Brain Power

Comments in a conversation considering the contrast between Conservatism and Libertarianism.

You don't find THIS level of discussion on Democratic Underground!

_______________________________________

Stuart Koehl| 2.28.13 @ 7:44AM

Libertarianism is an ideology; conservatism is a "disposition". Libertarians live according to a set of abstract ideals (as do all ideologues) and build sandcastles in the air. Real conservatism, on the other hand, recognizes human society as a messy organic construct and are loathe to interfere with long-standing social institutions that have withstood the test of time. Libertarians trust to their own wisdom in all things, while conservatives defer to the wisdom of our ancestors. True conservatives do not mindlessly imitate the past, nor do they worship the past, but they recognize continuity with the past and are not willing to sever those connections in the name of an untested intellectual construct that does not take cognizance of the frailty of human nature.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 9:37AM

Can't say I agree with the idea of contrasting "abstract ideals" with concrete life. America was founded on abstract ideas as opposed to status quo traditionalism. However, the fathers would no doubt agree with Locke that one doesn't change things on the basis of light and transient causes, so they would also accept the value of continuity.
I think we have to distinguish among libertarians. Many libertarians are okay with public morality while others are little more than anarchists (cf. Lew Rockwell et al.). Mises would not have agreed with Rothbard's anarchism and even said Rothbard's mind had gone to pot on foreign policy issues. Hayek definitely would not have agreed with the Rothbard or Rockwell versions of libertarianism.
Lincoln spoke of the abstract truths of the Declaration. By that he meant the truths of the Declaration were universal, applicable to all for all time. In touting continuity, tradition, and concrete life, we should never forget that without abstract truths, ancestralism can often be the basis of much oppression, as Lincoln well knew.


http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/28/are-libertarianspansies#commentcontainer


________________________________________

I THOUGHT I was a libertarian. But I might be a Libertarian Conservative...

/Gunslinger

Conservative as Adjective or Noun

Restate makes the point:

You cannot tell me that freedom does not sell in New England. Conservatives fight for freedom. Republicans fight for Republicanism, but I have no freaking clue what that actually means any more.

In Noun vs Adjective, Erick Erickson makes the distinction between being conservative and being "a Conservative".

One is one attribute (presumably among many); one is a defining identity.

W tended to be conservative, but no one who has a clue would ever suggest he was "A Conservtive".

We better be able to make that distinction as we go into the 2010 elections.

The Gunslinger, EOTIS
Para Bellum

Senate Conservatives Fund

Senate Conservatives Fund seems like it might be a good idea as an alternative to the GOP Senate Committee...who gives us people like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter and random other Liberal worms because they happen to have an "R" after their name.

The Gunslinger
Enemy of the Liberal Imperial State

Another Bad Week for the 'Bamster

Van Jones, Anti-Chavez protests all over Latin America, and now this.

It's just not been a good week for the Øbamassiah.

His most recent idiotic move to propagandize school kids has blown up in his face. Look, no one minds the idea of the POTUS giving kids a pep talk about staying in school, and dreaming big and all that, but as usual, the 'Bamster couldn't keep politics out of it.

It pays to remember that the only real job Øbama has ever has is as a campaigner. He's never really DONE any jobs, he's only ACQUIRED them. He runs, he wins, he starts running for the next one.

He simply doesn't know how to have a conversation not peppered with self-promotion.

And he brought that anti-value to his little chat with our kids.

And he got SO busted.

I feel in a way that the tables have been turned (for the moment) against this tidal-wave of a "president". For months it seems every time we turned around, he was assaulting us with a new program, a new appointment, a new bill, a new policy, a new announcement...a virtual parade of outrages that came at us so fast we could not keep up.

And lately it's rather turned back on him. He's paying defense suddenly...and not very well. The good guys are moving down the field, and his line is folding. As I say, for the moment.

I hardly dare hope this momentum continues...but I'm certainly enjoying the spectacle while it lasts.

Of course Reuters, that ever accurate and perfectly unbiased new service, has this to say on the subject:

Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools. [emphasis mine]

I suppose it's nice to know there is one thing you can always count on in this messy, unpredictable world.

Here's Politico's report on the same story.

The Gunslinger, E.O.T.I.S.

A Warning From Africa

Perhaps the "tribal" behavior so many of our "betters" despise, rather that being the death of Africa as our elites insist, might have been its savior—if it had managed to muster resistance against the elitist Left, over-educated destroyer barbarians that have taken the entire continent down the road to perdition.

Perhaps "Tribal" loyalty, pride and honor isn't such a bad idea after all.

Perhaps clinging to our "Tribal" culture with courage,  in the face of the derision and persecution by the Neo-Colonialists is the only way to defeat them here.

L. E. Ikenga has some advice.

The Gunslinger

Enemy of the Imperial State (EOTIS)

Clinging to her Tribal Culture

Ûlfhednar (Wolf Clan)

Prognosis - Not Good

Maybe this is overkill, but I think this guy is right. It really is that bad.

blackelkspeaks:

I have perused the Internet with especial interest since Sarah Palin's announcement last Friday. I have noted that many of the "conservative" blogs that I frequent (Powerline, Hot Air, American Spectator, National Review, et. al.) and other venues (FOX, etc.) have found no end of fault with her decision and action.

In reading and hearing the "conservative" punditocracy bloviate and palaver on this event (Goldberg, Krauthammer, Hinderaker, Noonan, Parker, etc.) I could not help but notice that the same gang of intellectualoid asshats that foisted Rudy McRomney on the Republican base last year continues to do their repugnant dirty work to dishearten and destroy whatever remains of the conservative movement. In my mind, these east coast belt-way "elites", the sneering and sniveling representatives of the Ivy-league mentality, are truly blind to the damage their idiocy has done and is doing to this country.

Although they label themselves "conservatives", in my mind they are no better than the worst statist Democrat, and, in truth, are made worse by the malevolent harm they do as a fifth-column that operates within conservative circles. If these jackasses believe that the future of the Republican Party is in the hands of abject charlatans like the specially priveleged, Democrat-fellow traveler, mush-. mouthed RINO, Rudy McRomneys of this country, then last November's election will truly constitute the death of American liberty, as the Republicans will likely lose any future election.

Sarah Palin was, and is, middle America's attempt to return this government to its Constitutional roots and to prevent our unravelling and degeneration into a Marxist tyranny.

It may, indeed, be time to consider the possibility that this country cannot be saved and will likely be torn apart into enclaves of liberty and hell-holes of tyranny. The future could very well be a separation, with those who value liberty rallying around the Sarah Palins in the red states against the enemies of freedom in the blue states.

And by enemies of freedom, I include the "conservative" intellectualoids who are too downright stupid to see what is as plain as the nose on their face. That is, the slickly marketed but squishily repugnant Rudy McRomney types that they find so appealing will NEVER get the average American's loyalty or commitment.

In fact, I'd rather these "conservative" SOBs (Powell, McCain, etc.) just get it over with and declare themselves Democrats outright. Better to see the enemy starkly identified, than to see so many of those in the conservative cause confused about their true nature.

Do you feel it? The Republican Party may already be Dead Man Walking. Their pedestrian analysis and understanding is so lacking in imagination. I don't think they feel the seismic shift. They are missing their moment.

With a lying, criminal Marxist in office ruining the country before our eyes—the Republicans squat at a cauldron, eating their own.

One word: Darwin.

Blackelkspeaks responds to some Sarah hate:

Siegfried X wrote: "The thing to notice is that no one dares to defend Sarah Palin here. They keep changing the subject to irrelevant topics like Barack Obama and socialism. I don't blame them for being afraid to try to defend Sarah Palin. I admit that I couldn't defend her either, because there is no defense possible. "

Brother, you are as wrong as can be! My post was a direct defense of her decision and action! She explained her position very clearly in her speech. And I find no fault with her position and do not assume, as the punditocracy automatically did, that she has no political future henceforth because of some asinine template of protocol proffered by our corrupt political class.

The fact is the beltway punditry is so cynical, jaded, and twisted that they couldn't, or wouldn't, take her statements at face value. Being the mind-blown liars that they themselves are, they chose to misinform, mislead, and speculate on all manner of machinations behind her decision than accept what she clearly stated. Herein lies the problem. When you, yourself (like the beltway punditry of both parties) are essentially mendacious propagandists, you have to contort yourself into a pretzel to shoehorn events to fit your warped perspective. Like Goebbels himself, every statement must be pathologized to fit your sick vision of "how the world works".

The Bible says, "Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Anything else is of Satan."

What more is there to say?

The Gunslinger

Can I Make a Suggestion?

Every time the GOP hits you up for money, say "Sorry, NO", and tell them you will donate to SARAH PAC instead, and "thanks for the reminder, I haven't send this month's donation in yet!"

And tell them you'll be working to get every Republican...as well as every Democrat incumbent thrown out of office in 2010, because the Republicans are just as arrogant, distant, corrupt and Imperial as the vile Democrats. And because they're more worried about their jobs and their popularity in the DC Swamp than they are about their constituents or their country.

Tell them we're sick to death of spineless pseudo-conservatives, who talk the talk on the campaign, but don't walk the walk when the chips are down.

Tell them we're not fucking moderates and we won't support Democrat-Lite masquerading as "Republicans". I'm looking at YOU Newt Gingrich and John McCAin! And I mean, is ANYONE less exciting that Mitt Romney? By all means, let's have another Bob Dole moment.

And that until they purge the party of Progressives, they can count us, and our support, and our votes, OUT!

Remember, the latest hit piece on Sarah Palin, in Vanity Fair, was fueled by John McCain's campaign.

As a reader at American Thinker opined:

"...how long before the CONSERVATIVE CANNIBALS come crawling out of the woodwork in force? Those who call themselves Conservatives, those who tell you how much they respect Sarah Palin, and those who then drag out a laundry list as long as their arm telling you all the many reasons why she's a worthless, ignorant pile of trash?

Conservative Cannibalism.

Beware. With "friends" like this, we don't need enemies.

Let's not be battered Republicans, staying with an abusive party who we keep hoping will change if we just "love" them enough!

And finally:

"I could see the horse, but I could not see the rider. Now I can see the rider, and she has red shoes on!"

The Gunslinger

Sun Tzu vs Saul Alinsky

We've been dealing with at this all wrong.

The current Progressive Thugs have a mentor: Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals)

I suggest we adopt one too: Sun Tzu (The Art of War)

We've been using a frontal attack against a superior force. We've told the truth. We've signaled our intentions and strategy. We've stayed rigid rather than flexible and refused to adapt to the new battlefield.

We're acting like Lee at Gettysburg. And we're getting slaughtered. We're losing because our battle plan sucks.

Time to rethink this mess.

The Gunslinger

Here Come the Goons...

Andrew McCarthy has declined an invitation extended to him by Eric Holder to participate in the "President's Task Force on Detention Policy".

His letter to the "Attorney General" explaining why is astounding in its clarity and courage.

This, my friends, is an real example of that expression over-used by liberal ninnies and other Moonbats: "Speaking Truth to Power".

Here is a column written by Andrew McCarthy, about his decision.

Here is THE LETTER. I copied it entire from this webpage, because the page is not a dedicated page, and I want a permanent copy:

Andrew C. McCarthy
May 1, 2009
(to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,
Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

What can one say? My hero.

I hope he's got "protection".

The Gunslinger

Republican Useful Idiots

Boy, Redstate has this one right.

So, Any Other Republican Studs Care to Besmirch Rush? by E. Pluribus Unum

"You wanted to believe because you stand for nothing.

All moderates stand for nothing."

This is what happens when principles are not the foundation of your politics. You become a slobbering lap dog of the Government Media Complex.

And yet...Moderates are forever bragging that they decide everything on a "case by case" basis, as though that's a more thoughtful, intelligent position. And if you don't think about it very long, it can actually sound reasonable.

But what it really means is that they have no core, no standard against which to measure competing arguments, so they almost always get taken in by the fanciest oratory...the best rhetorician.

I'm looking at you, David Brooks.

It's time Conservatives purge the Party...or leave it.

The Gunslinger

National Divorce

One of those cool emails. The question is, did he write it as a "joke", or is it the germ of a good solution for our irretrievably divided nation? Most people may consider it unthinkable today.

I wonder what they'll think after a couple of years of Obama.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama, supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.

I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges, ACORN and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

Resistance Is NOT Futile

This is exactly why I was saying we cannot shut up. We cannot pause for a moment in our accusation, our outrage, our revelations of the Truth about Zero and the Democrats.

Rachel Alexander is exactly right. If we don't keep everybody's feet to the fire. If we don't consistently and relentlessly point out the miserable failings and damage and lies and horrors and disincentives and destruction and downright evil of the Magical-Mystery Bill...every day, all day long, until it becomes the cultural meme...

...the Democrats and their repulsive "face" Barack Obama, will GET AWAY WITH IT.

And they will be trying every moment of every day to spin any sign of good news as a direct result of the the Dark Lord's Spending Spree. On that you can rely. God may abandon His heaven. The Angels may fall into oblivion. But the Democrats will never stop spinning facts and distorting truth to serve their agenda.

To do nothing is choose evil.

One is either a Warrior for Light or a slouching minion in the Army of Darkness.

One is either a Sovereign Citizen* or a drone in the Borg collective.

You choose. Neutrality is not an option.

The Gunslinger

*The people who use this term are the nut-job, tin-foil hat, conspiracy theorist kooks, who think the Federal Government is out to get us, that it is not following the Constitution, that it passes laws that are illegal and wildly beyond its Constitutional limitations, that it abrogates our rights at its whim, and seeks to enslave us. In other words, they are me. **

**Oh, get over the grammar issues. Any other formulation is worse, trust me, I tried them all.

GS

Leonides' Microphone

Wow. Sean Hannity just became my hero. I took a smoke break, and tuned in. He was on a total rant...against an as yet unidentified senator....

[UPDATE: Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan]

He was roaring about the the Democrats' move to silence talk radio, their power grab, their plan for dictatorial power, their disregard for Freedom of Speech...and he threw down with the challenge..."If you want this microphone, Senator, you're going to have to come a take it!"

"Molon Labe!"

Holy Crap.

He continues with, "The battle has begun!"

Good on the boy.

The Gunslinger

Credit Where Credit is Due

Holy Crap!

EVERY. SINGLE. REPUBLICAN. MEMBER. of the House of Representatives voted against the Leftist Wet-Dream Spending Spree described as a "stimulus" package!

Okay, I'm shining up my Republican decoder ring. I'm very proud of them. The House switchboard number is 202-224-3121. They are going to get accused of being "obstructionists" and "partisan" and "divisive" by the Democrats, by Zero, by the Slobbering Media. Let's give them a friendly word.

Not such a "unifier" after all, I guess, is our boy Zero.

The Gunslinger

Call Me "Cynic"

Christopher Orlet writes: A Necessary Wisdom for American Spectator. It's a good piece about why cynicism is good and necessary, and really means someone who sees and therefore can speak the truth...not a mean old pessimist...and I recommend reading it. But even better is the comment by Pat, quoted in part here:

"...Particularly adept at this group immersion are black urban churchgoers - so Obama has an historic sensitivity to cynics and their disruptive effects. Cynics aren't good at saying "Amen" at the right time and don't enjoy swaying in time with others, plus they tend to tell off color jokes to the choir ladies at the church breakfast. Left unchecked, a cynic can break the mood everyone is working so hard to achieve - and once the mood is broken, it's very hard to re-establish.

To a dedicated Mood Swayer, like President Obama, cynics, left to work their evil, can easily destroy the national mood and affect his chances for re-election. With our immense wealth, Americans can live within the dream state quite easily, only rarely surfacing and only if harsh reality forcibly intrudes. For our president, keeping Americans living the dream is ultimately the key to his political success."

He captures the somewhat fragile dreamlike emotional state of the ZerObots perfectly...and why, cynics, those truth-seers and truth-tellers who disturb the still waters and threaten to awaken the dreamers are so dangerous to Zero and his acolytes—and must be exiled.

It clicked as true immediately.

Readers and commenter are so dang smart!

The Gunslinger

Trash vs Class

Letter to the Editor, Patriot Post:

"My family had the privilege and blessing of being on the Mall when President Reagan's horse-drawn caisson and coffin, slowly came up Constitution Avenue to lie in state at the Capitol. What a thrilling spectacle! The large numbers of people lining Constitution Avenue were incredibly courteous and friendly. The remarkable thing about this huge crowd was how tidy it was. Every trash receptacle was overflowing, however, there was no litter. All the overflow trash was neatly stacked around the full bins. On the other hand, the litter on the mall after Obama's coronation does not surprise me. The two crowds are very different dimensions of America. One crowd was very sensitive to its personal duty of stewardship, and the other was a crowd of socialists who believe in letting someone else clean up after it. This is classic and predictable." --Sacramento, California

The Gunslinger

Rush Responds

Here is Rush's response to Zero's zing referenced in my post Dazed and Confused.

Contrary to those of the Sun King and his posse, Rush's remarks are consistent, well thought out, intelligent, articulate and...well...in compliance with reality.

The Gunslinger

Things Are Not Always What They Seem...

I just found this at Scipio's place:

"I could not resist writing this entirely superfluous post. The inspiration came from the superb Gunslinger’s Journal. If you want red meat, patriotic conservatism, not the squishy, namby-pamby soft-gutted, gooey gruel that passes for much of it these days, that’s the place to be. The guy who runs that place would be good in a bar fight."

I take it as a compliment.

Thanks, Scipio.

The Gunslinger

Left vs Right

Dennis Prager puts to rest the naive notion that all Americans have the same vision for our country, and that we can "come together" and overcome "divisiveness".

"For these and other reasons, calls for a unity among Americans that transcends left and right are either naive or disingenuous. America will be united only when one of them prevails over the other. The left knows this. Most on the right do not. "

Let us on the Right....learn that Obama and the Left's notion of "unity" is wiping us off the map.

We have been warned.

The Gunslinger