This blog is no longer active as of October 31, 2011
But first, I have to read my Bible….
Actually, I have to read twice as much — I skipped yesterday. So, I’ll be along shortly.
Some things are more important than blogging and this is one of them.
For the weirdos who do not believe in a God, I pity you. I also will explain that if I do not do this on a daily basis; my attitude on this blog will come that of a dirty old sock.
I will return when I finish.
This afternoon’s mental health break is going be just a wee bit different.
As some of you might have heard; The Young Americans for Freedom sold Representative Ron Paul up the river. Over a bastardy thing, called War.
As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, that I am not against war it itself, as I do believe in America protecting itself from outside invaders and those who would wish do us harm. However, what I am against — is unjustified war or as it is commonly known as, interventionist foreign policy. This policy is the hallmark of the Neo-Conservative line of thought. It seems that the Neo-Conservatives have taken over the Ronald Reagan inspired The Young Americans for Freedom.
So, today; I dedicate the follow videos to Ron Paul and the campaign for liberty group.
I leave you all with this quote; this is something to think about, very strongly.
A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. — Martin Luther King Jr. — From “Beyond Vietnam,” April 4, 1967, Riverside Church, New York City
The truth is, that 90% of those who advocate war — will not fight in it, at all. Because, the truth is, until about 1964 and afterwards —- Conservatives were, in fact, very anti-war.
Enjoy the videos and your Sunday.
Well, isn’t this just a lovely story to pick up on a Sunday Morning?
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration’s Justice Department has asserted that the FBI can obtain telephone records of international calls made from the United States without any formal legal process or court oversight, according to a document obtained by McClatchy.
That assertion was revealed by the department – perhaps inadvertently – in its response to a McClatchy request for a copy of a secret Justice Department memo.
Critics say the legal position is flawed and creates a potential loophole that could lead to a repeat of FBI abuses that were supposed to have been stopped in 2006.
The controversy is a legacy of the Bush administration’s war on terror. Critics say the Obama administration appears to be continuing many of the most controversial tactics of that strategy, including the assertion of sweeping executive powers.
For years after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI sought and obtained thousands of telephone records for international calls in an attempt to thwart potential terrorists. The bureau devised an informal system of requesting the records from three telecommunications firms to create what one agent called a “phone database on steroids” that included names, addresses, length of service and billing information.
Which proves to this old school, Paleoconservative, Fundamentalist Christian one thing and one thing alone. That the only difference between a Neo-Liberal; like President Obama and a Neoconservative like President Bush is this —- One loves big Government and the other loves big Government as long as they are the one’s controlling it.
I remember how doing the Bush era, people like Keith Olbermann,were wailing to the top of their lungs about how darned horrible of the Bush Administration to allow such stuff to happen; and now that the Obama Administration is in power, what do you hear?
(click to play)
That is right, absolutely nothing about it at all. That is because the socialist liberals do not give a damn about personal liberty, all they care about is winning elections. All of the attacks against the Bush administration about everything; Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, Iraq —- everything —was just partisan politics. It never was about the people; because socialists do not give a darn about the people! All they care about is power – governmental power — everything else to them is just second nature.
Which pretty much sums up why I stopped voted for the Democratic Party. I am pretty much on to their game anymore. They try to come off as the party of the people; but anymore, they are all about the party of the state.
Via Fire Andrea Mitchell, who compares Ron Paul to Obama; which is typical of the Neo-Con Ilk.
Wow… I wonder what Bill Kristol thinks about this?
The Video: (Via Glenn Beck’s Site)
What’s Glenn talking about? This, via the New York Times:
“In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly nonideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
‘I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me,’ said Sally Moore, a 32-year-old psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots. “They always have a hidden agenda, we know, and you never know when power comes how they will behave. But they are very good with organizing, they are calling for a civil state just like everyone else, so let them have a political party just like everyone else’”
Perhaps maybe next Bill Kristol ought to keep his mouth shut. Because every time Kristol opens his mouth, he exposes himself for the Neo-Conservative buffoon that he really is.
More broadly though is Glenn’s point, which is that an Islamic/left caliphate will happen; it could very well happen. Far Leftists and Muslims have one thing in common, that is their hatred of Israel — or specifically, a hatred of Zionism and everything, and everyone related to it. The problem is; these people in their quest to see Egypt free would be willing to risk their lives to trust people, who would actually like to kill them, once Sharia law was enacted.
The fear among Government officials, including the United States, is that this new Government will install a leader that will want to declare war on Israel or at least be unfriendly to Israel; you know like Iran? However, no matter, “The One” will extend his mighty hand and all will be fine in the Middle East — Right? Right?!?!
The problem with Kristol’s idea of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is that the people of Egypt had no civil rights and the Neo-Conservatives, like Bill Kristol, do not care about civil rights; as long as Israel is protected until the very last ounce of money is spent and the last drop of blood is spilled. This has been the Neo-Conservative’s modus operandi since day one and they do not show any signs of changing anytime soon.
The good news is that the Neo-Conservatives are losing their grip on the intellectual discourse here in America. The still might have their op-eds. However, the American Tea-Party movement came with the agenda of “No more business as usual.” Questions are being asked about the wisdom of foreign policy. Neo-Conservatives position on foreign policy is being challenged by many with the Republican Party and from within the Conservative movement. We Paleo-Conservatives are no longer outcasts; and that my friend is good for everyone.
What it sounds like here:
In what could potentially be a huge indication of Huckabee’s future political plans (or lack thereof), Huckabee’s presidential committee Huckabee for President, Inc has filed termination paperwork with the FEC, essentially ending all political operations associated with a presidential run.
The report was filed with the FEC on 1/31/11 at the time other political committees were filing their usual year-end reports, and can be viewed here.
On that same date, Huckabee’s team filed a regular year-end report for Huck PAC — meaning that Huckabee has made the intentional decision to continue Huck PAC operations while ceasing the operations of Huckabee for President, Inc.
According to FEC guidelines, filing a termination report means, among other things, that “the committee no longer intends to receive contributions, make expenditures, or make any disbursements that would otherwise qualify it as a political committee.”
Huckabee for President, Inc was founded in April of 2007 and has been filing regular quarterly or monthly reports with the FEC until now.
I must add an important caveat: as I am not thoroughly versed in FEC campaign laws, it is not precisely clear what this filing means – but we will keep digging to find out. Stay tuned for more details and analysis as the situation becomes more clear. As Drudge says, developing…
via Huckabee for President, Inc. Files Termination Paperwork with FEC | Race 4 2012.
The report of termination can be viewed here. This could mean nothing and then again; this could mean that Mike Huckabee is not running for President. Seeing he did poll around the level of Palin. It could be that Huckabee figures he is making better money with Fox News Channel and the whole idea of running for President is just not worth the hassle.
Quite bluntly, I do not like the man at all. Basically, he is a Democrat with a Bible. Further more, he is one of those types that wants to force a Christian Sharia Law type of Government on the United States; and that does bother me, as a libertarian type. So, to me personally, I find this to be quite the relief.
Besides, who, outside of the far right, would even vote for the man? 🙄
Stay Tuned.
Fixed misspelling in post title…. More Coffee. 😛
Update: Politico confirms, it is for 2008:
Mike Huckabee has cleaned up some business from 2008 ahead of a potential 2012 run, closing out his old presidential campaign committee and personally paying down a small amount of debt, FEC records reviewed by POLITICO show.
Huckabee filed the termination report to Huckabee for President last week.
It included a $41,000 payment by Huckabee to his own campaign, which helped settle about $80,000 outstanding debt owed for travel reimbursements to news outlets and a direct mail firm.
Huck PAC executive director Hogan Gidley confirmed to POLITICO that the payments were made.
“It should be obvious why the governor closed his 2008 Huckabee for President committee — it’s not 2008 anymore,” Gidley said. “The expenses and obligations acquired from the ‘08 Campaign had to settled. After all, Governor Huckabee can’t start a campaign for 2012, until he closes out the old one from 2008.”
Theoretically, Huckabee could use the same campaign committee this time around, but candidates who make a second go of it often begin anew.
It’s not unusual for a candidate to personally pay down money, although for such a small sum Huckabee likely could have raised cash. However, sources noted he ran a basically debt-free effort in 2008 and was surprised to hear there were still a few loose ends, and wanted to get things taken care of.
So, basically, we should not count Mike Huckabee out yet.
Some good video here:
The Story via ABC NEWS:
More than four years after leaving public life, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continues to believe the war in Iraq was worth the effort, and has no apologies for his decision-making in leading the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Rumsfeld concedes that “it’s possible” that decisions on how many troops to send into Iraq marked the biggest mistake of the war.
“In a war, many things cost lives,” Rumsfeld told Sawyer.
Pressed on the fact that President Bush has written that cutting troop levels in Iraq was “the most important failure in the execution of the war,” Rumsfeld called that “interesting.”
I do not much care for the man. He is, in my humble opinion, an ignoramus. But he does have his opinions and he is a human being.
Get the Book:
I also highly recommend George W. Bush’s book as well:
Sometimes, I love Glenn Beck! 🙂
Listen to the Audio…. Yeah, I know where it is from; But, please, click below for 9:44 of pure awesomeness. 😀
Via The Politico:
Fox News’s Glenn Beck lashed out at Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on his radio show this morning, accusing Kristol of betraying conservatism and missing the significance of what Beck sees as an alliance between Islamism and socialism.
“I don’t even know if you understand what conservatives are anymore, Billy,” Beck said in his extended, sarcastic attack on Kristol. “People like Bill Kristol, I don’t think they stand for anything any more. All they stand for is power. They’ll do anything to keep their little fiefdom together, and they’ll do anything to keep the Republican power entrenched.”
[…]
Kristol’s words drew an approving nod from National Review’s Rich Lowry, a rare public repudiation of the influential Fox host from a conservative elite that quietly dislikes him.
Beck, in response, defended his broad theories by reading from the work of the Muslim writer Zudhi Jasser, a sharp critic of most Muslim leaders, to argue of the threat from “Islamic socialism.” He also accused Kristol of propping up Hosni Mubarak, of being stuck in 1973, and of failing to see that “we are fighting the forces of evil on this planet.”
“I think he’s still trying to get Bob Dole elected, i’m not really sure,” said Beck.
“Have you done a minute of research Bill?” Beck asked later, promising to expose the ties between the left and Islamic radicals during this week’s television show and advising Kristol, “Just watch the show in the next week.”
The real hilarious part? Not one time did Glenn Beck use the term Neo-Conservative! He also brought Barry Goldwater into it. Drawing a line from Bill Kristol to Barry Goldwater is about as dumb as drawing a line from Pat Buchanan to Vladimir Lenin. What Glenn Beck was trying to say, but failed to do it right; was that Kristol is a part of the “Big Government” wing of the Republican Party — like the Rockefeller‘s were. So, if he had used that name — it would have made total sense. But, I give him credit for at least taking Kristol to task.
Glenn Beck might be paranoid and a bit of hand wringer; but once and a while — he knocks one out of the ballpark! Now, if we could just work on that little shrill voice of his…. 😉 😛
What happened was Ronald Wilson Blithering Reagan. Obviously Reagan did not suddenly descend out of the clouds in 1980. He had been the cherished candidate of the conservative movement, its chosen route to power, ever since Goldwater’s defeat. Goldwater was too blunt and candid, too much an unhandleable Real Person. What was needed was a lovable, manipulable icon. Moreover, Goldwater’s principles were too hard-edged: he was way too much a domestic libertarian, and he was too much an eager warmonger. Both his libertarianism and his passion for nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union scared the bejesus out of the American masses, as well as the more astute leadership of the conservative movement.
A reconstituted conservative movement would have to drop any libertarian ideology or concrete policies, except to provide a woolly and comfortable mood for suitably gaseous anti-government rhetoric and an improved foreign policy that would make sure that many more billions would go into the military-industrial complex, to step up global pressure against Communism, but avoiding an actual nuclear war. This last point was important: As much as they enjoy the role of the bully, neither the Establishment nor the American people want to risk nuclear war, which might, after all, blow them up as well. Once again, Ronnie Reagan looked like the Answer.
Two important new ingredients entered into, and helped reshape, the conservative movement during the mid 1970’s. One was the emergence of a small but vocal and politically powerful group of neo-conservatives (neocons), who were able, in a remarkably short time, to seize control of the think tanks, the opinion-molding institutions, and finally the politics, of the conservative movement. As ex-liberals, the neocons were greeted as important new converts from the enemy. More importantly, as ex-Trotskyites, the neocons were veteran politicos and organizers, schooled in Marxian cadre organizing and in manipulating the levers of power. They were shrewdly eager to place their own people in crucial opinion molding and money-raising positions, and in ousting those not willing to submit to the neocon program. Understanding the importance of financial support, the neocons knew how to sucker Old Right businessmen into giving them the monetary levers at their numerous foundations and think tanks. In contrast to free-market economists, for example, the neocons were eager to manipulate patriotic symbols and ethical doctrines, doing the microequivalent of Reagan and Bush’s wrapping themselves in the American Flag. Wrapping themselves, also, in such patriotic symbols as The Framers and the Constitution, as well as Family Values, the neocons were easily able to outflank free-market types and keep them narrowly confined to technical economic issues. In short the neocons were easily able to seize the moral and patriotic “high ground.”
The only group willing and able to challenge the neocons on their own moralizing on philosophic turf was, of course, the tiny handful of libertarians; and outright moral libertarianism, with its opposition to statism, theocracy, and foreign war, could never hope to get to first base with conservative businessmen, who, even at the best of times during the Old Right era, had never been happy about individual personal liberty, (e.g. allowing prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, or drugs) or with the libertarians’ individualism and conspicuous lack of piety toward the Pentagon, or toward the precious symbol of the Nation-State, the US flag.
The neocons were (and remain today) New Dealers, as they frankly describe themselves, remarkably without raising any conservative eyebrows. They are what used to be called, in more precise ideological days, “extreme right-wing Social Democrats.” In other words, they are still Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Humphrey Democrats. Their objective, as they moved (partially) into the Republican Party and the conservative movement, was to reshape it to become, with minor changes, a Roosevelt-Truman-etc. movement; that is, a liberal movement shorn of the dread “L” word and of post-McGovern liberalism. To verify this point all we have to do is note how many times Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, et al., properly reviled by conservatives while they were alive, are now lauded, even canonized, by the current neocon-run movement, from Ronnie Reagan on down. And no one calls them on this Orwellian revision of conservative movement history.
As statists-to-the-core the neocons had no problem taking the lead in crusades to restrict individual liberties, whether it be in the name of rooting out “subversives,” or of inculcating broadly religious (“Judeo-Christian”) or moral values. They were happy to form a cozy alliance with the Moral Majority, the mass of fundamentalists who entered the arena of conservative politics in the mid-1970s. The fundamentalists were goaded out of their quietist millenarian dreams (e.g., the imminent approach of Armageddon) and into conservative political action by the accumulation of moral permissivism in American life. The legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade was undoubtedly the trigger, but this decision came on top of a cumulative effect of the sexual revolution, the militant homosexual movement “out of the closet” and into the streets, the spread of pornography, and the visible decay of the public school system. The entry of the Moral Majority transformed American politics, not the least by furnishing the elite cadre of neocons with a mass base to guide and manipulate.
In economic matter, the neocons showed no more love of liberty, though this is obscured by the fact that the neocons wish to trim the welfare state of its post-Sixties excrescences, particularly since these were largely designed to aid black people. What the neocons want is a smaller, more “efficient” welfare state, within which bounds they would graciously allow the market to operate. The market is acceptable as a narrow instrumental device; their view of private property and the free market is essentially identical to Gorbachev’s in the Soviet Union.
Why did the Right permit itself to be bamboozled by the neocons? Largely because the conservatives had been inexorably drifting Stateward in the same manner. In response to the crushing defeat of Goldwater, the Right had become ever less libertarian and less principled, and ever more attuned to the “responsibilities” and moderations of Power. It is a far cry from three decades ago when Bill Buckley used to say that he too is an “anarchist” but that we have to put off all thoughts of liberty until the “international Communist conspiracy” is crushed. Those old Chodorovian libertarian days are long gone, and so is National Review as any haven for libertarian ideas. War mongering, militarism, theocracy, and limited “free” markets – this is really what Buckleyism amounted to by the late 1970s.
The burgeoning neocons were able to confuse and addle the Democratic Party by breaking with the Carter Administration, at the same time militantly and successfully pressuring it from within. The neocons formed two noisy front groups, the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Committee on the Present Danger. By means of these two interlocking groups and their unusual access to influential media, the neocons were able to pressure the Carter Administration into breaking the détente with Russia over the Afghanistan imbroglio and influencing Carter to get rid of the dove Cyrus Vance as Secretary of State and to put foreign policy power into the hands of the Polish émigré hawk and Rockefeller Trilateralist, Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the meantime, the neocons pushed the hysterically hawkish CIA “B” Team report, wailing about alleged Soviet nuclear superiority, which in turn paved the way for the vast gift of spending handed to the military-industrial complex by the incoming Regan Administration. The Afghanistan and “B” Team hysterias, added to the humiliation by the Ayatollah, managed not only to kill off the bedeviled Carter Administration, but also to put the boots to non-intervention and to prepare the nation for a scrapping of the “post-Vietnam syndrome” and a return to the warmongering of the pre-Vietnam Era.
The Reagan candidacy of 1980 was brilliantly designed to weld a coalition providing the public’s instinctive anti-government mood with sweeping, but wholly nonspecific, libertarian rhetoric, as a convenient cover for the diametrically opposite policies designed to satisfy the savvy and politically effective members of that coalition: the neocons, the Buckleyite cons, the Moral Majority, the Rockefellers, the military-industrial complex, and the various Establishment special interests always clustering at the political trough.
[….]
Has the Reagan Administration done nothing good in its eight ghastly years on earth, you might ask? Yes, it has done one good thing; it has repealed the despotic 55-mile-per-hour highway speed limit. And that is it.
As the Gipper, at bloody long last, goes riding off into the sunset, he leaves us with a hideous legacy. He has succeeded in destroying the libertarian public mood of the late 1970’s, and replaced it with fatuous and menacing patriotic symbols of the Nation-State, especially The Flag, which he first whooped up in his vacuous reelection campaign in 1984, aided by the unfortunate coincidence of the Olympics being held at Los Angeles. (Who will soon forget the raucous baying of the chauvinist mobs: “USA! USA!” every time some American came in third in some petty event?) He has succeeded in corrupting libertarian and free-market intellectuals and institutions, although in Ronnie’s defense it must be noted that the fault lies with the corrupted and not with the corrupter.
It is generally agreed by political analysts that the ideological mood of the public, after eight years of Reaganism, is in support of economic liberalism (that is, an expanded welfare state), and social conservatism (that is, the suppression of civil liberties and the theocratic outlawing of immoral behavior). And, on foreign policy, of course, they stand for militaristic chauvinism. After eight years of Ronnie, the mood of the American masses is to expand the goodies of the welfare-warfare state (though not to increase taxes to pay for these goodies), to swagger abroad and be very tough with nations that can’t fight back, and to crack down on the liberties of groups they don’t like or whose values or culture they disagree with.
It is a decidedly unlovely and unlibertarian wasteland, this picture of America 1989, and who do we have to thank for it? Several groups: the neocons who organized it; the vested interests and the Power Elite who run it; the libertarians and free marketeers who sold out for it; and above all, the universally beloved Ronald Wilson Reagan, Who Made It Possible.
As he rides off into retirement, glowing with the love of the American public, leaving his odious legacy behind, one wonders what this hallowed dimwit might possibly do in retirement that could be at all worthy of the rest of his political career. What very last triumph are we supposed to “win for the Gipper”?
He has tipped his hand: I have just read that as soon as he retires, the Gipper will go on a banquet tour on behalf of the repeal of the 22nd (“Anti-Third Term”) Amendment – the one decent thing the Republicans have accomplished. In the last four decades. The 22nd Amendment was a well-deserved retrospective slap at FDR. It is typical of the depths to which the GOP has fallen in the last few years that Republicans have been actually muttering about joining the effort to repeal this amendment. If they are successful, then Ronald Reagan might be elected again, and reelected well into the 21st century.
In our age of High Tech, I’m sure that his mere physical death could easily have been overcome by his handlers and media mavens. Ronald Reagan will be suitably mummified, trotted out in front of a giant American flag, and some puppet master would have gotten him to give his winsome headshake and some ventriloquist would have imitated the golden tones: “We-e-ell…” (Why not? After all, the living reality of the last four years has not been a helluva lot different.)
Perhaps, after all, Ronald Reagan and almost all the rest of us will finally get our fondest wish: the election forever and ever of the mummified con King Ronnie.
If only…:
At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.
He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.
The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.
As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.
Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.
“Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” the prime minister said.
via BBC News – State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron.
Today the U.K. —- Tomorrow the United States… hopefully.
We could start be deporting the non-citizen Muslims. Then, forbid them from building any new Mosques. Then declare Islam not to be a Religion, but a political philosophy and outlaw it here in America and then deport all who practice it.
One can dream, can’t he? 😀
Others: Power Line, Questions and Observations, UrbanGrounds, Cubachi, and Jay Currie
I have been meaning to write about this for a few days; but there were other things to write about and this one got cast aside.
I was going to put this one under the whole “Living Proof that liberals are classless assholes” banner. But this one just was just too great, too awful, too nasty.
It appears that Keith Olbermann has some sort of inbred hatred of our United States Military. Now why would I make such a wild accusation as that? For this reason:
Ed Driscoll, who is a Vietnam Vet wrote the following about Keith Olbermann in the Boston Globe:
I AM very happy that Keith Olbermann is no longer on MSNBC. I participated in more than 10 combat missions in Vietnam, so I know a mission is not a war. Someone should have told that to Olbermann, as he demonstrated his ignorance by equating the two for years on his show.
He would end by saying it has been so many days since President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished’’ in Iraq. Bush never said that. Olbermann was referring to a sign on an aircraft carrier that said “Mission Accomplished.’’ The president declared an end to major combat operations, and therefore the aircraft carrier was headed home.
In Bush’s speech, he said that much work has yet to be done. The sign was for the brave people who had completed their mission.
Olbermann can take the money and run. I don’t care where.
A gentle ribbing towards someone who, if anyone, had the right to say that; after all he was a military officer. Well, not to Keith, who hates anything remotely Military — this was his response: (H/T Nice Deb)
How Keith REALLY feels about our Military
That’s right, Keith believes that people that serve in our Military are dumb. This goes along with the whole mentality that whole idea, by the so-called enlightened liberals that most Military people are simple minded Conservatives who are too stupid to think for themselves. You see, Keith does not have his network bosses to answer to any longer, so, now he can spew his far leftist hatred of all things American; including our Military.
As some of you know and you can know this by searching this blog; I used to hold Keith Olbermann in very high regard. I was, at one point, a regular watcher of Keith’s show. That is, until he started with the intellectual dishonesty and straight up lying about everything under the sun. Well, writing about something is not enough, one must put their money where their mouth is.
So, as of this morning. I have removed the one book that Keith Olbermann wrote off of my Blog’s Bookstore. Unfortunately, I could not remove the one book itself. I had to remove the sections about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Most of it was filled with Anti-Bush and Anti-Cheney books anyhow. I realize that it might not be that big of a deal, not many people buy anything from my Bookstore anyhow. However, with me. It is a personal decision; that I just will not support someone, who is taken to insulting our Military. This is a personal issue with me; it always has been, as I have had family members who served. This is why I have “Lost my shit”, so to speak, in the past, when people have insulted the Military in the Paleo-Conservative circles.
So, Keith, if you happened to even read this; You sir, are history in my book. You just do not insult Military officers, whether active or inactive. Not around me at least. You sir, are no better than the anti-war protesters in the 1960’s who spat upon and mocked the soldiers coming out of Vietnam. In fact, your little smart-assed tweet was, as far as this writer is concerned; was in fact, a virtual spit in the face of a Solider who served proudly in our Military.
For this sir, you are remanded to dustbin of history, as far as I am concerned. You sir are just another Anti-American socialist, who happened to get rich by spewing your lies and bigotry — all the while railing against the very capitalist system that made you rich. Which is a picture perfect example of the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal left. I do hope that you enjoy that money, that in all honesty, you do not deserve to own; and if you just happen to get lucky enough to land another job as a talking head somewhere else. I will be here to blog against your idiotic nonsense. Because as a former “Left of Center,” I am appalled to where you and your communist-lite friends have taken the party that my grandparents and parents voted and still do vote for.
Further more, I find your attacks against our Military sickening and I will be one of many, who will continue to attack you, for your idiotic political viewpoints; until you finally retire and eventually die relieving this Nation of your moronic bombast and empty headed pontifications.
I may be only a small cog in this machine that we call America; but I am a damned good one!
This comes via The Daily Paul:
For the record, I never supported that so-called “law to keep us safe…”
Just a short message to the two social conservatives fighting it out with the others at hotair.com.
Come here; you are more than welcomed at my blog. I agree with you guys, 100%!
Here’s an example of how I feel about that subject.
Again, as long as you keep it civil, you are more than welcomed here.
Please Note: The posting of this video does not constitute an endorsement of views presented in this video. It is simply posted for information purposes only.
—-
In this issue of the reality report: The Egyptian Revolution triggered a government shutdown of the web. Could it happen here? Is the internet kill switch back on the congressional table? If the Feds shut down the web in the United States how could “We the People” get around the internet blackout? Gary Franchi reveals what tools you need to bypass a Government sponsored internet blockade. In this edition, Ron Paul explains the how the Federal Reserve works outside of congress’ constitutional framework. We also look at Senator Chuck Schumer failing miserably while explaining the three branches of government. Beautiful words are uttered from the lips of the Florida attorney general about Obamacare. President and founder of Freedom Law School, Peymon Montehedeh, gives us the details on this years’ Freedom Conference, and we announce a new action taking place in March. We’ll take a dip into the mailbag, deliver the results of last week’s poll, a viewer brands a new Enemy of the State… and Nina returns to deliver the Headlines from the new Reality Report News Room.
But rather a big Government Rockefeller Neo-Conservative; which is essentially a Democrat in GOP clothing.
Besides the Iraqi Invasion; Besides the bailouts…. there is this:
First the Video: (H/T HotAir)
That’s George W. Bush’s daughter Barbara, legitimizing the Sodomite lifestyle.
Not only this, there is this quotable quote from President George W. Bush — Sodomite lifestyle enabler — himself from Associated Baptist News:
In discussing a meeting he had with Texas evangelist and one-time Southern Baptist leader James Robison, for example, Bush reportedly confided in Wead, “I think he wants me to attack homosexuals.” But, the future president said, he told Robison: “‘Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I’m not going to kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?’”
Bush also expresses concern over an aide’s report from a Christian Coalition meeting, according to the Times article. Reading from the report, he told Wead, “‘This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.’”
“This is an issue I have been trying to downplay,” Bush continued. “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”
That quote alone; proves to this Fundamentalist Baptist Christian, who is also a Paleo-Conservative — that George W. Bush was never a true-blue Conservative. But rather a liberal in G.O.P. clothing.
Here is the story via the NYT:
The Bush dynasty is no stranger to generational conflict: father and son differed over deposing Saddam Hussein, raising taxes and the role of the United Nations.
Now it is father and daughter who find themselves at odds over a weighty issue.
Barbara Bush, one of the twin daughters of George W. Bush, will endorse same-sex marriage on Tuesday, publicly breaking ranks with a father who, as president, pushed for a constitutional amendment banning such unions.
Ms. Bush, 29, has taped a video calling on New York to legalize gay marriage. A bill to do that was defeated in the state in 2009. She describes the issue as a matter of conscience and equality.
“I am Barbara Bush, and I am a New Yorker for marriage equality,” she says in the brief message, sponsored by an advocacy group. “New York is about fairness and equality. And everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love.”
The video ends with Ms. Bush, who lives in Manhattan, imploring the state’s residents to “join us.”
Ms. Bush is the latest child of a prominent Republican leader to embrace same-sex marriage, long considered anathema to the conservative movement. Gay rights advocates have been quick to seize on the generational split as evidence that the acceptance of same-sex marriage is blind to party affiliation and family values.
I think it would be wise for the Conservative Christian movement to rise as one and say, “Never Again!” to electing a man based upon family pedigree and to elected someone who does not pass muster or a good vetting by the Conservative Christian movement.
Further more, let me say this; this movement of the Conservative Republicans away from traditional family values is troubling. I say this without shame at all; I am a Conservative Christian, in the sense that I do support traditional family values. However, I do not believe in the use of any sort of Government of imposing my beliefs on anyone else. That is what Muslims do with Sharia Law — and I do not support that at all. However, for the daughter of a so-called “Conservative Republican” to come out and support a law such as this, is totally repugnant and should show all parties concerned, just what sort of a Conservative that the Bush dynasty really was. In this sense; and only in this sense, Pastor Chuck Baldwin was absolutely correct.
I believe that all Conservative Christians in the 2012 elections should really prayerfully consider the persons running in the Republican primaries and if the persons running for President do not pass muster; do not vote for them, at all.
We as Conservative Christians must decide what our allegiances are to; to the Republican Party or to the the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. There is no middle ground, choose your side today.
I saw this on Facebook. Enjoy….:
So, liberals — is this what you call civility?
Posted on liveleak, in case it disappears:
From the Comments section of the video:
RACISTS like this, are begging for war. Let’s give them one. It is 220,000,000 white people, against 37,000,000 blacks. You know what a genocide looks like? You don’t, because there is no one left, to remember it. Be? smart, though. Let them, make the first violent moves. Let the people, see their violence. Let them give us a reason. Be patient. Do not move, as an individual. Wait. Keep giving them rope, they need, to hang themselves. LOL!!!
A-Farking-Amen. 😡
(H/T Michelle Malkin)
This is from 1972 with Elvis Presley:
So the truth comes out!
This comes via Bare Naked Islam:
Looks like this situation is a bit more complicated than many first thought.
Looks like this is going to turn out to be a very interesting story.
But, as a Paleo-Conservative, I simply say, this is what happens when American involves itself in foreign entanglements. This is that blowback; and Israel is going to suffer for it.
Since its creation in 1913, the primary intended role of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank has been that of protector. In theory, the central bank was bestowed with the power to shape monetary policy in a way that would keep both booms and busts in check. The two main tools at its disposal — interest rates and money creation — would provide a “ceiling of normalcy” above expansions AND a “net of safety” below contractions.
To this day, the financial mainstream holds great faith in the Fed’s ability to fulfill its save-the-day duties — as these recent news items make plain:
But of all the variables the Fed creators took into account, there’s one glaring factor they neglected to consider: Namely, it cannot force consumers to spend, creditors to lend, or businesses to borrow. The events of 2007-2009 “credit crunch” and the subsequent “Great Recession” made that obvious. Remember how the government was upset at banks for sitting on the bailout funds instead of lending them out to consumers? And consumers weren’t exactly lining up on the street to get a loan, either.
The Fed’s inability to change social mood is the central theme in Chapter 13 of EWI President Bob Prechter’s NY Times business bestseller book Conquer the Crash. There, Bob describes the Fed’s strategy of lowering the federal funds rate to stimulate spending to be as effective as “pushing on a string.” Writes Bob:
“The primary basis for today’s belief in perpetual prosperity and inflation with an occasional recession is what I call the ‘Potent Directors Fallacy.’ It is nearly impossible to find a treatise on macroeconomics today that does not assert or assume that the Federal Reserve Board has learned to control both our money and our economy. Many believe that it also possesses the immense power to manipulate the stock market. The very idea that it can do these things is false.”
And so begins one of the most groundbreaking studies into the very real INABILITY of the Fed to fell the great bears of economic declines, or to feed the great bulls of economic vigor.
The best part is, you can read Chapter 13 of Conquer the Crash in its entirety FREE via a Club EWI resource “You Can Survive And Prosper In A Deflationary Depression.” The free report also includes SEVEN other chapters of Conquer the Crash that shed equal light on some of the most misleading notions of mainstream economic wisdom.
Keep reading this free report now — all you need to do is create a free Club EWI profile.
Our first flick comes from The coalition of the swilling: (H/T to HotAir.com’s resident Beta Male)
If that is not enough to wet your whistle, how an radio ad of Chris Christie trying to lure Illinois Businesses to….you guessed it, New Jersey: (Via Eyeblast)
I’ll tell you, this might just the guy for the Republican 2012 nomination. The office of the President of the United States is a heavy job. But, isn’t that right up Christie’s alley?
Well, we can count this guy out:
U.S. Rep. Mike Pence shut the door today on a run for the presidency, but left wide open the likelihood that he’ll seek a different office: Governor of Indiana.
“In the choice between seeking national office and serving Indiana in some capacity, we choose Indiana,” Pence, R-Columbus, said of himself and wife Karen in a letter being sent to supporters. “We will not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.”
He said he would make a decision “later this year” about what his next political step is, but by not running for president it is considered a virtual certainty that he will run for the GOP nomination for governor. While he could, instead, run for a seventh term in Congress, that’s not considered likely given that Pence gave up the job that would have made him the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House after the November elections, in order to focus on other political opportunities.
via Rep. Mike Pence closes door on White House run | The Indianapolis Star | IndyStar.com.
AllahPundit, as always, frets:
Needless to say, a big reason for the “Draft Pence” push in recent weeks was some social cons being uncomfortable with Palin or Huckabee as the nominee. Where do those people turn now?
To be quite honest, if all the social cons have to choose from is Huckabee and Palin; then that speaks to the sorry condition of the GOP in this day and age. I would say Mitt Romney, but the Evangelical Christians loathe him. As a Fundamentalist Baptist, I can tell you that I am not too big on the idea of a Mormon being in the White House at all. What I really believe personally is that the Republican Party needs to focus on fiscal issues and leave the social cons out of the mix in 2012. Because honestly, that crowd is so darned fickle anyways, not to mention the rank hypocrisy that comes from those ranks. I mean, just look at Palin, rode in on the white horse of social Conservatism and a few weeks later, her daughter comes up pregnant.
The simple solution is Tim Pawlenty. He is a fiscal Conservative, he is not a extremist and his family is not a reality show. I personally believe he would be a good choice for the G.O.P. in 2012. Here is hoping that Tim runs in 2012, because for once, I would like to vote for a Republican, that actually acts like one and not some made beltway boy or some right wing extremist or a talk show reality star. I want a real CEO type, that will make decisions to help small business and people like me find jobs again.
We need to put America back to work. We cannot do that with a shrieking harpy glamor model who’s got a reality show; that somehow believes that she is entitled to be President, because of her sex organs —- nor can we do that with a Democrat with a Bible who is prone to extremism.
Nite folks! See you in the morning…. 😀
