity.

See, most responsible gun owners don’t need laws to compel them to do what is right. They will get training, they will familiarize themselves with their firearms, they will follow all proper legal procedures, but will also go above and beyond – something which Heidi did not do intentionally, and then attempted to paint general gun ownership as irresponsibly as she painted her own.

Most gun owners respect the tool and understand the personal accountability that goes along with it.

Heidi has no concept of these principles, and has decided to pretend that the rest of the gun owners in this nation are just as stupid as she is.

I had posted the following in the comments on that website, and to my surprise (not), the comment was never approved.

“So let me get this straight. Author buys tool. Has no idea how to use it, and is appalled that she passed the instant background check to purchase it. Expects store and law enforcement to remedy her ignorance about said tool, instead of taking responsibility for herself.

Publicizes her stupidity.

Got it.”

Perhaps if Heidi Yewman had bothered becoming a responsible gun owner, getting training, getting educated about guns and getting enough practice to become comfortable with her tool, as the vast majority of gun owners do, she would have a little more credibility with a crowd that isn’t entirely comprised of hysterical hoplophobes who support her cause.

But for now, Heidi Yewman is weapons grade stupid.

Washington Post Showing Bias and Idiocy in One Blithering Editorial

10 Comments

Do you ever wonder why the general public seems to be so completely ignorant on the issues that are critical to our country today? I’m wagering an educated guess that this is because they swallow whatever the media feeds them like a porn star in a bukake scene. Self-important rags like the Washington Post and the New York Times spew it, and the Great Unwashed swallow in great, big gulps. Doing research is just extraneous effort to them, not worth expending. Why bother, when the Washington Post editorial staff writes gems such as this?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-Conn.) offered a trenchant comment the other day about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, which was carried out by Adam Lanza with a semiautomatic assault weapon that reloaded bullets in rapid succession from a single ammunition magazine.

OK, stop right there! The semiautomatic rifle chambered the next round only as quickly as Lanza could pull the trigger, but already the Post is making it sound like the big, bad magazine was responsible for the mass murder. The magazine simply holds the rounds. The rifle chambers them. The shooter is the one who controls the speed with which the rounds are expelled. But that doesn’t matter, because now that the media realizes there’s no way an assault weapons ban will pass, they’re focusing their dull quills on what they call “high-capacity magazines,” or in the cases of the truly retarded, “clips.”

Twenty children and six adults were killed in a deadly few minutes of fire. “We do know that historically in these instances, amateurs have trouble switching magazines,” the senator said, according to the New York Times. “I believe, and many of the parents there believe, that if Lanza had to switch cartridges nine times versus two times there would likely still be little boys and girls alive in Newtown today.”

Dear Senator, you’re a blithering idiot. Historically we know WHAT? A monkey high on crack can switch out a magazine. Push release. Drop mag. Slap another one in. If you’re really skilled, you tape two mags together in a Jungle Style configuration, to make reloading even easier. What you nattering hysterics believe has no grounding in reality, and basing legislation on what you believe without actual evidence to back up what you’re saying amounts to destroying basic rights of the people based on nothing but histrionics.

The 10-round limit was included in the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Taking stock of that law, a report for the National Institute of Justice noted that studies have shown that attacks with semiautomatic weapons “result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” There is already a huge stock of these weapons and ammunition clips in civilian hands, but Congress could at least staunch the manufacture and purchase of new ones.

This comes from a report issued by a Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania, and based on “predictions that are tenuous,” according to the principal investigator himself.  The author also prefaces this claim with the following:

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

Not that the Washington Post would make any mention of this particular bit of text. Additionally, considering the tiny percentage of shootings committed with these weapons and these magazines, the sample size is too small to make an adequate assessment.

A limit on high-capacity magazines draws more support in recent public opinion polls than does a ban on assault weapons.

Maybe that’s because the Great Unwashed don’t realize that these magazines are standard for many of these rifles.  You ban the mag, and you end up with a de facto ban on the rifles. I bet the legisleeches know this. Does the public? And as far as the actual claim about public support… well, I guess that would depend on whom you ask and which poll you believe. A January 20 survey in the Wall Street Journal saw 80 percent of respondents oppose a high-capacity magazine ban. But I don’t suppose the Washington Post would acknowledge this.

Senators who have resisted gun control legislation out of concern for political fallout have been hinting that they may support limits on ammunition clips. One of them, Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), has stated that, despite his “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, he is ready to depart from the status quo in response to Sandy Hook. The senator could do so by speaking up for a limit on large-capacity ammunition clips.

This makes them ignorant squishes, who are ready to compromise your rights away for a little political capital. Just because they have indicated their intent to support a ban, does not make the ban a good idea.

No one who owns guns for hunting, target practice or personal self-defense needs to have a 30-bullet magazine, as Vice President Biden rather inartfully stated in an online chat last week.

Really?

I would think these people would beg to differ. And these. And I’m betting this lady, who fought off thugs wielding an AK, wouldn’t agree with a mediot’s assessment of what she may or may not have needed in this battle. And I’m betting those Korean shop owners who defended themselves and their property during the LA riots would tell you to shove your ban up your collective asses as well. As for Biden’s “inartful” idiocy… anyone who would advise folks to negligently discharge a shotgun instead of using an easy to load, low recoil, light tool of self defense, needs to be ridiculed mercilessly and exposed for the tool that he is.

Mr. Biden said that civilians don’t need a semiautomatic assault rifle of the AR-15 type — like that used by Lanza — to protect themselves. “It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself,” the vice president declared. “Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”

Mr. Biden is a retard. We’ve already established that, but thanks for playing, Washington Post. You’re excused.

 

Laura Washington: Doubling Down on Teh Stoopid

5 Comments

I haven’t written about Laura Washington in a while – mostly because she’s ignorant, racist, irrelevant and physically unappealing. However, since the Sun Times still insists on running her vomitous spew as something worthy of giving a crap about, I figure I’ll spare a few moments of my time to bitch-slap that cross-eyed twat’s latest attempt to foment not merely racism, but outright hysteria.

If you recall, this hag is the one who coined the phrase “people of the gun,” as if law-abiding citizens are the direct cause of violence in America. She attempted to marginalize and vilify us. And in response, gun bloggers created People of the Gun in her honor. Laura is also unabashedly racist. She doesn’t give a flying rat’s fuck if white people get murdered and how and by whom. She’s all about her people. Her president. Her black America.

Her latest screed is no less black supremacist in nature, so that’s not a surprise.  The amazing thing is this fuckwit’s lack of any serious research for this piece – and her claim that while the flu is somewhat of problem here in our America, gun violence is the real epidemic.

“With severe flu season under way, vaccine supply is running low,” from The Washington Post. Halfway across the world, the Guardian reported: “Boston flu outbreak prompts mayor to declare public health emergency.”

The hullabaloo left me wondering: If only America could marshal this much conversation and energy toward the real epidemic: urban gun violence.

The flu is a universal concern. On the bus, we glare sideways at the red-nosed sufferers. We veer from the coughers in the grocery line. We all run for the shots and angst at every nearby sneeze.

Yet in cities nationwide, families are dodging a very different, lethal kind of shots. In 2012, 506 souls were murdered in Chicago. Most of them were shot to death. Many of them were children.

Let’s examine this claim, which is also the title of her essay, closely: Gunshots, not flu, the real epidemic

Really?

Let’s look at the CDC’s mortality information for a second.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death, 2010:

  • Heart disease: 597,689
  • Cancer: 574,743
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
  • Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494
  • Diabetes: 69,071
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
  • Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

Interesting. I’m certainly not seeing firearms as a leading cause of death in the United States. The flu, however? It was the 9th leading cause of death in America in 2010. It moved to number 8 in 2011, and firearms aren’t even in the top 15. More than 53,000 people died of flu and pneumonia in the United States in 2011. A little more than 11,000 people died from firearm homicide, and while that number is tragic, and I don’t mean to minimize those deaths, comparing the two is just stupid.

Laura’s ultimate point is that black and Hispanic Americans are dying in large numbers owing largely to gun violence. I get that. In inner cities, the strongest, most potent person wins the day. Her problem is that she doesn’t actually address the root causes of this violence, choosing to blame, instead, the “epidemic” of guns and the legislature’s failure to pass an “assault weapons” ban, and ignoring the fact that these and most other firearms are illegal in cities like Chicago anyway.

Last week, the Illinois General Assembly couldn’t muster up the moxie to move proposed bans on lethal assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Too many of us think the body count is someone else’s problem. The bloody gun warfare is in someone else’s neighborhood. Many believe that if they stay ensconced in their protected, middle-class enclaves, they can’t “catch” the murder and mayhem.

The tragic truth: “They” don’t care about “us.”

Her ignorance about what is a clip and what is a magazine aside, her claim ultimately comes down to her perception that legislators don’t care about poor black and Hispanic folks, because they don’t infringe on the rights of the rest of us, and if they really cared, they would simply violate the Constitution and take away our rights.

Yeah… that would solve the problem.

Except it doesn’t, and it hasn’t. Time and time again, we have proof that bans don’t solve the issue of violence, but that doesn’t matter to Laura, who seems to be willing to use any distortion to justify her petulant whining that politicians don’t care about black people.

Guess what! Politicians don’t care about any people! They have proven time and time again that they only care about getting reelected – and at any cost. So the inability of “your people” to escape “the hood” has nothing to do with the amount of give-a-fuck on the part of politicians. They don’t give a fuck about anyone, and no amount of infringement on our rights is going to change this.

Laura suggests we have been looking outward – to politicians, police and government – to solve the problems of poverty and violence. I agree, but that is where my concurrence ends.  We need to stop. Laura suggests we should look to these outside sources for our security, but they have failed us – particularly because they’re apparently racist and evil. I suggest we should NEVER look to government to solve our problems, and take responsibility for our own communities and families.

Trig Palin or why libtards hate the free market (UPDATED)

5 Comments

There’s been a lot of outrage on the Intertubez lately about a foul screed about Sarah Palin’s son Trig penned by a dickless wonder at Wonkette named Jack Stuef.  I’m not linking to Wonkette, to Stuef or to the outrage.

No need to repeat the indignity.  No need to reprint a merciless, twisted, sociopathic attack on a child who had the misfortune of being born with Down’s Syndrome.  I can only hope that if Stuef ever actually gets the opportunity to stick his puny excuse for a dick into a woman, that the leavings wind up in a dirty, slimy spot on the sheets.  The thought of that lard-laden shitsack reproducing scares even me.

Although, judging by his photo, this fat fuck has about as much chance of getting laid as an ostrich egg by a chihuahua.

Perhaps if he actually left his mother’s basement, changed his shit-stained, ripped boxers, stopped eating frozen moonpies from mommy’s fridge and found better means of communication than abusing a disabled baby, he might actually have a chance of sticking his organ in something other than a pocket pussy, but I doubt that will ever happen.

In any case, this post isn’t about him.

Apparently, outrage has been so strong about Stuef’s attack on a defenseless child, that advertisers have begun pulling their dollars from Wonkette.


Papa John’s, Vanguard, and Huggies all announced today that they will be dropping their advertisements from Wonkette.

“Thank you for alerting us to this. We’ve taken step to make sure our advertising doesn’t appear on that site in the future,” tweeted Papa John’s Pizza’s corporate twitter account.

Wonkette shot back at Papa John’s, tweeting, “We beat up on Sarah Palin’s craven use of her son as a POLITICAL PROP. Child protective services should take Trig away.”

In another tweet, Wonkette called on consumers to boycott Papa John’s.

That’s the beauty of the free market. Advertisers can look at the content and decide for themselves if they want to be associated with the type of slime Wonkette’s Fucktarded, Feeble-minded, Fuckwit has vomited forth in an effort to be oh-so witty.  And while the troglodytes at Wonkette have pulled the offensive post, likely finally realizing that their readers don’t constitute enough buying power to make a dent in Papa John’s profit margin if they boycotted it, don’t have enough collective brains to actually invest in Vanguard (likely thinking the nanny state will take care of all their needs when they finally leave their parents’ house to venture out on their own and discover they have no marketable skills other than sitting on the couch and eating potato chips), and wouldn’t purchase diapers, because that would imply they actually fucked something of the opposite sex at some point in their lives, their so-called apology is anything but sincere.

A post on this page satirizing Sarah Palin using her baby as a political prop was very badly done and sounded like the author was mocking the child and not just Sarah Palin/Sarah Palin’s followers.

The writer, Jack Stuef, has apologized for it. And we have decided to remove the post as requested by some people who have nothing to do with Sarah Palin, but who do have an interest in the cause of special needs children. We apologize for the poor comedic judgment.

Yes, let’s make sure we make it clear that we wouldn’t remove an offensive piece of putrid vomit such as this just for the sake of the parents, because after all, they’re conservatives, and therefore deserve to have their kid beaten like a fucking pinata.

Let’s make sure that we mollify our vapid horde of frothing followers by clarifying that our removal of this offensive post was prompted by people who actually give a fuck about disabled kids (instead of ones who chose to actually give one a chance at life).

I doubt this will help Wonkette’s bleeding advertiser situation, because people who plop lots of cash down to promote their products know a FAIL when they see it. 

And that’s why the Drooling Ignorami of Libtardia hate the free market. It won’t allow them to make complete douchebags of themselves with impunity.

UPDATEMore companies pulling their advertising from Wonkette.

Including Kodak, Coca Cola, Ford and others.

Karma is a bitch, eh Wonkette?

Do you hear that high-pitched whine?

6 Comments

That would be the sound of social conservatives sniveling hysterically about how libertarians are taking over the conservative movement.  *sniff*  *WAAAH!*

Now let me say up front that there are some libertarians who have some serious growing up to do. They’re loud, immature, obnoxious and rude. I said as much on my Facebook page when I linked to a story about a band of obnoxious Ron Paul supporters who interrupted an exchange between Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld .

“You know, I’m all about free speech,” I wrote,  “but have some goddamn class! Agree or not with Cheney, Rumsfeld and crew, whatever… but at least have a little fucking decorum. I always said Ron Paul’s biggest challenge is his fans.”

It’s also true that I know quite a few social conservatives. They’re genuinely good people who abide by their faith, who are kind and generous and who believe in every principle I hold dear: independence, personal responsibility, liberty, a strong national defense… you know…

Unfortunately, there are jerks on both sides.  And today I’ll focus on the conservative ones, so if you all want to cue up your howls of protest, please do so…

…and then go away. I don’t want to hear it.

On Monday, after this weekend’s CPAC and RLC meetings, some dillbag named Kevin McCullough penned a whining editorial for Fox News, lamenting how “Disrespectful” Libertarians *insert horrified gasp of indignation here* hijacked CPAC.

Normally, I’d laugh at him and let it go, but apparently this has been a recurring theme after this weekend, with one outraged caller on Hannity even calling for libertarians to just stay away from the GOP and stick to their own party. To his credit, Hannity (whose show I can only take in small doses) told his caller that he disagrees. While he doesn’t support the libertarians’ social agenda of… *insert another horrified gasp of indignation here* freedom and equal rights for all, even Teh EEEEEEVIL GHEYS™, he’s loath to alienate a rather large group of people with whose views on the Second Amendment, the economy and free markets he agreed.

In any case, Rob recommended (well, more like challenged) that I fisk McCullough’s whining diatribe, so…  OK.

The top three winners of this weekend’s CPAC straw poll will not win the 2012 presidential nomination. And if any of the top three do break through to prove that prediction wrong, none of them will go on to win the White House in 2012.

This year’s top three placeholders in the poll were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeat their standing from the 2010 poll as No. 1 and No. 2, respectively.

If the results of this straw poll do not sufficiently demonstrate the bizarre nature and overall oddity of this year’s gathering of “conservatives,” nothing else can.

That’s a pretty brazenly bold call, especially when it concerns Mittens, whose plastic Edwards-esque hair, liberal (which today is considered moderate) views on health care and gun rights, propelled him to a fairly close contest with Zombie McCain in 2008.

It’s also an interesting proclamation, because all three actually appeal to a broader spectrum of “moderates” than the uber-religious nutjob Mike “…what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards” Huckabee and his ilk.

The “bizarre” label is particularly insulting since conservatives CLAIM many of the same principles that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, in particular, have been espousing since emerging onto the national scene: deficit reduction, paying off debts and fiscal and personal responsibility.  I say “claim,” because many of them go back to the policy of “Politics as Usual” as soon as they secure reelection.

But hey, just because their views and principles more accurately reflect conservatism than those who claim to support fiscal responsibility, but then proceed to claim some kind of divine mandate to use your tax dollars to support programs that fit their religious/personal mold, their good showing at the CPAC straw poll is obviously a bizarre anomaly.

Ron Paul, though technically still a Republican, has given up his GOP identity to embrace the chance to be the poster child for the more libertarian streak that has run rampant through CPAC, largely unabated for the past two years. Mitt Romney, the virtual author of Obamacare, and 2008’s third-place finisher for the GOP nomination, is weighed down by the fact that his universal health care mandate in Massachusetts has largely failed with the exception being the $50 state-subsidized abortions. Gary Johnson was only added to the lineup at the last minute, his presence stoking the flame of immoral libertarianism that actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.

And what “GOP identity” would that be, Kevin?  The fact that Paul supports tighter border security, opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and any form of welfare for illegal aliens? The fact that he opposes membership in the UN? The fact that he voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists after the 9-11attacks?  The fact that he regularly votes against tax increases and increased government spending? The fact that he supports states’ rights, and happens to be one of the most ardent and consistent supporters of the Second Amendment in Congress?  Or is it the fact that he explicitly stated his belief that abortion is murder?

Yeah, sure looks like he’s given up his GOP identity, moron.

Now, to be sure, there are a bunch of things I completely disagree with Ron Paul about, and I do think he’s way too close to the 9-11 Truthers. Of course, there’s not candidate with whom I agree 100 percent, but to claim that Paul has relinquished his Republican creds, because he happens to agree with libertarians on many issues is disingenuous at best and a downright, intentional lie at worst.

As for the “immoral libertarianism” of Gary Johnson… OH NOES! HE SUPPORTS TEH EEEEEVIL GHEYS AND STONERS!

This is where the social conservatives and social libertarians part ways.  We happen to think that there’s nothing immoral about two people of the same gender wanting to spend their lives together and having the same right to do so (and the same marriage tax penalties, to boot!) as two people of different genders.  And we happen to believe that the federal government shouldn’t have a say in what amounts to a socio-economic contract between two consenting adults who want the rights afforded to married next of kin.  McCullough and his socon ilk, despite claiming to support individual freedoms, only do so when it comes to heterosexual couples who only have sex in the missionary position and only to procreate – NEVER for actual gratification. (That last part was sarcasm, assholes. Stop your screeching.)

But since socons loudly proclaim that their religious text of choice not only condemns homosexual relationships, but some claim their Sky Elf of choice actually HATES FA
GS
, anyone who actually supports equal rights for them EEEEEEVIL GHEYS must be immoral.

As for Johnson’s support for legalized pot, he comes at it from a strictly economic and criminal standpoint.  According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mexican drug cartels make the majority of their profits from marijuana trade. As anyone with a basic grasp of economics understands, when something is illegal, it’s inherently dangerous; when something is inherently dangerous, those who are still willing to engage in its trade will earn a bigger profit, giving criminals a virtual monopoly on the market.

Additionally, the prisons are brimming with stoners who committed the egregious crime of toking up (not necessarily harming anyone with their actions).  How much do you think it costs to keep these losers in prison?

Johnson advocates having a DEBATE on the issue and approaching it from an economic and criminal standpoint: It has never been legal to use any type of drug, including alcohol, and drive or do any type of harm to others.  So, he says, it’s time to discuss legalizing it, controlling it and taxing it.  And for those efforts, he’s called “immoral” by socon buttnuggets, such as McCullough, despite being highly rated by the Right to Life Committee on the socons’ pet issue – abortion.


In other words, this year’s CPAC wasn’t about advancing conservatism. Rather, it exposed the radically disrespectful element of the libertine.

Read: They didn’t advance my moralistic, religious, fundamentalist agenda which seeks to marginalize a large portion of the population that doesn’t think like me and my frothing fundamentalist fruitcake friends!

Apparently in McCullough’s worldview, anyone who actually stands by their principles of personal and fiscal responsibility is debauched, lewd and lustful.  Either that, or he has no concept of the word “libertine.”

It has been the inclusion of the libertarian aspects of the past two years that has thrown the message of conservatism askew in a widely disproportional way.

It is the libertarian in attendance that produced the free pornographic calendar passed out to attendees in 2010. It is the libertarians in attendance who openly promote the inclusion of groups like GOProud, largely as an attempt to silence groups who would speak in strong support of traditional moral values. It is the libertarian in attendance who slandered President George Bush, by claiming his appreciation for the Constitution was best summed up as a “damn piece of paper.” It is the libertarian in attendance that proclaimed the war to prevent terrorists from regathering strength and coming after our homeland as “illegal.” And it is the libertarian in attendance that eschewed, booed, cajoled and screamed “war criminal” to Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who served his country with commitment and still attempts to help the world understand the threat of the radical Islamic element devising plans to eliminate us and our allies.

Wow, anti-First Amendment and gay-bashing in one paragraph!  Pretty impressive.  Yeah, Great Pumpkin forbid we actually include people who support freedom, individual liberty, personal responsibility and fiscal conservatives in our ranks.  We might catch Teh Ghey™!

I would submit people who fear the inclusion of gays, who agree with what they claim are their basic principles, in their “Big Tent” might not be so secure in their sexuality, but that’s just me playing amateur shrink.  Fact of the matter is that pornography is legal. It’s a protected form of speech, as is disagreement with Bush or any other president about foreign policy.  But to McCullough, it appears only speech HE approves of deserves recognition or respect. Anything else is immoral and should be avoided.

Now the libertarians stuffed the ballot box of the CPAC straw poll, and for the second year in a row made it the laughingstock poll in the eyes of the voters. (This year’s voters are perhaps more engaged, more aware and more plugged in than ever before.)

Really, Sparky? Got evidence of that, or are you just too appalled to actually believe that a gathering of liberty-minded people would produce a liberty-minded winner in a straw poll?

In head-to-head polling going back a full year to last year’s CPAC, neither Ron Paul nor Mitt Romney has consistently topped a head-to-head match-up against a greatly weakened President Obama. Romney has only topped the sitting president once in that 12-month period. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a no-show at CPAC for the past years, has beaten the president head-to-head in nearly every poll taken.

Is the goal to elect a liberty-minded president who will respect the Constitution of the United States, or someone who could potentially beat Obama?  Is the goal to elect someone who could beat the current president, even if they’re a theocratic fuckwad and would use the office to push his social and moralistic agenda?  Is the goal to exchange one form of tyrant for another – one who would steal your tax dollars to provide health care for illegal aliens, because they happen to be kids, and that happens to be what Jesus would want him to do?

Yeah, not so much.  The idea isn’t to find someone who would defeat Zero, but would impose his own special brand of dictatorial fucktardery on the nation. The idea is to find someone who respects this country and her laws, not someone who would change the Law of the Land to fit their religious beliefs.

David Keene, the American Conservative Union’s outgoing president, gave a lengthy discounting of this year’s poll in the lead up to it. That should serve as a very clear indicator that next year’s CPAC needs some significant changes if it is to become the great conference it has been in past years.

Because dammit, next year, they’ll stuff the ballot with votes for Sarah Palin, which is much more preferable to stuffing the ballot with votes for Ron Paul.

Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Really?  All that different?  Fiscal responsibility, ending outrageous entitlements, Second Amendment and strong self defense, individual liberties… Yeah, they’re really different. I guess Mr. McCullough is one of those douchebags who believes that those who believe it’s their right to keep the fruits of their labor instead of having them appropriated by government force and redistributed to fit politicians’ end are evil and greedy?  I would think so.  It’s OK to take your tax dollars to provide health care for illegal aliens, because Jesus says so?  Is that how it goes, Kevin?

If having a fundamental belief that I am the owner of my efforts and that I’m best qualified to judge how my money is spent, not a politician, who cites the Bible or the Communist Manifesto as his justification…

If having enough maturity to let people live their lives without moralistic interference from religious nutjobs and letting whatever God I believe in do the judging is equal to amorality…

I’ll take that over sniffly, moralistic preaching from people who have no understanding of the concept of actual freedom and merely give lip service to liberty while pushing an agenda that reflects their religious views any day of the week.

And it is not consistent with the average conservative voter in America.

Is that the same average conservative
voter who idolizes Ronald Reagan? 

If you analyze it I believe the very
heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism —
Ronald Reagan

Yeah. THAT Ronald Reagan.

The fact that so many faith-based conservatives were missing from CPAC, and are also arguably the most dependable conservative voter in the country only added to the confusing, bizarre, disrespectful and, in many ways, off-putting memories of this year’s event.

Yes, CPAC enjoyed its largest attendance ever. But one could possibly argue that it was smaller than it would have been if the third leg of the conservative stool — social conservatives — had been the key player they have traditionally been in the past.

Maybe it’s because the bigots of the bunch were booed at last year’s CPAC for being… um… rude asshole bigots, hmmmm?  Remember Ryan Sorba? Talk about your rude, insolent little fucks!  Talk about being disrespectful to members of a group that supports freedom, academic and personal liberties and fiscal conservatism for everyone, regardless of the choices they make in life.

And given the fact that the Ron Paul-toting, uber-disrespectful and, in many ways, disruptive ballot stuffing has wrecked the straw poll results, pinging completely unelectable candidates in two of the top three slots, perhaps more significance should be paid to the straw poll to be conducted by the conference that happens in the fall called the “Values Voters Conference.”

Because the ballots will get stuffed in favor of religious zealots there!

If social conservatives are the largest portion of the conservative discussion, no attention should be paid to a poll that virtually eliminates their presence all together.

Many of them chose to boycott CPAC altogether because of the presence of those EEEEEEEEEEEVIL GHEYs!  And guess what! CPAC had a record attendance anyway!  Maybe there’s a reason their presence was discounted!

The reason?  According to that amoral libertarian rag, Human Events, “84% of the voters identified themselves as fiscal conservatives, placing their highest priority on economic growth and restraining the growth of government.”

So maybe the majority of conservatives simply didn’t give a rat’s flying fuck how the Bible tells us to screw.  They’re more worried about becoming another Zimbabwe.

CPAC leaders did the best they could to put on the best conference possible. It wasn’t their fault that the libertarian elements within the attendees equate free speech with animalistic expressions, especially when visiting someone else’s “house.”

They paid to be present at that “house,” asstard. The organizers of CPAC opened it to anyone who supports conservative principles, and as long as they paid their fee, they had every right to express themselves at said house.  Unless, of course, Kevin, you don’t think the First Amendment applies at a gathering of those who claim to support freedom!

Libertarian elements, because of their strange combination of policies that add up to anarchy without moral limits, don’t mix with conservative ideals. And, because of that, perhaps they should have their own conference and let all the pot-smokers and gay marriage supporters come and complain about how the U.S. shouldn’t be fighting terrorists, while they slander public servants.

What you call “strange” is what is commonly known as “consistent.” These people believe in freedom and individual liberty for ALL people, regardless of their sexual orientation, even if they disagree with said choice. They believe in responsible government spending, even if it makes the hypocritical theocrats shit their underpants at the thought of legalizing marijuana or cutting spending that supports religious initiatives. They believe in a strong national defense without the fraud, waste and abuse that comes with the ever-growing government bureaucracy.  And they believe that if someone doesn’t act like a conservative while claiming to hold conservative views, they deserve skepticism and criticism – not slander, as you claim – even though they have an “R” behind their name. (read: I’ve abandoned my free market principles to save the free market systemGeorge W. Bush)

At the very least, the winner of their straw poll would be somewhat reflective of the title of who they are, and what they believe.

Done and done.

Now why don’t you and your minority theocrat fundamentalist Bible thumpers go cry in a corner somewhere!  There doesn’t appear to be any more room for you under that big tent.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: