The Wandering Minstrel

Michael Barone via The Patriot Post”

Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government. It’s an argument that has been going on for a century but was largely dormant over the quarter-century of low-inflation economic growth that followed the Ronald Reagan tax cuts. It’s been raised again by the expand-government policies of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders. Those policies, thoroughly in line with the Progressive tradition, have been advanced by liberal elites in government, media, think tanks and academia. The opposition, roughly in line with the Founders tradition, has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to tea parties and town halls. … The conservative rebellions of the late 1970s and middle 1990s were focused on taxes. The tea partiers are focusing on the expansion of government — and its threat to the independence of citizens. … By passing the stimulus package and the health care bills, the Democrats produced expansion of government. But voters seem to prefer expansion of liberty.

A couple of weeks ago we were at Field Time, a gun shop in Westminster, CA; we went to see the Elite Sports Express “rolling” showroom, a display of firearms and accessories. I blogged about the visit here.

Inside the gun store, I was admiring the Taurus revolvers in the showcase. One of the salesmen asked if I would like to handle one of them. “I’d like to see the Judge,” I said.

“Not legal in California,” was the reply. He continued, “technically, it’s a shotgun with a barrel length shorter than the California eighteen inch minimum.”

What a crock of shit. Just one more kick in the ass that amounts to a step forward in our plan to get the hell out of Kalifornistan.

According to columnist Charles Krauthammer:

[Vice President Joe Biden] is the man who, perhaps without intending, has given historical context to this presidency. After all, Obama sees himself as a successor to FDR and Truman, so now we have the historical procession: the New Deal, the Square Deal, and the Big [expletive] Deal. It would make a great T-shirt.

Anything you say, Charles. Here’s my attempt at a realization:

This is an important 7½ minute message from Judge Andrew Napolitano . . .

“Medicare - broke. Social Security - broke. Medicaid - broke. Amtrak - broke. The U.S.Post Office - broke. Who in their right mind would give healthcare, with that track record, to the same people who have broken everything they’ve tried to manage?”

View the entire video.

Cross-posted at Cap’n Bob

Where the politicians voting for the unconstitutional healthcare p.o.s. belong . . .

Image courtesy of The Better Half, taken this morning within the grounds of the high desert hotel where we’re staying.

I’m a couple of days late on posting Ramirez’ cartoon that says it all about Congress’ and the Obamination’s latest fuck-up . . .

. . . and I challenge you to do as the cartoon asks - name a government program that is not losing money.

Via Barking Moonbat.

Using deception, thuggery, backroom deals and coercion, Chicago-style politics have foisted yet another Obamination upon American taxpayers. Revolting, isn’t it?

Remember this in November . . .

Mark Alexander offers only two rules when debating liberals in his weekly essay on The Patriot Post. To understand the entire concept, you should read the entire essay, as Mr. Alexander greatly expands on the principles behind rule number one.

The definition of leftists and liberals in rule number two should be intuitively obvious as you read the outrageous bullshit from morons in the media.

When Debating a Liberal, Start With First Principles

Rule Number One: You must define the debate in terms of First Principles, which is to say, you must be able to articulate those principles.

Rule Number Two: You must distinguish between liberals and Leftists. The former subscribe to a plethora of contemporaneous solutions, while the latter are bona fide “useful idiots,” those Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas that terminate with the institution of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism masquerading as regulation and taxation.