Tuesday, February 12, 2008

YAF at CPAC: Army of None

Brought to you by the Spartan Spectator, the blog of the Michigan State University (MSU) Young Americans for Freedom.

They don't seem to appreciate the irony.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments, Jason L. Van Dyke, Esq. [in cowboy hat], is not eligible to serve; therefore, this post does not apply to him personally, but to the group instead. We at OYE do thank Mr. Van Dyke for having stepped forward and applied to serve in our military. We wish him well and note his continued involvement in our great democracy. We apologize for any inconvenience.


At 12 February, 2008 22:15, Blogger Mad Man Mikey said...

This comment it totally off post, and I apologize for it. However, I thought it should be shared with all concerned parties.

Please see this article - http://cbs2chicago.com/local/wounded.heroes.foundation.2.650200.html to see how one company decided to support a critically wounded vet. Bless them for doing what they did!

At 12 February, 2008 22:16, Blogger Mad Man Mikey said...


was the correct address from the last post. Sorry!

At 12 February, 2008 22:57, Blogger robash141 said...

Regarding the YAF picture .

It is indeed unusual see that many dick-heads which are not attached to testicles.

At 12 February, 2008 23:25, Blogger Wek said...

Message to the green tie dude: Please return that suit to Shaq.

At 13 February, 2008 02:13, Blogger Robert Hamer said...

Well, if it's any consolation, none of these chicken shits are running our country (yet). Currently, John McCain - a true war hero - seems set to obtain the Republican nomination. Whether or not you agree with his platform, we can at least take comfort in the fact that the next Republican candidate for POTUS will not be a yellow elephant or a chickenhawk.

At 13 February, 2008 04:36, Blogger LT Nixon said...

The one chap with the stetson hat would make an excellent addition to some of the storied Cavalry regiments in the Army. The guy with the maroon Liberace-looking shirt would be an excellent Intelligence Officer based on his infiltration of the YAF. Sign up now, gents!

At 13 February, 2008 09:14, Anonymous YAF said...

You all are such fucking idiots. YAF and the Spartan Spectator are anti-war.

At 13 February, 2008 09:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah in all honesty I know all of the guys in that picture, and each one of them has done more for individual liberty than you bloggers likely have in your lives.

OYE: How does it feel to have nothing to show for your lives? The men in that picture have legacies of helping others, fighting left wing scum, and protecting western civilization from leftist thugism.

So we ask you: What have YOU ever done for free speech, western civilization and the common man???

The answer of course is nothing.

At 13 February, 2008 09:51, Blogger robash141 said...

"You all are such fucking idiots. YAF and the Spartan Spectator are anti-war"

Sure you are,

The dude with the hat kind of looks like Truman Capote.

I'm sure he's very stylish at all the anti -war protests.

At 13 February, 2008 10:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

R141, you are not worth the ink.

At 13 February, 2008 10:33, Blogger Joe Sylvester said...

You are an idiot. Over 1/2 of the people in the picture are militantly anti war. It's a conservative group, so you assume they are pro war? The joke is on you!

At 13 February, 2008 10:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a bunch of fine upstanding gents.

On the left of the front row, we have a wannabe pimp. Next to him is a guy who looks like the Nazi leader from Raiders of the Lost Ark. You know, the one who got burned up at the end. Next to him is Kyle Bristow sporting the clothing of a grandpa who can't properly dress - maroon shirt and disgusting tie complete.

In the back row on the left, we have the man who can't smile. It's best to look tough in pictures. He's surely contemplating when he can go beat up some jews and immigrants. Next to him is one of the few guys who dressed normal. Then we have Tyler Whitney. For a gay man, he sure doesn't know how to dress. He's sporting the "middle-aged man with a bad haircut " look. Then we have the three clones, two of which have a severe case of turkey-neck. I'm surprised that Joe Sylvester can even fit into a shirt much less button a collar.

And finally we have a man whose jacket doubles as a blanket. He completes the YAF look with a tie that stores should be fined for even selling.

And that completes Young Americans for Freedom. The group Bristow claims is the "largest and most active" conservative youth organization (highly doubtful).

At 13 February, 2008 11:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This picture just makes me laugh. All of these guys think that they're somehow defending western civilization or stopping the far-left.

The joke is on them. They're such a marginalized group of people and they'll never make the slightest impact. Even if they were normal and not viewed as extremists, they'd have no chance of changing or protecting anything. They think that bringing some speakers to a college campus "makes a difference," but in reality it doesn't do anything.

Of course they'll reply that at least they're "doing something" and "getting involved" instead of sitting around. Well, it's nice to add some self-worth to one's identity but they're really just harming themselves.

Conservative leaders always tell people to "get involved" and "help fight the left" but very few people ever have an impact on anything. Even a congressman can't do much - and we know that none of these guys have a chance in hell of ever being one.

To the guys in the picture, I suggest you stop playing petty activist and get a real job.

Anonymous said:

"each one of them has done more for individual liberty than you bloggers likely have in your lives."

Reeeaallly... Can you give me an example of how they have protected my liberty? What have they prevented from happening? How have they made me any better off? What have they done besides engage in petty protests and write blogs? They're more petty bottom-feeders who will work low-paid jobs and convince themselves that knowing someone with a recognizable name makes them important.

At 13 February, 2008 13:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, YAF is also an educational organization that helps young people become solid conservative leaders. These leaders go on to have a role in the political system. Each one of the people pictured will help others by protecting private property rights, limiting the size of government and contributing to a traditionally moral society.

In addition "YAF" uses media to ridicule and shut down the leftist agenda. That is important. Being notably leftist bloggers, the stopping of socialism may or may not be important to you. However what matters is that socialism diminishes productivity, freedom, and happiness--and we work against that agenda as forces of good.

So, instead of blaming us for not joining the military to fight a war that few of us support, why not be constructive and thank us for our service at home?

Besides, what have you Yellow Bloggers down for liberty lately? Those College Republicans you pick on are just YAF-wannabes. They only wish they could be as effective. But why do you hate people? Why do you snivel in dark corners? You know what i think?

I think you need Jesus.

At 13 February, 2008 13:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the above commenter:

If you believe that any of those pictured above has done anything to protect liberty or "stop socialism," then you are seriously immature or delusional.

Giving someone a megaphone and letting them shout about "left wing scum" and other "threats" does absolutely nothing. It makes them just another petty activist that nobody really cares about.

None of those people pictured above has any real influence on politics. None of them ever will. None of the organizations that they've worked for does either.

What you people miss is that the only people who really have the power to make things happen are those with large amounts of income and deference. YAF and its members have neither.

If they really wanted to become influential, they would focus on obtaining high positions in business, law, and other careers that serve as launching pads for powerful political positions. Instead, many of them are going to end up in low-paid positions. Others will end up at crappy non-profits that act more important than they actually are (leadership institute, etc).

I don't know how to communicate this any clearer. None of these people (or most political workers and activists for that matter) will have any influence. Even many congressmen don't have the ability to make things happen. Working in politics doesn't make one important. It's fun to go on TV and get mentioned in the media, but all of that is really quite petty and meaningless.

And to the above commenter, YAF doesn't use the media to "shut down the leftist agenda." When was the last time YAF shut down their agenda? Bringing Chris Simcox to speak and then talking about it on Fox News didn't do anything. It didn't shut down anyone's agenda. It was an event with some unruly protesters and made for an entertaining story. That's it.

YAF and its members have a tendency to equate controversy and media coverage with success. It probably never occurred to them that they may just annoy the hell out of people and that the media thinks it's an entertaining story.

At 13 February, 2008 14:08, Blogger LT Nixon said...

they would focus on obtaining high positions in business, law, and other careers that serve as launching pads for powerful political positions.

Don't forget, you could always consider a career in the military. That way you could jump on the team for the big win. Give it a think!

At 13 February, 2008 14:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Few things amuse me more than conservative college students, a demographic that is more reliant on government handouts that virtually any other. I wonder how many of the baby Republicans in the above picture are benefitting from communist Pell grants and socialist Stafford loans. The fact that they attend Michigan STATE University is itself telling. If these kids really want to be true conservatives, they should refuse all government financial aid and they should either transfer to a private university or else inform the financial aid office at MSU that they want to pay the full unsubsidized tuition amount.

At 13 February, 2008 16:02, Blogger Joe Sylvester said...

Still missing the point. Most of those people pictured are anti war. You are more interested in a cheap shot than the truth.

At 13 February, 2008 16:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't we take government monies either.... ;)

At 13 February, 2008 18:26, Blogger robash141 said...

Ah Joe You might not ever make it to big time politics but you have a great deal in common with your ideological bretheren in high office.
when you pushed you resort to lying .

I'm sure a lot of these dudes were all for the war and Bush when it was popular .
Now that your boy has tanked in the polls you've change your mind?.

I know Mantova was recently pretty bullish on the idea of invading Iran


To my knowledge, he has never pubically renounced this position.

At 13 February, 2008 19:32, Blogger OYE said...


Wow. Thanks for all the comments.

If the YAF at MSU really wants to lead, they'll demonstrate such qualities to the American people.

Military service, while one is young enough to serve, is an excellent way to learn real leadership, and to demonstrate to the American people one's commitment to our country.

After all, nobody can lead anyone without the led agreeing to follow.

While this blog has not taken a position on the war, we sincerely doubt that YAF at MSU has joined, say, Code Pink. If the group has taken a position on this issue, or updated it since 2003, we welcome a link(s).

At 13 February, 2008 19:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've defended myself on this blog before. I am the one in the cowboy hat pictured center. As for a real job, I practice law in Dallas, TX. As for military service I think I made that clear in my last post here. I have applied for military service. On at least three separate occasions. I applied to and was accepted to several military colleges (prior to 9/11), including Citadel. I did not attend because I was seriously injured by a drunk driver while riding my motorcycle. I have steel from hip to knee in my left leg and was told by the military that such an injury made me ineligible. Following 9/11 I attempted again to join the military believing the attack would loosen the requirements. It did not. I applied for an exemption and it was denied. Finally, while in law school, I applied for J.A.G. on the basis that although my leg had metal in it that it would not affect my ability to serve and that I would be able to pass the military fitness test. I was again denied on medical grounds and that time I did not apply for an exemption.

Before you people run your mouth, perhaps you should realize that some of us wanted to serve but were inhibited from doing so due to circumstances beyond their control. Granted, riding a motorcycle can be dangerous, but it was not me that chose to drink and get behind the wheel of a car that night.

As for the rest of those pictured, they are all close friends who have devoted a great deal of their time to defending liberty. Nearly all of those pictured are against the war in Iraq and have a view of conservatism that calls for restrained spending by the federal government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a strong national defensive through purely defensive measures such as secure borders and missile defense rather than invasions of foreign powers.

The original person who posted this has no idea what he is talking about. Those who responded clearly had nothing of substance to say except perhaps on men's style. To those who believe my sense of style is dated, I plead nolo contendere.

At 13 February, 2008 21:42, Blogger robash141 said...

Well one guy is off the hook I suppose.Jason,if what he writes is true,does have a legitimate excuse for avoiding military service.

one down, nine to go.

However, I might add right wingers very good at making spurious guilt-by-association innuendos against their political opponents.

I know a lot of these fellows seem like pretty strong Mitt Romney guys.
From what I saw, Mitt's Iraq position was indistinguishable from Bush and the Neo-Cons. How can they reconcile their personal "anti-war" beliefs while aggressively supporting a pro war candidate such as Romney?

Just curious Jason, what was it that turned you against the war in Iraq?

If Jason is upset about people mistaking him for a yellow elephant he should choose his friends in a more judicious manner.
For example I don't hang out with tweekers because I find them reprehensible would never want to associate myself with their kind of behavior, perhaps Jason can make the same pledge with regards to yellow elephants

At 14 February, 2008 08:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was never "turned" against the Iraq war - I thought it was a bad idea from the beginning. If the war is on terror, I thing we ought to be fighting terrorists. By that, I mean we secure our own country against them and then, to the extent necessary, use special forces type units, assassins, or other smaller units with specialized knowledge to go after the most dangerous targets. There is no need to use a sledge hammer to kill a mosquito.

As for Romney, I have been a Tancredo and a Paul supporter in the past election. I looked at the candidates who were, overall, the most conservative. In supporting a particular candidate I did not look at any singular issue - including the Iraq war. The way I see it, if I decide to cast a vote for McCain in this election, I will not be voting "for" McCain - but against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

As for my friends, I find your comment comparing my friends to tweekers absolutely reprehensible. I would take a bullet for anyone in that picture.

At 14 February, 2008 10:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

McCain's son Jimmy who's serving as an Infantryman in the Marines has justs arrived home safe with his unit!

At 14 February, 2008 12:45, Blogger robash141 said...

Perhaps the tweeker analogy was not a good one because most tweeks never intended to get hoplessly strung out are more often pathetic than dangerous.

Yellow elephants are more like the meth dealers who peddle toxic ideas rather than toxic chemicals in order to promote themselves and turn a quick buck.

One could say lots of of negative things about meth dealers but you can't claim that they are communist.
They, like the yellow elelphants of YAF are all about unregulated free enterprise regardless of the consequenses.
and Jason forgive me if i take your mach psuedo military bluster with a grain of salt. you do belong to three highly suspicious demographics.
Not all Republicans are full of shit, but a lot of them are.
not all lawyers full of shit but lots of them are
and not all Texans are full of shit but lots of them are.
However even if you are indeed worthy of being taken at your word
it is doubtful that the Yelloe Elephants would reciprocate the favor.

At 14 February, 2008 13:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd trust many of those pictured with my life as well.

At 14 February, 2008 18:49, Blogger robash141 said...

It is indeed a rather sad commentary on this crew of self styled "Super Patriots" that their the point man and most decorated military hero of the group is a guy who washed out before joining because he couldn't pass the physical.

You'd think that it might make them a little more humble.

At 14 February, 2008 20:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you claim that you made an honest attempt to enlist but couldn’t because of injuries you suffered, I for one believe you. I also appreciate the fact that the YAF, being more libertarian than conservative, is generally anti-war. However, you have to admit that it looks pretty bad for you Republicans that your side has so many young, healthy, military-age, pro-war Republicans who offer up nothing but lame excuses when asked why they haven’t enlisted, and it also looks pretty pathetic when so many Vietnam-era conservatives were AWOL during Vietnam. It is also frustrating when anti-war activists who are veterans, like myself, have our patriotism questioned by people who did not and will not serve. May I suggest that you anti-war conservatives and Republicans might try to do a better job making an anti-war case using conservative principles, and make it clear than not all anti-war people are burned out 60s hippie rejects who hate America?

At 14 February, 2008 23:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree completely that anti-war conservatives should make a better case against the war using conservative principles and I do reject the now oft-cited notion that those who are against our involvement in Iraq are unpatriotic. My position on this is somewhat of a moderate because, although I do not believe we should be involved in the war, I think we need to support the troops who have no real say in the matter.

The conservative position of a strong national defense and a principled position against the war are not, in any way, mutually exclusive. War is a matter of foreign policy and, as the original poster noted, those pictured are part of MSU-YAF. The Sharon Statement clearly states the standard by which foreign policy is to be judged and I do not believe that our current Iraq policy meets that criteria. National defense is a domestic issue and I completely support using military force in a defensive role to protect the people of the United States. By this, I mean the development of an effective ABM shield, a secure border, and the absolute minimal use of the military against foreign powers. The current policy is an expensive, "shotgun approach" to terrorism. I would focus on a fiscally responsible "rifle shot" approach that, among other things, would not involve invasions of foreign powers. My approach is what would be referred to as a "paleo-conservative" approach - more along the lines of Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis - than the "neo-conservative" approach of both Bushes, of McCain, and of most of the former 2008 GOP hopefuls.

Finally, keep in mind that there is more to the Republican party - and certainly to the conservative movement - than war. The Iraq war is something many people see as a symptom a much larger problem: an over-bloated central government on a spending spree and a power trip. Core principles in the conservative movement are small government and individual liberty - two things not easily preserved when a republic transforms itself into an empire.

I am wholly uninspired by the remaining 2008 candidates - with the exception of Ron Paul. But I will vote in 2008 for whichever candidate I feel will work the hardest to reduce the size of government and the amount of wasteful spending we have at the federal level. Hopefully, future candidates will re-categorize "wasteful spending" to include foreign ventures that are not in the best interests of the American people.

At 15 February, 2008 00:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason L. Van Dyke, Esq. said, "...Iraq war - I thought it was a bad idea from the beginning."

By his own political party's definition, he is criticizing the commander in chief in time of war and is has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy all this time. I wonder how he sleeps at night?

At 15 February, 2008 00:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It always seemed to me that the only real difference between right-libertarians such as yourself and left-libertarians like me is that your side tends to trust big business a little more than my side does, while my side is a bit more likely to acknowledge that government does do some good things. For example, do I want government to inspect food and medicine? Yep. Do I want the government to provide educational opportunities to lower-income students who have the grades, intelligence, and work ethic--but not the money--to go to college? I sure do. Oh, and call me a Marxist if you must, but I also like libraries, roads, and fire departments. :)

Still, I sometimes think the two wings of libertarianism should get together more often; we could probably get a lot done if we did.

Finally, have you read the book “Crunchy Cons” by Rod Dreher? If not, check it out. I enjoyed it and I’ll bet you would as well.

At 15 February, 2008 05:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Take a bullet for these guys?" Why would anybody be shooting at them? They've indicated they have no intention of serving in the military.

At 15 February, 2008 09:40, Blogger robash141 said...

I will give Jason some credit he at least tried to sign up.
And he did explain his position on the war as well, so good for him.

Where he makes his mistake is in continuing to defend his craven buddies.

I don't really believe they are against the war.

It's simply the latest rhetorical obfuscation.

I Don't see any evidence of their "militantly anti war".positions .They seem like typical young Republicans while they are out tub thumping for pro-war candidates like Romney and Tacredo indulging in strident BOOYA BUSH! rhetoric

It's time for Jason's pals to speak up and account for themselves. If they are such upstanding fellows of good .character ,like Jason claims, then they should be capable of Speaking for themselves.

At 18 February, 2008 13:27, Blogger Doppelganger said...

I think you need Jesus.

Yeah, it did wonders for W.

At 18 February, 2008 13:29, Blogger Doppelganger said...

I see many peopel refer to McCain as a "war hero."

I'm not sure why. A hero is one of these fellows:


Getting shot down and captured does nto seem to be enough to be considered a 'war hero' to me.

At 19 February, 2008 22:29, Blogger robash141 said...

Well perhaps McCain doesn't seem that heroic when compared to the almost superhuman standards of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.

However the guy did endure a great deal on behalf of our country when he was a POW. If people want to refer to him as a military hero then I have no problem with that.

McCain is no longer in the Military . Politics is his business these days.

Mr "Keating Five" McCain is certainly no political hero in my estimation.

At 19 February, 2008 22:29, Blogger Icarus said...

doppleganger. He's a hero to me because instead of taking the enemy's offer of an early trip home he chose to stay with his fellow prisoners.

You see, months after he was shot down, his father became the Commander of Pacific Command whose jurisdiction included the Vietnam War. The enemy heard this and they wanted to offer him an early release so they could say "The Code of Conduct is bullshit. The son of an Admiral gets to go home, etc."

John McCain could have gone home but he stayed and endured 5 years of tortures and beatings. That's why he's a hero.

And John McCain got shot down on his 23rd combat mission. He asked to be assigned to Vietnam. He volunteered to serve on the USS Oriskany after the Forrestal fire incident. He's brave and honorable. That's why he's a hero.

At 20 February, 2008 15:07, Blogger Doppelganger said...

All points to ponder, but I still don't personally consider him a 'war hero.'

It was honorable that he declined an early release, it was honorable that he volunteered and all, but there were many people who volunteered for combat duty. There were many pilots that flew far more than 23 missins (John Glenn, for example, flew 149 combat missions in 2 wars that he volunteered to go to).

I am not trying to go Coulter on McCain, I just think that playing up his "hero" status is a bit hackneyed.

At 21 February, 2008 18:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To call McCain a hero is an overstatement. It sucks that he spent time in a POW camp but that's just a casualty of war. It happens. Sure he could have left earlier, but he fulfilled his duty as a soldier and didn't use political connections to secure an early release. Good for him, but not heroic.

A hero is someone who saves lives or dies while trying to do something brave.

People too often confuse the job description of soldiers with heroism. I think that rather degrades the meaning of the term. It turns it into something automatically acquired.

At 21 February, 2008 18:31, Blogger Karl said...

Let's just say that Sen. McCain has served his country/our nation with honor and courage, and leave it at that.

At 22 February, 2008 01:37, Blogger robash141 said...

McCain on his worst day is vastly more heroic than broke-dick Jason,Don't ask don't tell Tyler, Manly Mantova and all the other YAF clowns put together.

At 22 February, 2008 11:04, Blogger Icarus said...

I'm not trying to deify Sen. McCain. I just admire him, that's all.

At 22 February, 2008 23:23, Blogger robash141 said...

True enough Icarus, McCain does have some admirable qualities and some not-so-admirable ones as well. I'm sure we will be hearing quite a bit more about each in the months to come.

However, I will say this about McCain anyone who can inspire such visceral loathing from wingnut talk radio yowlers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingrahm and Coulter must have something going for him.

At 23 February, 2008 10:13, Blogger Icarus said...

That is why the New York Times article was a godsend for McCain because it's rallying conservatives to McCain. People think that if the NY Times is attacking McCain then he must not be that bad after all.

At 23 February, 2008 11:47, Blogger robash141 said...

Perhaps that's true.

Or it may just be campaign year spin.

Because the NY times story highlights McCains allegedly improper relationships with a lobbyist.

This is a direct contradiction of his "straight talkin" reformer image.

For every right wing extremist vote he picks up he might lose two moderate votes from people who begin to see McCain as just another Tom Delayesque influence peddler.

Right wingers , although they love to pretend otherwise, are just a small but very noisy minority in this country.

Plus the Yellow Elephant wing will never vote for McCain because they are scared shitless that he may re-institute the draft


Post a Comment

<< Home