A Word To The Willful

Brent Bozell, in the Washington Post, of all placed, seeks to explain to McCain what he must do to earn the help and votes of Jeffersonian Liberals (Conservatives).

He suggests bold policy statements that will ruffle D.C. feathers...so I don't expect McClinton will listen. He's too busy hushing anyone who says Obie's middle name.

I wish the Republicans good luck with their Brass Boy. And I wonder if they'll ever learn that they cannot win by pandering to, or acting like, the Socialists (Liberals).

The Gunslinger

Oathbreaker

OK. Seriously.

I would not want my previous several posts to be seen as any sort of softening of my utter contempt for Hillary Clinton.

Especially coupled with my vow to vote for her against John McCain, that traitor,
for strategic reasons that I hoped would benefit the Conservative agenda.

And I hate like hell to revoke an oath.

But there is no way in hell I can vote for Barack Obama.

Obama and his cult are so creepy and scary that I even have to vote for McCain rather than give a virtual vote to Obama by voting for a third party candidate—"throwing away my vote".

Hillary has really let me down.

I'm going to have to vote for red-faced Micki-Cee in spite of everything, because Obama must be stopped from becoming President of the United States.

Damn. Damn. Damn.

The Gunslinger

Thank You Mr. Wise Republican, Sir

Here's some typical Wall Street Journal condescending bullshit. Robert McFarlane presumes to lecture Conservatives about their stance on McCain, as though we had not considered all the implications.

Oh WOW! Gosh, Mr. McFarlane, I hadn't thought of National Security or the War on Terrorism, or of the Economy.

I'm so friggn' grateful you pointed them out. I was just planning to vote against McCain because I don't like his puffy red-faced grimace. I had no idea our country was facing such critical issues!

I just talk out my ass about this stuff for the fun of hearing how it affects the sound of my voice.

I don't actually think about it at all. I can't thank you enough for sharing your great and wonderful wisdom. I'll be sure and do just what you tell me.

Right.

God, what a fuckin' typical Party Hack. "Vote Republican or die."

I feel like a "nigger on the plantation"—they think they own us. If we take exception to their Principle-abandonment and Ideal-betrayal for the sake of winning, they treat us like recalcitrant, dull children—or try to whip us into behaving.

These c**ks**kers are getting as bad as the Democrats. To them it is all about Party Power and Party Politics, and who has the "R" after their name.

Principles?

I'd be surprised if they can spell it.

The Gunslinger

Our Best Last Hope?

This came to me via email. I have not fact-checked it. It seems generally correct.

But I don't present it as specific facts that can be used to hammer Hillary. No, I have a larger mission. I bring it, rather, to show what an ineffective and bumbling politician she is; how politically tone-deaf; how badly she gets the ball down the field, and how often she gets sacked. This is a good thing in a Democratic President...a loser who fumbles everything she attempts. I only hope she gets the nomination. I will be proud to vote for her.

"This came from a retired FBI person: Hillary's Resume

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified
candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes
her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' -
and her seven years in the Senate. ........ Here is a reminder of
what that record includes:

- As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a
process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill
Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation,
that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed;
she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own
party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the
House an d Senate.)

- Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General.
Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to
withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno.
Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst
mistake.'

- Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights
Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to
be withdrawn.

- Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince
Foster, and William Kennedy, for positions in the Justice (with
someone's help), and Kennedy was forced to resign.

- Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig
Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When
Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI
files of Clinton enemies and the widespread use of drugs by White House
staff, both Hilla ry and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent
Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in
1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone.
After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving
seven presidents for over thirty years.

- In order to open slots in the White House for her friends the
Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be
awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office
fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their
reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy
Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House
funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two
hours.

- Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption
squad' and scandal defense:

-She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.

-She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the
appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million
dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica
Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all,

---- and Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury.

----and Bill was impeached by the House,

---- and Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and
obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I
do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times
under oath).

- Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had
never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get
Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support.
Hi llary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to
get financial support.

- Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in
White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

- In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by
portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.

- Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National
Archives to withhold from the public, until 2012, many records of their
time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and
her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those
records.)

- As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major
legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend
to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems
of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.

- Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she
has since disavowed.

Quite a resume"

Indeed! Just the sort of failed, ineffective, impotent and unproductive Liberal we Conservatives need in this election! I think I might writer her a check!

The Gunslinger.

More Liberal Confusion...Sigh...

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this issue. Among both Conservatives and Liberals. I received an email from a Liberal today, the contents of which will be easily inferred from my response. She is utterly ignorant of the fundamentals of Conservatism. Somehow, no matter what we say, Liberals insist on believing that being a Conservative is just a breath away from being a Fascist.

This shows the power of Big Media. They have defined us in terms exactly the opposite of what we are. That Fascism demands a big, all-powerful, all-controlling central government—and that such a thing is the very antithesis of everything we hold dear, doesn't matter at all.

Most Liberals do not know what Conservative means. It seems impossible in an age of "communication" and "information", not to mention the fact that half of the country is Conservative...but somehow we have failed to reach them. Not to convert...but merely to inform.

Most Liberals and Democrats are voting and thinking and making decisions based on complete fabrications, falsehoods and distortions they have been taught as truth by Big Media and Big Education. That so many equate or even associate American Conservatism i.e., Jeffersonian Liberalism, with Fascism demonstrates a sick, pervasive ignorance almost beyond our power to remedy.

Sometimes I despair.

Cervantes was prophetic. He was writing about modern American Liberals tilting at windmills; monsters of their own imaginings.

I don't mind if people disagree with our ideas. But for them to constantly fight us over ideas we don't have is beyond frustrating.

Sometimes I feel like a "residual haunt": a mindless, non-sentient ghostly image that walks the same path, the same way, every day for centuries...I find myself explaining over and over again in the same way what Conservatives actually believe, in contrast with what most people imagine we believe.

Every Liberal I meet thinks he knows what Conservatives believe...and he's agin' it. But in every single case he is wrong.

So, here I am, once again, explaining the basics to a Liberal who has accused Conservatives (me) of what might be called the "usual suspects". She is responding to my email explanation of the Stop McCain so-called "Suicide Vote" which was more or less what I posted here. I'll let her speak for herself:

"...thanks for the information you sent regarding a modern version of "conservatism" (including "suicide voters"), which prompted some quick googled research and the following opinion.

As suggested by its title, the views expressed in the "Suicide Voters" email are extreme, run contrary to scientific and legal knowledge, strip human liberties, promote a fascist state. The government was never intended to be a dictatorship, which is the reason we have Congress (check-and-balance).

And, the "suicide voter"counter political strategy is mean-spirited and obstructive when actual "common ground" citizen and infrastructure solutions are needed. Restricting, obscuring and twisting principled human liberties runs contrary to US constitutional law, human rights and virtue.

It may not be perfect, but the McCain-Kennedy bill to secure the boarders, require visas for legal and non-legal immigrants, creates an orderly "common ground" solution to a long term problem. This is a positive step in identifying all persons within our boarders, and those who cross our boarders-- whereas the current system fails.

Are views between conservatives and liberals so disparate that compromise for the "common good" cannot be achieved without the interference of egocentric attitudes? Shouldn't conservatives and liberals be directing their attention to more practical issues, including the influence and affect of big business interests (including overseas and off-shore) on the function of our government?

I couldn't quite follow the logic in the second and third paragraphs, particularly the parts I highlighted in red, but the tone was familiar enough for me to get her overall meaning. This is my response:

OK. Let's take this one statement at a time, shall we?

FIRST: This one-time-only tactic (so-called "suicide voting") is not a "Modern Version of Conservatism". It is a specific response, to a unique circumstance, at a particular moment in time. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, making leaps of illogic into vague and meaningless generalities.

SECOND: "MODERN VERSION of Conservatism" is a hilarious contradiction in terms—which reveals a profound ignorance of what "Conservatism" is!

Allow me to explain. American Conservatism is Jeffersonian Liberalism. Thomas Jefferson was very suspicious and distrustful of government. He fought for a small, weak central government that could be held in check by the power of the people and the states. He knew that government would grow as big and as powerful as citizens would allow it, until instead of being their servant, it became their master. That is why he stated unequivocally that when the government no longer serves the people, it should be destroyed and replaced. He meant it literally.

To be an American Conservative is to hold sacred the principles of the foundation of our Republic and the Constitution: LIMITED GOVERNMENT & INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. There is no MODERN VERSION of them. They are what they are; they remain what they were. Conservatism means to conserve what came before. American Conservatives seek to preserve, conserve and continue those bedrock, undergirding principles into the future against the tide of Liberalism, Progressivism, Leftism, Socialism, Communism, Modernism, Islamism, Multiculturalism or any other "ism" that would undermine them. "Modern Version of Conservatism" is a perfect oxymoron.

THIRD: By a Liberal, any Conservative idea will be termed "extreme". We'll just acknowledge that as the pot-shot, name-calling it is and move on.

FOURTH: I'm not sure what "scientific" knowledge I was running contrary to. Please explain.

FIFTH: Please tell me how preventing government from enacting more intrusive laws (its reason for living) is "contrary to legal knowledge", "stripping human liberties" or "promoting a fascist state". If your idea of Fascism isn't a Big, Powerful, Intrusive, Interfering, Regulating, Taxing, Censoring, Controlling Government, Ruling Every Moment of Our Lives, and Everything We Do, Say and Think, I'm not sure you understand the term.

Remember, in spite of efforts to convince you otherwise, Nazi Fascism was a form of Socialism, i.e. a Leftist phenomenon. It wasn't called "National Socialism" by accident. A big, all-powerful, all-controlling government is the very hallmark of the Left. Their refusal to allow privatization (i.e.people having control of their own money) of Social Security and their push for government controlled health care are just two of the most current examples.

The Right in America wants just the opposite: A small, weak central government that generally leaves the people alone. Fascism is not a phenomenon of the American Right. No American Conservative would countenance that sort of government power and monopoly. It is the very antithesis of everything we believe in. We abhor nothing more than government illegally exercising its coercive powers against its citizens (at Ruby Ridge & Waco, for example). That is the precise opposite of Individualism and Liberty which are at the core of American Conservatism.

As a Conservative, I want government out of our lives. I want people to be free of government intrusion, tyranny and coercion to the greatest extent possible. That's Anti-Fascism in any lexicon. Indeed: I want to restore human liberties that have been reduced, stripped and violated by our Big-Brother government.

SIXTH: McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy are not "flawed but reasonable" policies. They are monstrous assaults on the very fabric of America. Abominations. The first is an egregious violation of the First Amendment—flagrantly unconstitutional. The second is an open invitation to an endless flood of Third-World invaders that will change—for the worse—the face, the nature, the culture, the language, the promise and the hope of America.

You find these acceptable? I find them intolerable!

We can't find "common ground" because our basic ideas of the "common good" are diametrically opposed. You want a big, strong government busy "fixing" everybody's problems. I want a small, weak government that leaves me—and everyone else— the hell alone. What you want would inexorably destroy what is most important to me: Liberty. What I want would inexorably prevent what is most important to you: Assistance.

An example: We both want hungry people to have enough food.
The way Liberals would fix it would destroy people's independence and GIVE them a meal. (Assistance)
The way Conservatives would fix it would destroy people's dependence and teach them to EARN a meal. (Liberty)

We both want to feed starving people, but the Liberal solution makes them into helpless, dependent, needy sheep (think New Orleans during Katrina). The Conservative solution makes them independent, self-sufficient freemen. (think Mississippi during Katrina).

Liberals and Conservatives disagree fundamentally about what is good:
What you feel is compassionate, loving and helpful, I think is soul-destroying, dependence-creating and slave-making.
What you feel is cold-hearted and "mean-spirited", I think is respecting privacy, and "keeping my nose out of other people's business".
What you feel is greedy, I think are sound business practices.
What you feel is multicultural diversity, I think is tribal animosity.
What you feel is fascism (apparently), I think is freedom.
What you feel is egocentrism, I think is patriotic pro-Americanism
What you feel is dangerous Christian fundamentalism, I think is God-fearing goodness.
What you feel is tolerance, I think is libertinism and cultural suicide.
Where, oh where, is the common ground?

Liberals want to take my hard-earned money and give it to other people. I want to keep it. Where is the common ground?
Liberals want to take away my guns. I want to keep them. Where is the common ground?
Liberals are for abortion and against capital punishment. I'm the reverse. Where is the common ground?
Liberals think the Constitution is pliable, to be freely interpreted. I am a strict-constructionist. Where is the common ground?

SEVENTH: When the Liberals offer to compromise on Taxes and Guns I'll believe THEY are serious about finding "common ground". And when they acknowledge that unborn babies have rights too, I'll believe they are serious about the "common good".

The Gunslinger
-----

Clarifying the SUICIDE VOTE

There seems to be some misunderstanding, even among Conservatives, about this idea.

Let me try to simplify it in a way all Conservative and libertarians (small L) will understand:

1) Big, nosy, busy government is the enemy. The less government does, the better for The People. Unless what it is busy doing is repealing most of the anti-freedom, rights-violating, unconstitutional laws already on the books—or cutting taxes.

2) Since the chance of any of the current crop of candidates doing either of these things is below zero the next best thing we can hope for is TOTAL GRIDLOCK.

3) The best way to get that is to elect a Liberal Democrat that the Congressional Republicans can happily unite against and obstruct like crazy for the next four years.

4) Congressional Republicans will not be able to obstruct a "Republican" President McCain, even though he will, generally speaking, propose the same Liberal excrement as either Democrat.

5) Thus, our chance of getting the best we can hope for in the next administration, which is TOTAL GRIDLOCK, is to make sure John McCain is not elected.

6) It won't work in reverse. The Democrats will support most of McCain's idiocies. After all, it's basically their agenda. Party pressure will make enough Republicans go along to make the crap law. Which is precisely what we must prevent.

I hope that is sufficiently clear.

***It is most definitely not the plan to let the Democrats win and implement all their sorry policies, let the country crash and burn, possibly lose the war, be attacked by terrorists, tank the economy, fuel an endless recession...and hope that voters choose us next time. That's lame, self-destructive and un-patriotic.

In fact, it is exactly what the Democrats have been doing for the last eight years. "Fuck the country, the war, the soldier, the economy and the future, as long as we win the election!"

It looks like it may have worked too. But if winning is all you care about you're not a Conservative anyway. It's more important to be right, than to just win the argument.

If you hear anyone arguing against Suicide Voting on this basis...set them straight!

The Gunslinger

The Huckster Wins Kansas

...by a LOT. What does this mean?

Sure is a slap in the face to McClinton...after his near coronation. I wonder if Hucky is hustling for the VP slot. It's a lousy job, but he might think it puts him in a good position in 2012.

If he does, he's not thinking it through. The disaster of a McCain presidency will drool all over him. And Republicans, even more than Democrats, will want to distance themselves from anyone with the stink of it on them.

I like McCain getting sacked. Maybe it will wake up some of the Hacks who are already genuflecting and licking his d**k.

Oh, man, I just gagged myself with that mental image.

The Gunslinger

DUMP McCAIN!

Ladies and Gentlemen, if I may, I'd like to direct your attention to the sidebar to your left...and introduce DUMP MCCAIN. It is a blog role of pissed off Republicans organizing a Conservative Revolt. Click on the icon, and it will take you to Hillbilly White Trash's place, where it all began. Read his very persuasive arguments and join in the fun.

Remember, John McCain, and the Party hacks are doing everything in their power convince us to unite behind this back-stabbing, posturing Rino. It's time to fight back!

Convince every Republican you know that a McCain presidency is the one thing that will make every Democrat's dream come true: the long-term crippling of the Republican Party, the marginalizing of Conservative Ideals, and as Ann says, result in "30 years of Democrat Rule". Being in the wilderness for 4 years is inevitable anyway, no matter who wins. We might as well use that time consolidating power, refining our message, uniting our forces and come back strong and Conservative in 2012. A President McCain can only shatter our power, muddy our message, and scatter our forces, resulting in defeat for years to come.

DO YOU WANT THAT?

"Pragmatic" Republicans...meaning those without strong guiding principles—made a desperate and self-destructive choice in McCain...as the guy with the "best chance of beating the Democrats" in November.

But what exactly is the point of that, if all you get is a de facto Democrat anyway? But McCain would be infinitely worse than a simple Liberal Democrat. He would have all their faults AND Republican Party power to bully, coerce, control and break the only bulwark we normally have against a Liberal executive: Congressional Republicans.

Remember, Congressional leaders are all Party hacks. They will browbeat and punish rebellious members. They have serious power. Truth be told, after a few years in office, most members of Congress (including the Senate) become Party Hacks. They will "go along" with the wishes of "their" President as long as it results in cushy appointments and perks for themselves. Never trust a member of Congress to put your welfare or the country's welfare above his own. The only hope of keeping them marginally under control is giving them an opposing party executive they hate and will unite against....or one from their own party that we want them to work with. Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

Even if the Democrats choose Barry the Messiah, we have to stick to our guns here. Anything less is retreat and surrender to the dark side. If you can't actually pull the lever for a democrat, at least don't vote for John McCain.

If you want to join the DUMP MCCAIN blog roll, let Hillbily White Trash know by leaving a comment on the Dump McCain post, and he'll set you up.

Let's roll.

The Gunslinger

They Left Us No Choice

Ann Coulter:

"If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule. "

And THAT my friends, is the bottom line.

Vote Democrat! (Boy was that hard to type.)

The Gunslinger