The GOP Establishment we keep hearing about is real, and it is also doomed.

That will not change whether the Establishment’s candidate Mitt Romney wins in November or not.  After the election, the battle really starts; what is happening now are just skirmishes in a fight for control of the Republican Party.  Not the soul of the party – if it had one, it auctioned it off long ago – but the mechanism of the party.  The Grand Old Party matters only as a vehicle to carry our banner forward.

To do that, we need to seize control, and we do that by destroying the Establishment starting next November 7th.

Superficially, it might seem that we – the outsiders, the Tea Party, the conservatives, whatever the label – are outgunned by opponents with their hands on the reins of power, money in amounts we can’t hope to match, and pals in the media backing them.  But if we understand our strengths, and our opponents’ weaknesses, we can not only compete but eventually prevail.

First, let’s understand our opponent.

(more…)

As Newt Gingrich’s challenge to the anointment of Mitt Romney heats up, the newest line of attack against the erratic former Speaker by the Romneyites is not so much that Newt is unelectable – that’s assumed, and not unreasonably.  It’s that in November the voters will recoil in horror at the Republican presidential ticket, and that Newt will take the GOP’s hopes for the Senate down with him, leaving Obama in total control of the Republic.

There are plenty of problems with a Newt Gingrich nomination – most of them a direct result of Newt’s own antics – but the developing conventional wisdom that he will be toxic to Republican Senate chances may just be totally off-base.  In fact, a Newt nomination could be the best possible thing for winning a GOP Senate majority – ironically because of people who don’t think he has a chance in hell in the general election.

The GOP has great expectations for the Senate in 2012 – winning just four seats (five if Senator Kirk fails to recover from his recent stroke and the Democratic governor of Illinois appoints another Roland Burris as the replacement before his traditional indictment) will capture the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body from the clutches of Harry Reid and the Democrats.

With the Democrat party playing defense on many more at-risk seats, the percentages are in the GOP’s favor.  Moreover, many of the senators up for elections are “conservative Democrats,” which mean flaming liberals who talk a good game about being “fiscally conservative” and “moderate” back home in their blood-red states.  With the Obama economy especially painful in the middle of the country – the administration’s stimulus money disproportionately rewarded the urban and academic communities whose support Obama is unshakeable – it should be a cakewalk not only to grab the majority but press on toward the magic number of 60.

Enter Newt.

(more…)

The weirdos, losers and mutations who make up the Occupy movement showed the world their glass jaw when their Denver branch descended upon the FreedomWorks BlogCon 2011 new media convention on Friday.  There’s a lot for conservatives to learn from this close encounter of the dumbass kind.

Sure, we learned that their personal hygiene leaves much to be desired – like, well, personal hygiene.  We learned that their concept of private property is shaky at best; radio host Tony Katz hilariously schooled one shaggy gentleman on the air at length about who owned a particular chair the Occupier attempted to occupy.  And we learned that they wear Guy Fawkes masks not because of any particular affinity for the noted radical Catholic terrorist but because some guy wore it in the movie V For Vendetta and it was apparently a really bitchin’ movie.

These are not deep thinkers.

But the most important lesson is that the Occupiers are a joke; they are nothing but coddled, Potemkin protesters who collapse at the first sign of resistance.

These clowns have been treated with kid gloves by gutless (or even sympathetic) politicians from Zuccotti Park to the Port of Oakland.  They’ve been allowed to live in filth, dominate public spaces and generally descend into a festering petri dish of social, criminal and epidemiological pathologies by cowardly mayors and other enablers unwilling to do the most basic job of any government leader and keep order.

The mainstream media adores them, viewing them as advancing their shared left-wing agenda while also recalling the activist Sixties of legend.  And, of course, the media helpfully covers up the ever-growing roster of outrages perpetrated by these nimrods.  No accountability there.  Even the cops are required to treat these geniuses with professional respect.

It’s been all up-twinkles for them – until now.

(more…)

To quote someone we all know and love, let me be perfectly clear:  The mainstream media is the bought and paid for lapdog of the liberal Democrat elite.  It will not only never give conservatives a fair hearing but will actively distort, lie and slander in an effort to destroy any conservative it sees as a threat to its masters.  So why the hell do conservatives treat its members with anything other than contempt and allow it to set the agenda and exploit fault lines in the movement?

Easy – conservatives tend to be polite, reasonable people with a genuine interest in honest debate and a quaint belief in the efficacy of things like “facts” and “evidence” as a way to demonstrate the truth.  No wonder they get rolled.  The other side believes in none of those things – its only belief is that leftism must prevail and any other value is disposable if it turns into a liability.  The answer is conservative judo – understanding how the Left works and using its own weight and momentum against it.  We need to start being less like butt-kissing conservanerd David Brooks and more like butt-kicking conservastud Chuck Norris.

Conservative judo means going on the offense and keeping on the offense.  It’s not about reasoning with unreasonable people; it’s about using their own strengths against them to defeat them.  It has application to the GOP candidates for sure, but it also applies to those of us in the real world facing liberals every day.

The bizarre Rick Perry rock pseudo-scandal is a wonderful teachable moment for conservatives, mostly because the GOP candidates’ reactions allowed this contemptible lie to gain steam.  The Washington Post ran a story that some idiot wrote a racial slur on a rock at some ranch where Rick Perry hunted.  Now, one might observe that the facts and evidence show that about 30 years ago the Perry family got a hunting lease and promptly painted over the word.  One might also note that Perry was a Democrat at the time.  Moreover, the sources who disagree can’t agree on a different timeline and won’t give their names – inconsistent, anonymous hearsay is apparently acceptable when it comes to conservatives.

But none of this matters.  It’s not about “facts” or “evidence” or even “truth.”  It’s a calculated smear designed by a liberal rag to slander a leading GOP candidate.  Moreover, it is another example of a partisan political publication hiding behind the lie that it is an objective news source.  It is not.  The Washington Post, like the New York Times and the vast majority of mainstream media outlets, is an active collaborator with the liberal elite.  If it weren’t, Andrew Breitbart would not be the one breaking the story of Barak Obama’s game of patty cake with the expressly black supremacist New Black Panthers.

The question is, then, why the other GOP candidates tolerated this attack instead of coming to his defense – after all, this was an attack not just on Rick Perry but upon every conservative.  This was pure innuendo designed not just to trash one candidate but to feed a narrative that all conservatives are just one sheet away from an old fashioned cross burning of the kind dead Democratic icon Robert Byrd would have enjoyed in his pre-Senate capacity as a KKK Kleagle.

Herman Cain fell right into the trap.  A good man, it seems he did so here not in a short-sighted attempt to capitalize on the blow to Rick Perry but because he was genuinely disgusted with the idea that some nitwit would paint that sort of thing on a rock.  When asked about it (at the 3:42 mark) by Chris Wallace of Fox News, he responded that it was “insensitive.”  Well, “insensitive” is one word for it – Cain was being kind.  My saltier characterization would have included an adjective beginning with an “F.”  Cain later clarified that he was referring to the person who wrote it, and that he did not believe the Rock of Outrages represented Perry’s belief.  Too late.  The damage was done.

(more…)

In the wake of President Obama asking America’s richest and most successful to do their patriotic duty and contribute their fair share to our Nation, more and more are refusing to be content with merely ostentatiously asking to have their taxes raised.  The hot new trend in Democrat circles is taking personal action to show patriotism through concrete actions and real sacrifice.

“I had a net worth of $200 million, so I wrote a check to the federal government for $199,999,900!” said high tech legend Frank Spindleman.  The big-time Democratic contributor and pioneer in the field of foreign Internet drug store spam was inspired by the President’s call to action.  Sitting in the open door of his new home, a beige 1973 Ford panel van parked down by the river, Spindleman is proud that he put his money where his mouth was.

Merely raise my marginal rates a little?  That’s nothing to me.  I wanted to really make a difference, so I gave the country everything.  Sure, it’s a little less comfortable here than my mansion, and I’ve got fewer and lower quality hookers hanging around, but it’s worth it for the personal pride I feel in not being one of those loudmouth jerks pretending to sacrifice in order to impress the media!

One of the founders of leading Internet search engine Gaggle felt the same.  Chet Vingly sold off his 401’ yacht, his Ferrari collection and his prized unicorn herd and sent all his cash to Uncle Sam.

I was listening to the President at a Beverly Hills fundraiser and lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills when it hit me – he was right!  The people who rely on government support – cowboy poets, performance artists, people who have better things to do than supporting themselves – these are the people we need to really focus on.  They deserve my money, not me.  I only earned it, but they really, really want it.  So, I think it’s pretty clear who’s entitled to it.

But for some, just giving away all their money isn’t enough.  Democratic impresario and synergy industry mogul Lance Gordon gave up his corporate jet.  He’ll be taking no more trips to his houses in Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard.

Thanks to the President’s warnings about the threat posed by global warming deniers, I bike everywhere now.  I mean, if you really, really believe that the science is settled and that climate change is real, you’ll absolutely stop flying around on private jets.  I’d be an incredible hypocrite if I believed in global warming but still jetted everywhere.  People would look at me and wonder why, if global warming was such a threat, all I was doing about it was having my butler separate my garbage into trash and recyclables.  Heck, if I was such a blatant poser jerk as that I couldn’t look myself in the mirror.

But for some prominent and wealthy liberals, President Obama’s inspiring call to patriotism demanded even more sacrifice.  Steve Berkley was a big-time Democratic bundler and the owner of the ubiquitous Buckstar’s Coffee shops.

(more…)

Let’s face it – there are few things more annoying than Science.  We conservatives need to take a firm stand against Science in all its forms.  In fact, Science sucks.

But let’s not confuse “Science” with “science.”  The regular, boring, old lower-case “science” has to do with applying the scientific method to observed phenomena in order to expand our knowledge of the universe.  It requires a rigorous analysis of empirical evidence and the testing of hypotheses without preconceived, concrete, politicized notions of what the truth must be.  In contrast, “Science” is a ration of pseudo-plausible horseshit asserted by liberals who try to occupy the intellectual high ground and then shut you up by basically saying you are too dumb to express an opinion.

Liberal “Science” is a bludgeon that superficially looks like what we understand to be science, but bears no more than a casual relationship to it.  It is a way of trying to end the debate before it begins – or, more precisely, before you begin.  That leaves the liberals’ nonsense as the first and last word on the subject.  And then they win.

It’s a nice trick – if you let them get away with it.  So don’t.

Call them Scientistians – liberal doofs who try to wrap themselves in the white lab coat of objective reason for only as long as it supports their particular pinko policy prescription du jour.

(more…)

As a trial lawyer, I appreciate the panicked attempts of the liberal elite and its mainstream media suck-ups to focus the upcoming election on the religious views of the Republican candidates.  I face – and defeat – this kind of tactic all the time.  But don’t underestimate it, and don’t think we can just ignore it.  Misdirection is a powerful tool in the arsenal of the desperate, and let’s face it – if the liberal demographic they’re aiming to terrify with the specter of a GOP nominee dedicated to the goal of becoming the John Lithgow of a Footloose-esque theocracy was smart enough to see through such a transparent appeal to raw bigotry, its members wouldn’t be liberal.

The problem for the liberal elite is that its guy has made such roadkill out of the economy in his attempt to transform America into a socialist utopia that if the 2012 election revolves around the fact that most Americans are struggling to stay afloat because of him, Obama is going to be sent packing right back to Bill Ayers, Reverend White, and the rest of his commie pals in his old Chicago neighborhood.

So, the lib establishment’s strategy is crystal clear – play to the primitive prejudices of the Democrat base by doing its very best to convince them that should Perry or Bachman or Romney or any of those conservatives get elected, then Kevin Bacon shall boogie no more!

Bill Keller, editor of something called the New York Times, which used to be a newspaper of some note in the old days before the free flow of information, eagerly capered for his liberal overlords last week with a couple of columns that set out a series of questions to the GOP candidates about their religious views.

Note that these questions are only directed at Republicans – the liberals know that with a few exceptions the religious posturing of their Democrat favorites is a sham designed to appeal to the few sub-constituencies of the Democrat Party (like black women) who actually do hold sincere religious beliefs.  For most liberals – especially the base – religion is just one more wedge issue to be exploited in pursuit of a collectivist nirvana.

(more…)

It’s already happening – the liberal dream of a perpetual social welfare state where deadbeat liberal constituencies feed off of the work of productive conservative citizens in perpetuity is dying.  There’s no doubt about that; the only question left is how long and hard the process will be as the hideous leviathan the utopian liberal establishment has created convulses and dies.

It’s going to die hard.  And ugly.

The collapse is well-underway in Europe – Greece has gone from the cradle of democracy to a cesspool of union-fueled mobs – but America faces the same trauma.  As the contradictions inherent in the vision of a societal plan based on the notion that an ever-expanding pool of Democratic-voting serfs sucking the wealth away from the mostly Republican-oriented producers who labored to create it become more apparent, the reactions and rear-guard efforts of the terminal liberal elite will grow more extreme.

We are already seeing the liberal elite lash out in anger and frustration at what is a perfect storm of failure.  Glenn Reynolds, the legendary Instapundit, chronicles the daily disintegration, while the brilliant Mark Steyn’s cheery new book, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, drops on August 8, 2011 – I’ll race you to Amazon to get a copy.

As the three components of the liberal establishment – the media, the unions and politicians – rage at the dying of the liberal light, the insanity meter will swing far into the red.  It’s already begun.  The Tea Party has dared to speak the truth, and the uncomfortable realities it has pointed out have destroyed the bogus consensus that has allowed the debt Titanic to sail giddily on toward the iceberg.  That’s why the establishment response is to demonize the popular movement.  We’re “terrorists” or “lunatics” or, bizarrely, “hobbits.”  Our crime is telling the truth.

(more…)

If we are going to win this thing, this battle to retake our culture and our country, you are going to have to learn to love to fight.

This battle can’t be left to a few champions who do battle on the airwaves or on cable or on the Internet, or who just do their part tweeting and Facebooking.  While we Constitutional conservatives, Tea Partiers, or whatever we call ourselves have been punching above our weight – the merely crappy debt ceiling deal would have been an unholy abomination of a deal if not for the intransigence of our Congressional allies supported by our voices from outside the Beltway – the fact is that we need more warriors.  That’s you.

And to be a warrior you need to want to fight.  You need to need to fight.  I’m not talking about punching and kicking – though if someone wants to go there, hey, let’s rock.  This is spoken or written combat, whether the battlefield is a cocktail party or a Facebook page.  And it’s vital.  These are serious issues that are worth fighting over.   Our Founders didn’t think they were making a country for a bunch of simpering, goody-goody wimps who go all wobbly at a harsh word or a raised voice.  Democracy requires guts.  Nut up.

People whine about fighting, cry over “bickering,” stammer out clichés about “bipartisanship,” “compromise” and being “reasonable.”  Well, I reject bipartisanship, compromise and reasonability, and so must you.  I want to fight and to win; death or glory.  Compromise is for losers – half a turd is still 100% turd.  But enough about the debt ceiling bill.

(more…)

Thursday:

Wow, you can really feel the energy here in Minneapolis at Netroots Nation 2011 – the vibe is so much better than at Starbucks where that fascist Mr. Rodriguez keeps oppressing me by insisting that I get to work on time!  Because of the capitalist system under whose yoke we all groan, I had to get the money to come from my parents, which is only fair since they have money and because of George Bush I don’t.  I heard Dad joking about how he was “delighted to have that 30-year old bum out of my basement for a weekend.”  Mom gave me a ride to the airport in the Explorer and on the 747 I had time to write up a Daily Kos post about the need to ration carbon credits to control global warming – I mean “climate change.”

I went to check into my hotel room and the guy at the front desk complimented me on my clothes.  “Nice Che tee,” he said.  “Funny coincidence – my family is from Cuba.  So, will you be wearing your Mao t-shirt tomorrow?”  How did he know?  Anyway, I was a little unhappy with my room – it was on the top floor between the elevators and a guy who turned out to be the drummer for Anthrax.  He sure had a lot of loud parties.

Off to the convention center for to help build a socialist future – oh wait, I’m not supposed to say “socialist.”  Andrew Breitbert’s operatives are in the area and according to Markos, “We’re still keeping our real goal on the down low until after the reelection.”   Shhh – mum’s the word, fellow “progressives!”

By the way, I thought I saw Markos himself, but it turned out to be a guy dressed as an elf from the Dungeons & Dragons convention down the street.  My mistake!

(more…)

Once the light bulb represented ideas; today, its shoddy, government-mandated replacement, the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), has come to represent everything that is wrong with the GOP leadership in Congress.  It’s time to get rid of the dim bulbs, figuratively and literally.

The problem is not just one more idiotic, nanny state proclamation from a Congress that generates almost as many idiotic, nanny state proclamations as it does creepy texted self-portraits.  The bigger problem is the conservative base’s crisis of confidence in our pseudoconservative Congressional leadership brought on by its utter failure to get the message from the base and act on it as it promised.  And the symbol of this bait-and-switch Republican Congress is the light bulb.

As reported by Michael Patrick Leahy (with a hat tip to the incomparable Instapundit), Congressman Fred Upton really, really wanted to be the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee after the 2010 turnover, but there was a problem.  Upton had been part of the cadre of nimrods who introduced the ban on incandescent light bulbs back in 2007; they are to be completely banned effective January 1, 2012, in favor of CFLs.

Now, for a truly conservative party, this unbelievable misjudgment would disqualify Upton from any position of responsibility above that requiring the operation of a mop and pail.  It demonstrates an arrogant, petty fascist commitment to telling fellow Americans what is best for them.  Strike One.  It demonstrates a belief in the voodoo religion of global warming.  Strike two.  And it’s just plain obnoxious – what kind of half-wit thinks it’s a bright idea to force all Americans to abandon safe, cheap incandescent bulbs in favor of overpriced, toxic mercury-harboring devices whose dank glow brightens nothing but the hearts of hair-shirted enviro-wackos, crony capitalist CFL manufacturers, and gloom-adoring emo kids.  Strike three.

If the Republican Party can’t make a stand at the government telling us what kind of light bulbs to use, what good is it?

(more…)

He doesn’t really stand out in a crowd – in fact, he looks like a regular guy, the kind of guy who would own a construction business.  What Gary Johnson doesn’t look like is the great green hope, the stoner white knight coming to make America safe for the herbally inclined.  Yet legalizing pot seems to be about 80% of what everyone thinks of when the former New Mexico governor’s name comes up.  That’s too bad, in that a good chunk of what he says – the best thought-out parts – are the reddest of red meat for the kind of Republicans who wouldn’t know a bong from a bongo drum.

Johnson is a friendly guy, with an easy smile and a welcome normality that distinguishes him from the typical Stepford Spouse politician who is focus-tested and consultant-approved right down to the dead trout handshake.  But you can see in his eyes, as he starts talking to the small crowds of Republicans at party meetings across the country, that he likes to shake things up.  He starts out with straight-up Republican porn – talking about his 750 vetoes as governor and how he never, ever, raised taxes, and how he never will once he becomes President.

The crowd, initially polite but reserved, leans in, rapt – it likes what it hears.  And there’s more.  Now he’s doling out big slabs of GOP prime beef, hot and fresh from the grill.  He moves on to the Johnson Plan for cutting the deficit that makes up 43% of the federal budget , which is essentially employing the simple expedient of cutting the federal budget by 43% tomorrow.  Mainstream Republican candidates take note – these are California conservatives, which pretty much means borderline Marxists compared to our Midwestern and Southern allies, and they ate it up.  There’s a huge appetite out there in conservative-land for a guy who will not only talk about shuttering the Departments of Education and Commerce but has a crazy glint in his eyes that say he’s just nuts enough to actually do it.

And he would too – Johnson is clearly absolutely dedicated to doing what he thinks is right.

(more…)

Patrick “Kit” Bobko was willing to jump out of airplanes to earn his airborne wings as an Air Force Academy cadet, so the dying dinosaur that is the Los Angeles Times is not going to intimidate him.  Nor is the fact that California’s 36^th Congressional District has a marked Democratic registration advantage.  On Tuesday May 17^th, Kit will be facing a cast of over 15 competitors in an early test of California’s wacky new open primary law.  Refreshingly young, smart, and conservative, Kit Bobko might just foreshadow the new resurrection of California’s DOA Republican Party.

Congressional Candidate Kit Bobko

The 36^th District covers the southern coast of Los Angeles County, anchored on the south by the hills of Rancho Palos Verdes where amazing rich people enjoy spectacular views of the Pacific from Malibu to Catalina Island.  It then heads north, ending in the bohemian nightmare that is Venice.  In between are Torrance and the beach cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach, where Kit has twice been elected to the city council and has battled all manner of liberal nitwittery.  These are generally prosperous towns, getting wealthier the closer one goes toward the unrivaled beaches.  These people are natural Republicans but don’t seem to know it – educated, affluent, and entrepreneurial, they are the enemies of a liberal machine that still somehow get their votes.   Last year they famously reelected a liberal state senator over her GOP rival despite her clear disqualification from office – she tragically died during the campaign.

Up to the 90s, the voters would check the box for GOP candidates in state and federal elections, but for the last several terms they sent Democrat Jane Harman to Washington.  Harman easily won reelection in 2010, but Congress being no fun when the Democrats weren’t in a majority anymore, she quit earlier this year.  Harman didn’t need the aggravation – she was likely the richest member of Congress thanks to her recently deceased husband Sidney, who founded the Harmon-Kardon audio empire and recently bought Newsweek for $1, which was much more than it was worth.  Harman called herself a “blue dog” Democrat, which meant she pretended to be a fiscal conservative and hid the usual contempt for American security that her comrades typically display when she was home, and then went back east and voted so left that it would make a Bolshevik blush.

Kit may just have an edge because he does not have the capacity to be two-faced, a likely result of the training he received as an Air Force Academy graduate.

(more…)

Andrew Breitbart’s recent epic battle with the forces of liberal tolerance is not the most important lesson he offers – not by a longshot.  There has got to be someone surprised by the way the Huffington Post fell to its figurative knees to kiss the figurative asses of Van Jones and his commie pals the second they started whining about how Breitbart was speaking his mind, but that someone likely believes in climate change and unicorn rodeos.  Liberals treat concepts like “freedom of speech” and “diversity” like lonely teenage boys treat Kleenex; their floor is littered with wadded-up, discarded principles like free expression that have out-lived their usefulness.  If you are shocked that the liberal media is anything more than a Ministry of Truth promoting the lamest collectivist clichés du jour, you either haven’t been paying attention, or you are really, really dumb.

No, Andrew Breitbart’s most important lesson – one he’ll happily tell you about and which his bestselling book will describes in depth – is that ten years ago, he was just some regular guy.  He wasn’t a Harvard grad or a congressman or a TV anchor.  He was just a normal American citizen who had had enough.  The only difference between him and everyone else is that he chose to get into the fight by leveraging his growing political maturity with the exploding phenomena that is the internet.  And that’s a decision you can make too.

At a superficial level, what my boring communications professors droned on about while my buddies and I took Bacardi hits off a flask in the last rows of the UCSD lecture halls, is true – the medium itself is the message.  Supported by talk radio, conservative think tanks and Fox News, the internet and the social media it has made possible – the Facebooks, the Twitters, the podcasting and the blogs – represent the destruction of the old order of political discourse.  And that creative destruction is what we represent – the new paradigm that has turned the once mighty New York Times into a pathetic brochure that today sets the agenda for no one but the Manhattan-bound, neo-Pauline Kael set whose members can’t believe those Tea Party barbarians prevailed last November because they don’t know any.

The issue is not whether you can be part of the fight.  You can.  You can organize, to the extent the Tea Party movement lends itself to organization (Chaos is its best defense against co-opting!).  You can start a blog, you can tweet, or you can Facebook (Is that a verb yet?).  The number of internet radio shows and podcasts like Jimmy Bise, Jr.’s “The Delivery” are exploding.  New radio hosts are coming out of the movement, like Larry “Stage Right” O’Connor, Dana Loesch and Tony Katz – and they are crossing into terrestrial radio.  Your opportunity is unlimited.

(more…)

The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has doubled-down on failure.

Ignoring the growing protests of its outraged members, the supposedly “independent” VFW Political Action Committee (VFW-PAC) has issued a new statement refusing to back off on the disgraceful set of endorsements that have threatened the venerable and (at least at the local level) respected organization with destruction.

The short version: “Our members are partisan morons who ought to sit back and let us decide what’s good for them.”  The long version:

VFW-PAC Stands By Endorsement Process

WASHINGTON, DC, Oct 13,2010 – The VFW-PAC was established in 1979 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) as a separate, nonpartisan organization charged with the single task of working in Congress to support candidates who have taken responsible positions on issues involving national defense and legislation pertaining to the nation’s veterans.

An eleven member Board of Directors reviews and establishes the criteria used for the endorsement process each election cycle. This cycle the Board chose a methodology for endorsement that was used successfully in years past; grading an incumbent’s support by the position taken on critical issues of importance to the VFW. Therefore, thirteen roll call votes in the House of Representatives and nine votes in the Senate that aligned with VFW priority goals were selected to grade the support of incumbent members of Congress. The bar was set high, as a Senator must have voted in concert with the VFW position on 7 of 9 votes and a Representative 10 of 13 to receive the VFW-PAC endorsement. If a member of Congress failed to make the grade, the Board would consider a challenger for that Congressional seat. The Board would also consider candidates running for open seats. Both challengers and open seat candidates would have to state in writing their position on VFW priority goals.

There are a few races out of 356 endorsed candidates in both the House and Senate, where emotions are running high, that are getting a lot of attention. In some cases there are veterans and even VFW members running against Congressional incumbents endorsed by the VFW-PAC. It would not only be unfair, but contrary to VFW-PAC By-Laws to disregard the incumbent’s record of support and endorse another candidate. The VFW-PAC will not abandon those in Congress that have supported issues of critical importance to our nation’s security and veterans.

In the political endorsement arena, there will always be party loyalists and individuals that will not agree with the VFW-PAC decision. The Board respects their position and appreciates their activism in support of the candidate of their choice. The VFW-PAC endorsement is not designed to tell people how to vote; but to point out who has demonstrated support for veterans and America’s security.

The VFW-PAC disagrees with those who claim the endorsement process is skewed, flawed, or unfair.

(more…)

In the wake of the tsunami of protests from its members over the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) endorsement of a slew of anti-military incumbents, the VFW’s “leadership” has issued a new statement trying to calm the furor and, in doing so, has further embarrassed itself.  You see, to them, the problem isn’t that the VFW allowed its good name to be tarred by supporting candidates like the one who literally partied with Hanoi Jane Fonda.

No, the problem is that you, the veterans, are just too stupid to understand how it’s not the leadership’s fault that this happened on their watch:

Comrades,

The angry tone and tenor of the telephone calls and messages being received at national headquarters make it clear that many of our members are not cognizant of the fact that VFW National By-Laws clearly stipulate that the VFW Commander-in-Chief is not authorized to direct or otherwise attempt to introduce his control over the VFW PAC. Furthermore, no membership dues or donations made to the VFW or VFW Foundation are used for the VFW PAC.

As you know, the recent endorsements by the PAC are the subject of much controversy. Unfortunately, many questions have been raised regarding VFW’s involvement in the endorsement process and the integrity of the organization as a whole. Regrettably, many of our members and supporters are disappointed and have misdirected their anger toward the VFW as having lost its purpose.

Comrades, we cannot sit idly by while a great organization is being disparaged and maligned, even unintentionally. It is vitally important that you take a direct role in alleviating this current flood of criticism by reminding members and supporters that:

– The VFW PAC was created by the VFW members and not by VFW national leaders. 2/3 of the delegates of the 80th VFW National Convention (1979) voted to establish PAC as a standing committee.

– VFW By-Laws stipulate that VFW leadership does not direct PAC activities and that the VFW convention is the governing body of the organization. As such, it is only the delegates at the convention that can determine the continuation of the PAC.

– Encourage VFW members to get involved in their VFW Posts and to exercise and further direct their concerns to convention delegates so that there can be an informed debate on the existence of the PAC.

If I know my vets, they are plenty “cognizant” of when they are being fed a bunch of crap.

(more…)

You might think that a prominent veterans organization like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) would actually reserve its political endorsements for, you know, veterans, or at least those politicians that actually demonstrate some level of respect for the military.  But you would be wrong.  And the problem is not just the VFW; rather, the VFW’s current lobbyist-driven fiasco simply serves to illustrate how out-of-touch the Washington in-crowd is with the feelings of us benighted souls dwelling outside the beltway.

In the Florida 22^nd Congressional District race, incumbent Democrat Ron Klien is running against Republican challenger Allen West.  Actually, he’s properly addressed as Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Allen West, a decorated combat veteran who commanded a battalion in Iraq until he was forced to retire after making a 9mm suggestion to a captured terrorist that it would be a very, very smart move to give up some information about future attacks against LTC West’s men.  Now, that’s not to say Congressman Klien does not have a distinguished military record of his own – to be fair, apparently he saw most of Saving Private Ryan on AMC once, though he found it pretty scary.

After due consideration- which apparently means the VFW’s lobbyists told it to do so – the VFW endorsed Klein.

Okay, sometimes an organization makes a mistake.  I mean, it’s not like the VFW decided to endorse, say, a liberal Democratic senator who tried to humiliate an Army general testifying by demanding that he call her “Senator” instead of the perfectly appropriate “ma’am,” or who allowed her fundraisers to be hosted by the likes of Hanoi Jane.  That would be, well, crazy.

Oh, wait.  The VFW is endorsing leftist Senator Barbara Boxer.  Yeah, the same Barbara Boxer who voted to undercut us troops as we sat out in the desert waiting for Operation Desert Storm to start.  Yeah, the same Barbara Boxer who undercut the troops by voting to cut and run in Iraq.  Yeah, that Barbara Boxer – the one who will be running around using the VFW’s shameful endorsement as a shield against the truth of her track record of contempt for our military.

(more…)

Conservatives need to be wary of the notion that General David Petraeus – or, for that matter, any other general or admiral – is necessarily the answer to their fervent prayers for victory in 2012.  GEN Petraeus is a true hero, an awesome leader and a great American whom every citizen owes a debt of gratitude.  But politically, he presents an ideological blank slate upon which many on the right are merely projecting their hopes and aspirations.  For several reasons, GEN Petraeus is likely to disappoint them.

The most obvious reason is that GEN Petraeus himself has repeatedly and unequivocally rejected the idea of ever running for public office.  Cynical observers routinely discount such disclaimers, but there are several reasons to believe that he really means it.  As the commander of CENTCOM, responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan, GEN Petraeus has a full plate and a mission he has not yet completed.  He is committed to the mission, and has worked for its success for nearly a decade (I have not worked for GEN Petraeus personally, but I have close friends who have worked directly for him – to the point of receiving emails from him at home at odd hours after their return to civilian life – and they uniformly deeply respect him).  He was also diagnosed with prostate cancer.  But the most powerful evidence against a possible run is that he has said he would not run.  Unlike many in the political arena, his word and a dollar are together worth more than 100 cents.

But assuming he could be enticed to run – say, if he was absolutely convinced that the good of the nation depended upon it – what then?  His storied military career and his ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq via “the Surge” have fueled speculationabout whether he can follow in Eisenhower’s footsteps from the command post to the White House.  Like Ike, GEN Petraeus would probably be most comfortable as a Republican.  He was registered in the GOP before 2002, when he stopped voting.  The American Enterprise Institute recently honored him.  And he doesn’t seem like he would have much use for defeatists and pacifists, social parasites or the unbelievably corrupt, so he couldn’t be a Democrat.

(more…)

Pete Kesterson always seems to be talking to somebody about why he’s running for Congress in California’s 36^th District against the richest woman on Capitol Hill.

The day after the House – abetted by stealth liberal Democrat Jane Harman – voted to impose health care socialism, Pete is at it again.  This time, he’s introducing himself as a conservative Republican – he always makes sure to emphasize the word “conservative” – to the young woman at the Starbucks counter who just handed him his venti coffee.

“And thanks for helping pay for my medical insurance,” he says, smiling.  “Because that’s what this health care reform law means – young people like you are going to be paying for older folks like me.”  The barista thinks about it for a moment.  “Really?” she asks, not thrilled at the prospect.  But Pete offers her some hope even as she hands over his change.  “Yeah, but we can do something about it,” he answers.

Pete’s not polished like a professional politician, but his years in sales and in the one-on-one financial planning business gave him a head start in learning how to make personal connections with voters.  Later that day, at his campaign headquarters a block from the Pacific Ocean, within the space of a few minutes he makes his case to three different walk-in voters.  “I believe in free enterprise, in a strong defense, a balanced budget and freedom,” he tells them.  They like what they hear and leave with lawn signs.

(more…)

A trial lawyer reading through the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) will immediately, almost unconsciously, begin generating a list of questions he would love to ask the authors if he were able to face them on the witness stand and under oath.  The beauty of the adversarial process is how cross-examination tests and challenges the other side’s position – precisely what the emails indisputably show the CRU and its allies in the climate change scam have gone to shocking lengths to avoid.

There are several lines of examination that come immediately to mind.  We can rest assured that it will never happen – as the emails show, the last thing they want to do is be in a position where they have to explain themselves.  But certainly asking leading climate change cheerleader Phil Jones about his email describing his use of a “trick” to describe the manipulation of observed temperature data to “hide the decline” in order to achieve the desired result would be amusing:

(more…)