“I have said that the only thing that can save America from this drift towards internationalism is my slogan ‘borders, language, culture’ and a new nationalist party.

Now, it almost happened with the Tea Party, but it was decimated by the unions and others.

First the Tea Party was attacked by the Congressional Black Caucus, who lied about them.

Then the Democratic Party went after the Tea Party.

The very essence of America is the Tea Party. And yet they were cast as the enemies of America. Socialists completely lied about them.

Most liberals are afraid of nationalism. They always come to the same conclusion: that nationalism will lead to Hitler.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Nationalism can lead to pride and survival.

The ideal nationalist party will have a strict firewall, never going over the line into racism. That’s important.

If I had the time left on earth, I would start this nationalist party. It would take approximately 10 years to have an effect on the country.

I don’t know if America has that much time.

The Chief concurs!

. Photo Credit:Twitter

Ever since the arguably skewed CNN poll of a few weeks back, conservative voters have been looking at the methodology of polling companies with an increasing amount of skepticism. The fact that most polls have used a model that tries to mimic the voter turnout in 2008, when Democrats beat Republican turnout by 7 points (as opposed to presidential elections like 2004, where turnout between the two parties was relatively even), has not improved this state of affairs. …

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld….The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress

The Supreme Court is merely “an unelected group of people”?! Well, yes, that’s the way the Constitution sets it up, the last time I looked. Article II Section 2, and Article III section 1. Of course if one has the view that anything that limits the grandiose sweep of executive power is a mere archaism that should be ignored at will, then this WOULD be annoying. (Tough rocks, B.O. – you’re not First General Party Secretary, or Reichsfuhrer…at least not yet!)

AS for the bit about “judicial activism”…there is also a fundamental error in that also.  “Judicial activism” is extending the Constitution to say or do something that is beyond the bounds of what is Constitutionally stated as being a part of the powers granted to the government.  It is NOT, as in the present case, applying the standard of the Constitution to determine whether an act at issue is constitutionally granted.  As the prez goes on with his pseudo-reasoning he then states:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

At BEST this is wildly disingenuous; at worst he’s totally immersed in some form of governmental psychosis where his view of the reality of constitutional review, established in the early days of the republic by Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 (1803). Laws have been overturned on average of about every 16 months or so since then…not QUITE unprecedented OR extraordinary.

…and Obama claims to have been a constitutional scholar? Really?

If he came up with today’s comment as a submission in a H.S. history or government class that I was teaching, it would earn an “F” grade, for having missed the whole main point that applies in this situation.

Simple and to the point!

Here’s Sen. Jim DeMint talking with bloggers after opening CPAC. During his speech he said cautioned Republicans in Congress on compromising with Democrats.

“Compromise works well in this world when you have shared goals,” he said. “We don’t have shared goals with the Democrats.”

“Elementary my dear Watson!”

Make Mine Freedom

More timely now than it was in 1948.

Anotehr nugget dredged (not Drudged!) up from Airstrip One (the UK in Orwellspeak)

What was it everybody used to say about the United States? Look at what’s happening over there and you will see our future. Whatever Americans are doing now, we will be catching up with them in another 10 years or so. In popular culture or political rhetoric, America led the fashion and we tagged along behind.

Well, so much for that. Barack Obama is now putting the United States squarely a decade behind Britain. Listening to the President’s State of the Union message last week was like a surreal visit to our own recent past: there were, almost word for word, all those interminable Gordon Brown Budgets that preached “fairness” while listing endless new ways in which central government would intervene in every form of economic activity.

Later, in a television interview, Mr Obama described his programme of using higher taxes on the wealthy to bankroll new government spending as “a recipe for a fair, sound approach to deficit reduction and rebuilding this country”. To which we who come from the future can only shout, “No‑o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”

After running through a number of the gory details, the
The United States is a country that was invented to allow people to be free of domination or persecution by the state. Its constitution and political institutions are specifically designed to prevent the federal government from oppressing the rights, or undermining the sense of responsibility, of the individual citizen. If it ceases to stand by that principle, then it will suffer a catastrophic loss of purpose and identity.

This gal over in the U.K. has it nailed! Now, why can’t the LibDonks see it?

Newt goes nuclear: Gingrich slams ‘pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro tax-increase moderate’ Mitt Romney

When asked by Jake Tapper of ABC News on the This Week programme whether Romney had the character to be president, Gingrich said that his opponent had a “very serious problem” in this area and “would not be where he is today” (presumably Gingrich meant leading in the polls) “if he had told the truth”.

This reminds me…what’s that concept from psych? Oh, yeah…PROJECTION. Look it up.

There’s a lot more political stuff out there of course…Buchanan’s disparaging view of Newt during the Reagan era, the polls continuing to strengthen for Romney while slipping for Newt, etc.

For what it’s worth, the Chief has had enough of Newt. After recently completing a US History Master’s program, with probably 20% to 25% of the time dealing with the rise, implementation, and often disastrous results (which we are STILL fighting off) of what is referred to as “the progressive movement”, which morphed over time into what is more often called liberalism (or worse), the Chief is firmly convinced that less of this is more. That is to say that less progressive liberalism (MUCH less!) will result inevitably in more: more economic growth, more jobs, etc. So, where does Newt come in on all of this?

In his own words (speaking from his own background and understanding as an historian):

“But I want to say a second about the UN because I’m a big fan of Franklin Roosevelt’s. I’m frankly a fan of Woodrow Wilson’s and I think what they were trying to accomplish was terribly important.”

Second: “I come out of the Theodore Roosevelt LaFollette progressive tradition.”

Third: “And I do want to pick up directly on what Dick Gephardt said because he said it right. And no Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in despair and could have slid into dictatorship. And the fact is every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.”

Finally, the supreme disingenuous irony of Newt attacking Mitt’s character. Hmmmmm. Character. Hmmmmm. What was that bit in the discussions when Newt was in his Congressional prime, back in the days of Bubba Clinton…? Oh yeah…CHARACTER COUNTS.

Newt largely sidestepped that one, both in his political life (with his observed reticence at the time to actively lead the charge against Clinton’s behaviors and evasions). This is not, of course to say that Newt lacks character. He has plenty, but a lot of it is negative, especially when contrasted with Romney’s lack of moral or ethical lapse.

In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.

The Chronicle’s report is accurate.

The Chief recently had occasion to read Stanley Kutler’s Wars of Watergate, his comprehensive examination of the Nixon White House’s relations with the press (and everyone else for that matter!), which was legendarily sub-optimal. Looks like B.O. and Carney, his appropriately named press shill are continuing that sorry tradition.

Of all the Presidents his worshipful lib/prog fan club would have expected B.O. to emulate, one has to wonder whether the one and only “Tricky Dick” was their first choice! Just wondering…

Amazing! You couldn’t make this up!

Perhaps it’s sour grapes, or perhaps it’s a recent reawakening, but in a speech by Nancy Pelosi at Tufts University earlier this week, the former speaker of the House had some advice for her Republican colleagues in particular and some reflections on elections in general:… “But the fact is that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do.”

The application of logic dictates then that she feels that vox populi is something overrated and worthy of fear. Curious that she’s in a party that labels itself “Democratic”.

Tim Pawlenty, a former Minnesota governor has become the first bona fide Republican candidate to launch a campaign for the party’s nomination to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

Mr Pawlenty has methodically moved toward a national campaign since announcing in 2009 that he would not seek a third term. Struggling for name recognition against better-known probable opponents, Mr Pawlenty announced he was forming a presidential exploratory committee, which in recent times has served as the signal for entering a primary campaign.

Chief’s first reaction: ho-hum.