You have to understand all the different philosophies that were borrowed from by the Scientific Socialists before you can understand how they can, despite their claims to being "tolerant and liberal," actually promote totalitarianism. When a "classical liberal" (modern conservative) talks about freedom they mean that individuals are free from government interference in enjoying "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." For modern liberals (scientific socialists) freedom means that people are free to follow natural laws and sociological laws, with those laws being determined by an elite intellectual class, who will then transmit them to the political class who turn them into civil laws that have to be followed. Pardon the run-on sentence.

I love it. Hollywood stars: The Herpes sores on America's face. No wonder the Muslim's hate us, they don't want our herpes spreading to them. And who can blame them for that?

I just got off the phone with Ms. Reagan, a call which I taped, and she has admitted that she is, in her own words, "A half-witted, sleazy, unscrupulous, dishonest and untalented journalistic hack who doesn't care about the truth, facts or America and has to resort to lies and distortions to sell a product." And as soon as I find my invisible tape recorder I will prove that those are her own words.

And I have to disagree on what Classical Liberal tenets consevatives are defending in the modern era. All the true conservatives I am familiar with defend the principles of individual liberties and rights versus modern liberal principles of group identity and rights and collectivism; they defend the idea of free market capitalism versus modern liberal notions of quasi-socialistic state interventionist economic policies; they promote the idea of federalism and a small, non-obtrusive federal government versus modern liberalism's overpowerful and large bureaucratic central government; and modern conservatives believe in the power of individuals to take care of their own interests and in individual personal responsibility versus modern liberalism's notion that the government has a large role in taking care of people, even those who are irresponsible and are the cause of their own suffering.

There is much confusion concerning Classical Liberalism and religion; that confusion arising from people juxtaposing the views of the Enlightenment radicals with those of Classical liberals. It was the radicals who wanted to completely secularize society and rid it of all vestiges of religion. The vast majority of Classical Liberals understood the attachment people felt towards their religions as well as their customs and traditions. They understood that the best way to inspire the rise of a reactionary party was to attack people's religion, customs and traditions. And that is what has been happening in the U.S. since the 1950s beginning with Supreme Court judges who deliberately misinterpreted the 1st Amendment. Nowhere does it mention a separation of church and state; that phrase was selectively taken from one letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist minister circa 1803. As everyone should know Jefferson had nothing whatsoever to do with writing the Constitution so for judges to take his single statement and use it to make it the law of the land is a gross violation of the Constitution as well as the intent of the Founding Fathers.

I would like to reply to this but I do have several errands to attend to at this time, so I will have to delay my response. I appreciate your candor and civility; it makes the exchange of ideas more edifying. And I apologize for my earlier sarcasm, it was not very civilized. Take care.

I understand your frustration, many true modern conservatives (and by that I mean limited, small government, free market adherents) are as equally frustrated by many who pretend to hold conservative values. The self-annointed Republican elites have more in common with their Democratic elitiest counterparts than they do with the majority of those they seek to represent. They are both descendents of the wealthy progressive movement that arose in the late 19th - early 20th century and which was a fan of such great ideas as Eugenics, Fascism and Stalinism. Neither group has any faith in the individual or believes that individuals are capable of knowing what is best for themselves. But don't confuse those conservatives who promote entrepreneurs, capitalists and corporations by allowing them to succeed or fail based upon their ability to satisfy market demands with the pretend conservatives who use the power of government to favor those businesses that reciprocally support the politicians. The latter are essentially corporate-socialists.

If you really want to know what motivates conservatives I recommend reading "Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Though from David Hume to the Present," ed. Jerry Z. Muller. Though you are correct about traditional religious values being a cornerstone of American conservatism that is just one aspect of the ideological foundation of conservatism. Read the great Classical Liberal theorists from the 17th to early 19th centuries (Hume, Locke, Smith, J.B. Say, Frederic Bastiat, J.S. Mill) and you will understand that what modern conservatives are defending are the principles advocated by those and others. And if you read the theories of Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte (both of whom advocated a form of totalitarian society that was governed by a combination of intellectual and industrial elite) as well as Marx and other socialist advocates then you will understand what motivates modern liberalism.

See, now that was extremely amusing to me considering that I have been an agnostic for 31 years. That you would automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with your childish and simplistic worldview is motivated by conservative religious beliefs proves my point that most on the left are, to be frank, complete idiots and as your name suggests, have fluff for brains. Now as I can't stop my obviously justifed laughter at your expense I must be off and away.

It is interesting that the left-wing, methane sniffers can only come up with the equivalent of the schoolyard retort of "I know you are but what am I?" Bravo, well done little Mike. Now here's a cookie and on to the short bus you go.