It’s Monday, February 8th, 2016…and like those pesky poltergeists who haunted Carol Ann as doggedly as Dimocrats do the Founding Fathers’ Republic, we’re baaaack!

So, in honor of The Donald’s defeat in Iowa, here’s The Gouge!

Since we’re on the subject of Donald John Trump, Sr., he’s the subject of the latest from Commentary Magazine‘s Noah Rothmann, who lays out a blueprint (presented with very limited editorial comment) for the utter extermination of the Reagan Revolution:

If You Want to Destroy Conservatism

If you wanted to destroy conservatism – not merely to shatter the Republican Party’s governing coalition, but to break up and discredit the conservative movement itself – how would you go about it?

You would have to begin by dismantling its most cherished assumptions. Foremost among them is that the United States of America is a center-right nation. Only the most cynical would judge the country’s political orientation by the affiliations of its president or, for that matter, its governors or the politicians who make up the majority in its legislatures. The foundation of the presumption that America is a conservative nation is in the values of its people.

The notion that the United States is, at root, a conservative nation rests in the belief that its people are hearty, noble, and industrious. That they cherish hard work and believe productivity and inventiveness deserve to be rewarded over accidents of birth. That Americans do not believe the public sector should be the font from which charitable works spring, but that the people are the primary source of compassion and altruism. You would attack the notion that conservatives believe, above all else, in the preservation of every privilege enshrined into the Bill of Rights. And you would attack it by virtue of your own example.

Then, you might undermine the central hypothesis at the core of the American experiment itself: that all the peoples of the world can unite, not around tribal affinity or class associations, but around an idea. The idea, that mankind is fit for self-governance, and that it need not look toward a ruling caste of elites to manage national affairs. You might expose the central divisions within conservatism by exacerbating internal disagreements over the execution of American foreign policy objectives. You might pervert an honest and healthy debate about the extent of American power, about its goals, its alliance structures, and about nation building abroad, and you would reveal that a substantial subset of voters on all sides of that issue believe the premise is flawed. You might suggest that the value of Fortress America is not merely the preservation of American security, but of meting out a sort of cosmic justice for those born into poverty, authoritarianism, and savagery abroad. Maybe those poor souls deserve their Hobbesian lot, you’d imply strongly. And the crowds would cheer.

From here, you’d target the contradictions within the conservative governing coalition. You could stoke class consciousness and persecution complexes among those who have been left behind as a result of unstoppable global economic forces. You would nurture in them the idea that their unhappy fates were not of their own making; that they have been robbed of their due by enemies within their own ranks. You would show the world conclusively that the economic program offered by countless conservative scions is not all that popular – even among conservatives. The curious subset to whom you have appealed would demonstrate their antipathy for basic conservative programs like small government, a private health care system, a reduced tax burden on the most productive sectors of society, frugality, and the moral imperative of bequeathing unto the next generation a manageable debt burden. You would marry class and racial suspicion with a program that promises even more unsustainable benefits, for which children not yet born will pay.

Having made virtues of consumption and extravagance, you would then seek to short-circuit the conservative movement’s moral compass. You might pay lip service to scruples, but you would also compel your followers to defend your own excesses. You would deemphasize the importance of private property rights, and, in doing so, reject one of the most animating beliefs of the nation’s Founders. You would compel opportunistic faith leaders to join you, even as you demonstrate the hollowness of their allegedly principled belief in the sanctity of marriage or the incontestable idea of all God’s children deserve the the gift of life.

Need we mention, the same number as his good friend Rush?!?

You would promote vanity. You would sow conflict and disunity. You would destigmatize crassness and vulgarity, and you would flirt with the notion that violence is an acceptable tool to achieve political ends. You would never forgive. You would always harbor grudges, and you would threaten and seek vengeance for even the most minor of perceived slights. You would surround yourself with like-minds who place little value in the art of refined communication, and you would make hypocrites of the conservative movement’s heroes. (the movement’s genuine heroes…genuine Conservatives!)

Finally, you would destroy the conservative movement’s last pillars of unity: its common media. You would pit its intellectual leaders against its most captivating orators. “Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal,” one of conservatism’s beloved communicators might say. You would succeed where the most divisive presidential administration in living memory failed and target the only bastion of true conservative thought on the cable dial. You and your supporters would make allies of those who do not have the conservative movement’s best wishes at heart, while turning your supporters against those who do.

When you were through, you would have rendered conservatism a political orientation guided not by undying ideas but by one infinitely fallible man. Whether or not you win something as trite as an election, you would have succeeded where so many thousands had failed. You would have destroyed the American conservative movement.

But why would anyone want to go and do that?

Assuming of course, unlike The Obamao, they’re actually playing for our team!

Look, here’s why Trump continues to be…

August 12, 2015

There are none so blind as those who will not see; not “cannot” see, “will” not see.  Open your eyes, Trumpeters; the truth will indeed set you free!

Speaking of those intent on the destruction of America from within, courtesy of our old buddy Chris Coyle via Arthur Santry, Jr., The Orange County Register relates the unfortunate reality of… 

Americans willingly poisoned by ‘gospel of envy’

“…As government expanded, its ability to deliver more has expanded, too. Like every shortsighted consumer since the first huckster stood on the first stump and promised blessings without pain, voters have accepted the lie.

There’s government-managed retirement, euphemistically called SocialSecurity, which forcibly takes peoples’ money and returns it in paltry sums, compared with how private investments would have grown the principle. There’s government-managed health care, which costs more to operate and costs more for people to receive after taxes, premiums, deductibles and co-pays. There’s public education, which costs up to twice what a superior product costs in the private sector, but everyone is forced to pay for anyway – even if they also choose to pay for private schooling.

Yet, politicians of every stripe continue to sell, to one degree or another, more of the poisonous elixir, under the pretense that they are medicating you.

As Winston Churchill put it, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Living off the other guy, as another Brit, Margaret Thatcher, reminded us, means that eventually you run out of the other guy’s money. Hence, socialism is a philosophy of failure. Witness our $19 trillion debt and perpetual deficits in the hundreds of billions.

But, as Churchill noted, ignorance also is necessary to keep doubling down on the bad bet. Americans, despite considering themselves wise, persist in this ignorance.

Now we come to our second fundamental question: Why don’t people recognize the obvious cause of their problems and knock it off?

The explanation is that socialism is “the gospel of envy,” one of the mortal sins, as our Catholic friends describe it. In a fallen world, people are willing to be ignorant of the truth and believe unbelievable promises because, as fallen sinners, they are inclined to want everything anyone else has, for nothing. Or at least, at someone else’s expense.

The consequence of this folly is socialism’s inevitable payoff: “the equal sharing of misery.”“

Except of course for that special species of Socialist…

…who are always more equal than others!

In a related item, brought to us by Townhall.com, David Harsanyi details how, contrary to the opinions of certain otherwise-consequential and convincing Conservatives…

Obama’s Mosque Speech Was a Dangerous Fantasy

“For eight years now, the president has reprimanded the American people for their attitudes about Islam. And Barack Obama’s big speech to the Islamic Society of Baltimore — granted, filled with many harmless platitudes — was no different, leaving little room for any honest dialogue about ideology or faith. Many of the president’s ideas about “tolerance,” in fact, are antithetical to the American experience, not something to celebrate.

Acceptance of outsiders is an American virtue, yes. Do we have to embrace all ideas, as well? Obama has conflated tolerance of individuals and groups with tolerance of a select belief system — one that he demands be immune from criticism.

We certainly don’t want people attacking peaceful Muslims, but it’s irresponsible and intellectually obtuse to act as if the pervasive violence, misogyny, homophobia, child abuse, tyranny, anti-Semitism, bigotry against Christians, etc. that exists in large parts of Islamic society abroad has absolutely nothing to do with faith.

…We don’t need the president gratuitously attacking an entire religion. But most liberals, as you know, won’t even allow that terrorism and extremism have something to do with Islam. Obama hits this note quite often. But this week, John Kerry, the Imam of Beacon Hill, said this about ISIS: “And they are also above all apostates, people who have hijacked a great religion and lie about its real meaning and lie about its purpose and deceive people in order to fight for their purposes.”

Kerry has no more theological authority to brand someone an apostate of Islam than King Salman of Saudi Arabia has to consecrate the Eucharist. Not even moderate Sunni clerics make this claim. Yet, over and over, leftists try and detach the branches of Islam they dislike from the trunk so they can call you a bigot for attacking their idealized conception of Islam.

…“We have to respect the fact that we have freedom of religion,” claimed a president who believes forcing nuns (and everyone) to buy birth control comports with American values. There is no law in this country that inhibits the freedom of Muslim Americans to practice their religion freely. Not one.

I’m unsure if the president understands that hearing things you don’t like does not constitute an attack on freedom. People say ugly things all the time. No crime is acceptable, but Muslims have experienced far fewer hate crimes than blacks, Jews or gays. Any way you want to parse the numbers, there is no epidemic of Islamophobia…”

Hells bells, despite a veritable plague of Islamic terror against the West in general, and Christians in particular, can anyone recall a single significant act of anti-Muslim vengeance?!?  “Far fewer” is right, because we can’t even name one…ONE!  

We don’t know what speech Hugh Hewitt listened to…

…but his reaction, at least in this instance…

As well as explaining why Jeb Bush is about to fold up his campaign tent and go home, where he can habla the virtues of illegal immigration en Espanol to his wife and kids to his RINO heart’s content.

And on The Lighter Side…

Finally, in the Sports Section, while we’re happy to see Peyton conclude his career on a high note, we’re almost as gratified to see Cam Newton eat so much Santa Clara soil.  We found his…”refusal”…to even attempt to recover his own fumble with the Super Bowl on the line particularly pleasing.

Cam, here’s the juice: it’s not your race which bothers us; we know history…or any other aspect of education…isn’t your strong suit, but we were supporting a Black quarterback in the Super Bowl before you were even born.  It’s your showboating, look-at-me antics we find objectionable; that and the fact your unbridled ego and unsupportable claims of racism remind us of another arrogant, egotistical…

…boob.

Magoo