The Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals Explained Briefly

Had a conversation the other day with a chap who said he didn't really know the difference between right and left. Thought I'd clear things up a bit.

Conservatives believe that all innocent human life is sacred and should be protected.

Liberals believe that everyone is equal - except the rich, caucasians, and men because they have been naughty and need to be punished - and women, homosexuals, the poor, the disabled, and ethnic minorities because they have been unfairly oppressed and as such are inherently incapable of achieving anything themselves without government support.

Conservatives believe that the most important role of government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property.

Liberals believe that the most important role of government is to control our lives, liberty, and property.

Conservatives believe that faith and the traditional family have an important role in society and should be left alone by the state.

Liberals believe that faith and the traditional family are evil, false constructs of a Euro-centric, racist, homophobic worldview and exist solely to oppress others. As such the state should assume both the role of family and God.

Conservatives love their country and fear their government.

Liberals hate their country and love their government.

Conservatives believe greater equality in society can be achieved by providing people opportunities to better themselves and their lives.

Liberals believe greater equality in society can be achieved by taking those opportunities away from people who already have them.

Conservatives believe that, whether it be wealth, happiness, or success, you can get it if you really want it.

Liberals believe that if you have something someone else wants but for whatever reason he or she can't get for his or herself, then you shouldn't have it either.

Conservatives believe that if someone infringes on another's right to life, liberty, or estate, then that person forfeits his or hers. We call these aggressors criminals or outlaws, and if they are our government leaders then we call them tyrants.

Liberals believe that criminals are inherently victims of society, and that they deserve their rights even after taking them from others. Thus the government has no right to 'play God' and take someone's life. The exception to this of course is the life of an unborn child. They don't matter for shit and any attempt to say otherwise is misogynistic and sexist. If these so-called aggressors are our government leaders then we call them progressives.

Conservatives believe that individuals should be able to live with minimal state intervention in all spheres of life.

Liberals believe that individuals are incapable of living without state intervention in all spheres of life.

V: Reflections on Liberty Lost

Ah the Fifth of November. Probably my favourite holiday besides 4 July. It marks Guy Fawkes' failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Of course at its heart the holiday is celebrating the fact he failed - a day of support for the government against Papists. It was, after all, an effigy of the Pope that was first burned on this day. However in recent years the Fifth of November has come to have great meaning to us of a libertarian streak. Now we honour the valiant attempts of an innocent man, oppressed for nothing other than his religion, to boldly stand up to a tyrannical government. It is sad that in 2009 lovers of Liberty are honouring this day in a world bereft almost entirely of real political freedom. Most people today seem to lack a sense of historical perspective, and seem blind to just how tyrannical the places they live really are. Let us dwell on this for a moment.

In the mid 16th century England, Scotland, and Ireland erupted in Civil War. The main cause was Charles I attempts to impose his vision of Divine Right Kingship on the English, a nation that valued above all the accountability of its rulers (e.g. Magna Carta), and the Scottish, a nation that valued the independence of its Churches. There is no doubt Charles was a tyrant and deserved to be overthrown. What's interesting is that right from the start of a conflict rooted in a desire for Liberty and Freedom from Tyranny, there were others waiting in the sidelines to enforce their own Tyrannies. Diggers, True Levellers, and radical puritan Separatists all wanted to impose their own proto-socialistic, totalitarian nightmares on the peoples of Britain. Thankfully this was averted and Liberty secured years later in 1688 through the Glorious Revolution. Securing the supremacy of Parliament and the liberty of the Crown's subjects, the Glorious Revolution ushered in an age in which the concept of 'British Liberty' would become a predominant and highly valued idea.

Flash-forward to 1776. The American colonists declare their independence from Britain. Despite this idea of an 'American Revolution', there was nothing uniquely American or Revolutionary about it. During the years leading up to the war there were repeated references from colonial agitators to their rights and liberties as FREEBORN ENGLISHMEN. They were rebelling against a tyrannical King who was violating his contractual obligation to protect the life, liberty, and estate of his subjects. There was nothing radical or revolutionary about the American War of Independence. It was in fact a counter-revolution.

Flash-forward again to 1861. Civil War breaks out in America as an imperialist, mercantilist North attempts to impose its own vision of the future on the South. It was completely within the rights of the Southern states to secede from the Union. The Federal government, much like George III a century before, was violating its duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Don't for a second think that war was really about freeing the slaves. Northern propaganda was all about 'PRESERVING THE UNION' and Lincoln only freed slaves in Confederate territory. What did that mean in practice? It mean stomping all over the South's right to self-determination, the right to form their own government, to break away from a government that was no longer looking after the their interests. Lysander Spooner wrote in his brilliant defense of Confederate soldiers 'No Treason':

The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if the free States, instead of slave states, had seceded.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance on their part makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having diminished in the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Unfortunately that principle with which the North waged war on the South has come into effect in most places. Not only are notions of contract theory almost completely eradicated from modern political discourse, but it is the hallmark of the Left today, similar to what the Union did, to use the rights and liberties of minorities as a pretense to introduce legislation which is both fundamentally authoritarian and illiberal. Hate crime legislation, incitement of racial hatred laws, even CCTV, do absolutely nothing to protect the rights and liberties of the people and in fact do almost everything to control and take away those rights and liberties. A few days ago the fate of Europe was sealed with Vlaclav Klauss' capitulation to Brussels. By this time next year England won't exist, the Queen will no longer be British Head of State, and the legislatures of the nations of Europe will have about as much power as a local town municipality council does in America. All this happened without a single shot fired or a single vote cast. Yet where are the Guy Fawkeses? Where are the John Lilburnes and John Miltons, the George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons and the Robert E. Lees of the world? The most fundamental changes to the British Constitution since the Magna Carta were enacted entirely without the consent of the governed. The British people and state have, in the truest sense of the term, been conquered. Were is the resistance? Where is the bloodshed to water the Tree of Liberty? Is FreedomFighter advocating violent resistance, armed counter-revolution to take back our natural rights and liberties as freeborn Brits? You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Gordon Brown Warns the World...

That we have 50 days to save earth from global warming? Wow, let's ignore the obvious global-warming-is-a-giant-load-of-crap argument and focus on what's really going on here. I am, in these last few months before the general election, reminded by Gordon Brown of watching the last few episodes of The Office. As I did then, I'm watching now with an equal measure of schadenfreude and horror, as Gordon Brown, in true Brentian fashion, slips further into mental breakdown as his personal world of delusion collapses around him. Only this is real, not a television show, and it's a Prime Minister not some mid level boss in a paper firm. FreedomFighter thinks that makes it all the more hilarious.

Hello! Magazine Politics

The following is written by one of FreedomFighter's good friends Amadeus Finlay. And yes that is his real name. It's an interesting take on the hilarious travesty that is Obama receiving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize and is far more balanced than FreedomFighter ever could be on the subject.

In the wake of President Obama receiving the Noble Prize for Peace, my fear that politics is becoming yet another victim of the world of reality shows and gossip magazines was given shock reinforcement. I regret to say it, but I believe that this is yet another example of the shift of politics from its true place to a two-dimensional social tool. While Barack Obama has proven himself to be a true ambassador for peace and international co-operation in an age of acute global instability, he has as yet achieved little from his admirable overtures.

When dealing with countries such as Iran, Russia and North Korea, a strong, yet peaceful voice from the United States will do little to ease tensions with these nations whose gung-ho attitude will be quenched by nothing other than their own directives. Not that I am a diplomatically blind neo-Conservative advocating military intervention, but I do question the validity of awarding the Noble Peace Prize to a man who has produced no tenable results.

When the President is placed alongside previous laureates of the Prize such as David Trimble, Kofi Annan and the Dali Lama, Obama’s eight months in power seemingly does not warrant a Noble Prize for Peace. While his Presidency may prove to be a successful exercise in achieving world peace, it is too early to make such assumptions. In addition, if Obama does succeed or indeed fails in his endeavours, what will this mean for this Noble Prize for Peace? Whatever the case, I fear that the validity of the Prize will be undermined. On reflection, therefore, does the 2009 Prize not fall under the bracket of modern political hype?

If one takes just a moment to reflect, the observant individual will realise that American Presidents of late have been transformed from politicians into inelegant tools of social media. The Noughties has seen a frenzy of internet activity, conspiratorial books and the dawn of the true celebrity politician. While Bush was portrayed as the warmongering, brainless buffoon of the right, Obama by contrast, has become a crude caricature of a cool young President who plays basketball and toked pot behind the bike sheds as a youth.

I feel Obama deserves more than this. He deserves to be recognised as a man whose honesty and integrity to achieve peace in the global theatre comes from a sincere desire to curb the threat of nuclear mania. He does not deserve to have the Noble Prize for Peace casually draped over his shoulders in a negligent continuation of the celebrity politician.

While FreedomFigher doesn't believe Obama deserves much of anything, save a trial for treason, it's nice to hear a more moderate voice every now and then. 

The Mighty Cameron Speech

Well what can I say? If you had asked me last week what my thoughts were on the future of the Tory party and the prospects of a Cameron premiership, I would not have been too thrilled in my response. The last time I personally witnessed a Cameron speech, the one at 2008's conference in fact, he quietly attacked the libertarian wing of the party. The bad taste that event left in my mouth is finally gone. Thanks for the Reaganite mouthwash David! The entire point of the speech this year was to highlight how destructive big government has been to the UK. In clear and devastating language, Cameron stood nobly, removed his trousers, and proceeded to shit all over the record of 10+ years of Labour. Personal highlights for yours truly included:

To be British is to be skeptical of authority and the powers that be.

That's why ID Cards, 42 days and Labour's surveillance state are so utterly unacceptable and why we will sweep the whole rotten edifice away.

Music to my ears.

Next year, Gordon Brown will spend more money on the interest on our debt that on schools. More than on law and order, more than on child poverty. 

So I say to the Labour party and the trades unions just tell me what is compassionate, what is progressive about spending more money on debt interest than on helping the poorest children in our country?

Stinging attack on a sickening though not exactly surprising statistic. 

Labour still have the arrogance to think that they are the ones who will fight poverty and deprivation.

On Monday, when we announced our plan to get Britain working you know what Labour called it? "Callous."

Excuse me? Who made the poorest poorer? Who left youth unemployment higher? Who made inequality greater?

No, not the wicked Tories? You, Labour: you're the ones that did this to our society.

So don't you dare lecture us about poverty. You have failed and it falls to us, the modern Conservative party to fight for the poorest who you have let down.

PWNED. 

It was a cracking speech. A speech that praised the entrepreneur and attacked the trades unions, that swore against big government and advocated radical decentralisation, that praised the good character and basic decency of the British people and admonished Gordon the Leper. 

Faith restored. Now let's do what we can to help the Conservatives win the election and save Britain from ruin. 

I'm certainly not complacent...

It's quarter to three in the morning and I'm sat here in the main bar of the Conference hotel quietly sipping my glass of Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Yellow Label. Am I complacent? I think not. After all, Veuve was described to me by one CF-er tonight as the 'cheapest drinkable champagne'. Brilliant.  

I'm back... and reporting live from the Tory Conference

Let me first apologize for my interweb silence over the past month or so. Circumstances were less than favourable to my blogging activities. But now all is well, and as I sit here in the glorious Freedom Zone at Conference, having had less than two hours sleep and filled with that strange, post-hangover induced euphoria, I find myself excited at the future prospects of both the Conservative party and movement in general. Not only does it seem that there is barely a member of Conservative Future whom wouldn't identify his or herself as libertarian, but as the strength of the party grows so too does the strength of the voices of liberty and freedom within. Nor can I help but notice the significantly larger number of very attractive young women at conference this year. It's going to be a good week.

So Much for the Festivities in Edinburgh...

According to the Edinburgh Evening News new drinking laws that will come into effect in Scotland next week as part of the Licensing (Scotland) Act include prohibiting bar staff from asking if patrons would like the same drink again, as well as forcing bar staff to offer water in between drinks. As if that weren't ridiculous enough pubs will not be allowed to offer money behind the bar as a pub quiz prize and certain drinks deals will be outlawed as well. The Council in Edinburgh is rumored to be planning on enforcing these new laws to their strictest limit. Not only is this an obvious defeat for personal responsibility and a victory for illiberal government nannying, but also a sad, sorry reflection on of the state of affairs in Scotland. I wonder if the Scottish Government has anything better to do than pass draconian restrictions on liberty and free murdering, terrorist scumbags? God forbid Scotland gets independence because an independent Scotland certainly won't be a free one. 

In Defense and in Praise of Danial Hannan (and Enoch Powell)

According to the Telegraph Dan Han 'risks angering David Cameron by praising Enoch Powell'. Well Mr. Cameron risks angering true conservatives like yours truly by admonishing Mr. Hannan. I mean honestly, how pathetically low have the standards of political discourse in this country fallen? As the Telegraph article notes, Cameron 'faced calls to sack' Daniel Hannan after he called the NHS a mistake on American television. When people want a Conservative politician fired for expressing conservative views, it's time to stop and smell the bullshit. In fact calls to sack any politician for expressing any reasonable opinion is a terrifying prospect. One would think he was advocating mass murder. Seriously - most people in the United Kingdom seem to feel more comfortable about discussing the idea of abolishing the Monarchy than they do about making even the slightest of fiscal reductions to the NHS. That my friends is a disgusting state of affairs. 

And now, simply for mentioning Enoch Powell as an influence, arguably the one of greatest Tory minds of the twentieth century, the leftist scum are again calling for Hannan's head. So what if Powell made one stupid speech that cost him his career. That shouldn't negate his brilliance and, excluding his views on immigration (which Hannan himself has criticised), his entirely sound political opinions. And Lord Mandelson has the audacity to speak of the 'face' of the Conservative Party that 'attacks the NHS and praises Enoch Powell.' How many lefties prance about in t-shirts depicting that murdering terrorist Che? A true Conservative Party would be attacking the NHS and praising Enoch Powell, and for good reason. Below are just a few of the more spectacular words from old Enoch:

It is no accident that the Labour Party... should share this craving for autarchy, for economic self-sufficiency, with the pre-War Fascist régimes and the present-day Communist states. They are all at heart totalitarian.

Compassion is something individual and voluntary. You cannot compel someone to be compassionate; nor can you be compassionate be compelling someone else. The Good Samaritan would have lost all merit if a Roman soldier were standing by the road with a drawn sword, telling him to get on with it and look after the injured stranger. Because there can be no such thing as compulsory compassion or vicarious compassion, therefore it is a humbugging abuse of language, intended to deceive, to talk about a 'compassionate Government' or a 'compassionate party' - or even a 'compassionate society', unless one simply means by that a society which happens to contain a lot of compassionate individuals. Nor let anyone protest: 'Oh, but when I vote for a party which will "make provision on an unprecedented scale for those in need of help", it means I too shall have to pay my whack and so I am being compassionate after all' . Nonsense! The purpose of your vote is not to subscribe - that you can freely do at any time - but to compel others.

A single currency means a single government, and that single government would be the government whose policies determined every aspect of economic life.

And my personal favourite,

Yes, I am a virus. I am the virus that kills socialists.

It's no wonder the left would despise Powell with such zeal; he was, for the most part, right. It's scary that an ideology that prizes economic freedom, individual liberty, and personal-responsibility is constantly under attack while a political ideology among whose ideological influences advocated eugenics, severe restrictions on civil liberties, property redistribution by force, dictatorial government, and at times outright murder is considered 'modern' and 'progressive'. When Parmjit Dhanda, Labour MP for Gloucester, asks 'is it acceptable for a the modern Conservatives Party to attack the NHS and praise Enoch Powell?', I should bloody well hope the answer is yes, else Jonah Goldberg is right and 'we're all fascists now'. 

  

Ted Kennedy is Dead

It's happened. That no good, murdering, alcoholic, terrorist-supporting, fenian monster is finally dead. I don't know about you dear readers but champagne is definitely on the cards for me tonight. 

Reflections on University

The following is a short piece I wrote for good friend Tory Bear a few months back. Figured I may as well post it here:

Ah, university. Having just graduated and, like so many of my fellow graduates, being unemployed, I've recently had the time to reflect on the past four years of my life. I was trying to think of what, if anything, truly defined my time at uni. Was it the boring lectures and seminars? Or maybe the heavy drinking and occasional use of rare herbs? Perhaps it was the ridiculous post-Marxist bullshit masquerading as 'social' and 'economic' history I had to learn as a historian, destroying all real interest I ever had in the subject. Close, but no.

What truly defined my university experience was, in a word, opposition. Opposition to the legions of left-wing students of various shapes and sizes, opposition to their monopoly on student government, opposition to their bullying tactics and oppressive measures that monopoly enabled them to implement, and opposition to the P.C. propaganda shoved down our throats at every turn as 'fact' or 'truth'. You see, for a conservative-libertarian like myself, a university isn't just an academic institution, the time spent there no simple educational experience. It is, rather, a sort of mild form of torture, each lefty slogan yelled and lefty action taken a drop of water on the forehead, driving one slowly insane.

I've been interested in politics for years, and strongly right-wing for almost as many. But when I graduated high school I was under the impression that my political views would mellow out, that I'd inch closer to the political centre with each passing year. I was leaving New Jersey, that bastion of rampant left-wingery it is. I was going back to the United Kingdom, there had to be like-minded conservatives there, right? Maybe not ones as avidly and gun-totingly libertarian as myself, but still conservatives nonetheless. After all I could only assume that there would be others who loved Margaret Thatcher as much as I did, especially having had to deal with New Labour for the better part of a decade. Of course there were and, being one of maybe five conservatives I knew growing up in the States, that was wonderful. But then there were the lefties. And they were everywhere.

I wasn't at university too long before the alarm bells started ringing in my head. As I walked through the square where lectures were held and through the union buildings for the societies fair, I could hear Robin Leach's voice in my head; welcome to lifestyles of the left and dirty, with their champagne socialism and communist dreams. Seriously, before I went to university, socialist was just a dirty word, an insult I used to fling at my Democrat-supporting buddies in America. Surely after the atrocities socialism inflicted upon the twentieth century - the horrors of National Socialism, the mass starvation, torture, and murder in the USSR, the crimes of men like Pol Pot and Che Guevara - no one could possibly think it was a good idea. How wrong I was.

I was soon taken over slowly by the painful realisation that I had landed squarely in the middle of one of the most oppressive, free-thought-stifling, bleeding-heart, left-wing environments imaginable. I would see and hear things that would make Hilary Clinton and Stalin blush. To put it bluntly, the amount of utter left-wing crap spewed daily from the mouths of students and professors alike astonished me. I couldn't help but recall Thomas Sowell, 'socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only and intellectual could ignore or evade it''. God was he right, and I certainly couldn't ignore or evade the plethora of lefty radicals, of tree-huggers and champagne socialists, working-class heroes and coffee shop revolutionaries that populated my university.

Ah, university. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Losing Faith in the Tories... Some More

Growing up in America there were times when I often felt a little uncomfortable vocalising my support for the Republican Party. This stemmed mainly from my living in New Jersey - a bastion of sickening left-Liberalism - where statements I would make alluding to my Republican leanings were met immediately with assumptions of my being some type of Christian fundamentalist. Now you can imagine this pissed me off to no end and these absurd speculations were met inevitably with a lecture on how assuming I was religious for supporting the Republicans was as stupid as if I were to assume that said leftist opponent was a lower-middle class, mutli-ethnic homosexual with a disability. Honestly, not to mention the fact there is something glaringly un-conservative about the programs religious fundies of all stripes wish to impose upon us. 

But just when I thought I'd finally gotten comfortable with all the false assumptions liberal morons make about me because I identify as 'conservative', Mr. Cameron comes out and says that the Tories are 'the party of the NHS'. Jesus H. Fucking Christ Dave. You really want to go down this road? This stomach-churning statement - evidently a move to prevent any serious fallout from MEP Daniel Hannan's brilliantly accurate description of the NHS as a '60-year mistake', is sure to alienate all true conservatives from Mr. Cameron's party even further. And what was so wrong with Hannan's statement? Nothing as far as I can see. Honestly, the way politicians these days speak of the NHS one would think it was a bloody provision in the Magna Carta or a central point of the Bill of Rights 1689. It's only been around since the end of the bloody war! And now Mr. Cameron is prancing about talking of the NHS as if it's as British as the bulldog. I certainly don't want people to think that because I'm a Tory I support the NHS. In fact it should be people's assumption that as a conservative I hate the NHS (which of course I do). Seriously - I'm a CONSERVATIVE. I believe in personal responsibility, freedom of choice,  and free markets. Why in God's good name would I be supporting a massive behemoth of state-funded debt, Marxism, and near zero consumer choice? Huh. Well Davey? You have an answer for me? Didn't think so. Honestly change the name of the party or something. One just cannot be conservative and support a socialist healthcare system. It's as simple as that. 

Young America's Foundation Student Conference

Sorry for the recent silence but I've been busy attending the YAF College Students Conference which, unfortunately, came with a massive amount of Christian-based social conservatism and no bloody internet access. Now many of the speakers at the conference were brilliant - particular standouts being Daniel Hannan MEP, Newt Gingrich, Robert Spencer, South Carolina Senator Jim Demint, Congressman Mike Pence, and the trinity of conservative hotties Anne Coulter, Monica Crowley, and Kate Obenshain - but many of the speakers left one with the feeling that one had been cheated, as if the delivery guy not only brought the wrong pizza one ordered but on top of that also forgot to bring the Pepsi. I ordered pepperoni and onions not pepperoni and peppers damn it! And how am I supposed to wash all this down?!

In this case the Pepsi was intellectual substance and the wrong pizza was an unnecessary amount of bible-bashing. Let's talk about the Pepsi first. Tell me, what the hell's the point of one going to a conference just to hear people make statements that one already agrees with? The conference was severely lacking in useful discussion of policy, politico-philosophy, and political strategy. I felt as if I were a sounding board for these speakers. I'm pretty sure my fellow conference attendees and I are well fucking aware how much the Führer Obama, Comrade Pelosi, and Herr Clinton are going to fuck up America - that's why we all went to the bloody conference in the first place. 

Now let's move on the the pizza. Don't get me wrong, despite my personal views on Christianity I have a tremendous amount of respect for people who are religious and I understand the importance of God and Christianity in the American conservative movement. That being said, when one has a speaker effectively claiming that one cannot be moral without having Judeo-Christian values, or a speaker claiming our American rights and liberties are God-given (absurd - we have them because America was founded by Englishmen), or a speaker using outdated pseudo-historical interpretations of Anglo-American history bordering on myth to support his worldview, it all becomes a little hard to swallow. 

All that being said it was a bloody great time. Though next time I think I'll wear my Fuck Jesus t-shirt. 

Israeli Police Evict Palestinians from East Jerusalem

Nine Palestinian families were removed from their homes by Israeli police clad in riot gear. FreedomFighter has one thing to say: good. A united, Jewish Jerusalem is an unquestionable right of the Jewish people. The BBC is doing their best as always to make the Israelis look like Nazis. Full anti-Semitic version of the story here. 

It's Official. Congressional Democrats are Fucking Evil.

The Democrat-led House voted today to restrict Wall Street pay. Now, I'm no constitutional lawyer but I'm pretty bloody positive that this is illegal. Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C. claimed that this 'is not the government taking over the corporate sector' but the American people making a 'statement'. Mr Watt - are you fucking serious? I didn't see the American people make this vote, nor do I recall a nation-wide referendum being held on the subject. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank, flies in the face of everything America is supposed to stand for. If I recall correctly the founding fathers were pretty specific about government's role in protecting our property - not deciding how much we can have. Let me repeat - the House of Representatives today declared that they have the right to dictate how much someone is paid. This is pure Bolshevism at its ugliest. I never thought I'd live to see something like this happen in the U.S.A. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. Even Obama didn't want to go this far. On behalf of liberty-loving Americans everywhere, FUCK YOU FRANK! I suggest all the Wall Street execs go on strike for a few days. Then we'll fucking see what's good for the American people. 

Scary Stuff

Today I stopped off at the Political Americana store in D.C. What is billed as a shop with all sorts of political memorabilia from the past few decades is in fact a Nazi-esque shrine to Comrade Obama. I've never seen such a blatant cultivation of a personality cult in my life. This store would have made Stalin and Hitler jealous. Not only was the place filled from wall to wall with Obama merchandise and anti-conservative propaganda, but as one walked in one's ears were met with a soundtrack of an Obama speech blasting from a hi-def television in the centre of the store. Wow, just wow. Obama wasn't the only one on display though - I couldn't help but notice a small amount of Lincoln, Kennedy, and FDR crap for sale as well. Truly a shrine to those who shat (and in Obama's case will continue to shit) on the Constitution. 

Mint Juleps in the Capital

So I promised myself I'd never post anything that wasn't political on this blog, but I just couldn't help myself. I have just returned from the famous Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, D.C. where a certain bartender with fifteen years as Makers Mark's top mixologist under his belt made me what is indisputably the best mint julep in America. This guy is sought after by top celebrities - Pierce Brosnan was actually in the joint last week for said bartender's world famous Manhattans. What was supposed to be a quick julep en route back to the hotel became three. Yes, three. Made to the original recipe that Henry Clay brought with him the the capital, these things were pure magic. I've had a mint julep in almost every Southern state and I can honestly say this was the best. So if you are ever in D.C., head to the Old Ebbitt anytime Tuesday-Friday from 11.00 to 17.00 for the best god damn drink you'll get anywhere in the U.S. 

British Conservative Group Banned from Visiting White House

The wonderfully sound Young Britons Foundation was prohibited from visiting the Kenyan-American Embassy (also known as the White House). This is the first time ever they have encountered this problem since beginning their yearly trips to Washington, DC. Perhaps Obama, the man whose distaste for the United Kingdom and its accomplishments is so strong that he sent a bust of Churchill back to the British Embassy, didn't want a group of young British conservatives anywhere near his operation. This would hardly be surprising given his Kenyan grandfather was a Mau Mau terrorist and traitor. As someone who is both a U.S. citizen and a subject of the Crown I find it utterly reprehensible that the Obama White House would pull such a stunt. This not only reflects badly on the Unites States and the Office of the President, but also reveals Obama and his supporters to be the petty, class-warring radicals they are. 

Tories' Banking Plans are a Joke

The Conservatives are to give the Bank of England even more regulatory powers in what I can only assume is a ploy to appeal to the idiots who think the current economic crisis is the result of a lack of regulation in the banking industry. What the fuck? Any half decent economist can tell you the economic shit-storm we're in right now was caused by too much regulation of the banking industry and government nannying in general (the U.S. Democrats' CRA springs immediately to mind). The Tories want to give the Bank of England powers to regulate pay structures. I actually feel ill after writing that. We need to get rid of regulation not add more of it. The socialists can rant all they want about the 'evils' of free market capitalism, but the truth is that we've never had proper free market capitalism. If the Tories are to continue the fascist march towards corporatism - which it appears they very well might - then Britain really is truly good and fucked. 

BURN ALL CENTRAL BANKS DOWN AND SALT THE FUCKING EARTH.

Sotomayor Clears Senate Panel

So the abominable leftist, sexist, racist Sotomayor is all but the next Supreme Court Judge. Her track record needs no repeating here... I think anyone with half a brain can see that she harbors at the very least a mild distaste for white Americans, especially white men. We can bang on about whether or not she's an 'activist judge' till the cows come home, but the fact that she's a liberal is bad enough. Seriously, am I the only one who thinks having liberal judges completely ruins the point of judicial review in America? The Supreme Court should be filled with the likes of Scalia and Thomas. Given that the whole raison d'etre of judicial review is to make sure the Executive and Legislative branches abide by the Constitution, having judges who are anything but originalists or strict constructionists makes the entire concept of separation of powers a sham. If the supposed protectors of the Constitution view it as little more than an outdated rag with which to wipe their arses then that great document really is all but abandoned. I'm sure Comrade Obama is celebrating. I'm sure Comrade Obama is a lot of things...