Michael Barone — Cranky elitist blames Tea Party for 2012 losses

Michael Barone is throwing temper tantrums because the Republican Party’s performance on Tuesday was, to put it nicely, lacking. He’ll feel better when he buys a tailored suit from Brooks Brothers this weekend.

Michael Barone is cranky. He predicted Republicans were on a road to victory in 2012, and now that he has egg on his face he has to blame someone. The target? The Tea Party, of course!

Conservative political analyst Michael Barone told an audience in Washington that Republicans put “too many” tea party “wackos, weirdos and witches” on the ballot this year, costing them seats in the U.S. Senate. …

The Washington Examiner and Wall Street Journal columnist said ABC News host George Stephanopoulos “will try” to get Republicans to say whether they “want to ban contraceptives,” but “‘George, that’s been illegal under Supreme Court doctrine for 47 years.’ That’s the answer.”

Barone recommended that Republicans choose candidates who do not make “unforced errors” because America does not have a “fair” press.

Want to know a bigger reason why Republicans lost? It’s because they come across like guys like Michael Barone, who look like they do all their shopping at Brooks Brothers, who look dour and grim, and who look like elitist stiffs who don’t care about everyday folks. Republicans lost because they’re perceived as thinking regular people (on both sides of the fence) are “wackos, weirdos and witches.” I wonder where the American people get that from.

Perhaps if the Tea Party ran candidates who had sex romps with Dominican hookers, like Sen. Bob Menendez, they’d fare better. Right, Barone? If the Tea Party ran white candidates who pretend they’re Indians, like Elizabeth Warren, perhaps they’d fare better. Right, Barone? Or maybe if the Tea Party ran House candidates like Jesse Jackson Jr., who went missing for months because he’s mentally unstable and under the gun of federal investigators, they’d win in a land slide. Jackson Jr. did…

Is the media biased? Yes. Are unforced errors ever helpful? No. But I’m sure the 72% of Hispanics that didn’t vote for Republicans this time around — or the 2.5 million voters who showed up for McCain but not for Romney — are comprised of sizable pro-life populations. Republican elitists now attack the Tea Party because it serves as a soothing salve to the fact that they have serious messaging problems. Geniuses like Barone were dead wrong, and instead of owning up to their failures they call liberty-loving citizens “witches.” It’s popular to say on the cocktail party circuit. The Foggy Bottom crowd likes to chortle at similarly snide comments as they nibble on hors d’oeuvres, but conservatives like me hear them and cringe. Keep it to yourself, Barone, because there isn’t a chance in hell I’ll expend my limited time, resources and energy to help out guys like you.

President Obama spent an ungodly amount of time in 2012 talking about a woman’s uterus and Mitt Romney’s tax returns while the tectonic plates under our financial house of cards rumbled — and the GOP still got spanked. It’s frustrating that pro-life Democrats are never asked if God would prefer it if “rape babies” were dead (imagine the unforced errors they’d commit), but it’s not going to happen. The Republican Party should be strong enough and deep enough to be able to take the hits on the occasional “unforced error” and still win. It is not.

Men and women of faith are not America’s problem. Men and women with a moral compass are not America’s problem. Elitist, crusty, know-it-alls who aim hate and derision and vitriol at their fellow Americans are.

Los Angeles Times: Saboteur of free speech

The Los Angeles Times offered to give Sarah Chayes some ink. She’s a woman who has spent so much time living in a culture of corruption and tyranny that she’s now doing the dirty work for tyrants in major American newspapers. In order to make her life easier overseas, she promotes curbs on the First Amendment here at home. Here, she watches the Taliban blow off a woman’s head with an AK-47, the always-reliable Kalashnikov, and wonders: “Which American can we hold responsible for this travesty?”

Thomas Jefferson once said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. He was right. However, what he probably never expected was that free speech would be under attack from dhimmitude clowns like Sarah Chayes, individuals who would willingly shackle and gag themselves before bowing to Islamic slave masters, if it provided them with a little temporary security. They would rather appease tyrants than fight for God-given natural rights. But then again, these things are to be expected, since even the Obama administration has repeatedly stood behind the assertion that the current round of Mideast violence is about “a film.”

Read on, as The Los Angeles Times allows itself to become an intellectual saboteur of free speech:

In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. “The most stringent protection,” he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, “would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Holmes’ test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a “clear and present danger” of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, “Innocence of Muslims,” the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.

Who defines what “falsely shouting fire in a theater” is? To Ms. Chayes, it is the imams and clerics, dictators and despots — who stone women, execute gay people, advocate on behalf of “honor killings,” and seek to spread the “behead those who insult Islam” mentality like a virus.

The film “Innocence of Muslims” did not lead to the death of Christopher Stevens in any way. Period. If I want to make a “stick figure Mohammad” flip book tonight and post it online, whereas the “prophet” pole vaults into the arms of his many wives, I have every right to do so. If a Pakistani cleric issues a fatwa on me because I dared to depict Mohammad (again, as a stick figure), and people die because of it, then fault lies with the murderous sub-humans who committed the crime, and the insecure, troubled culture that produced them. Fatwas and death threats aimed at innocent people practicing their right to free speech are symptoms of a disease — a culture that is incompatible with freedom and liberty and the pillars of Western Civilization.

The Los Angeles Times refuses to acknowledge reality, and so they find themselves betraying the keystone to our Constitution.

Much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don’t have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits … “If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard,” [says Anthony Lewis].

While it’s not surprising that The Los Angeles Times thinks it should be the judge, jury and executioner for mind crimes, it’s even more frightening that they would abdicate the setting of the limits of free speech to religious fanatics, whose litmus test for committing violence is whatever they deem it to be at any given moment.

Ms. Chayes ultimately speaks for herself, but her misdiagnosis of what ails the Middle East is shared by many on the left. The current violence in the region, for example, has exposed the Obama administration’s fecklessness in the face of true evil. Its inability to accurately describe the challenges we face overseas is downright scary. However, what is even worse is that the one industry that should be fighting to safeguard our First Amendment rights now lends credence to saboteurs seeking to curtail them.

Paul Ryan vs. Michelle Obama: A tale of two speeches

The difference between the kind of voter Paul Ryan hopes to motivate on election day and those preferred by Michelle Obama couldn’t be more striking. Let’s just say that I never know there was the “ol’ knucklehead” demographic until I listened to the First Lady. My second podcast is up and ready for viewing here.

When idiots dream big, they dream of Mayor Bloomberg

Mayor Bloomberg eats a meat pie because his racing idiocy burns so many calories.

New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg is a dangerous man, but there’s a beauty in his stupidity. He’s a moron of big bold colors, which makes it easier for men concerned with freedom to identify and describe him. In a weird way, his existence gives rise to liberty-loving individuals. Take, for instance, his desire for cops to hold citizens hostage over 2nd Amendment disputes:

“I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ he told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Notice how Mayor Bloomberg never thinks beyond stage one. The man never thinks of the unintended consequences (the “what now?” of public policy) of his actions. It never occurs to him that leaving a population high and dry might actually reenforce the desire for the very thing he opposes — in this case, more guns.

The Second Amendment is a bulwark against tyranny. How so, you ask? Well, imagine a completely unarmed civilian population governed by men like Michael Bloomberg. What would it look like? Chances are your mind’s eye has already seen a society that quickly spins out of control, into iron-fisted oppression.

If you don’t get it, it’s okay; someone very near and dear to me recently intimated that we could do away with certain classifications of rifles because “this is the United States.” My response was that people always say things like “this is the United States” without ever asking why this is the United States. They act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that America will be the freest nation on the face of the globe, and never take into consideration what role the 2nd Amendment played in creating such an exceptional country in the first place.

Governments don’t physically mess with heavily armed populations that know their rights. Foreign nations will think real hard before ever invading … Texas. Robbers and thieves would be wise not to invade my place of residence, as the men I rent a room from own enough (legal) firearms to survive the zombie apocalypse. And as a law abiding citizen, there is zero reason to deny me the ability to protect my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Want to know one reason why cops don’t “collectively” go on strike, Comrade Bloomberg? It’s because they know that decent, law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves when an officer isn’t (or can’t) be around to save the day.

When idiots dream big, they dream of you, Mayor Bloomberg. Instead of a soda tax on New Yorkers, you might want to consider a stupidity tax on men like you. You’d raise big bucks in a short amount of time.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll drink 64 ounces of something caffeinated.

On Independence Day, Chris Rock celebrates his ignorance

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country.”

Those were the words of Thomas Paine, a man who dedicated every cent he earned to the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers would draw from Paine (among many other giants of Western thought) as they penned the Declaration of Independence. They would literally put their lives on the line for liberty, and in the process write two of the greatest documents of all time — all so ungrateful millionaires like Chris Rock could make a mockery of their accomplishments.

On Independence Day, the filthy stinking rich Rock celebrated his ignorance:

It must be tough being Chris Rock. Maybe if the founders were nicer guys he would have been a billionaire instead of a multimillionaire whose bathroom closet is probably bigger than my apartment.

As I said before, some form of slavery existed in all cultures throughout history. For thousands of years humans were finding ways to enslave one another. But it was Western Civilization that, for all intents and purposes, ended it. America’s Founding Fathers, in many ways, fired the shots that would eventually kill slavery.

Exhibit A:

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

If one believes these words, so eloquently written by the Founders, it is impossible to advocate on slavery’s behalf. In fact, Jefferson’s original draft had a direct admonishment of the King for sending slaves to the colonies, but he had to pull the language in order to keep his fragile coalition together (i.e., the coalition that would depend on a bunch of ragtag farmers with zero formal training to stand up to the British Empire and its legendary Navy).

With no real standing Army — and as traitors to the Crown — what the Founders accomplished is nothing short of a miracle. Modern day liberals want to dismiss the founding fathers as racist “white” men because they couldn’t end slavery overnight (Again, this was an institution that had existed for thousands of years.) They obliviously apply their modern sensibilities to past societies (i.e., “presentism”). Ironically, they are able to demand impossible standards of marvelous men because those men essentially accomplished the impossible!

As historian Larry Schweikart says:

“To have pressed the slavery issue in 1776 would have killed the Revolution, and to have pressed it in 1787 would have aborted the nation,” (A Patriot’s History of the United States, 116).

That is a fact. And after reading The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers and the Constitution — and then considering all the other threats to the fate of the nation — it is hard not to well up with gratitude that men like Washington were at the helm at that moment in history.

Chris Rock is apparently so busy spending his millions that he never opened up a few history books. Or maybe he did, but his mind is so obsessed with race that he’s incapable of objectively looking at something as monumental as the American Revolution. Meanwhile, his liberal defenders on Twitter try to boil down our nation’s history to 140 characters or less. Brevity is often the soul of wit, but it also can be the soul of a twit — as Chris Rock demonstrates.

Now if you excuse me, I think I’ll quote another white guy: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It’s a great point, made by Abraham Lincoln. You know, that guy who freed the slaves. It’s just too bad liberals like Chris Rock didn’t get the memo.