More than four years after leaving public life, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continues to believe the war in Iraq was worth the effort, and has no apologies for his decision-making in leading the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Rumsfeld concedes that “it’s possible” that decisions on how many troops to send into Iraq marked the biggest mistake of the war.
“In a war, many things cost lives,” Rumsfeld told Sawyer.
Pressed on the fact that President Bush has written that cutting troop levels in Iraq was “the most important failure in the execution of the war,” Rumsfeld called that “interesting.”
I do not much care for the man. He is, in my humble opinion, an ignoramus. But he does have his opinions and he is a human being.
Get the Book:
I also highly recommend George W. Bush’s book as well:
Fox News’s Glenn Beck lashed out at Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on his radio show this morning, accusing Kristol of betraying conservatism and missing the significance of what Beck sees as an alliance between Islamism and socialism.
“I don’t even know if you understand what conservatives are anymore, Billy,” Beck said in his extended, sarcastic attack on Kristol. “People like Bill Kristol, I don’t think they stand for anything any more. All they stand for is power. They’ll do anything to keep their little fiefdom together, and they’ll do anything to keep the Republican power entrenched.”
[…]
Kristol’s words drew an approving nod from National Review’s Rich Lowry, a rare public repudiation of the influential Fox host from a conservative elite that quietly dislikes him.
Beck, in response, defended his broad theories by reading from the work of the Muslim writer Zudhi Jasser, a sharp critic of most Muslim leaders, to argue of the threat from “Islamic socialism.” He also accused Kristol of propping up Hosni Mubarak, of being stuck in 1973, and of failing to see that “we are fighting the forces of evil on this planet.”
“I think he’s still trying to get Bob Dole elected, i’m not really sure,” said Beck.
“Have you done a minute of research Bill?” Beck asked later, promising to expose the ties between the left and Islamic radicals during this week’s television show and advising Kristol, “Just watch the show in the next week.”
The real hilarious part? Not one time did Glenn Beck use the term Neo-Conservative! He also brought Barry Goldwater into it. Drawing a line from Bill Kristol to Barry Goldwater is about as dumb as drawing a line from Pat Buchanan to Vladimir Lenin. What Glenn Beck was trying to say, but failed to do it right; was that Kristol is a part of the “Big Government” wing of the Republican Party — like the Rockefeller‘s were. So, if he had used that name — it would have made total sense. But, I give him credit for at least taking Kristol to task.
Glenn Beck might be paranoid and a bit of hand wringer; but once and a while — he knocks one out of the ballpark! Now, if we could just work on that little shrill voice of his…. 😉 😛
As you know, this is the 100’th birthday of our Nation’s 40’th President.
But I believe it is important to know, what he really did, while he was in office. The Progressive Blog, Think Progress, lists the things that Reagan did while he was in office. These are the ones that I, as a Paleo-Con care about — :
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendency.
Now these here, are things that Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter, and were, of course, by the progressives, blamed on Reagan:
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980?s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.
Which of course, is a liberal talking point. This was actually caused by the raising of taxes under Carter and because of the slump in the economy, caused by inflation; which again, was caused by Democrat’s spending.
Another talking point:
5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.
Well, that might have to do with the fact that President Reagan thought Abortion was murder; however, he knew that it was not the role of the Federal Government to stop abortion — but rather the State’s role. This is because he was a Federalist. Not only that — but — do the liberals know the concept of a campaign promise or saying stuff to get elected? Funny, Obama did the very same things, when he was running. But that’s okay — because he is a liberal! 🙄
When America began to tear herself apart over morality, race, and Vietnam in the 1960s, the old certitudes he articulated and the old virtues he personified held a magnetic attraction for a people bewildered by what was happening to their country. When he spoke, he took us to a higher ground, above petty and partisan squabbles and divisions, where we could dream and be one people again.
Reagan passionately believed in the importance of ideas and husbanded rather than squandered America’s credibility. When Ronald Reagan left office the U.S. truly did stand tall, a far cry from its status today as an isolated, distrusted giant. President Reagan likely would have been horrified: the U.S. initiating war on a lie and then finding itself caught in an unnecessary guerrilla war that has made the West less secure and America more hated by more people than at any point in its history.
Daniel McCarthy — “Getting Reagan Right” The Reagan I Knew could just as fairly have been called The Reagan I Didn’t Know, for after a 40-year friendship, Buckley suddenly realized he had misjudged the man. At National Review’s 30th-anniversay gala in 1985, he toasted the then-president as the consummate cold warrior: “What I said in as many words, dressed up for the party, was that Reagan would, if he had to, pull the nuclear trigger,” writes Buckley. “Twenty years after saying that, in the most exalted circumstance, in the presence of the man I was talking about, I changed my mind.”
Reagan’s speeches abounded with themes that were anything but conservative. He aligned the Republican crusader more closely with America’s expansive liberal temperament. In particular, his brand of evangelical Christianity, combined with fragments of Puritanism, enlightenment optimism, and romantic liberalism, set Reagan apart in key ways from historic conservatism.
A great actor in his greatest role. On balance,during his tenure, taxes increased,inflation increased,government employment increased,the debt increased,the power of government increased yet he made you feel good about it. He “talked the talk” but didn’t “walk the walk.” As to the last few years of his 2nd Administration,I think he was in a different world. Yet, all in all,you couldn’t help like the guy and the way he made you feel proud to be an American.
However, for the record; I think it is important to note, what really causedthe collapse of the Soviet Empire — It sure was not Ronald Reagan. I mean, the man gave a speech in free Germany and automatically, Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Which, of course, is foolishness. Reagan no more brought down that Soviet Empire, than George W. Bush defeated Al-Qaeda.
While I did admire Ron Reagan for his speaking ability and his ability to lead; as a Paleo-Conservative or as I like call it — a real Conservative — I will say, Reagan was by no means perfect.
—
Post updated to reflect differences between legit complaints with Reagan and liberal talking points.
Update: As Always Ed Morrissey offers a “Rose Colored Glasses” version of the history of Reagan. ....and as usual the commenters over there are stupidly comparing that feckless train wreak of a media whore to President Reagan; which is sick, if you ask me. 🙄
Please Note: The posting of this video does not constitute an endorsement of views presented in this video. It is simply posted for information purposes only.
—-
In this issue of the reality report:The Egyptian Revolution triggered a government shutdown of the web. Could it happen here? Is the internet kill switch back on the congressional table? If the Feds shut down the web in the United States how could “We the People” get around the internet blackout? Gary Franchi reveals what tools you need to bypass a Government sponsored internet blockade. In this edition, Ron Paul explains the how the Federal Reserve works outside of congress’ constitutional framework. We also look at Senator Chuck Schumer failing miserably while explaining the three branches of government. Beautiful words are uttered from the lips of the Florida attorney general about Obamacare. President and founder of Freedom Law School, Peymon Montehedeh, gives us the details on this years’ Freedom Conference, and we announce a new action taking place in March. We’ll take a dip into the mailbag, deliver the results of last week’s poll, a viewer brands a new Enemy of the State… and Nina returns to deliver the Headlines from the new Reality Report News Room.
That’s George W. Bush’s daughter Barbara, legitimizing the Sodomite lifestyle.
Not only this, there is this quotable quote from President George W. Bush — Sodomite lifestyle enabler — himself from Associated Baptist News:
In discussing a meeting he had with Texas evangelist and one-time Southern Baptist leader James Robison, for example, Bush reportedly confided in Wead, “I think he wants me to attack homosexuals.” But, the future president said, he told Robison: “‘Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I’m not going to kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?’”
Bush also expresses concern over an aide’s report from a Christian Coalition meeting, according to the Times article. Reading from the report, he told Wead, “‘This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.’”
“This is an issue I have been trying to downplay,” Bush continued. “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”
That quote alone; proves to this Fundamentalist Baptist Christian, who is also a Paleo-Conservative — that George W. Bush was never a true-blue Conservative. But rather a liberal in G.O.P. clothing.
The Bush dynasty is no stranger to generational conflict: father and son differed over deposing Saddam Hussein, raising taxes and the role of the United Nations.
Now it is father and daughter who find themselves at odds over a weighty issue.
Barbara Bush, one of the twin daughters of George W. Bush, will endorse same-sex marriage on Tuesday, publicly breaking ranks with a father who, as president, pushed for a constitutional amendment banning such unions.
Ms. Bush, 29, has taped a video calling on New York to legalize gay marriage. A bill to do that was defeated in the state in 2009. She describes the issue as a matter of conscience and equality.
“I am Barbara Bush, and I am a New Yorker for marriage equality,” she says in the brief message, sponsored by an advocacy group. “New York is about fairness and equality. And everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love.”
The video ends with Ms. Bush, who lives in Manhattan, imploring the state’s residents to “join us.”
Ms. Bush is the latest child of a prominent Republican leader to embrace same-sex marriage, long considered anathema to the conservative movement. Gay rights advocates have been quick to seize on the generational split as evidence that the acceptance of same-sex marriage is blind to party affiliation and family values.
I think it would be wise for the Conservative Christian movement to rise as one and say, “Never Again!” to electing a man based upon family pedigree and to elected someone who does not pass muster or a good vetting by the Conservative Christian movement.
Further more, let me say this; this movement of the Conservative Republicans away from traditional family values is troubling. I say this without shame at all; I am a Conservative Christian, in the sense that I do support traditional family values. However, I do not believe in the use of any sort of Government of imposing my beliefs on anyone else. That is what Muslims do with Sharia Law — and I do not support that at all. However, for the daughter of a so-called “Conservative Republican” to come out and support a law such as this, is totally repugnant and should show all parties concerned, just what sort of a Conservative that the Bush dynasty really was. In this sense; and only in this sense, Pastor Chuck Baldwin was absolutely correct.
I believe that all Conservative Christians in the 2012 elections should really prayerfully consider the persons running in the Republican primaries and if the persons running for President do not pass muster; do not vote for them, at all.
We as Conservative Christians must decide what our allegiances are to; to the Republican Party or to the the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. There is no middle ground, choose your side today.
I am going to be totally honest with you all; I do not even like Andrew Breitbart —- But this video right here, is pretty darned interesting.
If everything in this video is true, the Obama Administration could be looking at some problems down the road. To be fair to Mr. Breitbart, he also goes after Republicans for their cowardice in not checking this out. In short, it is fraud on a massive scale and hopefully when this story breaks, someone in the Republican Party — like in the House, will order investigations. The really funny part is, Breitbart says he hired someone from Huffington Post — of all places — to debunk the story and he could not.
Of course the cynical person in me thinks that nothing will become of this; because of race and other factors, none of the people involved in this scandal will see justice. It is just how our system works. Only those who ruffle the wrong feathers — so to speak — are the ones who are actually prosecuted.
I’m a libertarian; meaning, beyond foreign policy, there’s not much a paleoconservative like you would like about me. I’m for gay rights; free trade (NAFTA or no); open borders; etc. However, I cannot help but feel some pity for how old fashioned conservatives are treated. For one, it confuses the political spectrum to have them excluded.
Here’s hoping that, post-War On Terror, people like you will define the American Right.
and….:
Here’s something for your fellow paleos to be encouraged by; neocons are losing their grip on intellectual discourse. Oh, they still have the op-eds; but, their ideas are ridiculed in the university by reputable people. Seize the initiative, and use this opportunity to critique the neoconservatives and define what conservatism, properly conceived, consists in. Don’t compromise with the neocons, libertarians, liberals, progressives, or anyone else.
Those little e-mails make it worth every nasty e-mail, troll comment or technical glitch! 😀
I’m glad to see that someone is actually reading here. Oh noes! Does this mean I have to act like a respectable writer now?Horrors! 😮 😉 😛
This bunch of silly nonsense comes from The Politico:
The federal lawsuits against last year’s health care overhaul were greeted with eye-rolling and snickers from many conventional legal scholars.
Nobody’s laughing now.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled late last year that a key underpinning of the health care law stretches the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution past the breaking point, while another judge in Florida is expected to rule on Monday. Both cases are likely to proceed toward the Supreme Court.
And the challenges to the health care reform law are just the most visible sign of a broad, national flowering of state efforts to find shelter from the federal government in sometimes-neglected corners of the Constitution that touch conventional political hot buttons such as immigration and gun control, and exotic ones, such as citizenship and currency.
“This has been brewing for decades, and it just needed a catalyst to set it off. The Obama health care package happened to be that catalyst,” said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. “It emboldened us to assert states’ rights with regard to an array of different issues in which we are feeling that the federal government has overstepped its bounds.”
The model for this revival is the transformation of the Second Amendment from a hazily interpreted legal backwater to the core of a new gun-rights movement. And while the Constitution is often invoked, and even misquoted, for all manner of conservative causes, perhaps the truest meaning of the new phrase constitutional conservatism is found in the broad, imaginative and sometimes quirky new efforts to hem in the power of the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause, which asserts the primary role of the federal courts and the Constitution, could stymie much of this activity. But it’s all part of a movement that Bruce Ackerman, a liberal constitutional scholar from Yale Law School, told POLITICO constitutes “the most serious challenge” to the current constitutional regime since it took shape in the New Deal and the Civil Rights era.
So, the Republican Party is all about the Constitution now? Seems mighty funny to me that all of the sudden that the Republican Party is all about the Constitution now; but back in 2003, when their feckless leader George W. Bush, which I did not vote for — decided to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq, that none of the Constitutional purists were around to challenge him then. They, like most Conservatives in the beltway, cheered as President George W. Bush invaded Iraq, based on what we now know to be faulty information.
I also find it to be highly ironic that during the Presidency of George W. Bush; a white American — that not one person in the Republican Party questioned his tactics, spending or actions on foreign policy. However, now that there is a liberal and yes, black President in the White House; the Republican Party has turned into the Constitutional purist party. They claim that they want to repeal Obama’s healthcare plan to save money. I call B.S. on this one. They want to do to protect their biggest donor — the Healthcare industry. Further more, I believe it is because a good majority of the Republicans on the hill are just straight racist, like some other people I know.
Say what you want; but I am really beginning to lose faith in the Republican Party, the whole idea of this damned Tea Party and the entire political process. It is all a big dog and pony show anymore. In other words, sometimes, I believe that Lew Rockwell and Yes, Ron Paul might just be absolutely right about the whole thing and I, yes, I, might have been wrong. I might not agree with everything Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul says — but I think they’ve been right all along. American Politics; especially among Republicans is rotten to the core and all that the people on “The Hill” care about is their own political careers.
I hate to be the one to admit it. But it is just damned true. 😡
Irving Kristol, who died in 2009, is sometimes called the “godfather” or even “father” of neoconservatism, and the patriarchal honorific, like a well-worn hat, sits comfortably atop “The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009.” The book is strictly a family enterprise. It has been lovingly edited by Kristol’s widow, the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, and carries a prefatory funeral eulogy by their sorrowful son, the Republican journalist William Kristol. Even the selection of essays reflects a uniquely familial degree of intimacy.
Himmelfarb recounts in her introduction that while “rummaging among old files” after her husband’s death, she discovered tattered copies of a short-lived and wholly forgotten little magazine called Enquiry: A Journal of Independent Radical Thought. Her husband and some of his young friends founded the magazine in 1942, the year of her marriage, and they kept it afloat for eight issues, until the young friends and Kristol himself disappeared into the Army. Himmelfarb has reproduced the cover of Vol. 1, No. 1 — austere, elegant, partly sans-serif in the 1940s style, 10 cents a copy — and the sight of the magazine does conjure an era.
(…)
There is sometimes a charm in Kristol’s prose, once he had gotten past his pompous Lionel Trilling period — a wry, man-of-the-people modesty, nicely joined with a genuine talent for summarizing ideas. Then again, he tried to capitalize on his Everyman sonority by claiming to speak on behalf of “the majority of Americans” or even “the overwhelming majority of Americans,” and sometimes “the American people” altogether, which, to my mind, undercuts the charm. In the course of an otherwise intelligent essay about Communism and McCarthyism as long ago as 1952, he wrote: “For there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy; he, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesmen for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”
The remark is one of Kristol’s most famous, if only because his enemies have been quoting it back at him for almost 60 years. The habit of invoking the American people served him well, even so. Some of the more talented leaders of the Republican Party eventually cocked an ear in his direction, in search of oratorical and political and programmatic possibilities. And the alliance was formed.
Himmelfarb has thoughtfully filled “The Neoconservative Persuasion” with pieces that, with one exception, have not appeared in previous collections. The subtitle, “Selected Essays,” might lead readers to suppose that here must surely be Kristol’s Greatest Hits — the best and most popular of his essays. But Kristol himself gathered together his Greatest Hits in an anthology in 1995 called “Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea.”
The new book ought to be regarded, instead, as a Volume 2. It is faithful to his ideas and their evolution. And it offers an opportunity to evaluate his abilities as an essayist — his achievements as a thinker and writer within the little world known as the “New York intellectuals.” The achievements do not seem to me large. Kristol was not a Trilling, a Hook, a Howe or a Bell. For that matter, he never produced anything as substantial as his wife’s scholarly meditations on English history.
But it is true that unlike any of those other talented people, Kristol, with his tirades and simplicities, helped found a political movement. And under the name of “neoconservatism,” his movement invigorated the party of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and, for better and for worse, wreaked enormous changes on America and the world.
As many of you know. I do have personal issues with the Neo-Conservative as a whole. However, I believe it to be fair to examine the history of the people around it. The book sounds like it might be an interesting read.
You can get it here:
There are those that might not like that I even blogged about this; to them I say this. Perhaps if you put some money into my Tip Jar, maybe I would not have to resort to blogging about subjects that I utterly detest. Further more, the way I see it, when those people start donating to this blog; then they can bitch at me about what I write about. Until then, quite frankly, they can just fuck off. (and I mean that in the most Christian way possible… 😛 😉 😀 )
Not only that, I do try; even I disagree with that person — to get everyone a fair shake. I might disagree with them on some things, but there has to be something that I agree upon. If only the Neo-Cons felt the same way about us that disagree with them. Most of them are almost Nazi like in their fascism against dissenters. The Bush era proved that one. 🙄
The civility narrative that grew legs after the shooting in Arizona is really just a ruse to keep Republicans from calling Democrats what America knows they are – Socialists. After all, it’s that kind of ‘hateful rhetoric’ that gets people killed right? Yeah, right.
The Democrats lost power in the House after Americans got too big a taste of their left-wing socialist agenda over the last two years. Now that they’ve lost power they need to stem what could amount to even bigger losses in 2012. Since they can’t really legislate to cover their tracks, they need to prevent Republicans from continuing to remind Americans about their socialist agenda – and what better way to do that than to decide that America needs a dose of civility. Of course they cloak it in the ludicrous notion that it’s contributing to an atmosphere of hate that might set off a crazy person on another shooting spree. But to any able minded person that’s just nonsense.
(….)
Even Obama’s rhetorical move to the center also plays into this civility narrative. With the entire MSM and political world gushing over Obama’s new and improved centrist talk, it increases the chances that Republicans will feel more uncomfortable pointing out his socialist agenda, or even calling him a socialist, and it will serve to neuter Republicans and make them less effective.
The bottom line here is that Republicans simply need to stop mincing words and continue to remind Americans just how destructive these radicals are to this great country. If they do that, along with some great legislating, I assure you that Americans will respond in 2012 just as they did in 2010.
Yeah, let us talk about the neutering of free speech shall we? Some of you might remember, when I was attackedby some of David Horowitz’s vultures for pointing out the fact that a good majority of the people that were raising a stink about the so-called 9/11 mosque….were Jewish. All because I dared to point out that making fat jokes about Megan McCain was rather farking lame. My real name was posted, a very unflattering picture of me was posted and straight up lies were published about me, all by these Neo-Conservative vultures, who claim to be Conservative and also some of them Christian.
Further more, I also recall how I was attacked, my blog hacked and basically, I am considered a pariah among the Blogosphere — all because I dared to call Michelle Malkin on her yellow journalism and outright stupidity. I mean, these people went out of their way to threaten and intimidate a blogger; whom I thought was a good friend of mine, who really turned out to be a spineless coward. All because I dared to call a spade….a spade…..
So, to the Neo-Conservative right I say this; please, do not sit and carp about the so-called “Neutering of Free Speech or the Neutering of Republicans” okay? Because you are just as bad about that, as the damned Democrats are, especially when it comes to Jews and when it comes to your crown princesses, like Michelle Malkin, who is one of the most yellow Journalists in the Business. Her politics might be decent, but her ethics are lousy and I called her on that. For this, I was made to be someone that I am not.
Again, I will state for the record; I am NOT, nor have I EVER BEEN, a Neo-Nazi, Anti-Semite or White Nationalist. I am someone however, that despises Identity Politics on the LEFT and the THE RIGHT. Further more, I am someone who despises yellow journalists; who distort facts and make up lies to the further their political agenda.
The Neo-Con right likes to gripe about the left doing it; to that I say, what about Michelle Malkin? What about Jim Hoft? What about Ed Morrissey, who straight lies about Unions and other such stuff that he disagrees with? Meanwhile his wife lives on Medicare Advantage. It is straight up damned hypocrisy, and I will call it every damned time I see it folks.
I think the Neo-Conservative right, which is really Democratic Party Lite —- needs to look in the mirror, and clean up their own backyard, because they accuse the left of the very same thing, that they do themselves. Is it Anti-Semite to point out that Jews are involved in anything? No, it is not. Anyone who says that, is a identity politics vulture who wants to stifle freedom of speech. Political stance and leanings means nothing. All of it is damned wrong. Period, End of Discussion.
I am shutting comments off of this posting, because I am not interested in hearing the Neo-Con vultures idiotic ramblings about how I am an Anti-Semite. 😡
U.S. Rep. Mike Pence shut the door today on a run for the presidency, but left wide open the likelihood that he’ll seek a different office: Governor of Indiana.
“In the choice between seeking national office and serving Indiana in some capacity, we choose Indiana,” Pence, R-Columbus, said of himself and wife Karen in a letter being sent to supporters. “We will not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.”
He said he would make a decision “later this year” about what his next political step is, but by not running for president it is considered a virtual certainty that he will run for the GOP nomination for governor. While he could, instead, run for a seventh term in Congress, that’s not considered likely given that Pence gave up the job that would have made him the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House after the November elections, in order to focus on other political opportunities.
Needless to say, a big reason for the “Draft Pence” push in recent weeks was some social cons being uncomfortable with Palin or Huckabee as the nominee. Where do those people turn now?
To be quite honest, if all the social cons have to choose from is Huckabee and Palin; then that speaks to the sorry condition of the GOP in this day and age. I would say Mitt Romney, but the Evangelical Christians loathe him. As a Fundamentalist Baptist, I can tell you that I am not too big on the idea of a Mormon being in the White House at all. What I really believe personally is that the Republican Party needs to focus on fiscal issues and leave the social cons out of the mix in 2012. Because honestly, that crowd is so darned fickle anyways, not to mention the rank hypocrisy that comes from those ranks. I mean, just look at Palin, rode in on the white horse of social Conservatism and a few weeks later, her daughter comes up pregnant.
The simple solution is Tim Pawlenty. He is a fiscal Conservative, he is not a extremist and his family is not a reality show. I personally believe he would be a good choice for the G.O.P. in 2012. Here is hoping that Tim runs in 2012, because for once, I would like to vote for a Republican, that actually acts like one and not some made beltway boy or some right wing extremist or a talk show reality star. I want a real CEO type, that will make decisions to help small business and people like me find jobs again.
We need to put America back to work. We cannot do that with a shrieking harpy glamor model who’s got a reality show; that somehow believes that she is entitled to be President, because of her sex organs —- nor can we do that with a Democrat with a Bible who is prone to extremism.
Please note: The posting on this video does NOT constitute support for all of the views therein. It is posted for your education and information.
—–
Synopsis: In the 78th edition of the Reality Report, Gary Franchi draws the direct parallels America shares with Hitler’s Germany and provides the solution to avoiding their terrible fate. We take a look at Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk where he discusses what a new found interest in the Constitution could mean for America. CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, Peter Schiff tells us why the Chinese modeled their currency after the U.S. dollar. We also hear from the former U.S. military analyst who is responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. He explains the recent war on whistle-blowers. Chris Mathews latest hypocrisy is revealed and Angie breaks down the news. As always we take a dip into the mailbag, reveal the results from last weeks viewer poll and brand a new Enemy of the State.
But 8 million homes are today in foreclosure or their owners are delinquent in their mortgage payments. Some 5.5 million are occupied by families whose mortgages are at least 20 percent higher than the value of the property, making them prime candidates for foreclosure.
This weekend, Bank of America reported fourth-quarter losses of $1.6 billion and a 2010 yearly loss of $3.6 billion. Its credit card unit took a $10 billion write-down, and its home loan business is still reeling from the fallout of the exploded housing bubble.
Now, facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, House Republicans are balking at agreeing to raise the debit limit of $14.3 trillion, though the national debt just crossed the $14 trillion mark.
Most of us presumed that the protests were more about Bush than the wars when they took place, but even the skeptics have to be a little surprised just how uncool the anti-war movement has become since Barack Obama took place. The neo-Stalinist International ANSWER, one of the groups featured in this film, must have thought they were achieving some sort of mainstream penetration into politics when Democrats started flooding into their rallies. Now they’re back to street-corner protests and “Honk If You <3 Peace” rallies and wondering why it suddenly got so lonely.
To be fair, though, the driving force of the earlier anti-war rallies was the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. While the Af-Pak fight has lost considerable public support, the first war had broader support, as it targeted the actual 9/11 villains and their cohorts. The protests against the wars got fueled mainly by our presence in Iraq, and peaked when Bush put the surge strategy into place. The success of that strategy and the Status of Forces Agreement that moved American troops out of the cities and into support roles has removed most of the objections to Iraq, and for good reason — why protest a war that’s all but over? Obama promised to have troops out in 16 months during the presidential campaign, but as Reason TV notes, he stuck with the Bush SOFA policy — and after 24 months, we’re still there and likely will be for years to come.
A very valid assessment. However, there is more to that too. The left just straight up hated Bush with a passion. The Anti-War protests were also less about Anti-War, and more about Anti-Bush. The left never, ever forgave Bush for winning the 2000 election. To this very day, the left still believes that Bush and Co. somehow or another stole the election. The left screamed and yelled and protested; that is, until it was very clear that challenging Bush’s election in 2000 was a lost cause.
Then 9/11 came along, and the entire Country stood behind Bush. The left basically stood down, and supported the President. Of course, there were outliers, but the majority of them were supportive. So, America went to war in Afghanistan, then Bush in 2003 decided that invading Iraq was necessary; which we now know was based upon faulty intelligence. Of course, there are some, within Neo-Conservative circles, that still, to this day, believe that Iraq had WMD’s. However, in this day and age of post-Bush, those people are big minority. Anyhow, At first, the MSM went along with Bush’s plans and the persons saying that Bush was wrong were a small minority. Over time, as it became clear that Bush’s intelligence was flat out wrong; the voices of dissent became louder.
By 2004, these voices had risen to fever pitch and the left was in fully in “Get Bush out of Office!”, an effort that ultimately failed; because of the total lack of electability of John Kerry as President of the United States. By 2006, however, independents and even some more main stream Conservatives had left Bush and realized that the man was just simply wrong. Of course, the loyalists defended him to the end and still do. But now, they are quite the minority. Thus was the reason why the Democrats won so big in 2006 and 2008; not because Obama or the Democrats were something wonderful — it was because American independents wanted something different than Bush’s Neo-Conservative, interventionist foriegn policy blunders.
However, there is one thing that this video totally missed; the voices of the Anti-War movement were not all Liberal or even Libertarian. There were some Conservatives, there were Paleo-Conservative voices. Pat Buchanan and some others formed a Magazine called “The American Conservative.” Which was formed for the sole purpose of convincing the White House that they were wrong about Iraq and foriegn policy. An effort, which ultimately failed. These same people, earned the scorn of people like David Frum. Which is pretty ironic, considering his position today on Bush and the Iraq war.
Of course, looking back; seeing all of the blunders of the Democrats and of the President — Bush does not seem that bad of a President. Bush was by no means perfect. However, the tone-deaf antics of the Democrats after the election of President Barack Obama, made Bush’s era seem a bit more sane. Prime example: Has the economy gotten better since President Obama was elected? No, it has not. In fact, it has gotten a bit worse. I have heard the following from committed Democrats: “President Obama got it exactly backward; he did healthcare first. That was stupid, he should have gotten the economy fixed FIRST and waited to see, if the fixes worked — THEN he should have tackled healthcare reform!” Which is right, Obama and the Democrats wanted to push it through, despite the consequences and for that they paid for it in the 2010 elections — and outside of a major change in the economy or something major in the terrorism world, like the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the totally destruction of Al-Qaeda; which will never happen, Obama and the Democrats will further more pay for this foolishness. Possibly by Obama being primaries out in 2012. Do not discount that theory, we do live in much different times and the America people have become more fickle in their loyalty. It could happen.
As a Bonus, I present a movie, the name of it is simply “Crawford” that basically proves what I said above. It is a little long. But it is well worth it:
The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.
The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs.
“Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government,” Boehner said in remarks on the floor before the vote.
“Let’s stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs or put us into a deeper hole.”
The House will pass H.R. 2 this week. Once that bill is passed, it will be sent to the Senate for consideration. Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.
If the bill is referred to committee, it will never get to the Senate floor. This procedural objection by one or a number of Senators will stop the bill from being referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). If the bill is referred to committee, there is little to no expectation that the committee will pass the bill, let alone have one hearing on the bill.
Objecting to Rule 14 would hold the bill at the desk of the Senate and would put H.R. 2 on the Senate calendar. This procedure could be done with a letter or call from one Senator to the party leader. This would allow the Senate Majority Leader to commence debate on the matter when he so chooses. It is unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) would move to proceed to the bill, yet there is a procedure that any Senator can use to force a debate.
Any Senator can use Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk.
If I know my politics and my Democrats like I do; The Democratic Party controlled Senate will send this bill to committee to die. Which made that whole vote over in the House, a huge waste of time and…wait for it…. Taxpayers dollars!
Now the smart thing that the GOP controlled house could have done; would have been to introduce a bill that repeals the bad stuff in healthcare — like mandates, the silly tax stuff for small and no-so-small businesses and left the good stuff in. But, like most people in politics, these morons picked the wrong way to do this.
In this last election, I voted Republican, I do not regret that at all. However, I am disappointed to see that the Republicans seem more interested in playing politics, than they are actually getting anything done. Because, whether we like it or not; the Democrats hold the cards in the Senate and House doing idiotic stuff like this, only wastes time and taxpayers money — which is why the Tea Party was formed, and Democrats got swept out of office; because of their blatant stupidity and just for not listening to the American people. Now, it seems that the Republicans want to play the same silly game. Let’s hope that they try the better approach here in the future.
Again, The Republicans need to look out for the American people and do things wisely; not look out for their own political careers and continue the partisan jousting of old. That sort of nonsense will simply not work this time. It will only get them elected out of office and rather quickly.
Elliott Wave International’s Jeffrey Kennedy explains many ways to use this basic tool
January 19, 2011
By Elliott Wave International
The following trading lesson has been adapted from Jeffrey Kennedy’s eBook, Trading the Line – 5 Ways You Can Use Trendlines to Improve Your Trading Decisions. Now through February 7, you can download the 14-page eBook free. Learn more here.
“How to draw a trendline” is one of the first things people learn when they study technical analysis. Typically, they quickly move on to more advanced topics and too often discard this simplest of all technical tools.
Yet you’d be amazed at the value a simple line can offer when you analyze a market. As Jeffrey Kennedy, Elliott Wave International’s Chief Commodity Analyst, puts it:
“A trendline represents the psychology of the market, specifically, the psychology between the bulls and the bears. If the trendline slopes upward, the bulls are in control. If the trendline slopes downward, the bears are in control. Moreover, the actual angle or slope of a trendline can determine whether or not the market is extremely optimistic or extremely pessimistic.”
In other words, a trendline can help you identify the market’s trend. Consider this example in the price chart of Google.
That one trendline — drawn between the lows in 2004 and the lows in 2005 — provided support for a number of retracements over the next two years.
That’s pretty basic. But there are many more ways to draw trendlines. When a market is in a correction, you can draw a trendline and then draw a parallel line: in turn, these two parallel lines can create a channel that often “contains” the corrective price action. When price breaks out of this channel, there’s a good chance the correction is over and the main trend has resumed. Here’s an example in a chart of Soybeans. Notice how the upper trendline provided support for the subsequent move.
For more free trading lessons on trendlines, download Jeffrey Kennedy’s free 14-page eBook, Trading the Line – 5 Ways You Can Use Trendlines to Improve Your Trading Decisions. It explains the power of simple trendlines, how to draw them, and how to determine when the trend has actually changed. Download your free eBook.
I swear, sometimes I feel sorry for the President. I know it sounds strange. But I do. Check out his op-ed:
For two centuries, America’s free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people.
But throughout our history, one of the reasons the free market has worked is that we have sought the proper balance. We have preserved freedom of commerce while applying those rules and regulations necessary to protect the public against threats to our health and safety and to safeguard people and businesses from abuse.
From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.
Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression — Read the rest @ Barack Obama: Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System – WSJ.com
The reason I feel sorry for the President is this; from what I have read, on both sides of the political fence —- both side hate this, for some reason. The right says that the President says that Obama is just consolidating regulation, the left says that Obama is moving to the right. I mean, good grief people — can not the man just get credit for doing something right?
Again, I hate to be the one in the crowd to tell both sides, but I will — In November of 2008, the American people, in record numbers, elected a man to be different than George W. Bush. Millions of people cast thier hopes and dreams on one man. Now he might not be the perfect person that many on the far left assumed that he was; but the man is doing the very best that he can. What people have to realize is this, the President is the President of the United States of America, not the President of the Democratic Party. President Barack Obama represents all of us; Not just a select few.
I think that everyone; right, center, left and even middle of the road — ought to just take a step back, breathe a little and let the President do his job. The President might not do exactly what everyone wants him to do. But he will do what he was elected to do and that is Govern this Country fairly and according to the precepts set forth by the Constitution. Forget the hype and stupidity that is being promoted on the Fox News Channel and on the Neo-Con Blogs and some of the even more sillier nonsense on MSNBC and the left wing Blogs. President Barack Obama only has as much power, as the Constitution allows him to have.
Further more, I find it ironic, that very same people that worked to elect Barack Obama President and bring change of any sort to this Country are now the one’s bitching and griping because President Barack Obama is not catering to the special interests of everyone in the beltway and beyond.
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, was sentenced on Monday to three years in prison for conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The sentence came after Delay was convicted in November of trying to illegally influence elections in the Lone Star State.
In a 10 minute speech to Senior Judge Pat Priest, Delay insisted he did nothing wrong.
“I can’t be remorseful for something I don’t think I did,” Delay said, adding that accountants and lawyers checked everything he did.
“This criminalization of politics is very dangerous. It’s dangerous to our system. Just because somebody disagrees with you they got to put you in jail, bankrupt you, destroy your family,” he told Priest.
However, the prosecutor in the case saw the matter differently.
“I think Tom Delay said it best. He said that he was arrogant,” Assistant District Attorney Gary Cobb said.
“His statement was an extremely arrogant statement where he refused to accept responsibility, refused to show any remorse for the offense of which he’s been convicted of,” Cobb added.
I happen to see this a little differently than Tom Delay. I believe there is another motivation factor here; and that factor is race. This is nothing more, than a political and racial watch hunt by a black liberal Democrat who wants to make a name for himself by going after and bringing down a White Conservative Republican. I have information in my possession from well-placed anonymous sources, e-mails from this man saying that he was going to bring down Tom Delay and some very nasty racist words were used to describe Mr. Delay.
It is a sad day in America when out of control liberal blacks can attack, smear and persecute White Americans for crimes that they did not commit.
I will admit, that I do not much care for Sarah Palin at all. However, I will give the ol’ gal credit — she knocked it out of the ballpark here and put all of her critics in their places.
Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.
I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.
Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.
There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.
Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.
Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.
It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.
Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.
America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.
– Sarah Palin
Like I said; I don’t even like her, but she won this argument — hands down, and seeing that ol’ Tom Pawlenty decided to be a damn weasel, I think she might have just won a convert. 😀
I also believe that ol’ Bambi Teleprompter most likely said something to the effect of “Damn, the crazy woman beat me to the punch again!” 😉
One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used.
McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.
“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.
McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.
“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”
I understand her husband getting killed and he kids hurt in a shooting. But is it really necessary to impose her idiotic will on the American people?
Of course, unless something major changes; this bill will never, ever make it to the President’s desk. The Democrats tried this whole thing back during the Clinton era and ended up paying for it dearly during the elections. They fought this battle —- and ultimately lost. So, I expect that this bill will be treated as such.
What will be interesting to note is whether the Conservative in Congress will stick to their principles ….or will they go the Neo-Conservative route and sell out their principles to the liberals, who want to strip our freedoms in the name of safety? Remember the only difference between a big Government liberal and a Big Government Conservative Neo-Con is the type and names of their special interest groups; there are others, but I do not want this article to be too long. 😉
What really needs to happen, is some freedom loving American needs to challenge Rep. Carolyn McCarthy at the ballot box, come election time. Because we just cannot allow these far-leftist loons to use a sad situation like this, to rob peace loving, and law abiding citizens of the United States of American of the freedoms that they hold dear.
It is a often used phrase among second amendment advocates, that “Gun Control is less about guns and more about Control.” This attempt by this far leftist loon proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
America is watching congress, act wisely; we voted you in — we can and will, vote you out.
“Suhail is the firstborn son of the late Mahboob Khan, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in America,” said Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow. “Suhail has been a consultant to CAIR [The Council on American-Islamic Relations] and served on committees at ISNA [the Islamic Society of North America], both of which the government says are fronts for Hamas and its parent the Muslim Brotherhood.”
The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist revivalist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 to establish Muslim theocracies around the world, by means both violent and non-violent. The group is banned in Egypt, where its members have a long history of political violence capped by the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president who signed a peace agreement with Israel.
Sperry says some members of Congress and their staffs have no idea Khan is “a Muslim activist with direct connections to Muslim Brotherhood groups implicated by the government in a conspiracy to raise millions of dollars for terrorism right here in America.”
“The Brotherhood’s stated mission,” says Gaffney, “is to destroy Western civilization from within. Their agenda for the U.S. and the world is the triumph of Shariah law worldwide under a ruler known as a caliph.”
Gaffney describes Norquist, who, ironically also serves on the board of the controversial GOProud, as the enabler for Muslim Brotherhood associates, providing them with access into the highest reaches of the conservative movement and the Republican Party through his many contacts. Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, hosts a weekly political organizing meeting attended by many of the leading conservatives in Washington.
I personally do find this disturbing. How is it, that one of the oldest Conservative political action committees is now allowing Muslims; the very people that attacked us on 9/11 to a part of its annual get-together? I think I can answer that. It is all about money. It seems that CPAC has had some money troubles and these Muslims most likely have loose cash to burn. They also are able to answer the right questions and give the right speeches to assure us, that they are on our side. But this Conservative is not fooled, I know the real agenda of these fools and that of GOProud. The agenda of GOPproud and of this Muslim group is to subvert the Christian roots of our Nation in favor of a secular libertarian stance. In other words, they want to remove the two legs of the stool of the Conservative movement. The Muslim group is very disturbing; to do what this group is doing, is to remove all memory of what happened on 9/11. MUSLIMS attacked us, not just Arabs — but MUSLIMS — for us to forget that would be essentially pissing on the graves of those who died on September 11, 2001.
I find it morbidly sickening that the Conservative movement is cozying up to those who want to destroy the very principles that this country was founded upon.
