DKT POLITICS

Andrew Breitbart is not Dead

Daniel K. Thomas — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 05:09:54 +0000

At age 43, Andrew Breitbart died of natural causes on March 1, 2012. 1969-2012 RIP Andrew Breitbart. Our prayers are with his family.

The news of course is not new. The blogosphere and the conservative movement has lost a leader, innovator and a major contributor to two revolutionary internet properties: Drudge Report and The Huffington Post. Although I only met him once, I looked up to him as an innovator in a space where I consider myself to be an entrepreneur. Conservative media would not be what it is today without Andrew Breitbart and his general bad ass fearlessness.

That is why I truly believe he is not dead. No, not some sort of conspiracy (although I am sure there are some questions we ought to ask) but in the fact the Andrew Breitbart was the leader of what I can only describe as a conservative media hydra. I believed he evolved beyond his humanity some time ago; Andrew Breitbart became an idea. His passing is going to fuel this movement because the passion he lived with will burn on no longer just in one man, but a legion of Breitbartians who believe that the progressive media complex serves only to destroy the dream; if anything we are emboldened.

I pour a 40 out for this icon. Oh, and check out the responses from his friends, colleagues and the leftists who hated the truth he brought to the table.

Accuracy in Media:

Franklin Center for Government & Public Policy Integrity:

PJ Media:

Rush Limbaugh, via TRS:

Greg Gutfeld:

Sean Hannity:

Glenn Beck:

Thoughts on a possible conspiracy considering his revelation on having video of Obama

Tucker Carlson, Daily Caller

Gavin McInnes, Taki’s Magazine

Liberal Response

There are plenty of people expressing their glee on Twitter in regards to his passing. These are just some of the responses that caught my eye.

Washington Examiner

Rolling Stone

John Stossel’s Illegal Everything

Daniel K. Thomas — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:32:28 +0000

Yes, liberals will tell you cases like this are far and few between. The fact that there are any cases like this mean we are all at grave risk of be ruled by the system rather than being ruled by ourselves. Of course all conservatives are not against massive regulations, after all one time presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee was keeping health records on school children and sending the reports home so parents could monitor concerns the state had. Rick Santorum? No different, he has repeatly been quoated as saying this from the campaign trail:

Freedom is not the right to do what ever you want, is to do what is right. Who determines what is right? The state does, to the detriment of private citizens.

An Argument for Paul

Daniel K. Thomas — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:30:35 +0000

Every candidate negatives; it is no secret that Ron Paul has his. He has the obvious one; he is fighting an uphill battle running in the GOP as libertarian. In addition, he is on in his years and has the charisma of jagged broken glass. The GOP base loves his domestic policy but cannot stand his foreign policy. Nonetheless, after 20 some years of running for president, it looks like he may at least win the first two primaries. He is holding the steady lead in Iowa is and cleaning up in New Hampshire. This is for the other states primary goers who are still dead set against Paul.

About Those Newsletters

If there was one thing Paul had going for him, it was his reputation as being squeaky clean. There was no flip-flopping or Tiffany’s accounts in his past to muddy the waters. As his gains seemed to be legitimate, the GOP machine went digging for some dirt in an attempt to turn the tides onto one of their chosen candidates, and in doing so came across some awful newsletters baring Paul’s name.

Some have pointed out that Paul could have profited up to one million dollars on the newsletters. While I have not seen an evidence to lend evidence to this claim, even if it were true, I am not sure that should matter. After all, Paul is a self-described capitalist and anyone who is concerned with the GOP primary ought to be as well, so the concern of the profit is thrown out. Now, it is no secret that these were written by Lew Rockwell and Paul has addressed them in the past; this time however he got all senile and retorted that he had not written them. If had just taken responsibility, and brushed them off nonchalantly it would never have mattered. We all know the other candidates have far worse things in their mcmansion sized closets, and since republican politics is often about the lesser of two evils, I would have found a way to make it about the other guys and their problems.

That Icky Foreign Policy

I like pieces of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. I like the idea of ending foreign aid and getting rid of our bases on other countries and bringing our troops home from all the entanglements were are currently engaged in. I for one like what Obama did to kill UBL. To heck with international law, to heck with Pakistan, we found our man and we clipped him. That’s America and Pakistan should know that if the hold a guy we want dead then were will trespass wherever the heck we dang well please to send him to the virgins.

Ron Paul is nothing if not a man of principle. So his crazy notions of isolationism would not go far in congress, that whole thing about checks and balances is starting to make sense, isn’t it? Yes, we are surely guaranteed some gridlock, but that is better than the extremes both sides offer. If we must go to war, it will be done the constitutional way and that seems to a notion that most humans like.

Like I said, every candidate has their drawbacks. Most of Ron Paul’s policy drawbacks would get checked by another branch of government making them a non-issue. As to those newsletters that Lew Rockwell wrote – well at least he didn’t create the system that underpins obamacare, flip-flop on social issues when it suited his political advancement. Nor did he vote to create ANWR, the Federal Department of Education, or sit on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and talk about how concerned he is about global warming. Sure, Dick Morris and Karl Rove call him a liberal, but that is simply because they realize that a Paul presidency would put an end to the shenanigans they engage in that make themselves rich at the expense of the taxpayer. Not to mention the fact that most of Paul’s stances are common sense and they cannot combat them with their arsenal of weapons, so they just call him liberal. Its the conservative equivalent of calling someone racist. After all, do we want a guy like Karl Rove dictating who we are allowed to have as our candidate? Is that not why we have the primary process? As for Dick Morris, I am not sure the lisper cares what happens so long as he can plug his new book, whatever it happens to be called.

Vote Paul or America dies, it is just that simple.

Chris Fields Interview

Daniel K. Thomas — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:16:05 +0000

My first ever interview with a candidate?

Would you vote for him if he was running in your district? How was I as an interviewer? Can he win? DISCUSS!

Cain is Gone, but 9-9-9 Can Stay

Daniel K. Thomas — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 00:14:43 +0000

Cain is on his way out, but I hope remnants of his tax plan stay with us. No other plan offered attacks our highly discriminatory system and creates equality in taxation much like the oh-so memorable 9-9-9 would.

His detractors suggest that the plan would magically be increased in the future, however Cain made the salient point that his plan would never increase taxes, rather a politician would. Not acting because some future politician may or may not increase the rate of taxes is not a valid reason not to at least consider the benefits of his plan.

First off, I will say I take issue with the corporate tax. Perhaps it shows how DC Herman Cain really is; of all people a businessman like him ought to know that corporate taxes are just passed on to the consumer. That’s why when other presidential hopefuls criticized the plan for creating a new sales tax I knew none of them would be the fix America needs right now. How can any of them claim to remotely understand what plagues our economy if they cannot understand the simplest of taxation principles? This would eliminate the hidden nature of government and taxes and make it very real to consumers just how expensive big government can be. I think his opponents were just mad they did not come up with something so simple and so catchy before he did. Oh well.

I think a plan more like 15-15 would work better; a 15% tax on all goods and a 15% tax on all income. That is right, all income. Everyone, even the “poor” would be included in my plan, and that would insure the plan would never change. No self-interested politician (is there any other kind?) would dare hike up the rate because of the toll it would take on the poor. I would suggest this plan until America is all caught up on its debt, and then I would trim it to a single 15% national tax on all goods, no exceptions, write-offs, credits or waivers. Everyone must pay. When everyone is included in a tax plan, it shackles the hands of future politicians.