Kevin McCullough yesterday, and again today, on Town Hall has taken an unequivocal stand that Christians are REQUIRED by their duty as Christians to Vote in the upcoming Presidential Election. His primary (indeed only that I could see) Proof Text for this is Matthew 22:15-22 (and parallel accounts in Mark 12 and Luke 20) with the punch line being: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s." KMc transitions, if I understand his argument and thinking correctly, to the principle that in our Constitutional Republic places ultimate power and responsibility for governance in the hands of "the people" as Divinely endowed inalienable rights which are then DELEGATED to our REPRESENTATIVES. Thus, in a "democracy" it is the Christians Duty to accept this God given responsibility and exercise the Franchise. Please note in passing that these God endowed inalienable rights are bestowed equally on believer and non-believer, "the rain falls on the just and the unjust."

Now aside from the fact that KMc’s exegesis of the passage in question is open to challenge, (and some have done so quite neatly and ably on both the original comment thread and the current one), I will not dispute either point that Christians DO have a DUTY to EXERCISE their God endowed and inalienable rights (and RESPONSIBILITY) to, in concert with their similarly endowed fellow citizens, GOVERN. Though I would suggest, as have others, the far better passage for establishing that Principle is Romans 13. And I would note the KMc goes breezin right by a whole BUNCH of Christian Tradition through the ages that makes the case the MOST obedient choice is SEPARATION from the world–-the Amish for example.

What I DO and WILL dispute is KMc’s APPLICATION of the Principle. Specifically his false dilemma of HAVING to vote for either Hillybama or The McChurian Candidate. I grant that his dilemma is INFERRED rather than directly stated by him (thought he comes dang close a couple of times). Nonetheless, I argue that both NOT voting for either Hillybama or McAin’t AND NOT VOTING AT ALL may be obedient choices for the Christian.

A word on MY bona fides here. I am an Evangelical, a group KMc addresses by name. (If you want a definition ask him. I would suggest his reference to "Bible Believing" offers a clue, and I would not gainsay it.) I am also a Pastor, which both allows and obligates me to say "This is what I think the flock should do." If you want to argue that only qualifies me to say it on Sunday in MY pulpit to MY flock, I won’t dispute you, but it does suggest where I am coming from. You can also argue that trotting out the fact I have an M.Div. from Duke doesn’t qualify me for ANYTHING and I won’t dispute that either. But I will say it shows I have at least a little knowledge to bring to this table. Having said that, I stand by our Protestant belief that even if KMc comes to the table strictly as a layman, (and for all I know he’s got a better Theological Education and more years experience than me), he is, nonetheless, a fit interpreter of Scripture.

I just think he’s wrong on this one, not that he shouldn’t have or didn’t have the right to.

The CRUCIAL problem with KMc’s argument is how he sets it up. He tacitly, admits the Candidates offer little to vote FOR, but says: "but large issues do loom in the near future" and argues that "if we as evangelicals remain silent" while evil polices are enacted "we must understand that we play a part in allowing these things to happen." I think it a reasonable inference to conclude KMc is imputing RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY here.

To put it another way, KMc can be reasonable read as saying "if these bad things happen because Christians didn’t vote it’s partially YOUR fault."

In this, KMc is edging toward an application of Augustine’s Just War Doctrine in Presidential Politics. Augustine, to oversimplify, basically says that in considering whether or not a War is Just, (one could argue "right" or "righteous" may be applicable terms) a Christian must run the following equation: Is the amount and type of evil inherent in the Act of Waging War GREATER than, EQUAL to, or LESS than the Evil that can be reasonably expected to occur if the War is NOT waged. In short, if the War PREVENTS or HALTS a GREATER evil (The Holocaust say, or Sodem’s Rape Rooms perhaps? Slavery? The enslavement of Women under Islam?) then, under certain specific circumstances, the War is"Just."

Agreed, KMc does not specifically invoke Augustine, and it can be argued, that Augustine’s Doctrine is Specific to War. I maintain, however, that the Theological underpinnings of KMc’s "it will be your fault" argument, can be found in "Just War" and, further, that Augustine’s Doctrine CAN be applied to ANY situation (or dilemma) in which the Christian is being asked to decide on a Morally Ambiguous course of action.

And, again, I AGREE with KMc’s "it will be your fault" argument UP TO A POINT! Where he goes seriously astray, however, is in failing to follow his own logic all the way OUT!

I Timothy 5:22, depending on how you translate it, and I’m no Greek Scholar, reads "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands and (by not being hasty) do not share in the sin of others."

In other words, "people are guilty of their leadership." If KMc is right about being partially responsible for what Justices are placed by our representatives and for what those Justices do, or for what laws or enacted or what Evil is not restrained, then it applies EQUALLY to ALL EITHER (or all) of the Candidates can reasonably be expected to do if we vote for them!

To put it another way, we share in the sin of Hillybama’s pro-abortion, and theft of other’s wealth, but we also share in McSame’s failure to restrain the theft of our culture and our Free Speech!

Specifically if you vote for Hillybama, you are guilty of Socialism Straight. If you vote McSame, you are guilty of Socialism Lite! I would suggest that it MAY be possible that NEITHER are obedient Christian actions!

One could easily vote for another, so called, "Third Party" Candidate on the ballot. Or one could refuse to "lay hands on" any of the choices and thus avoid "sharing in the sin of others." This could be done for a variety of reasons. To "send a message" to "protest" to simply testify to the TRUTH–"NONE of these people are fit to lead our Republic and I refuse to enable them to do so!"

Here is where I suggest KMc needs to think his argument ALL the way THROUGH! And needs to parse carefully what I agreed to about Christian Responsibility in a Constitutional Republic.

It is our DUTY to Undertake the Responsibility of JUST GOVERNANCE! That is NOT the same thing as an unequivocal duty to VOTE! It MAY be that by NOT voting a Greater Good is served. That one or more Parties and or the Electorate may be made to see that Christians will NOT acquiesce tamely to bad choices and false choices. That we will not "lay hands on" Socialism in ANY form or dosage and thus share in its sin! That we will not reward the bad behavior of bad choices by the Parties simply because THEY offer us no better ones. The Greater Good may be served by saying "neither Hillybama or McAin’t is acceptable."

Surely SOMEONE SHOULD stand up for THAT Witness, and if NOT the Church than WHO?

I say if you CAN put "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballot and have it count you SHOULD!

I suggest that Christians ought to get busy making sure that that is ALWAYS a choice on EVERY ballot! Until then, NOT voting may be your ONLY way of making that statement.

Now I would suggest that Christians consider here the EFFECTIVENESS of such a Witness from a COMMUNICATION standpoint. It might be an "uncertain signal" if the Powers that be simply have to guess how many Christians didn’t vote that normally would have. All voting for, Ralph Nader say, might be a clearer signal.

But KMc needs to take his argument one step further. The "Greater/Lesser Evil" Equation needs to be worked ALL the way to the end. His "large issues in the near future" have to be thought ALL the way around.

Put simply, will Hillybama or McAin’t do more harm to the Republic–OVERALL and LONG TERM?!

I believe that McAin’t will.

I believe he will give us Souters and Oconners which will be nearly as damaging as Hillybama’s Ginsbergs. I believe he will give us Shamnesty and lose the War on the Southern Front just as Hillybama will. I believe he will limit the size of Government only slightly more than what Hillybama will do. I believe he will be just one more step on the McSame "follow the moderate" Road that we have been HERDED down to the BRINK of Socialism.  He will LOSE the War on the Home Front as Hillybama will. And I would suggest it is of limited utility and benefit to Stand Firm on the Eastern Front while SURRENDERING on the Southern and Home Fronts.

I believe McSame's Socialism Lite is the slow poison that kills all the more ASSUREDLY because it accustoms the victim (as we have been being accustomed since Reagan left office) until the Fatal Dose is absorbed.

I believe that with Hillybama’s Socialism Straight there is at least a CHANCE, a HOPE, that America will Choke on it and Puke it up before the Deadly Dose is absorbed. There is NO such chance with the McChurian Candidate.

I have concluded Hillybama is THE LESSER EVIL for that reason. And I will most likely vote for HB for that reason. Hope for a Hurl!

Further I believe the Establishment Machine Party Bosses (EMPBs) of the Gilt Bird Cabin Conservative Free GOP have COUNTED on Christians going along with McAin’t because they left us no choice. I believe they only care about their Power and not Conservative Principles and would gladly "follow the moderate" to Socialism. I believe they have been HERDING us that way! And I believe they wanted McAin’t because they DIDN’T want an Anti-Amnesty candidate anywhere on any ballot. In THAT case either to vote for Hillybama or to abstain from voting is to refuse to reward their EVIL! I consider THAT a Christian Duty! I consider Christians to have been "unequally yoked" in the GOP since Reagan left office and that we have been Victims of Spousal ABUSE! (See my other blogs.). I would suggest it is the Duty of Christians NOT to enable a Spouse Abuser.

And one more thing. If KMc is RIGHT, then the DUTY of Christians in AMERICA includes the following: "When ANY form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT (and by KMc’s logic the DUTY) of the PEOPLE to ALTER or ABOLISH it and to institute NEW GOVERNMENT."

I suggest for the first time anywhere I know of in print, that it MAY BE TIME, for Christians to START PRAYING for REVOLUTION as well as for REVIVAL! Perhaps it is time to wonder which one has to come first?! And to consider if it is our Duty, as our Founders considered it THEIR CHRISTIAN DUTY, to Prepare and Plan, as well as to Pray.

The Big Mick

I have taken it upon myself to try and catalog the McBeech Fig Leaves flying around TH as poor McScuses to cover McUppedrumps. You can follow my thinking in "Toward a Unified Field Theory of McEnomics" both the original and v2.0 also on this blog.

Richie Rich Galen’s INFAMOUS, DISINGENUOUS, "terminological inexactitude" of a self-serving of McBeech Flying Fig Leaf (McBFFL) TODAY, however, hacks me off SO badly that I just HAVE to simplify just a bit.

Basically Richie Rich would have us believe Allan Keyes is telling Conservatives to stay home and not support ANY Conservative, when a plain sense of the text reading of Richie Rich HIMSELF shows KEYES SAID NO SUCH DAMN THING!

Of course Richie Rich is doing this because 1. He’s a damn inside the belt (yeah I MEANT it THAT way!) Party Hack who is going to LOSE his face time (take THAT anyway you want) and A-list party invites if he can’t sucker Conservatives into voting for The McChurian Candidate.

[Remember the NSA in "Hunt for Red October", who told Jack Ryan: "I’m a politician and that means when I ain’t kissn babies I’m stealin their lolly-pops!"–Richie Rich is a POLITICIAN! His "Conservative Principles are as negotiable as the definition of is is!]

2. Like any McBeech, Richie Rich is miffed, Keyes cut into HIS time! Plain ol cat fight jealousy, here folks. Ego meets principle–see reason 1 bracket.

3. Richie Rich is still selling a version of McBeech Flying Fig Leaf #1. "Hillary is worse!" It’s the ONLY thing the McOnica McInskis HAVE to sell and they are McShilln it like crazy.

Oh the rhetoric varies, party loyalty, warnings of history, it’s all the fault of you purists, he’s only 15% Non-Conservative (yeah and THAT 15%, Shamnesty, Gang14, McFeingeld, is DOG SHEITE–even 15% of which is INEDIBLE!!!) etc. etc. etc. See my blog for the NINE, count em, NINE different McBFFLs in TWO major Models :"Robber Baron Company Store" and "Abusive Spouse" and they are all still damn lies! ALL of em.

And at bottom they all still reduce to the Proposition: "Hillybama is Worse."

The Question is SIMPLE, McHos-ers!:

What if THAT is NOT TRUE?

"It ain’t what you don’t know that hurts ya, it’s what you THINK you know that AIN’T SO!

What if McAin’t, AIN’T? BETTER for the Country than Hillybama, that is?

What makes you think it IS true? Where DOES Mac The Knife (ASK Allen Keyes) LEAD Us?

What do you BUY, REALLY, with a McAin’t vote?

You buy Shamnesty (which may be what the Establishment Machine Party Bosses–EMPBs–and their McShills like Richie Rich WANTED more than anything else–even winning).

You buy McFeingeld, You buy Gang14. You buy No Tax Cuts, and No Drilling in ANWR.

Does ANY of THAT bring you Limited Government, Strict Constructionist Originalist Justices?

Energy Independence? Less regulation? Less Government Interference?

Or is it just another step down the McSame "follow the moderate" Road to the BRINK of Socialism that we have been HERDED down by Richie Rich and the Robber Baron EMPBs of the Gilt Bird Cabin Conservative Free GOP ever since Reagan Left Office?

More of THE McSAME which has got us NOWHERE WE WANT TO BE which is EXACTLY where THEY WANT US!!!

You think McAin’t SAVES us on the Eastern Front by "staying the course"? He’s ALREADY SURRENDERED the SOUTHERN and HOME FRONTS!!!

What makes you think THAT is Survivable?

What makes you think SPECIFICALLY that Hillybama is worse???

I think she is BETTER! I think She is Socialism Straight to McSame’s Socialism Lite.

I think it is the SLOWER poison that ACCUSTOMS (as we have been BEING ACCUSTOMED since Reagan left office) the Victim by degrees until the Fatal Dose is absorbed–that is MORE SURELY DEADLY!

I think Hillybama’s Socialism Straight is AMERICA’s BEST HOPE!! Because there is a least the CHANCE, the HOPE, that America will CHOKE on Socialism Straight and PUKE it UP before the FATAL DOSE is absorbed. NO such chance with Mac The Knife! NONE!

So ANSWER me Richie Rich, and all you McHos-ers out there on TH!

PROVE me wrong, PROVE to me that Mac The Knife ISN’T worse!

I don’t think you can. And if you can’t, I’m voting for Hillybama!

To hell with Richie Rich, the McShills and the EMPBs who are COUNTING of Abused Conservatives staying in THEIR Abusive Marriage and buying what the Robber Baron Company Store sells, at the price they set.

I will NOT "owe my soul" to the Company Store. Way past time, and way enough grounds for a Divorce.

The Big Mick

Warning–this blog contains a passionate return to Big Mick’s ALLCAPS emphasis!

Attention:

Let me say at the outset that "open" carries a variety of freight there, and that one must often wait one’s turn for an unused docking port, that having been admitted, however----

Let all the McOnica McInskies, McBeeches, McHos-ers,  and McShills out there on TH understand this simple Truth.

Nothing you can say, no pseudo-argument you can make, no false analogy or comparison you can draw, no plea, no threat, no label you trot out, can convince me to vote for The McChurian Candidate. None, nada, NOTHING!

Hillybama is getting my vote for the Hope for a Hurl arguments made elsewhere on my blog.

I’ve already run the "Conservative Intellectual Argument" of Hewie Hewit and the Old News and come to the OPPOSITE Conclusion:

McSame’s slow, sure, poison of Socialism Lite is WORSE for the Republic than Hillybama’s Socialism Straight!

It’s THAT simple. The Big Mac IS "the greater of the evils." Don’t believe me, read my blogs.

But for all you McHos-ers...

You can’t convince me, The cogency gradient is against you. "McAin’t is as McAin’t does" own actions are against you.  To hell with going down the McSame "follow the moderate" Road is against you. I’ll be damned if I do what the Robber Barons are COUNTING on is against you.

20 years of Spousal Abuse by the Conservative Free GOP is against you. Read my blogs.

What you CAN do is get me to quit skewering your lame arguments–and you can do THAT by NOT MAKING THEM!

YOUR BEST IDEA in getting me to have SOME respect for you, in spite of you McRumping up, is to simple say: "McAin’t is NOT a Conservative and is THE WORST Candidate for President, EXCEPT Hillybama–AND LEAVE IT AT THAT!

Now I have, as stated above, elsewhere on my blog and comments, given good cogent reasons for the fact that McAin’t IS WORSE than Hillybama, but I can let THAT slide! If I thought you were saying "I’d almost rather do anything but die than vote for McAin’t, but it comes down to that" I could let it slide. What I WILL NOT tolerate is McShilln and McHosing and McBeeching trying to con us Real Conservatives into "getting behind" Mac the Knife. I don’t care if it IS the safest place around a back stabber and easier on the knees!

The 4/5's "Conservative" McPounder is STILL 15% Dogsheite and INEDIBLE–GET THAT?!!!

So "just shut up", write about something else, and retain a shred of my respect for you.

The Big Mick

I think it was Frank Schaeffer?, who said: "Half truth, presented as whole truth is something akin to false hood by that very fact."

Do you remember the scene in PATTON where he is "being nice to a bunch of old ladies" and says "since it is the obvious destiny of the British and American peoples to rule the world, the better we get to know one another, the better we shall do it," and the headline is "Russia to have no place in Post War World."?

This excoriating of Mrs. Labamaba is half truth, taken as whole truth, because the most important context of the quote is left out!--the very definition of "out of context" --which we beech freely about when it happens to us!

It's the name of the "Gotcha" game in this Spin-doctored Sound Bite World. And there's more than a few dishes that one bite can give you a wrong impression of what the whole thing tastes like. Such reactions as we are seeing to Mrs.B only reinforce that evil!

Mrs.B explains what she means 2 (or so) sentences on in the clip: people coming together! Unity not Change, was the image, The Principle she was working–that was the source of The Pride, a Particular kind of pride that she had not, from her perspective, experienced in quite the same way before. Think on that from her perspective!

We all would want to be taken for what we really meant or meant to say as opposed to what we actually said and what people heard. Which, by the way, may have nothing in common either with what we thought, said or meant! Don’t believe me? Preach a sermon and ask a dozen congregation members what they heard.

"Do as you would be done by." (The C..S. Lewis version of Jesus' teaching.) Consider this Time Line for Mrs. B, and remember this is The Big Mick talkn, the guy who coined the term "commiequeer." My bona fides are well established.

She is born the year after Camelot was Murdered 1964--What images, memories, family history does she grow up with in that Southside Chicago one bedroom, sleeping in the curtain divided living room with her brother? Where, by the way, her mother still lives with Iron Bars on the windows to foil break-ins. Was there a picture of JFK on the wall? Bobby? M.L. King? How old was she for "I have a dream",The Assassinations? How many Heroes of the Dream did she see gunned down in her young Black Life--in her formative years? What are those models those experiences of "people coming together" of National Unity?

How old is she for the Nam Protests? How old is she, is she afraid, during Chicago and the Convention? What proud American moment is SHE experiencing? She is 10 when Watergate forces Nixon to Resign--a Proud American moment? A picture of National unity?

Her middle-school and high school formative years are the Time of Feminism and Ecology–unifying forces in America?

She is 14 when Jerry Falwell, one of the most polarizing figures in America Politics before the Clintons, founds Moral Majority-note the name, note the assumptions--does Junior High Michelle view this unifying?
The Presidents she experiences are Nixon, Ford, Carter. "America Held Hostage", proud moment? Presidents of Unity?

"But she said ‘adult life’" you protest, as if adults don't view their world through the lenses of their childhood.

She becomes an adult either at 18 in 82 or 21 in 85. It is the Reagan Years--a time of Unity for a Young Liberal Black Collegian? In the 80's .the War on Drugs jails 1 out of every 5 black men in her dating pool. In 83 RR proposes Star Wars-now successfully deployed and most of the World Thanks God, then it was one of the most Controversial and divisive ideas in the world! After which she gets Bush 41--and the GULF WAR--anti-war protests harking back to the 60's of her childhood. Then Clinton (so much for the first black prez) now the most polarizing figures in American Politics, if you don't rate the NEXT one, Bush 43, as the highest.

Except for a heartbreakingly fleeting period of National Unity immediately after 911--best summarized, by that Fire Fighting Fellow Mick: "Ben Laden kiss my Irish Asz" --we soon reverted to tragedy and tears rather than "War to the Knife" unified in our Rage for Revenge! We get "where's my check" fraud at Ground Zero, the Jersey Cows, and "got to retouch the Flag Photo to be all-minority inclusive." Where's the Unity?

Hell, even I get into LaBamaba's electric remix of Camelot au Lait. I can forgive Mrs.B for feeling and trying to say, that what she is experiencing is what she thinks it must have been like in the JFK and "I have a Dream...All God's Children, Black and White Together "years of her childhood imagination when she WAS proud!

I get it, ya'll should too and, with a Conservative sense of Fair Play in the Market Place of Ideas, Back Off!

It doesn’t matter that she is wrong that she should have been Proud, had much to be Proud of! What matters is she is experiencing The LaBamaba Phenomenon as something she had only read about in her childhood.

That he is a kind of Black JFK is not in any meaningful dispute, is it?

The Big Mick

It would appear the Golden Generals are running the credit card to the max. In an AP article by Richard Lardner, (any relation to Ring Lardner, for those who recognize that name, I wonder?) I read that Gates just had to smack down one of the Air Force Biggies for continuing to say "we need 380 some F22s" rather than the under 200 the Civilian Bosses are saying. And so the Golden General issues a non-retraction retraction in which he still doesn't back off his much larger figure.

Now don't get me wrong if the Air Force needs something I want the Generals to say so and to not back down. It's their responsibility not only to those under their command, but to the Republic. I have my doubts about this though. One is that the "golden hammer" and "silver toilet seat" stories continue to come out, as well as the fact these guys continue to slide right on over to the Industrial side of the procurement process and pull down big bucks for inferior products at inflated prices. I regard that as the lowest form of betrayal of one's troops and an act of Treason worthy of Death by Flamethrower.

I have noticed (thank the History Channel) that over the last couple of years, they do seem to be faster and smarter and things are getting improved and into production much faster. Better bombs for Afghanistan, better mine clearing vehicles for Iraq. And they are using much more "off the shelf" technology and saving money and time doing it. Some somebodies, somewhere, are doing it right.

This change was all on Rummy's Watch--n'est ce pas? And now?

Here come the Golden Generals saying "we just got to have this expensive toy, and we need lots more of em than Rummy was going to let us have."

Puts me in mind of several things. One was an interview on Fox, which was never repeated and the guest never returned, about how the really important thing about Rummy was how he was forcing change on the Cold War Configured Pentagon and revamping it into the Leaner, Meaner, Faster, Stealthier, More Capable fighting force for the 21st Century the Republic had to have. And it was working in spite of resistance from Old Cold Warriors defending their turf and golden parachutes in the Defense Industry. I remember one particular canceled project was this marvelous new artillery piece, that was too damn heavy to air lift!! Can you say "King Tiger Tank" monument to German stupidity in WWII?  Too heavy to cross nearly every bridge to the Front?  From what I see on Future Weapons they got an upgraded gun now that works just fine, thank you, is nice and light and capable and doesn't cost a fortune. Thank Rummy.

Then came all the beechin about how Rummy wouldn't listen to the Generals and was arrogant (that's what the loser in an intellectual fast draw contest usually says) and got it all wrong in Iraq. I said at the time that I smelled the smell of sour grapes. Rummy was gettin dissed by those whose pet Pigs he had barbequed.

SIDEBAR: This is one reason why I stopped paying any attention to Oh? Really? He sided with the Old Cold Warrior Tank Heavy Metal Heads still wargaming Fulda Gap (Soviet Invasion of Western Europe) and unable to make the grade in Rummy's New Special Forces /Lightfighters Lead Army. [SIDEBAR WITHIN SIDEBAR: Do you know we took Afghanistan away from the Taliban with a dozen Green Berets, an Air Force Combat Air Controller and about 200 Northern Alliance Fighters in Toyota Pick ups? And about a million tons of bombs, sure, but you get the point. Rummy was right, Afghanistan proved it. Something people might want to think about in evaluating his legacy and the reasoning that went into the Iraq Invasion "footprint". Thank the Military Channel again.] I think the Golden Generals Oh? Really? was shillin for were wrong. I think Rummy was right to want to "lower" the "footprint" initially. Remember that subsequently became a recommendation of The Mitchell Report or whatever in the heck it was. Now in the interest of fairness I had an ex-special forces trained Marine Colonel in my church, and he told me that Rummy was arrogant and wouldn't listen and the "large print" "overwhelming force", model was the right one. I trust his word and judgement and consider that Rummy may have been wrong and might be hard to convince, but I still say the evidence of Afghanistan shows he had reasons to believe his plan was a good one, and reasons to go "light."

by The Big Mick O2C2b and Charter Member of CFHb

Out of Control Conservatives Backlash Brigade and

Conservatives for Hillybama

But I digress. Some of you might remember that, on The Day of the Great McInski Shorts Drop, I predicted the uppedrumps would need a plausible, oh so rational sounding, Fig Leaf or Leaves to cover their...selves. McScuses if you will.  A few days later, I began to catalog (and the project really needs a better organizer than me) the McBeech Flying Fig Leaves as to type (mainly by the central pseudo- argument advanced), and rate them according to the strength of their, faux-plausibility and cogency. I began to number them in the order in which I encountered them, but have had to make adjustments because the more frequented Fig Leaves ought to be rated with the higher (1 being "highest") numbers–i.e. the most "popular" McPromdate Fig Leaf being Number One (1) on the hit parade. An "A" rating was earned for the Originality (the first or best sounding) of the ersatz rationality, with points be deducted for also rans and especially for unintentional self-deconstruction–by which I mean the McInski furnished excellent reasons for not voting for McAin’t while intending just the opposite.*

*SIDEBAR: It could be argued that some of our TH "conservative" joystickers are so full of guile, subtlety and wit that they would deconstruct themselves on purpose, thus getting the best of both worlds–appearing to McOnica up–or would that be down-- and thus retaining their access, face (take it as you will) time on Fox, and A-List Party Invites, while, in reality, quite stealthily, sabotaging, Mav’s airplane. I don’t trust any of them enough either to make, or buy, that argument.

To resume. Thus the First, and still the most "popular" McPromdate Corsage (adds a whole new meaning to "nosegay" doesn’t it!) Is McBeech Flying Fig Leaf 1 (McBFFL 1–get it?):  "Hillary is Worse!". The first one encountered, or most original or plausible sounding (and it was actually a "lay" responder in the "comments" that earned this A rating with an nice little bit of Legislation by Legislation Vote comparison of Hillybama and McAin’t) being McBFFL1A, subsequents being B or C variants.

The Second McBFFL (McBFFL2) is "The Big Mac". Two All-American Beef Patties on a Says Me Bun. The McBeef being, of course, "War Hero", and "Leader." This argument is particularly prone to self-deconstruction for two reason. One is it cannot help but remind us of the Dole Fiasco. Remember "I can lead", "I can lead"," It’s MY TURN!"–add in a pretty little Shirley Temple stamp of the foot? It also reminds the thoughtful that it begs the question Where will The McChurian Candidate lead us to! Which brings to mind all his Mac The Knife Back stabbings that Allan Keyes has mentioned. But the real problem for the purposes of McFigleafing is that it reminds us that a play that failed miserably the first time is not, perhaps, the best winning strategy to run again against the same opponent!*

*SIDEBAR: Look for my analysis elsewhere on TH that McAint’s "Tale of the Tape" V Hillybama is such an obvious loser (think Nixon vrs Black JFK) that it suggests the plausibility the Establishment Machine Party Bosses–EMPBs–may have feared an Anti-Amnesty Candidate so deeply that they would rather rig the process and lose than get one. And this from me, who has pooh poohed Conspiracy Theories the length and breath of TH!

To Resume: And then there is the fact that The EMPBs and their "Maverick", (rogue, remember) "Big Mac"do get upset at Special Orders, at least from Conservatives. We cannot "hold" what comes with the Big Mac. Special Sauce of McFeingeld and No Tax Cuts, Mexican Let Us shamnesty, Cheesy Gang of 14, Sour Pickles, OnYon ANWR no Drilling, and that on a SAYS ME, bun.

The Third McScuse. McBFFL3 is "The 4/5 ths Pounder". Here we have the reminder of McAvericks "lifetime" Conservative Rating–it loses points for pseudo-cogency because Coulter and others, mostly "lay" comment responders, have pointed out that the late McAin’t is way lower than the Original McAin’t..

SIDEBAR: Why is it that people can make 130K a week running Reconquista Aliens into AZ? Why is it that the Border Penetrating Sweet Spot is the home of McShamnesy R-AZ? Oooooh! Oooooooh!–Best Car 54 imitation there—R-AZ now means Reconquista AZ!!!!!

To Resume: Here again, the argument, by reminding us of the 15% where McAin’t AIN’T, is inevitably self-deconstructing. Keyes’ Mac the Knives, again. When one considers the Roll Call of the 15%–vital Conservative Issues like McShamnesty, McFeingeld, No Tax Cuts, ANWR, Gang of 14,–one remembers that a Brownie of merely 15% Dog Sheite is still Inedible!

The utterly damning thing is simpler, however. How can you call yourself a Conservative, and expect to be believed by any rational thinking person, while shilling for Uber Commiequeer Keery’s Veep!!!! It simply reeks of hidden agendas, and sell outs. Hence the terms, McBeeches, McOnicas, McInskis, etc, etc etc.. And again, the fact the outsiders, those independent of the EMPBs and Beltway Parties Politics (i.e. The Radios) seem to have (with exceptions like McMedved) universally resisted McAint’s and the EMPBs’ blandishments (and or threats), suggests that some can’t be bought, which in turn suggests many can.*

*SIDEBAR: What does it suggest that the Prints (Coulter and maybe Kevin MaC and a few others excepted) and the TVs have McRumpedUp, while the Radios have not? That they and the EMPB’s are now spinning like crazy to Marginalize the Radios? Now who led the charge against Shamnesty? And who is the GOPper Candidate? And who is making money by providing an Independent Product? A True Conservative Principle? And who are more parasitical dependents on the Political Establishment?–a Commiequeer* Principle? What’s all that tell you about who the REAL** Conservatives are?

*SIDEBAR to the SIDEBAR: commiequeer, for those encountering it for the first time, is my semantically correct and succinct alternative to the "terminological inexactitude" ‘liberal’ or ‘left’. The latter based, by the way, on a deliberately false, outmoded and misleading linear Political Model. It is interesting to note that especially the McSpreadin and Shillin Prints are dissn REAL** Conservatives in the same Language as the Commiequeers. What’s that tell you about where their affinities really are?

**SIDEBAR to SIDEBAR 2: We need a good Acronym of REAL Conservative.

Reagan Excellence Alla Long? Reagan Excellence Against Liberals? Reaganite, Evangelical, Anti-Shamnesty, Lower Taxes? Need some help here, people.

To resume: Past the First and Original McBFFL 1-3 there were several others though they overlapped and ordering was difficult. McBFFL 4-7 or maybe just 4&5, depending, consisted of such gems as: "the good of the McGOP". As if the Gilt Bird Cabin Conservative Free GOP had not abandoned Conservatives in their, supposedly, thoughtful, rational, winningly, expansive, reaching out to the mythical moronic moderates (don’t call me commiequeer even though I am)! This "McG L(iberal)P" was served with a side of faux-scholarly "Dead Hand of History Fries us, look at all the failed precedents", and a "McSert" of Guilt. "If Hilly wins it’s your fault"–note the overlap with McBFFL 1. I admit, one McPromdate, McSaunders, served up a "McSert" Lite: "Do you want to be a loser"—which, unfortunately for her and her rating, simply reminded us that, Yes!, that may be the Better choice–the EMPBs sure seem to think so!

SIDEBAR: I don’t have the drive to research this through back TH columns–I would encourage somebody to do it though–a complete catalog of all McInskis and their FFLs, properly labeled and rated. McSaunder’s, for instance, had a nice little lemon twist of pseudo-psychobabble as a cross over bridge to McBFFL 3 "The 4/5ths Pounder".

To resume: Then there was "McBrand Loyalty" of Mike Der Blue Barone (I did take the time to research that one) where McAverick was touted as the appropriate Choice for the Elephants that dislike Dissent (which is where we get the Term rogue in a exquisite piece of self-deconstruction) and rewards Uniformity. That one was a HOOT, because REAL Conservatism rewards Innovation in the Market Place of Ideas and does not stifle Competition! Robber Barons do that! Monopoly the opposite of Real Conservative Free Market-ism is "Winner Take all!" (If I trusted Der Blue Barone more, I’d say he was a prime Candidate for the Damnation by Stealth Only sounds like a McOnica, Saboteur Award!)

Hence my new term for the Establishment Machine Party Bosses of the Gilt Bird Cabin Conservative Free GOP–The Robber Barons.

And it was at this point, the intersection of "for the good of" the ‘McGLP’ and "McBrand Loyalty" that the move toward a Unified Flying Fig Leaf Field Theory, began to emerge.

I call this first emergence: "McGOPLs". The Robber Baron EMPBS of "McGOPLs" want you to service them while they "serve" you up a menu of McSame old Thing. "Big Mac", "The 4/5s Pounder", "McDead Hand of History Fries us", "McSert"Guilt. Here we get the arguments, "Our Product, "McGLP", ( carefully NOT truthfully labeled as "Socialism LITE") at least is better for you than ‘The King Hillybama Socialism Whopper’". The 74 cent menu of "The Old Geezer will only last one term, what harm can he do, we’ll ‘let’ you pick second." And "we’re the only bugger joint in town!" Unfortunately they, in a special interest to "broaden" their market share have introduced the poison of the 15% for those who crave the taste of Dog Sheite and it’s in ALL their products, and we can’t hold any of it. McAint’s Socialism Lite Shamnesty only kills more surely for being slightly slower. It accustoms the victim, as we have been herded since the Gipper left office into being  accustomed, so the Fatal Dose is assuredly absorbed . At least with The Queen Whopper and Socialism Straight there is the chance and hope of an allergic reaction that might result in America choking on it and puking it back up. No such hope with the McSame old road and strategy that has brought us to the very brink of Socialism.

Hillybama, the Robber Barons have finally succeeded, is actually the lesser of the Two Evils for that reason.

Refining the Fig Leaf Field Theory further, one sees an emergence from the intersection of "McGOPLs" and The Robber Barons. I call it: "The Company Store". Here we are told to shut up, go back to work for the EMPBs and buy what they choose to sell us at the Company Store at Prices they set. There is no better metaphor for "McGOPLs" being the Opposite of Conservatism and Free Markets than the competition eliminating and People controlling and enslaving Company Store.

But in addition to "McGOPLs", the "Company Store" of the Robber Baron EMPB’s, some variations on the "Dead Hand of History Fries us" Appeal to the Past argument, and the particularly commiequeerlike Vitriol of our "Partners" on TH produced another emerging Over Metaphor.

I kept hearing phrases (though never quite this honest in construction) like "You’re stupid", "You’re selfish", "You only want your way", "All you do is beech.". "You’re a frigid purist." "You’re nothing without us." "You stupid, silly, religiousbeech". "You’re sleeping with that Coulter Beech, aren’t you!". "I’m the Man of the House"-- one McOnica in the last few days, who I didn’t bother to backtrack, presumed to Tell Us that the rest of the Family ("The Rank and File"–no cross overs or indies, no matter the real percentage, and you can believe as much or as little of that as you want) had Spoken!, was against us, and we needed to shut up and go along. "Think of the children." "I’m not really so bad.." "Think of all the good times we had going to Ronald’s House." "I’ll make it up to you in 012" (the veep argument) "I’ll Change" (sure Kerry’s veep will). "If you leave, you will starve," "You don’t have anywhere else to go!" And variations on the Theme. Those of you who are educated, intelligent and observant–the usual REAL Conservative Qualities–will note this is disturbingly like the language of a spouse abuser!

 What does that tell you?

Way past time for Separation and Divorce, Girls. Infidelity, Adultery, Unfaithfulness, Psychological and Physical Abuse, Power Drunk, Financially Irresponsible and Now Abandonment. Irreconcilable differences of Basic Political Principle and Practice. What more grounds do you need? How many rapes is enough?

I’ve taken all I’m going to take, and I’ve starting punching back.

So here it is, Amigos, The McBeech Flying Fig Leaf Unified Field Theory:

The Robber Barons want us, their spouses, to Monica for McAin’t, "for the good of "McGOPLs, the Company Store. That’s The Proposition, and it is the lowest form of Spouse Abuse on the planet. Pimping your wife, your sister, your brother, to the enemy in order to seal a deal for yourself. Much like what can be seen in the Sandnazis’ Patriarchal Culture, n’est ce pas?

I ain’t ywhoring for nobody, much less the drunken abusing bastids who abandoned me.

I’ve re-registered as an Independent and will vote for Hillybama for the "lesser of two evils" "straight poison and hope for hurl", reasons above.

Mcup Yours, Mac, and all the McOnica McInski Mistresses too. You want to keep your status, buy your own kneepads. I ain’t buyin what you’re sellin and you ain’t sellin me.

The big mick

 The Big Mick Here,

Yeah, that, Big Mick; and this is my first blog. It will not be my last, an e-essay–for want of a better term--follows entitled "Toward a Unified Field Theory of McEnomics." That one just might be my last because I have some important things for TH-ers to consider, both "Pros" and "lay readers". And those of you who know me know that I pull no punches, take no prisoners, and say exactly what I think, however nasty that is. "McEnomics" will, in the usual Big Mick Style, liberally (and those of you who know me know what I do with that word) interpret the TH Rules on Language. I prefer to think of it as "Telling It Like It Is" and being succinct and accurate in my use of language. I also prefer to think of it as not so much  being abusive, but rather as not suffering fools gladly, and mercilessly practicing the time honored art of Political and Literary Satire (however inexpertly). We’ll see won’t we?

"Begin as you would go on" is a phrase I’ve often encountered in my reading, and I apply it here.

The first thing I noticed was the temptation to be "on stage" for the critics in something other than the usual sense. Of reshaping, editing, manipulating my prose, (and therefore to some degree, however small, to alter the ideas expressed by that prose–see the C..S. Lewis quote a little further along)–of writing, no longer just to express my thoughts, but to appeal to an audience (however much a figment of my imagination that turns out to be!). To write for someone or something other than to simply please myself. To continually ask "how does that sound" rather than–"am I being honest?" As I learned a long time ago in Preaching, that is a fatal error.

It’s different in the comments. There, since I conceive of it as a sort of Rhetorical Bar Room Brawl, neatness never counts, the whole objective is to be the last argument standing and Marquis of Queensberry Rules need not apply. Spelling, punctuation and grammar fall under The Devil Take the Hindmost rule too.

Further, those of you who know me know that I consider it a fundamental understanding of the current Political Situation in the Republic that the "Appeal To Reason and Civility" Argument, often heard here on TH is actually an enablement of the "Left’s" (more on that below) agenda, and is a key reason why we have been herded so far down this "reach out to the moderates" road to the very brink of the Socialist Abyss.

Plus, I have begun to learn recently, that there are some things about myself I can’t change, others I don’t want to change, that I am OK with both those things, and have begun to like myself both in spite of, and because, of it.

So, you’re going to get the same basic Big Mick–with all the faults and short-comings . I will be nasty. I will skewer the dis-cogent argument and insult the arguer. Though I say it ain’t an insult if it’s true! My prose style, to paraphrase a fellow comment poster a while back, will be as eloquent and indecipherable as the literary Irish always are. (I do not presume his example of James Joyce was intended to put me in the same Universe, much less League–Joyce and I share only the quality of being opaque.) I will drive you nuts with my sentence fragments, apparent non-sequiturs, run ons, endless use of hyphens, dashes, parenthesis, maddening asides, misspellings, improper syntax, made up words and hard to figure out references and allusions. To give a partial list. Thank God, I now have access to word emphasis tools like bold, italic and underlining, otherwise my use of ALLCAPS (the only thing available to me in the comments) would make you want to hunt me down and shoot me.

I will also tell you the Truth as I see it—I figure that’s worth something these days.

I talk as I think, and write as I talk. Ya just gotta deal.

Also, a word on etymology–the origins of words—mine.

I believe "left" and "leftist" and therefore, by indirect means, "liberal", are terms from, not only an outmoded, but deliberately false and misleading linear political model. My model has been, somewhat, inspired and shaped by L. Neil Smith, Science Fiction Author and Libertarian of Note. I had some of these thoughts before encountering him, and, to the best of my recollection, differ in shape from his somewhat, but admit freely that the foundational concepts are Smith’s and the person he credits whom I can’t remember and can’t look up (the books packed away).

Briefly, the "left" of Communism and the "right" of Fascism are right next to each other on a circle of Tyranny. The Tyranny of the 1 over 50% is no different in essence from the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or The Elite, or The King, or a Hitler or a Stalin (whom, by the way, no less a light then Tom Wolfe the historian pointed out in the Millennium Edition of Time or maybe Newsweek were Fraternal Socialist Twins). The circle of Tyranny forms the base of a Cone, at the apex of which is Endowed and Inalienable Radical Personal Liberty, from which, according to my interpretation of The Founders, all legitimate government flows.

My semantically correct usage for the "terminological inexactitude" "left" or "liberal" is "commiequeer". This is because they have a strange affinity for communism, and one of their communal values is the pushing of the homosexual agenda. I’ve got a standing offer out there to stop using yqueer (I put the y in front, reminiscent of Old Old English usage in order to satisfy the e-censor–little bastid–I use faux spellings for that too) the second the homosexual community quits, and also quits using "gay". I consider their co-opting of that perfectly useful and innocent English word to be nothing short of the rhetorical equivalent of rape and refuse to cooperate with it. I’d be willing to stick with the scientific and clear term "homosexual" if they would. That they won’t should tell you something.

Which leads to two other points for this Presidents’ Day Inaugural Blog. One is a quote by C.S. Lewis which is the foundation of my refusal to play nice by the censor’s word rules.

Lewis says that any restriction on style is, at bottom a restriction on the kinds of things we may say, and by implication, the kinds of ideas available for talking about and thinking. I will not allow the Opponents of Liberty to control the terms and definitions.

For that is one of the first lessons I learned at Duke, where I took my Master of Divinity degree. Winning argument, like winning chess, begins with control of the center of the board.  If you let the enemy control the terms and definitions you surrender the argument uncontested.

I don’t do that.

Some last odds and ends. I don’t think I’m going to post on this blog often. I simply don’t have time. And I am not going to enable comments. This is not because I feel, as I suspect many of the "pros" feel, that I deserve, by some divine elitist right, a position from which I can spit without being spat upon. Rather it is simply a means to avoid temptation. I don’t have the free time to read and respond to your, I am sure excellent, rebuttals, corrections and exhortations.  I don’t have a secretary or assistant, or webmaster or whatever, paid to do that kind of vetting.  I’d end up spending too much of my time and yours mixing it up and engaging with yas.  Look for me on the comments street. I’ll be there, and packin. You can throw down on me there, n’est ce pas? And if you beat me to the draw, so be it. I am man enough to admit it when I have had a hole punched in my thinking. It’s the way I learn, actually. Fact is I will not be as knowledgeable or intelligent or logical or cogent as some of you. I will, at a normal rate, be wrong sometimes. But I won’t apologize for calling em like I see em, calling a spade a spade and letting the chips fall where they may. If you have treated me like a gentleman, in the words of Mrs. Murphy’s Chowder, I’ll try to act the same. If I realize I have insulted you wrongly, I’ll try to take it back like a man like Mr. Murphy.

Finally, A Prayer for President’s Day: Oh God, grant our Republic Leaders worthy of our Great Men, worthy of Washington and Lincoln.. And if we are denied them, O God, grant us the opportunity to rid ourselves of those unworthy.

The Big Mick