Is funny. You watch now. Ya? Click.

On big triangle in middle, silly. Click now.

The indispensable Doctor Zero, John Hayward writes:

Here’s the deal, Democrats: you don’t get any more billions to spend. You don’t get to pick the next group of winners and losers in the free market. You don’t get to decide who “deserves” a tax cut. You don’t get to hand us the invoice for this bloated government and tell us we need to figure out a way to pay for it. You don’t get to blame deficits on the people who haven’t surrendered enough of their livelihood to you. You do not get to insist every piece of this government’s sprawling machinery is indispensable, while every slice of our lives is negotiable.

We own our lives. We own the State. The future is ours to discover. The solutions that will forever evade the political class are already humming through our eager minds. To be controlled is to spend eternity at each other’s throats, for free people must accept their own inferiority before they can accept domination… and they will always prefer to be told someone else is inferior, and deserves domination. The control of a free society requires strategic infusions of sin and condemnation. It also calls for controlling the information free people use to make their decisions, transforming the command economy into an endless con job. The State survives by managing expectations, while free people compete to exceed them.

This is the voice of the people speaking--this is the hard, clear-seeing core of the tea party movement. The plain folks of the United States have had enough. They are boiling mad at their incompetent political "leadership" and their feckless lapdog media enablers who excuse away all of the failures of the Ruling Class, and attack anyone who threatens the statist gravy train that the Media-Government Complex has built.

What the Democrats have done appall many Americans. What the Republicans did before, and have done since, have enraged many of those who naively believed the Republican's cant recitations of small-government, "conservative" rhetoric.

Rhetoric won't cut it any more. It is time for action. It is time for a new way.

It is time for a restoration of the true American philosophy: personal responsibility, individual freedom, political liberty, free enterprise, and neighborly kindness. All of those depend on all of the rest of them to work. You weaken one, and you weaken all of the rest of them.

The tea party people understand this. The Republican establishment, the Obama "progressive" Democrats, and the major media still think that those things are independent variables. They're not.

It's time for The Restoration.

How's this for a theory:

Christine O'Donnell's primary win in Delaware is a potential win-win for conservatives, the Tea Party, pretty much everybody in the pro-liberty, back-to-the-founding-principles movement.

If she wins the general election--and the Republicans take both the House and Senate as a result, the shockwaves throughout the entire political world will be approximately 10 on the Richter scale. As Don Surber noted: "The boss is on the premises. The boss is looking for people to lay off." But the Republicans will have to follow through in a big way--they can't play defense at all in the next Congress. They need to be aggressive--something like passing basically all of the Heritage Foundation's policy proposals (or even better, all of Cato Institute's policy proposals), or as much of those as they can manage to get through the House and the Senate, and make Obama veto everything in sight.

If she loses the Delaware Senate race, and the Republicans don't control the Senate as a result, it doesn't really change the above legislative strategy--IF the Republicans win the House and be legislatively aggressive, as noted above.

Either way, the Republicans can then run their Presidential and Congressional races in 2012 on "hey, we're trying to fix things but the DEMOCRATS (or Obama, or both) SAID NO--Who's the real 'Party of No?'"

I'm not holding my breath that the establishment Republicans in Washington are actually smart enough to do this. I suspect the new-wave Tea Party Republicans are, but they've got two uphill climbs ahead of them--first, the Republican Party, then the Democrats in Congress and the President.

I'm pretty sure Christine O'Donnell is not my favorite candidate--I'd prefer somebody with a (much) less--er--colorful backstory. But if you're a Democrat--let me just tell you: before you come complaining to me about O'Donnell, first go do something significant about Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd and the other corrupt Democrats already in Congress (like voting them out of office, or throwing them out of Congress)--pull the plank out of your own eye first, OK?

KMBC-TV story. No, it's not Raytown, but Kansas City, Missouri.

(Raytown being a much-maligned suburb of KCMO, although any suburb in my home metropolitan area is pretty much by definition of higher status than the metro's central city--as you might infer from this story. Actually, I rather like Raytown. Most parts, anyway.)

Fidel Castro says Cuban model no longer works

Wherein Fidel states that Cuba's economic model "doesn't even work for us anymore."

So why, then, are Michael Moore, George Soros, and the Democratic Party trying as hard as they can to move the United States toward the Cuban, communist way of doing things?

Why?

In other words, the ends DON'T justify the means.

Burning the Koran (or the Qur'an, or however you prefer to spell it) is really a stupid thing to do. It's stupid on a vast number of levels.

You can tell a lot about someone by their reaction to the New York mosque issue and the Florida Koran burning issue:

If a person opposes both acts as being pretty darn insensitive things to do, but thinks that both parties have the right--at least in this country--to go forward and do it anyway, then they're probably a fair-minded person who generally supports freedom, understanding that freedom is a coin that has two sides--your freedom to do what you want to do within limits carries with it an obligation to tolerate a certain level of offensive behavior from others as a price for your own freedom.

If a person opposes the mosque, but do not oppose the burning of the Koran, then they're quite likely a religious bigot, or someone on the right who sees an opportunity to score craven political points.

If a person does not oppose the mosque, but opposes the burning of the Koran, then they're quite likely a religious bigot, or a leftist who sees an opportunity to score craven political points.

If a person thinks that both building the mosque at "Ground Zero" and burning the Koran are both just fine and dandy, then they are a very sick puppy indeed, and should probably seek psychological help for their antisocial disorder and nascent psychopathic tendencies.

In Houston, Texas.

No. I would not put it past Chicago machine politician Obama and his corrupt, tribalist Attorney General Holder.

Elections aren't stolen on election day. They're stolen much earlier--generally through the kind of fraudulent voter registration and fraudulent absentee/early voting that ACORN excelled at. But the 2010 elections may be for The Whole Shebang, so I expect the Democrats to pull out every nasty trick and ugly smear on Republicans that their nasty little minds can think up.

Obama is leading the charge with his ridiculous "Dog" comments this past weekend.

He will get even more shrill as November approaches.

Ronald Reagan knew more about America in general, and good government in particular than all of today's elected Democrats--combined.

What it used to mean:

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety.

Emphasis mine. By this definition, I pretty much qualify as a liberal--of the classical variety, that is. The "progressives" in the United States, following their intellectual allies in Europe (mainly Germany and England, but also France) have debased the term "liberal" to mean "socialist."

This is a big part of why I put the word "progressive" in all its various forms in quotes. The people who call themselves "progressive" are anything but. Their worldview is one where they would be right at home in the Dark Ages--with themselves, perhaps, as the hierarchy of the Church and the associated nobility, of course. That leaves the rest of us to play the roles of peasant and serf.

Oh, yes, very progressive. Very liberal.

Very deceitful.

Classical liberalism is THE American political philosophy. It is here in the United States that it found its greatest flowering, and it was here that classical liberalism it demonstrated its unique power to raise individual human beings to a standard of living unparalleled in the history of mankind.

It is this political philosophy that the "progressives" want to throw away, in preference for their neo-feudal Dark Age collectivism.

Oh, yes, very, very progressive.

It is time to take a stand. If you embrace progressive ideals, you are not truly an American. You may be a European, or a "citizen of the World," whatever the hell that means, but you are throwing away the one thing that truly makes an American an American.

America is not about a skin color. America is not about a language. America is not about land. America is not about how much money or stuff you have, or how vigorously you wave the flag, or how strongly you feel compassion for those less fortunate than you.

America is an idea. That idea is classical liberalism.

Embrace the idea and you're American. Go down another road, and be something else, but you are not an American. You may be a citizen of the United States, but you are not an American.

If this offends you, consider this: I do not question your "patriotism." Oh, no, nothing so narrow or jingoistic as that. I question your wisdom.

History teaches that no political system is superior in providing the greatest good for the greatest number than classical liberalism.

None.

If you want to argue, start by citing a counterexample to the amazing rise of the United States from colonial wilderness to possibly the most powerful country in the world in little more than one hundred years. You won't be able to, because no such counterexample exists in the history of the world. None.

So, if you think I'm calling you un-American, I am not questioning your patriotism. I am questioning your wisdom.