Unmasking the Devil

       "But when a man's fancy gets astride on his reason;  when imagination is at cuffs with the senses, and common understanding, as well as common sense, is kicked out of doors;  the first proselyte he makes is himself;  and when that is once compassed, the difficulty is not so great in bringing over others;  a strong delusion always operating from without as vigorously as from within. . .And, first, with relation to the mind or understanding, 'tis manifest what mighty advantages fiction has over truth;  and the reason is just at our elbow, because imagination can build nobler scenes, and produce more wonderful revolutions than fortune or nature will be at expense to furnish. . .How fading and insipid do all objects accost us, that are not conveyed in the vehicle of delusion!  How shrunk is everything, as it appears in the glass of nature!  So that if it were not for the assistance of artificial mediums, false lights, refracted angles, varnish and tinsel, there would be a mighty level in the felicity and enjoyments of mortal men.  If this were seriously considered by the world, as I have a certain reason to suspect it hardly will, men would no longer reckon among their high points of wisdom, the art of exposing weak sides, and publishing infirmities;  an employment, in my opinion, neither better nor worse than that of unmasking, which, I think, has never been allowed fair usage, either in the world, or the play-house."  Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub (p.119)

Moloch

English and French Constitutions Compared

         "They {French revolutionists}measured their land, and divided it into equal geometrical departments, without the slightest regard to difference of soil or population, variety of manners, or diversity of temperament;  and in this Laputan state that great country still remains. . . .If for its associations, could not these Utilitarian legislators understand that, in destroying the associations that clung to the name of Brittany and Burgundy, they were destroying so many wholesome elements of vigorous and enduring government?  Their sentiment required that they should still dwell in Paris, beautiful and famous Paris.  Were they so blind as not to see that the outraged sympathy, which would have recoiled from styling the capital "the city of the Seine," was equally offended when the old dweller in Toraine found that he was suddenly transformed into an inhabitant of the department of the Loire? . . .In France, thanks to Equality and its crabbed fruits, there were no prejudices to shock;  but when we read of the sudden transplantation {by Louis XVIII} of institutions gradually established in the course of centuries by the phlegmatic experience of a Saxon people {i.e. England} into the most southern soils of Europe, the glittering and barbaric Sicilies, and a country which is the link between Europe and Africa, and which in the fertility of its soil, the temperature of its climate, and the character of its inhabitants, resembles Morocco more than England, we seem to be perusing the mad pages of a political novel poured forth by the wild and mystic genius of some inmate of a German University. . . .Are we never to learn that a Constitution, a real Constitution, is the creation of ages, not of a day, and that when we destroy such a Constitution we in fact destroy a nation? . . .The Constitution founded on the Sovereignty of the People has run even a shorter career than the Constitution founded on the Equality of Man:  one of the most gifted and civilised nations that ever existed is enthralled by an iron despotism;  the liberty of the press is utterly destroyed;  trial by jury virtually abrogated;  arbitrary imprisonment in daily practice;  the country covered with Bastiles, and the Bastiles crowded with State victims. . . .English equality calls upon the subject to aspire;  French equality summons him to abase himself.  In England the subject is invited to become an object of admiration or respect;  in France he is warned lest he become an object of envy or of ridicule.  The law of England has invested the subject with equality in order that, if entitled to eminence, he should rise superior to the mass.  The law of France has invested the subject with equality, on condition that he prevent the elevation of his fellow.  English equality blends every man's ambition with the perpetuity of the State;  French equality, which has reduced the subject into a mere individual, has degraded the State into a mere society.  English equality governs the subject by the united and mingled influences of reason and imagination and aspiring to reason, has, in reality, only resolved itself into a barren fantasy.  The Constitution of England is founded not only on a profound knowledge of human nature, but of human nature in England;  the political scheme of France originates not only in a profound ignorance of human nature in general, but of French human nature in particular;  thus in England, however vast and violent may be our revolutions, the Constitution ever becomes more firm and vigorous, while in France a riot oversets the government, and after half a century of political experiments one of the most intellectual of human races has succeeded in losing every attribute of a nation, and has sought refuge from anarchy in a despotism without lustre, which contradicts all its theories and violated all the principles for which it has ever affected to struggle."  Benjamin Disraeli, Vindication of the English Constitution (1835) 

Tory Manifestos, Part Three

       "But the republican model of the House of Russell was Venice;  of their plebian allies, Geneva.  The Peers, to reduce the power of the Crown, now supported by the great majority of the nation, called in the aid of the Puritans, and to obtain the aid of the Puritans attacked the Church:  the Puritans, to insure the destruction of the religious establishment, allied themselves with the Peers in their assault upon the King, whose office, apart from the ecclesiastical polity, they were inclined to respect, and even to reverence. . . .Their cry was, "Civil and Religious Freedom"--that is, a Doge and no Bishops:  advocating the liberty of the subject, the Peers would have established an oligarchy;  upholding toleration, the Puritans aimed at supremacy. . . .Instead of "swamping" the Tory House of Commons by a Septennial Act, they have moulded it to their use and fancy by a reconstruction which has secured a prepondering influence to their sectarian allies:  instead of restricting the royal prerogative in the creation of Peers, they have counselled its prodigal exercise;  but before they had only to confirm their power in the House of Lords, now they have to create their power. . . .The House of Commons remodelled, the House of Lords menaced, the King unconstitutionally controlled, the Church is next attacked, then the Corporations, and they do not conceal that the Magistracy is to be the next victim:  and the nation is thus mangled and torn to pieces, its most sacred feelings outraged, its most important interests destroyed, by a miserable minority arrogating to themselves the bewildering title of "the People," and achieving all this misery and misfortune, all this havoc and degradation, in the sacred name of liberty, and under the impudent pretence of advancing the great cause of popular amelioration, and securing the common good and general happiness."
                                           Benjamin Disraeli ,Vindication of the English Constitution                                                                             (1835)

Tory Manifestos, Part Two

       "The vast majority of the people is unrepresented and must ever be represented.  No Government of any form or frame can last without the existence of some irresponsible power in its structure, and if the House of Lords were rendered elective to-morrow, what is to check, what is to guard the people of England against the irresponsibility of the constituency and the Representatives of that constituency styled the House of Commons?. . . .But the Commons of England have exercised despotic power before this, and compared with their infamous tyranny {ed.--the Long/Rump Parliaments}the recollection of the rule of the stoutest tyrant that ever waved in this island a solitary sceptre is a dream of bliss.  Let us not, in God's name, try them again;  but if we are mad enough the Republic of jobbers will not last long.  Some brawny arm will soon be extended to 'take away this bauble.' . . .Never let us forget that the House of Commons, when they had got rid of the House of Lords, voted 'trial by Jury' a breach of privilege;  that they doubled the taxes of the country, and loaded it at the same time with enormous debts;  that they divided the public money openly among themselves;  bored men's tongues with red-hot irons who refused to answer their questions;  and sequestered the property and imprisoned the persons of all whom they styled, or chose to consider, malignants."  Benjamin Disraeli, Peers and People (1835)

The Trump Narrenschiff, Part Two

       Last week, a caller to The Savage Nation defended Oh Blah Blah and accused Michael Savage of practicing identity politics.  Imagine anyone at once defending Barack Obama, and at the same time accusing someone else of practicing identity politics.  The Obama administration is the final beneficiary of forty years of Afro-American Studies, Women's Studies, Chicano Studies, and Queer Studies.
       What's ironic, though, is that so is Citizen Kane.  Citizen Kane is the face of identity politics turned on its head.  Instead of rousing people to vote for someone to avenge their minority ethnic group, Donald Trump is the stereotypical closed-minded cracker.  Estase is of the opinion that it's all an act.  Citizen Kane is present to militate the Democratic faithful by creating an image that Republicans (despite the fact that Trump is a newcomer to that label) are on a mission to be the anti-Obama.  Trump is the "Fear and Stasis" candidate that Hillary can use to defeat the rest of the GOP candidates with, and then watch as he conveniently self-destructs by one last, inexcusable flub.
       Trump is an old friend of the Clintons.  He tried to hide a Twitter post where he bragged about voting for President Obama.  The fact that professional conservatives like Limbaugh and Levin think this guy is wonderful says nothing other than that they are incompetent.  They should yield their microphones to someone who actually has a clue.  Estase cannot recall an instance more emblematic of mass delusion in his life.  Ross Perot looked like a policy wonk compared to this egomaniac with bad hair.  Pat Buchanan looked like a squishy moderate compared to the shockingly inflammatory language Citizen Kane employs.

Citizen Kane and the Constitutional Crisis

       In the wake of an obvious terror attack in San Bernadino, CA, our Attorney General, Loretta "Worse than Holder" Lynch vows to infringe the First Amendment rights of Americans on behalf of Muslims.   Gee, it's not like Senate Republicans knew Loretta Lynch would ignore the law, or anything.  Loretta Lynch admitted she would ignore our current immigration laws during her confirmation hearings.  Her predecessor ignored DOMA and the federal narcotics laws by allowing states to ignore Federal laws banning marijuana.  Lawlessness is the defining characteristic of the Obama Justice Department.  Yes, the responsibility partly lies with the Obama Administration.  But if "Republican" Senators like Illinois' Mark Kirk would do their job of judicial oversight, the Obama Administration would not be so audacious in ignoring not only the statutory law, but even the Constitution itself.   There are three basic branches to the government, but current constitutional practice is turning the legislative branch into an irrelevance, and the judicial branch into a puppet of the executive branch.  As for the regulatory branch (e.g. EPA, etc.) the legislative branch has ceded so much of its involvement that the presidency is, in fact, becoming the liberal dream of an elected monarchy.
       Unfortunately, GOP front runner Donald Trump seems also to be totally on-board with the presidency being an elected monarchy.  One of the side effects of The Donald's having no knowledge of politics is that he has no political theory at all.  He doesn't know the Constitution from a hole in the ground, and thus he is not making an issue of how the balance of powers has been perverted in this country since 2001.   Citizen Kane is a total fraud who is taking advantage of how bland and boring his competition is.  If Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal had more stage presence, they might be on their way to the Oval Office.  We aren't electing a host for the Tonight Show, people.  Get a grip, and realize that a time of great national danger is no time for an amateur president.

Seventy Mayo Surnames

       This is a first for Q.E.D.  Estase thought about creating a separate blog just for genealogy, but doesn't intend that this should be material presented more than just occasionally.  The following is a miscellany of surnames from church records of Kilcoman, County Mayo.  These names were noted either because they seemed unusual in spelling or unique to me in some other way.  The dates of the records they were found in were approximately 1820-1840.

Aylesand/Begly/Beylagh/Birmingham/Bisgood/Bohan/Bourke/Cleary/Connelly/Conway/
Costelloe/Cribben/Cuddy/Cunningham/Donelan/Doude/Egan/Fahey/Farrington/Finn/
FitzGerald/FitzMorris/FitzPatrick/Foraker/Flaherty/Gafney/Galligan/Gilmore/Gissian/
Glynn/Gready/Greene/Griffin/Healey/Jordan/Keach/Kelikelly/Kogan/Korigan/Lavelle/
Lardner/Lawer/McGonagle/McGragh/McManus/Millet/Moffitt/Morrifsy*/Mortimer/Newd/
Newlon/Nicholson/Niland/Noone/Prendergast/Quire/Rahgan/Rabbitt/Rieby/Riely/
Rochefort/Shaugnefsy*/Shortcoate/Shower/Steed/Sylk/Tighe/Tuohy/Varrey/Vancil

*These names were entered into the records using the habit from the elegant eighteenth of writing or printing a double-S as "fs".

Bill O'Reilly Agrees With Salon

          Going to Reagan White House malcontent Donald Regan and Kitty Kelley for research about Ronald Reagan seems like bad journalism to me.  But it is just what Bill O'Reilly did with his new book "Killing Reagan," which should have been called "Killing Reagan's Reputation."  When comparing the attitudes of conservative pundits towards Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley was considerably more impressed with the Gipper than was George Will, who tended to think Reagan left something to be desired as a statesman.  (This is a Will ideosyncracy.  Will loves conservatism, and thinks few exemplify it.)  So for Bill O'Reilly to act as though Will is an uncritical apologist for Reagan, going so far as to call Will "a hack," shows that not only is O'Reilly a poor journalist, he is also a hypocrite of the worst kind.  The same guy who thinks it's all right to act as though his audience are the only American patriots, selling "American Patriot" merchandise off his website, now has the temerity to insult George Will?  Now O'Reilly has the same verdict on Will as ueber-leftist Salon magazine.  Let's see how this partnership works out, folks.

Lose Control

Refrain:Lose control
             With increasing pace
             Watched and bewitched
             Intent to erase
             Whatever they say
             These people are told
             Wan and bereft
             And set to explode

First Verse:  War is overdue
                    The time has come for you
                     To shoot your leaders down
                     Join forces underground
------------------(Refrain)---------------------
Second Verse:  Oppose and disagree
                       Destroy demonocracy
-------------------(Repeat Refrain)-----------




Performed by MUSE

Political Idealism from Lord Monmouth

       "I have for a long time looked upon the Conservative party as a body who have betrayed their trust;  more from ignorance, I admit, than from design;  yet clearly a body of individuals totally unequal to the exigencies of the epoch, and indeed unconscious of its real character. . . .Power has left our order, this is not an age for factitious aristocracy. . . .Let me see property acknowledging, as in the old days of {Catholic} faith, that labour is his twin brother, and that the essence of all tenure is the performance of duty."  Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby, Chapter Three

Political Idealism

     "But I cannot find that it is part of my duty to maintain the order of things, for I will not call it system, which at present prevails in our country.  It seems to me that it cannot last, as nothing can endure, or ought to endure, that is not founded upon principle;  and its principle I have not discovered. . . .Every session of that Parliament in which you wish to introduce me, the method by which power is distributed is called in question, altered, patched up, and again impugned. . . .Our morals differ in different counties, in different towns, in different streets, even in different Acts of Parliament.  What is moral in London is immoral in Montacute;  what is crime among the multitude is only vice among the few. . . .I see nothing in this fresh development of material industry, but fresh causes of moral deterioration.  You have announced to the millions that their welfare is to be tested by the amount of their wages.  Money is to be the cupel of their worth, as it is of all other classes.  You propose for their conduct the least ennobling of all impulses.  If you have seen an aristocracy invariably become degraded under such influence;  if all the vices of a middle class may be traced to such an absorbing motive;  why are we to believe that the people should be more pure, or that they should escape the catastrophe of the policy that confounds the happiness with the wealth of nations?"- Benjamin Disraeli, Tancred, Chapter Seven 

Whig Church

"Tadpole was wont to say in confidence, that for his part he wished Sir Robert had left alone religion and commerce, and confined himself to finance, which was his forte as long as he had a majority to carry the projects which he found in the pigeon-holes of the Treasury, and which are always at the service of every minister."

The Trump Narrenschiff

       Nothing vital has changed in the last two weeks on Citizen Kane.  Other than Rick Perry and Scott Walker, two actual conservatives, having left the GOP field, little has transpired in the presidential race.   Large numbers of highly deluded conservatives still regard Citizen Kane as the nation's only hope.   This group includes Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage.   Ann Coulter, the pundit for those who lack a gag reflex, has not only joined this group, but has led the pack in pure stupidity.  Coulter asked "how many f*cking Jews" were in the country, making (in her view) Israel an issue for no good reason.  Anti-semitism. . . .check!   Then she went on a tear about Pope Karl.  Those who have read Q.E.D. know that Estase is far from enthusiastic about the direction Pope Karl has taken the Church.   All the same, when Ann Coulter opined that it was right for nativists to deny Catholics the vote, and went further to say that Catholicism only became acceptable when it stopped being Roman and started being American, Estase wanted to chuck it all and register as a Democrat.  Really?  Leaving aside the character of the current pontiff, this is just about as Jack Chick a thing as I've ever heard anywhere.  The Catholic Church is led by a Pope.  The Pope's home is Rome.  The political structure of the Catholic hierarchy is based on ancient Rome.  There is no such thing as American Catholicism, just as there is no such thing as German Catholicism or Italian Catholicism.  Look up the word "catholic," Ms. Coulter.  "He had catholic interests."  "His sympathies were catholic."  Catholic means universal, dumbass!  Now that Ann Coulter has appealed to bottom-feeding troglodyte Catholic-haters, what more needs to be done to quash Republican hopes for 2016?  Maybe Coulter can say that blacks need to be shipped back to Africa?  Are you kidding me?  How will Citizen Kane get elected, now that his acolytes have insulted hispanics, Jews, and now Catholics?   Kiss the pro-life Catholic vote goodbye, Donald.

         On a lighter, and completely different topic, Estase has been thinking of a horror movie that could also be considered film noir--the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock classic Psycho.  It starts out as a crime caper, where Marion Crane leaves her husband and steals a fortune from her employer.  Thus, you have the film noir theme of a bad guy versus a horrible guy.  Crane thinks she has the monopoly on dirty dealing, but doesn't realize that her motel is run by someone with and Oedipal complex and a split personality.  Then you have the private dick Arbogast, who was pretty hardboiled, but completely unprepared for Norman Bates.

Vlad Typische

       The Saudis refuse to accept any Syrian refugees, but offer to build 200 mosques in Germany.  That's big of them.  Assuredly, they will also provide Wahabi clerics to staff them.  Germany--once the home of Nazi Jew-haters, soon to be the home of Muslim Jew-haters.  Some things never change.

Thought for the Day

"I would only wish that equality in politics consisted of everyone being equally free and not, as one hears so often in our days, of everyone being subjugated to the same master."
                                                    Alexis deTocqueville

Legislative Nostalgia, Part Six

From the Carthage (IL) Republican, (which, ironically, favored the Democratic party):

RECROWNING OF THE CZAR

The nomination of Hon. Thomas B. Reed for speaker by the republican caucus was forseen a year ago, and only a languid interest can attach to that circumstance.  What he would say in accepting the nomination, equivalent to an election, could not be anticipated.  Reed is a humorist, as well as a despot, and is, or has been, capable of surprised.  It was, therefore, by no means certain that a man of his nimble wit might not say something readable in his speech.

        Power, however, brings responsibility, and responsibility begets conservatism.  There is little of the flavor of the Romanoff in the czar's latest utterances.  Not only has he a lively recollection of the manner in which he wrecked his party in the session of congress which began six years ago, but he is now {1896}a candidate for the presidency.  Somehow it has come to be a sort of axiom among the theological disputants of a former age, in their frank and free ecclesiastical billingsgate, called "dumb dogs," are available for presidential nominations.  When it is not possible for them to be wholly dumb, they open their mouths to enumerate platitudes or deal in generalities that are absolutely unintelligible in their application to current problems.

       Mr. Reed was Delphic from the beginning of his speech.  Returning thanks for the honor was purely prefunctory, and it was lukewarm, as became a man who knew that no real opposition could have been offered, and who also doubted in his heart whether this nomination would make or mar him.  But his next sentence was constructed with admirable art to leave the hearer in doubt.  "History," said he, "will accord us praise for what we did in the 51st congress, and it may accord us praise in this for what we do not do."

       This is not the note of the Reed of six years ago.  "High-reaching Buckingham grows circumspect."  He talks now of a divided government, of small results, and warns his party of the danger of crude and hasty legislation.  Can this be the man who thanked God that the house of representatives was no longer a deliberative body?  But what does Mr. Reed mean by "history?"  Has not the 51st congress already passed into history?  Has not the judgment of the people been passed upon it over and over, and always in condemnation?  Does Mr. Reed desire to appeal from the judgment of 1890, 1891 and 1892 to that of the next century?  He cannot appeal to 1894 and 1895, for the work of his congress was not then in issue.

       When Mr. Reed said that if the republicans had possession of all branches of the government they would possibly not create a perfect world, but that they would make a world more fit to live in than the one we have at present, we recognize a touch, faint, indeed, of his old humor.  But even back of the humor there is a suggestion, not quite so faint, of that partnership with God which the republicans have always claimed as the peculiar characteristic of their party.  Every intelligent man in the country knows full well that if this part of the world is not so pleasant to live in as it once was, the difference is due to the legislation of the 51st congress to a greater extent than to any other cause.

       It would be interesting to know for what Mr. Reed thinks the country will accord praise to the 51st congress?  Is it for the McKinley bill?  If so, Maj. McKinley is the logical candidate for 1896, and Mr. Reed's aspirations to the presidency are an impertinence.  Is it for the Sherman silver purchase act, which by confession of republicans brought on the panic?  Then why did Mr. Sherman and Mr. Reed urge its repeal?  Is it for the passage of the force bill by the house?  If so, why do republicans now say there will never be another force bill?  These were the measures which occupied most of the time of the 51st congress, and if they give it a standing in history, then history will be singularly deaf to contemporary evidence.
       As to the question of revenue Mr. Reed is equally enigmatical.  He says that all parties will maintain the rigor of the house to initiate taxation, which is true in a general way of everybody but the senate, which has frequently provoked remonstrance by originating measures of taxation under the pretext of proposing amendments. He then says that no man can doubt that the majority of the house will furnish adequate revenue for the government, "according to our sense of public duty."  This last clause makes the whole sentence ambiguous.  Unfortunately, there are a good many men who not only can but do doubt whether the house will furnish revenue according to the sense of public duty of the majority.  Many of us would move to strike out the words and substitute "according to their sense of personal or party interest."-- Louisville Courier-Journal

Tory Manifestos

       "The Aristocracy of England have had for three centuries the exercise of power;  for the last century and a half that exercise has been uncontrolled;  they form at this moment the most prosperous class that the history of the world can furnish:  as rich as the Roman senators, with sources of convenience and enjoyment which modern science could alone supply.  All this is not denied.  Your order stands before Europe the most gorgeous of existing spectacles;  though you have of late years dexterously thrown some of the odium of your polity upon that middle class which you despise, and who are despicable only because they imitate you, your tenure of power is not in reality impaired.  You govern us still with absolute authority--and you govern the most miserable people on the face of the globe.  Disraeli, Sybil ,p.195
       "Here too was brought forth that monstrous conception which even patrician Rome in its most ruthless period never equalled--the mortgaging of the industry of the country to enrich and to protect property;  and act which is bringing its retributive consequences in a degraded and alienated population.  Here too have the innocent been impeached and hunted to death;  and a virtuous and able monarch martyred, because, among other benefits projected for his people, he was of opinion that it was more for their advantage that the economic service of the State should be supplied by direct taxation levied by an individual known to all, than by indirect taxation, raised by an irresponsible and fluctuating assembly.  But, thanks to parliamentary patriotism, the people of England were saved from ship-money, which money the wealthy paid, and only got in its stead the customs and excise, which the poor mainly supply.  Rightly was King Charles {I.} surnamed the Martyr;  for he was the holocaust of direct taxation.  Never yet did man lay down his heroic life for so great a cause:  the cause of the Church and the cause of the Poor."  Disraeli, Sybil, p.198
       "But we forget, Sir Robert Peel is not the leader of the Tory party;  the party that resisted the ruinous mystification that metamorphosed direct taxation by the Crown into indirect taxation by the Commons;  that denounced the system that mortgaged industry to protect property;  the party that ruled Ireland by a scheme which reconciled both Churches, and by a series of Parliaments which counted among them Lords and Commons of both religions;  that has maintained at all times the territorial constitution of England as the only basis and security for local government, and which nevertheless once laid on the table of the House of Commons a commercial tariff negotiated at Utrecht, which is the most rational that was ever devised by statesmen;  a party that has prevented the Church from being the salaried agent of the State, and has supported through many struggles the parochial polity of the country which secures to every labourer a home.
       In a parliamentary sense, that great party has ceased to exist;  but I will believe that it still lives in the thought and sentiment and consecrated memory of the English nation.  It has its origin in great principles and in noble instincts;  it sympathizes with the lowly, it looks up to the Most High;  it can count its heroes and its martyrs;  they have met in its behalf plunder, proscription, and death.  Nor, when it finally yielded to the iron progress of oligarchical supremacy, was its catastrophe inglorious.  Its genius was vindicated in golden sentences and with fervent arguments of impassioned logic by St. John;  and breathed in the intrepid eloquence and patriot soul of William Wyndham.  Even now it is not dead, but sleepeth;  and, in an age of political materialism, of confused purposes and perplexed intelligence, that aspires only to wealth because it has faith in no other accomplishment, as men rifle over which Bolingbroke shed his last tear, to bring back strength to the Crown, liberty to the subject, and to announce that power has only one duty--to secure the social welfare of the PEOPLE." Disraeli, Sybil ,pgs. 233-34.
       "The great object of the Whig leaders in England from the first movement under Hampden to the last most successful one in 1688, was to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of the Venetian, then the study and admiration of all speculative politicians.  Read Harrington;  turn over Algernon Sydney;  then you will see how the minds of the English leaders in the seventeenth century were saturated with the Venetian type. .  . .George I. was a Doge;  George II. was a Doge;  they were what William III., a great man, would not be.  George III. tried not to be a Doge, but it was impossible materially to resist the deeply-laid combination.  And a Venetian constitution did govern England from the Accession of the House of Hanover until 1832."  Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby , Book V, Chapter Two 

Lord Shelburne, Part Three

       "That age of economical statesmanship which Lord Shelburne had predicted in 1787, when he demolished, in the House of Lords, Bishop Watson and the Balance of Trade, which Mr. Pitt had comprehended;  and for which he was preparing the nation when the French Revolution diverted the public mind into a stronger and more turbulent current, was again impending, while the intervening history of the country had been prolific in events which had aggrevated the necessity of investigating the sources of the wealth of nations.

       It was to be an age of abtruse disquisition, that required a compact and sinewy intellect, nurtured in a class of learning not yet honoured in colleges, and which might arrive at conclusions conflicting with predominant prejudices."  Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby Book II, Chapter One

Citizen Kane Intervention

       Suppose a liberal was very rich, and a close personal friend to the Clintons.  He has made himself a recognizable celebrity with a no-nonsense reputation.  Suppose also that he has never said anything that would be classified as conservative more than two years in the past.  Is it reasonable to think that he might spout some incendiery pseudo-conservative bunk about illegal aliens as part of an attempt to divert attention away from credible conservatives with a real chance of winning?
          Some conservatives need an intervention when it comes to Citizen Kane.  Unfortunately, this group includes talk show hosts like Michael Savage and Mark Levin.  Donald Trump has never been elected to a school board.  He has never been mayor of a town.  He certainly has never been in Congress or the Senate.  What makes anyone think his policy ideas are worth 2 cents?  Trump's supporters have focused their attention on Fox News and Megyn Kelly, as though they are involved in some kind of left-wing plot to get Hillary Clinton elected.  Bullshit!  There's no nicer way to put it.
         Is Dr. Ben Carson a liberal?  Is Rick Santorum a liberal?  Is Rand Paul a liberal?  Is Ted Cruz a liberal?  Estase just listed four candidates, all with conservative reputations extending further back than two years.  Two of these men are members of the Senate.  Another is a veteran Congressman.  All but Dr. Carson have actually made laws and policy.  It isn't a credible claim that there are two Republican choices, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump.  That's an absurd false dichotomy.  It's also a prevalent theme of Trump supporters.   Donald Trump is a liberal buffoon who is taking well-meaning conservatives for a ride by pretending to be something he isn't.