This blog is no longer active as of October 31, 2011
To be Fair, Mark Levin has a point about Ron Paul.
and… (H/T HotAir)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
To be quite honest. I do not like Scarborough, at all. He is, in my humble opinion, an sneering elitist prick. Same goes for that ditsy blond bitch sidekick of his. Yeah, I’d say that RHINO applies in Scarborough’s case.
Let’s face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S. population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know what it’s like to not have some sort of “supercenter” nearby with shelves stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a megabuck obsession.
Modern living within the world’s only “superpower” has created a giant unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect the government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores stocked, our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the desire to make government the panacea for all our problems, we have sold not only our independence, but also our virtue.
Where the federal government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to accept limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it has become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority over virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the process, it decided it didn’t need God, either.
It is no hyperbole to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a “Ban God” bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer and Bible reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying in Jesus’ name, burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court chief justices from their positions for posting the Ten Commandments, or threatens high school principals with jail for asking the blessing, the federal government has invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our country as surely as did Old Testament Israel.
Although the comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren’t paying attention, this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot believe. For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.
First of all, Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I’m not concentrating on the “why” or “who’s right or wrong” of the equation. I’m simply telling you, war between Israel and Iran could break out at any time. And when it does, the chances that it will not become nuclear and not become global are miniscule. Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear war have never been greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO, could become a reality in these United States in the very near future. (I strongly urge readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO and watch them, because this could be our future.)
Secondly, America is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of this year, America’s budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion. The debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the coffin for America’s fiscal health will be the decision by China to dump the U.S. dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the death knell for our financial stability (and a painful lesson in sowing and reaping).
It is estimated that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and when China dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America will be thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is planning to dump the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing and stockpiling gold at an unprecedented level. This is why gold has suddenly surged to over $1,000 per ounce and why it will continue to rise.)
Third, the paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both government and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of “government solution.” If they keep hyping this “pandemic,” mass hysteria and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in the media) will result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form of forced vaccination, quarantine (maybe this is what all those internment camps will be used for), and martial law.
Exactly how and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next few months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And most Americans are totally unprepared for what’s coming.
If you are able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your lifestyle in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you don’t have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some sort of preserved food pantry, do it. If you don’t have some kind of survival plan in place for you and your family, get one. If you are not physically fit, get in shape. If you are able to move to a more secure, out-of-harm’s-way location, do it. (During any kind of financial or societal meltdown, urban areas will quickly turn into war zones. Can anyone say, “New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina”?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube, get your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.
Am I worried or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The potential good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God will protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government is revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal government is far, far away. You know, like America’s Founding Fathers did 233 years ago.
In the meantime, get ready. It’s going to be a rocky road.
(Source)
I hope that Michelle does not see this headline; she will kill me. 😛 😉 😀
The last thing you’d expect Michelle Malkin to be is charming, funny, or vulnerable.
As an agent provocateur of the hard right—blogger, newspaper columnist, Fox News contributor and, for the past six weeks, queen of the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list—she can project a certain grim, off-putting intensity. In recent appearances on The View and the Today show to hype her latest anti-liberal screed—Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies—she was, by turns, shrill and smug, occasionally disciplining an unruly interrogator with a schoolmarmish “Read the book!” And unlike Ann Coulter, whose more outrageous remarks are usually mitigated by a sly grin, nobody ever wonders if Michelle Malkin is for real.
She is, unmistakably, dead serious.
So who is this softspoken, self-deprecating woman talking to me on the phone?
“I’m a human being,” Malkin says from her home in tranquil Colorado Springs (tranquil, except for the shrieking of Air Force jets—“the sound of freedom,” Malkin says), far, far away from the media-political complex. “I mean, every once in a while it might get under my skin. But I can’t stop ad hominem attacks against me.”
The interview is an interesting read. Michelle Malkin is an interesting person. With me, it is mainly how she can be such a salvo and still consider herself a Christian. Much of that is answered; she is a Roman Catholic. Catholics are basically taught that they can do whatever they please; They just have to confess it to a Priest. That, we Protestant Christians know, is a load of bunk; as is all of Roman Catholicism. You do not believe me? Just ask all the kids that have been molested in Catholic schools.
Yes, I know, I am a bit of Salvo myself. I have standards though; Michelle has vendettas against the Liberal Socialists. I do not. I simply go out of my way to challenge their line of thinking. As I do, to a point with the extreme far right as well. —– I would go toe to toe with some George W. Bush worshiping boob, just as quick as I would some socialist. The difference with me is; it is never personal. With Michelle, it is. Contrary to what some might think, that read this blog. I am nowhere and I mean nowhere near to the right as Michelle Malkin. There are some, whom I have chatted with that accuse her of being partisan. Call me crazy, call me whatever; but I just do not see that in Michelle. I read her blog almost daily. I have seen her heave salvos at the Republican Party just as harsh, if not worse, as she has at the Democrats.
One thing what annoys me about her is this. When she fires off these salvos of hers and she gets threats; she runs. That is, in my humble opinion, a textbook example of cowardice. If I were in Michelle’s position and had her degree of visibility. I would be standing out on the front lawn of my house, with my guns loaded saying “Bring it the fuck on!” I mean, I know she’s got kids; but freakin’ Sweet baby Jesus on a carousel already! —– Put the damn kids in the basement with Jesse and get the fucking AK-47 and fight for your damn self already! Sorry, no offense intended; just a slight annoyance of mine. In other words, if going to talk smack about the Socialists; back your stuff up! Just saying, that’s all. 😀
One thing I will give Michelle Malkin credit for is this; it was her reporting of the socialist pigs, who thought they would be cool and pour cutting oil on the Vietnam War memorial in Washington D.C. that basically made me decide that enough was basically enough and that I had enough of the Democratic Party and the way they disrespect our Military. I mean, I am all for helping the middle class and helping the poor; but our Military is just somewhere; that you just do not tread with me. My uncle served in Vietnam and members of my family served in World War II. I would have served myself, if I would have completed high school. I did not, so, I cannot serve. But I can, and will defend them on this blog to my damned dying breath. This reason and a host of many others; including this previous election and my blogging about it, has really put me to the right of where I was, when I first started out. Michelle Malkin does deserve some credit and a bit of thanks for this.
Heh. I loved David Letterman’s Reaction to that Statement; it was like “Oh man… where do I go from here?”
Quote:
Addressing suggestions that recent criticism of his health care reform efforts has been grounded in racism, President Obama this afternoon quipped, “I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.”
The comment, which the president made in an afternoon taping of CBS’ “The Late Show,” promoted laughter from the audenice and this response from host David Letterman: “How long have you been a black man?”
Mr. Obama said the notion that racism is playing a role in the criticism, which has been voiced by former President Jimmy Carter and others, is countered in part by the fact that he was elected in the first place – which, he said, “tells you a lot about where the country’s at.”
“One of the things that you sign up for in politics is that folks yell at you,” the president said, noting that “whenever a president tries to bring about significant changes, particularly during times of economic unease, there is a certain segment of the population that gets very riled up.” He pointed to the experiences of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as examples.
I have to give the President a little credit. He does have a good sense of humor; and he did handle the question of racism in a very classy manner. He also said something that I thought was very true and that was when you get into politics, you do sign up for people to yell at you. So, I think he knows what he got into and at least he is honest about it.
He also expressed some honesty, which is a bit of nice change:
The appearance was not all jokes; Mr. Obama said that the economy was improving but that employment was lagging behind.
“Unemployment is still going to be a big problem for at least another year,” he said, though he insisted the economy would emerge “stronger than before.”
On Afghanistan, the president said that he will not make a decision whether to send more troops until he decides on a strategy following a comprehensive review. The top commander in Iraq has warned that more troops are needed for the U.S. to have a chance to emerge victorious.
Asked by Letterman about the wisdom of the war in Iraq, Mr. Obama said, “because Saddam Hussein is not there, that’s a good thing. He was somebody who certainly had aspirations to cause a lot of trouble.”
Mr. Obama added, however, that “that given the enormous stakes we had in Afghanistan, we should have finished the job there.”
I cannot honestly find fault in any of what I quoted. The President is not making any rapid fire decisions. He is taking his time with the situation and that is a change of pace. As I wrote before; the whole Iraq and Afpac War is a huge challenge and making off the cuff decisions is not a wise move. I just hope he does not lose his nerve to fight.
No matter how you slice this; this report does not look good at all.
Now before I quote this; let’s be really clear here. Bob Woodward is not known for telling the truth. Some of the tall tales told in his books, even made the harshest Bush critics wonder, if he was not making stuff up.
Anyhow, Quoting the Washington Post:
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal concludes the document’s five-page Commander’s Summary on a note of muted optimism: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”
But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.
However, there are some problems in that region and they are:
The assessment offers an unsparing critique of the failings of the Afghan government, contending that official corruption is as much of a threat as the insurgency to the mission of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, as the U.S.-led NATO coalition is widely known.
“The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government,” McChrystal says.
The result has been a “crisis of confidence among Afghans,” he writes. “Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.”
McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.”
McChrystal continues: “Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population.”
Coalition intelligence-gathering has focused on how to attack insurgents, hindering “ISAF’s comprehension of the critical aspects of Afghan society.”
In a four-page annex on detainee operations, McChrystal warns that the Afghan prison system has become “a sanctuary and base to conduct lethal operations” against the government and coalition forces. He cites as examples an apparent prison connection to the 2008 bombing of the Serena Hotel in Kabul and other attacks. “Unchecked, Taliban/Al Qaeda leaders patiently coordinate and plan, unconcerned with interference from prison personnel or the military.”
The assessment says that Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents “represent more than 2,500 of the 14,500 inmates in the increasingly overcrowded Afghan Corrections System,” in which “[h]ardened, committed Islamists are indiscriminately mixed with petty criminals and sex offenders, and they are using the opportunity to radicalize and indoctrinate them.”
and….:
McChrystal identifies three main insurgent groups “in order of their threat to the mission” and provides significant details about their command structures and objectives.
The first is the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) headed by Mullah Omar, who fled Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and operates from the Pakistani city of Quetta.
“At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Omar announces his guidance and intent for the coming year,” according to the assessment.
Mullah Omar’s insurgency has established an elaborate alternative government known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, McChrystal writes, which is capitalizing on the Afghan government’s weaknesses. “They appoint shadow governors for most provinces, review their performance, and replace them periodically. They established a body to receive complaints against their own ‘officials’ and to act on them. They install ‘shari’a’ [Islamic law] courts to deliver swift and enforced justice in contested and controlled areas. They levy taxes and conscript fighters and laborers. They claim to provide security against a corrupt government, ISAF forces, criminality, and local power brokers. They also claim to protect Afghan and Muslim identity against foreign encroachment.”
“The QST has been working to control Kandahar and its approaches for several years and there are indications that their influence over the city and neighboring districts is significant and growing,” McChrystal writes.
The second main insurgency group is the Haqqani network (HQN), which is active in southeastern Afghanistan and draws money and manpower “principally from Pakistan, Gulf Arab networks, and from its close association with al Qaeda and other Pakistan-based insurgent groups.” At another point in the assessment, McChrystal says, “Al Qaeda’s links with HQN have grown, suggesting that expanded HQN control could create a favorable environment” for associated extremist movements “to re-establish safe-havens in Afghanistan.”
The third is the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin insurgency, which maintains bases in three Afghan provinces “as well as Pakistan,” the assessment says. This network, led by the former mujaheddin commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, “aims to negotiate a major role in a future Taliban government. He does not currently have geographical objectives as is the case with the other groups,” though he “seeks control of mineral wealth and smuggling routes in the east.”
Overall, McChrystal provides this conclusion about the enemy: “The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of ISAF presence. . . . “
The insurgents make money from the production and sale of opium and other narcotics, but the assessment says that “eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits — even if possible, and while disruptive — would not destroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact.”
While the insurgency is predominantly Afghan, McChrystal writes that it “is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan’s ISI,” which is its intelligence service. Al-Qaeda and other extremist movements “based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.”
McCrystal’s Plan is:
The general says his command is “not adequately executing the basics” of counterinsurgency by putting the Afghan people first. “ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army,” he writes. “Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages.”
He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending “as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases.” Strengthening Afghans’ sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, but the coalition “cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people.”
McChrystal warns that in the short run, it “is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase.”
He proposes speeding the growth of Afghan security forces. The existing goal is to expand the army from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011. McChrystal seeks to move that deadline to October 2010.
Overall, McChrystal wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached.
He also calls for “radically more integrated and partnered” work with Afghan units.
McChrystal says the military must play an active role in reconciliation, winning over less committed insurgent fighters. The coalition “requires a credible program to offer eligible insurgents reasonable incentives to stop fighting and return to normalcy, possibly including the provision of employment and protection,” he writes.
Coalition forces will have to learn that “there are now three outcomes instead of two” for enemy fighters: not only capture or death, but also “reintegration.”
Again and again, McChrystal makes the case that his command must be bolstered if failure is to be averted. “ISAF requires more forces,” he states, citing “previously validated, yet un-sourced, requirements” — an apparent reference to a request for 10,000 more troops originally made by McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan.
The most sobering part is this:
Toward the end of his report, McChrystal revisits his central theme: “Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.”
There is doubt about it; this war is not going to be a cakewalk, just like Iraq was not. The question on everyone’s mind is this, will President Obama have the political nerve to keep fighting this war? To defeat all of these groups and the ultimate goal —– Al Qeada.
Peter Feaver over at Foreign Policy’s Blog Shadow Government offers the following assessment:
1. It is not good to have a document like this leaked into the public debate before the President has made his decision. Whether you favor ramping up or ramping down or ramping laterally, as a process matter, the Commander-in-Chief ought to be able to conduct internal deliberations on sensitive matters without it appearing concurrently on the front pages of the Post. I assume the Obama team is very angry about this, and I think they have every right to be.
2. A case could be made that the Obama team tempted fate by authorizing Bob Woodward to travel with General Jones (cf. “whisky, tango, foxtrot”) in the first place and then sitting on this report for nearly a month without a White House response. You cannot swing a dead cat in Washington without meeting someone who was briefed on at least part of the McChrystal assessment, and virtually every one of those folks is mystified as to why the White House has not responded as of yet. The White House will have to respond now, but I stand by my first point: leaks like this make it harder to for the Commander-in-Chief to do deliberate national security planning.
3. Without knowing the provenance of the leak, it is impossible to state with confidence what the motives were. For my part, I would guess that this leak is an indication that some on the Obama team are dismayed at the White House’s slow response and fear that this is an indication that President Obama is leaning towards rejecting the inevitable requests for additional U.S. forces that this report tees up. By this logic, the leak is designed to force his hand and perhaps even to tie his hands.
4. The leak makes it harder for President Obama to reject a McChrystal request for additional troops because the assessment so clearly argues for them. The formal request is in a separate document, apparently, but it is foreshadowed on every page of the Initial Assessment. Presumably, the McChrystal assessment and request is shared by Petraeus and, I am told, also by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That does not make it irrefutably correct, but it does make this issue now the defining moment in civil-military relations under President Obama’s watch. Obama has the authority and the responsibility to make a decision that runs counter to what his military leaders are requesting, but it is a very difficult thing for him to do.
5. The toughest part in the report from the point of view of the Obama White House is the twin claim that (i) under-resourcing the war could cause the war to be lost, and (ii) the resources need to show up in the next year. The former puts the responsibility for success/failure squarely on the desk of the President and the latter, because of the long lead times needed to send additional resources into the theater, says that failure could result from choices made or not made in the next few weeks. And it said that a few weeks ago.
6. Paradoxically, however, the report does not make it impossible for President Obama to reject the likely military request for additional forces. Because the report is so candid about all of the challenges we face in Afghanistan, many of the arguments against additional forces are substantiated somewhere in the report: the myriad failures of the Afghan government, the self-defeating restrictions imposed on NATO forces, etc. The only anti-surge argument that I have not seen substantiated (though I read this quickly, so I may have missed something) is the extraordinarily seductive one that suggests we can afford to simply walk away from Afghanistan and conduct “off-shore-counter-terrorism-operations” indefinitely.
7. This document will remind anyone who worked on the issue of the internal debate over the surge strategy in Iraq circa Fall 2006. While the Bush administration Iraq Strategy Review did not produce a 66-page report that leaked, we covered much this same terrain and wrestled with many of the same thorny trade-offs and uncertain bets. The report is basically calling for an Iraq-type surge gambit, asking President Obama to do more or less what President Bush did in 2007: (i) change the strategy, (ii) adequately resource the new strategy, and (iii) overcome the strong domestic political opposition to doing (i) and (ii). If successful, the McChrystal assessment claims that this will buy time to allow for a safer eventual shift back to a train and transition strategy. It will not win the war in the short-run, but it will shift the trajectory of the war and allow for the possibility that our side can prevail in the long run. This is eerily similar to how the pro-surge group within the Bush team thought of the Iraq surge.
The question that one must ask. Is this all really worth it? The normal reflexive answer would be yes. Because we must acknowledge that those people that died in those Trade Centers, The Pentagon, and in PA; died because our Government’s attitude towards Terrorism and National Security had become lax. —– In other words, we were caught with our proverbial pants down.
My question to the President is this; are you sir, going to allow a group of far left wing, socialists dictate your foreign policy? Are you going to allow the Nation to drift back into a September 10’th mentality? I mean, because the FBI has already nabbed a group of people in New York; that had intentions to make another strike. Because I can tell you right now, Mr. President; If you abandon this fight, they will strike again, and next time, it will not be with planes. It will be much worse. That is not Neo-Conservative hype; that is, my friends, reality of the situation at hand.
What needs to happen is this; President Obama needs to wrap up in Iraq; as soon as possible. Once this is complete, President Obama needs to refocus his strategy on this war. It is not going to be easy. Some say this could be President Obama’s Vietnam. Which I happen to think is a line of balderdash. Vietnam failed; for one, because the media outright LIED about our progress in the Tet offensive and because President Johnson did not have the gonads to stand up to the left wing of the Democratic Party and inform them, that they did not run the White House and that he did! Instead he folded and said he would not run for reelection. This gave way to embarrassing defeat of the South in Vietnam and caused us to have to leave in shame.
President Obama must stand up and lead. He must shrug off the left wing of his Party and fight this war, until these issues are resolved. Yes, there will be casualties; this happens in war, get used to it people. We must stand and fight; other wise, the 2,996 people who perished, will have perished in vain.
Others from all sides of the political area: ABCNEWS, The Cable, Marc Lynch, The Atlantic Politics Channel, Swampland, New York Times, Salon, Guardian, msnbc.com, The Washington Independent, The Daily Dish, FiveThirtyEight, Counterterrorism Blog, David Rothkopf, Hullabaloo, Registan.net, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Mudville Gazette, The New Republic, Newshoggers.com, MoJo Sections, Foreign Policy, BBC, The Washington Note, At-Largely, Achenblog, Daily Kos, Classical Values, Think Progress, The Atlanticist, The Foundry, Danger Room, Weekly Standard, LiveWire, Wonk Room, democracyarsenal.org, Below The Beltway, SWJ Blog, PoliBlog, The Anchoress, The BLT, Hot Air, Flopping Aces, MoJo Blog Posts, Center For Defense Studies, Christian Science Monitor, The Faster Times, EU Referendum, The Opinionator, Crooks and Liars, Outside The Beltway, BLACKFIVE, QandO, Political Punch, Commentary, Shakesville, Truthdig, Firedoglake, Washington Monthly, Don Surber and Taylor Marsh and more via Memeorandum
There has been quite a bit of discussion about this story in the Blogosphere already. Most of it has focused on the way that the White House handled the situation; which I will admit was less than professional. But the thing that I want to focus on, is why this is even happening.
First off, let us look at the New York Times Story:
Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.
Appearing tired and agitated at a parade in Harlem on Sunday, the governor told a crowd of reporters that he would not abandon his campaign to seek a full term.
“I have said time and time again that I am running for governor next year,” he said at the 40th annual African-American Day Parade.
Mr. Paterson would not characterize what he was told by the White House, saying that he would not “discuss confidential conversations.”
“I’m not talking about any specific conversations,” he said. “As I said, I am running for office.”
President Obama had sent a request to Mr. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation.
The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.
“Is there concern about the situation in New York? Absolutely,” the second administration official said Saturday evening. “Has that concern been conveyed to the governor? Yes.”
The administration officials and the Democratic operative spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with the governor were intended to be confidential.
First off the confidentiality part got blown out of the water, and the President’s communication went public. I believe that part was totally intentional. It basically was done to send a message to Governor; one of “Hey, you idiot! Get out of the race, because you are going to lose!” That is pretty much a given.
My question is this; why all of the sudden are Democrats or more specifically the President of the United States asking the Governor of New York to drop out of an election race? I have an idea, and part of my explaining that reason is in this video, please watch it: (H/T HotAir)
Is it clear to you now? Well, in case it is not. I will explain. We Conservatives have taken control of the conversation. When I say “we”, I mean, the Conservative media, like Glenn Beck, who’s really an Independent; Bill O’Reilly, Who is a traditionalist and the rest of the talk radio world. Plus, you have the Conservative Blogosphere who were the forerunners in this fight. We were criticizing the President and polices from day one! The old media finally caught to us, oh, around three months later! This is why I had the screaming fit at Jim Hoft for linking to that site! We have seized the ship and taken the wheel away from the socialist media; we cannot afford to screw it up!
We have the Democrats running scared; and when I say “We”, I mean everyone that is involved in this operation, the Conservative media, like Fox News and all of the little media guys, The Conservative Blogosphere; who have been on this President’s butt since the day he botched up the oath of office. The rest of America; after watching the stimulus basically flop and the economy not recover, after watching the Government bailout the big two (and not the big three; Ford did not take any money…) and assume control of these companies, and after those employees, like my Father, watched their Dental and Optical benefits disappear, after working 31 hard years for that Company. —– Those people are starting to pay attention to the situation and are wondering, “Hey, what on earth is going on here??” and let’s not even get into that whole Healthcare debacle! —- They were promised change, and so far, they have gotten nothing. Nothing but trillions of dollars of debt, that their grandchildren and great-grand children will paying for, for the rest of their lives.
The sad part about all this is that the Democrats have about used every trick in the book to stop this movement; and have failed horribly. First, it was the tactic of the Bush Administration; of calling everyone that is opposed to Obama’s polices as being Anti-American. Then they trotted out the fear card, saying that we who were against Obama were stirring up violent tendencies among the people. Now they have trotted out their last refuge and that is the race card. In fact, the Democrats have used that race card, so much in fact that now even the Associated Press is basically saying, “Um, Guys? You are overplaying that defense.” Even African-Americans are even starting cringe. The sad part is, that is all they have, and now as you can see, they are on the run.
So, what happens now? Do we quit? Oh, heaven’s no. We keep fighting; Bloggers keep writing, Fox News and the media guys keep reporting, keep being critical of the President. It never ends, until the battle is over in 2012, and even then; whomever is elected, we criticize them too. That is what a Constitutional Republic with a free press does, and we Blogging folk, we are the independent, non-corporate media. The sixth estate, if you will. We keep the Murdoch, the G.E. and the turner empires honest. If they fall down on the job, we call them on it. That goes for Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or whomever else is not doing their jobs properly.
We are in the battle of our lives, for our Country, for our freedoms. We must not quit, we must not grow faint. We must carry on.
“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:” (Ephesians 6:10-17 King James Version of the Bible)
Two things.
First, I have had to remove Gateway Pundit from my Blogroll; at least for the time being. Jim posted another story of another White kid getting beat up by black kids. My issue with it is this; He linked a Blog covering the story; that is run by the The Council of Conservative Citizens. In the interest of full disclosure; When I was still calling myself a Paleo-Conservative, I used to read this blog, quite a bit. I know what their motivation is, that is hate. Hate of the black race, period. I cannot and will not defend that at all.
As much as I know that Charles Johnson’s smearing of Pamela Geller was totally wrong; as much as I know that Charles Johnson’s smearing of Robert Stacy McCain in attempt to get to Michelle Malkin and HotAir.com was wrong, I just cannot and will not justify Jim’s linking to a known hate site. I want to believe that Jim Hoft is not a racist; he could help that belief by removing that link reference. But I do not expect that to happen.
For those that might have an issue with this, here are the principles of The Council of Conservative Citizens…. I will bold the troublesome parts, for me at least:
The American men and women who make up the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) believe in, commit themselves to, and pledge to work for and support these fundamental principles of American civilization, liberty, justice, and national safety:
(1) We believe the United States is a Christian country. We believe that the United States of America is a Christian country, that its people are a Christian people, and that its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian beliefs and values. We therefore oppose all efforts to deny or weaken the Christian heritage of the United States, including the unconstitutional prohibitions of prayers and other religious expression in schools and other public institutions.
(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.
(3) The United States is a sovereign and independent nation. We believe the United States is a sovereign and independent nation, that our independence as a nation is the most precious legacy of our Founding Fathers, and that all treaties, agreements, conventions, international organizations, and institutions must recognize and respect our national sovereignty and independence. We therefore oppose the so-called “New World Order” and its attempts to abolish national sovereignty and independence and to construct a one-world state in which America would vanish and Americans would be enslaved. We call for the U.S. government to withdraw from membership in the United Nations, the World Court, the International Monetary Fund, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. We oppose any attempt to place American military personnel under foreign command. We oppose any effort to place Americans, military or civilian, on trial before, or subject them to legal punishments by, international courts or organizations. We oppose, and we support official U.S. renunciation of, any treaty, agreement, or convention that seeks to dictate law to the United States or any state, that violates national sovereignty, or denies or violates the constitutional rights of Americans.
(4) The United States is a constitutional republic. We believe the United States is a constitutional republic, governed by law and by the original intent of the United States Constitution and of the men who framed it. We believe the Constitution can be changed only by the proper procedure of amendment or constitutional convention and not by court decision, popular majority, political whim, or legislative fiat. We therefore oppose the “imperial judiciary” in the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts that has usurped more and more power to itself in the last century and has imposed on our country the most odious and harmful rulings. We reject the legitimacy and constitutionality of the rulings handed down by the imperial judiciary; we support the appointment of judges and justices who are qualified to interpret the Constitution and the laws and are committed to their proper interpretation; and we support the impeachment of judges and justices who usurp or claim powers not granted them by the Constitution. We also oppose the “imperial bureaucracy” that imposes unconstitutional administrative decrees in such fields as business, agriculture, labor, and education that tyrannically interfere with personal liberty and dignity, private property, the sanctity of the family, and ethical conduct. We support the abolition of those government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels that have no constitutional foundation, including the U.S. Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Health and Human Services, and similar agencies. We support the separation of powers that is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution and of basic human liberty. We support the restoration of the constitutionally proper balance among the three branches of the federal government and the reduction of their powers, size, personnel, and costs to the limits intended by the Constitution.
(5) We believe in States’ Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Bill of Rights. We believe in states’ rights, as guaranteed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution; in the individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; and in all the rights and liberties guaranteed by the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We therefore oppose all efforts by the federal government to dictate to the states and local governments and communities, and we oppose federal efforts to engineer or impose behavior and beliefs on citizens and communities. We oppose “gun control” in all forms and demand that all such legislation and policies be repealed. We also oppose all such legislation as so-called “hate crime” or “bias crime” laws. Such laws merely penalize thought and expression rather than genuinely criminal action and are a dangerous and frightening step toward government Thought Control. Similarly, we oppose all so-called “politically correct” speech codes and “sensitivity training” in schools, colleges, universities, and businesses that punish free expression, restrict thought and study, intimidate dissent, and generally demean and diminish human communications and community. We also oppose, as stated, all efforts to deny Americans their rights of religious expression and worship as guaranteed in the First Amendment, as well as efforts to deny rights of assembly and association.
(6) The traditional family is the basic unit of human society. We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents.
(7) Private property and free enterprise are the foundations of our economy. We believe in private property and free enterprise as the foundations of our economic life and the basis of American wealth. We oppose efforts by the state to regulate, plan, manage, control, or nationalize private property in any form. We oppose the ruinous taxation that government has imposed on working Americans and we call for real tax reform that will allow working men and women to retain what they have earned. We support the repeal of the estate tax. We affirm that the best economic decision-maker is the individual acting in what he believes is his own best interest. We believe that tax policies and other economic legislation and policies should reflect the importance of small businessmen, the family farm, and other independent, locally and privately owned and operated enterprises. While we accept the need for some public welfare, health care, unemployment, and old age assistance, we believe in such programs only as a last resort for those who truly need them. We believe tax laws should encourage private charity rather than public support for the poor, the disabled, and the sick and elderly who are unable to care for themselves. We support welfare programs that seek to return recipients of welfare to productive work as soon as possible. We oppose all welfare for immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
(8) Cultural, national, and racial integrity. We support the cultural and national heritage of the United States and the race and civilization of which it is a part, as well as the expression and celebration of the legitimate subcultures and ethnic and regional identities of our people. We oppose all efforts to discredit, “debunk,” denigrate, ridicule, subvert, or express disrespect for that heritage. We believe public monuments and symbols should reflect the real heritage of our people, and not a politically convenient, inaccurate, insulting, or fictitious heritage.
(9) A Strong National Defense. We believe in the strongest possible defense for the United States. We oppose the presence of homosexuals and women in the military services and especially of women in combat roles.
(10) America First Foreign Policy. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well, we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fight their wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We therefore call for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawal from those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or that threaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels. We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War alliances; we oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of “police actions.” We oppose sending American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security and interests. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic “bargaining chips” under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders. We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign states.
(11) America First Trade Policy. We believe that just as our nation has legitimate international political and military interests, so it also has a legitimate international economic interest. We believe our trade policy should reflect our national economic interest and that the protection of our economy, including the jobs of our workers, our farms, and our manufacturing industries, is a vitally necessary duty of our national government.
(12) Traditional Education under Local Control. We believe that education is primarily the concern of parents and families and local communities and therefore we oppose federal aid to education and federal efforts to control or direct education. We believe that education should inform and build the mind and character, not brainwash children with political propaganda or “liberate” them from the traditional values and loyalties their families have taught them. We therefore oppose all “sex education” as well as so-called “multiculturalist” and “Afrocentric” curricula, “Outcome-Based Education,” and similar radical indoctrination in the schools. We oppose all efforts to inflate grades, adulterate or “dumb down” tests and examinations, and introduce irrelevant and wasteful courses for the purpose of advancing some backward students over others more talented or more productive. We believe the schools, public, private, and parochial, should teach students to be proud of being Americans and proud of their national and local identities, and that they should instill in them the values of Western, Christian, and American civilization. We support the authority of teachers and school administrators to discipline students, including the authority to expel them from school if students will not abide by the rules and laws of the community. We support the right of parents to send their children to private schools or to educate their children at home if they so desire, without government intrusion or control. We support the right of private schools to select their own students, faculty, curricula, standards, and methods of administration.
(13) Strong and Just Law Enforcement. We believe in the moral and legal responsibility of the individual and therefore that good behavior should be rewarded and bad behavior should be punished. We believe the most effective and most just response to crime is swift, certain, and morally appropriate punishment. We believe in capital punishment for the crimes of murder, rape, treason, and espionage. We oppose the substitution of the pseudo-sciences of psychiatry, sociology, and “rehabilitation” for real justice. We believe law enforcement should be mainly a function of local and state government, and we therefore oppose all efforts to establish a national police force or to nationalize law enforcement; we oppose similar efforts to create a global or international police force and to “globalize” law enforcement. We oppose the extradition of law-abiding American citizens to trials before foreign courts under laws to which they have never assented. We oppose all international criminal tribunals and all efforts to diminish national sovereignty through the internationalization of criminal law. While we support and deeply respect all law enforcement officers, we also insist that law enforcement at all levels operate within the law, that law enforcement respect the rights of all citizens, and that spying on and harassment of loyal and law-abiding citizens by law enforcement agencies, by the military services, or by intelligence services at any level of government should be strictly forbidden and severely punished.
(14) Protection of the Environment and Natural Heritage. We believe that the natural environment and resources of a nation are among its most precious, valuable, and irreplaceable treasures. We believe in the protection of the environment from reckless greed as well as from irresponsible government. We support the protection of truly endangered species of wildlife and areas of natural beauty.
Like I said; it is not that this group is blatant in their racism, it is a more nuanced. (I swear, before I discovered AllahPundit. I didn’t even know what a “nuanced” even was!) Just that same, I cannot defend Jim linking to that site. So, I am removing the blog from my roll for the time being. I am hoping that Jim is not in lockstep with that group; if he is, I will no choice that to disassociate myself with him.
On the subject of nuanced racism, there’s this little gem from the voter values summit:
Nuance.
It should be also noted that the man, who introduced Blunt; is named Tony Perkins. Tom Perkins gave a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens in 2001. And when Perkins worked for Senator Woody Jenkins, he purchased a phone-bank list from former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.
Again, this stuff, I just cannot defend and will not. I threw Pat Buchanan under the bus, for what I considered to be his Nazi Apologist writings and I will do so in this case too; if need be. I have written this on my blog many times in the past and I will say this again. My issues with Barack Obama and the African-American Liberal Left is NOT based upon skin color, but rather upon my dislike of identity politics. Further more, my critism of Barack Obama is simply policy based and not base on racism.
Yeah, I know what you are going to say, “What about this?” Sorry, but pointing out that there has, in fact, been an uptick in Black on White violence, since the election is not racist in nature at all. That is a tactic of the left; silence the reporting of truth, by playing the race card. But there is big different between reporting facts; and linking to sites well-known for their inherit hatred of blacks; because of their race.
I am sorry, but there is a line, that you just do not cross and Jim Hoft crossed it. I cannot defend that and because of this, I have to distance myself from him. But my support for Robert Stacy McCain and Pamela Galler remain unabated.
Update: It dawned on me, after I hit the “Publish” button; that I, in the past, back when I still considered myself to be a “Paleo-Con”; I linked to that site myself. I mainly did it to get a rise out of the far left and the Identity politics crowd. I have, however, since basically distanced myself from that bunch; just because their inability to respect our military and for their isolationist foreign policy —- not to mention much of the Nuanced Racism and Antisemitism. I do not make excuses for my linking to them. But the last time I checked; I have not been mentioned by Fox News or any other main stream media outlet; and Jim Hoft has been. I guess what I am trying to say is this; we have all been working our asses off to combat the socialism of Barack Obama and his minions —- and now, we’re possibly going to marginalized because someone decided to pull a “David Duke” move and link to a hate site. It just frustrates me, that’s all.
Update # 2: Jim Hoft removes the link that I complained about and what does he do??? Puts it in a previous posting. 🙄 Nice, real nice. 🙄 Good going Jim! Now everyone and I do mean everyone; will think we’re all white nationalists. Idiot. 😡
Update #3: I am quite happy to report that my bitching and griping at Jim worked. 😛 The link was removed and replaced by some a wee bit more less hateful. Thank you Jim! Like I said over at on his comment section. We’ve got the football; let’s try not lousing the game up. In other words, we are changing the Conversation and turning America against the Socialism of the Obama Administration. Let’s not screw it up! 😀
Update #4: Reader “PB” says:
Jim Hoft still links to the youtube channel for the Council of Conservative Citizens and still links to a video that claims that two black children beat up a white child, despite the fact that no information has been released about the assailants. I don’t see why you think he’s appropriately responded; he’s still race-baiting.
To which I respond and say…. I hear ya. This is why he is not on my Blogroll anymore. I cannot control what people do. I can only ask them not to screw up. But I cannot force them. This happens in a free Republic. I simply asked him to please remove the link; and he did, that is all I can do. I cannot tell others how to run their blog. I would not want anyone tell me how to run mine. I can only choose to link to their blog or not. Not like it is going to matter, I do not give anywhere near the traffic that Jim Hoft does. So, my little blog is not going make much difference anyhow. I will just be more careful in where I link to, that is all.
But just as well, thanks for bringing it to my attention. 🙁
Update #5 November 29. 2009: I feel the need to write this, because it appears that some idiot liberals are trying to use this blog posting to prove that Jim Hoft is some sort of a racist bigot. I want it to be publicly known that I have no way of knowing if Jim Hoft is a racist bigot or not. I know that he linked to a video and then removed the link to a very nuanced racist site; but kept the said video on his site. I personally do not believe this to be case at all. I believe if Jim Hoft was real, true, bona fide racist bigot; his blog would have never been as successful as it is now. For the record, I have posted a video and linked to the same site, myself and I am not, what you would call a genuine, Bona fide, racist. I posted that video and linked to that site; because the video does ask, I feel, a legit question. However, I do not make a habit of linking there daily. Because what that site is about, and that is a sharp hatred of the Black and other races. I believe Jim Hoft, Like myself, hates socialism and identity politics as much as I do. I wrote this posting, because I believe that Jim was wrong in linking to the video; I still do. However, I cannot sit here and judge someone that I do not know, I would advise all of those reading this to do the same. Let me also say this; I removed Jim Hoft’s Blog, Gateway Pundit from my Blog for a long time. Mainly because I felt that possibly that he did harbor some true racist feelings. But after conversing with some people that actually know him personally, I was assured that Jim was not a bigot, but rather someone who is a Conservative that is against socialism, like me. I also felt that the people that were making these accusations, like Charles Foster Johnson; where nothing more than Liberals who find racism in anything that is not a liberal viewpoint. So, I put him back. Simple as that.
I got the alert via New York Times and I checked over at the Weekly Standard and sure enough Irving Kristol has passed.
Via The New York Times:
Irving Kristol, the political commentator who, as much as anyone, defined modern conservatism and helped revitalize the Republican Party in the late 1960s and early ’70s, setting the stage for the Reagan presidency and years of conservative dominance, died Friday in Arlington, Va. He was 89 and lived in Washington.
His son, William Kristol, the commentator and editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, said the cause of death was complications of lung cancer.
Mr. Kristol exerted an influence across generations, from William F. Buckley to the columnist David Brooks, through a variety of positions he held over a long career: executive vice president of Basic Books, contributor to The Wall Street Journal, professor of social thought at New York University, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
He was commonly known as the godfather of neoconservatism, even by those who were not entirely sure what the term meant. In probably his most widely quoted comment — his equivalent of Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame — Mr. Kristol defined a neoconservative as a liberal who had been “mugged by reality.”
[….]
By now Mr. Kristol was battling on several fronts. He published columns and essays attacking liberalism and the counterculture from his perches at The Wall Street Journal and The Public Interest, and in 1978 he and William E. Simon, President Nixon’s secretary of the treasury, formed the Institute for Educational Affairs to funnel corporate and foundation money to conservative causes. In 1985 he started The National Interest, a journal devoted to foreign affairs.
But Mr. Kristol wasn’t railing just against the left. He criticized America’s commercial class for upholding greed and selfishness as positive values. He saw “moral anarchy” within the business community, and he urged it to take responsibility for itself and the larger society. He encouraged businessmen to give money to political candidates and help get conservative ideas across to the public. Republicans, he said, had for half a century been “the stupid party,” with not much more on their minds than balanced budgets and opposition to the welfare state. He instructed them to support economic growth by cutting taxes and not to oppose New Deal institutions.
Above all, Mr. Kristol preached a faith in ordinary people. . “It is the self-imposed assignment of neoconservatives,” he wrote, “to explain to the American people why they are right, and to the intellectuals why they are wrong.”
Mr. Kristol saw religion and a belief in the afterlife as the foundation for the middle-class values he championed. He argued that religion provided a necessary constraint to antisocial, anarchical impulses. Without it, he said, “the world falls apart.” Yet Mr. Kristol’s own religious views were so ambiguous that some friends questioned whether he believed in God. In 1996, he told an interviewer: “I’ve always been a believer.” But, he added, “don’t ask me in what.”
“That gets too complicated,” he said. “The word ‘God’ confuses everything.”
In 2002, Mr. Kristol received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, often considered the nation’s highest civilian honor. It was another satisfying moment for a man who appears to have delighted in his life or, as Andrew Sullivan put it, “to have emerged from the womb content.”
He once said that his career had been “one instance of good luck after another.” Some called him a cheerful conservative. He did not dispute it. He had had much, he said, “to be cheerful about.”
I will not lie. I did not agree with Mr. Kristol’s Politics or his version of Conservatism. In fact, I have been known to make a crack at people on other blogs; when they were spewing stupidity, especially the George W. Bush Cheerleaders, I would always say, “Where did you learn that line? From Bill or Irving Kristol?” or something usually to that effect. Some of Irving Kristol’s ideology was very controversial; like the desire for a full scale invasion of Iran; of which I found to be horrifically stupid. Thankfully, Bush’s people agreed. Much of his ideology can be summed up as Wilsonian; the man believed that war was the answer, always. I disagreed then and I still do.
However, it is not to say that Kristol was a total loss; He did work to take the Conservative movement away from the Anti-Semites within the Republican Party. He also exposed and expelled the blatant racists that had taken root since the days of Abraham Lincoln. Between Kristol and Buckley; Conservatism become a bit more intellectual and not the knuckle-dragging simpleton nonsense that it has become now; Sarah Palin being a perfect example.
May God Bless the man, I am sure will be missed. May he rest in peace.
Cross-Posted at Alexandria
I realize that this Blog entry is not going to do much for my Conservative Credentials; not that I honestly give two flips about that. But I happened to notice this little entry over at the White House Blog.
President Barack Obama stands with Paul and Janet Monti as he posthumously awards their son, Army Sgt. 1st. Class Jared C. Monti from Raynham, Mass., the Medal of Honor for his service in Afghanistan during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009.
Quote:
Today the President awarded Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in the East Room of the White House. Sergeant First Class Monti received the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroic actions in combat in Afghanistan, which the President recounted alongside his parents Paul and Janet Monti.
Here is a portion of the President’s comments, of which you can read the full thing here.
That’s when Jared Monti did what he was trained to do. With the enemy advancing — so close they could hear their voices — he got on his radio and started calling in artillery. When the enemy tried to flank them, he grabbed a gun and drove them back. And when they came back again, he tossed a grenade and drove them back again. And when these American soldiers saw one of their own — wounded, lying in the open, some 20 yards away, exposed to the approaching enemy — Jared Monti did something no amount of training can instill. His patrol leader said he’d go, but Jared said, “No, he is my soldier, I’m going to get him.”
It was written long ago that “the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet, notwithstanding, go out to meet it.” Jared Monti saw the danger before him. And he went out to meet it.
He handed off his radio. He tightened his chin strap. And with his men providing cover, Jared rose and started to run. Into all those incoming bullets. Into all those rockets. Upon seeing Jared, the enemy in the woods unleashed a firestorm. He moved low and fast, yard after yard, then dove behind a stone wall.
A moment later, he rose again. And again they fired everything they had at him, forcing him back. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire, Jared could have stayed where he was, behind that wall. But that was not the kind of soldier Jared Monti was. He embodied that creed all soldiers strive to meet: “I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” And so, for a third time, he rose. For a third time, he ran toward his fallen comrade. Said his patrol leader, it “was the bravest thing I had ever seen a soldier do.”
They say it was a rocket-propelled grenade; that Jared made it within a few yards of his wounded soldier. They say that his final words, there on that ridge far from home, were of his faith and his family: “I’ve made peace with God. Tell my family that I love them.”
And then, as the artillery that Jared had called in came down, the enemy fire slowed, then stopped. The patrol had defeated the attack. They had held on — but not without a price. By the end of the night, Jared and three others, including the soldier he died trying to save, had given their lives.
I’m told that Jared was a very humble guy; that he would have been uncomfortable with all this attention; that he’d say he was just doing his job; and that he’d want to share this moment with others who were there that day. And so, as Jared would have wanted, we also pay tribute to those who fell alongside him: Staff Sergeant Patrick Lybert. Private First Class Brian Bradbury. Staff Sergeant Heathe Craig.
And we honor all the soldiers he loved and who loved him back — among them noncommissioned officers who remind us why the Army has designated this “The Year of the NCO” in honor of all those sergeants who are the backbone of America’s Army. They are Jared’s friends and fellow soldiers watching this ceremony today in Afghanistan. They are the soldiers who this morning held their own ceremony on an Afghan mountain at the post that now bears his name — Combat Outpost Monti. And they are his “boys” — surviving members of Jared’s patrol, from the 10th Mountain Division — who are here with us today. And I would ask them all to please stand. (Applause.)
Like Jared, these soldiers know the meaning of duty, and of honor, of country. Like Jared, they remind us all that the price of freedom is great. And by their deeds they challenge every American to ask this question: What we can do to be better citizens? What can we do to be worthy of such service and such sacrifice?
Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti. In his proud hometown of Raynham, his name graces streets and scholarships. Across a grateful nation, it graces parks and military posts. From this day forward, it will grace the memorials to our Medal of Honor heroes. And this week, when Jared Monti would have celebrated his 34th birthday, we know that his name and legacy will live forever, and shine brightest, in the hearts of his family and friends who will love him always.
May God bless Jared Monti, and may He comfort the entire Monti family. And may God bless the United States of America.
For all of the criticisms that I level at President Obama; this is not one of them. I truly believe that President Obama “Gets it”; when it comes to loss of life in the Military. More so, than even President Bush. I believe sometimes, that Bush used the Military as a photo prop or even to boost his ratings. To me, as a writer who was and still is, far way from the beltway, it always seemed like Bush was posing, when appearing with Military personnel. I could be wrong on this, but I highly doubt it. Obama does genuinely care. I can tell this. He respects the men and woman who risk and ultimately give their lives for the Military and more broadly for their Country. To me, that strikes me as Obama being a “Truman Democrat”. I truly believe that Obama dislikes the notion of war. But he also understands that War is necessary for the preservation of the Republic. I also notice that Obama has stepped up to the plate in the Afghanistan war. The President knows that the situation in that country is extremely complex; even more so now, that it was when Bush ordered the invasion.
It has also been observed that President Obama has shrugged off the far left’s insistence that President should pull our ground troops out of Afghanistan and solve the Afghanistan war though diplomacy. Something that this writer highly disagrees with. There is only one way to deal with terrorists and Al-Qeada and that is with the end of gun or a missile. President Obama knows this and has; so far, stepped up the plate and made it quite clear that he intends to carry that fight on. As a Conservative and someone who believes that the war on terror is a reality, this is a welcome quality as a President and I personally commend him for that.
This is not to say that I do not have issues with his domestic polices. I do. I disagree with a good portion of it. But his policy when it comes to the war on terror and his respect for our Nation’s Military is not something you will find me criticizing at all.
So, on the behalf of this Conservative writer and supporter of our Nation’s Military; Thank you Mr. President and please, Keep it up.
………….Attorney General Eric Holder, who played a role in the Clinton pardons of Weather Underground members, may be reluctant to prosecute former political associates of the President, but if the FBI pursues the case and brings the evidence forward, there may be no other alternative.
If President Obama himself wants to see justice done—and he claims he didn’t agree with the Weather Underground’s campaign of violence and bombings—it would be easy enough for him to order Holder to bring forth all of the available evidence in the case.
If CIA officers can be investigated for treating terrorists harshly, why can’t terrorist bombers now running around the Chicago area teaching college students be brought to justice for killing a policeman?
Heh….
Oh Geeez… 🙄
Maybe is Democrats would stop acting like fucking imbeciles; maybe, just maybe people would calm down!
Idiots deluxe.
Oh this is so sweet! YEEEEEES! 😀 😆 🙂
One thing I did notice is; that Ron Paul did not vote. heh, on the job as always, aye Ronnie? 🙄
Oh Wonderful….. 🙄 You will see why I say this in a minute here.
First, the video:
The Story via the Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON — The White House is scrapping a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile-defense shield, saying a redesigned defensive system would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles.
“After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and my joint chiefs of staff to strengthen America’s defenses against ballistic-missile attack,” President Barack Obama said in an announcement Thursday morning.
The previous administration’s plans will be changed, moving away from the installation of a missile-defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland in the near future. A second phase to begin in 2015 could result in missiles being placed on land in Eastern Europe.
“Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies,” Mr. Obama said. “It is more comprehensive than the previous program, it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost effective, and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to abandon the Bush administration’s plans came about because of a change in the U.S. perception of the threat posed by Iran.
Mr. Gates said intelligence experts concluded the short- and medium-range missiles were “developing more rapidly than previously projected” in Iran. The findings are a major reversal from the Bush administration, which pushed aggressively to begin construction of the Eastern European system before leaving office in January.
The Bush administration proposed the European-based system to counter the perceived threat of Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon that could be placed atop its increasingly sophisticated missiles. There is widespread disagreement over the progress of Iran’s nuclear program toward developing such a weapon, but miniaturizing nuclear weapons for use on long-range missiles is one of the most difficult technological hurdles for an aspiring nuclear nation.
The White house confirmed that it will ditch Bush plans to erect a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move likely to mean greater cooperation with Russia. WSJ’s National Security Correspondent Peter Spiegel reports.
The Bush plan infuriated the Kremlin, which argued the system was a potential threat to its own intercontinental ballistic missiles. U.S. officials repeatedly insisted the location and limited scale of the system — a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland — posed no threat to Russian strategic arms.
The Obama administration’s assessment concludes that U.S. allies in Europe, including NATO members, face a more immediate threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range missiles and is ordering a shift toward the development of regional missile defenses for the Continent, according to people familiar with the matter. Such systems would be far less controversial.
Russia on Thursday welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called the plan a “responsible move.” He threatened last year to station tactical Iskander missiles on Poland’s border if the U.S. system was deployed.
“We appreciate this responsible move by the U.S. president toward realizing our agreement,” Mr. Medvedev said Thursday. “I am prepared to continue the dialogue.”
Okay now, here’s why I say, “Oh Wonderful….” 🙄
Via The A.P.:
VIENNA (AP) – Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.
The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency’s leaders share Washington’s views on Iran’s weapon-making capabilities.
It appears to be the so-called “secret annex” on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA’s chief.
The document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system.
Nothing like yanking your shields down —– Just in time to find out that Iran has the ability to make a Nuke and is hiding it from the rest of the World.
If I were President Obama, I would be in the fetal position crying my eyes out right about now. I mean, This guy just has a horrible sense of timing or something.
I hate to be the guy to say it; but this President has royally screwed up and screwed us, the American people…..again.
Good Job Barry! 🙄
Others: Pajamas Media, Jules Crittenden, Don Surber, Power Line, Moonbattery, Fausta’s Blog, , The Foundry, Below The Beltway, Moderate in the Middle, Neptunus Lex, A Blog For All, Dr. Sanity, , Michelle Malkin,
Those two free ads are running for two weeks. Basically in support of a friend of mine; who is being attacked by a person, of whom I believe to be a traitor to the Conservative movement, the anti-jihad movement and Anti-Islamic Fascism Movement. Further more, attacking those of us who dare to speak out against the Current administration as racists.
I had hoped that I could stay out of this fray or at least not have to mention said parties name on my Blog. But it seems that Mr. Charles Foster Johnson has got a serious problem. That problem is collectivism; that is blaming of an entire movement for the misdeeds of a slight few. The whole guilt by association game that the far left tries to play against anyone who disagrees with their politics. The end for me, is when Charles Johnson said of the owner of Gateway Pundit; that he was a “Borderline illiterate Bigot.”
My advice to Charles Johnson is this. Take the fucking idiotic stupid blog of yours down and go the fuck away. Whatever you do, do NOT fuck with me. Believe me when I say this. I have the means and the fucking gonads to plunk down some cash and get my hands of every piece of personal information about that is available about you, via most information services of this sort. Do not think that I am above posting every god damned piece of personal information about you sir. Including, Address with an aerial shot of your house. Telephone numbers, Social security number, Credit Card Numbers, Driver license numbers, Vehicle Vin Numbers and anything else, that I think that the American people should know about it. Yes, I am that damned crazy. I have done this before, when I felt it necessary to do so, and I will do it again, if I think that it is needed.
I dislike blog fights; I really do. I have been in a few myself and something always happens that you regret later. However, I will use any all means, including lethal force, to defend myself, if need be. So, Johnson, don’t even think of Barking up my damn tree cracker boy.
Anyhow, here are the other folks blogging ol ‘Foster: Atlas Shrugs, The Jawa Report, American Power, Carol’s Closet, Jihad Watch, The Daley Gator, Whiskey Fire and TBogg
I do not do Christianity on this blog much at all. Partially because I just do not feel that I am a qualified spokesman for Christian or the Baptist Faith, in which I am a part of.
However, when I read stuff like this right here, I get quite angry and feel the need to speak out against it.
Some socialist twit, named Libby Grammer Garrett, who claims to be a Baptist and a Christian has written the follow awful piece of nonsense that is supposedly Christian and Baptist in Nature.
I am not sure who’s anal orifice John Nolte had his head stuck in, when he wrote this piece; but I took great issue with it.
You want to be edgy in the entertainment business today? Be polite and keep the politics as across the board as possible. Walk on stage with the “edgy” goal of wanting to entertain and take away from their daily frustrations as many people as possible.
Jay Leno’s the new edgy, the new ballsy…
And that lapel flag makes him a downright iconoclast.
I didn’t see his show, but I’m pulling for him because all the right people are not.
I am not sure what John Nolte’s problem is; but his criticism of Jay Leno is totally unfounded and quite stupid, if you ask me.
It just so happens that Jay Leno has not been very outward about his politics at all. I would never call Leno a committed leftist at all. In fact, the man does tend to have Conservative leanings. I believe Jay Leno to be one of those types, who are “Middle of the Road”, when comes to matters of the political sort. He is admittedly a supporter of the working, middle class, man in this country. Something that I do not find to be offensive at all.
In fact, I thought giving a free show to the unemployed in the Detroit Area; where I live here to be a noble gesture on his part. I think anyone who would find that to be offensive would be either out for bloodsport or just being some sort of partisan hack. So, while I feel that Nolte was correct about his observation of Letterman. I found his criticism of Leno totally out of line and even possibly out of touch.
As for the Flag Pin criticism; let me clue you in on something. Jay Leno started with nothing, he was an absolute nobody; He started at the bottom and worked his way up. He caught a lucky break and became an extremely successful comedian. That my friends is the American dream, you could not do something like that in say North Korea, or Venezuela or maybe even Russia. —- My point is this folks; Jay Leno is the perfect example of someone living the American Dream. If he wants to wear an American flag lapel pin. I say, by all mean, let him and even praise him for it. Jay Leno is example of what Hard Work, committed endurance and possibly even a little luck will get you. If you want to be successful, you can be, you just have to work at it.
Having said all that; let’s leave “The Chin” alone. He’s earned his wings and he did it the hard way. Let us not criticize someone for loving this Country. In this day of Leftest Presidents apologizing for this Country; let us condemn someone for quietly, if not subtly praising this Country and it’s many freedoms.
Cross Posted at Alexandria
This is funny…. and quite good. (H/T HotAir)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
ACON?
For more fun visit the website/blog at www.diversitylane.com or go directly to the blog at www.diversitylane.wordpress.com.
For more fun go to Baloo’s Cartoon Blog
This can only be a good thing. Go here to read.
APORN?
For more fun visit the website/blog at www.diversitylane.com or go directly to the blog at www.diversitylane.wordpress.com.
For more fun, go to Baloo’s Cartoon Blog.
This is bad, real bad.
Via the U.K’s Daily Mail:
You may wish to know this because, if ever you had an irrational desire to charter one, now would be the time. This time last year, an Aframax tanker capable of carrying 80,000 tons of cargo would cost £31,000 a day ($50,000). Now it is about £3,400 ($5,500)
This is why the chilliest financial winds anywhere in the City of London are to be found blowing through its 400-plus shipping brokers.
Between them, they manage about half of the world’s chartering business. The bonuses are long gone. The last to feel the tail of the economic whiplash, they – and their insurers and lawyers – await a wave of redundancies and business failures in the next six months. Commerce is contracting, fleets rust away – yet new ship-builds ordered years ago are still coming on stream.
Just 12 months ago these financiers and brokers were enjoying fat bonuses as they traded cargo space. But nobody wants the space any more, and those that still need to ship goods across the world are demanding vast reductions in price.
Do not tell these men and women about green shoots of recovery. As Briton Tim Huxley, one of Asia’s leading ship brokers, says, if the world is really pulling itself out of recession, then all these idle ships should be back on the move.
‘This is the time of year when everyone is doing all the Christmas stu ff,’ he points out.
‘A couple of years ago those ships would have been steaming back and forth, going at full speed. But now you’ve got something like 12 per cent of the world’s container ships doing nothing.’
Aframaxes are oil bearers. But the slump is industry-wide. The cost of sending a 40ft steel container of merchandise from China to the UK has fallen from £850 plus fuel charges last
year to £180 this year. The cost of chartering an entire bulk freighter suitable for carrying raw materials has plunged even further, from close to £185,000 ($300,000) last summer to an incredible £6,100 ($10,000) earlier this year.
Business for bulk carriers has picked up slightly in recent months, largely because of China’s rediscovered appetite for raw materials such as iron ore, says Huxley. But this is a small part of international trade, and the prospects for the container ships remain bleak.
Some experts believe the ratio of container ships sitting idle could rise to 25 per cent within two years in an extraordinary downturn that shipping giant Maersk has called a ‘crisis of historic dimensions’. Last month the company reported its first half-year loss in its 105-year history.
Martin Stopford, managing director of Clarksons, London’s biggest ship broker, says container shipping has been hit particularly hard: ‘In 2006 and 2007 trade was growing at 11 per cent. In 2008 it slowed down by 4.7 per cent. This year we think it might go down by as much as eight per cent. If it costs £7,000 a day to put the ship to sea and if you only get £6,000 a day, than you have got a decision to make.
No matter what your politics is; this is truly bad. Living proof that were are in a globalist economy, and when America hurts; the World hurts too. Of course, the American Presidential Administration that caused all this, is long gone. The Clinton Administration. If the Clinton Administration had not used it’s housing commissioner to pressure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to produce those high risk, Adjustable rate Mortgages; which ended up being traded as credit swaps on the market; none of this would have ever happened. But it did, and the balloon economy was created, and the World went with it. When the Balloon popped; the rest of the world came down with it.
It is truly sad thing to behold. But there were warnings and they went unheeded. So, now we have this. There are no easy solutions. But it will rebound, it just takes time.
Predictably, Dan blames Obama. Sorry Dan, that is just plain dumb; Much of this was caused by Clinton and his stupid housing policy. It predates Bush and Obama. So, let’s get off the stupid? Okay? 🙄
First up is The Most Incredible Challenge from 1965.
Synopsis: This film, narrated by Luis Van Rooten and directed by Robert Braverman, was produced by the Radio Liberty (RL) Committee, the parent organization of Radio Liberty, to publicize RL in the United States. The film features RLs production center in Munich, its news-gathering operations around the world, and its transmitter facilities in Germany, Spain, and Taiwan.
For the Licensed Amateur Radio operators that happen to read this blog; who also happen to be fans of old “Boat Anchors” as they are called, see if you spot the old Rockwell-Collins and other such gear in this piece. The place to see it really good, is at the 18:14 mark. Some really nice gear there from Amateur Radio’s greatest era. 😀
The Second is “This Is Radio Free Europe” from 1964:
Synopsis: This film, narrated by Polish broadcaster Andrzej Kzeczenowicz, gives an overview of Radio Free Europes news-gathering and audience research, its production center in Munich, and its transmission operations in Germany and Portugal. Produced by the Free Europe (RFE) Committee, the parent organization of Radio Free Europe, the film helped publicize RFE in the United States. It thus includes solicitations for contributions to the RFE Fund, successor to the Crusade for Freedom, which helped finance RFE.
Folks, I simply offer these videos with this question: Were these station employees, the political bloggers of that era? Are we now the voices of liberty? I like to think that we are the newspaper writers; the ones encouraging the dissent and the debate. Is Russia of old, just a future picture of America? Those are the questions that we must ask ourselves come 2010.
Remember my follow Americas, dissent is not, not has it ever been unpatriotic. The socialist left calls us racists, tea-baggers, rich people with attitudes; we know the truth and we will not stand by idly and allow a socialist oligarchy defeat us or the Nation and the principles in which it was founded upon. We must fight, not with guns or weapons; this is a battle of ideas and information. The Media, except for perhaps Fox News, is basically carrying water for the establishment. We are the new fifth estate or even possibly the sixth Estate; if there was such a thing. Being in this position of the minority; we must get our collective act together. We need to, as Bloggers and Conservatives, try to stay away from the stupid and the petty. We need to distinguish ourselves from the Alex Jones Conspiracy theory crowd and stick to the mainstream news and offer a counter-view to the main stream media’s view.
I leave you with this Bible verse:
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5 King James Version)
and this timeless quote from The Lord Jesus Christ himself:
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (John 9:1-5 KJV)
Why would we as Christians, as Conservatives want to be any different?
In Liberty,
-Pat
Looks like there’s a huge blog war erupting between two Bloggers.
Go here to read.
Get popcorn and plenty of Soda, this one’s gonna get real interesting.
I will just never understand why bloggers, who worked their tails off to become the huge stars that they are; turn right around and do themselves in like that. It just does not make any sense.
Ah well, at least I’m not in the line of fire. 😉
I notice in the Blogosphere today that the Liberals are accusing Conservatives of lying about the turn out in Washington D.C.
How ironic that the Socialists are crying foul about lying; seeing that their own dear leader is quite the liar himself.
Let’s review, shall we?
My that’s quite a bit of lying.
I think his nose should be growing…
Remember this little whopper of a big lie?
…and the Kool-Aid Drinkers bought it; hook, line and sinker.
So, perhaps…. Joe Wilson; was right?
Of course, the bill was changed, after Joe Wilson called the President on it. But still, are not these other lies legit? I think they are.
Exit Question: If a Republican lied like this man has, would not he be held to a higher scrutiny? But because he is a black liberal, he skates for free? Isn’t that the honest truth?
Between them, they manage about half of the world’s chartering business. The bonuses are long gone. The last to feel the tail of the economic whiplash, they – and their insurers and lawyers – await a wave of redundancies and business failures in the next six months. Commerce is contracting, fleets rust away – yet new ship-builds ordered years ago are still coming on stream.
year to £180 this year. The cost of chartering an entire bulk freighter suitable for carrying raw materials has plunged even further, from close to £185,000 ($300,000) last summer to an incredible £6,100 ($10,000) earlier this year.