American Glob

Why? Because the billionaires in question are Libertarians who give money to conservative causes. Feast your eyes on their big exposé called “Covert Operations.”

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.”

The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

How does the New Yorker feel about far left billionaire George Soros who gives millions of dollars to far left causes? Just look at the headlines I dug up with a quick search…

The World According to Soros

Most of the instincts that Soros brings to his current incarnation–one in which he sometimes refers to himself as “a stateless statesman”–were developed in the course of his nearly 40-year career in the financial markets. He started Quantum in 1969. Today the fund and its diversified offshoots have assets of roughly $11 billion. Tells about the “open society” foundations he has established in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

The Wisdom of Soros

As a rule, I do not put much store by the statements of billionaires and central-bank chairmen. The former are accorded undue respect because of their wealth, the latter because of the positions they hold. In my experience, neither great riches nor high office are strongly correlated with economic wisdom and common sense. For today, however, I am making an exception: first for George Soros, the veteran speculator and philanthropist, and, in my next post, for Mervyn King, the head of the Bank of England.

The Money Man

Can George Soros’s millions insure the defeat of President Bush? Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

Gee. That almost seems like a double standard, doesn’t it? Funny that.

Read more on this at Memeorandum.

Have you heard of HillBuzz? It’s a political blog written by a group of gay men in Chicago. They were Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 presidential campaign but with the election of Obama, they became decidedly more conservative.

Their lead guy, Kevin recently appeared on the Tammy Bruce Show and the interview is below.

Part 1

Parts 2 and 3 after the jump.

Read more »

Freedom, choices and liberty. What kind of US president talks of such things? Oh yeah, good ones!

Bask in Reagan’s Reagany goodness.

I’m currently taking bets on how soon this video will show up on the Glenn Beck Show.

I’m like Ben Stein. Anyone? Anyone?

It’s not actually worse than Bush, it’s just a bunch of ignorant jerks who have finally figured out the real meaning of change same…

NEW YORK — US actors and liberal intellectuals joined a list to be published Friday of nearly 2,000 people accusing President Barack Obama of allowing human rights violations and war crimes.

“Crimes are crimes, no matter who does them,” the statement reads over pictures of Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush due to appear in the New York Review of Books.

The statement, published as a paid advertisement, accuses Obama, who was elected in 2008 with the enthusiastic support of US liberals, of continuing Bush’s controversial approach to human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in domestic security.

It takes aim especially at Obama’s decision — reported by US officials — to authorize the killing of a radical Islamic cleric and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who is accused of ties to Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

“In some respects this is worse than Bush,” the statement says. “First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of ‘terrorism,’ merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly.”

Of course, those aren’t the only gripes from these geniuses…

They also lambast Obama for having refused “to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him.”

Haven’t these high IQ types heard that using the word “regime” is off limits? I thought they were the the only ones who watched MSNBC.

I guess they’re just a little slower than we thought. Wait til they finally figure out that Obama, unlike many leading conservatives, is opposed to gay marriage.

HT to ZIP.

HT to Instapundit.

From GOProud:

“We want to thank Former First Lady Laura Bush for her courageous support for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. Laura Bush now joins prominent conservatives such as former Vice President Dick Cheney in support of same-sex marriage.

“It will be impossible for the gay community to achieve equality of opportunity without the support of conservative voices like Laura Bush. I further hope my friends on the left note that now we have members of the Bush, Cheney and McCain families in support of marriage, but no Obamas or Bidens.”

Conservatives who have voiced support for gay marriage:

First Lady Laura Bush

Vice President Dick Cheney

Cindy McCain

Moe Lane of Red State

Roger Simon of Pajamas Media

ALSO: The nation’s most prominent military bloggers, most of them conservative, have now advocated a change to the military’s DADT policy.

“Labour has lost its mandate to run the country.”

BRITAIN woke up today facing its first hung Parliament in just under FORTY years — with David Cameron’s Tories on course to be the largest party. Gordon Brown was branded “disgraceful” this morning after signalling the possibility of doing a deal with the Lib Dems to try and cling on to power — despite a stunning rejection by Britain’s voters.

Welcome to Inevitable-ville. Population: You.

Many people are noticing a Libertarian shift in the GOP, especially since CPAC this past weekend. I seem to remember a certain blogger predicting a Libertarian shift in the GOP as far back as July, 2009. Let me see, who was that again? Oh yeah…

IT WAS ME.

Mike Huckabee doesn’t like this shift and went so far as to criticize CPAC this year for being too Libertarian but as Allahpundit points out at Hot Air, this just makes the Huckster look a bit out of touch…

What political benefit is there, in this year of all years, to knock CPAC for being “more libertarian” and “less Republican”? Libertarianism has never had more cachet within the GOP than it has right now; it’s not perfectly synonymous with the tea-party movement (of which Huckabee is predictably complimentary) but it’s close enough, especially with Beck in the role of TPers’ patron saint.

My feeling is that Mike Huckabee is just angry about Ron Paul winning the CPAC straw poll this year. If you remember the Republican primaries leading up to the 2008 election, you’ll recall that there was no love between Huck and Paul as they both slugged it out to the end, even when it was apparent that McCain was the nominee.

But forget about the Ron Paul win in the straw poll. It’s very doubtful that Ron Paul would run in 2012 and even if he did, the chances of him getting the nomination are slim to none. The significance of Paul’s libertarian leanings are the only matter of relevance. His young supporters from the Campaign for Liberty were out in force at CPAC. Even Ann Coulter acknowledged the libertarian contingency in the room.

Even Ann Coulter, who drew a huge crowd herself, felt compelled to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy — a statement met with cheers.

The younger, Libertarian Republicans in the room were largely responsible for booing one speaker offstage when he singled out a gay Republican group which had co-sponsored the event. Whether the establishment GOP realizes it or not, this was a defining moment which wasn’t lost on the conservative gay blog, Gay Patriot…

Folks, I’m relegated to writing this from my iPhone. But it is big news and a huge topic tonight at CPAC.Earlier today, during a student activist session on the CPAC main stage, one brave young man thanked the group for including GOProud as a sponsor this year. A few minutes later, another student launched into an anti-gay tirade from the same podium. The CPAC attendees turned on him and booed him off-stage.

You see, when libertarians and conservatives can focus on fiscal conservatism, smaller government and increased personal liberty, amazing things can happen. It also scares the living hell out of rank and file Democrat voters. Even the liberal gay blog Americablog sat up and took notice…

When conservatives are standing up for gays, and Democrats treat us like we are an embarrassment, there’s a problem. And when the Republicans increasingly say the right things, like repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell now, and even supporting marriage, and all the Democrats show is political homophobia, gays get the message. To the White House, the DNC, and our leadership in Congress: You are messing with people’s lives, and we know it. And the day that an anti-gay bigot gets booed at CPAC, you all better start being very afraid.

If libertarians feel as welcome in the Republican Party as social conservatives, and they should, America’s independent voters will follow in even greater numbers.

If that alliance can hold together in 2010 and 2012, it will be an unstoppable force.

Young Libertarian style Republicans care about fiscal conservatism, defense, liberty, love of country, and many more of the same things that motivate conservatives. What they don’t care about is if their friends and neighbors are gay or straight, what people choose to eat drink and smoke, and which religion a person does or does not practice.

If the GOP really wants to attract more young voters, they will embrace this young Libertarian Republican faction. With their enthusiasm and activism the sky would be the limit.

Just remember, I said “if.”

Not that the Tea Party and the GOP are automatically joining forces, they’re not… yet. But if and when they do, they spell certain doom for Dems.

A new Rasmussen Poll on the generic ballot has the math:

“Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.”

“In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.”

“Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top.”

The Tea Party is made up of Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Independents who have a few things in common: Love of country, love of liberty, a desire for fiscal conservatism in Washington, DC and a rejection of government expansion.

If a candidate can piece those items together and unite those factions, he or she will be unstoppable.

Via Memeorandum.

“Anderson resident Brock Glaze clutched two copies of Palin’s book, hoping to get one signed for himself, and one for a co-worker. Although he considers himself a Libertarian, Glaze said Palin is an exemplary Republican. “I think she’s absolutely brilliant. She’s the only one with the guts to say what needs to be said. Her gender has absolutely nothing to do with it. She has more guts than most of the men in her party. I think she’s not afraid to stand up for her conservatism, her Christianity, for pretty much everything that’s necessary for a free nation.”

What a stark contrast between that quote and the words of Steve Chapman, who one might presume to be a libertarian since he writes for Reason.com. Chapman isn’t buying Palin’s libertarian appeal one bit. In fact, he thinks it’s a great big sham. In an article titled “Sarah Palin and the Decline of Conservatism” he asks “What happened to the party of Goldwater and Reagan?”

“Who needs policy? In her world—and the world of legions of conservatives who revere her—the persona is the policy. Palin is beloved because she’s (supposedly) just like ordinary people, which (supposedly) gives her a profound understanding of their needs.”

“That attitude used to be associated with the left, which claimed to speak for the ordinary folks who get shafted by the system. Logic and evidence about policy, to many liberals, were less important than empathy and good intentions. Now it’s conservatives who think we should be guided by our guts, not our brains.”

Chapman then does his best to disassociate Sarah Palin from the memory of Ronald Reagan.

“When Oprah asked if she had felt any doubts about her readiness to be vice president—which requires the readiness to be president—Palin replied breezily, “No, no—I didn’t blink. … I felt quite confident in my abilities and my executive experience and I knew that this is an executive administrative job.” (The audience tittered.)”

“Contrast that with Reagan, who after learning of his victory on Election Night 1980 told his supporters, “There’s never been a more humbling moment in my life.” Palin doesn’t do humble.”

Funny. Ronald Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, had a completely different take on Sarah Palin in September of 2008 when he wrote a piece about her called “Welcome Back, Dad.”

“I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.”

“I was wrong!”

“Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he’s a she.”

“And what a she!”

“Like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin is one of us. She knows how most of us live because that’s the way she lives. She shares our homespun values and our beliefs, and she glories in her status as a small-town woman who put her shoulder to the wheel and made life better for her neighbors.”

“Welcome back, Dad, even if you’re wearing a dress and bearing children this time around.”

I was truly puzzled as to why Steve-Chapman-the-libertarian has such a problem with Sarah Palin but then I checked his bio at Reason.com and suddenly it all made sense.

“Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.”

Figures.

The Democrat talking point of the day is that they aren’t afraid of Kalid Sheikh Mohammed like all the wimpy conservatives who don’t want him tried in New York. Another classic example of liberals putting politics above national security.

Attorney General Eric Holder, defending his Obama’s decision to try KSM in New York said:

“I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial and no one else needs to be afraid either,” Holder said. “We need not cower in the face of this enemy.”

Right on cue, liberal venom spewer Markos Moulitsas followed up with:

“American liberals are tough on terrorists and secure in their knowledge that the Sept. 11 conspirators are guilty of mass murder. American conservatives are timid cowards who fear that the U.S. government can’t actually prove that the Sept. 11 killers committed their heinous crimes.”

How is it cowardly to want KSM tried in a military tribunal and executed?

What’s really cowardly is that liberals can only advance their agenda through back doors in the dark of night since their ideas never survive the forum of public scrutiny.

What Holder, KOS, and company really want is a referendum on Bush, Cheney and company.

They can’t do it out in the open so they’re sacrificing national security to sneak it in through the back door and hoping no one notices.

That, my friends, is cowardice.