Bill, I read your books and listen to your show occasionally, but I think you are going a bit far in your efforts to be fair. Of course, we should not hate Obama the man, as that is not the Christian thing to do. However, we are taught to hate sin, which here could more aptly mean deliberately misleading policies to force America into socialism while muzzling and persecuting those who disagree with his radical agenda. I ask you,sir, can you defend his policies with a straight face, and tell me you agree with where he is wanting to take our country? If you can, you are not a conservative, nor a republican. I do not care if Obama is a  nice guy and means well, and really, REALLY, believes he is right. So did Hitler and all the other fascists throughout history. The proof is in the pudding, my grandpa always said, and what Obama is doing to this country through his policies, nominations, and budgetary shennanigans is to make us into a parody of the European socialist states. I say parody because their masses are sheep ready and willing to be fleeced by the government as long as they get their handouts, while our citizens are buying enough guns and ammo in the last year to literally arm both the Chinese and Indian standing armies. Somehow, I do not think these freedom loving patriots are doing this because they are in agreement with the Obamination our great land is becoming. Quit being an apologist for Obama, and stand up for what is right. Our president is worthy of the respect due the office, yes, and a fair chance to see what he intends for the nation. But..., after 100 days of his madness, I think any sane and objective observer can plainly tell where his path for us leads. One last question, Bill: I know you grew up in a fairly rough neighborhood, where liars and pantywaists did not thrive. How well would it have gone over if you walked around telling all who would listen how ashamed you were of being Irish, and told everybody the best ways to whip you and badmouthing all your friends who might otherwise protect you (you know, leaking national security memos, refusing to back up our allies, that sort of thing)? Your mortal life would have been measured in minutes, if even that long.  That is Obama's foreign policy in a nutshell, and you gave him a "C"??!!! The very best I can say about the man is that he is incompetent and unqualified for the job, and it goes downhill from there.

I want to ask a serious question: at what point do the depredations of the Government rise to the level that requires the use of armed force against its tyranny?
    The point must certainly be reached while we still have will and weapons to resist therewith, but really, how does the average citizen know that it is time to "root hog or die"? I hate the way things are going, but am enough of a student of history to know that it has been worse in America's history regarding Socialism and fascism masquerading as the law of the land, and we did not need armed rebellion to balance the scales.
   The real unknown is if the Obamites ( well, actually after seeing who was really in charge of the stimulus bill I ought to say the "Pelosites" aka, parasites) can pass enough laws to muzzle and outlaw free speech, freedom of assembly, religion, etc., so that when they do the gun grabbing nobody can effectively organize a resistance.
    I am not being alarmist here, just practical, because if there is not a plan for an almost certain Europeanization of our gun laws and personal freedoms, we are going to have to our heads handed to us, just like Hillary did, by Mr. Hope and Change.
      Remember, armed rebellion against tyranny is a constitutional right, and the only reason we even have a nation of our own.
     If we are not willing to risk our lives, liberty and sacred honor to defend freedom, we deserve what we get.

    Founded in the land of the milky hottub, San Francisco, Craigslist will allow one to post all sorts of perversions  as long as they are politically correct. Want to post x-rated businesses? No problemo. Want a quickie in the town you are going to on business, or advertise your availability for such at a mutually, ahem..., pleasurable price? Hey, CL welcomes your post. Want to buy or sell those devil spawned things called firearms? No Way Jose! As a matter of fact, a rabble of semi-literate nazi posting police will flag your post in less time that it takes to say "Pelosi and the Fairness Doctrine", which is not as odd at it sounds as I suspect they are the same type of people. I tried to sell my Glock and had it flagged about 5 times so I put an invitation into my ad to contact me and express the concerns they had with my post of a legal item for sale. Somebody actually was brave enough to send me a reply:

YOUR GUN will continue to be flaged and flaged as long as you violate this PLEASE READ for you to post your add you had to argee to this by accepting the term so me and other are ready to flag all  we want (spelling and syntax as in original email)

    The PLEASE READ referred to is the CL list of things they deem acceptable to post (see above partial list) and thus gives all the nazi wanker wannabees carte blanche to say hasta la vista to my ads. (Does including three different language phrases in one sentence qualify one as multicultural? If so I take it all back.)
So, I replied to the semantically and spell-checking impaired CL censor as follows:

    Hi  I am glad you had enough courage to at least write a reply. CL guidelines are subject to challenge, but you are right, you can keep flagging (which is,by the way, spelled with two "g's") and I will keep re-posting until it is sold. You would not happen to be a liberal democrat, would you, one of those who preach tolerance and diversity, unless it happens to  conflict with your beliefs? You will  note that in my jurisdiction (per the CL statement) my gun is perfectly legal to be sold so I am completely within my rights to advertise it, and if pressed I could probably file suit against Craigslist to force them to change their posting regulations as  violating  both the Commerce Clause, and the First Amendment prohibitions against infringing on free speech.
    The Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment explicitly protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, therefore any laws or policies that materially impede the ability of an individual to use, own or purchase a legal firearm in a open market ipso facto  (by the fact  of it) can be found to infringe on the right to keep (own, and how can one own if one cannot freely buy?) and  bear arms. These types of laws and policies  are therefore unconstitutional.
    As a matter of fact, one of the Court decisions most near and dear to liberals, Griswald vs. Connecticut, (the precursor to Roe vs Wade) found that couples had a right to purchase contraceptives in an open and free manner, not because contraceptives were the issue, but because reproductive rights (the more fundamental right) could not be fully exercised in the absence of easy access to contraceptives. If my item for sale is legal, I have a right to advertise it, especially as the item in question is in a protected constitutional class (firearms). If you disagree with me, please run your reply through a spellchecker first, it makes it look more professional. Thank you for your time and reply! Brian
  
    And I never thought I would get to use Griswald to beat a liberal with, wonders never cease:-)
    Does anyone think I will get an intelligent reply? I don't either, but I DO think it is important to take the time to make principled stands on small things, or there will be no ground left to fight on for conservative principles that must be defended.
   Between Sharia appeasement policies, gay right's thought police, and the general liberal demagoguery that passes for political discourse, there are very few areas of American conservative life  not under a brutal assault.  We can survive this era, as we survived the Clintons (wait..., we still haven't finished with the Clintons, but that is the subject of another post) but we have to take up the fight instead of being appeasement weenies who live only for re-election. Speaking of about 85% of Republican Congress there, and being optimistic at that. The tree of Liberty must occasionally be fed by the blood of tyrants, idiots, traitors, liberal Democrats and RINO's (but I repeat myself), if it is to flourish. Let's start the metaphorical blood flowing!

Comments on

While I do not agree with all Pat writes, as I am not an isolationist, his analysis of Obama's speech has much merit. Consider, if you will, the kind of things Obama COULD have said, indeed were said by many prominent Democrats, and you get a feeling of maturity. Pelosi said her favorite part  of the event was Bush leaving on the helicopter and it felt "like a 10 pound anvil lifting off her head."
Others made childish chants and disrespectful gestures towards the outgoing president. Obama could have gotten up and reaffirmed to DailyKos and Moveon that he was, indeed, their man and given an Ayers type speech about how bad America is (the US makes  Ayers want to puke, but he is stuck in the US as news today said that Canada denied him entrance as too big of a security risk! Wish I could have seen that, but I digress) Obama made the type of speech no one would have expected during the primary, and one, incidentally, that would have kept him from getting all the fringe left votes necessary for him to win.
Of course he is liberalizing abortion funding and espousing gay rights: He believes in those things, and is acting consistent with his beliefs. While I do not agree with him, I expect nothing less of him.
You will note, however, that there were no calls to see Amadinejad without preconditions or any such campaign tripe. Obama will be known as the Pragmatic President, to the dismay of both the Left and Right. The left is going to be sorely disappointed in its more moonbat desires, and the Right will find most of its talking points co-opted into Obama's policies.
Unless Republicans can come up with another Contract with America, and another Newt to run with it, we are going to be a very marginalized party ( even tho I do have hope for Congressional gains in 2010 as the Dems there are feckless and have no control of their liberal impulses). The implosion of the Democrats is not going to come from the White House this time.

Hi Eric been reading your blog on liberal blogs and violence, either you are a more patient man than me or have a lot thicker skin, as I have never tried to reason with those of rabid tongue and mind in their own pits. About your assertion that we will not, as conservatives, retaliate as in a tooth for a tooth, I am not so sure. The problem is a matter of our survival. As long as conservatives could feel that this too shall pass, People of the Book type morality allowed  the turning of the other cheek. God would avenge your wrongs and all that. However, we are entering a period of history where the liberal left is unhinged enough to try exterminating conservative thought ( and any conservative not willing to change affiliation) quicker than you can say "burn'em!" Von Clausewitz stated that the only way to defeat an enemy is to be willing to use the same tactics against them that they employ ( or worse), because to deny your forces a tactic out of moral qualms may well lead to the annihilation of your nation. Machiavelli stated that it is better to be feared than loved, and conservatives have gotten where they are because they would rather be loved than be in power. We are in a war for the soul  and destiny of our nation, and liberals (even though a lot of them do not believe in souls, bless their grinchy hearts) know this truth and act on it. Conservatives really cannot comprehend the depravity and depth of hatred liberals have for them, but viewed through the lens of an eternal warfare between good and evil, it makes perfect sense why they hate us so much. Lucifer, the son of the morning, was cast out of heaven for wanting the glory of the Father. His pride caused his fall, and now he wishes nothing more than to damn those who did not follow him and were deprived of a mortal experience. We got bodies and eventual resurrection, he and his followers do not. He hates righteousness, and all that is good (of God). Liberals are cut from the same cloth, because when you get right down to it, they either have deluded themselves about what they really believe in (IE they are conservatives but do not realize it yet, which is what I hope is the case with your girlfriend:-)), or they are actively fighting against God, because basic liberal tenets like abortion, gay rights, moral relativism, etc, cannot be squared with a God of laws and justice. Liberalism and God are diametrically opposed, when both are properly understood. Both Old and New Testaments talk about those who shall be sheep in wolves clothing, speaking the words of life but murdering men's souls. Now,  I want to make clear  that even though I am speaking from a scriptural standpoint, God works on the ground, so to speak. I am talking of realpolitik, a pragmatic assessment of what the path ahead is. The scriptures tell what will happen, I try to understand and be prepared, so I and my family may not fear. What I am trying to say is too many religious people are so blinded by this idea of turning the other cheek they forget the war history of the Jews under a wrathful God, the moneychangers in the Temple, the Sodom's of the world, and yes, even the Flood. It is not only just to act in defense of right, it is eventually required of all those who honor God. The imagery in Isaiah of Israel going through as a young lion among the wicked, sparing none, is not a pacifistic  one, nor of mercy either. Either we beat the liberals brutally and convincingly now  in the law, the ballot box, and the court of public opinion, or we  will be forced to do it later in the streets. Evil cannot co-exist with good, it can only be restrained and chained down to where it does the least harm: But let loose unrestrained on a supine and ungodly citizenry as we now have, the destruction of good  is the sure result. Liberals have through the Prop 8 fiasco shown themselves incapable of being governed by law (and as you noted, not one liberal is willing to call the gay activists down and discipline them), so the more their will is thwarted, the more violent they will become, until they either achieve their designs or they are met with sufficient pain to be persuaded of their folly. They are bullies, and spoiled fools whose bad manners have been tolerated far too long. Truly the Word is: Spare the rod, spoil the child (and ruin the nation). 

Ahhhh. Chicago! Gangsters, druggies, rappers, 8-mile road, convicted felons, politicians (but I repeat myself), and the ONE, even Obama or as Jonah put it, "hero-saint light-worker Jedi Knight Messiah that he is..., who can pick up manure from the clean end". How he can be elected in Daley's wonderland and remain clean is like expecting a girl at one of Nevada's "ranches" to be a virgin, it just defies logic and common sense. Yet, most of what the MSM passes for news these days has no relation to common sense either, being more like the dirty end of manure. Once the bulldog gets through with the Gov'ner and running down the who did what and knew it when, I expect Libby's memory will look pretty good to all of the Democratic politicians involved in this mess. And I will wager there will be a lot more felony convictions than the one throwaway Libby had to take a fall for. Blago has no incentive to be quiet about possible Obama malfeasance  as he is tossed under the bus, for  even he cannot be stupid enough to think Obama would pardon him, altho he was stupid enough to keep making plans to sell the Senate seat after knowing his phone was wiretapped.... It will be interesting what the MSM and other news outlets come up with over the next week or two(or if the MSM even tries). Like Buchanan said today, this one is not going away, there are too many questions  unanswered. Why oh why, does a seemingly intelligent man like Obama have such bleeping bad associates? I really think he should start being judged by the company he kept. Perhaps we are too parsimonious with our blame here, though, because after all, the voters in Illinois DO keep voting for this type of scum. I think Doug Giles is right, some people really should not be allowed to vote.

I have read quite a bit on both sides of the argument about how Obama is going to govern, and I am not totally convinced even he knows. From the time he sprang onto the national stage two years ago, he has been the epitome of pragmatism. Nothing has been too large, or sacred, to "throw under the bus" if it seemed to imperil his chances to gain the Presidency. Does that mean he has no guiding star other than power, or that he is truly an astute politician, one of the most stellar practitioners of rhetorical chicanery in modern history? By the way, I do not mean the forgoing in a positive light. Obama is not a typical liberal, in that he is not wedded to any one tenet of the liberal cause, except abortion, and even then there was no real challenge to call him on it(the partial birth fiasco ran more on whether he lied, not the substance of what he was espousing). Faced with an enraged electorate, I think he would have thrown his opposition to the "born-alive" bill under the bus too. So what does this have the do with Charles' column? Just that Obama has dreams, but when they meet reality, as his "withdraw from Iraq immediately!" met the NSA daily briefings, the dreams change to pragmatism. His vision of America is probably not that shared by most Townhall readers, but his ability to effectively Change what he Hoped to...? Pragmatically, it's not gonna happen.

I have to admit that I never was very excited about my choice of McCain, because I felt my choice of more conservative, electable men had been eliminated during the primaries by the liberal media. McCain is a great patriot, I just could never wrap my mind around him being a great conservative republican. Conservative Democrat maybe. At any rate, is it better to have a effective pragmatist in office, who may or may not govern from the center, or an ineffective Republican that would excel at National Security but have many social and fiscal policies not so very much different than Obama, or the repudiated Bush spend, spend, spend years? Bush has signed over one Trillion dollars in bailout bills that would never had been necessary had a fiscal conservative that understood money markets and the housing bubble been in office! Bush was a lot better than Gore or Kerry would have been, but to say he was competent and conservative is pushing it. So, the question remains, is effective pragmatism better than clueless RINO semi-conservatism? That is why McCain lost, too many voters asked themselves that question and chose pragmatism. Only the loony left like Moveon.org and DailyKos actually expect Obama to govern on the platform  he campaigned on in the Democratic primaries: After all, 56 million Americans did not vote for him and he said he wants to be their President too. I do not like his radical ties and background, but Obama has shown himself to be a very quick study on what works, because no rational observer would have given him odds of winning the Presidency two years ago, but he did. Despite the complicity of the liberal media, I have to assume that our electorate knew enough of his negatives to disqualify him, but chose not to, and instead elected him with enough of a margin that there is no doubt he won. Acorn and all the rest of the shenanigans Chicago politics come up with do not produce a spread of almost eight million votes. But a great majority of his general election supporters are a far different breed than Ayers, Resko, Wright and co.;  even Pelosi, Reid and Murtha are not mainstream Democrats. He will have to decide which group he gives his allegiance to, and I am willing to bet it is the centrist middle. Why? Because he wants to be a two term President who accomplishes great things, not a one term lame duck whose over-reaching Left  lost him his congressional majorities in the midterm elections, as happened to Bill Clinton in his first term. Clinton got a second term because Bush the elder sold out on taxes, and did not finish the first gulf war.Almost forget, wasn't there someone named Perot who got 18% of the popular vote that year? That could have contributed to a Bush loss too, don't you think...  Bush was, however,an incompetent semi-RINO, and shot himself in the foot, electorally speaking. Obama will not have that gift in 2012, as he will face not just a Romney or Huckabee, but possibly the likes of Sarah Palin and  Bobby Jindal, who are very popular with the conservative base and have broader demographic appeal than Obama started out with. He will have to perform very well just to effectively govern, and with the government hamstrung by fiscal crisis, he does not have enough money available for another New Deal, so he can veto the more outrageous Congressional bills without popular backlash by wearing a conservative fiscal mantle. The prospect of a  Democratic President vetoing a spending bill in the name of fiscal responsibility has a delicious irony to it, doesn't it? After all, the nation does not have enough change in her pockets left, to pay for the type of Change the radical Left wants. In fact, I expect considerably less change than wished for all around, for both voters and Democrats. We will end up a little more broke, and they will learn the meaning of a frustrated majority.