Since Nov 7, 2000

view home page, enter name:


Welcome to my Home Page

on Free Republic

Welcome to New Hampshire!

NH Message Board


 I am a proud gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment.

Click for Bedford, New Hampshire Forecast


OCCASparky and Little Bill, standing up and making a difference in Rochester, NH.


National Review Online (NRO)
The Weekly Standard
The American Spectator
Real Clear Politics
Media Research Center
Rush Limbaugh
Powerline Blog

Never, ever forget.



On Barack Obama:

As far as I am able to discern, Obama as President is either campaigning, golfing, fund-raising, or vacationing. What he never appears to be doing is working, leading or governing.

His entire oratorical skill set, as provided by teleprompter, consists of offering false choices, fabricated narratives and straw man arguments, all delivered with the monotonous certainty of a man who has never seriously reflected upon the meaning of words.

*   *   *

I have always believed, from the first moment I made a judgment about the man, that Obama was a poseur of the first order; an empty vessel filled with the inchoate hopes and dreams of those too fearful to compose their own.

Such men and women have arrived through history in every time and place where their kind were required. Because, having rejected the advice and counsel of the accomplished and aware, a populace eager to escape uncomfortable realities frequently chooses to close its eyes and resume the reveries that wakefulness makes more distant with every passing second.

Those who invest their hopes in dreams will ultimately awaken with empty pockets and stunted souls.

*   *   *

A Con Man is not hard to spot, but he may be hard to resist. The reason why such people inspire confidence in the first place is because their victims desperately want to believe what they are being told. Snake oil does not sell itself; it depends upon a ready supply of suckers who will happily part ways with their cash in the pursuit of... what? Of Hope.

After two generations of dumbed-down education (devoid of objective philosophy and history), cultural degradation, and the celebration of dependency, America is no longer as proud or skeptical - or intelligent as it once was. The sad truth is that far too many of us now await patiently, gratefully in line for our cup of Kool-Aid.

*   *   *

On the State of the Republican Party, 2009:

Third parties don't work; in this country, anyway. That's why we Conservatives need to take it back from the squishy, value-free professional politicians who have taken over its reins. If the GOP is to survive, it needs an infusion of new blood, informed by principles rather than expediency and lacking ties to the larcenous gang in D.C. I love Sarah Palin, but we need a principled, tough and witheringly articulate candidate who is unafraid to tell them that they are full of bovine excrement, though not nearly as useful.

The first step is for us to be utterly fearless in voicing support for Constitutional liberty, free enterprise, the traditional family, and the sacred value of human life. No apologies, no excuses, no complaints. If that is a radical concept, then I guess by today's standards, I am a "radical".

So be it. As long as the flame of freedom burns brightly in one soul, we have not lost our nation, for that ember may spread from one to another until enough recall the purpose for which God has put us here: to make the best of our lives, with the best of our efforts, for the benefit of all who commit their efforts to share in it, and for those who will come after we have passed from this Life, which is His greatest gift.

*   *   *

Why is that that no one ever chastises the Democrats for "turning their backs on moderates"? What about the Democrat Party is today "moderate", in any way? Not a damned thing, and that's the dirty little secret of this whole media-led, Democrat-fed campaign to convince Republicans to abandon conservatives.

This false meme is being repeated endlessly throughout the mainstream media, with the full approval of the Democrat Party to which Arlen Specter and the media are both now fully committed.

The Republican Party has moved Left, not Right since the 1980s, and it has done so partly in sympathy with the Democrat Party, which has moved far to the Left in the same time period.

One need only consider the issue of so-called "Gay marriage". As recently as 25 years ago, most mainstream liberal Democrats wouldn't even consider such a thing, not because they thought it unachievable, but because they (still) thought it bizarre and destructive of fundamental family values. By contrast, today's mainstream Democrats view opposition to Gay "marriage" as the province of hate-mongers.

The San Francisco Democrats of 1984 did tend to "Blame America First", in Jeanne Kirkpatrick's timeless phrase, but they almost always drew the line of criticizing their country at the water's edge. One cannot imagine Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, George McGovern or Lloyd Bentsen daring to say a word against their native land while speaking from foreign shores. Even Jimmy Carter held his tongue, until senility and bitterness overcame him.

Today, a Democrat President trots around the globe serially apologizing for America's mistakes, real and (mostly) imagined.

Republicans, who in the '90s would have cut off their own arms rather than raise them in support of new Federal entitlement programs, new bureaucracies, and the deficit spending to "fund" them - have in recent times done so with reckless abandon.

No: the Republican Party has not moved to the "Right" at all. Instead it has melted into a muddled, centrist puddle of colorless mush, reflecting nothing, and stirring no one.

The Democrats, for their part have moved to embrace the left of European Social Democrats and the secular, internationalist welfare state model for which they stand. It is in that direction that Arlen Specter has chosen to turn his heels, and given his lifetime proclivity for unprincipled self-interest, it is well that he should.


On American Discontent and the TEA Parties of 2009:

Clearly, many people believe that something is deeply, intrinsically wrong in the United States, but are not certain how we got here or what to do about it. They know that the government is too large and powerful and that it spends too much.

In this regard (and most others), the average citizen is entirely at odds with the policy elites who run the country, and who wish to tamp down the burgeoning TEA Party movement, in part because they themselves recognize that it is about much more than just taxes.

Just how far we have gone down the road toward socialism and how much freedom we have lost will soon become evident, I think. And when it does, there will be some event or incident that serves as a rallying point for the opposition. It's just a matter of time.

*   *   *

Andrew Sullivan has slurred the TEA Party events as "pep rallies". His description is characteristically smarmy, but unnecessarily disparaging of pep rallies. We are in desperate need of pep rallies right now. Without them as a starting point, I doubt whether organized opposition and action would ever follow.

Many Americans are today disheartened, discouraged, alienated and angry. That is not a recipe for a successful movement. Among the projects of the Left during the past 50 years was a determined effort to dismantle the cultural institutions that have traditionally bound Americans together, and replace them with Government. These institutions are families, neighborhood, communities, churches, synagogues, membership organizations, and charities.

It is an index of the Left's success that so many Americans today feel "siloed" - isolated from one another and powerless to act. Many have turned toward the State for nourishment and security, as has been the plan. But many others understand the dangers inherent in statism/socialism and have resisted, even in the absence of political leadership. What they desperately need are means of connecting with others who agree with them, and share their ideas and perceptions, and the Tea Parties are a fine way of accomplishing this objective.

Now: Andrew Sullivan is an obnoxious and pusillanimous twit who enjoys nothing more than creating limp-wristed little straw men for him to blow down. And then, he congratulates himself for his perspicacity as though the artful construction of lies were a Pulitzer Prize category, as in this day and age, it may well be.

Nonetheless, those of us who insist on speaking plainly recognize very real threats that others may ignore at their own peril:

- Massive, unprecedented levels of debt, monetized by trillions of dollars of fiat currency and soon, by withering tax increases;

- Uncontrolled illegal immigration that creates nationwide social pathologies and imposes economically-damaging costs and leaves our borders open to attack by...

- A growing and irridentist radical Islamic movement that preaches and conducts violence against those who refuse to submit before it.

- A Congress utterly out of touch and out of control whose members revel not in solving problems but in building personal empires with other people's money, and which routinely violates the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of whatever ambitions it imagines it can get away with.

These are not small problems, nor will they be solved easily. To deny them, as Mr. Sullivan does, is petulant and self-serving. But to deny the importance of people wishing to gather together to share their concerns is to miss the necessity of personal connection and validation as a precursor to organization in pursuit of common goals.

*   *   *

I am going to state it plainly:

Millions of Americans do not wish to change "their way of living" in this country - that is to say, OUR way of living in OUR country. Nor will we be made to do so involuntarily by a government that has no such Constitutional authority.

Lest we forget, our precious freedoms were won by the blood, sweat and incalculable sacrifice of the men and women who went before us. To allow Liberty to slip from our grasp because of our fears, in this case: over a short-term financial and moral crisis, would be a tragedy and a disgrace.

There are crucial times in history when nations come to a critical point where a common path diverges and the consequences of choosing one road or the other are profound and lasting.

I believe this is one of those times. If you believe in freedom and wish to see the country that you once knew restored to greatness, time is growing short. It is time to take a stand.

*   *   *

Many Americans are angry at what they (correctly) view as a complete disconnect between themselves and the political elites, and, moreover, at the utter contempt those elites have for the opinions and concerns of ordinary people.

This includes some Democrats as well as Republicans, and increasingly, independent voters, all of whom: want their country back. They want the schools to start teaching - and stop indoctrinating - their children. They want America to make and build things again. They want the government to stop telling them what they can drive and buy and eat. They want politicians to stop taxing and spending their money on things and ideas they detest. They want the government to close the borders and stop subsidizing illegal aliens and criminal behavior. They've had it up to here.

And now, they need a voice, and a leader.

*   *   *

Our Republic has always depended upon a literate and educated public. That we have a populace poorly educated in its founding ideals and documents is not an accident - it is a long-standing project of the Left to use public schools in the service of egalitarian ideology.

Additionally, it is no accident that they use our own religious values against us while destroying their very basis and denying public expressions of faith. The Left also holds itself to no behavioral standards whatsoever, while insisting that we accept their intellectual and moral premises, such as the idea that we have an obligation to "help" others in distress, primarily by allowing our government to rob the producers while keeping their supposed beneficiaries in a permanent state of dependence. I reject their premises.

To the contrary, it is no valid object of government to compel citizens to act in mercy and charity; in fact, compulsion destroys the value of such acts while detracting from their purpose. Free people living according to the dictates of their own consciences must act voluntarily in this capacity, as they always have.

The Left's focus on sacrifice as the organizing principle of society is in direct conflict with that of conservatism, whose highest value is human liberty. People need not understand Aristotelian epistemology or have read Federalist #10 or Human Action in order to understand some very fundamental things about human nature and about right and wrong.

Most Americans can comprehend, even if they cannot articulate, that something has gone very much awry in this country and that a great deal of it has to do with the loss of individual rights and the expansion of those of government. Many want to be responsible - and to help their fellow citizens - and yet are denied by a dominant culture that preaches sacrifice and submission rather than independence and action. And that's what I help mean to change, in any way I can.


On the American Left:

It is a shame that the word "liberal" has long been been appropriated by those whose instincts militate toward command and control, to edicts and censorship.

More recently, many of their ilk have reverted to a nearly 100-year old appellation, namely: "progressive". I find the term a preferable description for the Obamanauts, even though it wrongly assumes that Progress points ever Leftward. It does, however capture the overtly anti-business and Prohibitionist sentiments of an earlier age, where a loose coalition of socialists, communists and anarchists promoted Utopian visions of a New Man in a New World, much as do their descendants.

Inspired themselves by a philosophical tradition stretching from Rousseau to the French Revolution and the European uprisings of 1849, the first American generation of Progressives helped to unleash the historical forces that resulted in World War I, the Russian revolution, and, ultimately, the rise of Nazi Germany from the ashes of a once-stable, but suddenly shattered world order.

*   *   *

The Left's concerted attack on the concept of "value" (in fact: on objective reality) has borne bitter fruit. In our time, ethical and behavioral standards have eroded dramatically, a fact that ought to evoke shame but instead brings shrugs. In such an environment, things like Reputation and Honor appear as antiquated artifacts, faded reminders of a past long gone and blown across the landscape by the leveling wind of egalitarianism.

When newspapers are pimps and writers their whores, one who abstains from their influence might be forgiven for taking satisfaction in the knowledge that whatever their paying customers may come away with, it will be an empty, soul-denying experience.

*   *   *

I am concerned about what may be a coordinated left-wing effort to both demonize and marginalize conservatives; in essence to criminalize policy differences. DHS and the Justice Department, along with mainstream media news outlets and the leftist blogosphere have all recently begun to promote a meme - a common and viral set of assumptions about conservatives.

It sounds like this: the Republican Party is hopelessly out of touch and shriveling as a political force because its base has gone too far to the Right and is controlled by Christian bigots. Dangerous hate groups and militias are hoarding guns and ammunition. Conservatives hate Obama for purely racial reasons, and the "Birthers" are crazy, unbalanced loons. The "Tea Parties" are just bitter tantrums thrown by angry, selfish losers. "Hate radio" is out of control and must be reined in.

Now, the Left has long traded in calumnies large and small, and that is not by itself remarkable. What is different this time is the willingness of the government they now dominate to take actions specifically targeted at key conservative constituencies: gun owners, entrepreneurs, business owners, military veterans, SUV and truck owners.

What is more chilling is the Obamanites' response to any signs of resistance, which essentially has been to politicize the personal, to demonize differences of opinion, and to discover dark motives in place of what is most often genuine concern and rational self-interest.

 *   *   *

Liberals want us to be defenseless because they believe the United States and its culture and civilization are not worth defending. They believe that everything wrong with the world is our fault, and that we can make amends by unilaterally surrendering our weapons. Then, presumably, everyone will stop hating us and make peace and join hands and sing Kumbaya in one great big circle jerk of love and peace and hopey-changey-ness.

All of which is to offer the observation that our present leaders are dangerously delusional and historically ignorant.

*   *   *

The Vietnam War will not truly end until American liberals stop waving it around like a bloody shirt. The American Left, graying, but still infantile, refuses to let go of its ancient hatreds, which it carries around like a security blanket and pulls over its head when confronted with uncomfortable realities. One of these is the fact that America is now threatened by an implacable international enemy that wants to kill us - conservatives, liberals, blacks, whites -all of us. The memory of Vietnam (the Love-Ins! The Peace Marches! Peter, Paul and Mary!) warms the bones of liberals like a dose of heroin while clouding their minds to a world they can't deal with.

The primary philosophical underpinning of not only Liberalism, but of all Utopian ideologies (of which Liberalism is one), is the belief in the perfectability of mankind. Utopians do not believe in good and evil, or in Original Sin, but in an innate quality of humanity that may be molded by proper influence into an earthly vision of perfection. Modern Liberals believe that the agent of perfection is Government, and view those who resist its efforts - and theirs - as "reactionaries", who must be "corrected". The ultimate consequence of this belief may be found in the mass graves of Cambodia, or the crematoria of Nazi Germany.

No one enjoys having their hypocrisy revealed, especially Liberals. Logically pointing out their inherent bigotry often has the effect of psychic Kryptonite; it melts away the pretense of moral authority that so many Liberals wear like a suit of armor.

*   *   *

Having convinced themselves that every war conducted by a Republican President is Vietnam, the Baby-boom Democrats are bound and determined to make it so. That is their template: every war is Vietnam, every scandal is Watergate, and every Republican is Nixon.


On the Republicans:

I know that Congress spreads corruption like the Swine Flu. Smart, principled, well-intentioned people go to Congress and inside of one term, they have their hands in everyone's pockets and their snouts in the trough. But isn't it long past time for a vaccine?

*   *   *

At least half of the electorate is in fact sick to death of being romanced and abandoned every two-to-four years. Given the way we're treated by our politicians, we'd have every right to be waiting by the door with a rolling pin at the ready, and to bonk it right over the rotten cad's head when he walks through the door (looking for a little lovin' after a night on the wrong side of the tracks).

But we don't. Instead, we wrap our arms around the big lug and get all misty and imagine that This Time It Will Be Different. Perhaps we need therapy. The one thing I'm sure of is that dalliances of our own with liberal strangers on the other side of town won't solve anything either. We've got to sit down at some point and have a heart-to-heart with these rascals and explain to them that respect is mutual and our affection can't be bought with a few baubles and cheap wine. We've got to get our own House back in order, and explain to our Significant Others that they either stand with us or not at all. No more: living here, loving there, and lying in between. A new Contract with America would be a great place to start. Right after the election.

I am as disappointed and angry as anyone at Republicans in Congress. They have failed to cut the Federal Budget; in fact, they have expanded it dramatically. Entitlements and Pork still reign. In the past, I might well have rooted for the Democrats to take over and remind people how truly awful they can be when given a chance to apply their economic illiteracy and military fecklessness to the real world, instead of just sniping from the sidelines.

But not now. The stakes are far higher today - and this is not your father's Democratic Party. We are engaged in a struggle against transnational Islamist savages who seek to destroy our civilization, our freedom and our way of life.

Today's Democrats are not the old-line anti-Communist liberal internationalists of the 1950's and '60's: they are hard-core leftists who believe that our country and our culture are to blame for all the world's problems. They sympathize with those who seek to destroy us; seeking negotiation and explanation (read: apology) in lieu of military action and defense.

If placed in power, a Democrat House and Senate would not only stymie President Bush at every turn, but would actively work to undermine the war effort; even while publicly claiming otherwise. They will raise taxes, further increase entitlement spending, punish American businesses, and investigate, intimidate, and threaten their opposition. Unlike Congressional Republicans, most of whom now meekly accept big government, modern Democrats actively believe in Gargantuan government. They also realize that once a spending program is begun it will never, EVER be undone because beneficiaries are concentrated, organized and powerful, and the taxpayers are diffuse, disorganized, and politically weak.

And all the while, as the threat from radical Islam grows stronger, Democrats will do their level best to ignore it while pretending otherwise. Say what you will about the Republicans - and you'd be right to curse them for much of what they have done and failed to do - they won't tolerate any more attacks on the US, ever. Democrats will. If the Democrats win, and do so because conservatives sat on their hands rather than help elect Republicans, conservatives will live to regret it.


On the Democrats

The Democrats, as presently constituted cannot easily extend their coalition beyond the groups they command: pro-abortion feminists, public sector unions, blacks, Hispanics, and coastal secular whites (who dominate Academia and the news media). These are a significant bloc of voters, but in order to keep them together, the Democrats must keep feeding them benefits at the expense of other, more Republican-leaning constituencies.

This is the mirror image of the old Reagan Republican coalition, whose members forswore government benefits, reducing the burden on all, but demanding of others a spirit of independence and self-sufficiency many resisted, and continue to resist.

Moreover, the current Democrats are an incredibly polarized bunch: their anger and resentment literally seethes, leading them to push and push and push some more. They are uninterested in compromise or working together, all PR hogwash to the contrary. They and their leader Obama want the world and they want it now. And of course they do: liberals believe that need is a claim on right and that the object of government is to satisfy need.

Conservatives tend to be producers: small business owners, and managers, executives, and technical workers in the private sector. They are the cows about to be milked in order to (temporarily) quench the thirst of the Democrats' interest groups. Increasing numbers of these constituents contribute little or nothing to the tax base or to the economy and yet demand ever more from their neighbors, via the government.

At the same time, whatever American liberties are not planned to be ceded to domestic collective purposes are proposed to be transferred to international collective organizations (the UN and its NGOs) by Obama and his minions.

For these reasons, 100 days into the Age of Obama, pressure is already building and push-back is inevitable. For conservatives, when our moment comes and how hard we will push back depend on making our own opportunities as well as how hard they continue to push us.

*   *   *

Democrats spent eight years denying that George W. Bush was a legitimate President, attacking conservatives as evil, racist hatemongers, holding up legislation and Presidential appointments, criticizing their own country in a time of war, and in sum, politicizing every issue in every nook and cranny of American life. Now, Democrats whine whenever Republicans offer occasional, mild critiques of their policy and behavior when what they really deserve is a good ass-whooping.

 *   *   *

Here is what our political adversaries are after: Power. Power over money. Power over resources. Power over individual actions in every formerly private sphere of endeavor that you can think of (and all of those you presently cannot).

That's why the only way to beat them is to call them out. Tell the American people what they're up to and ask them to stop aiding and abetting a process that will not end up creating hope and change, but despair and dependency. Call a spade a spade and stop pretending like they're interested in helping America when they truly wish to destroy it (in order to "save" it).

The GOP desperately needs to stop mincing words and tell Barney Frank that if he loves socialism so much, he ought to go sit on a Chinese flagpole and Pat Leahy that if he leaks one more state secret, they will make it their mission in life to see him tried for treason. Be unafraid to proclaim loudly and publicly that the United States of America is the greatest beacon of liberty this world has ever seen whose wealth and freedoms were won by hard work and sacrifice - not by conquest.

Let the country and the world know that the cadre of hyper-ambitious leftist politicians now running this country seek to destroy all that went before them because their ideology compels them to ruin that which is not perfect and to crush those who defy their efforts to remake them.

Let the world know that those of us who value human life, liberty and the right to property as endowed by our Creator will never surrender those liberties and will fight by whatever means necessary to pass those blessings to our children and grandchildren. Let them know that we seek not merely to regain temporary control of a corrupted system of governance, but to return the United States government to its Constitutional foundation, limiting the power and reach of the Federal government and this time, whoever may have been omitted from the original understanding of our Constitution's protection (our darker-skinned citizens) will now be welcomed as long as they agree to be bound by it.

When the history of this age is written, I would hope that we will not be defined by our timidity, but by our fearless commitment to Liberty in a world dominated by coercion and theft.

*   *   *

These Democrats are heading for a world of trouble. They do not merely disagree with their political opponents, they despise and fear them (us). What is more, their perceptions are warped by an ideology of liberalism whose tenets invert both reality and causation, which in turn tends to lead them to make very bad decisions.

I stood in a TEA Party crowd in Manchester, New Hampshire yesterday and I saw: citizens and families; they wore smiling faces, not angry ones. We gathered because we are unhappy with the direction our country has taken and certainly angry at politicians (and I suspect, a little bit at ourselves) for having put our country in such a position. But the mood was light and festive and friendly as could be.

Walk into any Left-wing rally anywhere in the world and tell me if you can find the same. Which leads me to my point:

Every terrible characteristic that the Democratic leadership assigns to us, is in truth their own. They are the Fascists they have been waiting for.

On Returning to Liberty and Constitutional Government:

I am no longer surprised that a sizable segment of the American populace has acclimated itself to the notion that two plus two equals five, provided it somehow validates their sense of self-worth. Our institutions of public education have long prepared us for precisely this sort of arithmetic alchemy and logical larceny. It is a difficult thing to come to grips with, but we must consider that we, on the whole are no longer the sort of people for whom this Republic was fashioned: independent, well-educated, industrious, disciplined, faithful, and distrustful of concentrated power.

Such people would not meekly accept what we have allowed our government - and ourselves - to become. And what we have become more than anything else is intellectually lazy and accepting of dependency.

As an example: in his latest article, Charles Krauthammer (whose intellect I greatly respect) asserts that a reformation of Social Security and Medicare entitlements might provide the necessary funds for health and education programs and "also restore budgetary balance". Now, I take issue with this characterization because it assumes that "balance" is a proper, perhaps primary objective when considering Federal expenditures in health care, education and retirement.

The problem with this assumption is that under our Constitution, the Federal Government has little discernible role involving itself in any of these realms, and yet we have so thoroughly accepted Federal involvement in all of them that even the sage among us no longer think to question it. Moreover, we stand at the threshold not of mere federal involvement, but of preemption of health care and universal subsidies for higher education.

Is it too late to consider that chains of causality do exist and that one plus one always yields a constant result? The Federal Government's usurpation of private and state functions precipitated an explosion of deficit spending and taxation, which warped economic incentives and sapped personal responsibility, and in turn helped bring us to the precipice of disaster.

Might we pause for a moment before jumping with both feet into the yawning chasm we've dug for ourselves to consider that holes can be filled in as well as excavated? Although Barack Obama's brand of Progressivism insists otherwise, human purpose is formed by will, not by destiny; at least while we are still willing to do our own thinking.

*   *   *

If ethical behavior is to be defined by simple majority rather than an objective standard, individuals will be subject to force and fraud on the basis of a popular vote. I struggle to imagine a more profoundly anti-American concept or one more likely to bring conflict and deprivation upon us.

*   *   *

Liberty is a fragile thing. Its friends have always been few, owing to an unpleasant human tendency to fervently desire that which one wants, but has not earned. In that respect the United States Constitution is a historical anomaly worth defending. It is a timeless statement of the superiority of ordered civilization over the many forms of tyranny that have plagued mankind since we first crawled out of the swamps. If we allow our nation to slide backwards and define it as "progress", we will dishonor the memory of those who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the defense of human freedom.


On Obama and his Accolytes Left and Right:

The larger matter with which I am chiefly concerned is our Republic's loss of its moral bearings at the same instant its leaders have also rejected reason and logic as a means of discerning reality. Which leaves them with precisely: what, as a guide?

What guides Barack Obama, et al. is an ideology they themselves identify as "progressive", but which is in reality a Utopian-utilitarian amalgam: a smidgen of John Stuart Mill, a dollop of John Dewey, a soupçon of John Jacques Rousseau, and where it suits them, a dash of Marx as a secret spice.

That this ideology, whose policy reflections are now advanced by President Obama is profoundly antithetical to the philosophy that has guided our Nation for over 200 years ought not be lost on people as smart as Peggy Noonan. And yet, it so obviously is, and the question is: "why"? Ms. Noonan's Catholicism explains quite a lot about her view of the world, including a blessedly consistent value for human life. But spiritualism only explains so much. Having researched and written so well for Ronald Reagan ought to have at least acquainted her with the philosophical underpinnings of Conservatism: John Locke, Edmund Burke, and later, Friedrich Hayek.

And yet she seems curiously distant from those traditions even as she wrote for others words steeped so deeply in their nourishing waters that the authoress could scarcely avoid baptizing her own hands in the process.

And for that reason, I think that Ms. Noonan's confused admiration for Obama is to some degree an unconscious matter of cultural affinity. She lives and works among people who are almost walking textbook definitions of "elitists", social liberals, all. In that environment, I believe many of her attitudes are expressed not as a matter of intentional flattery or conscious ingratiation, but as a natural phenomenon, aided by her tendency toward revelation, but abetted by the daily reinforcement of the cocktail circuit and the dinner party crowd.

*   *  *

Whatever else they may be, the Obamas are certainly not “trash”. Except for the fevered imaginings of the shallow media types who worship them as the second coming of Camelot, Obama and his bride are notably short on elegance, courtesy, and style. But as well-dressed Harvard-educated lawyers of a liberal mindset, they are presumed by their fellow elitists to be wise and distinguished as opposed to, say, cunning and manipulative.

*   *   *

I suppose that Katheen Parker, et al. would be satisfied if those they deem "conservative" would oblige themselves with the socialization of, oh, say only one-third of the economy as opposed to a half or three-quarters. Meanwhile, those of us who bitterly cling to the Bible and the Constitution of the United States are never going to be seen at any of the Georgetown or Manhattan cocktail parties whose scalloped parchment invitations Mme. Parker so evidently covets.


On Foreign Policy:

I sincerely hope that by the time of the next election, the damage Obama has done to our nation will not be irreversible. I have my doubts. The man explicitly rejects the idea of American Exceptionalism: that we are a unique and valuable force for freedom across the globe and that we have a responsibility to stand as a defender of liberty in the place of others who are not able to do so themselves.

Furthermore, Obama's rejection of our unique role in the world goes far beyond the entirely supportable position that we ought not involve ourselves in areas in which we have no compelling national interest. He seems to believe that we have no valid social, military or political interest in the world except insofar as that interest coincides or agrees with those of the United Nations or the G20.

On Politicians:

The United States Congress has become a hideout where thieves and others of low character convene for the purpose of getting their stories straight, splitting up the take, and planning future heists.

*   *   *

Republican politicians don't "get it" because they are too busy looking around for winning "issues" with which to maintain their phoney-baloney jobs to see the that truth and reality are all that matters.

Liberal politicians spend their time and effort whipping up mindless emotions and promising unearned benefits in order to deny reality and buy votes. Conservatives only need to speak the truth. Yet they are frequently afraid to do so for fear of being called names, whereas they ought to welcome the opportunity to expose the fraudulent, power-seeking ways of their adversaries, and to call them what they are: tyrants posing as liberators; thieves pretending to be benefactors, masters masquerading as servants.

*   *   *

The men at Walter Reed who “gave their legs” - and more - for their country are the same honorable soldiers who are called killers and psychopaths by (Paul) Begala’s Democrat allies, and then claimed by them whenever it is politically useful. If the ancient Greeks had a term for “government by scum of the earth”, it would describe our present condition. “Kakistocracy” is close, but not quite sufficient to the task of describing the people who presently claim our income and our liberties in the name of the phony compassion that is, in reality, power lust.

*   *   *

Lest we forget, most of our politicians have always been a species of invertebrate castrati who when they are not cowering behind the flimsy fabric of empty phrases, are most often picking our pockets. Patriots are commonly found out in the streets and fields of America; they are as rare as the duck-billed platypus in Washington, DC.

When push comes to shove (as it always does), America will succeed as a result of its people, not its politicians.

*   *   *

The one stunning exception to the rule was Ronald Reagan. The embers of his exceptional character still glow in these dark times. Reagan could match communication skills with the best of his generation, and that is saying quite a lot. But more than that, he knew how to lead: by personal example, by advancing simple truths, by seeking out and promoting great talent, by making timeless principles the basis of his Presidency.

Reagan was smart enough to allow others to hash out the details, acceding to compromise on tactics and sometimes even on strategy, but always focusing on the bedrock principles that provided the foundation of his beliefs.

Obama, in contrast, secrets his own principles by resort to rhetorical devices: repeated phrases, grandiloquent intonation, presumption in place of argument. I have not yet decided whether he does not believe he will be seen through, or whether he much cares. Either way, it is not good news for those who recognize the principles he takes care to hide.

On the Second Amendment:

It may be premature to consider such things at this moment, but how far are we willing to let our own government go in denying rights recognized (not "granted") under our Constitution to all Americans?

The answer to this question in part depends upon how far the government is willing to push the matter and what legal recourse we still have through the ballot box and the jury box.

Either way, organized resistance is going to be necessary, with the preferred model that of Dr. King: nonviolent protest accompanied by legal challenge by institutions and individuals dedicated to our cause. But - and this is crucial - we must always reserve the right to act in defense of our own freedoms, as did our forefathers, when and if our leaders no longer represent us, but pretend to rule us.

 *   *   *

The aim of the Left is to withdraw our freedoms, one by one, and then remove our ability to defend ourselves against their predations. "Liberty" is an antiquated ideal (it's so "Wild West!) to be replaced by the smothering embrace of the welfare state. People cannot be trusted with their freedoms because they fail to make the right choices - so they must be forced to do so (thank you, Mao Tse Tung, Joe Stalin and Pol Pot) - and "free will" is held to be a myth for those who think that guns make people do bad things.


On Terrorism:

It is true that terrorists have an undeniable interest in overstating their influence and abilities. At the same time, terrorists have an interest in making their threats a reality, and so they work to obtain the money, arms, and influence with which to do so. If our Government were to base its security policy solely on the likelihood that Al Qaeda publicly exaggerates its own influence, the terrorists would eventually achieve the power that they claim and the destruction that they desire. That is why we need to act now, offensively, and with disproportionate force. You don't wait until the flood comes to begin building the dam.

*  *  *

Right now, most Republicans appear to recognize that we face a long-term intergenerational threat to our freedom and our way of life. Most Democrats, though, appear to think that our Islamicist adversaries hate us for reasons related only to our behavior, and that they may be successfully appeased through compromise and negotiation. Fools, as much as fanatics, make war inevitable.


On Immigration:

A necessary precondition for any type of immigration reform, whether a "guest worker" program or enhanced visas is to regain control of our borders. Unless we stop the flow of illegals and forcibly return those already here any "reforms" will be openly ignored, mocked, and doomed to failure.There are too many Americans out of work for our industries to pretend we have a labor shortage. We don't. What we have is a perverse set of incentives whereby our government pretends to guard the borders in exchange for cheap labor that isn't really cheap.

*   *   *

What is the value of citizenship if it requires nothing more than drawing breath (and a monthly welfare check)? Politicians who dwell in virtual one-party fiefdoms, will come to rue the day when they put their own electoral interest over that of their state and their nation.

We are well on the way to becoming a bipolar country: a minor contingent composed of working citizen taxpayers on one side, and on the other a majority of non-taxpayers who have no definable interest in US citizenship, or who are in fact not citizens at all.

I need not point out the perils inherent in such a division. Except perhaps to liberals, who have a history of missing the point in these matters.

*   *   *

I have not seen very much evidence of "hate" in these precincts regarding illegal immigrants. What I have seen is concern - justifiable concern, in my view, about the long-term effects of illegal immigration on our safety, security, economic growth prospects, and even our identity as a nation. The flood of illegals is creating enormous strain on our financial resources. Social Security fraud, insurance fraud, and tax evasion related to illegals are rampant. These are only a few of many societal costs that we are currently bearing, and which virtually every other country on earth would refuse to accept - including Mexico, whose own policy on illegal aliens is rather Draconian...

I respect President Bush greatly for what he is trying to accomplish in Iraq in the face of left-wing opposition and Congressional timidity. I have supported him verbally and in print on this issue and will continue to do so. But Mr. Bush is wrong about illegal immigration, even if his motivation is pure (and I think it is).

Millions of Americans, many of them non-"Buchananite" Conservatives agree with me. We see the effects and the costs of unrestrained illegal immigration on a daily basis and cannot understand why it is so difficult for our leaders to see it as well. Business wants cheap labor? Fine: I'm in business, too - but I know the difference between short-term profits and long-term losses, and have felt the lure of booking expenses as capital because it makes you look profitable when you're really floundering. Writ large, that's what illegal immigration is doing to America. It make our labor appear cheap, while deferring a large portion of the true cost of such labor to the taxpayers of this and succeeding generations. Congress, not the President, is largely responsible for this state of affairs for the same reason they can't be trusted with most financial matters. But this is an issue on which the President should be leading an honest and comprehensive review of our policy toward illegals.

If President Bush would abandon his overly-Romanticized view of immigration and apply the power of logic and the knowledge of history that is certainly within his grasp, the sad charade currently unfolding on Capitol Hill might be avoided.

On the Media:

I used to work with these folks. True, they are almost all Liberals, but Liberalism is like the wallpaper to them - just a background that they share. What really matters is money and power - and in TV you get that through the Almighty Ratings Book. Understand that the Media elite are people who profess to abhor Capitalism (i.e., the sort practiced by ordinary businessmen and women), but are in reality among the greediest and least charitable characters on the planet.

The fact is that network "newspeople" just aren't all that smart - they only think they are. I have found this to be true of most "journalists" - they are highly-opinionated, but poorly-educated. They think the world of themselves, and very little of their audience. Moreover, they are surrounded by other journalists, which is to say, by Liberals. Therefore, when handed a "scoop" that richly validates their prejudices, they are only too happy to pass it on.

*   *   *

It’s not simply that modern journalists are lazy: it’s that they are not “journalists” at all. They are propagandists who impose their point of view in place of facts, and who pretend to report while editorializing.

*   *   *

Among the things I have learned about modern "journalists" is that they are almost uniformly, cowards. The pack mentality which guides them into lockstep formation on public issues leads to both intellectual laziness and unaccountability. They develop an "above the fray" attitude, often beginning in Journalism school, which acts as sort of a religious cloister for verbose left-wing activists.

Removed from the broader world, their opinions harden through group reinforcement, even as their skin grows soft from lack of intellectual or ideological challenge. That is why when challenged even in the slightest way, journalists tend to lash out defensively. They are not used to being questioned because they have long been convinced of their rectitude and personal superiority. Conversely, they are also given to worshiping those in positions of authority who even transparently seek to validate their beliefs; say, like some smooth-talking one-term Senator from Chicago.


On East Coast Intellectuals: 

Dick Morris, to me, is an instructive example of East Coast insularity. Many years ago, when New York was truly a Cosmopolitan city, its writers and artists could frequently be counted upon to express themselves with knowledge and perspective that extended beyond the Hudson River. People came to New York from all over the world; drawn by its opportunities, its wealth, and its boiling cauldron of ideas and human energy.

Today, far from being perspicacious Citizens of the World, many of New York's cognoscenti routinely relieve themselves of thoughts as narrow as a city alleyway and as provincial as a hensh!t on a pump handle. In the space of perhaps two generations, and no less demographically diverse than they ever were, New York's intelligentsia seem to lack the vaguest clue or regard for what most Americans desire and believe. With few exceptions, they seem to talk only to themselves, their Manhattan sound chamber echoing little more than the Liberal Line, expressed in increasing insularity from the world west of Jersey and south of DC.

It might be instructive for these opinion leaders to take a moment, put down their Times Sunday "Arts" sections, preferably without spilling their lattes, and: I don't know, read a Conservative blog, just for a change? Watch a football game? Read a book about military history? Turn on a NASCAR race? (All right - that's going too far).

Would they then understand that, to your average Southerner, or in my case, conservative New England Yankee, Michael Bloomberg comes off as a classic tax-and-spend liberal self-promoter with an annoying accent? A multi-Billionaire, he went and bought himself a nice mayoral job by using his radio and news outlets for political traction, while "choosing" the Republican label like a suit off the rack at Brooks Brothers. Bloomberg favors gay marriage, opposes immigration reform, and wants to ban all guns. He passed the largest property tax in New York's history, and made cigarettes cost $8.00 a pack. He's originally from Massachusetts, and was endorsed for reelection by the New York Times. What else do you need to know?

So Dick Morris, how do you think that record will play in Peoria?


On Gays:

On One Hand...

The gay people that I know do not insist on advertising or loudly trumpeting their sexuality, and I respect that. Other than wearing subtle designer fashions and such, and for choice of hairstyles and cologne, you wouldn't know. A lot of people might not notice. I once lived in New York and I do. But those are personal things and not brash, aggressive displays demanding approval with an implicit warning: complain and you will be tagged as a bigot. Some of the sweetest and kindest people I know happen to be gay. I don't care, as long as they do not demand more of me than I would demand of them: respect others, and yourself.

But on the Other...

The people I am concerned about are the ones who insist on making the personal, political. They are the ones who cannot "get over themselves" because they are compelled to conflate a personal choice into a statement of perverse religious dimensions, by which they practice deviancy in public venues in order to shock and disturb and thereby provide themselves with a justification for avoiding the profound responsibility that comes with true intimacy.

This latter group does not desire acceptance. They want approval. In fact, they demand approval and threaten physical and/or legal action if it is not given. Any refusal or pushback is defined as "hatred" or "injustice", and given wide publicity.  If this pattern sounds familiar, it ought to be: it is the preferred methodology of left-wing social activism, practiced by community organizers and the like for 50 years now, for the purpose of overturning the accepted sociopolitical order. At the same time, the original target (say, for example, traditional marriage) will have been demonized and subtly redefined as the enemy of "progress", requiring regulation and perhaps even abolition. Think I'm kidding? Wait. I predict that very soon you will begin to hear rumblings about abolishing marriage altogether as a social institution.

*   *   *

This is the poisonous fruit of the radical homosexual agenda: all traditions must be mocked and if possible, destroyed. Not content to live quietly, the Gay Mafia is in our faces, all the time, no longer begging for acceptance but demanding approval at the point of a lawsuit. And not merely approval for their “lifestyle” - but for whatever disgusting and vile behavior they desire. That is why, although I have always been a very open-minded person, I find increasingly that I can no longer tolerate them.

On Living in New Hampshire:

New Hampshire is a great place to live and raise a family. We enjoy a high quality of life (meaning really good ethnic food) combined with a relatively sane cost of living, and no income tax. Housing costs are higher than the national average, but only due to our proximity to Massachussetts (where $500,000 buys you a 3-bedroom ranch in a lousy neighborhood). Best of all, the government is virtually invisible, and local, rather than state, politics predominate. Now: please don't tell anyone, and if you must, please steer the Liberals to Vermont.


On Election 2006:

So: The "Mommy Party" won? What really happened was that the kids were being lazy and irresponsible, and when Daddy called them on it, they went running to Mommy because "Daddy's being mean!"

The kids (the voters) were being lazy and irresponsible, and when Daddy (Republicans) strongly suggested that their behavior had to change, they pitched a classic teenage snit and went running home to Mommy.

Now, Daddy may have given them good advice about standing up to bullies and about the need to work for a living and not leech off others. But Daddy also made some serious parenting mistakes.

Who was it who gave the ungrateful little tykes spending money and cool entertainment devices? Dad. Who let them play hooky from their homework because the sun was shining and it was too tempting not to take advantage of the moment? Dad again. (Mom wasn't around, as she was out shopping and having lunch with all of her friends where they'd complain endlessly about their husbands).

When Dad failed to lead by example, and say "No", the kids felt like they were being cheated out of an entitlement, and predictably ran off to the other parent - the one with the soothing words and the open purse. For Dad, there was only a diet of "hot tongue and cold shoulder" from the wife and a knowing look of contempt from the kids.

That's what happens when you lose control of your household by forgetting your values and doing what feels good instead of what you know is right.

*   *   *

In truth, the Republicans lost because they abandoned their core principles. When they embraced Big Government, engaged in corruption, and doled out "pork" by the truckful, they lost the very things that had successfully differentiated them from the Democrats in the past. Long suffering from a lack of principled leadership, congressional Republicans increasingly appeared spineless and incoherent, and as mealy-mouthed and dishonest as any lifetime Democrat big-city machine politician.

The only way for Republicans to get back on track is to admit that they deserved to lose, then figure out why, and change it. All else is a fruitless exercise in blame-shifting and rationalization.

*   *   *

It seems almost inevitable that after being in power for a period of time, political parties lose their way. After a burst of initiative and activity, followed by implementation of some or many of their goals - their enthusiasm wanes. They lose their focus as the original agenda takes a backseat to the imperatives of governance. And then, as time goes by, the object of governance is no longer the pursuit of coherent policy, but the maintenance of power.

Don't feel badly, and certainly don't give up. It happens to most political parties. The Republicans may well need to fall further before they are ready to pick their sorry behinds off the ground, shake off the dust and get back to the blackboard to relearn all they forgot while playing the game.

One thing that will help them do so earlier would be the emergence of a new national leader - a person of principle, wisdom, vision, honor, courage and great good humor. One or more are out there. We need to find them - or wait until they find themselves.

*   *   *

Much damage has been done to the Republican Party, and there is much time in the wilderness ahead, so I would suggest getting used to the idea of being a minority for a while. As an index of what has occurred, Independent voters did not fail to turn up on Tuesday - they did turn out, and in significant numbers, and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats (the figure I saw was over 60%). This is a sea change from recent voting patterns and it is indicative of a major shift in public attitude toward the Republican Party.

In brief, the Republicans came to power gradually beginning in 1980, failing briefly in '92, and then overwhelmingly in 1994. That was 12 years ago, the past three or four of which have been a Republican exercise in intellectual laziness, fiscal profligacy, ethical decay, disorganization, and lack of discipline. It doesn't matter a whit if a party is "right" on the merits of key issues: once power has wreaked its corrupting influence, the voters will take notice and act accordingly.

That is what happened on Tuesday. The Iraq war was a factor, but only because the Republican Party, having lost its formerly high standing with the electorate, lacked the ability to successfully make a case for it. The Republican Party is now widely viewed as the party of Big Government and waste, a development that would have Ronald Reagan shaking his head in sadness.

Do not kid yourselves, people - this will take a long time. 8-12 years would be my guess. The Republican Party needs a complete overhaul of its leadership and a reinvigoration of it grassroots operations. The process must begin with a restatement of core principles and ideas - Conservative principles and ideas - chief among them: limited Federal government, strong national defense, low taxes, the primacy and sanctity of human life, and secure national borders. It's time to start.


On Election 2004:

So John Kerry says that Bush has "no plan to win the peace".

Of all the hare-brained catch-phrases emanating from the 2004 campaign, this one has to win the "So Stupid It Defies Gravity" Award.
"Win the Peace" is an air-whipped verbal confection cooked up by Democrat sound-bite chefs seeking profundity without the need for rational thought in order to achieve it. Wars are won or lost. Peace is first secured, and then defended - often by the armies that achieved victory on the battlefield. The government supporting those armed forces must have a plan to transfer responsibility for future control to civilian authorities. This is precisely what is occurring in Iraq today, and quite successfully, because that was the plan.

What was the plan to "win the peace" after WWII? We occupied Germany for years, fought off marauding bands of Nazi sympathizers and Communist rebels and criminals, and once general peace was SECURED (not "won"), divided the country with our Allies (unfortunately including the Soviet Union). What was the plan to "win the peace" in Japan? We firebombed and irradiated them into submission, forceably disarmed their military and then occupied the country until they could be trusted again.

*   *   *

Anyone really think we can trust JFK III with our armed forces in Iraq or elsewhere? Besides, The only "piece" he's ever won had million dollar bank accounts.

*   *   *

Zell Miller, every Republicans favorite Democrat, played Michael Corleone to John Kerry's Fredo (quote source: CrushKerry)

Zell Miller told the world last night that the Democrat Party, as exemplified by John Kerry, had broken his heart. And what a speech it was - no single Republican could have spoken the words Miller did with the same authenticity and emotional impact.
I know for certain that this speech will have a lasting effect - because today's Boston Globe contains almost no mention of it. I swear to you all, I'm not making this up. The Globaloney reported primarily on Cheney's address, and deep, deep inside the paper (page A21 or so) inserted a few quotes by Zell Miller, mentioning, as an aside, that it was in fact the Keynote address. This "news" article, written by veteran Bush-hater Anne Kornblut, portrayed the speech as "harsh" and "militaristic", without quoting from it at length, while letting us know that Democrats had already condemned the speech.

The "Spitball" comment (surprise!) was completely omitted, and that's the one that's going to leave a mark, folks - like the crashing impact of a .38 slug. Zell Miller did the Republican Party - and the nation a favor last night and gave John Kerry two in the hat. But it wasn't just "business" - it was personal, too.

In retrospect, we will probably recall that it was a good thing when George Bush received a wake-up call in the first debate. The President could not afford to coast to victory - the media was never going to let that happen, even if Kerry seemed determined to fumble away his chances. But now Kerry has found his voice (just as he always seems to do in the latter stages of campaigns) and the President is going to have to start fighting back, by challenging Democrat lies. The economy, for example, does NOT suck. The war was NOT wrong, it IS about terrorism, and we ARE winning. France will NOT help us, either (they're too busy making reservations for the Al Jazeera Fancy Foods and High Explosives Festival in Paris next spring. Okay, I made that up, but Jacques Chirac would definitely party like it's 1939. And it is.


On Education:

When it comes to preparing them for productive work lives, our schools are failing our kids. Technical training alone will not solve the problem. Technology is a moving target - it changes continuously; that is its nature, and so it should. What is important is the ability of people to adapt to change as it occurs. This implies an ability to think critically. Such ability comes only from a solid grounding in the basic elements of human knowledge: Math, Science, History, Language, Art, and Philosophy.

Unfortunately, what are kids are getting today is a mishmosh of liberal attitudinizing, racial and gender-based grievance studies, moral relativism, and pop culture. Even technical training schools have been affected by the decline of Liberal Arts - they tend to teach skills to get jobs (today's hot technology) instead of skills for life. And the most significant reason for that tendency is the lack of fundamental knowledge provided by schools in the formative years. Foreign workers are attractive to US employers not merely because they are "cheaper" (in many cases - they are not) but because they frequently possess knowledge and critical thought processes that many US workers lack.

*   *   *

High Schools used to be counted upon to convey a primary understanding of our culture and of intellectual disciplines: history, science, language, mathematics, music, fine arts, and sports. Colleges provided depth and specialization, enabling their graduates to enter productive fields of endeavor possessed of a minimum proficiency with which to claim true knowledge (baccalaureate), mastery and original intellectual contribution (M.A.; M.S.) or mastery and the ability to profess (a Doctorate).

Sounds pretty quaint, does it not, by today's standards? High schools are now glorified baby-sitting services accompanied by liberal governmental indoctrination programs. Colleges are remedial services for those who didn't get it the first time around and preparatory academies for those who did and crave more of the same as a means to indoctrinating others.

On Lawyers:

The wussification of America continues, aided and abetted by the Tort Pimps. Many of my fondest memories are of childhood Summers, consisting of riding a bike for hours - without a helmet, of course, exploring through the woods, playing in old treehouses and abandoned cars, swimming and diving and running forever without a care in the world. Today, Youth Services would come and arrest my parents, and whisk me off to a foster home, while a SWAT team of attorneys would decend like locusts with briefcases and camera crews in tow.


On Economics and Trade:

Liberal economists like Krugman believe that government and not individuals are the source of wealth and prosperity. They have developed an entire theoretical framework around that idea, whose primary purpose is the justification of theft by denial of property rights.

In order to understand that notion, you need to believe that your life's opportunities would not exist but for the government. In other words, your government is not your servant, but your master - or as liberals would have it - your protector or guarantor.

In exchange for guaranteeing your security, you are expected to cede a portion of your liberty and the greater your effort, the more you must surrender. This, they call a "social contract". I call it slavery.

 *   *   *

"Labor" is not an indivisible entity. There are many different categories of labor, only the most superficial of which are "skilled" and "unskilled". In a dynamic service economy such as ours, the demand for labor is not determined solely by macroeconomic factors (wage rates, physical location, sales growth, production costs) but more by technical factors - access to training, productivity, process management, and technological advances.

Hence, there is not a "labor shortage" in the US - but there are shortages of people trained in specialized fields with technical knowledge who can quickly adapt to the "lean manufacturing" environment that predominates in our industries.

*   *   *

I generally favor free trade. But I draw the line at treating with countries that want to destroy us. Oh, but the Chinese have changed.. they're almost like us now! No, actually, they're still communists and if they're "almost like us", it's only because of our "progressive" President and Congress. When exactly did we become a nation of Fools, and why do I think public education had a great deal to do with it?


On "Climate Change" Theology:

Modern linguistic theory is predicated on the idea that the meaning of words is infinitely malleable and that whoever dictates their definition will rule others. That is why Liberals strive to control the terms of every debate by reference to emotionally-laden words, rather than by objective truth. In short, they intimidate rather than argue.

When the evidence of "global warming" fades in the light of empirical observation, the subject mutates to "climate change". When doubt is cast upon man's ability to affect the global climate, proof of the opposite notion becomes a matter of "consensus". What is reasonably doubted is thus "assumed" because it is said to be so, and those who doubt it are held to be "deniers". And who wants to be one of those?

*   *   *

Take a false theory built on a foundation of tendentious "science", cover it with a veneer of morality, and then propose it as a model for human progress and perhaps, for human survival. Engage the services of public institutions and private wealth to promote a movement in service of the theory through agitation and increasingly, through violent action. Meanwhile, employ the communications media to help disguise the movement's true goal: the acquisition of unearned wealth and political power.

"Climate Change" is the new Communism.

*   *   *

The true object of Cap and Trade legislation is at variance with the one its proponents have advanced. Whereas the Warmists claim environmental defense as their goal, in truth they seek power as supplied by the control of resources properly belonging to others.

How do I know this to be so? Here are two a priori questions of my own: do human beings exercise effective control over a gas (CO2) which itself comprises a mere 0.038% of our atmosphere and further, does CO2 have a demonstrable correlation with global temperature?

I think an honest answer based on observable data will lead a dispassionate person to conclude that neither proposition has been verified by accepted scientific method (at least as it once existed when objectivity reigned). At the same time, the proposed legislation is so extensive in scope and draconian in effect that only certain and imminent catastrophe would begin to justify its infringements on human liberty.

But such is not the case, and even those who advance the cause of Climate Change-ology dare not offer such a preposterous notion, even as their legislative proposals would dramatically reduce freedom, restrict property rights and impose gargantuan costs.

Instead, a set of desired assumptions has been pronounced as a matter of faith by those willing to warp science in the service of politics.




El Jefe.

Back to the Future.


My redesign of the Clinton Library. I'm not an architect, but I did sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom last night...

Bill and Hill as George and Martha.  


The real WIcked Witch of the West.


Triumph of the Won't.    




   I hate the New York Times more than any institution in America.                                            Anti-American Gothic.


Harry and Nancy are Deeply Saddened

Valerie Plame as '40s moll: The Maltese Felon.