The Ryan Murray deal has now been out there for about two days and there are many different opinions on it.

Some think it’s a win for the GOP:

Though I, too, would like government to shrink, I think this is the right policy trade-off; shutdowns are making it harder and harder to talk about rational budget policy in this town. And tactically, I think this is a clear win for the Republican Party. The last thing they need right now is to take the focus off the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and revive Obama’s flagging poll numbers with an ill-timed budget battle. Their best shot at a budget they really like is, after all, to retake the Senate in 2014.

Some think it’s a disaster

I am old enough to remember when the GOP said not to worry about it caving on Obamacare funding because, by God, it would hold the line on sequestration.

Hell, that was a month ago.

Amazing how much can change in a month. Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray have decided to give up the last thing the GOP was fighting for — spending restraint. “Don’t worry,” Paul Ryan says with his boyish charm designed to induce sweats and heart palpitations among conservatives, “it’s only a little less restrained.”

The budget deal puts discretionary spending over $1 trillion, which is higher than the sequestration deal of 2011, which was at $967. This is, in fact, a spending increase.

It funds Obamacare.

It does not impact the national debt. It does not reform entitlements.

And it raises taxes, but with the more acceptable euphemism of “user fees”

And some who look at it pragmatically:

When I heard there was a budget deal, and that the deal didn’t amount to much, I had two thoughts. The first was, “Most conservatives probably aren’t going to like this; they’ll consider it just another case of weak Congressional Republican gruel and lack of Republican spine.” The second was, “Good. The Republicans weren’t going to win this battle anyway, and this deal will take away the Democrats’ most potent argument against them—the one that hurt them so much earlier this fall, the obstructionist argument—and allow Republicans to focus on the awfulness of Obamacare.”

The way I look at it is this: the best way to combat the Democrats is to win majorities in Congress next year, and to vote for people who are conservative enough to actually stick to their principles in the exceedingly tempting and corrupt atmosphere of Washington DC (no mean feat that, and it’s somewhat unpredictable who will stand firm and who will not). Republicans and/or conservatives can bluster all they want from a minority position, but it’s a weak position

All are valid opinions but as I see it there are three things for a conservative to judge this budget deal by:

1.  Are the military cuts due in sequestration so damaging that it’s worth making this deal to prevent them?

If you think the military can’t sustain these cuts or that they will go to the meat rather than the fat then this deal is a necessary move to stop it. 

If you think that this is simply not the case or that the military as well as the rest of the government need to live within its means then it’s a bad move.

2.  Is a short term deal, even one with tax (fee) increase worthwhile to achieve the political goals of depriving the media / democrats of an issue to use in 2014?

If you think the media would use a shutdown or even a continuing resolution continuing current funding would be used like a club to distract low information voters from Obamacare and the economy before the 2014 elections, it’s a smart move to made a deal that deprives them of it. 

If on the other hand you figure if the MSM doesn’t have an actual issue they will make one up anyway and this will cost us more votes in the base than it will win us or them in low information voters then it’s a waste of time to equivocate.

3.  Do you trust the GOP if successful in taking the senate in 2014 to actually advance meaningful budget restraint?

If you think the tactical move to make a deal will lead to a GOP congress that will make fiscal responsibility a priority and act accordingly then this is the right move, at times you have to regroup before you advance.

If however you have concluded that the GOP is more interested in getting chairmanships and the power of the purse than actually being responsible with it then it simply will not do to make this deal.

I think making a judgement on the budget deal based on these factors is smart.

Tomorrow I’ll give some advice on something concerning this bill that isn’t so smart.


Today I’d like you all to shut up. Yes, I just said shut up. I’d like to open with a flashback from Andrew Klavan from four years ago:


Shut Up.
It’s the main tactic of the Left and has been for some time now. A tactic I and others have dubbed “Shutuppery”. Shutuppery, like most silencing tactics, has its roots in Political Correctness. For those of you not familiar with the story about how Shutuppery was employed on yours truly, let me summarize for you.

I was doxed a few months ago by a group of “democrat recruiters” on Twitter alongside fellow blogger Sister Toldjah.  This was done with the express purpose of getting me to shut up.  The full details can be reviewed in my article, #Shutuppery and the Drums of War, wherein Stacy McCain came out firing with both barrels in our defense. Twitchy was not far behind in covering the story.


Shutuppery On The Federal Level

Now that you’re up to speed, let’s talk a moment about the move to employ Shutuppery to bloggers in general. I’m talking about the proposed Media Shield Law being floated in the Senate. The law, in essence, would create a rent-seeking class of journalists as the government would be able to pick and choose who qualifies as ‘real reporters’. Not shocking is that this bill is co-sponsored by Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham. Diane Feinstein is also on board as Doug Ross observes:

Senator Diane Feinstein has taken up the fight for truth and liberty, just as she has done for health care and the widespread disarmament of American citizens.

This month Congress has been debating a new media shield law, which according to its authors, aims to protect journalists and bloggers from being forced to testify about their work should their sources or information come into question.

But Diane Feinstein has refused to support the bill, noting that the law would essentially grant this shield privilege to anyone who chooses to share their opinion on the internet (including those pajama sporting bloggers and news aggregators working out of their basements).

But because freedom of speech, as interpreted by Feinstein, is nothing more than a privilege granted to us by her and her ilk in Congress, she has taken steps to ensure that only those journalists sanctioned by the government will be protected by the new shield laws.

Read the whole thing.

Going one step further, Feinstein has outright said she does not believe bloggers to be ‘real reporters’ and seemingly believes the First Amendment does not apply to all citizens.  In short, Sen. Feinstein wants to regulate the right to free speech. This is Shutuppery on a breathtaking scale.


Most Shutuppery Transparent Administration Ever

Now consider the lengths to which this administration has gone after those who, according to Schumer and company, would likely be ‘real reporters’. The most transparent administration in history has a chilling record of employing Shutuppery when it comes to the press, including secretly pulling phone records and spying on them. One has to take pause when an administration is actively seeking to silence the media which has so ardently defended them over the last four years.

Reminder: By the way, the guy who made the YouTube video that didn’t cause Benghazi just got a year in jail.

Related Read: Free Speech In Obama’s America

Indeed, the President himself launched an assault on Bloggers back in October when the government Shut Down ended.  In his press conference, Obama employed Shutuppery, statingall of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict…

This from the man who never lets a good crisis go to waste.

Remember Obama’s verbal attack on bloggers when media shield comes back up and gov’t argues why it should decide who is a “journalist.”

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 17, 2013


@DLoesch That immediately came to mind the moment I heard what he said. #Shutuppery on the Federal Level. — LL1885 – A.P. Dillon (@LadyLiberty1885) October 17, 2013


Shutuppery On The State Level

A case to also consider, which hasn’t gotten a lot of attention is that of Jana Winter.  It would probably be naive to think there wasn’t any pressure being exerted from higher up on this case. Via Business Insider:

The 16-month saga of Fox News reporter Jana Winter is about to reach its boiling point on Tuesday, when the New York Court of Appeals will decide whether a New York state law protects Winter from revealing confidential sources in her reporting on accused Aurora, Colo., theater shooter James Holmes. 

On July 25, 2012, Winter wrote an exclusive story that detailed a chilling notebook Holmes mailed to a University of Colorado psychologist that was “full of details about how he was going to kill people.” That came before he allegedly killed 12 people and injured dozens in a shooting during a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” on July 20, 2012.

The problem is that the notebook wasn’t intended to be public, and the defense contends that its release is interfering with their ability to get a fair trial. They want her to testify at a hearing that would get to the bottom of who leaked the information in the notebook.

Now, the New York Court of Appeals’ decision as to whether Winter will be compelled to testify could have a profound effect on newsgathering and protections for journalists — all in the name of doing their job.

Update: Court rules Winters cannot be forced to reveal sources

Think about this. A reporter with supposed protections is now being railroaded because authorities couldn’t shake loose her sources on their own. The proposed Media Shield Law would make certain there was no struggle, because if they can already do this to Winter – a credentialed employee of FOX news – they can do it to anyone.

There’s a cottage industry working to label reporting and reporters that they wish to squelch as “controversial.” It’s a clever PR tactic… — Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) December 10, 2013

But as soon as they think you recognize it, they’ll change it up. People are getting paid a lot of money to work on these tactics.

— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) December 10, 2013


By the way, if you live in Maryland and are a reporter or blogger, starting in 2014 you will need to undergo an extensive background check if you are going to cover the General Assembly.  No, not kidding.

In conclusion, I refer back to the opening of this article and political correctness with a quote from Theodore Dalrymple:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

Or shorter: “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.” Charlton Heston 

It would follow that Shutuppery is tyranny without manners.  Anyway, just shut up.




A.P. Dillon (Lady Liberty 1885), is a Conservative minded wife and mother living in the Triangle area of North Carolina. A.P. Dillon founded the blog in 2009. After the 2012 election, she added an Instapundit style blog called The ConMom Blog. Mrs. Dillon’s writing can also be found at, WatchdogWireNC and WizBang. Non-political writing projects include science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished. Her current writing project is a children’s book series.

There were several kerfuffles that arose from yesterday’s Mandela memorial service the one that most worried the White House involved a photo with Raul Castro:

USA Today:

With a quick handshake, President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro whipped up a frenzy Tuesday that led many to wonder whether a shift is coming between the former Cold War nations.

NY Times:

The brief handshake was delivered with the world watching as Mr. Obama greeted leaders assembled to make remarks at the memorial service here for Nelson Mandela. But the image — captured by photographers and television cameras — instantly raised questions about its deeper meaning.


For those who believe in human rights and liberty, the sight of our president bounding up some stairs to energetically shake hands with Raul Castro, dictator of Cuba, was more than a little unsettling — regardless of the circumstance. But that’s what President Obama seemed to go out of his way to do at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service Tuesday. Although Castro has imprisoned American Alan Gross for four years now, CNN alternately applauded and made excuses for the handshake.

The Washington Post:

McCain said Obama should not have extended his hand to Castro.

“Of course not,” the senator said when asked. “Why should you shake hands with somebody who’s keeping Americans in prison? I mean, what’s the point?”

That’s when he added the Hitler comparison.

“Neville Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler,” he said, referring to the British prime minister’s infamous handshake with the German dictator as Britain was negotiating Germany’s takeover of the Sudentenland. The agreement paved the way for the spread of Germany’s military across Europe.

National Review:

The Castro brothers have been vying for the world to see a handshake with a U.S. president for over 50 years. (President Clinton did shake hands with Fidel at a U.N. summit in 2000, but there was no photo.) They knew it would represent a form of recognition, something they forfeited by virtue of presiding over a military dictatorship, and their support for violence and anti-American terrorist movements and governments on three continents.

and the BBC

White House aide Ben Rhodes told reporters the two exchanged nothing more substantive than a greeting.

The Cuban government said the gesture may show the “beginning of the end of the US aggressions”.

John Kerry was playing defense before congress

Those reactions might be way the administration is likely pleased with the obsessing over the president’s attempt to improve Anglo-American Relations with Denmark and the first lady’s attempt to improve the seating arrangements at the Mandela event.

In contrast Ted Cruz avoided both Selfies with attractive blond prime ministers and Raoul Castro 

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas walked out of the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Tuesday as Cuba’s President Raul Castro began speaking.

And his spokesman had this to say:

Senator Cruz very much hopes that Castro learns the lessons of Nelson Mandela. For decades, Castro has wrongly imprisoned and tortured countless innocents. Just as Mandela was released after 27 years in prison, Castro should finally release his political prisoners; he should hold free elections, and once and for all set the Cuban people free.

Hmmm. Cruz hit Castro for torturing innocents, and not holding free elections unlike Mandela.

I won’t be so conceited as to suggest he got this off my radio show or off my blog, I’ll simply note the following.

From December 2012 through November 2013 the three cities that produced the most hits for this blog were New York, Houston Texas…and Washington DC

Make of that what you will.