Paul Mulshine, NJ’s Own Clueless And Frustrated So Called Conservative Loser

April 5, 2011

I was fortunate enough to have spent over four decades as a conservative in New Jersey without ever hearing of this loser and clown, Paul Mulshine. The Star Ledger must prop him up as their house conservative to make a caricature of the ideology; in effect, using a seemingly failed and frustrated buffoon to undermine conservatism, while claiming to give voice to it.

One can sense the jealousy of popular, genuinely accomplished conservative thinkers dripping from this backwater hack in many of his rants. Take this tweet, for instance, from his Twitter account, with all of his 70 followers. Oh my, he must be influential! He must know everything, despite his apparent stupidity, which he takes to the height of genuine ignorance.

Ann Coulter: Clueless idiot or parasitical wretch

Our girl didn't have the experience in politics needed to see through the neocon agenda of open borders and liberal internationalism. And any presumptively conservative pundit who failed to see through Bush lost all credibility.

Sense the envy here below? Everyone but Paul Mulshine is a pretender, a wannabe, a neo-con. Of course, the moron doesn't let the fact that he doesn't even know what the term means stop him from hurling it at everyone above him in the food chain – a station I suspect even the infamous Snail Darter occupies, given that Paul Mulshine is little more than a bottom-feeder, along with being an idiot.

Of ocurse(sic) that disqualifies just about all the wannabe conservatives who occupy the airwaves, such as Limbaugh, Hannity and on down the list. These people are entertainers, not journalists. But they should at least have a little respect for those of us who get out into the world and do the hard work that gives them the material without which they would be helpless.

Reading Mulshine, one gets the impression that perhaps putting the cork back in the bottle is too much hard work for him. I say that as, either he is profoundly and uniquely stupid for a columnist, or he's simply a drunk with no clue what he's actually saying and doing. In fact, maybe Paul Moonshine really is a better name for him?

It seems self-professed conservative icon Paul Moonshine's most recent obsession is my friend Mark Levin.

I've noticed a depressing trend among the credulous sorts who take radio pitchmen like Mark Levin seriously.

Levin's ignorance of politics and history

Dumb Mark Levin quote of the day

As for his books, well here's an excerpt from "Liberty and Tyranny." Note the excessive use of capital letters, by the way. This is the mark of the lowbrow.

It's almost funny reading this pathetic, unaccomplished hack, were it not so sad, because a major daily, the Star Ledger, gives him a platform as a serious conservative. His whole agenda where Levin is concerned seems to be propping up his neo-Confederate friends at that Lew Rockwell's cesspool of a blog. How on earth could conservative ideas ever catch on in New Jersey with this sort of idiotic non-thinking crowd being propped up to represent it?

How can a man as dumb as Moonshine have work like this below appear in what professes to be a major NJ newspaper? Why on earth would he think Levin is a neo-conservative? Is it simply a smear because he's Jewish? It has no basis in fact, assuming one knows what neo-conservatism actually is. Mark's been a solid conservative his whole life and disagrees with the neo-conservative ideology, while being a defense hawk. That makes him a false flag conservative? For heaven's sake, in Moonshine's world, there wouldn't be any serious conservatives left, except him and three others involved in some circle jerk. Purely objectively, does anyone in their right mind believe Mark Levin is a collectivist? Seriously? Oh yeah, that's why he wrote Liberty and Tyranny. Geesh, this Moonshine is an utter dunce.

This comment from the Bullhorn, with whom I've had a beer on occasion, gives a good description of the difference between true conservatives and collectivists such as radio entertainer Mark Levin and the various Republican politicians who pose as conservatives while desiring to increase the power of the federal government. By the way, the reason I lampoon Levin so often is that he is the biggest hypocrite on the "neo" side. For years he posed as a defender of the constitution in those silly books he writes. Then he went into a protracted hissy fit when a real defender of the constitution, Ron Paul, appeared on the national stage. And it's positively weird for a statist like Levin to write a whole book attacking statists.

Seriously, someone should let the Star Ledger know, unless their real agenda is to destroy conservatism, they should retire this loser Moonshine to a rest home, or a funny farm, where he appears to actually belong. It's one thing to publish someone who gets everything so flat-out wrong; it's another to prop up profound ignorance and stupidity under the guise of doing one's readership a good service of any kind.

If nothing else, they could at least have the decency to move him to the comics section where people could laugh at him along with all the other cartoons.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. A couple years back, this buffoon tried to argue that Sarah Palin was a socialist:

  2. “The great industrial Nation is supervised by means of credit system.
    Our system of the credit is concentrated.
    Growth of the Nation and all our activity is in hands of only several persons.
    We have come to that steels one of the subordinates, one of is most total
    The controllable and dominating Governments in the world – not being more the Government
    Freely stated points of view, the Government as which демократически affirms
    Opinion of the majority, but the Government in which compulsion from the party dominates
    Small group of influential people “.
    (Before the death, Вилсон has, allegedly, declared to the friends: “I have been deceived” and “I have betrayed my Country”.
    It carried these words to the Certificate about the Federal Reserve, to the past during its Presidency,
    On the eve of a Christmas vacation in December, 1913 in practically empty Congress).
    Vudro Wilson 28th US president.

  3. Elmo says:

    Making the assumption, that “newspaper” “editors” can find their bunghole, with both hands nailed to their glutes? [Kinda hard to do, when they are so enamored of the view, from inside (with their head, already all the way up)].
    They have no critical discernment. None. No loyalty to basic mechanical constructs of journalism (five dub’s). It’s merely all the most ridiculously juvenile partisan propaganda. And beyond. Is so far divorced from what a newspaper (as in real), used to be. As to merit a wholesale change in the lexicons of the world.
    For the last while, thought them … American newspaper editors, at least worthy of my spit. Now … merely pity [in the calmer moments, still reserving for myself, the right to hawk up an oyster (like uh ... who doesn't like process cheese food on white?)].
    I gots two followah’s on blogspot!

  4. memomachine says:

    Life is too short, and too sweet, to waste even 1 second reading the Star Ledger.

  5. Red Phillips says:

    I agree that the term neocon is thrown around more than it should be, but that is partially because it has come to mean something broader than it originally meant. It has come to be a virtual synonym for interventionist, and I am sure that is how Mulshine is using it. There are actually types of interventionists and not all interventionists are neocons (I don’t know enough about Levin to know if the term fits him or not), but you have to admit that the current state of political debate in this country (and rants like yours above don’t help) don’t allow for a lot of nuance. (Even if a person eschews democratization as a casus belli, in my experience it is very difficult for a non-neocon interventionist to entirely avoid neoconservative language because all interventionists are inherently internationalists who ascribe to America some uniquely important role. They have to because it is impossible to justify our level of world presence and massive defense budgets based on imagined threats alone.)
    The point that Mulshine is obviously trying to make (and don’t pretend like you don’t know this) is that interventionism, whether neocon or otherwise, is not the authentic conservative position. Non-interventionism is the authentic conservative position. And I will be more than happy to debate this with you, starting from first principles, if you are so inclined.
    Mulshine’s additional and related point, boiled down, is that Levin, Coulter and the other leaders and spokesmen for what passes for conservatism these days are not rigorous or consistent Constitutionalists. This is not a debatable point. They aren’t. And the modern conservative movement hasn’t been Constitutionalist from the start.
    If you embrace the liberal policy of interventionism and you reject constitutionalism, that’s fine, but name calling screeds against Mulshine and Tom Woods don’t make your case for you. They should embarrass you. You are not in the third grade anymore. Drop the name calling and make intellectual arguments for your case.