Saturday, November 08, 2014


Hall & Oates with Private Eyes. 1981 single from the album with the same name.

Musical duo from Philly, big in the early eighties.

Led Zeppelin with Over the hills and far away.

Iconic 1973 song from the album Houses of the Holy.



Friday, November 07, 2014


I must have been a kid - 10 years old, perhaps - when I first saw Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, or: How I stopped worrying and love the bomb.

There are a great many memorable scenes in that film, but for starters I picked this one. The movie is set in the middle of the Cold War, and the US maintains aloft permanently scores of B-52 bombers carrying H-bombs, which can reach Soviet territory within two hours if necessary. Dr. Strangelove has several parallel running threads which are all equally important; one of these is about an actual B-52 crew, commanded by a Major Kong (played by Slim Pickens).

In the following clip, the crew receives a coded message to prepare for an all-out nuclear strike on a Soviet missile base.

Dr. Strangelove is actually a dark comedy and has many instances where you can't help but smirk, giggle or burst out with laughter. But this clip is rather serious, and gives some idea of what it must have been like for those crews, spending hours high aloft, waiting for orders that might involve... starting a nuclear holocaust. What's funny though, and what is only getting more hilarious as the movie progresses, is Major Kong's character, with an inimitable Slim Pickens (real name Louis Burton Lindley, Jr.), whose Oklahoman/Texan drawl lends a burlesque quality to the dead serious instructions he has to give his crew.

For those of you who haven't already, discover this gem in its totality.


Thursday, November 06, 2014


Now that the gunsmoke has cleared and the dust has settled down, it is time for us conservatives to ease somewhat on the euphoria and 'cast a cold eye' on what really happened on November 4th.

But before we come to that, let's recap what Mark Steyn had to say re Scott Brown on the eve of the election:

"To address the election more directly: I loathe what the Democratic Party has done these last few years and I dearly hope that today sees the dethroning of Harry Reid. I would also like to be represented in Washington by someone other than Senator Shaheen and Congresswoman Kuster. Nonetheless, I regard the Republican Party as a largely repulsive institution. Yesterday, one of the last of this season's election flyers arrived at my Post Office from the GOP. It read:



Now Scott Brown is certainly "pro-choice", as is his right. It hasn't been a big part of his campaign - he got a lot of traction from immigration, and from Jeanne Shaheen's abysmal debate performances - and realistically, whatever one feels about abortion, today's election results won't make a whit of difference on the issue. Still, I'd have no objection to Mr Brown sending out campaign literature bragging about his position.

But this flyer came from the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.

The official position of the State Committee is that it is opposed to abortion. You can read the platform here:

We believe that life is sacred, from conception to natural death and that we cannot diminish the value of one category of human life without diminishing the value of all human life.

In addition the NH GOP is committed to...

Support the unborn child's fundamental right to life and implement all possible legal protections

Encourage individuals and organizations who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers through adoption, support, counseling and educational services

Now maybe that's all squaresville, uptight social-conservative stuff, and not where the party needs to be in 2014. Nevertheless, it's the official position, and the base has been disinclined to change it. So when a pro-life State Committee sends out leaflets boasting about being pro-choice, they're telling you that those two bolded words "we believe" are meaningless when uttered by a New Hampshire Republican official. Why would what they claim to "believe" on Obamacare or debt or foreign policy be any more reliable? When a man tells you his word is bullsh*t, take him at it.

More revealingly, look at how the State Committee characterizes Brown's position: The candidate is "pro-choice" and "supports issues important to women". That's Democrat framing: Opposition to abortion is part of the Republican war on women, etc. Furthermore, being "pro-choice" is evidence that Brown "has a strong record of fighting for what is right". So it's not just a policy dispute or a matter of personal conscience on which people of good faith can disagree. Being "pro-choice" is "what is right" - which presumably means being pro-life is what is wrong.

This is what the supposedly pro-life Republican Party is mailing its base on the eve of a low-turnout midterm election."

As much as it pleased me that the Democrats in general got a whipping the day before yesterday, I also saw some poetic justice in Scott Brown losing to Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire. May it remind Mr Brown of the sound principle that you can't have a cake and eat it too.

Now for Bill Whittle's top 5 conservative principles:

Viewing this video should be compulsory for every Republican.

Because as impressive as the GOP win on November 4 was, we should NOT forget that Tuesday's vote was not so much pro-GOP as it was anti-Obama. The GOP almost won despite itself. I have compared many a Republican candidate with his or her Democratic counterpart and am sorry to say there often wasn't much difference. What caused the red wave was finally sufficient people having ENOUGH of the lazy, lying, cheating woolhead occupying, in the most litteral sense of the world, the White House. Had there been even a moderately successful, halfway decent Democratic president in office, it might well have been a blue wave instead of a red one.

I hate to sound pessimistic, but let's say that I am convinced that the RINOs haven't learned jack shit. They have learned NOTHING. In fact, I fear that the greatest danger facing America now is that the GOP's less visible Scott Browns will feel justified to go on like they did until now - trying to be more democrat than their opponents.

It is up to pundits like Bill Whittle and the many, many decent writers and thinkers over at Hot Air, American Thinker, Townhall, Breitbart et al to keep up the pressure and to remind the GOP daily of what Real Conservatism is like...

... and that in proudly and unapologetically upholding the Core Conservative Principles lies the true road to success.


Monday, November 03, 2014


First watch the following video by Bill Whittle: Weaponizing the government.

The Blaze has some more info on Ann M. Ravel, yet another sinister Obama Administration apparatchik:

"If political material gets posted online but no one pays to post it, does it get regulated?

It’s literally “free speech” and right now, the answer is basically no, it’s not regulated — but in a surprise move late Friday, regulators said they were honing in on the YouTube videos, tweets and blog posts that have been playing an ever-larger role in political campaigns.

Conservatives, bloggers and even parody makers could all be targets.

Ann M. Ravel, a Democrat and the vice chair of the Federal Election Commission, announced Friday evening that the FEC would begin moving to regulate internet-based campaigns and videos, items which are currently free from most federal regulation, the Washington Examiner reported.

“A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” Ravel said.

Ravel’s statement came after the FEC board was split 3-3 over whether two anti-Obama YouTube videos violated FEC rules because the videos, placed on YouTube for free, did not come with any disclosure and the campaign that produced them did not report financial information, the Examiner noted.

Since 2006, the FEC has left political videos and websites largely unregulated — except in cases where, for instance, a campaign paid money to place a video on a website — but now a huge swath of the internet could become subject to new regulations.

“I told you this was coming,” FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, told the Examiner, citing his earlier warning that federal regulation of conservative online political activities — including parody videos and political blogs — was likely on the way.

The aggregator site Drudge Report, one of the first and foremost conservative presences on the internet, gave the news of the FEC move top billing Saturday morning as the Examiner noted that right-wing websites will likely be targeted under the new regulations."

Take a GOOD, HARD LOOK at this leftist bitch's face....

 photo ann_M_Ravel_zpsa3ba44a9.jpg

... and know and realize, that if she had been your neighbor in the USSR, or the DDR, and had caught you listening to Radio Free Europe...

... she would gladly have alerted the authorities knowing full well you'd be headed to the Gulag.

Yes, we are dealing with this kind of people.

Americans should do well to remember tomorrow that your freedom is at stake. People like Ann M. Ravel constitute a clear and present danger to YOUR liberty and well-being.