Archive for the ‘Tea party’ Category

Two Liberal Lists: Lies and Racists

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

Glenn Reynolds starts many posts by saying, “They told me if I voted for Romney….”

Of course Romney lost despite Insty’s support, and all those things are happening anyway, and more, and worse.

But what else did “they”, those liberal prog Democrats, tell us?

Doug Ross has a list, and it’s pretty damn ugly:

They told me that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would turn our streets into rivers of blood.

They told me that taking trillions of dollars from the successful and giving it to those “who truly needed it” would cure poverty.

They told me that giving home loans to those who couldn’t afford them would make the American dream achievable for all.

They told me that paying into the Social Security “Trust Fund” would guarantee a comfortable retirement for everyone.

They told me that allowing teachers to unionize in public schools would help inner city students reach for the stars.

They told me that the federal government could run a guaranteed, affordable health care program for seniors forever.

They told me that the new employment paradigm consisted of millions of “green jobs”.

They told me that their support for immoral and criminal behavior wouldn’t result in the breakdown of the two-parent family.

Of course, that’s not all. You should read the rest.

But his conclusion needs to be cast far and wide:

Everything they told me was a lie.

Everything they told me was wrong.

Intentionally, diabolically, criminally wrong.

And if we don’t begin to turn back the tide of centralized government, if we don’t politically obliterate the Democrat Party, this beautiful Republic, this magnificent country, this bastion of free enterprise and private property rights, this shining city on a hill… well, it will be finished.

Nice little blog you got there, Doug. Too bad if something happened to it, like the dreaded…RICKETY-LANCHE!

BWA-hahaha!

Seriously, the one or two of you out there, go give Ross the attention he deserves.


Then Brad Torgerson, consie SF writer, got into a fight with a liberal, Marguerite Reed, and some other liberals, few as smart or even polite as Reed was.

Still, this was pretty much no more than a fairly well mannered food fight, with tea and finger sandwiches. Eventually, though, the fuss attracted the attention of Larry Correia, he of Monster Hunter International fame, who stepped through the french doors, now transformed into swinging salooners.

And it was on. A good rollicking fight ensued. Noses bloodied, chairs smashed, tables toppled–Torgerson knows how to take care of himself, mind, but Larry just wants to get the job done, with as much fun as can be wrung out of such limp-brained prey.

And then, oh best beloved, and then, Larry called for orbital support, you know, just to be sure, and Tom Kratman laid down this carpet bombing.

He’s given his permission for wide dissemination. Well, I can’t help him with that, of course, but at least I’ll be able to find it again when I need it.

The Left’s 20 Rules of Racism

1. If you believe that general intelligence exists, is heritable and at all testable for, you’re a racist.

2. If you point out that liberal philosophies and programs intended to have a good impact have had a disproportionately bad impact on the ethnicities targeted by liberals, you’re a racist.

3. If you notice that other cultures have some problems, you’re a racist.

4. If you notice your own culture has had some successes, you’re a racist.

5. If you try to identify subcultural problems, you’re a racist. If the problems existed or got worse under liberalism, see item 2, above.

6. If you’re mainstream American culture, and don’t hate that culture, you’re a racist.

7. If you’re capable of noting unpleasant facts about subcultures and discussing them without your brain fogging, you’re a racist.

8. If you won’t kowtow and grovel as soon as someone accuses you of racism for one of the reasons above or below, you’re a hopeless racist.

9. If you do not believe that mankind is a tabula rasa for liberals to make whatever they think would be good to make of man, this week, you’re a racist.

10. If you don’t take personal responsibility for all the evils of slavery, you’re a racist. This is true even if you only arrived from Poland last week.

11. If you’re white, you’re a racist.

12. If you’re white and just arrived from Poland last week and don’t accept that you’re a racist, you’re a racist.

13. If you try to interject logical thought into a discussion of culture, you’re a racist.

14. If you refuse to admit culture is a racial matter, and a liberal wants to conflate the two, you’re a racist.

15. If you believe that race and culture are indistinguishable and a liberal decides that you shouldn’t conflate the two, you’re a racist.

16. If you believe that black or Hispanic girls who are paid by liberal inspired programs from the age of 13 to have babies will have babies, you’re a racist.

17. If you believe that _any_ girls of whatever color who are paid to have babies will then have babies but then, insensitively, observe that a smaller percentage of white girls do, certainly because they haven’t been targeted for as much “help” from liberals, you’re a racist.

18. If it doesn’t bother you that the truth offends liberals, you’re a racist.

19. If your name is Tom Kratman and you write and in your writing your heroes and heroines tend to be from minorities while your villains are white liberals, you’re still a racist.

20. If you read The Bell Curve, you’re a racist. On the other hand, if you didn’t read it but wrote a scathing review on Amazon anyway you might not be a racist provided you take personal responsibility for 300 years of slavery even if you just arrived from Poland last week.

The Right’s Twenty Rules of Racism

1. Anyone responsible for three hundred years of slavery would have to be a lot older than you and me.

2. There has to be some genetics in “racism’s” DNA, some DNA in its gene pool, or it just isn’t racism.

3. Racism could be eliminated in the United States if we could just eliminate the white liberals who so plainly depend on it so much and do so much to keep it going.

4. Reality isn’t racist: The reality is that there are pond-scummy gallows bait in every group. Some of those will be more of a problem to their own group than to you (see Rule 14, below). Some will be more of a problem to you precisely because you’re not a member of their group. It is wise, not racist, to avoid the latter. In Boston, this may be referred to as the “Evelyn Wagler-George Pratt Rule,” and that’s not code. Odd exception to half of Rule 4: Jesse Jackson would much rather be followed by a white on the streets of DC, at night, than a black.

5. There have been two instances in recent history where the concept of “honorary white” held sway. One was in apartheid South Africa where, for example, Japanese were considered “honorary white.” The other was when, in relation to the Trayvon Martin shooting, the American mainstream media made Hispanic George Zimmerman an “honorary white.” This is not entirely coincidence since (see Rule 18) the very liberal American media is as racist in their way as ever the Afrikaner Broederbond was in its.

6. Nobody really thinks whites are as evil as portrayed by white liberals and black demagogues. If they really thought so, they’d be too afraid to ever leave the house, since a) there are a lot more whites, b) those whites are much better armed, c) they’re more likely to be veterans of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ ground gaining combat arms, and d) they have an historically demonstrated cultural aptitude for mass, organized violence.

7. People who insist you’re speaking in code insist on it because they believe it’s true. They believe it’s true because they really do speak in code and can’t imagine anyone who does not speak in code. It’s not racist to think those people are idiots, nor to note that they’re mostly white. (Exception to rule: When conservatives talk about guns and zombies? Especially in terms of using the former to kill the latter? Yeah; “zombie” is code for “liberals of any color.” See Rule 6, above.)

8. It’s not racist to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of slavery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.

9. Speaking of slavery, the bulk of slave raiding and trading in Africa was black, usually Islamic black (see Rule 16, below), on black. The Arabic word for black and slave is the same, “Abd.” And the first registered slave owner in Virginia was black. Pointing this out to liberals, white and black, is always fun.

10. It’s not racist to wish that our first black president had been Thomas Sowell.

11. The “Some of my best friends” defense against a charge of racism is no defense…unless it happens to be true. Sometimes it’s best expressed to a white liberal as, “You don’t have so much as a day in uniform, do you, dipshit?”

12. The system of education that white liberals have inflicted on inner city blacks is a crime against humanity. No amount of money that they toss at it helps to overcome the elimination of discipline liberalism has caused. It’s neither racist to note this…nor wrong.

13. The various college and university minority “studies” programs, because they give a useless pseudo-education, and at very high cost in both money and time, are racist in their effects.

14. Most black crime is black on black crime. It is racist in its effects to deprive the black community of the social good that comes from executing black criminals that prey on other blacks.

15. It takes a white liberal idiot (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) not to understand the difference between casual sex with a member of another race and marrying and investing one’s entire reproductive effort in a member of another race. See, e.g., http://www.tomkratman.com/yoli.html. Dipshits.

16. Islam is not a race. Detesting Islam is not racist. There is nothing in Islam which genetically compels either slightly tanned Palestinians or totally white English reverts to pray toward Mecca five times daily, to self-detonate in crowded squares and movie theaters, to find offense in just about everything, nor even to clitorectomize their women. Flash alert: Lysenko was wrong. Dipshits.

17. When a liberal accuses you of racism, rejoice; it means the dipshit knows he or she is losing.

18. The worst racists are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that blacks and hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance. (That this also keeps a lot of liberal white social workers and bureaucrats employed is, of course, merely incidental. Ahem. Dipshits.)

19. There was a conservative argument for a kind of affirmative action. Unfortunately, all the money’s already been spent on employing white liberal social workers and bureaucrats, and we’re broke now, so that ship has sailed. Again, blame dipshit white liberals.

20. Screaming “Racism! Raaaacissssm!” on the part of a white liberal, when the matter in question has no DNA in its gene pool, no genetics in its DNA (see Rule 2, above), is the surest proof that said white liberal is genetically defective. And a dipshit. And it’s not racist to point this out.

Thats what he opened with, and all that was left was cleanup, until Reed shut the place down.

Go. Read the whole thing, it’s a lovely little riot, with tasty hot dogs and marshmallows roasting on spits over the still screaming bodies.

[update: fix a few linkage and copy-pasta errors, and some misteaken typing.]

Passive Resistance is Futile

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

Here’s a man standing against the socialist evil of the Nazis:
[via]
Our man is in front, second from the left with no helmet. He is a Nazi soldier who is refusing to help execute 16 Yugoslav civilians.

Shortly after this picture was taken, he took his place amongst the victims, and was executed with them.

This is a classic example of passive, non-violent resistance.

Raise your hand, everybody who thinks it was effective.

Today we are facing a creeping rise of quasi-military tyranny. The war on drugs, the war on guns, and the war on (almost non-existent American patriot) terrorists, have created an increasingly arrogant police force. They have not yet fallen to the point of the Nazi army, willing to shoot civilians in rows like this, but they are willing to beat, shock, spray, and of course imprison those who resist in any way, even with words, even by merely taking pictures.

Of course, the form of “resistance” they most object to is any encroachment on their monopoly of force. Carrying and especially using any form of firearm by the unbadged is anathema to many.

How do we stop this?

Is it enough to vote Republican? How about simply withdrawing from society, stockpiling food and ammo in the name of disaster preparedness?

Is it enough to do what this man did, to passively resist violence hoping to shock the nation?

Or should we follow Solzhenitsyn’s advice, and make sure that when they come for us, we make it fatal for as many of them as we can?

The problem with the passive soldier in the photo is that we are only now, far too late, finding out what he did.

Every day people right now are finding themselves caught up in the state’s satanic mills.

Nobody hears about them because, like the German press in Nazi days, our press is on the wrong side. They are covering for a socialist government bent on tyranny.

Go ahead, campaign against Obama. Put clever bumper stickers on your car, Stay Puft Man versus Moving Torb signs in your yard, snarky teeshirts on your back. Hell, vote for Romney, or even the Libertarian candidate, whoever he is.

No, really, do that. Og explains why you should be active in the political scene, in a post that inspires me. If we don’t do at least this, the picture up there is inevitable.

Sure, you can go further. Hand out flyers on jury nullification in front of the courthouse. Give joints to the officers rolling out at the start of their shifts.

Attend Tea Party rallies.

No one will care. Reporters will not notice.

Or go the next step: Defend yourself against an mugger with darker skin than your own. Open carry without a license.

You will disappear.Oh, your arrest will show up on the police blotter page of your local paper. There might be a local newscast suggesting that you will be evaluated by a police psychologist. You’ll be allowed your phone call, if you survive your arrest, as is likely.

But mostly your brave resistance will go unnoticed. It will be as wasted as this soldier’s was. He could have gone down killing the agents of oppression and tyranny.

What are we supposed to do instead? I am lost here. I honestly don’t know the answer. I suspect that a civil war is inevitable, and I’m too old for that, far too unprepared. The damage it would do…I quail at the thought.

But what are we supposed to do?

[update to link to Og's post. And I'll add this: the liberal/progressive/socialist left wants us to despair, wants us to put ourselves out of the action either by disengaging or getting thrown into jail. They control the media, and acts of open defiance will not be reported.

[And what I'm coming around to is, Make noise. Vote. Don't sit down and shut up. Don't take the fight to the cops. Defend yourself, if need be. But no more than that. No first use of violence, remember? But maybe, just maybe, it's time to think about what you do when first violence has been offered. Crackheaded or jackbooted, thugs is thugs. Your home is your castle. Stand your ground.]

Window Wars

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

Among many others, Patterico posts this video of Bill Maher on Rachel Maddow, advocating Occupy Wall Street protests throwing bricks through Rupert Murdoch’s apartment window in order to see Fox News be “more gentle” towards the OWS people. This in response to Maddow’s wondering “if a sense of dangerousness is what gives them power.”

Maddow specifically raises the specter of the Tea Party as a potentially violent mob; I’ve been to a Tea Party rally, and seen coverage, often hostile, of many more, and never once saw anything like the kind of ugliness and incitement that people sympathetic to the OWS point to with some glee.

This reminded me of a media firestorm that arose surrounding one of the very few calls for, not violence, but vandalism, by people who own guns and know how to use them. I posted this comparison in comments at Patterico:

Does anyone remember the socialist/progressive response to Mike Vanderbeogh’s “The Window War” at Sipsey Street Irregulars?

This story advocated breaking windows of both Republican and Democrat party office windows, with stones inscribed with the Second Amendment. The first window was at the local Republican office.

Anyone remember the banshee howls from the socialist progressives in response?

Note the differences:

  • Attacking party office windows, not private homes.
  • Attacked both parties.
  • Specific, consistent message.
  • Said message a passage from the Constitution.
  • First strike at leaders of own party.
  • Directed at “leaders” attempting to abrogate a right (bear arms), not citizens exercising a right (free press).
  • Proposed to short circuit, not to initiate, more violence.
  • A demand to be left alone, not to be taken care of.
  • Promulgated by someone seen as being on the fringe, not a major media figure. (Mike has since become a leader in exposing the Gunwalker scandal, a gross betrayal of the Constitution by those sworn to uphold it that deserves literal tar and feathers, if not ropes and trees.)

And yet Maher gets laughter and cheers from those who booed and castigated Vanderbeogh.

Beat ‘Em Up

Monday, January 17th, 2011

First, Billy Beck:

Adults don’t get to pick a fight and then call “time out!” like an eight year-old when it goes wrong on them.

You step in it: you bloody walk through it like a grown-up.

Then Don Surber lets loose with this barrage of invective:

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

[And yes you absolutely should read every tiniest drop of venom; it's lovely.]

And finally, we see this magnificent statement of principle in the face of the unprincipled in, of all places, a SF steampunk comic, Girl Genius, which I have linked before, I believe:

When you gleefully pummel your opponents, when you mock decency, when you call for “no quarter” on your way up, expect no less on your way down.

[The yellow-haired girl in the pink sweater, Zola, drops into this scene here. She deserves every bit of the pummeling she's receiving.]

Poke

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

From my favorite Weasel.

Poke:

Civil:

Harry Potter and the Methods of Democracy

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

I have mentioned before Eliezer S. Yudkowsky’s mind-expanding Harry Potter fanfic, The Methods of Rationality.

I’ll note first of all that I recently tried to read Prisoner of Azkaban, and could not get past the first few pages.

Part of it was that I just completed rereading some of Terry Pratchett’s best work recently. Pratchett is not only one of the twentieth century’s best writers in any genre, but he understands myth, fantasy, and SF inside and out, so it’s not surprising that J.K. Rowling, who is essentially telling an extended joke for children, does not measure up.

But a good deal of my problem is that nearly every sentence that Rowling wrote referred to something that Yudkowsky had done much better. What is to Rowling a children’s joke is to Yudkowsky a tool for understanding how to think. Methods is nowhere near as well written as PTerry’s work, being more than a little preachy and educational, but Yudkowsky is far the better thinker.

Yudkowsky has just completed a long sequence set in the Azkaban Prison. Harry and his mentor, Quirinus Quirrell, instructor in defense against the Dark Arts, wanted to rescue…well, a prisoner from the magical prison of Azkaban. Harry is appalled at the, literally, soul-destroying punishment of Azkaban, which is not merely a place of incarceration, but deliberately causes extreme emotional distress in its inmates.

On his return, Harry awakes from an exhausted sleep:

Twelve terrible voids floating down a metal corridor, tarnishing the metal around them, light dimmed and temperature falling as the emptiness tried to suck all life out of the world -

Chalk-white skin, stretched just above the bone that had remained after fat and muscle faded -

A metal door -

A woman’s voice -

No, I didn’t mean it, please don’t die -

I can’t remember my children’s names any more -

Don’t go, don’t take it away, don’t don’t don’t -

“What was that place?” Harry said hoarsely, in a voice pushed out of his throat like water forced through a too-thin pipe, in the darkness it sounded almost as shattered as Bellatrix Black’s voice had been. “What was that place? That wasn’t a prison, that was HELL!”

“Hell?” said the calm voice of the Defense Professor. “You mean the Christian punishment fantasy? I suppose there is a similarity.”

“How -” Harry’s voice was blocking, there was something huge lodged in his throat. “How – how could they -” People had built that place, someone had made Azkaban, they’d made it on purpose, they’d done it deliberately, that woman, she’d had children, children she wouldn’t remember, some judge had decided for that to happen to her, someone had needed to drag her into that cell and lock its door while she screamed, someone fed her every day and walked away without letting her out -

“HOW COULD PEOPLE DO THAT?”

“Why shouldn’t they?” said the Defense Professor. A pale blue light lit the warehouse, then, showing a high, cavernous concrete ceiling, and a dusty concrete floor; and Professor Quirrell sitting some distance away from Harry, leaning his back against a painted wall; the pale blue light turned the walls to glacier surfaces, the dust on the floor to speckled snow, and the man himself had become an ice sculpture, shrouded in darkness where his black robes lay over him. “What use are the prisoners of Azkaban to them?”

Harry’s mouth opened in a croak. No words exited.

A faint smile twitched on the Defense Professor’s lips. “You know, Mr. Potter, if He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named had come to rule over magical Britain, and built such a place as Azkaban, he would have built it because he enjoyed seeing his enemies suffer. And if instead he began to find their suffering distasteful, why, he would order Azkaban torn down the next day. As for those who did make Azkaban, and those who do not tear it down, while preaching lofty sermons and imagining themselves not to be villains… well, Mr. Potter, I think if I had my choice of taking tea with them, or taking tea with You-Know-Who, I should find my sensibilities less offended by the Dark Lord.”

“I don’t understand,” Harry said, his voice was shaking, he’d read about the classic experiment on the psychology of prisons, the ordinary college students who had turned sadistic as soon as they were assigned the role of prison guards; only now he realized that the experiment hadn’t examined the right question, the one most important question, they hadn’t looked at the key people, not the prison guards but everyone else, “I really don’t understand, Professor Quirrell, how can people just stand by and let this happen, why is the country of magical Britain doing this -” Harry’s voice stopped.

The Defense Professor’s eyes appeared to be the same color as always, in the pale blue light, for that light was the same color as Quirinus Quirrell’s irises, those never-thawing chips of ice. “Welcome, Mr. Potter, to your first encounter with the realities of politics. What do the wretched creatures in Azkaban have to offer any faction? Who would benefit from aiding them? A politician who openly sided with them would associate themselves with criminals, with weakness, with distasteful things that people would rather not think about. Alternatively, the politician could demonstrate their might and cruelty by calling for longer sentences; to make a display of strength requires a victim to crush beneath you, after all. And the populace applauds, for it is their instinct to back the winner.” A coldly amused laugh. “You see, Mr. Potter, no one ever quite believes that they will go to Azkaban, so they see no harm in it for themselves. As for what they inflict on others… I suppose you were once told that people care about that sort of thing? It is a lie, Mr. Potter, people don’t care in the slightest, and if you had not led a vastly sheltered childhood you would have noticed that long ago. Console yourself with this: those now prisoner in Azkaban voted for the same Ministers of Magic who pledged to move their cells closer to the Dementors. I admit, Mr. Potter, that I see little hope for democracy as an effective form of government, but I admire the poetry of how it makes its victims complicit in their own destruction.”

Harry’s recently cohered self was threatening to shatter into fragments again, the words falling like hammerstrikes on his consciousness, driving him back, step by step, over the precipice where lurked some vast abyss; and he was trying to find something to save himself, some clever retort that would refute the words, but it did not come.

The Defense Professor watched Harry, the gaze reflecting more curiosity than command. “It is very simple, Mr. Potter, to understand how Azkaban was built, and how it continues to be. Men care for what they, themselves, expect to suffer or gain; and so long as they do not expect it to redound upon themselves, their cruelty and carelessness is without limit. All the other wizards of this country are no different within than he who sought to rule over them, You-Know-Who; they only lack his power and his… frankness.”

The boy’s hands were clenched into fists so tightly that the nails cut into his palm, if his fingers were white or his face was pale you couldn’t have seen that, for the dim blue light cast all into ice or shadow. “You once offered to support me if my ambition were to be the next Dark Lord. Is that why, Professor?”

The Defense Professor inclined his head, a thin smile on his lips. “Learn all that I have to teach you, Mr. Potter, and you will rule this country in time. Then you may tear down the prison that democracy made, if you find that Azkaban still offends your sensibilities. Like it or not, Mr. Potter, you have seen this day that your own will conflicts with the will of this country’s populace, and that you do not bow your head and submit to their decision when that occurs. So to them, whether or not they know it, and whether or not you acknowledge it, you are their next Dark Lord.”

And that bold is exactly, precisely, why folks such as tea-partiers, libertarians, Three-Percenters, and Billy Beck are so hated and reviled — despite the fact that they do not desire to be anyone’s Lord. It is enough that they will not bow to democracy, but insist on living to their own consciences, and demand only to be left alone.

Taking a Page Out of the Liberal Playbook

Monday, October 25th, 2010

Unfortunately, one of the stupider pages out of the same section that resulted in 10:10′s anti-AGW “no worries” splatter ad, the one showing school kids getting blown up.

A political ad running in Nevada and telling Latinos not to vote “is the brainchild of conservative operative Robert De Posada and produced by Latinos for Reform“.

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know I think there’s a strong argument for not voting. However, that is far from a mainstream idea, and if you’re going to spread it around, you’d better explain it as clearly as possible, and — and this is the crucial point — you’d better aim it at everyone.

Latinos for Reform aimed only at Latinos, and it blatantly calls for Latinos not to vote. I have no idea why they thought this was a good idea.

I’m betting it gives Harry Reid a virtual lock on the Hispanic vote.

Idiots. Thank you ever so much for shitting in your own trench, guys.

Voter Apathy

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

I concluded my last post by saying,

Who you vote for doesn’t matter a lick. Voting or not matters, more than it ever has in all our history, and I hate that.

That can be taken as saying, “Your vote matters, more than ever”. That’s not what I meant to say.

I meant, “Your decision on whether or not to vote matters, given that there are many persuasive reasons not to vote”.

I am still struggling with my own decision here, and think I’ve come a step closer to understanding my own turmoil.

In the past, not voting has been taken as apathy, as not making a statement, as not caring, and that is not the message I want to send.

The message I want to send is, “You are all traitorous scum, regardless of party; I want you dethroned and hung for treason, your lesser minions dismissed and your greater ones imprisoned, and all your evil works torn down.”

This option is not present on the ballot, however; all I can do is vote against the party in power.

If I vote, it will be taken by the winners to mean that I choose to be ruled by them. If I do not vote, it will be taken by the winners to mean that I do not care how I am ruled.

The thought that I do not care to be ruled at all, by either party, will never occur to them. The thought that I regard them as abject, lowly servants, fit only to deal with those matters delegated to them via the Constitution, is actively abhorrent to them.

Many commentators, such as Billy Beck and John Venlet, have understood this for a long time, and have arranged their lives accordingly, to stay outside (I do not say beneath) official notice, and to require as little as possible from those officials.

I have not been so insightful or so strong. At this point in my life, I do care who ascends to public office.

For me, and, I suspect, most American citizens, not voting is in fact a symptom of apathy. If I want refusing to vote to be an active, positive choice, for it to have actual meaning, I can’t just not-vote.

I have to change the way I live my life, something I’ve been doing a piss poor job of so far.

It is a symptom of how poorly I’ve been managing my life that I find I do care, after all, about throwing the bums out. It is the smallest, least-effort change I can make.

I’m figuring out that voting, by itself, is a sign of voter apathy.

Houston Tea Party, Saturday, 16 Oct

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010

Via the Act for America mailing list, I learn there will be a North Houston Tea Party Patriots event at the Sam Houston Race Park, Saturday, 16 October, starting at 10:00 A.M.

From the Houston Race Park event calendar:

The rally aims to educate and inform citizens of public policy and core values, while unifying and exercising the public’s power to effect elections on federal, local and state levels.

The event’s key note speaker is author, activist and nationally renowned expert on National Security and President of Act! For America, Brigitte Gabriel. Also featured on the program will be Pastor Rick Scarborough, Debbie Riddle [Texas Rep. District 50], Michael Berry, Suzanna Hupp, Bernard Navarro, Kevin Jackson and Master of Ceremonies, Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo.

[Speaker links mine, as I could find them.]

North Houston Tea Party Patriots

Cone of Stupid

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

So, Christine O’Donnell, a Delaware Republican candidate backed by the Tea Party, won the primary over the Republican party’s official annointed candidate, and the Republican party, in a snit, declared she wouldn’t be getting Party funds or other support.

Apparently they got a few phone calls and emails from their base, and changed their tune accordingly. There’s a reason we call them the “Stupid Party”

Image from this all-too-warranted attack on Charles Krauthammer, who attacked supporters like Sarah Palin:

No more compromise. No more equivocation. No more dilution. No more weaseling. No more pro-gun control. No more pro-abortion. No more Olympia Snowes. No more Arlen Sphincters. No more Susan Collinses. No more Larry “wide stance” Craigs. No more Duke Cunninghams. No more Bushes. No more McCains. No more Viagra Conservatives who need “help” to stay true to principle. No more empty holsters. No more negotiation. No more retreat. Not one step back!

You show me a “conservative” who can’t vote down on Elena Kagan and I’ll show you self-indulgence.

You show me a “conservative” who can’t vote down on Amnesty and I’ll show you self-indulgence.

You show me a “conservative” who proposes Campaign Finance Reform and I’ll show you self-indulgence.

You show me a “conservative” who supports Cap and Trade and I’ll show you self-indulgence.

You show me a “conservative” who talks principles and votes pragmatism and I’ll show you self-indulgence.

Emphasis mine. That’s the key issue right there, particularly given that “pragmatism” doesn’t just mean “attempt to solve a given problem”, oh no. “Pragmatism” simply means “staying in power”.

We, The People, rule here. We rule every square inch of America, and those who would be our masters, from both parties, are about to get that full in the face.

We don’t care about which party rules — we care about the rule of law, and we care about this being a nation of, by, and for us.

And yes, we really insist.