The Religious Left

I finally realized I may as well call things as they are, and explain definitions and phrases to my readership so we're all on the same proverbial sheet of music.

The secular Left abhors religion (but will "tolerate" most any religion with the exclusive exception of Christianity and Judaism), yet have their own very secretive, inclusive but actually quite obvious religion of their own: the Church of Global Warming.

It's a wonderful religion because, as they have consistently documented time and again, it's all about belief. The same facets of which they accuse the so-called "Religious Right" (or most any religion, save Islam) apply equally to the Religious Left, and that is:

• It's not about facts.
• It's about belief.
  

It's a wonderfully convenient religion as well. It can be what you want it to be, when it fits your mood and/or need to slam Western cultures (in particular, the United States):

If it's actually hot, it's Global Warming.

If it's actually cold, it's Global Cooling making it cold, whose base origin is in fact Global Warming.

If it's in between, it's still Global Warming because, after all, it's about a belief system.

Moreover, the only entities responsible can be those of evil, anglo, pasty-white Western cultures whose rapacious denizens are several rungs beneath inherently altruistic second- and third-world cultures.

It's a belief system to which the Left can attach its finest proselytizers.

New BZ phrase, folks: the Religious Left.

BZ

P.S.

A very nice piece recently on Right Think about the myth of Global Warming, with an accompanying excellent video.

Power of Thought and Belief

"Self-fulfilling prophecy" -- you've likely read and heard this term before. What it means:

As it is known and taught today in management and education circles, the notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy was conceptualized by Robert Merton a professor of sociology at Columbia University. In a 1957 work called "Social Theory and Social Structure," Merton said the phenomenon occurs when "a false definition of the situation evokes a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true."

A little like The Pygmalion Effect which, as applied to students, means that those who are expected to fail will likely fail, and those expected to succeed will succeed.

Applied in a more "global" or, at least, a national fashion could fall our economy.

Samuel Zell, billionaire chairman of Equity Investments Group and owner of the Chicago Cubs, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other companies, says:

Obviously what we have going on is an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have two Democratic candidates who are vying with each other to describe the economic situation worse."

Zell believes that the U.S. economy will avoid recession, as the housing market actually begins to recover this spring.

I've been around this planet for a few years, shall we say, and have noted that much of what occurs in terms of the U.S. economy has a great deal to do with The Pygmalion Effect.

In an even more global scale, on virtually every level and issue: we pretty much get what we want. So. What do we want?

BZ

Demorat Debate

PART I:
Uh-oh. BZ's thoughts and whispers seem to be making print:

WASHINGTON -- Despite Democrats' excitement over the presidential nomination battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both candidates would lose to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain if the general election were held today, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

I'd heard from little birdies that some Demorats are quietly asking: "do we have the New McGovern on our hands?"

How massively disspiriting if another Republican inhabited the White House.

PART II:
The debate began on MSNBC at 6pm Pacific, and it was a full sixteen minutes before the whining commenced: Hillary was asked the second question -- first -- again, and she wondered aloud why she always got asked a question first, instead of Obama, making a reference to the SNL skit where the media asks Barack Obama if he'd like another pillow for his chair.

Suffice to say, that didn't play well in the audience and, once more, showed viewers that Hillary was more than willing to play the Victim Card.

[Aside: twice on Tuesday, February 26th, while stumping for his wife's candidacy, former President William J. Clinton said to audiences: "When I'm elected president. . ."]

Overall, 90 minutes later, Barack Obama simply then and now comes off as a more affable, genuinely "likeable" individual than Hillary Clinton. More controlled. Less vindictive. More a gentleman than she is a lady. Neither of them spoke in great detail per se (as expected) but Hillary came across again as sarcastic, bordering on arrogance.

One can see, in the face of Clinton as Obama answered questions, that she is upset at having to be demeaned by having to take the time to be measured, repeatedly, under hot lights and by questioners and scrutinizers against a young upstart black man who very well could remove this next presidency from her grasp.

The presidency of which she is simply due, plain and simple.

In the end, Obama is simply a more likeable character and, if he wins in the end as I believe, it will be solely because of this aspect; not because of his programs or content of his plans or thoughts -- but, quite frankly, whom does that surprise?

No major scores were made on either side; however, the overall winner? Barack Hussein Obama.

BZ

P.S.

MSNBC's poll can be taken here to indicate the debate's winners. As of midnight, the poll indicated:

Who won the debate? * 83089 responses
Hillary Clinton won.22%
Barack Obama won.65%
Neither won.13%
Did the debate help you decide who to vote for? * 80877 responses
Yes, my mind's made up.51%
No, I still can't decide.4.5%
It made me lean toward Hillary Clinton.11%
It made me lean toward Barack Obama.30%
It made me want to look elsewhere.2.9%
Will Ralph Nader's entrance into the presidential race hurt the Democrats? * 81069 responses
Yes, once again Nader could siphon off just enough votes to hurt the Democrats.21%
No, Nader doesn't have the sway he once had.79%
Will Obama and Clinton combine forces to create a "Dream Team"? * 81811 responses
Yes, Obama-Clinton.10%
Yes, Clinton-Obama.9.3%
No, there's no way either of them would bow to accept the other as running mate.81%

Your Socially-Engineered Future

Pray for peace, but prepare for war.

What would you get with a Demorat-controlled White House, Senate and House of Representatives?

Complete and total "Social Engineering."

You would get this and more:

Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for
Refusing Same-Sex Job
By John Jalsevac
New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony", was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.

A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.

Do you understand the components of this issue?

• This is a private business.
• Not a government-run entity.
• Not a government-funded or supported entity.
• This is a state-run commission making the decision, not the federal government.

Does the 10th Amendment hold here?

More:

On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony - that marriage can be defined as two women or two men."

In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees.

"Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money," said Lorence. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Could this also not be a Fifth Amendment issue as well? Why should it potentially cost a small business "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to hold to their religious beliefs?

Heard of this case? I'd wager not.

Do the Logical Extension: Clear and obvious social engineering. Coming soon more directly, more openly, more arrogantly, to a court and political system near you.

BZ

Consuming Demorats

The two Demorat presidential contenders, Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hillary RODHAM Clinton continue, much to my public glee, delight and perpetual entertainment, to slash, hack, stab, parry and thrust knives into their opponent's soft white (hey, Barack isn't 100% "street cred," say a percentile of blacks) underbelly:

Here, the Clinton Camp emphasizes the HUSSEIN aspect of Obama.

Here, the Obama Camp fires back, accusing the CC of ""shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating the photo as a clear attempt to point out Obama's Muslim background (as an aside, anyone have any doubt that Obama will be sworn in on a family Koran?).

Some think that Hillary is running a series of last-ditch efforts to somehow connect or re-connect with a Demorat electorate that seems to be favoring Obama.

Bob Novak seems to think that, for the Good Of The Order, Hillary needs to go -- but who will tell her?

Even before Sen. Barack Obama won his ninth straight contest against Sen. Hillary Clinton, in Wisconsin last Tuesday, wise old heads in the Democratic Party were asking this question: Who will tell her that it's over, that she cannot win the presidential nomination and that the sooner she leaves the race, the more it will improve the party's chances of defeating Sen. John McCain in November?

ABC News says Hillary has eight days to pull the rug out from under Obama, or face annihilation.

After shoving the photo of Obama about, The New York Times seems to think Clinton has left her Angry Place for her new Sarcastic Place.

From NBC News:

The latest NBC News delegate hard count:

DEMOCRATS

Obama 1,192

Clinton 1,036

There are 16 delegates unallocated, including 10 in Colorado, 2 in Maryland and one each in Hawaii, Abroad, New York, Tennessee.

Superdelegate Count

Clinton 257

Obama 194

(Obama has gained 24 publicly declared superdelegates since Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. Clinton has lost a net of three.)

GRAND TOTAL

Obama 1,386

Clinton 1,293

REPUBLICANS

McCain 930

(AP allocates 102 more for McCain to bring total to 1,032 -- just 159 short of nomination)Romney 293

Huckabee 246

There are 35 unallocated, including 20 in Louisiana, 5 from WA caucus, 5 from WA primary, 3 from WI, 2 from TN.

Romney, though "out," is still ahead of Huckabee who is "in."

Me?

I think Clinton made one of her final missteps by releasing the new Obama photo. This plays well with me and my ilk, of course, in an entertaining vein (as opposed to, say, her slit vein) but won't play well with any number of Demorats. The Daily Kos wrote:

So this picture of Obama in Somali (or Kenyan) garb has everyone in a tizzy right now. Me, I think it's kind of cool to see Obama in tribal clothing.

Meaning: the photo isn't Playing In Poughkeepsie -- or anywhere else for that matter. Naturally, in a standard style, Kos cozys back up to the Clintonistas by saying, hey, they didn't really mean it and, after all, how can anyone keep track of 700 staffers?

Hillary The Unbeatable, Hillary The Dues-Payer, Hillary The Anointed, may just have her ass handed to her in the next month or so. It's not a pretty picture -- on any number of levels. She and/or her Campaignistas do not understand the tenets of Political Marketing 101:

1. Attack ads and strategies do not work and they never will.
2. Keep on track: what can you do that is positive?
3. Be consistent, not confusing; these days one asks: which Hillary Clinton are we programmed to see this week? Crying Hillary? Confused Hillary? Strident Hillary? Attacking Hillary? Angry Hillary? Sarcastic Hillary?

Hillary's Theme: there is no theme --
Barack's Theme: "Change." Beautiful. Empty but brilliant because you can feature Obama as whatever you wish, in your own mind.

I've written that I believe Obama could beat McCain handily; now there are little covert whispers on, amazingly, the Demorat side wondering: "This Obama -- is he another McGovern?"

What say you?


BZ

Completely Astounding!

The Mainstream Media seems to eat itself:

BZ

Reflections

First, I must unequivocally write that I love my wife with all my heart.

I told her that as we sat in the room this past week, a fire in the fireplace, wine in our glasses, watching the Pacific Ocean waves roll over the breakwater, assaulting the jagged cliffs, crashing and cascading over the rocks, spume blown high by the rough winds as the sun began to set.

This was a celebration of our first anniversary together. I told her two very necessary things: I wish I'd met her earlier in life -- (what an adventure we could have had to this point!) and that the best thing I'd ever done in my life was to marry her and commit to her.

The past week seemed simply to fly in a literal rush. I've noticed this to be so true: the older you get, the swifter Life appears to thrust precious moments by your face. We try to savor and open ourselves to each an every experience but, upon reflection, those memories are more fleeting with every year. Such is the nature of aging.

We drove back to my cabin last night with some additional passengers (that story being saved for another post!) and, after the requisite unpacking and laundry, my wife had to drive down the hill for her own home in the valley today. Even before she left, I missed her.

Life is fleeting and it but so precious. She asked me earlier in the relationship: why so many photographs when we go on a trip? I replied then and now: memories. When I no longer may have my internal images, I will have these external images to help me smile. And recall. My cabin is festooned with photographs of trips with my elderly father, my older brothers, and a myriad number of images of my wife. Because that is how I want it to be.

It had snowed some more while we were gone, and we heard the plow truck making its rounds very early this morning. I got up once last night: the thermometer read 25-degrees. Today, Saturday, never became bright; the precipitation alternated between fine mist and slanting rain. Even as I write this post gazing out the second floor window, I can see the rain transitioning to puffs of snow. Even in the most recent few minutes, these puffs have gotten fluffier and thicker. No mistake: the snow is falling, much heavier now.

Some images from my trip to the Fornicalia coast on my first anniversary:

BZ

A Few Points

This is our final day on the coast; we'll be leaving this ocean town Friday morning and driving back up to my cabin in the Sierra Nevadas. Unfortunately, but expectedly, I've contracted my wife's blooming illness and have a sore throat of biblical proportions, sore joints, aches, feeling like I've been hit by a runaway Peterbilt. Yesterday was gorgeous; beautiful blue skies for a time. Today the wind is up, the seas are very rough, and we both were in no condition to board a whalewatching boat -- much to our very great disappointment.

I'll still see if I can enter a few photos from the trip on this particular post (nope, won't let me).

In the meantime, some points I've noticed over the past day . . .

1. McCain's Alleged Indiscretion With Lobbyist

This story first surfaced in 2000. The New York Times just re-released the story Thursday, which indicated:

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.

If this was an issue way back in 2000, there is only one reason to bring it to the surface this week: an attempt to sabotage McCain due to his recent strength in the polls.

Even the massively Left-leaning The New Republic thinks the NYT story is shabby:

The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of
decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice.

I find this reprehensible. If you wish to disagree with McCain, do so by the obvious methods: attack him on his politics, on the facts. Disagreeing with McCain, pointing out his flaws is akin to shooting fish in a barrel -- yes, that easy. That he had an alleged "affair" according to unnamed sources is puerile and transparent.

2. Bush: More Money To Mexico via the Merida Initiative

Perhaps too little too late (after all, I've been out of the info and political pipeline for over a week), I heard on TV recently that President Bush is sending $500,000 to Mexico -- which, it turns out, is actually $1.4 billion -- in the HOPES that it will be used in the "fight against drug cartels."

Once again (this is such a bleating complaint -- when will it end?), President Bush: what in the hell are you thinking? Mexico's government is just about as stable and trustworthy as that of present-day Cuba, even with Fidel gone.

Then, to make matters even more insane, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said in re the funding:

MEXICO CITY: President Felipe Calderon on Wednesday accused U.S. presidential candidates of "swaggering, macho and anti-Mexican" posturing and warned the U.S. Congress not to impose conditions on a $1.4 billion anti-drug aid package.

"The only theme in the (U.S.) electoral campaign is to compete to see who can be the most swaggering, macho and anti-Mexican," Calderon told a local radio station, Enfoque. He did not name any particular candidate or party.

But wait; his comments portray the height of arrogance:

Calderon also appeared to reject any added conditions on a proposed $1.4 billion U.S. anti-drug aid package that had been negotiated with American officials, saying, "I cannot accept any submission or subordination."

The penultimate arrogance:

I need that technology," Calderon said. "Give it to me. And give it to me without conditions."

I cannot find any reaction to those sentences that wouldn't include every F-and-S word extant.

I have an idea: why don't we just cut to the proverbial chase?

Calderon wants to run our country. Mexico's plans are to simply override American demographics -- after all, "demography is prophecy" -- and flood this country with illegal Mexican invaders. Most average Mexican citizens simply believe that it's nothing more than the re-taking of what the United States took from them, and that they have every right (and not just a right, an obligation) to Reconquista. Let's just cave in totally, step away from all our political offices and buildings and let Mexicans and Mexico do what they will with the nation.

I don't believe most would label me an inherent "Bush-Basher" but, by logical extension, how is it that I may support the president when he continues to literally give away my tax dollars and my country?

BZ

All Is Well?

Alas, I have been terribly out of the news and politics loop since late last week. I apologize for the dearth of blog posts.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it is pushing 6 pm Pacific as I gaze out at the Pacific. Ocean, that is. I can hear the harbor fog horn though tonight, the first night since we've been here, we'll actually see a sunset. I've taken a few photos and shall attempt to reproduce them here, if I can find my Memory Stick-to-USB converter. The wind kicked up today producing whitecaps. Our hotel room, on the top floor, overlooks a bay inlet guarded by ragged cliffs. Very protected, well chosen, perfect for its small fishing fleet and expanding fleet of whale-watching tour boats. I hope the weather holds so that we might board a tour boat this coming Thursday. I'd love nothing more than to take some actual photos of the whales migrating!

Unfortunately, my wife contracted a bad cold just before we left -- which turned into bronchitis, a sinus infection and a double inner ear infection. The doctor she visited yesterday, in this very small town, was wonderful, caring, thorough -- everything you'd want but least expect in a town of this size. I myself saw this same doctor today because she insisted I come in -- communicable as my wife's condition is. Kaiser would certainly never have treated me this kindly and considerately.

She's feeling better, so I arranged for a 90-minute deep tissue couples massage tomorrow. This is one of my wife's favorite things. Mine too. She's my sweetheart, so I have to show her!

Back To Reality:

In the meantime, perhaps you've heard or read about the beef recalls from the ranch in Chino, Fornicalia? Both Jack In The Box and In And Out get their beef from this source. There is much more to this story that the media is not covering. Such as the USDA not doing its job. On a number of levels. Things the USDA and various other authorities do not want you to know.

A Big Ferret has told me these things. A Big Ferret that could get into trouble if it barks too loudly and draws attention.

If you think I should do so, I shall attempt to convince this LF to provide more information.

There are also notations of interest in the Bird Flu realm -- things you are purposely not being told, things "released to the public" but not covered by 99% of the media.

White Nose Syndrome is hitting bats in the New York and Massachusetts. Bats eat insects. Do the math.

We now return you to Life, which is already in progress.

BZ

P.S.

Well, so much for my being able to make easy paragraphs on this computer -- or for posting photos as well, which it will not allow me to do, dammit! But wait, there's a knock on our door -- the pizza delivery guy is here! Later!

small note

The wife and I are going to be celebrating our first wedding anniversary; I got her a week at her favorite hotel on the coast, overlooking the Pacific Ocean, and a full massage at a local spa. Shhh, don't tell her! We're taking her laptop so I hope to blog in the dark of night when she's asleep. If I don't make many posts for a week, you'll know why.

BZ

Breaking The Bank

The US government wastes more money than you and I can possibly know -- but wait, let's waste some more, only this time on a spectacularly stupid scale.

If the new bill passes, it will be OUR TAX DOLLARS that will "cut global poverty in half."

• No, it won't do anything to minimize your mortgage.
• No, it won't reduce the money you spend to put food on the table.
• Or cut the money you spend to clothe your family.
• Or fix your car.
• Or repair the sink, or buy your kids school supplies or shoes.

But YOUR tax dollars will "cut global poverty in half." And by that I mean billions of your tax dollars will be purposely shipped overseas.

Applauded by none other than Barack Obama.

From WorldNetDaily:

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

I cannot immediately think of another thing, this Global Poverty Act, that could do more to bankrupt the country any faster.

You and I shall have NO SAY in this. It will simply occur. Because this government couldn't care less about you, not any more. You are simply The Work Horse, to be flogged longer and harder so that other non-producers may benefit from the sweat of your brow. As my last photo indicated: "REPUBLICAN: because not everyone can be on welfare."

Tired of paying the domestic welfare bill? Well boys and girls, that's simply not enough; it's time we placed third world tyrants and governments on the larger dole as well because, after all, that's where these monies will go.

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

But wait; there's more:

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

If you wish to eliminate the power of the United States, if you wish to drive businesses from these shores, if you wish to turn your taxpaying middle class into the lower class -- thusly killing the Cash Cow -- then go ahead and pass this bill.

Trust me, my readers, this is just the beginning: just the beginning of what you'll see under Demorat Rule.

Get used to it. It isn't make believe; it's here and it's now. And only to get worse.

BZ

Mantra

BZ

Cartoon

Look carefully.

This sagacious, insightful drawing requires at least a second glance to "get it."

BZ

Again, Bruised and Bleeding

Hillary has tried most everything to this point: crying, firing her campaign manager, crying again. That just doesn't seem to work:

From the Drudge Report:

NYT THURSDAY: Clinton's advisers acknowledged it would be difficult to catch up in race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning 3 states on which she is most pinning her hopes: Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April. Dem party's rules would be decided obstacle in efforts to catch up to Obama before voting phase of nominating process ends later in spring... Developing...

From The Politico:

Plouffe: She can't catch us
As we wrote last night, Obama has begun to make his own inevitablity case, and David Plouffe made it explicit on a conference call this morning, telling reporters that it's now "next to impossible" for Clinton to surpass what he says is a 136-person lead among pledged delegates."The only way she could do it is by winning most of the rest of the contests by 25 to 30 points," he said. "Even the most creative math really does not get her, ever, back to even in terms of pledged delegates."

"This is not about votes -- it's about delegates," Plouffe said.

The other half of this case, of course, is that superdelegates will and/or should follow the pledged delegates.

The Clintons simply cannot believe this. They cannot believe that some upstart young black man has the temerity, the unmitigated gall to not genuflect towards the Clinton Legacy and recognize that this is owed to them -- owed to them, dammit. People have been fired. Inside bickering is rampant.

There is something else coming on the Clinton plate and it won't be pretty. The Clintons will not go gently into that good night, oh no, they will not. Something is brewing in the wings. Because this is now for all the marbles and it is not, repeat, not going as they had even remotely planned.

BZ

Arizona Leads The Way

Obviously, to the chagrin of John "Amnesty Ramdown" McCain.

I submit that Arizona is the pattern all states should follow:

PHOENIX — The signs of flight among Latino immigrants here are multiple: Families moving out of apartment complexes, schools reporting enrollment drops, business owners complaining about fewer clients.

While it is too early to know for certain, a consensus is developing among economists, business people and immigration groups that the weakening economy coupled with recent curbs on illegal immigration are steering Hispanic immigrants out of the state.

The Arizona economy, heavily dependent on growth and a Latino work force, has been slowing for months. Meanwhile, the state has enacted one of the country’s toughest laws to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants, and the county sheriff here in Phoenix has been enforcing federal immigration laws by rounding up people living here illegally.

I must be missing something -- what part of this is necessarily bad news?

BZ

True Story

BZ

Oil War

Just what we need:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez on Sunday threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States in an "economic war" if Exxon Mobil Corp. wins court judgments to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets.

Exxon Mobil has gone after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in U.S., British and Dutch courts as it challenges the nationalization of a multibillion dollar oil project by Chavez's government.

A British court has issued an injunction "freezing" as much as $12 billion in assets.

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

"I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't sent one drop of oil to the empire of the United States," Chavez said Sunday.

"The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us," Chavez said, accusing the Irving, Texas-based oil company of acting in concert with Washington.

Exxon Mobil spokeswoman Margaret Ross said the company had no comment. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Caracas did not return a call.

Venezuela accounted for about 12 percent of U.S. crude oil imports in November, the latest figures available from the U.S. Energy Department. The 1.23 million barrels a day from Venezuela makes that country the U.S.'s fourth-biggest oil importer behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

And oh, yes, about Exxon/Mobil:

HOUSTON - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $40.6 billion — on Friday as the world's biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from historic crude prices at the end of the year.

Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007, beating its own mark of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005.

The profits and politics of oil.

BZ

Reflections On John McCain

And all the other candidates.

I think we all have to understand it's completely about manipulation, and who submits to and believes the soft serve-like, spoon-fed pablum/bullshit proffered. About manipulation both overt and covert, on both sides of the (ever-rapidly closing) aisle. If we didn't believe it last year when these campaigns began, we oh-so-believe it now, do we not?

We'll get to McCain in a moment. In the meantime, my take on:

1. FRED THOMPSON

The late, great candidate on whom so many placed such Dickensian-like Great Expectations. He waited too long to engage -- at first because we thought and hoped he possessed some sort of super-secret, great Reagan-like Ultimate Plan. What we subsequently discovered was every bit a grand disappointment: he was pretty much what he'd been all along. Somewhat self-serving, self-assured, but lacking the fire we know is demanded by current campaigns. Campaigns are what they are unconsidering of candidates' ages. And further examination revealed the soft white underbelly of Fred: too tied to lobbyists, too tied to the Bush Regime. Full of that slow, complacent Good Ol' Boy. We momentarily admired him for his principled stands to "not quite so play along" but finally recognized things for what they were: HE wasn't even convinced he wanted to be President.

Thereby killing any future political actions he may envision. Fool us once, Fred, but fool us twice?

2. RUDY GIULIANI

I supported Giuliani for a time because I recognized some Leadership qualities within him. He was hated in NYC because he refused to kowtow to every faction. He refused to allow Arafat into his city. He provided great leadership following 9/11. He cleaned up the city but, of course, it was his way or the highway. Managers and leaders are like that. He too had "gun" issues, "immigration" issues and "abortion" issues. My first triage topic: SCOTUS judges. He said from the very beginning his would be Strict Constructionists. Giuliani spent $60 million and acquired ONE delegate. His campaign manager should be lined up against a wall and shot. Rumors are that his campaign manager's pushing the "cheeseburger" icon on the register at an east coast McDonalds. Then Giuliani threw his support to McCain. So much for any political career in Giuliani's future. Dude, you are so dead to me.

3. MITT ROMNEY

Romney provided his finest prose in his final speech. Hey, excellent speech but about a year too late. Timing is everything. Perceived as a flipper, known as a Mormon, supported and promoted to the Nth degree by Hugh Hewitt (and therefore damaging my utter confidence in Hewitt, sadly), Romney could simply not overcome his religion, his buckage, his perfect good looks. His hair was every bit as pre-formed as John Edwards. Almost like running Jay Leno's jaw as a candidate.

But trust me: you haven't seen the last of Mitt Romney. 2012? He is smart as well as perfect. He is a card player. And he still has a few decks left.

4. MIKE HUCKABEE

In a way, Huckabee frightens me more than any other candidate. Even Ron Paul is more of a Known Quantity than Huckabee. Because, let me be blunt: I don't want Jesus as a candidate. I couldn't give a shit less that he may be "revered" by so-called Evangelicals. Too much of any one thing is simply too much. Period. And when you let religion interfere with common sense decisions and judgments, in my mind you are gone. WWJD simply DOESN'T translate into good policy or common sense for me. In a Perfect World we'd let everyone into the US. We'd fund every social program, here and abroad.

But this isn't a Perfect World. And it isn't MY responsibility as an American taxpayer to Save The Planet. I have a hard enough time saving myself. Huckabee will spend and tax for what he perceives to be his religious duty. Globally.

Okay. I'll admit it. I am not that altruistic. Not even close. And I submit that Huckabee, whilst motivated by "good," is about the least practical candidate here. And I ain't even going down that road if I can help it. Huckabee scares me, quite frankly, as an Islamist would scare me. And I'm still not convinced he's motivated even by altruism. People voting for Huckabee are voting to have their taxes increased, their pockets turned inside out, and their sofas upended for every last bit of coinage.

5. RON PAUL

One thing I must admire about Ron Paul: he is about the most base, clear, obvious and unpretentious candidate running. He is what he is, he states over-and-over what he is, he pulls no punches, he holds nothing back. He is every bit of what he is, on his face. I admire clarity and simplicity so, in a way, I admire Ron Paul on some levels that I don't admire any of the above candidates. But I simply cannot support his current positions. Maybe he was a Man Ahead Of His Time. Give me four more years. Maybe I can support him then. Maybe I'll have consumed sufficient vodka.

6. JOHN McCAIN

I think perhaps what concerns me most about McCain is his inner volatility. He seems to be motivated so much by inner vulcanism, retribution, arrogance, certainty and, I must admit it: anger. He is an angry, tempestuous, rash man. I think many of us objecting to McCain realize and recognize this, though we may not be able to coherently verbalize or publish these feelings.

Those dullards voting for McCain in the primaries are doing so after having seen only his First Coat. They are voting for the visual: clean. White. Male. Older. War veteran. POW.

They are not even remotely interested in digging a millimeter beneath the surface. My father, sadly, included. He is duped at his age.

If he would but declare what is so obvious: move to the Demorat Party, John. You are there. You are them. Simply declare the obvious and we shall have no argument.

But no.

BZ

California Exodus

Wow; it couldn't happen to a more appropriate state.

Only months after a new state law effectively banned "mom" and "dad" from California schools, 600,000 students soon could be following them out the door because of what has been described as the "repudiation" of 2,000 years of Christian morality, according to leaders of a new campaign assembling education alternatives.

The campaign is called California Exodus and is being headed by Ron Gleason, pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda, who said while the country excels in social, economic, scientific and political accomplishments, it "gets low grades on the education of its children."

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

This is one of those times I am so glad I didn't have kids in this state.

And yes, the Thought Police and Speak Police aren't just around the corner; they're present in California. Thanks, Arnie.

BZ

Conservatives Are Dead

People, mostly on the Left, would have you believe a number of new concepts.

I repudiate these concepts.

The Demorats, Leftists and Socialists want you to believe in a New Paradigm because, as they are writing now:

• Conservatism is dead;
• The internet is dead;
• Blogs are dead;
• Talk radio is dead.

Therefore, the GOP is striding boldly into a new, all-encompassing view similar to that of the Demorats. And John McCain is taking the forefront in leading the Republican Party to a newer, wider definition of itself because, after all, it has to.

The Mainstream Media (what Limbaugh calls the DriveBy Media, and I call the DEM: Defeatist, Elitist Media) say so. Newsradio says so. TV says so. Mainstream pundits say so. Leftist blogs say so. Newspapers say so.

The internal strife within the Republican Party, played out publicly for all to see and hear, heralds the true Death Knell of Conservatives and a New Day for the Grand Old Party.

The GOP desperately needs to be more accommodating, more inclusive rather than exclusive; it needs to move, first, more to the center. Then it needs to move further left which, after all, is the Natural State of Things.

In summation, it needs to be more like the Demorat Party; anyone can see that.

No. It does not.

Because: why, then, have two parties? Why not have us all coalesce into not only a One World Barbeque, but a One Party American political system?

When compromises have to be made, when accommodations have to be made, I ask: why is it only that Conservatives must compromise and accommodate?

I submit: we should not.

The Left is declaring us dead, jejune, moribund, of no further consequence.

I submit: we are not.

But here are some telling stats: why the trouncing on Super Tuesday? Because 14.6 million Demorats showed up to vote. 8.3 million Republicans appeared. Disparity, anyone?

McCain is now our Front Runner.

Romney is out; Huckabee is soon to be. Ron Paul is a spattered fly speck on a windshield.

Here are my new thoughts: burblings indicate Huckabee is being groomed as McCain's VP. I say: no, wrong. Once McCain has bled sufficient votes from Huckabee, Governor Michael will be kicked to the curb by the McCain Campaign, his usefulness over.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Just as Dewey defeated Truman, Leftists, Demorats and Socialists are declaring the death of Conservatives and Conservatism.

I would ask: are you dead?

BZ

SUICIDE OF WESTERN CULTURE

I recently made a post about a married woman in Saudi Arabia who was jailed for sitting next to a male co-worker, not her husband.

In the UK, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said on Friday:

Asked in a BBC interview if the adoption of Sharia law was necessary for community cohesion, Williams said: "It seems unavoidable."

Did you read that? Do you understand its implications?

To accommodate, Western Cultures would have to abide by the process of:

• Hanging homosexuals
• Stoning adulterers
• Killing daughters who insult fathers
• Killing people who insult Islam in any fashion
• Female genital mutilation
• All governments should be destroyed
• Human equality is offensive
• Hands cut off for theft

Or worse.

Read the rest of the article if you wish. If you have the stomach for it.

For me, I simply say this, in the most base, most rude, most blunt manner possible:

1. Islam IS as Islam does;

2. Therefore, Islam consists of nothing but BARBARIANS.

3. Islam is a degenerate religion promulgated by psychotic, violent, ignorant, racist, misogynistic, repressive, obdurate genetic mutants bent upon replicating The Borg.

4. Muslims have no culture save that of death and oppression, no foresight, no ideas, no subjective thoughts, no creativity, nothing to offer the world save repression, the suppression of thought, a patriarchic society and overwhelming culture

5. Which would, on its face, work to completely eliminate all base platforms of the Left.

Keith Ellison was already sworn in on a Koran.

On what holy book will Barack Hussein Obama be sworn?

I shake my head, thinking and knowing that this country hasn't the first clue as to the implications here.

I foreswear this now: I WILL NOT ENFORCE SHARIA LAW as a law enforcement officer, nor will I BEND to SHARIA LAW as a citizen of this nation. And I will shoot to kill any person who attempts to enforce this on my nation, my department, my state, my county, my town, my home.

Do you even remotely understand what kind of precedent has been set here, today?

BZ

P.S.

You think this base isn't here and present in the United States? And that we are not that far from such an accommodation? You would be so wrong, wrong, wrong. This is a fight between Spiritual Islam v. Political Islam, and Moderate Muslims are targeted every bit as much as kaffir and infidels.

Perfect Illustration

BZ

Ah, Islam:

. . . the religion of peace and tolerance:

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's “Mutaween” police.

Ah yes, Islam, the religion of peace, tolerance, understanding, and consideration for the freedoms of women the world over.

BZ

The Wall

And here's the requisite writing.

BZ

Nuclear Option

Politics aside for a moment.

From the UK Guardian:

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.

Information like this does need to be in the public domain, so that various nation-states know NATO, the United States and Europeans have not removed certain options from the table.

BZ

Super Tuesday; Just Remember:

You want CHANGE?? Fine. I'll empty my pockets.

Oh wait, that's right, the Demorats will empty my pockets FOR me. Doubt it? Check this out.

BZ

All Lit Up

I seldom (if ever) listen to Rush Limbaugh, but happened to dial him up Monday.

I've not been a fan of Limbaugh for the past number of years because he seemed to be nothing but an apologist for President Bush, no matter what he did. I've never taken that path and always reserved the right to disagree with any action taken by the GOP or any Republican. When I perceived Rush going that direction, real or not, I shut him off. Period.

Monday, however, I noted: he got completely fired up, making some rather salient and insistent points; in a nutshell:

• The GOP is moving progressively to the Left;
• Conservatives are told they must consistently compromise;
• Yet, there's no compromise on the Left; why is that?
• Conservatives are being left behind;
• The GOP believes everyone will simply follow;
• The GOP is wrong, and will suffer the consequences because:
• Rush Limbaugh is stepping away.
  

I don't think I've heard Limbaugh that strident ever before. He completely excoriated John McCain on any number of issues. He indicated the Democrats know that either of their candidates, Clinton or Obama, can "take it" to McCain.

He also said there are portions of the media indicating "Rush is on his way out," evidently because he's suddenly leveraging himself against McCain and, by extension, the GOP.

Rush Limbaugh stated that Conservatives are being asked to put aside their principles, and that there are people who will shelf their Conservatism so that McCain can bring in Liberals and Independents simply in order to win, and that McCain has made it clear that he, essentially, urinates on Conservatives.

And Rush made another point: those "independents" and "clear thinkers" who are advocating John McCain in the Mainstream Media are those who will not vote for him; their goal is to have McCain lose and a Demorat take the White House.

But make no mistake; McCain is a powerful factor. My very own father, for example, a dutifully-registered Republican, is voting for McCain on the comfort factor. My father served in WWII and Vietnam, retiring a Colonel in the USAF. He's voting for McCain not necessarily because he knows about McCain's voting record or what he's been doing or saying the past few years or because he knows about any number of McCain-sponsored bills. He's voting for John McCain because McCain was in the military, was a POW, and knows about military issues. It's a matter of comfort and, with that, there you have McCain's probable popularity with a bulk of Republicans.

Publicly, there are disagreements between myself and other Conservative factions.

I've been of the opinion that simply staying home in November does nothing but guarantee a Demorat win.

Those who disagree with me believe I'm something of a sell-out, and say the GOP needs to have a message sent to it in "clear text." They believe, if I am correctly interpreting the message, that a true Conservative would make a stand squarely on Conservative Principles and, by not doing so, compromises Conservatism and enables the GOP to go further astray. With the necessary caveat that the price of this message, if properly sent, would be up to and including the loss of the White House.

So, considering Limbaugh's major stance and with those other aspects in mind:

1. Is it I that am drinking the Kool-Aid?

2. If so, then what's The Plan?

BZ

One final note: there's a very handy spot on the internet, called the Campaign Calendar 2008, where one may locate the current status of GOP and Demorat caucuses, and keep track of what's coming up and when.

I Couldn't Have Been More Wrong

. . . and been happier about it.

New York Giants, 17.

New England Patriots, 14.

Coming into Super Bowl 42 with an 18 - 0 record, the New England Patriots, and Coach Bill Belichick specifically, made the team appear as nothing more than poor losers when, with :01 second on the clock, Belichick turned and walked away from the field and down the tunnel to the locker room. Belichick did not hold the field to even shake hands with NY Giants Coach Tom Coughlin or other players.

You not only lost the game, Patriots, you lost an astounding amount of street cred and, moreover, managed to earn the enmity of many an NFL fan tonight -- myself included -- with a puerile stunt like that.

My hat is off to the New York Giants, who simply outplayed the Patriots and deserved to win. And, oh yes, are clearly a classier act than the Patriots as well.

BZ

Global Warming?

Really? That's why I've got the most snow this season than I've gotten since 1995 or 1996?

And yes, that's my car buried under the pile, from yesterday. It's gotten more on it today, but I couldn't take the photo because I had to shovel the snow off my deck. That activity took all day and kicked my living fat ass; there was around 5' - 6' of snow on the front deck. It runs right off the metal roof to the deck below (thanks, original home builder!). If I don't keep on top of the snow, it could either snap the deck or plunge into the tall windows.

It snowed again all day. I have about 5' on the ground, up to 7' or 8' in the open spots. I am one tired Jesse, particularly after having fought the stupid flu last week. Supposed to snow all day tomorrow (Patriots over the Giants, easy call, almost not worth watching until the very end when they clear their record), with some clearing on Monday.

Man. Ever feel like you just need some time to play "catch-up"?

BZ

Bad!

Yes, I fully realize it's horribly dated, but I just couldn't resist (thank, Steve). My apologies, Michelangelo. Uccupo!

BZ

Where To From Here?

Some observations:

1. Why John McCain?

First, I believe we all need to realize up front that, though we'd care to think we are, we are not representative of the general population or even the bulk of the Republican party, if that is your association. And by "we," who do I mean?

I mean you, me, any of my dedicated readers or anyone just dropping by. I mean those who listen to Conservative talk radio, who hit the internet for news stories, who will choose something for a particular political reason, who purposely choose certain venues of communication and media.

I believe it is we who are out of the mainstream -- of the bulk of people comprising the Republican Party.

To us, the things wrong with this country are readily apparent. We can identify the problems, we see them, they possess a hot, reflective glare and we have any number of solutions which, we believe, are consistent with our vision of Conservatism. My vision is mine; yours is yours. But despite, there are some consistent running threads.

We need be cognizant of this one massively important thing, applicable not just to the bulk of Republicans but to bulk of America: most couldn't care less about politics. They don't have the time, the inclination or the caring. They give perhaps ten minutes' thought, or less, about the votes they make prior to stepping into their voting booth or marking their absentee. I'll wager they've chosen their party on much of an original whim -- because it was what their parents were, their friends were, or how they were "moved" by whatever emotions existed for a given candidate when they cast their very first ballot in their very first big election.

I believe this is how and why the bulk of Republicans seem to be walking behind John McCain -- for these simple, simple reasons:

• 1. He's a Vietnam vet,
• 2. A former prisoner of war;
• 3. He's older, looks kindly, looks genuine;
• 4. He has the (R) behind his name,
• 5. Therefore he must be a good man;
• 6. Something resonates on the emotive trust factor;
  

It is not because these people have read his Senate voting records or identified his liberal tendencies. They haven't seen the photos of he and Hillary darned near embracing. McCain-Feingold could be the name of his former law practice. Most Republicans, I submit, are going with their Emotive Trust Gut and not by knowledge. They don't know and further, I submit, they do not care. Where do you suppose, when they acquire any media input as it happens to randomly pass directly in front of their face, what media is it? TV or the occasional newspaper. Another note in passing: why did McCain take Florida? Hello? Cubans? Amnesty? Anyone connecting dots?

Those are the common threads to the trend that we are seeing, I believe.

Given the two GOP choices, now McCain and Romney, what are people thinking by way of their ETG about Romney? Some of the things already expressed here and in other blogs: he's too slick for his own good and he's a Mormon. Oh yes, yes, not me, not me, I don't disparage religions, that doesn't even factor for me. But for the bulk of America? Bullshit. It factors.

So who's left (literally: Left)? McCain. And in my opinion, that is why.

McCain has a potential 300 delegates wrapped up. Romney has to completely take Illinois and California. And yes, Romney did win the Simi Valley GOP debate. McCain is broke. McCain cannot bring Conservatives together. And McCain cannot beat Obama because (you can lay thousands of dollars on this): it will not be Clinton; it will be Obama. It simply gets down to ETG: Obama is more likeable. And even if it is McCain, John McCain will be a "lame duck" from the second he crosses into the White House.

Between the two, though, to whom should your vote go? Romney! And if you think that staying home or voting for Mickey Mouse in November expresses your anger, then you are simply daft. Demorats will simply bankrupt this country and give it away. The writing is on the wall to see -- but only if you can read English.

2. First Remedial Steps?

For me, it's a thing I've been doing since May of last year, a response to my insistence that President Bush protect this country by sealing our borders, building a complete 854+ mile fence and no amnesty for lawbreakers: no more checks to the RNC. The only thing that seems to acquire anyone's political attention is money -- or the lack of it.

I suggest to you: no more checks to the RNC. All support begins at home. We need to completely throttle the neck of the RNC. Pass the word. Let the money well simply dry up.

3. No One Is Perfect!

All the GOP candidates seem to be falling over themselves with an attempt to be "Reaganesque." Newsflash: no one is "Reaganesque" but Ronald Wilson Reagan. And there will never be another RWR.

Knowing that, knowing that Reagan, of course, wasn't perfect (Lebanon, immigration, to name a few items), one has to triage one's priorities. There are any number of different Conservatives with any number of priorities. None of us will ever find a candidate espousing all of our individual button issues in precise lockstep. Never. Therefore, knowing that:

4. Question For You:

-- and the answer of which you should already know if you've given any consideration to this campaign:

If you had to triage your issues, which one would you "give up" first?

BZ

P.S.

I can already hear the complaints formulating. "How can you do that?" etc, etc. But we'd best, again, wrap our minds around this known: there exists NO such thing as ANY perfect candidate because there is NO "universal concept" of what comprises the Perfect Conservative.