This article reports on a group of ex-justice department officials , led by Janet Reno, who are contesting the procedures being used to try terrorist suspects, who they believe instead should be processed through the American criminal legal system with all the attendant rights that implies. At present their concerns pertain to Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a suspected sleeper cell agent of Al Quaida and the only detainee in the US. They find it reprehensible that  he can be held indefinitely without being tried by a system which is designed to be biased for the defendant [embodied in "guilty until proven innocent"], and which, due to the decisions of Liberal judges over the years, has coddled and liberated many obviously guilty people in the name of protecting their "rights" by formulating legal concepts like Miranda, the exclusionary rule, and just cause, all there to protect and err on the side of the accused. As a result , even someone who most people are sure killed two innocent people, O.J. Simpson, can walk away a free man under our legal system. The difference between proof and sufficient proof under a criminal trial is obvious to anyone who has watched "Law and Order", and the idea that somebody who is contemplating using a WMD to kill thousands or millions of people could be released because a search warrant was not in order is both frightening and instructive, for it illustrates the difference between the War on Terror and a law enforcement problem.  In the latter we are willing to let a guilty man go free to protect those who might be innocent; in the former we can never take the chance of releasing someone who is planning to kill innocent Americans by the hundreds or thousands or millions. Reno and her Liberal friends do not understand this and if they succeed in their crusade,  we may all pay a horrible price .

Michael Barone's article, which is a plea for Conservatives to come up with new ideas, is , as everything he writes, thoughtful and correct in its essentials. However, on this site it has elicited a number of criticisms for saying that big government is here to stay:

To be sure, this is big-government conservatism. But who thinks we're going to get rid of big government? Bush's approach has been to enhance choice and accountability, to rely more on markets and less on government commands.

As a Conservative, I , too, take offense at the thought that we have to accept Big Government as a fait accompli, an idea that goes against everything that we stand for and believe, and the clearest difference between us and Liberals. However, I do not think Barone's statement is necessarily a refutation of Conservatism, but rather a modification in the tactics for limiting government.

To consider my proposal, first realize that the abhorrence of Big government felt by Conservatives is due to the potential for abuse and even tyranny which arises when power is concentrated in a limited number of hands. When the US was being created, the response to this concern was the system of checks and balances which would always serve to restrain the exercise of governmental power.

I would also include in my criticism of Big government that I have yet to find anything it does efficiently and well, so on a strictly economic basis I shudder when I hear Liberals recommend it solve another one of our problems.

Now as the country has grown infinitely more complex through the centuries, the responsibilities of government have grown. Would it be better  if these had been restricted? I would say absolutely YES, but Conservatives, as opposed to Liberals, deal with the practical and real, and therefore we have to acknowledge conditions on the ground, an analogous situation to warfare, where tactics are always changing to adjust to reality. However,  our strategy must remain the same, and this is to limit government, and restrict it from becoming oppressive. To accomplish this, market mechanisms and private initiatives have been incorporated into many of the Bush policies, as a way to "check" the power of government, and  limit it to a supervisory role. Again, my gut instinct is always to avoid any government expansion,  but at the same time if we can restrict it to a refereeing role, well that is a situation I can live with, and not anything resembling the omnipotent Government of Liberal myth and fairy tales. Liberals love to point to the current administration and denigrate its Conservative credentials. and yet they passionately hate it, because they recognize that the limited government responsibilities that have been created by its policies is antithetical to their dogma. Their hatred speaks volumes about the continuing Conservative success at limiting government for the sake of freedom even as we address the problems confronting our Nation.

An LA community which is plagued by dangerous raccoons finds itself unable to do anything about it because the local government agency in charge of animal control wants to instill a "reverence for life"  amongst its citizens [see article ]. Even in La-la land some are decrying this as political correctness gone amok, as recurring life threatening attacks on pets have caused people to fear for their safety.  The government response is truly amazing:

"As we develop these programs that demonstrate our compassion for creatures completely at our mercy, it makes for a more compassionate society all the way around."
 
Now, its heartwarming to see the Liberals on the Left Coast caring for life, and I am sure they supported the recent effort in Spain to grant special rights to apes to protect them from being the victims of human imperialism, but I have to admit that it bothers me that these same compassionate, understanding  souls probably condone abortion as a right of  women, and,  while harming a raccoon is not allowed, killing a fetus is probably no problem at all in LA. And to think that some people believe Liberals have their priorities all mixed up.

Conservatism, like any philosophy that is adopted by a wide ranging group of people , has begun to be “fuzzy” around the edges, as different emphasis and beliefs are grafted upon it. On this site I have seen secular cons, libertarians, paleos, neos, as well as the usual smattering of closet liberals who try to convince us that their beliefs are either compatible with, or better than, ours. Therefore, for my own mental housekeeping, and perhaps yours, I am attempting to clarify some of the basic policies of Conservatism, and why these are the stands we have taken.

As I have written before, the basic premise of Conservatism is that Man is not perfectible, but rather that he is, indeed, fallible, but in this fallibility is all that makes us human, including our talents, ambitions, desires and aspirations. Victor Davis Hanson has referred to this as our tragic fate, for we are destined to have heartbreak and disappointment, but overcoming and triumphing gives us the chance to be heroic, indeed to be more than we ever dreamed. Perfection comes in one flavor, while humanity’s palette is infinite. That is worth the acceptance of our frailty and imperfection.

The other foundation of Conservatism is a belief in a Higher Power, which bestows upon us certain moral absolutes which are not subject to majority approval or social engineering. I have debated this point with people who call themselves Secular Conservatives, a name I consider an oxymoron; if you go back to Burke, the founder of modern Conservatism and work your way to the present, belief in God is an integral part of the philosophy, and indeed, was a major demarcation point with the secular Liberals, who threw religion out with all the other building blocks of society after they stormed the Bastille and began the march towards their paradise, a path which ended with Marx and Communism, when religion was denigrated as the opiate of the Masses. Now you can subscribe to small government, capitalism, family values and many of the other tenets of a Conservative, but unless you believe in God, you are not one by historical definition. To redefine it is to create something else all together.

Having stated it’s axioms, how does Conservativism play out in the world? First and foremost, there is an overriding fear of government, which is recognized as a route to tyranny. Even if the goals are justified, a Conservative knows that power corrupts, and that even the best of intentions can, and will, lead to unforeseen consequences. Therefore governmental power should be minimized, and when it is necessary, checks and balances incorporated to prevent its accumulation in any one man or group of men. And just as important, Conservatism recognizes that government cannot change men, that the governed do not mirror the government, but rather the government reflects its citizens. Improvement comes by people changing, not by fiat from a paternalistic authority. Thus quotas, affirmative action, redistribution of income, entitlements, and all the other programs which are meant to make society “better and fairer” are recognized for what they are: futile attempts at social engineering which lead to more governmental power, more waste and more corruption.

At the same time, all those institutions and processes which have developed over time, sometimes thousands of years, and which counter balance government, and indeed protect us from it, are defended. Thus marriage and its values, the fundamental unit of society for thousands of years, is held sacred, and attempts to change its basic nature are fought. Gay marriage is looked upon for what it is: not an attempt to create another stable unit of civilization, but rather an indirect attack on what marriage stands for, and in European countries which have instituted it, Gay marriage has resulted in decreasing marriage rates and increasing out of wedlock births, for once marriage loses that special place it holds in society, and becomes just another option for living together, it quickly declines since the commitment and self abnegation it demands quickly loses their appeal.

Smaller governing units, such as states, which tend to be more responsive to their citizens concerns, are also held in higher regard by Conservatives than Liberals, who see them as standing in the way of their attempts to reorganize the country according to their precepts. The logical extension of this is that Conservatives defend nation states against global institutions, which are the ultimate Big government, and therefore see in the UN an effort to run roughshod over the sovereignty of the US, as the tyranny of the third world nations replicates the raw democracy of the French Revolution on a much bigger scale as they attempt to bring the mighty low out of envy and greed. A Conservative understands that nations behave like people and follow their self interests, and that force is often a necessary deterrent or corrective. The UN negates the idea of balance of power and power politics, and replaces it with rule by mob, which is really no rule at all. Its wonderful to think that we can all sit down and talk out our problems, but that is not how the world works, as every nation seeks its own advantages. Therefore, all that is accomplished is that the US, the greatest power in the world, is leashed and restrained, and the opportunity for the peace which historically has been enforced by the most powerful nation, whether the Pax Romana or Pax Britannica , is missing, and the world is in turmoil.

Abortion and euthanasia, which this past week was recommended for consideration for sick infants in Britain, are looked upon as a violation of the Natural Law which God has bestowed upon us, and whereas a Liberal sees abortion as an empowerment for females, a Conservative sees it as murder. This is really a cut and dried difference which I do not believe can be bridged. One cannot countenance murder for political expediency or to make women feel better about themselves, which has somehow become the countervailing argument. This, perhaps more than anything else, demonstrates the diametrically opposed views of Liberals and Conservatives, and puts the lie to the Liberal belief that all things are subject to rational discussion and solution. If life is sacred, murder is reprehensible, and no sophistry can change that.

Lastly, I saved the argument for capitalism, which, in many ways, is the most eloquent solution ever devised by men to address a fundamental problem, that of production and allocation of resources, which is what an economy is. Capitalism, which arose over centuries, actually accepts the selfishness of man, and uses it for the greater good in a way no Liberal formulated and imposed program has ever done. The famous “invisible hand” of the marketplace actually takes the individual actions of millions of people and creates a system which has produced more wealth in a hundred years than had been in the previous 5000 years of civilized life. For a Conservative, this beautiful mechanism, which acknowledges men’s greed and aspirations, and instead of defying them with government proclamations and regulations, allow them to work for the betterment of all is the ultimate example of how society should operate, and any attempt to “improve” it by the imposition of socialistic principles and regulations is fought with all available forces. In some respects there is no more important concept to defend for a Conservative.

So there you have it. It is certainly not an exhaustive examination of all the policies and beliefs of Conservatism, but it does touch on the major ones, and hopefully I have succeeded in tying them together by demonstrating the principles which under gird them. I think it is important that Conservatives recognize that we should never defer to the supposed high road and morality that Liberals claim as their own , as they look down their noses at what they perceive as our selfish and mercenary policies. We, too, seek to improve the world, but recognize that reality is messy and cumbersome, and not able to be ignored. Not for us the ivy towers which house the Liberal pundits who see the world as they would like it, not as it is. It is all well and good to formulate fairy tales, but in the light of day they dissipate like so much fluff. While Liberalism gives birth to the fanciful and fantastic, which oftentimes turns into the horrible and dangerous, Conservatism has been busy making the world a better place by seeing it as it is, and guiding it to what it can be. For that we should all be proud.

As Conservatives lick our wounds after an electoral defeat, and endure some criticism from Liberals about what spoilsports we are, I thought this article about the defeated Mexican Leftist Lopez Obrador might offer us some lessons as to how to behave when we lose a vote. It seems Mr. Obrador has declared a parallel government, of which he is , naturally, the head, and he is now soliciting donations from the suckers...I mean his supporters to fund so far unannounced activities. So there you have it...the correct way to lose an election is to announce you didn't and begin to suck money from the people who put their faith and trust in you. Hmmm...maybe Liberals really don't know how to accept defeat very well after all. Surprising, considering how much practice they have.

I usually agree with Bill O'Reilly, though his populist tirade against the Oil Companies must have been written by Nancy Pelosi's speechwriter, but I have a bone to pick with him regarding his new book "Culture Warrior". Try as I might, I cannot figure out the real differences between his Traditionalists and Secular-Progressives and good old fashioned Conservatives and Liberals. Yes, he tries to finesse this, and creates some minor points of divergence, but let's be real, or in his terms, cut out  the spin.

All Liberals are secular , regardless of what superficial homage they might pay to religion [especially recently] and there is a fundamental reason for this: acceptance of God implies there are Absolutes in the Universe, specifically in terms of morality and ethics, and this is anathema to a Liberal, who is raised on the mother's milk of multiculturalism and moral relativism, and who cannot abide by the thought that there exists a Higher Power who can restrain their effort to create a better world. Hence they take every opportunity to restrict religion in the public square, while waving the banner of Darwinism in their crusade against believers, who stand in the way of their perfecting Man. And this clever segue leads to the other basic tenet of Liberalism, progress, which they believe is ever onward, a march Marx took straight to a Communist heaven. Therefore, all Liberals are secular progressives [progressive and liberal are often used synonymously].

As for Conservatives, they are, by definition, those who seek to conserve the traditional ways of doing things which they feel time and man's collective intelligence have proved work. A Conservative is ALWAYS a traditionalist, something that should not have to be pointed out, especially to someone as savvy as O'Reilly.

So every time I hear Mr.O'Reilly use his new terms, what comes to mind is the person who renamed used cars as "pre-owned", a brilliant marketing ploy which really just repackaged old clunkers and allowed them to become respectable. O'Reilly never has referred to himself as Conservative [at least I have never heard him], yet has no trouble calling himself a Traditionalist. Fine, if this is just an attempt at coloration which allows him to maintain some semblance of neutrality on his show, more power to him. If, on the other hand, he is trying to create a new proprietary demarcation between people which he can claim as his discovery, well, if he tried to patent it , I think it would be rejected as just restating what has existed for hundreds of years. There is a Culture War, and I respect O'Reilly for engaging it, but in the spirit of honesty and reality, let's call a Liberal a Liberal . And if there is anyone out there who can show me the error of my ways, please, feel free to explain what I am missing, and why we need new terms for old foes.

Wonders never cease- the NY Times published an article today which accurately assesses the military situation in Iraq, and explains why leaving prematurely [whether you call it phased withdrawal, pulling back, putting more responsibility on the Iraqi forces or any of the other euphemisms for cut and run that the Dems advocate] is not really an option. Granted, it comes a week after the elections when it can do no harm to the Democratic candidates who have never seen a military engagement they could stomach, but better late than never. Perhaps this is an indication that the Liberals, now that they have power, will be more realistic about Iraq. Or maybe this one just snuck past their internal censors. Whatever the reason, enjoy it; it maybe a long time before you get to agree with Times again!

Poor stupid Conservatives that we are, we have been laboring under a vast misapprehension  about the meaning of the phrase "swift boating" as it has been used by various Democrats over the last two years. When Kerry initially turned a boat into a verb, we thought he was saying that those were unsubstantiated rumors spread by vindicative men who were just out to sink his candidacy. However, John Murtha has now used the same term [see article] to describe the use of a video showing him being investigated under Abscam to undermine his attempt to be the majority leader of the party who is promising to clean up the culture of corruption [who says Democrats have no sense of humor?]. See, we had it all wrong. "Swift boating" really means "How dare you listen to anything disparaging about me which could cost me an election. I don't care what proof you have, I insist it's wrong, and refuse to acknowledge its validity".  Come to think of it, we should have realized that's what it meant when Kerry used it too.

John West of the Discovery Institute, which is pro-intelligent design, has written a great article about Darwinism, and the attempt by some conservatives to either except it outright, or use parts of it to justify a traditional morality, while ignoring the dangers it poses, not least of which is that it has come to represent the new infallibility which Liberals trumpet and use against their enemies. As I have often noted, Liberals seem to lack an "irony" gene [to put it into terms they should appreciate] and so do not understand the perversity of their denigrating Religion for claiming absolute truth, while making the same claim for Science, when any Scientists will tell you that they never find " ultimate answers”, they only construct theories which fit the facts until they are inevitably overturned [hence Newton's Universe and laws were replaced by Einstein's]. Ignoring this, Liberals wage their crusades behind the infallibility of their science, and woe to anyone who opposes them, as their much heralded appreciation of freedom is the first casualty of their campaigns. West's article is interesting, informative and well written, and should be read by all Conservatives who have ever thought about Darwin.

A stellar international assembly, including Kofi Annan and ex-Iranian President Khatami, people I know I hold in the highest esteem for their great works, have announced a solution to the Islamic-Western rift which is responsible for all those poor, misunderstood Islamic Terrorists killing innocent people: just resolve the Israelis- Palestinian conflict. In their infinite wisdom, they have declared this predominantly a political, not  religious, conflict, and as soon as the poor Islamofascists no longer feel oppressed by the infidel in Palestine [and they did also mention Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechyna and a few other places in passing...no big deals I guess to pacify these too] everybody can start being nice to one another. Is it my imagination, or can I hear the new leadership of Congress whooping for joy as they prostrate themselves before the shrine of civilized international negotiations which will bring us peace in our time [and let me give Neville Chamberlain credit for that memorable phrase which was mainly forgotten in the chaos of the ensuing world war].

Now I hate to be a spoilsport, but I feel a few things should be pointed out. Firstly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for nearly 60 years, if not 2000 if you want to use a longer frame of reference, and "solving" it will be no mean feat. However, maybe we should ask ourselves if  this even would end the jihad so many of the Islamic fanatics have announced and are trying to implement. Well, let's see: for starters, do you think those kids in France who seem to have a personal vendetta against moving vehicles really care about the Palestinian question? Or how about this: I don't remember any of the 9/11 hijackers being Palestinian; were they all just motivated by the love of their fellow Arabs [please note that Palestinians have always been treated as second class citizens by the other Arab nationalities. The Jordanians basically threw them out during Black September, and that opinion seems to pervade the whole Middle East]. And all those Al Quaeda attacks against the government of Saudi Arabia, the protectors of the most sacred shrines in Islam, are these, too, a demonstration of filial unity with those poor Hamas followers who only want to wipe Israel off the face of the map in order to get a warm and fuzzy feeling for the West. Last but not least consider Iraq, where Sunni's and Shiites kill one another with glee, the difference between the two having to do with the return of a mystical Iman; that sure sounds like a political debate to me, and when those Palestinians are made happy by whatever tricks Kofi and the UN have up their sleeves, I am sure that all will be forgiven between these two warring sects of Islam, and everyone can sit down and discuss whatever they haven't discussed in a few hundred years of hating and killing one another. 

I cannot understand why so many of us foolish Conservatives believe that we are facing a cultural war inspired by an imperialistic religion which seeks to destroy or subjugate the West. It's all just a misunderstanding which the UN will set right by implementing some educational programs, maybe a few business relationships [boy that oil for food program was sweet! Think they can do it again?] and perhaps finally setting the boundaries for the new Palestine. I mean, just think of all the successes the UN has had in "solving" international crises like Darur, the Congo, Rwanda,...but I digress. I am sure that whatever they do  will put this whole misunderstanding behind us, and we can all live in peace.

One last thought. Do you think Liberals also still believe in the Easter Bunny?

Rosie O'Donnell, that foreign policy maven and all around pundit, actually said that we shouldn't fear terrorists because "They are mothers and fathers"[see article item #7] as if this means they could not be a threat to us. 

Actually this beautifully summarizes the Liberal tendency to claim to be multiculturalists and understanding of others' points of views when in reality they project their beliefs and perspectives onto everyone else, and thus fail to understand what is actually confronting us. By saying they are mother and fathers O'Donnell creates a visual of a loving family nurturing and protecting their children while just trying to make a loving home for them, same as  we do in the West; this is "Father knows Best" relocated to Palestine. In reality, yes, the terrorists  are parents in the sense they have children, but they encourage those children to go out and kill innocents, and when they blow up a cafe in Israel or a building in NY, those parents take pride in the murderous activities of their offspring, who are following in their footsteps. Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, had a son who was killed fighting the Israelis [see article]. How does this in any way reduce the danger  he poses to peace in the Middle East? If anything, his fanaticism is just reinforced by his sacrifice of a child.

This Liberal disconnect from reality and delusional interpretation of a dangerous world is what saps their resolve and ability to confront the mortal dangers that confront us, and, when they are in positions of power, endangers all of us. Yes Ms. O'Donnell the enemy confronting us are mothers and fathers, as was Stalin, Ghengis Khan and Castro. What in God's name does that have to do with the danger they pose?  How naive can you be?

With the  announcement  by the South Koreans that they will not help us interdict ships suspected of carrying supplies for the North's WMD programs, the time is right for us to reassess our security relationship with them. We still have thousands of troops stationed there, with all the associated costs and attendant danger that armed forces facing one another are always subject to. Now I would have to describe myself as a hawk in terms of my beliefs regarding the protection of  our  interests and Allies, but I find myself growing more and more disgusted with the South Korean Government and its Sunshine policies toward the North. After all, as a strategic partner they lost their worth with the end of the Cold War, and as an economic competitor, they are being replaced by the Chinese. We need to focus their attention by forcing them to contemplate a world where they would have to protect themselves from the madman on their border without our aid, and if that doesn't change their minds, then we should pack our stuff and leave. Somehow, even as I am sure the  omnipresent Liberal  college students will be in the street cheering such a possibility, I doubt it will come to that. But if it does, we might someday see how much protesting those students do under Kim Jong Il.

 As the US faces its most Socialistic Government since the Depression, when capitalism essentially left a vacuum by just about ceasing to operate, it behooves us to consider why Liberalism inevitably evolves into Socialism so that we can understand what our future may hold.

Many argue that classical Liberalism is not Socialistic, but rather the forefather of the quest for personal liberties and freedom. Strictly speaking, if you trace your Liberalism to the Enlightenment, and then follow it through the Encyclopedists to the French Revolution, you may be able to maintain this fallacy. However, the underpinning, indeed the bedrock belief of all Liberalism, is that rational thought and action can achieve perfectibility in Man. Indeed, the Godfather of Liberalism, Rousseau, believed that in his natural state, Man was perfect, and that society corrupted him. Therefore, as Liberalism progressed in the 19^th century, the Liberals looked at all the problems facing humanity, specifically wealth inequality, and, free of the strictures that religious morality and class structure had imposed, attempted to create from whole cloth a new value system which would “solve” poverty. Two of the giants of Liberalism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill , devised Utilitarianism, which sought to quantify “the Good” in society, and this led to the concept that the Good of the many outweighed the Good of the Few. From here it was a short step to Marx and Communism, which said that there was no individual property, and that by everyone sharing, workers could be freed from the tyranny of the economy [read Capitalism] and forge a paradise on Earth where money seeking is obsolete, and personal fulfillment is pursued. Thus the inevitable segue of the Liberal desire to create a just, fair, equitable world into a Socialist paradise, where this is accomplished.

Sounds wonderful, as the end of all fairy tales usually do. The problem is that any system devised by Man is subject to “gaming”, defined as the ability of someone[s] to attain an advantage. In the world, “gaming” is often used disparagingly, as a synonym for “cheating”, but in truth, regardless of those who point to Enron or Standard Oil as examples of wealth creation through diabolical means, the gaming of wealth production is predominantly a function of the basic inequalities in the talents and abilities and desires of people. This is a concept a Liberal cannot fathom, because while he speaks glowingly of Man, he is unable to accept the differences of men which allow for some to become wealthy while most do not. The point is, Man is not perfectible, there will always be differences, both good and bad, and these will always lead to inequalities in the lives of people. This is fundamental, unchangeable human nature, something which Liberalism refuses to accept, and this is what leads to Socialistic tyranny as they seek to create a “fair” world where no one has an advantage, and poverty is non existent.

As the Russian people found out, any attempt to implement communism inevitably leads to tyranny, because without top down enforcement, any attempt at creating economic parity is doomed by human nature’s drive for advantage [it’s always interesting to me that the Liberal love of evolution, with its emphasis on survival of the fittest, falls by the wayside when they consider economic theory; I guess this is just another example of their hubris in believing they can overturn nature]; the only way even a figment of this can be achieved is by decreeing results. Thus a Socialistic government must enforce by fiat the end products which their system cannot deliver. Therefore, for instance, minority businesses must get 20% of government business. Or 50% of the heads of businesses must be female, because that is their share of the population. Or the student body of a University must reflect the proportionate share of the population of various minorities. In an ideal Socialistic world, these results would all occur naturally, but since white males maybe more aggressive in attaining business, or Asians may value education more that Hispanics, or any of the other reasons disparities show up, the real world never reflects what should be the Ideal. Wealth accumulation is of course the ultimate example of this, and try as they might, no system devised by Man will ever result in even rough equality, and therefore the Liberal’s solution is , of course, top down: seize from the wealthy [in this country they call it progressive taxation] and distribute to the poor[who are usually the Liberal’s constituency in a Democracy, since the upper and middle classes either have or believe they will have wealth by their own effort or good fortune]. This is the fate of every Liberal government anywhere in the world, and the only real differences are the amount of power they hold, which determined how draconian their “corrective” actions for wealth accumulation can be.

Thus their quest for a perfectly fair world will inevitably lead Liberalism to Socialism, with the degree of tyranny they are able to exercise in the name of the greater good determined by the willingness of the population ; in Czarist Russia the large number of serfs versus the small aristocracy was receptive to the imposition of Soviet Tyranny if it promised them economic relief, while in Western Europe the middle class restrains the absolute power of their governments, though decades of paternalism has actually transformed the middle class there into a new form of serf who defend their entitlements ferociously, and their economies are dying as a result. We in the US today face the reality that the Democratic Liberals will attempt to impose as much socialism as possible on our society as the lower classes cheer them on, anticipating their rewards for helping to elect them. The question will be, will our middle class stay true to the competitive ideals which has created the most vibrant economy the world has ever known, or will we, too, succumb to the soothing ministrations of Socialism, only to wake up one day to find ourselves part of a dying society. In this battle for our souls, we Conservatives must be ever vigilant, and the defenders of the ideas that have made this country great, against the ideals of Socialism which would destroy us.

Being as disappointed by the election results as anyone, I am not going to try and spin it into a Republican "moral" victory when the plain truth is, we lost. It wasn't the wave that the MSM had been predicting [it was much closer to historical norms than anything anomalous], but nevertheless, we find ourselves today looking at the prospect of the Speaker of the House being essentially a Socialist, and that is just plain awful. In trying to explain the loss, corruption is now being hailed as the key, even though both the Democrat Congressmen  [in WV and LA] who should have been tainted won reelection, while only Republicans seemed to suffer. Maybe we should feel better because the electorate seems to hold us to a higher standard, but I don't.

I have never been a good loser, but at the same time I cannot but wonder what today would look like if the Republicans had retained control of the House. I am sure there are a whole bunch of lawyers who were counting on the next few months buying them a new summer house as the Liberals took to the streets and refused to acknowledge any losses [ lets not forget that 140,000 vote plurality still has not quieted their contention that Bush lost in 2004!]. Again, we Republicans seem a much more civilized lot, and accept loss gracefully, and I guess that is something to be proud of. That and the army of unemployed lawyers, which should bring a smile to anyone's face,  have to comfort us.

So what now? Well, the next two years will be ugly in many respects; political infighting should be fierce, and while a lot of aspersions are sure to be cast about, I cannot see much being accomplished. Hopefully, Bush will now overcome his pathological dislike of the veto, and wield it to protect the economy and the country from the Leftists who will try to "redistribute" income [Socialism by any name...] as they pander to their constituencies in time honored populist fashion, while also seeking to "Vietnamize" the Iraq war, trying to convince the country that 3000 dead is equivalent to 50,000, and that the economic expenditures, which are almost a rounding error in the national budget, will have the same effect as the "guns and butter" policies of Johnson, which led to the inflationary spiral and undermining of the economy which it took a decade to correct . Obviously nothing is comparable, and any comparison will put the lie to the charade, but those who do not study the past are...doomed to be Democrats.

The scariest scenario, of course, concerns the attempts the Liberals will make to emasculate the various programs in place to protect us from terrorism. As they try to impose their moral high ground in the name of protecting the Constitution, the group that has declared war on the Boy scouts in the past will take the side of those poor people who are trying to kill us. The Administration will have to be vigilant, and ready to confront any attempts to "europeanize" this country's policies, which means effectively doing everything possible not to offend Muslims, who are outside in mobs burning anything with rubber tires, and we will have to be ready to support them.

In the end, after two years, hopefully the people will realize the mistake they made yesterday, and this new Democratic dawn will prove to be false, just the last gasps of a party which will doom itself by showing its true colors in all their faded, tattered and tawdry glory.  It will be a tough two years, but I guess we have to periodically be reminded of how bad things can be by having the Democrats in power to clear our eyes. In the meantime, Bush will have to stand strong, and us with him, for our very survival can be at stake this time.

The NY Times today in an article details how NYC is now going to allow people to change their gender on their birth certificate even if they have not had surgery , as the transgender lobby succeeds in its aims of turning a person's sex into just another lifestyle choice. This is just too absurd, and in my opinion stupid, to really debate rationally, but I think it is indicative of all the Liberal agenda stands for, which is a dismantlement of traditional society, and its replacement by a hedonistic, solipsistic culture which replaces liberty with license, and values with moral relativism and anarchy.