Yes, but we’re dealing with progressive activists on a mission and with a cause. It’s grossly unfair to judge them, therefore, on the accuracy of their broadside against CCW holders, given that they were on a mission and fighting for a cause.  In fact, it’s insulting.   And not a little déclassé. Because with progressives, it’s always the thought that counts. And besides, it’s silly to declaim as horrible something done

Why are we wedded — if we are, as it seems we are — to the use of the term ideology when we cite our political dispositions? Is it a matter of necessity? A matter of mere alterable preference? A matter of superior rhetorical utility? Or might it rather be some sort of colossal cosmic irony, an infection in our commonplace political vocabulary by a received term we were handed

the nannystate will fall, and down will come America liberty and all. Although, come to think on it, you know what might stop it? If conservatives stopped being all puristy and just let DC pols play their games and run our business for us. After all, they’re the professionals. Why all the vulgar distrust?

Edwards was right about there being two Americas.  He just misidentified them.  Compare:  “Move to arm teachers picks up steam in TN” — though opponents say we need to leave the protecting up to the professionals, private citizens not being up for the task, evidently. …and contrast:  “Giffords and Kelly Launch Their Own Anti-Gun Lobby” — ironic, given that it was private citizens who jumped in and prevented Jared Loughner

I noted the plan earlier, but just in case you thought it was likely some right wing conspiracy fantasy, I expect you’ll start to see more and more of this:  “Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer’s Account, Company Owner Claims”. Hey, you use your political muscle to bail out a few giant banks and those institutions, which you regulate as well, quickly learn on which side their bread is buttered. 

Those bastards!  And after all Obama’s done to make sure we get affordable, universal health care.  Like, for instance, naming his 2700-page health care law the “Affordable Care Act.”  I mean shit, what more can the dude do?  Affordability is right there in the name! It’s almost as if the market doesn’t really respond well to economically impossible dictates — no matter who insists upon them, or how “historic” that

Here, read it yourself.  I’ll only comment thusly:  if you make an imperial move, colluding with big corporate entities to reward their obeisance, that turns millions of erstwhile law-abiding Americans into instant felons by infringing on their natural and Constitutional rights —  by way of confiscation schemes, banning schemes, or onerous taxation schemes — do not act surprised or outraged when those felons, accepting their new lot, begin acting accordingly.

A few days old but worth your time, if you haven’t already come across it.  From the American Thinker: Conservatives have their Constitution.  Progressives have their Narrative.  The current battle for America is between these two concepts, and each side uses different rules to fight it. One set of rules is consistent with an unchanging objective: limited government and individual freedoms.  The other side’s rules are as fickle as their

“Nat Geo Producer: John Wilkes Booth ‘Could Be the Poster Child for the Tea Party’”: Executive Producer Erik Jendresen of National Geographic Channel’s upcoming television movie “Killing Lincoln,” said John Wilkes Booth “could be the poster child for the Tea Party.” “This is not the act of somebody who can easily be dismissed as a psychopath, so that it’s easy to understand,  ‘Oh well, he was crazy,’” Jendresen said of