The Canadian rock band Rush is well-known for their tight and intricate instrumentation.  Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Neil Peart are all among the best in the world on their respective instruments, and together they have no peer.

But what you might not have known or noticed is that Rush also defies convention by rejecting the kind of left-wing tripe that is so common in popular music.  Instead, lyricist Neil Peart consistently writes some of the most intelligent and thought-provoking lyrics in the industry consistently from a libertarian perspective.

So, as we wait in breathless anticipation of the release next month of Rush's new album, Clockwork Angels, here is a review of some of Neil's best lyrics over the past 40 years:

Well, I know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song

-from "Anthem"

We've taken care of everything
The words you read, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It's one for all and all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

-from "2112" (2nd movement - "Temples of Syrinx") 

What you own is your own kingdom
What you do is your own glory
What you love is your own power
What you live is your own story
In your head is the answer
Let it guide you along
Let your heart be the anchor
And the beat of your own song

You don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free
You won't get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be

-from "Something for Nothing"

When they turn the pages of history
When these days have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow?
We turned our gaze
From the castles in the distance
Eyes cast down
On the path of least resistance

-from "A Farewell to Kings"

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

-from "The Trees"

One likes to believe in the freedom of music
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity

-from "The Spirit of Radio"

 If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
 

-from "Freewill"

Science, like nature
Must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation
Given the same
State of integrity
It will surely serve us well

Art as expression
Not as market campaigns
Will still capture our imaginations
Given the same
State of integrity
It will surely help us along

-from "Natural Science"

No his mind is not for rent to any god or government....

-from "Tom Sawyer"

Growing up it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided
Detached and subdivided
In the mass production zone
Nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone

-from "Subdivisions"

And the things that we fear are a weapon to be held against us...

And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...

-from "The Weapon"

I'm not giving in to security under pressure
I'm not missing out on the promise of adventure
I'm not giving up on implausible dreams

-from "The Enemy Within"

Some world-views are spacious
And some are merely spaced

-from "Grand Designs"

From the point of conception
To the moment of truth
At the point of surrender
To the burden of proof

From the point of ignition
To the final drive
The point of a journey
Is not to arrive

-from "Prime Mover"

When we are young
Wandering the face of the Earth
Wondering what our dreams might be worth
Learning that we're only immortal
For a limited time

-from "Dreamline"

I'm old enough not to care too much
About what you think of me
But I'm young enough to remember the future
And the way things ought to be

-from "Cut to the Chase" (Was this lyric a h/t to Rush Limbaugh?  This song came out shortly after the release of Limbaugh's second book, The Way Thing Ought to Be)

But she's nobody's hero
Is the voice of reason against the howling mob
Hero...is the pride of purpose
In the unrewarding job
Hero...not the champion player
Who plays the perfect game
Hero...not the glamour boy
Who loves to sell his name
Everybody's buying
Nobody's hero

-from "Nobody's Hero"

For you and me, race is not a competition
For you and me, sex is not a definition
For you and me, we hold these truths to be self-evident
For you and me, we'd elect each other president
For you and me
We might agree

But that's just us...
Reaching for the alien shore

-from "Alien Shore"

Half the world lives
Half the world makes
Half the world gives
While the other half takes

Half the world is
Half the world was
Half the world thinks
While the other half does

-from "Half the World"

In softest voice there's an acid tongue
In the oldest eyes there's a soul so young
In the shakiest will there's a core of steel
On the smoothest ride there's a squeaky wheel

Though we might have precious little
It's still precious

-from "Bravest Face"

 

This week we watched the spectacle of President Obama declaring that the "evolution" in his thinking on gay marriage was now complete, and he is now a supporter.

Obama's sycophantic "news" media allies dutifully portrayed this announcement as "courageous."

In fact, Obama has shown nothing but exploitive cowardice on this subject.

Obama's first declaration of support for gay marriage was not this week - It was in 1996 when he first ran for the Illinois State Senate.

Then, when he ran for the Senate and for President a few years later, Obama flipped his position to outright opposition.

Then, after Obama got elected president and fundraising from gay donors dried up, Obama's thinking on the subject began to "evolve."

Then, just a coujple of months ago, Obama held a meeting with his campaign staff to decide the most politically opportune moment during the current election to announce - you guessed it - his support for gay marriage.  They decided that he would do so just before the Democrat Convention.

Then Vice President Biden accidentally told the truth about his and his boss' thinking - which the "news" media that are so accustomed to helping promote Obama's spin and propaganda referred to as a "gaffe" - Obama publicly declared his support for gay marriage.

Then Obama raised $1 million in an hour from gay donors.

Not prominently featured in the "news" media's fawning over Obama for his newly enlightened position on this issue was the fact that Obama also announced that he has no intention of adding this position as a plank in the Democrat Party platform or of pushing for any actual changes in public policy.  In fact, Obama announced that he supports allowing each state make its own policy on the issue.

In other words, a president who has trampled on federalism in every conceivable way to usurp our individual liberties is now in favor of letting each state decide whether to respect what Obama now purportedly sees as a fundamental civil right.

This is what the "news" media describes as "courageous."

What is not discussed in any of the "news" media coverage is how Obama has so cynically exploited gay Americans for his political gain.  Like black Americans in the 1950s and '60s, gay Americans are fighting for equality under the law.  But just as Orville Faubus, George Wallace, and Lester Maddox exploited the efforts to ensure civil rights for all Americans regardless of their race, Barack Obama is now doing the same among those Americans who are fighting to ensure the rights of all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation.

When it has served his political interests, Obama has supported the civil rights of homosexuals.  When he feared that his political interests would be endangered by showing such support, he has thrown gay Americans under the bus.  And even now that Obama has become the first American president ever to openly endorse gay marriage, he has done so in a way that does nothing whatsoever to advance the cause of ensuring their rights.

But Obama did raise $1 million from them in an hour.

One year ago, I suspended this blog and joined Bearing Drift as a contributor.  You can read my articles over the past year by clicking here.

This week, I left Bearing Drift, and I'm reviving Ken's Colloquium.

Bearing Drift started seven years ago as an informal blog focused on Virginia politics from a conservative perspective.  In recent months,the managers of Bearing Drift decided to move that site in a more professional direction, providing cutting edge coverage of political news that is not adequately covered by the establishment news media.  To do that, they have come to expect a significant commitment of time and effort from the contributors that I am not currently in a position to provide due to constraints of work and family.

Bearing Drift remains Virginia's foremost political blog of any ideology, and it was a distinct honor to be a part of it for the past year.  I wish my former colleagues and fellow conservatives at Bearing Drift continued success going forward.

Although I don't have the time available to blog on a professional level, I continue to be engaged in politics, public affairs, and the evolution of American culture, and at Ken's Colloquium, I'll continue to offer my perspectives in my own way and at my own pace.  While Bearing Drift is focused primarily on Virginia politics, the scope of Ken's Colloquium is broader, covering politics, public affairs, and cultural issues at every level.

In the coming weeks and months, I hope to be able to expand and offer additional contributors and perspectives.  I hope you'll check back here often for news and commentary that you won't find at any other source, and I hope you'll engage and provide your thoughts and feedback on my posts and on this blog generally.

Effective today, I have become a contributor at Bearing Drift, one of the premier public affairs blogs in Virgina, and I will be suspending publication of this blog.  Please continue to read my articles - and those of my colleagues at Bearing Drift - at http://bearingdrift.com.  You can also get our articles on your news feed at Facebook by going to http://www.facebook.com/bearingdrift and clicking "like."

I appreciate the interest and support that everyone gave this blog in its few brief months of existence, and I hope that you will all follow me to Bearing Drift!

Some commentators have expressed the view that it is always wrong to celebrate killing or death, and therefore it is wrong to celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden.  They assure us that they are happy that he was brought to justice, but they believe that our celebratory response is inappropriate.  Some of those commentators point out how appalled we were when the Palestinians and other Muslims around the world celebrated in the streets after the 9/11 attacks, and these commentators call on us to be "better."

These commentators are not only wrong; they are absurd.

There is no moral equivalence between celebrating the deaths of 3,000 innocents and celebrating the perpetrator of that mass murder being brought to justice.  Celebrating mass murder is immoral and perverse.  Celebrating justice is moral and honorable.

Osama bin Laden declared and prosecuted a war on the United States and, indeed, most of the world that rejects his Islamist worldview.  We didn't do anything to warrant the killing of thousands of our innocent civilians.  He was an unprovoked aggressor.

But once he perpetrated his act of war, we had the right - indeed the responsibility - to respond and bring him to justice.  It took ten years, but justice finally was served.

We have the right to celebrate justice.  Indeed, we honor the innocents whose lives were snuffed out by bin Laden by celebrating his demise.

I feel no guilt, and I offer no apology, for celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden - and the fact that it came at our hands.  Let the critics wring their hands with holier-than-thou self-righteousness.  I join the vast majority of Americans in honorable celebration of this historic rendering of justice.

President Obama offered to include President Bush in his visit Thursday to Ground Zero to commemorate the execution of Osama bin Laden, thereby acknowledging President Bush's role in the effort.  President Bush quietly declined the invitation and decided to let the spotlight remain on Obama at this important moment in history.  This level of class and selflessness in high American politics is rare, and I'm impressed with both men.

President Obama's performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner (video below) was entertaining and funny.  He was charmingly self-deprecating and teasing but not overly harsh to his opponents.  His remarks to Donald Trump, who was present at the dinner, were utterly hilarious.

Obama's serious comments at the end were also appropriate and well-delivered.  However, I would take more seriously his comments expressing appreciation for the bravery of journalists who put their lives at risk to report on world leaders if Obama's own administration weren't actively working to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978#ixzz1L4I4..." target="_blank">stifle unfavorable coverage through heavy-handed threats against journalists.

The General Assembly has yet to approve a congressional redistricting plan, but the one proposed by the Democrat-controlled State Senate would dramatically change VA-4, currently represented by Republican Randy Forbes.  Currently, VA-4 is a reliably Republican district, and Forbes has never had difficulty being reelected.  VA-3, currently represented by Democrat Bobby Scott, is a black-majority district that is reliably Democrat, and Scott also has never had difficulty with reelection.  Under the State Senate proposal, large portions of the current VA-3 would be moved to VA-4 to significantly increase the number and percentage of black voters in that district who would reliably vote Democrat.  While Forbes would still live in this district, demographically it would be very difficult for him to get reelected.

So, if Forbes effectively is stripped of his congressional district, could he decide instead to run for the open U.S. Senate seat currently held by Jim Webb (who has announced that he will not be seeking reelection)?  Well, there is a historical precedent for such a move:

In November 1991, George Allen, then a Republican Member of the Virginia House of Delegates, was elected to Congress in a special election after the death of Rep. French Slaughter.  However, as a result of the congressional redistricting plan passed by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly and signed by Democrat Governor Doug Wilder, Allen's congressional district was eliminated almost immediately after his election, and he was drawn into a district represented by Republican Frank Wolf.  Having lost his congressional district, Allen chose to run for governor in 1993 against Democrat Attorney General Mary Sue Terry, and in an upset that garnered national attention, he defeated Terry with 58% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in a Virginia gubernatorial race since 1961.

Jump ahead to the 2012 election.  Currently, George Allen is the front-runner for the Republican nomination to take on presumptive Democrat nominee Tim Kaine, Virginia's immediate former governor and the immediate past Chairman of the Democrat National Committee.  Allen previously served out his term as governor and was elected to one term in the U.S. Senate before being defeated by Democrat Jim Webb in 2006.

Allen now has serious flaws as a candidate that worry many party leaders and activists:  He lost reelection to the Senate in 2006 after using the apparently racist slur "macaca" to describe an Indian-American campaign operative for his Democrat opponent, and it is unclear whether he has, or will ever be able to, politically recover from that incident.  Furthermore, many Tea Party voters believe that Allen's voting record in the Senate on fiscal issues was not adequately conservative.

There are several little-known candidates angling for Tea Party support to oppose Allen for the Republican nomination.  So far, there is no evidence that any of them are gaining much traction.  However, since party leaders and many rank-and-file party members continue to fear that Allen would lose to Kaine, a vacuum remains for a strong, established, viable conservative to oppose Allen for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.

Could that candidate be Randy Forbes?  Well, if the Democrats in the State Senate succeed in stripping him of a viable district for reelection to the House of Representatives, George Allen himself has set the precedent for what Forbes could decide to do....

A new more bipartisan redistricting plan was approved by the General Assembly today by a large margin.  It restores Virginia Beach Senators Frank Wagner and Jeff McWaters to separate intact districts in Virginia Beach but eliminates Sen. Fred Quayle's district in and around Suffolk.  Fred has expressed disappointment but has accepted this result with his customary class and grace:

Quayle said he believes his fellow senators did the best they could to retain his district, and that he knows some districts had to be collapsed because of population shifts.

“They don’t have that many places to go in negotiations,’’ he said. “I’m satisfied they did everything they could. These things happen.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/quayle-doesnt-want...

The original House and Senate plans were combined in 1 bill, and the House plan had been approved by a strong bipartisan vote.  It was only the Senate plan that was controversial because it badly split up numerous localities, including Virginia Beach, for the purpose of benefiting the Democrats who control that chamber.  Thus, the Republicans in the House of Delegates were angry when Gov. Bob McDonnell vetoed the previous plan rather than returning the bill with proposed amendments to the Senate plan.  The House Republicans believed that they had been sacrificed by the governor for the benefit of the Senate Republicans.  The fear was that the Senate Democrats would rather let a judge draw the district lines than cave in to the Republican governor and Senators.

It looks like the House Republicans' fears were not realized.  The governor held firm and announced that if the Senate sent him the same bill, he would veto it again, even if that meant sending the redistricting to a judge.  In the end, the Senate Democrats blinked.

Virtually everything Barack Obama does is designed to advance his political interests, and his appointment of David Petraeus to the be the new Director of the CIA is no exception.  The calculation of Obama and his political operatives goes like this:

1.  Republican voters typically nominate candidates who are serious, established, experienced, qualified, sufficiently conservative, and seen as electable.  Republican voters are not especially concerned with the candidate's personal charisma.  (By contrast, Democrat voters typically nominate the most charismatic candidate regardless of seriousness, establishment, experience, qualifications, ideology, or even electability.)

2.  Applying these criteria, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee most likely is going to be Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee (who probably won't run).  The rest of the candidates' are highly unlikely to win the Republican nomination.  (I may do a separate column on this subject in the near future.)

3.  Daniels, Romney, and Huckabee are all current or former governors who lack foreign policy and national defense experience and credentials and will need to balance the ticket with a running mate who has such credentials.

4.  General David Petraeus has commanded our most successful operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has become the go-to flag officer for solving the most intractable military problems.  His foreign policy and national defense credentials are beyond reproach.  He has also shown himself to be Teflon against criticism:  When the radical leftist group MoveOn.org, one of the most important sponsors of the Democrat Party, ran an advertisement in the New York Times describing him as "General Betray Us," the American people were appalled, and congressional Democrats were forced to distance themselves from one of their closest allies.  In fact, the Senate approved a resolution condemning the ad by a bipartisan vote of 75-25, with only the most extreme leftist Democrats voting against the resolution.  And Petraeus is a self-proclaimed Republican.

5.  A Republican ticket that included David Petraeus could be an insurmountable obstacle to Obama's reelection, which is why he had to be taken out of the game.  So, knowing that Petraeus' character is such that he will always put duty to country before any personal ambition, Obama appointed him to head the CIA in order to eliminate him as Obama's most formidable a political opponent.

Keep in mind that this is hardly the first time that Obama has used political appointments to eliminate potentially formidable political opponents.  See, e.g., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ambassador to China John Huntsman.