WND: What Wonderful Timing

Update: Stacy was apparently writing something up just as I was, they crossed in email. This BS really ticks me off. They aren't even freakin' serious conservatives. Henke's a libertarian, he's got no business trying to pressure CPAC.

Dave Weigel on the Web kicking it off.

Rachel Maddow, the original ass-ophile, Ana Marie Cox, sitting in, (is the butch haircut a requirement for the show?) that clown Tanenhaus from the NYT's Review of Books discussing how WND is the equivalent of the Birchers today? Detailing how the Birchers were shut down. Even attributing the shut down to Buckley, WF? ... Going on about the lack of intellectuals in conservatism today? Questioning where the Republican leadership is?

Damn! Almost seems to me I heard precisely all that just recently.

Then going on to pull in NRO, claiming that NRO (wink wink) only pretended to reject, while bringing forth new evidence, in the Birther conspiracy? Calling today's conservative "mouthpieces" pseudo-intellectuals? Do they mean Talk Radio? I'd bet they do. Funny how Tanenhaus continued to ignore NYT's Bestseller Liberty and Tyranny - hardly a pseudo-intellectual work.

No point in reading The Next Right anymore, perhaps. I can just wait to catch the latest young conservative wisdom on MSNBC. It looks so much more in place. Didn't see the research credit, though. Same old MSM on that score. I can hardly wait until Keif picks it up. Anyone looking for some publicity for themselves might consider emailing the show. Just a thought, anyways.

Maybe it's time to reconsider a purge of some sort, after all. We rubes in the grassroots might get confused if we don't know whose side someone is on.

Take it away, Jon. Let your "baser instincts" run wild.

The reaction to the WorldNetDaily story has been remarkable and I appreciate those that have offered support.  I would encourage people to continue contacting me about which organizations on the Right are, or are not, working with WorldNetDaily.

[1] Let's start with good news: WorldNetDaily will not be at CPAC next year.  I exchanged emails with the CPAC organizer earlier today and she told me this:

[WorldNetDaily founder Joseph] Farah asked if he could speak on the issue (birther movement), but that isn't something we're interested in.

Rejected.  Well done.  There are a couple other demagogues who appeal to our baser instincts that I would like to see CPAC decline to host, too, but this is a very positive step.  Kudos, CPAC.

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[syn]

I swear to the never again speak of that which is never to be questioned ever by anyone anytime no matter what however Dr Thomas Sowell is welcomed by WND so this Henke character will not emotionally blackmail me into discontinuing my personal connection with one of the great Conservative minds of the 20th and 21st century.

Dr Sowell was my very read when I converted from brain-dead Liberal to Conservative.

I probably would have moved toward a more Libertarian path if not for two things I find distasteful about their philosophers, that being, they're convinced that doing dirty dealings with dictators, kleptocrats and all around genocidal madmen are free market ideals when if fact, such ideals are rigged market ideas.

Secondly, Libertarians have an unusual obsession with porn-I really don't care if flaccid pricks looking for stimulation desperately need to watch other people having sex- but I draw the line when flaccid pricks prey upon children. Listen Libertarians, I do not care how Libertine you like to live, your lust for kiddy porn is sick, vile, disgusting and not matter what Lawyers, Law Professors and Darwinian apes wearing robes have to say, you still have no right to violate children in such a hideous way.

[Jamie Lockett]

"They aren't even freakin' serious conservatives. Henke's a libertarian, he's got no business trying to pressure CPAC."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." - Ronald Reagan

Damn, Reagan wasn't a real Conservative (Copyright Dan Riehl 2009).

[ECM]

Except that you (and of course Reason) are putting words in Reagan's mouth. Riddle me this: if Reagan (and, by extension, all conservatives) are actually libertarians what, exactly, is the pro-legalized drugs, pro-choice, pro-'anything that keeps the government out of the bedroom' group of people we today know as libertarians? Could it be that Reagan was precisely right and that Conservaties are the true Libertarians and Libertarians are merely Tory-lite??

[Jamie Lockett]

ECM I find it hard to believe that you even read quote I posted let alone the entire interview with Reagan that I linked to. That is an exact quote from the man himself I am not putting words into his mouth.

Furthermore there is a difference between small l libertarians and people that belong to the big L Libertarian party.