with your second sentence. But after 42 years of turning the other cheek to the leftists I came to the conclusion that being polite and gentlemanly was little more useful than doing nothing, as the only reason the left seeks “dialog” or “compromise” is to further their totalitarian socialist agenda – in the grand old tradition of the “United Fronts” of the mid 20th Centuries.

Given how clearly inimical the left is to American culture and principles, the first step in resisting them is to turn their own tactics against them instead of accepting the role they would assign us as passive targets. This includes incivility, JMNSHO.

the spouse has played a high profile role in both the campaign & the regime, making her a legitimate target – again JMHO. If the only time this female has been “proud” of the USA was after Mr. Clueless became a candidate for its highest office, rotten tomatoes – both literal and figurative, *SHOULD* rain on her head every time she makes a public appearance.

I’ve not taken any shots at the obama kids, LBJ’s family, carter’s, nor did I demean Chelsea Clinton until she started shilling actively for the former First Shrew’s Presidential campaign. While I agree “[f]amilies are off limits,” that protection ends immediately for those who choose to enter the fray as adults.

in our characterization of what we have seen from the current GOP “leadership,” much less that of the recent past. The Ryan budget proposal is a good first step; how much of it is compromised into oblivion remains to be seen. As you note, the proposal was sure to provoke much wailing, gnashing of teeth – and outright lies – by the left. Why the GOP “leadership” or any conservative should “reach across the aisle” to this group has yet, at least in my view, to be justified. All compromise for the past century has been one way, from wilson’s 16th Amendment “temporary” tax scheme to the healthcare debacle of 2010. This is why I used – and now reiterate – the Chamberlain / FDR analogies.

Thank you for the kind words. I do, however, absolutely reject your characterization of the obamas as “good people.” Couldn’t even accept such an assertion as a hypothetical for the purposes of abstract discussion. I wasn’t always so partisan, much less full of hate; it took a lot of effort by the left over several decades to orchestrate the enmity I manifest, but they finally succeeded in 2004 and before I pass I have every intention of giving full measure – ideally far more – in payback of what they created.

I respect the ability of the enemy to cause harm – the healthcare “reform” enema is proof enough of this. However, the last liberal politicians for whom I had any respect in their person were Hubert Humphrey nationally and Hugh Gallen here in NH. There is Zell Miller, of course, but he was a classic liberal Democrat in the mold of Truman or JFK, not the sort of treacherous narcissist which headlines as the paradigm of today’s “progressives.” By the Miller standard, most conservatives are in many respects traditional liberals – cast from the Jeffersonian mold which was gradually ravaged & abandoned by the democrats over the last century.

In deference to your comments, I will attempt to be less malevolent than I was in the passages which provoked Diogenes’ response. Difficult, that, for I am already exercising massive restraint – a faithful rendition of my daily speech, much less my thoughts, would be far more controversial.