Conservative Solutions to Liberal Problems (Part II), by David Teesdale

August 9, 2009

blog_july08_economyLiberals were up the their usual tricks this past fall—no, not habitually stealing inter-generational candy from babies not yet born through historically high deficit spending—that had to wait till January. Many an American face matched their stock portfolios in October as 401k savings accounts were reduced to ashen shells of what they formerly were. The liberal elite quickly went about blaming the “free-market” in an effort aimed to, as only a short time’s passage would reveal, do more re-shaping of the American economic system than Ashlee Simpson has done to her face.

Truth be told (would I lie to you?), this has been a pretty common theme liberals have employed over the last century, so as to convince other-wise freedom loving Americans that they need to be protected from themselves. Unlike their feeble attempts to have us believe that the 75 year old American Legion vets lambasting squishy Congressmen in health care town halls across the country of late are simply on the payroll of evil corporate America (who are ironically on board with national health care, which benefits their bottom-lines), this technique has been rather successful. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Give Him a Chance! by David Teesdale

July 13, 2009

Since Barack Obama was nominated in January, much of his presidency has, unlike that of—well, any of his predecessors–been spent attempting to escape blame for the results of his policies, by reminding America that he has “inherited” any of those ill conceived ideas which have gone awry. Many Democrats and Republicans alike have pleaded from very early on for Americans to “give him a chance.” A chance, they say, for Obama’s policies to succeed. My question is: how long should we wait?

In the immediate aftermath of the throngs of American Idol voters who swarmed to the polls and swept Obama to victory last November, the American electorate overwhelmingly granted Barack Obama his grace period, nearly 70% supporting him in Gallup polling. Those who voted for Obama dismissed as rabble rousing and partisan politics ,the cries from many on the Right who warned of Obama’s socialist influences, dangerous associates and liberal voting record. Obama supporters and Republican pundits hailed Obama as a post-partisan uniter and a ‘centrist.’

Obama himself dismissed these accusations, promising static tax rates for anyone making under $250,000, or $200,000, or $100,000—depending of course on which day it was on the campaign trail. Obama laughed at charges of “re-distribution,” nationalization and class envy. Those who listened closely enough to Obama could see through the rhetoric, however, such as when Obama told Joe ‘the Plummer’ that he just wanted to “spread things around.” Astute individuals and students of history knew that for Barack Obama to succeed in implementing his agenda spelled trouble for generations of Americans. However, the rest of America gave him a chance. Barack Obama quickly set about reneging on many of his milk and honey campaign promises.

As of July, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress have already passed a massively unpopular “stimulus” bill, are pushing the massively unpopular national health-care and cap-and trade legislation, and have tripled the national deficit. Obama promised while on the campaign trail to have all legislation available online for five days prior to votes in Congress. Now fully into Barack Obama’s presidency, this has been discarded. 1,000 page leviathan after 1,000 page leviathan have been passed by a punch-drunk Congress, who have enacted these bills without ever posting them online, and without reading them.

These are not the result of the “failed policies” of the Bush Administration. These are deliberate choices and Statist pet projects, which have been fermenting since the 1960’s and are being pushed now for the sake of ideology. Meanwhile, instead of cyclical sequences of events unfolding and the economy recovering naturally, the recession has deepened beyond the Administration’s worst case scenarios. Obama’s promises of the stimulus halting unemployment at eight percent were illusory, and the ranks of unemployed may in fact broach eleven or twelve percent. The stock market, recovering in early 2009 on the wings of “hope” and “change,” is again crumbling at a startling speed.

Stimulus money, supposedly designed to urgently ignite the sagging U.S. economy (definition of a stimulus), is being diverted to frivolous pork projects. Despite the fact that counties which voted for McCain in 2008 pay an inordinately higher amount in taxes than Obama voters, the money that is actually being dispersed prior to 2010 is going to Obama voters in absurd quantities. Stimulus money received by the counties which voted for Obama averages out to $69 a person. Counties which voted for McCain received an average of $34 a person. Nothing like rewarding your constituencies, right? Of course, elections have consequences, but using the vote to steal from future generations and to redistribute already borrowed wealth to your own voters is a little ridiculous if you ask me.

The general public is also becoming wary of proposed tax hikes by Obama and Congress. Cap and trade represents nearly $1,000 in additional taxes on each American each year despite the fact that northern states are experiencing a year without summer and have not seen a temperature increase in eight years. The Congressional Budget Office has revealed the stratospheric costs of Statist health-care and others have pulled the curtain back on the farcical claims of fifty million uninsured Americans (more likely there are seven to eight million). Americans, despite their personal affinity for Obama’s person, are now beginning to overwhelmingly disapprove of his policies.

Most Americans, according to Rasmussen, now view Obama as less ethical than most politicians, and only 30% trust Obama in dealing with the economic crisis. Majorities of Americans disapprove of Obama’s policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, while support for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and his health-care plan is wavering. On the foreign policy front, dictators in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea are running amok unchecked and Obama’s limp diplomacy is transparently weak, emboldening nations such as Russia, China and even India to expand their spheres of influence.

Obama’s teleprompter crashing to the floor yesterday may be a metaphor for the state of things currently.  A teleprompter, which, with great eloquence, assisted in foisting untruths wrapped in sweet sounding rhetoric–with only the occasional slip.  A teleprompter is transparent to those at the right angle, just as Obama.  Though I’m sure TOTUS will be replaced, Barack’s beloved Cyrano de Bergerac’s untimely demise gave us a glimpse of an Obama exposed.  Perhaps now, with the curse lifted, Americans will continue to awaken from their hypnosis and will blow away the chaffe of lies they have thus far believed.

Seven months into Obama’s presidency, Republicans now lead Democrats on generic ballots 41-38% and Obama’s approval rating, while still at 51%, is slipping quickly and is well below George Bush’s approval rating at the same point in his presidency. Americans are waking up from their Obama induced slumber. Still, the Administration and Obama-apologists alike continue to try to attach Obama’s failings to Bush, with waning success. Liberals wanted us to give him a chance. Seven months is enough. Obama has spent the doubt in that benefit, and barring an incredible turn of events, the writing on the wall is clear: Obama is a one-term president.

David Teesdale, wonders who buys Twinkies, and are they still manufactured–or is the current stock what is left over from the Cold War? Comment here or e-mail him at david.evans.teesdale@gmail.com with the answers to these and other life questions


Treatment of Palin Indicative of a Party in Disrepair (Part I of II), by David Teesdale

July 8, 2009

This week Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and darling of the conservative movement within the Republican Party, resigned for no apparent reason. And there were those in the Democrat Party and in the Republican Party who cheered. Those Democrats who embraced Palin’s decision were happy because Palin represents a conservative threat not seen since Reagan. Those on the right who cheered are indicative of precisely what is wrong with Republicans today.

As an intern working under Karl Rove in the White House in November of 2006, my colleagues and I quickly became admirers of Sarah Palin–a singular victory in an otherwise tumultuous mid-term. An articulate, young, unabashedly conservative outsider had swept into the Alaskan Governorship and we all knew that her star was destined not to stop there. I won’t deny there were a few inappropriate remarks thrown around, “G.I.L.F.” being the one I heard most frequently, but that wasn’t the only reason to believe in Palin. She turned Alaskan politics on its ear, espousing true conservative values and reflecting them in her personal life.

While Palin may no longer be a viable Republican nominee in 2012, I would not count her out. Nixon famously quit politics in 1962 only to be elected four years later.

While Palin may no longer be a viable Republican nominee in 2012, I would not count her out. Nixon famously quit politics in 1962 only to be elected four years later.

It is, however, silly not to concede that Palin is a beautiful woman. In the months after Palin’s nomination as McCain’s V.P. choice, this came to be the biggest fault found in Palin. Despite the fact that many naive Republicans will applaud what they believe is the end of Palin’s career, no one was happier to see her resign than Democrats. Make no mistake, Sarah Palin was not dangerous to the Republican Party (should we even call it a party anymore? Seriously?), she was an apocalyptic threat to the Democrat Party. Palin routinely eviscerates unfair stereotypes liberals attach to conservatives, which squishy Republicans for some reason feel the need to defend, thereby granting them validity. As a family-woman, a mother, the epitome to the pro-life movement and a staunch bulwark against political elitism as an outsider getting things done inside Alaska, Palin became quickly became a favorite of most Americans.

The McCain campaign has been run over and over again. Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole ran the same campaign as McCain and lost similarly to young, smooth talking neophytes who quickly proceeded to make a mockery of the presidency. When will Republicans learn to stop running moderate-to-liberal candidates who are strong on defense? When Republicans nominate conservative candidates, espousing conservative values unabashedly, they win big, almost all of the time. But surely Sarah was a drag on the campaign, with the upper-mid-western drawl and “aw, shucks” speeches, right? Wrong.

Bob Dole and a much younger, but still quite old John McCain in 1995...  Their presidential campaigns were a two for one sale.

Bob Dole and a much younger, but still quite old John McCain in 1995... Their presidential campaigns were a two for one sale.

Ronald Reagan too was an “aw shucks” type candidate. Liberals viciously attacked him and America voted for him in two landslides. Indeed, Palin shook the roof off of every venue in which she spoke, and shook the Left down to their very core. Palin’s unabashed conservatism ignited a campaign that was dead in the water—if only until the McCain campaign muzzled her.

And thus, it was imperative that liberal Democrats destroy her. Liberals, from the day she was announced as the V.P. nod, set about attacking Palin’s clothes, hair, accent, verbiage, her good looks, her religion, her state, her hobbies, her husband, her daughters, her downs syndrome son—anything but her ideas and beliefs—because that resonated with America. Anything to distract from those. And Republicans, keeping in the tradition of Jack Kemp, who famously thanked Al Gore for the backhanded compliment that Kemp was not like all the other bigoted, sexist Republicans in his party, played into their hands.

Establishment Republicans (read: country-club Republicans) rushed not to be equated with Palin, as Tina Fey and the rest of the media (using some of the most despicable libel I’ve ever witnessed) built up a straw woman to be torn down. And Republicans stepped back, refusing to stand for anything meaningful, and perhaps, ultimately, losing their next shot at redemption. With the end of the McCain’s awful White House run, when McCain went back to being Democrats’ favorite Republican, liberals didn’t call off the dogs. In fact, they heightened their attacks. Palin has endured fifteen ethics investigations, which have cost her $500,000 personally and the state of Alaska millions in legal fees, resulting in zero charges and zero disciplinary actions. Sarah Palin was lynched by political bigots on the left and the right. Palin, the consummate political outsider, decided that paralyzing government while she defended herself, like Bill Clinton did, was unacceptable.

If Sarah Palin was not a dynamic threat to the Democrat establishment and the flaccid Republican status quo, there is no way the media and the Democrats would have launched such a four alarm assault on her. For example, if Sarah Palin were indeed the walking gaffe machine that one poor interview, Saturday Night Live and Vanity Fair might have us believe, would not Democrats do as Republicans did to the mind-numbingly dim Joe Biden and let her supposed stupidity speak for itself—as Biden’s did repeatedly during the campaign?

We need more candidates like Gov. Palin, who are political outsiders.  Perhaps Palin's family life played the biggest part in her decision to step aside.  No greater sign of someone whose head is screwed on properly than someone who places family first.

We need more candidates like Gov. Palin, who are political outsiders. Perhaps Palin's family life played the biggest part in her decision to step aside. No greater sign of someone whose head is screwed on properly than someone who places family first.

Indeed, Palin was attacked because she had the ability to unite conservative Democrats and Republicans into a winning coalition, as any true conservative does. And she still does. Sarah Palin knows what she is doing, and those who are reporting her demise are likely premature. Sure, she smacks of her blue collar roots, and ruffles feathers. If polished, same old same old candidates are what the Republican party is looking for, however, we already have several hundred serving in Congress—and doing a bang up job, by the way. Sarah Palin’s P.T.O. president to Governor tale is one Republicans should embrace, because that is what we need.

The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Elitist Republicans like Peggy Noonan who sniped at Palin embody exactly what is wrong with the party currently—they embrace leftist premises and shun those who embody comprehensive conservatism. Republicans have to jettison the Christian-right, or pro-lifers, or social conservatives in order to win, they always say—its always packaged differently but the end game is the same. Beltway Republicans want to go back to the days of arguing on Democrats’ terms, and pretending to be able to do what Democrats promise, only better. We end up with Dole in 1996, or McCain in 2008. So long as the party embraces politics as usual, and plays to an elusive center, Republicans will continue to lose elections. And it is insane.

David Teesdale found it extremely difficult to write a pro-Palin piece without the entire piece amounting to the inane anti-Republican Party scribblings on his bedroom walls written in blood-red ink.  He believes he found a healthy balance. Comments are welcome, and you may contact him at david.evans.teesdale@gmail.com


On the Other Hand, by David Teesdale

July 4, 2009

Thousands of pages have been dumped into Law and into the Federal Register, un-read, since Obama took office.

Thousands of pages have been dumped into Law and into the Federal Register, un-read, since Obama took office.

Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison this week after stealing $13 billion from investors in the second largest ponsi scheme in U.S. history (Social Security being the largest). But what of Barack Obama and the 219 U.S. Congressmen who voted this week to steal $1 trillion inter-generationally through cap and trade? Not even counting the ‘stimulus’ debacle, this Administration and Congress should, in a just world, be removed from office and sentenced to a similar prison recess. If not for the pain that these half-baked plans will cause our own generation, but for the next three, which may or may not be able to lift this oppressive tax.

President Obama said on prime time television weeks ago that worrying about the U.S. government’s finances “keeps [him] awake at night” and that the country needed to start planning now to tackle soaring deficits. In a pair of interviews on CNBC and Bloomberg television, Obama claimed to lose sleep over the Nation’s debt. Of course, that has not stopped the president from indulging his veritably narcoleptic tendencies, ringing up more debt in a single year than all the presidents in the 220 years prior. This has burdened the Nation with the largest debt in the history of the world.

Thus, trillions of dollars have hemmorhaged from the American people.

Thus, trillions of dollars have hemmorhaged from the American people.

All this highlights inherent liberal hypocrisy, especially that of Obama; saying one thing, and doing another. Not that hypocrisy isn’t a modus operandi of most politicians, but for Obama and Democrats, this “on the other hand” approach, brings with it a moral relativism matched only by the Sophists of ancient Greece, and is as dangerous to the civil society today as it was then.

Obama, while campaigning, promised to have all legislation available on-line for five days prior to votes in Congress. The first legislation passed during Obama’s administration—the so called ‘stimulus,’ was apparently so critical that the people didn’t need to read the Bill—so important, in fact, that the 1,000 page Act was not read by any of the Senators and Congressmen who voted on the Bill either. Six months later, cap and trade sailed through Congress with a 300 page dump at 3:00 AM the morning of the vote, which again, presumably, was not read and not uploaded to any Internet site—though I haven’t checked TMZ.com.

Most recently, Obama’s is concerned about meddling in Iran’s affairs following a rigged election in which Ahmadinejad got more votes than there were registered voters and the tyrannical regime violently suppressed peaceful protests. Erstwhile, Obama’s doing a great deal of meddling in order to prop up a leftist leader in Honduras who was rightly removed by the Supreme Court and Legislature after an unconstitutional power grab a la Hugo Chavez—who, ironically, supplied the ballots for Zeyala’s illegal election, which was supported by Daniel Noriega and the Castros. Striking, though, to note the parallels between the Iranian debacle and the theft of a Minnesota Senate seat by Al Franken, who also received more votes than there were registered voters in many areas of Minnesota.

Chavez, Castro, Noriega, Ahmadinejad...  Obama?  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Chavez, Castro, Noriega, Ahmadinejad... Obama? Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

All these Indian-gifts and falsehoods perpetrated by Obama and Democrats are truly not their fault. They honestly don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact, Democrats routinely will out and out state their hypocritical disposition. June 15th, while pitching national health-care, the president spoke to the American Medical Association, and, well, I’ll let you read it from the donkey’s mouth:

Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue….I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed.

In other words, “I understand what the problem is, but I’m going to ram my vision through any way.” This approach extends to foreign policy as well. The president is on record saying that Iran, which has openly stated it intends to end Israel and sponsors terror around the world, has a the same “right” to nuclear weapon capability as civilized nations. But Obama didn’t stop there. In his speech to the entire Muslim world on June 4th in Cairo, Obama claimed to empathize with Jews regarding the Holocaust, then proceeded to equate this with the Palestinians’ self-inflicted perpetual refugee status.

Liberals pretend to know about their opposition, but are in fact clueless.

Liberals pretend to know about their opposition, but are in fact clueless.

Time and time again Obama claims to understand his opponents’ stances, and then proceeds to demonstrate exactly how he doesn’t. This is pervasive amongst liberals, who promote equality but support racial quotas because “wise Latinas” might have a leg up on a stodgy old man, and oppose the War in Iraq and support the barbaric practice of abortion, which has killed far more. Obama stated that he personally opposed abortion, and would teach his daughters about morals and values, “but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Must be why he supports partial birth abortion and voted multiple times to disallow medical treatment for fully born babies who survived their attempted murder and were to then be left to die in a dark, dank hospital room.

There are nuances and differences between every issue, but on issue after issue, liberals will cast aside promises in order to achieve political ends, or morally equate decadence with virtue, buttressing this with a passing allusion to their adversaries’ protests. In the end, liberals love candidates like Barack Obama because they sound “thoughtful” and “understanding,” because they purport to comprehend opponents’ views while respectfully disagreeing and doing what they like anyway. The proof is in the pudding however, and liberals don’t understand a thing.

David Teesdale, is an investigator in the hills of Knoxville, Tennessee.  Moonshine stills haunt his dreams.  For questions or comment, or for Nigerian princes who desire to send him large inheritances, contact him at david.evans.teesdale@gmail.com.


On Bi-Partisanship, by David Teesdale

June 29, 2009
Colin Powell (D- NY) Powell is pro-choice, supports "reasonable" gun-control legislation, and has noted that "Americans want to pay more taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government, not less." Powell is on record having voted for JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama.

Colin Powell (D- NY) Powell is pro-choice, supports "reasonable" gun-control legislation, and has noted that "Americans want to pay more taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government, not less." Powell is on record having voted for JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama.

There is no such thing as bi-partisanship. There is liberal and there is conservative, and a sliding scale in between the two based upon one’s assumptions about the nature of man, rights and laws. Bi-partisanship is a concoction conjured up by those on the Left who want those who wouldn’t ordinarily assent to radical changes, to do so with fervor, and those on the Right or in the ever-elusive “middle” who want to please everyone. The notion of bi-partisanship is buttressed incessantly by a complicit media.

The thing about the mainstream media, is that they pour out adulation for the likes of ultra-leftist Ned Lamont when he ran against Joe Lieberman in 2006, while simultaneously celebrating as “mavericks” and “moderates” the likes of Jim Jeffords and admitted opportunist Arlen Specter, who both defected from Republicans to become swing votes in the U.S. Senate. And, of course, Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama and has never really held an elected office but somehow still manages to be referred to as one of the most important leaders of a Republican Party which he neither endorsed, nor campaigned for, nor voted for in 2008 and a party platform with which he holds virtually nothing in common . Someone Powell does resemble in ideology, however, is Joe Lieberman.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Has only voted with he Senate Republican coll- eagues 59% of the time.  Bi-Partisanship: (n) 1-The state of being willing to compromise your principles, and in lieu of a sound decision, make a series of flawed ones. 2-When used by liberals, means adopting their viewpoints. In this usage, not adopting the premise of liberal arguments is viewed as 'divisive'. See also the term Cowboy politics, used from 1981-1989 and from 2001-2009.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Has only voted with he Senate Republican coll- eagues 59% of the time. Bi-Partisanship: (n) 1-The state of being willing to compromise your principles, and in lieu of a sound decision, make a series of flawed ones. 2-When used by liberals, means adopting their viewpoints. In this usage, not adopting the premise of liberal arguments is viewed as 'divisive'. See also the term Cowboy politics, used from 1981-1989 and from 2001-2009.

The various media, however, have railed against Lieberman as a turn-coat because of his support of the Iraq War and the War on Terror. His party endorsed another candidate for his Senate seat in 2006 and in 2008 very nearly threw Lieberman out of their caucus, despite the stubborn fact that despite Lieberman’s support of the Iraq War, he is still just as liberal as any other Senate Democrat, holding the line on all of the items on the Democrats’ social agenda. In fact, it would not even be accurate to hold Lieberman up as a “moderate.” However, when compared to Powell, Lieberman is pariah and Powell is the statesman. Lieberman never forsook the Democrat Party, but they did him. Why is this?

What becomes overwhelmingly clear is that what makes you “bi-partisan,” is the extent to which you adopt Democrat Party platforms and policies in pursuit of said spirit. Being a Democrat and toeing the party line alone is enough to qualify you as being “bi-partisan.” Opposing your own party is only acceptable if one is a Republican throwing his or her values and peers under the bus.

When Democrats and moderates finally get the very candidates they fawn over incessantly, the John McCains, Bob Doles and Colin Powells, they without fail will vote for the pure liberal rather than the so called “moderates,” opting for Bill Clintons and Barack Obamas. Of course, when the political winds shifted, and Republicans, who for too long kowtowed to Democrats and “moderated” in the hopes of appealing to a “bigger tent,” the politicians who were most voted out of office were not the conservative candidates, but the liberal ones; who serve in the most liberal districts–Lincoln Chafee , Arlen Specter, etc. These bi-partisan pawns do not reap anything for their efforts except for a one-way ticket out of town, validated by their liberal constituents. On the other hand, when (mostly) conservative candidates are brought forth and articulate conservatism, liberal opposition is futile, as with Ronald Reagan, Bobby Jindal, and George W. Bush. There is room for debate within the conservative movement, but not about the value of conservatism in advancing conservatism. That is absurd and amounts to nothing more than sophistry and opportunism. That may be good enough for Democrats, but not Republicans.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Supports the Iraq War and War on Terror, but on social matters, is ranked by the National Journal as more liberal than 14 other Senate Democrats including Sen. Harry Reid. Economically, Lieberman is ranked more liberal than 20 other Democrat Senators.  Lieberman received 0 ratings from both the American ConservativeUnion and Christian Coalition, received an 'F' from the NRA and received a 100 rating from Planned Parenthood and an 83 from the ACLU.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Supports the Iraq War and War on Terror, but on social matters, is ranked by the National Journal as more liberal than 14 other Senate Democrats including Sen. Harry Reid. Economically, Lieberman is ranked more liberal than 20 other Democrat Senators. Lieberman received 0 ratings from both the American ConservativeUnion and Christian Coalition, received an 'F' from the NRA and received a 100 rating from Planned Parenthood and an 83 from the ACLU.

Have you ever had a ‘friend’ who had a friend who was always asking for money, using the rationale that since you are close, and if the tables were turned he or she would do it for you in a second, and by golly, they would pay you back? Bi-partisanship, is, and always will be, the statist’s way of coercing a one-way street of complacency when they wish to ram their agenda through and into law. If conservatives are to regain control of this out-of-control carnival ride, they need to stop ceding political capital, legislation and appointments in the name of “getting something done,” and start acting like what they hopefully are–conservatives. You aren’t going to be paid back. Time to stand up for yourselves.

David Teesdale, when not ensuring your national security, moonlights here as a blog-artist. When not moonlighting here at Musth, David moonlights as a caped crusader in a fictional metropolis made up of inordinate numbers of criminals, super-villians, miscreants and liberals. His water-fowl inspired moniker and his lone vulnerability are redacted here to protect the world.  Contact him at david.evans.teesdale@gmail.com to send comments and praises.  Criticism can be directed to the waste-paper basket.