Definition of Conswervatism

Conswervative: a 'conservative' who, for the sake of personal and party electability (at all hazards) rejects Ronald Reagan's three-legged stool of conservatism based on a) free enterprise, b) strong national defense, and c) pro-family social policies.  Conswervatives have turned Reagan's stool upside down, removed two of its legs, national defense and social conservatism, and offer Americans a seat on the one upturned leg, fiscal responsibility, that they still affect to conserve.  For example, What principles were ever conserved by deviants and deviance?  Electability does not, however, account for Judge Richard Posner's conswervatism.  The writings and rulings of this most cited of America's legal scholars reveal that all he has conserved is the law of the pack--not a Judeo-Christian basis for morality and law as contemplated by the United States Constitution . 

Dimension-less Politics

The delay of the Keystone Pipeline is not something that "anyone can reasonably justify", according to eleven Democratic Senators.  The media and the White House have sought to justify the delay on political grounds.  But is the outcome of a mid-term election really of graver consequence to America's interest than energy independence in America, 40,000 new jobs, immediately eliminating existing environmental hazards and excess carbon emissions associated with the rail and road transport of oil, and amity with allies like Canada and Europe (Europe needs the oil now but China would construct a pipeline across Canada to get it)?  Should America's national interest be hostage to politics?  Proportion-less politics (totalitarianism) always puts party and purges before the prosperity and interest of the people--but it was never satisfactory for demagogues, even under isms like Maoism or Stalinism, to use politics as the sole justification for sacrificing the interests of the populace.

Speech Crime In America?

Racism is repugnant.  But there is no such thing as speech crime or thought crime under the Constitution of the United States.  And for good reason.  To enforce speech crime or thought crime, government must intrude into one's mind to ascertain the color of his private thoughts and words.  As it rejects an objective moral standard, how could government discriminate blackness or whiteness of thought or word in individuals--and effect justice?  How lengthy, how lavish would be the prohibitions of law?  And what would enforcement cost us all?  In relative terms, it is far more reprehensible to make speech or thought a crime than it is to allow a racist or bigot to speak or think.  When speech is free, the truth emerges and ultimately prevails.  When it is not, falsehood smothers all humanity.  While racism is repugnant, it is distortionate and deleterious to Constitutional rights for our news media to treat it as speech crime or thought crime.

Hostiles Will Comprehend It--You Just Need To Change?

Changes that inculcate the perspective and values of a hostile alien species might help Americans understand why progressives (ie. those in control of the Presidency and the Senate) are:

• against the Keystone pipeline that would conduce to energy independence in America,
• dismantling the Monroe Doctrine that has kept the two American continents secure,
• disarming the military to levels not seen since before the World Wars,
• militarizing local and state police and federal regulators to unprecedented levels,
• seeking to disarm the populace with gun control measures,
• transforming the economy to a planned administration using Obamacare,
• not reigning in expenditures even though the current amount of federal liability (debt plus unfunded liabilities) is about $450,000 per U.S. citizen, 
• multiplying taxes with Obamacare,
• eliminating individual choice with Obamacare,
• spying on Americans (ie. NSA),
• quelling free speech with a weaponized IRS (and other agencies),
• refusing to respond to Congressional subpoenas and findings of contempt,
• referring to assembled, outspoken Americans as “domestic terrorists”,
• disregarding the law as its very executors,
• setting at naught the popular and legislative will regarding gay marriage.

Hostiles and progressives will understand this.  You just need to change?

Plaintiff, Judge, Jury, Executioner?

Without due process, Cliven Bundy of Nevada was just convicted of something by Harry Reid in the court of his own mind:  "Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over".  On Mr. Reid's conviction, Mr. Bundy and his compatriots cannot just walk away--perhaps they might only crawl away or come away in cuffs?  Apparently, violations of law vex Mr. Reid when they are undertaken by the "American people" but what if they arise from the law's executors?

Mr. Reid's son, Rory Reid described the progressive method of prosecution that will yield a wished-for verdict against Mr. Bundy:  "if state and local prosecutors look at this more closely, they’re going to find that (Mr. Bundy) broke the law".  Note that there were about 200 federal agents--that's about 200 more than we have on the ground in Ukraine or Iraq--focusing, not on murderers or rapists or illegal immigrants, but on Mr. Bundy's dissidence toward creeping federalism.  If Mr. Bundy's guilt was a foregone conclusion to anyone other than the Reids (who, by the way, have or had financial interests in the form of foreign solar power investments nearby), why wasn't a warrant for Mr. Bundy's arrest served?  There were, after all, more than enough federal agents present to serve it.

And how closely do investigators need to look to find that Mr. Bundy broke a law--any law?  If 200 can't discover an instance, perhaps 2,000 might?  To look for anything under magnification is distortionate: to the straining, unblinking, omnipresent eye (ie. the NSA's), an awaited instance of infraction will appear, however ephemerally; as one zooms in, the forest is lost in the trees; under extreme magnification, what is a person may be mistaken for an insect--transforming a candidate for one's charity into a candidate for extermination.  Perspective is paramount--especially to law and governance:  otherwise, 200 armed federal agents might be assigned, uneconomically, to a cattle trespass--even as paroled serial offenders commit murder-rapes and even as drugs, guns, and humans are in traffic at America's open borders.  Politics that are all-permeating (this is totalitarianism) are pernicious to true perspective.  When what is political grows proportion-less, reason, expression, truth, and charity--in other words, humanity--must wilt in its shade.

If it's "not over", why did BLM agents skulk away from a daylight, public confrontation arising from their own confiscation?  If it's "not over", when will it end?  Will it become a grudge match between the federal government and a private citizen characterized by cumulation, escalation, retribution, and ultimately bloodshed?  If it's "not over", how will it end?  If not face-to-face, in the daylight, among droves of witnesses, perhaps the score might be bravely settled after the private partisans disband--under a veil of darkness, veniality, and federal tyranny?  Do you, Mr. Reid, wear your sunglasses at night--that is, as night is ushered and ushering into America?