Who wants to reduce all citizens' liberty? Is it Obama or the NRA?

President Obama (see article, link at bottom) said that gun lobbyists' "grip" on Congress is, in effect, to blame for mass murders with guns. So, simply, crazy killers are the blame of the NRA, or any other firearms education and civil rights organization with millions of members. And, I imagine, we can include all the gun manufacturers in that list of evil lobbyists, too. But Obama doesn't cite them, specifically, because then he'll have cops and the military on his ass, as he does the NRA, gun owners and hunters. That LEOs and the armed services aren't already chastising him in unison is a matter of THEIR patience and respect for order, I'd gather. It has little to do with Obama. 

The  has a grip, indeed, though it is on the clear purpose of the Second Amendment, not the bent one the nanny state left promotes. Unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to have a very loose grip on the Constitutional idea of a citizenry free from government tyranny.

Criminals will NOT bring in their guns to the nearest police station because you ask them to, Mr. President. It is beyond buffoonery to continue to propel the myth that restricting public's gun ownership would have prevented  or other mass murders, with guns or without. 

What a shame that a group which insists upon upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and not have to register them is bashed by the people who lead us, and entire PARTY system that wants to lead us exclusively.

Too bad that the POTUS of a once free country promotes the idea that the lack of freedom for all will improve the odds of horrible crimes from happening. That will assure only one thing: only police, military and criminals (true criminals and renegade gun owners, which could be grandmas in Harlem or cowboys in Texas) will then have firearms. Which is how citizens plummet into the serfdom of democratic socialism and other forms of soft tyranny. 

I think we should and can trust the government, but only insofar as they are willing to trust law abiding citizens, and respect their right to join any civil rights groups they choose, such as the noble -- and totally, completely and undeniably anti-crime -- NRA. If you're not a member, if you don't read their publications, then you know nothing about them, except what statist haters want to tell you (inaccurately) about the NRA. It's members are all about gun safety. 

Obama, meanwhile, seems to be for government expansion -- of debt, deficit and tyrannical potential. The Second Amendment isn't about "lax" gun laws, it is about superior gun rights, and so is the NRA.  


Obama blames the NRA for 'lax gun laws' and gun violence (at IBT.com)


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

GUN CONTROL PATROL: so now it's only about "expanded background checks"?

Obama says it's all about "expanded background checks" now. (Facebook post)

GUN CONTROL PATROL - Suddenly it's all about "expanded background checks"?

This started as nothing short of a call for complete gun registration, a ban (or, witch hunt, mostly by Democrat nitwits) on rifles only because they LOOKED like military guns, and a severe limit on magazine capacity of 7 rounds in a handgun. (Here's one hilariously obvious thing non gun owners, and blissfully uninformed "leaders" in Congress, might not know: most non-revolver handguns today hold 8 or more rounds, so this was either a clown posse from the start (idiot kings trying look responsive after a tragedy), or it was an attempt by snakes leading doleful mice to the nest (cynical attempt to ban virtually all handguns, or require customization of virtually every gun, or magazine, out there).

A retired police chief wrote an op/ed, just after Sandy Hook occurred, saying the FIRST THING we should do in response to Sandy Hook is repeal the 2nd Amendment (#2A on Twitter). The first thing! An anti-Constitutionalist sissy with a law enforcement badge (must've sucked working for him, unless you thought as simply as him). Of course, he is not alone, as a search of the Internet would show. Didn't hear anyone from the White House reacting to that insanity. So what? Well, this self-interested, blame-gaming, absent-minded professor in the White House had a beer summit after a minor misunderstanding in Cambridge, Mass. But Obama can't react to an op/ed, or other rants, insisting we repeal the 2nd Amendment? His, and the Justice Department's, silence on these few calls to end 2A is deafening. The clowns are running the circus. They are not in charge of it all, thankfully, as shown by this fall back from demanding gun registration and gun and magazine bans, to a call for broader background checks. The typical, supportive DailyKos readers of the world are not controlling the rest of us (their numbers are far too small).

This change in priorities by the anti-gun brigade in August shows the regrouping, behind their lines, of the cynical power ploy that's standard by the nastily control- and power-hungry Democratic leadership today. They will grab for it all in moments of upset or advantage - as they did with ObamaCare - and retreat if they must, as they had to with gun control. But they are going to instead slowly work their way back to that big goal, which is centralized control of anything possible to wrench control of, weakening states and creating a stronger federation run from DC, all the while insisting it isn't about control, but doing what's better for every individual.

So to them and their supporters it makes sense that a massive federal bureaucracy can offer more attention to individuals than individuals can on their own? Or that a centralized, Soviet-like state can care better for everyone than several somewhat sovereign states? That's what the Democratic Party political idea is today. Not democratic at all, but socialistic. Like, the Borg, from Star Trek, if the term Soviet makes you think of Stalin and Lenin too much and hurts your feelings. No matter, is that such a good idea?

I'll take my government in SMALL DOSES, just as the US Constitution demands, thanks.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Some sick creeps foul the public discourse over same-sex couples' rights

Look at the two same-sex couples in the photo, one of each, kissing in front of a group of anti-gay-marriage activists (or traditional marriage supporters). Couples sucking face in public? A bearded guy kissing another guy just underlines the ick-factor for me -- being straight. Yeah, uhh, WROOONG. To me -- and I know plenty of others -- this kind of stuff can, at least in certain settings, be just plain wrong. 

 

Same sex couples kiss in front of anti-gay protesters at the Supreme Court.  (Karen Bleier, AFP/Getty Images)

 

In context, I find such flamboyance-in-activism to be the wrong way -- the ineffective way -- to sell your idea since, in this case, all I see form the couples is, well, sexual-activity-light.

The oh, pleeeease! factor is less than some guys prancing down the street in tight little yellow shorts with nothing else on but rainbow suspenders and shiny white sneakers. But, not really getting the best points across. Some people want to believe that seeking rights isn't about middle-fingering the world, but about, well, RIGHTS. Legitimacy, not acting out. 

So when I looked at this and read the caption on USAToday.com, I thought, "kinda rude."

At first. 

Then, my sense of the context changed dramatically. I sorted out some text and graphics on some signs held up behind the couples. MUCH MORE WRONGER.

One sign clearly has "Fag" in all-caps. Another one appears to have that term, too. A few have male stick figures bent over. One of those clearly shows another male behind him in a, y'know, rearend bonking position, on top of a wedding cake. Huh?!

Then it struck me: Westboro Baptist Church -- the family that hates together grates on society together. If you didn't know, this is not a church, but family of mean people that claims to be a Christian church. They are but a repugnant excuse for the least of liberals and other numbskulls to hate all conservatives and Christians, representing neither in truth.

So I have to congratulate the gay couples for their good behavior. 

The might not be from Westboro Baptist Church. I don't think they're any different from them, though, whoever they are. They should be in straightjackets, not at the front of a group of conservative activists!

Despicable. 

Sadly, there was a pretty big fail in the caption by USA Today, and perhaps the photographer (pro photographers provide captions with their images, but publications typically are free to change the captions). The activists with the horrible signage were not well-identifed. (See the caption above, it's the caption USAToday.com included.)

 

VIEW the full-size image HERE. See the series, "Demonstrators rally outside the Supreme Court," on USAToday.com, here. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (follow me on Twitter!)

Guns vs. severe mental problems: Ideologies don't make people right, and guns don't make them killers

From "Gun Ban Won't Stop Another Sandy Hook Massacre: Let's Have the Hard Conversation":

Does anybody really think the guns Nancy Lanza kept in their Newtown, Conn., house all on their own attracted her son to launch a murderous rampage that claimed the lives of 20 small children and seven adults? Such simplistic nonsense.
What if the answers aren't that simple?
Consider that last year in Norway, a nation with a tight gun-control and licensing program, Anders Breivik methodically gunned down 69 people, mostly teenagers, on the island of Utoya. Again, this didn't happen in the United States of America, where 311 million people own an estimated 200 million guns. It happened in orderly, gun-sparse Norway, where living by the rules is the modern-day path to Valhalla.
What if gun control is the wrong conversation for us to be having?
What if we dealt instead with the harder-to-comprehend realities that affected Adam Lanza's life -- the fact that he lived virtually locked up in a basement room playing violent video games over and over, hypnotized by war. Or that he kept to himself, couldn't look others in the eye, reacted without emotion. Or that he had cut his father out of his life, refused to see him after his parents divorced, when his father began dating another woman. Or that he was consumed with anger because his mother was going to have him committed for treatment.
Instead of more gun control, shouldn't we be talking about where to set the bar when it comes to forcing an individual into treatment –- and whether those caring for people with mental-health issues have enough resources available to head off potential crises? The state of Connecticut didn't do much to help Nancy Lanza. It's a state that makes involuntary treatment difficult because it leans strongly toward supporting the civil liberties of individuals. Let's talk a little more about that.
In his address in Newtown [the Sunday after,] President Obama promised a grieving community "meaningful action ... regardless of the politics."But if enacting more restrictive gun laws is the action he has in mind, it leaves a mountain to climb in light of the Second Amendment and its principle. And more important than that, more gun laws aren't going to prevent another Sandy Hook massacre.

That is from "Gun Ban Won't Stop Another Sandy Hook Massacre: Let's Have the Hard Conversation," by Nancy Smith. See more at: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/gun-ban-wont-stop-another-sandy-hook-m...? Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859. via sunshinestatenews.com

The problem is not guns, while there are some things to be addressed where guns are concerned. There are too many guns too easily available to the dangerous, it could be argued. But worse are such things as loopholes in the ability to sell and buy guns between private individuals with pretty much no oversight or checking. That is unseemly, but also quite easy to fix (does not require a gun control act, for goodness sake).
No, the problem is not one that requires further gun legislation. We can see from such despicable efforts like the government's own Fast and Furious disaster that regulations are only so good as the people we have enforcing them. And fools who are encouraging such a route as Fast and Furious gunrunning program included the President of the United States. Shameful.
It's proof that he may be the victor in a popular vote, but is far from being a man above a most unattractive, elitist deception that guns are a threat, not sick or criminal people. The last thing elitists who desire power want are an armed population. No matter how comfortable and apathetic citizens are, we should not let anyone forget that tyranny is potentially never more than a generation away.
I don't want to be a part of the generation who lays the carpet out for tyranny here in America by moving farther toward a no-guns population. Stiff gun controls work in comparably powerless and rather homogenous and passive Sweden, Finland and elsewhere. It won't work for us.
The problem is, as Nancy Smith argues, and I've felt and argued for some time: some people are very, very broken, as Adam Lanza was, as best as can be seen, and cannot be allowed around guns. The problem, too, those who are too preoccupied to face those things that afflict broken people, including the current "false prophet" of the downtrodden, the President of the United States with his anti-gun rhetoric that completely avoids the issue of severe mental illness. In my view that is crass, cynical political gamesmanship and nothing about the rights or benefits of men. Until those with the second problem can be adult enough to address the first problem, this will be a discussion that will give me deep, deep dismay at the ignorance and shallowness of the many.

- jR
(revised for clarity, Oct 6, 2013)

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

A Killer's Obsession: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot

The "Tucson shooter," Jared Loughner, is not alone in thinking that rules of grammar are part of a ploy to push us around, I learned from a NY Times blog post. Many of his (Loughner's) online rants were quoted, the Saturday afternoon he'd tried to kill a Congresswoman and did kill six others, by at least one news channel -- Fox News. The readings were an effort to try to gain some insight into the mind of the killer in the hours just after his horrific assault.

There was broad acknowledgement a few weeks after the shootings that Loughner was a deeply troubled person for some time. The day of the shootings, though, I found his complaints about grammar to be writings coming from an obviously disturbed mind. He was struggling with much in life, and somehow, grammar rules were an assault on his freedom. 

While some tried to connect far-right influences, radio and TV show hosts, and other people to this lone wolf with a gun, listening to the guy's rants about (among other subjects) grammar offered a glimpse into a very disjointed thinking process, and a poor writer. He was not obsessed with writing well, however, only with grammar as a control mechanism.

The NEW YORK TIMES piece reflects on the wider idea of grammar as a means of social control. The related links below include a few pieces on the troubled killer's obsessions. 

NYC: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot
(The New York Times)

"Even before the Tucson shootings, Jared L. Loughner acted weirdly and darkly in many ways. Nonetheless, for bizarreness, his rants about grammar stand out": http://nyti.ms/hhyNu5

- jR

Related articles

• Why Is Jared Loughner Obsessed With Grammar? [Video] (gawker.com)
• Occult Altar Found in Tucson Shooter's Backyard (womenofgrace.com)
• Loughner's ties to conspiracy theory (politico.com)
• MSNBC: Jared Loughner Wrote A "Threatening" Note To Gabrielle Giffords (mediaite.com)
• Accused Tucson Shooter Asked Fellow Gamers If They Had 'Aggression 24/7' [Video] (kotaku.com)

Life, liberty and the pursuit of bigger government? Can you try again, please?

How does one go from small government to the massive joke we are now under? It's called power-seeking folks all palling around and taking from the rest of us who wish to think for ourselves, and enjoy some idea of freedom. Freedom is an illusion, they say. Sadly, it is becoming more and more an illusion these days.

If you want the government to help you, be careful what you ask for. The government should be there for LIMITED reasons. Not for what it's been turned into for the last 60 and more years. This could have been a time to pull back from the big gov't that Roosevelt started. Instead, we're going even farther into it. Not just the Democrats to blame, mind you! This has been ongoing for a long time. Remember that, and remember it, too, when you vote, and when you have a chance to have your views known.

Smaller the government, the bigger the freedoms for ALL. The poor will always be poor is the government is walfaring them, and corporations will always be greedy so long at the gov't rewards it.

Shame.


Click the link at bottom to read the whole piece. This is from GetLiberty.org.

Forgotten Founding Wisdom

By Howard Rich

“Sacred and undeniable.”

That’s how Thomas Jefferson originally described the basic American rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Of course, Ben Franklin changed these to “inalienable” rights, and a printer’s error resulted in them becoming “unalienable.”

Still, the meaning was clear. Or at least it was 233 years ago—when the U.S. government existed as a “necessary evil” that lived within its means, not a self-perpetuating Orwellian nightmare propped up by trillions of dollars in bad debt.

At its inception, American government was created to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and yet sadly, today it is more often than not a force against these elemental American rights.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Really? Then how are we to explain the unprecedented centralization of power we now see in Washington D.C. -- a process fueled by billions in unfunded mandates and strings-attached bailouts?

Get the full story here.

jR, aka AirFarceOne (twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

JustOneMinute blog: Frank cares less for frankness than winning

Oh, to hell with division of government!

Ironic that a leader of the legislature assaults a leader of the judiciary for NOT legislating from the bench. But then, there is very little about Barney "Rubble" Frank proclamations that aren't somehow ironic, more often than not. If he has any challenge, he is embittered by it, all too often.

I recall that this is the man who famously claimed (but, thanks to lack of perspective in media, given a reprieve for it) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders and procedures were not at all in need of revision as recently as August 2008. Uhh, wrong!

JustOneMinute: The Ongoing Corruption Of Language

I don't find support for Frank's assertion that Scalia believes homosexuality "deserves" to be treated with disapproval; I find a stern reminder that the public deserves courts that wait until legislatures legislate before creating new rights.

Oh, well - Frank is not interested in a frank exchange of views. His goal is to shut down debate by branding everyone on the other side as a homophobe.

Barney Frank is an extreme example of one of the two types of office holders: there are, quite broadly, public servants and power seekers. They are all some mix of the two, right?

If someone listened to Frank's crude provocations and insisted that he was far more a public servant than the other, they must find professional wrestling a subtle form of entertainment.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

(Photo: credited to AP)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Abortion 'pride' is encouraged by professional student

Opposing Views: OPINION: It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement - Jacob Appel

Everybody is proud these days. While “pride” as a collective concept may have originated with the Gay Rights movement of the 1970s, now marchers in the St. Patrick’s Day parade are as likely to sport pins boasting “Proud to be Irish” and my Jewish friends are as proud to be Jewish as my Muslim friends are proud to be Muslim—although I always wonder if they wouldn’t be equally proud if they had been born into the opposite faiths.

...

The anti-abortion movement already has its own pride movement. If one reads about reproductive issues in the conservative media—which I often do—one is bombarded with tales of mothers who have sacrificed personal and professional opportunities to bring fetuses to term.

Because, you know, sex as the right of every horny kid and adult on the planet, with no consequences deserved for the realities of the act, is paramount. There is no reason for facing the consequences of being a loose-legged bimbo, being an oppressively horny and emotionally selfish boyfriend, getting sloppy about birth control, or no reason for taking responsibility for being otherwise stupid. That is not the easiest option, after all. Getting rid of the problem is the solution. No matter what that means. Reminds me of liberal concepts for everything. Insincerity, and personal rights -- those to the level of a vicious selfishness -- above logic, responsibility and everything else.

Oh, I see! Judging from the volumes of degrees Mr. Appel has, this author is a professional student. That must be a nice life.

Out here in the real world we see people ruined by decisions that they think will make the "pain" go away, only to be haunted by it their wholes lives. Pride, indeed.

I guess studying ethics and having a sense of them are two vastly different things, in looking at this guy's thinking. Abortion pride and bestiality acceptable, I've seen all I need to. This guy takes mindless, academic openness to a new high. Or, low.

Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies.

Furthering being the creepiest "ethicist" I have ever read, he goes to the extraordinary level of proclaiming -- without actually saying it, but effectively admitting -- his deep desire for a utopian world where guilt does not exist. I assume this author figures the whole world thinks as he does, that a baby out of the womb is a baby out of mind:

I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

ICE nabs 21 foreign national gangsters in California

Kudos to the ICE guys for this one.

Pre-dawn raid nabs 21 alleged gangsters

A law enforcement sweep nabbed 21 alleged foreign national gang members hiding out in the Santa Clarita Valley Wednesday morning, a sheriff's official said.

Four of the 21 suspects were booked at Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station on separate charges. Neri Leon, a 19-year-old male, is charged with allegedly violating an outstanding narcotics warrant. Gaudalupe Vasquez, 48, was charged for alleged battery on a peace officer. Cecilio Rodriguez, 48, and Juan San Augustine, 24, were charged with alleged possession of forged identification, Cambra said.

"The people targeted in today's joint gang operation are career criminals who often prey on members of the immigrant community," said Robert Schoch, ICE special agent. "We want to send a clear message to foreign national gang members that ICE intends to deal strongly with those who disregard our immigration laws and place our neighborhoods at risk."

I find it rather odd that this was a non-story for the broader media. Is this kind of "anti-illegals-criminals" effort happening everywhere? Or is it that the media only cares about crimes committed against illegals, or pandering to illogical illegals coddling and law-breaking support of these earners without social security numbers (ones that are theirs, at least).

Applause goes to the folks trying to prevent crime, especially these bona-fide crooks. I am not interested in the so-called victimless crime supporters, but these guys are at the top of my list of why illegals need to be reined in.

However, folks who work using a "borrowed" SS# card are only committing victimless crimes if it is your SS# is the one used by illegals. Otherwise, if your SS# is passed off falsely once, it will likely be passed off again.

- jR


Powered by ScribeFire.

HSUS: Which national pet store chain supports puppy mills?

We are moving in the right direction with regard to abuse of living beings. But we need to keep moving against demeaning treatment of living beings of all kinds: humans (yes, there are still issues involving the inhumane treatment of humans, as if they are a mere commodity), livestock, and pet breeds. We ended slavery (though sex slavery and other crudenesses are still in existence, even in the U.S., though we rarely hear about it), we are seeing a response to the improper care of livestock. We must see an end to puppy mills and such other wrongs as well.

The message below says, in short, let PETLAND stores know what you think about puppy mills. Talk to them, in your area or at the corporate level, and tell them you have a problem with puppy mills. Note the lines I highlighted: "Most of the puppies bred at puppy mills are eventually sold over the Internet or through pet stores, including many Petlands in the U.S. The unseen victims are the mother dogs who are forced to live their entire lives behind bars."

This is wrong. Simple. Petland and other stores support this -- there is no reason for HSUS to make this stuff up. Someone is selling these improperly bred dogs -- its the whole point to raising them, the profit gain. The more profit, the better. This is the underbelly of capitalism. Let's rid of it. The message includes the stores in my area. Likely, online you can easily find stores in your area, perhaps from the HSUS site (links are below).

Puppy mills are despicable. I cannot comprehend -- aside from the same sickly, apathetic and self-serving way that people ignored Naziism when it did not negatively impact them selfishly -- why anyone would knowingly work in pet stores that were encouraging the continuation of puppy mills. It is simply inhumane. It leads to pets that are carrying disease, and other surface ills. It ought to be regarded as morally, socially and culturally wrong at every level.

So, how does this related to politics? Laws can and have been passed that get us beyond things such as abuse of livestock. Government policy is what can permanently (ideally) change the climate of humane treatment of animals used for breeding pets and livestock.

Just wanted to share. Check out the HSUS message by clicking on the first text link below.

- jR

Begin forwarded message:

Want to share this message? Use this link: https://community.hsus.org/humane/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=28998582

What is today's liberalism?

What's wrong with liberal ideals? Part I

I consider myself a center-right conservative. I think that there is nothing wrong with certain liberal ideals. It is the outlandish, no-holds-barred "rights" and government funding and taxing that I have a problem with. Some so-called issues promoted by liberals extended to the absurd, offensive, amoral, fascist, one-party demagogic, and irrational, in my lifetime (I am around 40 yo). The issues were even more absurd just prior to my birth, in the 1960s. Civil rights is one thing, walking around naked, having sex with anyone and using drugs freely and openly (like pot, acid, etc.) was beyond idiotic.

Naturally, the same adjectives can be placed on some conservative ideas. However, renaming French fries as "freedom fries" was a goofy reaction to something that offended someone and it wasn't combative; calling nearly all whites racist, simply because they are the majority skin color and facial features in this country, is extreme and offensive. These two have been in the common dialog in recent years.

As an example of going liberally overboard, a guy who maintains a solid status among liberals despite his hate-filled agenda, Spike Lee seems to have in him a belief that non-liberal whites - especially George Bush and any aligned conservatives - hate poor black people. Or at least they hate all poor black people who are living in New Orleans, LA. Yet this guy is a champion of cinema (deserved, artistically) and is somehow an example of someone who stands up for civil rights (undeserved, for his irrational and paranoid viewpoint). Ignoring the truth that Hurricane Katrina was a one-in-400 storm seems awfully convenient, and his avoiding an outright damning as well of the Democratic operators of the city and the state pours gas on a fire of political bias. It is agenda over truth that Lee chose to favor in his movie about Katrina. It's sad. I would say it is pathetic, but Spike Lee knows what he is doing. Hardly pathetic - more like divisive.

I suspect one problem is that some people who are socialist or Marxist stumble into the liberal camp and they are welcomed to stay. If that's the liberal, or the Democratic Party, idea of inclusiveness -- welcoming bizarre, ineffective or dangerous ideologies -- then liberals will hopefully never succeed in becoming a long-term dominant force on America. That, or we will lose our position as a capitalist, freedom-loving society. It is simple. If Bill Maher represents your ideas, you are unsavory and never going to gain traction with self-respecting, self-motivated people. Perhaps such people are the minority in America now. I suspect that spoiled celebrities such as Maher, Larry King, and Al Franken are among the minority, though.

The Republican Party, or conservatives, are generally not interested in extreme right ideas, such as white supremacy, racial inequality, racial separatism, or any kind of fundamentalism. There was a time when a conservative would not be deeply troubled by liberal views. There was a time when the great dividing line was tradition and economics, not social issues. As such, calling rabid KKK members conservatives misses the point, just as immediately pairing fascists or socialists with liberals. Ideas such as racial equality are liberal; pay equity for women; non-prejudice against blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, homosexuals, and the disabled. If these are liberal ideals, then I am a liberal. But I am not a liberal. How so? Because I do not agree with the extremes brought about by those whose ideas are today considered liberal. And I am conservative where economics comes in.

For instance, FDR was a liberal - he'd gag at some of the obsessions of liberals today, I suspect. Woodrow Wilson was liberal. JFK was an old fashioned liberal, and he got us into Vietnam (much as his many worshipers want us to forget that).

Powered by ScribeFire.