Monday, September 13, 2010

My favorite DC rears his head again...

...and I somehow just came across it a week and a half later.

Fear not, friends, I must and shall deliver the smackdown Gerson so richly deserves. Again. Still.

Back in the first post ever on this blog... I demolished him for his attempt to pervert conservatism into... well, whatever it is he believes it should be. The man is still at it. He even does his best impression of a race-baiting, guilt-ridden liberal with his "questions" for tea party candidates.

But hey, being the nice guy I am... Let's give Mikey the answers to his questions, shall we?

"First, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?"

YES. And Ronald Reagan did not "move Republicans past Alf Landon's resistance to the New Deal and Barry Goldwater's opposition to federal civil rights law, focusing instead on economic growth and national strength." He tried to eliminate whole federal departments but was prevented from doing so by Tip O'Neill's gang and Republicans like YOU, Gerson. You even seem to admit you're wrong, that a "consistent Constitutionalism" would preclude all the social tinkering rubbish you so love. But you're so lost in your own demagoguery that you brush that aside as unimportant. Do you even realize your own nihilism?

"A second question of Tea Party candidates: Do you believe that American identity is undermined by immigration?"

Look at him trying to conflate all immigration, legal or illegal. Classic open-borders racial demagoguery. Mike, just leave the party and go be the Democrat you so clearly are at heart. So let's take apart the answer. LEGAL immigration, no. But we have the absolute right as a nation to decide who gets in, who doesn't , from where, how many, anything. No one can say otherwise. ILLEGAL immigration, YES. It must be stopped. It does incredible social, economic and political damage to the republic. Not that you care.

And Mikey's third and final "question"...

"Question three: Do you believe that gun rights are relevant to the health-care debate?"

Again with the leftist demagoguery, this time used against Sharron Angle. I think the Second Amendment exists to prevent the government from having a monopoly on coercive force, and yes, to allow the people to resist said government over overreaching garbage like socialized medicine.

The tea party's ideology is NOT "incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs." It's at odds with your big-government douchebag conservatism. But Mikey goes on...

"It is at odds with Abraham Lincoln's inclusive tone and his conviction that government policies could empower individuals. It is inconsistent with religious teaching on government's responsibility to seek the common good and to care for the weak. It does not reflect a Burkean suspicion of radical social change."

Lincoln is NO model of conservatism in any way, shape, or form. He was a disciple of Henry Clay and an enemy of Constitutional government. And for the umpteenth time, it is NOT the responsibility of any level of government to "care for the weak." As for "radical social change"... we're just looking to undo what you and your liberal friends have done to us, Mikey. Best of luck stopping us. We're coming. Douchebag.


Anna said...

It is a society's responsibility to care for those who cannot take care of themselves. What some fail to realize is that "weak" doesn't mean incapable, but often just unwilling.
While I wouldn't exactly want to model Sparta's social policies, no social contract should obligate some people to work so that others (who are able to work) could sit on their asses.

Nicki said...

"It is a society's responsibility to care for those who cannot take care of themselves." --

No, actually it is not. There's such a thing as kindness and willingness to help that is inherent in a lot of people, but the moment you start talking about "society's responsibility," you start talking about coercion. The moment you start talking about our obligations toward individuals, what logically follows is force.

I guarantee most people will want to help those genuinely in need. It's endemic to being a decent human being. That's why charitable giving increases when the people are allowed to keep more of their earnings. But the moment you appropriate others' earnings for some politician's idea of the "common good," you condemn the producers to slavery.

The Northern Virginia Conservative said...

Exactly... Anna's talking as if there were no private or religious charities to help people before the government came along.

"There is no such thing as 'society." There are only individuals" - Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased because I don't feel like looking up the whole quote.)