Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Billy Beck comments on Meyer's The Vampire Economy--Doing Business Under Fascism, and how an honest intellectual debate concerning political ideology is not only frowned upon in the U.S. today but outright suppressed.
Jim at Every Blade of Grass turned a year older yesterday. Birthday well-wishes!
David Codrea examines whether or not we can stop Obama's anti-gun pick for OSHA.
Tam brings up a very good point to consider concerning open carry.
Standing By adds his thoughts to the discussion about open carry.
The Wandering Minstrel blogs on plinking with an AR...photo and link included.
Vanderboegh issues a call for a national three percenters meeting in Washington, DC on Sept. 12, during the national march against the government takeover of healthcare (and the rest of our lives as well).
John Jacob H has a very interesting read entitled, 'Clowns, Jokers, and Fools.'
Free in Idaho has an important message for Obama--'We Don't Trust You.'
Western Rifle Shooters Association presents 3 pieces of reading that are not so easy to swallow but that are essential to consider. Read them all.
Congrats to Days of our Trailers for surviving 2 years of blogging, and doing quite well, I might add!
The Rustmeister says he's joined up with Facebook...seems like many are doing that these days.
Around O-Town posts a very telling video of the type of people who will be running our healthcare, if Obama and company get their way...
Alphecca comments on the plunging approval ratings for the Democrats.
Sebastian says THIS is what happens with licensing.
Ride Fast and Shoot Straight got a rather interesting 'wake up call' from wifey. Ouch!
Say Uncle reports the infuriating news that Walmart has teamed up with 'the Bastard's' Mayors Against Guns! Sam Walton is turning over in his grave.
Brigid lists some awesome firearms on her wish list for Christmas. I suppose she's mentioning this early so we can get acclimated to the costs of buying her gifts...lol.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Oval Office Shenanigans
Obama quickly changes from a smooth, deft orator and 'savior' figure to a smooth, deft shyster who engages in deception in order to fool the public into accepting his snake-oil remedies for the country.
Columbia Conservative Examiner provides the details.
It looks like Obama and the Democrats are engaging in the tactics of desperation.
Columbia Conservative Examiner provides the details.
It looks like Obama and the Democrats are engaging in the tactics of desperation.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Montana Townhall Packed with Obamanoids
Did you happen to catch CBS News' report on the Barack Obama townhall meeting in Montana yesterday?
If you didn't, you missed a rare display of honest reporting from Couric and company.
CBS actually reported that the townhall meeting was packed with Obama supporters. They even described how they accomplished this feat, given that Obama has so much opposition in the state.
Attendees had to get a ticket to get in. And the Dems gathered long before the line opened in order to gobble up tickets ahead of anyone else.
Thus, most of the opponents of ObamaCare were forced to hold their protests down the street, in a designated area. Only a few opponents of the Obama healthcare plan could get into the arena, due to the 'Democrat-packing.'
So now you know the real story. And yes, I am still trying with all my might to keep from fainting just knowing that this entire thing was reported on the CBS Evening News.
If you didn't, you missed a rare display of honest reporting from Couric and company.
CBS actually reported that the townhall meeting was packed with Obama supporters. They even described how they accomplished this feat, given that Obama has so much opposition in the state.
Attendees had to get a ticket to get in. And the Dems gathered long before the line opened in order to gobble up tickets ahead of anyone else.
Thus, most of the opponents of ObamaCare were forced to hold their protests down the street, in a designated area. Only a few opponents of the Obama healthcare plan could get into the arena, due to the 'Democrat-packing.'
So now you know the real story. And yes, I am still trying with all my might to keep from fainting just knowing that this entire thing was reported on the CBS Evening News.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Democrats Launch Counter-Offensive on Healthcare
Apparently this counter-offensive launched by the Democrats involves beating to a pulp those would would dare speak against ObamaCare or hand out 'Don't Tread on Me' flags.
Read all about it at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
The Obama-thugs of ACORN and SEIU are getting violent, folks!
Read all about it at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
The Obama-thugs of ACORN and SEIU are getting violent, folks!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
When the Washington Post Criticizes Pelosi, Reid...
When the Washington Post criticizes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Democrats who run the House and Senate respectively, you know we have a major problem on our hands.
The Post has never been known for its objectivity when it comes to Democrats and Republicans, with the Democrats, of course, always coming out smelling like a rose.
But the abject, rude partisanship that has characterized the 'rule' of Pelosi and Reid at the expense of the minority GOP for the past 2 years has caught the attention of even the Post.
Clearly, Democrats demand the rights of the minority...until they are in the majority. It is then they rule with an iron fist that would make Hitler and Stalin proud.
Sieg Heil!
The Post has never been known for its objectivity when it comes to Democrats and Republicans, with the Democrats, of course, always coming out smelling like a rose.
But the abject, rude partisanship that has characterized the 'rule' of Pelosi and Reid at the expense of the minority GOP for the past 2 years has caught the attention of even the Post.
We know Democratic lawmakers have taken their bully-boy tactics too far when even The Washington Post worries about the lack of civility in the 111th Congress. As the Post notes, during the 110th Congress "Democrats brought more measures to the House floor under closed rules - permitting no amendments - than any of the six previous Republican-controlled congresses." Barring amendments to proposed legislation, of course, means take it or leave it, which renders floor debate all but meaningless. But then a meaningless floor debate is fitting since House members of both parties often don't even bother to read measures before voting on them.
Considering how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are treating Republicans in the new Congress, the brazen muzzling of minority rights will continue.
Clearly, Democrats demand the rights of the minority...until they are in the majority. It is then they rule with an iron fist that would make Hitler and Stalin proud.
Sieg Heil!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
McCain Signs Onto 'Drill Here, Drill Now'
Reversing years of opposing such measures, GOP Presidential nominee John McCain stated Tuesday that he supports drilling in the oil-rich regions off the Gulf Coast of the U.S.
McCain indicated that he still opposes drilling in ANWR, which he describes as 'pristine,' but that he now supports the idea of drilling off of the Gulf Coast in order to ease dependence of foreign oil and providing a break for consumers.
Barack Obama stated once again that he is opposed to all new oil drilling anywhere in the country.
With well-over 65% of the American public supporting offshore oil drilling, McCain has positioned himself as the one Presidential candidate who takes a rational approach to our current energy problems, particularly in light of the fact that Communist China, Brazil, and several other nations are drilling for oil right in our own backyard in the Gulf.
We have the environmentalist wackos and their lapdog Democrat submissives to thank for the bans on U.S. drilling. But of course, it is perfectly fine for Commies to travel halfway around the world to get the oil right out from under under our noses.
McCain is to be applauded for his change of policy on oil drilling in the U.S. But Obama, the environmentalist wackos, and the Democrats who do their bidding need to strung upside down by their heels, allowing the blood to flow back into their heads. Perhaps this is the only remedy for the brain-dead cells that occupy the space between their ears.
McCain indicated that he still opposes drilling in ANWR, which he describes as 'pristine,' but that he now supports the idea of drilling off of the Gulf Coast in order to ease dependence of foreign oil and providing a break for consumers.
Barack Obama stated once again that he is opposed to all new oil drilling anywhere in the country.
With well-over 65% of the American public supporting offshore oil drilling, McCain has positioned himself as the one Presidential candidate who takes a rational approach to our current energy problems, particularly in light of the fact that Communist China, Brazil, and several other nations are drilling for oil right in our own backyard in the Gulf.
We have the environmentalist wackos and their lapdog Democrat submissives to thank for the bans on U.S. drilling. But of course, it is perfectly fine for Commies to travel halfway around the world to get the oil right out from under under our noses.
McCain is to be applauded for his change of policy on oil drilling in the U.S. But Obama, the environmentalist wackos, and the Democrats who do their bidding need to strung upside down by their heels, allowing the blood to flow back into their heads. Perhaps this is the only remedy for the brain-dead cells that occupy the space between their ears.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
A Marxist Because of Religious Faith?
Seen on a bumper-sticker today, along with other Leftist propaganda--'A Democrat Because of My Faith.'
Since when did Marxist-Socialist-Communist ideology become part of one's religious faith?
It has always been assumed that since Marx was anti-religion and since Communism always mandated atheism, religious faith has been antithetical to the principles espoused by those whose political ideology leads them to embrace the concepts affirmed in Marxist Socialism.
Just as Democrats for the last 30 years have wrapped themselves in the flag to hide their unpatriotic and outright anti-American sentiments, including a disdain for our military, it appears that this year they are going to wrap themselves in religion to hide their disdain for traditional Christianity and conservatism, using their faith to justify their embrace of radical, extremist schools of thought.
A Commie is still a Commie no matter how 'religious' they claim to be.
Since when did Marxist-Socialist-Communist ideology become part of one's religious faith?
It has always been assumed that since Marx was anti-religion and since Communism always mandated atheism, religious faith has been antithetical to the principles espoused by those whose political ideology leads them to embrace the concepts affirmed in Marxist Socialism.
Just as Democrats for the last 30 years have wrapped themselves in the flag to hide their unpatriotic and outright anti-American sentiments, including a disdain for our military, it appears that this year they are going to wrap themselves in religion to hide their disdain for traditional Christianity and conservatism, using their faith to justify their embrace of radical, extremist schools of thought.
A Commie is still a Commie no matter how 'religious' they claim to be.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Eve of the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary
The scramble for the prize of Pennsylvania's delegates to the Democratic National Convention culminates tomorrow as Democrats in the state head for the polls.
Two major trends bear watching.
One, a new national poll shows that for the first time in many months Hillary Clinton has reclaimed the lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters. On the other hand, another poll shows Obama maintaining his lead, albeit much smaller than just a week ago.
Two, polls in Pennsylvania seem to indicate that Democratic voters are breaking Hillary's way, but we have been fooled by such tracking polls in the past.
Just after Obama's verbal assault on the citizens of Pennsylvania while speaking to a group of San Francisco Democratic Party elites, one poll showed Obama's support plummet faster than a buzzard headed for some road kill. That poll showed Hillary ahead by a whopping 20 points.
No doubt the Illinois Senator has rebounded a bit since the debacle, but it is entirely unclear as to whether or not he has rebounded enough to win. My hunch is that he hasn't.
Thus, if I were placing bets my money would be on Hillary for the Pennsylvania prize. And even if she beats him by only single digits, that win will ensure that she stays in the race to the end.
Two major trends bear watching.
One, a new national poll shows that for the first time in many months Hillary Clinton has reclaimed the lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters. On the other hand, another poll shows Obama maintaining his lead, albeit much smaller than just a week ago.
Two, polls in Pennsylvania seem to indicate that Democratic voters are breaking Hillary's way, but we have been fooled by such tracking polls in the past.
Just after Obama's verbal assault on the citizens of Pennsylvania while speaking to a group of San Francisco Democratic Party elites, one poll showed Obama's support plummet faster than a buzzard headed for some road kill. That poll showed Hillary ahead by a whopping 20 points.
No doubt the Illinois Senator has rebounded a bit since the debacle, but it is entirely unclear as to whether or not he has rebounded enough to win. My hunch is that he hasn't.
Thus, if I were placing bets my money would be on Hillary for the Pennsylvania prize. And even if she beats him by only single digits, that win will ensure that she stays in the race to the end.
Friday, April 04, 2008
The Clinton Betrayers: 'Et Tu, Brute?'
Despite the fact that I am no fan of the Clintons, I will admit that they have been betrayed, unfortunately, by some longtime friends during this campaign.
Some of it is understandable. Politics is about winning, and many within the ranks of the Democrats simply feel that Hillary has shown herself to be unelectable. Prudence would therefore dictate that many would throw their support to Obama in spite of the fact that he may even be more of a liability than Hillary when it is all said and done.
However, many of the Clinton betrayers are longtime friends who have now proven themselves to be companions of the fair-weather variety. These would include Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, among others.
The most stinging and embarrassing defection in the Clintons' point of view, however, is that of New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Administration official Bill Richardson.
While on a campaign swing through California to lobby Democratic super-delegates, Bill Clinton exploded into rage when asked about James Carville's reference to Richardson as 'Judas.'
News reporters and observers alike report that the former President's face immediately turned blood red as he seethed with anger in his response to the question. 'He (Richardson) promised me at least 5 times he would not do that,' Clinton claimed.
Richardson's staff immediately issued a complete denial, that the Governor never promised the Clintons that he would not endorse Obama.
Bill Clinton's reaction, however, tells another story.
True, Clinton is known to lie. We have all seen it many times on prime time TV. But when Clinton lies there is lacking the spontaneity and split-second emotional outburst that is characteristic of the former President's demeanor when he is truly upset and when he truly believes what he is saying is the truth.
One reporter noted that Clinton's outburst sounded and felt more like hurt than anger.
Perhaps the former President has every right to be hurt very deeply. Perhaps Richardson is the one who didn't have the guts to be upfront with the Clintons concerning his decision to go with Obama after he had affirmed his friendship with and support for Hillary Clinton.
Just as in Shakespeare's famous tragedy when Julius Caesar began to realize that even his best friend had participated in the fatal betrayal, and thus the words, 'Et tu, Brute?' (Even you, Brutus?), Bill and Hillary Clinton find themselves stunned that even Bill Richardson, of all people, would participate in the betrayal.
Two things are certain--Bill Clinton has lost his 'political sex appeal,' and Hillary is suddenly fighting for her very political survival.
Some of it is understandable. Politics is about winning, and many within the ranks of the Democrats simply feel that Hillary has shown herself to be unelectable. Prudence would therefore dictate that many would throw their support to Obama in spite of the fact that he may even be more of a liability than Hillary when it is all said and done.
However, many of the Clinton betrayers are longtime friends who have now proven themselves to be companions of the fair-weather variety. These would include Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, among others.
The most stinging and embarrassing defection in the Clintons' point of view, however, is that of New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Administration official Bill Richardson.
While on a campaign swing through California to lobby Democratic super-delegates, Bill Clinton exploded into rage when asked about James Carville's reference to Richardson as 'Judas.'
News reporters and observers alike report that the former President's face immediately turned blood red as he seethed with anger in his response to the question. 'He (Richardson) promised me at least 5 times he would not do that,' Clinton claimed.
Richardson's staff immediately issued a complete denial, that the Governor never promised the Clintons that he would not endorse Obama.
Bill Clinton's reaction, however, tells another story.
True, Clinton is known to lie. We have all seen it many times on prime time TV. But when Clinton lies there is lacking the spontaneity and split-second emotional outburst that is characteristic of the former President's demeanor when he is truly upset and when he truly believes what he is saying is the truth.
One reporter noted that Clinton's outburst sounded and felt more like hurt than anger.
Perhaps the former President has every right to be hurt very deeply. Perhaps Richardson is the one who didn't have the guts to be upfront with the Clintons concerning his decision to go with Obama after he had affirmed his friendship with and support for Hillary Clinton.
Just as in Shakespeare's famous tragedy when Julius Caesar began to realize that even his best friend had participated in the fatal betrayal, and thus the words, 'Et tu, Brute?' (Even you, Brutus?), Bill and Hillary Clinton find themselves stunned that even Bill Richardson, of all people, would participate in the betrayal.
Two things are certain--Bill Clinton has lost his 'political sex appeal,' and Hillary is suddenly fighting for her very political survival.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Message to Congress: Halt Gasoline Taxes NOW!
As they usually do every few years, members of Congress hauled in the oil company executives on Tuesday for a trip to the woodshed, blaming them for everything from global warming to high gas prices to *gasp* actually making a good profit for shareholders.
I will not waste my time and energy on the imbecilic charges and inexplicable holier-than-thou display staged by Congressional Democrats.
Instead, let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?
Congress needs to place a moratorium on gasoline taxes at the pump. In addition, state and local governments need to follow suit. This will save the average American at least $24 bucks at the pump every time we fill up.
Government already makes windfall profits off of oil companies, raking in at least 7 times the profit margin of the oil companies on a gallon of gas.
In hard times one would think that the Party that likes to proclaim itself the 'friend of the little guy' and the 'Party that cares about the working people' would wish to repeal all taxes on gasoline, given the massive amount of money it would save average Americans.
The repeal would only need to be temporary until we can get ourselves back into some stability in the oil markets, which are totally out of the control of the oil companies themselves.
Democrats in Congress claim that the profits of the oil companies are 'obscene.' And what, pray tell, would we call the taxes the government collects from gasoline?
You see, Liberals believe that it is immoral for a business to make a profit for its owners/shareholders. But when government rakes in multi-billions of dollars in taxes from those 'obscene profits,' everything is perfectly fine.
This double-standard, frankly, is nauseating.
Thus, let the Demos in Congress put their money where their lying mouths are. If they are serious about helping 'the little guy' who needs a break from prices at the pump, then place a moratorium on all gasoline taxes.
This would mean that a normal fill-up that would cost you $60 bucks would then cost you only $36 bucks.
Do I believe this will happen? Only when pigs fly. Money-grubbing, sticky-fingered politicians of the Liberal type are more greedy than ANY oil company executive.
I will not waste my time and energy on the imbecilic charges and inexplicable holier-than-thou display staged by Congressional Democrats.
Instead, let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we?
Congress needs to place a moratorium on gasoline taxes at the pump. In addition, state and local governments need to follow suit. This will save the average American at least $24 bucks at the pump every time we fill up.
Government already makes windfall profits off of oil companies, raking in at least 7 times the profit margin of the oil companies on a gallon of gas.
In hard times one would think that the Party that likes to proclaim itself the 'friend of the little guy' and the 'Party that cares about the working people' would wish to repeal all taxes on gasoline, given the massive amount of money it would save average Americans.
The repeal would only need to be temporary until we can get ourselves back into some stability in the oil markets, which are totally out of the control of the oil companies themselves.
Democrats in Congress claim that the profits of the oil companies are 'obscene.' And what, pray tell, would we call the taxes the government collects from gasoline?
You see, Liberals believe that it is immoral for a business to make a profit for its owners/shareholders. But when government rakes in multi-billions of dollars in taxes from those 'obscene profits,' everything is perfectly fine.
This double-standard, frankly, is nauseating.
Thus, let the Demos in Congress put their money where their lying mouths are. If they are serious about helping 'the little guy' who needs a break from prices at the pump, then place a moratorium on all gasoline taxes.
This would mean that a normal fill-up that would cost you $60 bucks would then cost you only $36 bucks.
Do I believe this will happen? Only when pigs fly. Money-grubbing, sticky-fingered politicians of the Liberal type are more greedy than ANY oil company executive.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Frightened Democrats Scurry to 'Wrap It Up'
The Democrats are running scared. The big news today in Washington is that the big wigs in the Party fear that the great divide created by the Hillary-Obama feud is playing into the hands of McCain and may 'cost them the White House,' as one network put it.
First of all, the assumption that the White House is the Democrats' to lose is quite a giant leap into fantasy land. There have never been any guarantees especially as the race has progressed, highlighting the multiple weaknesses of the two potential nominees.
Further, John McCain has already made significant inroads into the Democratic Party's voter base. He will get millions of Democratic votes no matter who the nominee of the Party may be.
The most ominous prospect, however, is that McCain will more than double his support among Dems if either Hillary or Obama is forced out of the race. So deep and scathing have been the wounds created by the feud that supporters of either candidate state that if their 'guy' loses the nomination they will vote for McCain rather than support their Party's nominee.
This has got to have the Party big wigs bent over a toilet bowl somewhere.
Thus, the big wigs emerged today to say that 'it's time to wrap it up.' No longer do they want this divisive campaign to continue. They want 'Party unity.'
Just exactly how they wish to accomplish this is the million dollar question.
Hillary responded by stating there was no way she was pulling out of the race. And why should she? She is headed toward a big win in Pennsylvania in all likelihood, and the Obama bandwagon has lost at least one of its wheels in recent weeks. He may not win any other major primary.
The mainstream media's spin on this, of course, is that 'there is no way Hillary can win when one looks at the numbers.' What they fail to tell you is that in the present scenario there is no way Obama can win when one looks at the numbers, either.
Though one candidate may well have more delegates than the other, neither will have enough to declare victory.
Thus, either the 'Super-delegates' will be forced to choose the candidate--a scenario that will surely split the Party even further--or the fight will be taken to the floor of the Democratic National Convention.
Neither option holds a positive outcome.
First of all, the assumption that the White House is the Democrats' to lose is quite a giant leap into fantasy land. There have never been any guarantees especially as the race has progressed, highlighting the multiple weaknesses of the two potential nominees.
Further, John McCain has already made significant inroads into the Democratic Party's voter base. He will get millions of Democratic votes no matter who the nominee of the Party may be.
The most ominous prospect, however, is that McCain will more than double his support among Dems if either Hillary or Obama is forced out of the race. So deep and scathing have been the wounds created by the feud that supporters of either candidate state that if their 'guy' loses the nomination they will vote for McCain rather than support their Party's nominee.
This has got to have the Party big wigs bent over a toilet bowl somewhere.
Thus, the big wigs emerged today to say that 'it's time to wrap it up.' No longer do they want this divisive campaign to continue. They want 'Party unity.'
Just exactly how they wish to accomplish this is the million dollar question.
Hillary responded by stating there was no way she was pulling out of the race. And why should she? She is headed toward a big win in Pennsylvania in all likelihood, and the Obama bandwagon has lost at least one of its wheels in recent weeks. He may not win any other major primary.
The mainstream media's spin on this, of course, is that 'there is no way Hillary can win when one looks at the numbers.' What they fail to tell you is that in the present scenario there is no way Obama can win when one looks at the numbers, either.
Though one candidate may well have more delegates than the other, neither will have enough to declare victory.
Thus, either the 'Super-delegates' will be forced to choose the candidate--a scenario that will surely split the Party even further--or the fight will be taken to the floor of the Democratic National Convention.
Neither option holds a positive outcome.
Monday, February 04, 2008
On the Eve of Super Tuesday
As we stand on the brink of the most significant day in politics, outside of the general election in November, several trends have become clear.
First, John McCain appears to be sailing to the GOP nomination. If the state by state polls are correct, McCain will win big. If he doesn't wrap up the nomination tomorrow, he will certainly be more than well on his way toward winning the required number of delegates to secure the nomination.
Thus, the GOP is in the process of flipping the bird at Reagan conservatives, gun owners, gun dealers and manufacturers, First Amendment stalwarts, and those who believe in the rule of law when it comes to illegal aliens...ALL of the law.
On the Democratic side the picture is murky, but we know that Obama is surging, which could spell big trouble for the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. At this point it appears that there will be no clear winner on Super Tuesday, which means that it may be the Democrats rather than the Republicans who head to a brokered convention in the summer.
All of this, needless to say, holds ominous implications for November. The Republican base, i.e., the conservatives, are disheartened and anything but enthused about the prospects of a McCain ticket. Democrats are as fired up as I have seen them in many, many years.
Thus, my friends, peering into my crystal ball over the next four years I see very dark clouds on the horizon for the United States of America and its liberties. I am not fool-proof in my predictions as most of you know by now. But at present, I simply do not see much to be happy about.
First, John McCain appears to be sailing to the GOP nomination. If the state by state polls are correct, McCain will win big. If he doesn't wrap up the nomination tomorrow, he will certainly be more than well on his way toward winning the required number of delegates to secure the nomination.
Thus, the GOP is in the process of flipping the bird at Reagan conservatives, gun owners, gun dealers and manufacturers, First Amendment stalwarts, and those who believe in the rule of law when it comes to illegal aliens...ALL of the law.
On the Democratic side the picture is murky, but we know that Obama is surging, which could spell big trouble for the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. At this point it appears that there will be no clear winner on Super Tuesday, which means that it may be the Democrats rather than the Republicans who head to a brokered convention in the summer.
All of this, needless to say, holds ominous implications for November. The Republican base, i.e., the conservatives, are disheartened and anything but enthused about the prospects of a McCain ticket. Democrats are as fired up as I have seen them in many, many years.
Thus, my friends, peering into my crystal ball over the next four years I see very dark clouds on the horizon for the United States of America and its liberties. I am not fool-proof in my predictions as most of you know by now. But at present, I simply do not see much to be happy about.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents
People who believe in liberty, the freedom of the individual, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights should swear off of the Democratic Party completely.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
CBS's Anti-GOP Machine At It Again
If one had listened to the CBS Evening News totally at face value Saturday evening, one would think that the GOP is the one political party in America that is synonymous with scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, and graft.
Ever since we at The Liberty Sphere have taken it upon ourselves to do a periodic reality check on CBS News, highlighting examples of bias, we have discovered that often one has to be most diligent on the weekends when viewership is lower.
This is particularly true with the evening news broadcasts on Saturday and Sunday, as well as the flagship news magazine '60 Minutes.'
It is during these times that often CBS News will slip in some of its most blatantly slanted news stories.
Such was the case Saturday evening. In reporting the resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, CBS News proceeded to do a hatchet job--the 2nd this week--on the Republican Party. During the segment on Craig, the reporter stated that the GOP has a 'brand problem,' that the Republican Party is a 'weakened brand,' and that going into the 2008 election cycle the Party is at a distinct disadvantage with the voters because of 'all of the scandals and corruption' involving Republicans over the past few years.
The very same hatchet job was done earlier in the week, as we reported here on The Liberty Sphere.
And once again, the reporter went down the list naming each Republican over the past four years who has been involved in scandals of one kind or another, never once mentioning the fact that Democrats have been knee-deep in corruption of their own making.
The fact that Larry Craig was 'caught' in a sex sting operation, which the police and the government have no business delving into to begin with, only serves to emphasize Democratic hypocrisy. The very party that claims that the government should stay out of the private lives of Americans, particularly their private sex lives, is the first to condemn Republicans such as Craig.
But of course, as long as the Democrats can keep the story of Larry Craig and those dirty rotten scoundrel Republicans at the top of the news, they can slip underneath the radar screen when it comes to Hillary Clinton's five-year relationship with a major fundraiser who was wanted in the state of California for committing crimes.
It turns out that this particular fundraiser had contributed mega-bucks not only to Clinton, but to Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and at least a half-dozen other Democrats.
Attempting to escape any blame or association with corruption, the Democrats who were involved in this dirty money scandal did what they always do when they are caught with their pants down--they 'give the money back,' or in this case 'give it to charity.'
My, what precious angels.
This is precisely what Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did when it came to light he had received illegal campaign funds. He gave the money back, and this supposedly made the illegal activity null and void.
Is this how we as a society treat, say, embezzlers, for example? As long as they 'give the money' back they are automatically absolved of any wrongdoing? I don't think so.
John Conyers, Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, 'promised not to do it again' when it came to light he had broken federal campaign laws.
How do you think you would fare as an ordinary citizen if this were your only defense after being arrested for breaking a federal law? 'Your Honor, I promise I won't do it again if you let me go free and drop the charges.' Yeah, right.
And as for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and William Jefferson, who clearly had their hands soiled with dirty money, little or nothing is being done by the Democratic leadership to address the obvious corruption exhibited by both.
After all, it is the GOP that is the Party of corruption. Any factual information that proves otherwise or doesn't fit the template set by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media must be pushed aside.
The present playbook of the Democrats and their mouthpieces at CBS News and the other networks has George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and the Congressional Democratic leadership written all over it.
As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress in November of 2006, this playbook was put together. Inside sources in the Congress reported that the Democratic leadership would immediately launch into a massive media blitz involving countless Congressional investigations into 'GOP corruption.'
The objective would be to so bury the Bush White House and the Republican Party with an endless barrage of charges of corruption that the GOP would go limping into the 2008 general election, leaving the Democrats with a decisive advantage.
Not only has the Democratic leadership followed through with that strategy, but they have successfully enlisted the help of their allies in the mainstream media to bombard the American public with the message, 'Those Republicans are sleazy, but those Democrats are clean.'
My friends, if you believe those Democrats are clean, then you have tweety birds and tooth fairies flying around in your head.
Ever since we at The Liberty Sphere have taken it upon ourselves to do a periodic reality check on CBS News, highlighting examples of bias, we have discovered that often one has to be most diligent on the weekends when viewership is lower.
This is particularly true with the evening news broadcasts on Saturday and Sunday, as well as the flagship news magazine '60 Minutes.'
It is during these times that often CBS News will slip in some of its most blatantly slanted news stories.
Such was the case Saturday evening. In reporting the resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, CBS News proceeded to do a hatchet job--the 2nd this week--on the Republican Party. During the segment on Craig, the reporter stated that the GOP has a 'brand problem,' that the Republican Party is a 'weakened brand,' and that going into the 2008 election cycle the Party is at a distinct disadvantage with the voters because of 'all of the scandals and corruption' involving Republicans over the past few years.
The very same hatchet job was done earlier in the week, as we reported here on The Liberty Sphere.
And once again, the reporter went down the list naming each Republican over the past four years who has been involved in scandals of one kind or another, never once mentioning the fact that Democrats have been knee-deep in corruption of their own making.
The fact that Larry Craig was 'caught' in a sex sting operation, which the police and the government have no business delving into to begin with, only serves to emphasize Democratic hypocrisy. The very party that claims that the government should stay out of the private lives of Americans, particularly their private sex lives, is the first to condemn Republicans such as Craig.
But of course, as long as the Democrats can keep the story of Larry Craig and those dirty rotten scoundrel Republicans at the top of the news, they can slip underneath the radar screen when it comes to Hillary Clinton's five-year relationship with a major fundraiser who was wanted in the state of California for committing crimes.
It turns out that this particular fundraiser had contributed mega-bucks not only to Clinton, but to Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and at least a half-dozen other Democrats.
Attempting to escape any blame or association with corruption, the Democrats who were involved in this dirty money scandal did what they always do when they are caught with their pants down--they 'give the money back,' or in this case 'give it to charity.'
My, what precious angels.
This is precisely what Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did when it came to light he had received illegal campaign funds. He gave the money back, and this supposedly made the illegal activity null and void.
Is this how we as a society treat, say, embezzlers, for example? As long as they 'give the money' back they are automatically absolved of any wrongdoing? I don't think so.
John Conyers, Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, 'promised not to do it again' when it came to light he had broken federal campaign laws.
How do you think you would fare as an ordinary citizen if this were your only defense after being arrested for breaking a federal law? 'Your Honor, I promise I won't do it again if you let me go free and drop the charges.' Yeah, right.
And as for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and William Jefferson, who clearly had their hands soiled with dirty money, little or nothing is being done by the Democratic leadership to address the obvious corruption exhibited by both.
After all, it is the GOP that is the Party of corruption. Any factual information that proves otherwise or doesn't fit the template set by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media must be pushed aside.
The present playbook of the Democrats and their mouthpieces at CBS News and the other networks has George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and the Congressional Democratic leadership written all over it.
As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress in November of 2006, this playbook was put together. Inside sources in the Congress reported that the Democratic leadership would immediately launch into a massive media blitz involving countless Congressional investigations into 'GOP corruption.'
The objective would be to so bury the Bush White House and the Republican Party with an endless barrage of charges of corruption that the GOP would go limping into the 2008 general election, leaving the Democrats with a decisive advantage.
Not only has the Democratic leadership followed through with that strategy, but they have successfully enlisted the help of their allies in the mainstream media to bombard the American public with the message, 'Those Republicans are sleazy, but those Democrats are clean.'
My friends, if you believe those Democrats are clean, then you have tweety birds and tooth fairies flying around in your head.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 8/29/07
Scroll down for the news:
Images and graphics courtesy of A Human Right.
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
The McCarville Report says that the Oklahoma Democratic Party is in dire financial difficulty:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/08/democratic-consultants-demand-debt.html
JR at A Keyboard and a .45 reports on what he did for National Exercise Your Rights Day:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/08/national-exercise-your-rights-day-aar.html
Alphecca comments on the very poor showing for the Jessie Jackson-initiated gun protests across the country yesterday:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=373
Blogonomicon opines on the anti-gun media culture:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/29/3191868.html
Blogonomicon also has a neat vintage 1950s-era gun ad:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/29/3190769.html
Cameron Bailey reports that the Chinese Communists are alive and well as they have launched a web-based patrol to squelch dissent:
http://www.cameron-bailey.com/2007/08/chinese-totalitarianism-x2.html
Of Arms and the Law has some interesting news about atheist billionaire and Democratic political operative George Soros. One of his front-groups set up to push his extremist liberal agenda has been fined three-quarters of a million bucks by the FEC:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/08/soros_group_get.php
Red's Trading Post shares the good news about brisk sales yesterday:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/08/several-updates.html
Say Uncle provides VERY important commentary on the so-called 'gun culture':
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/29/culture-2/
Snow Flakes in Hell says that taking a newbie to the shooting range is one of the best things we can do for our cause:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1419
The Bitch Girls point to one of the reasons incumbents seem to be able to gain the upper hand against grassroots opponents:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7336
The War on Guns submits a VERY important request concerning the upcoming Republican YouTube debate on CNN:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-question.html
John Lott reports that he will be on Glen Beck's show TONIGHT on CNN to talk about concealed handgun laws:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/08/i-will-be-on-glenn-beck-cnn-program.html
Blonde Sagacity alerts us to the latest example of there being something mighty fishy in the Hillary Clinton campaign when it comes to campaign contributions. This is not the first time serious charges have been made concerning her fundraising activity:
http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2007/08/somethings-fishy-in-hillarys-campaign.html
Images and graphics courtesy of A Human Right.
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
The McCarville Report says that the Oklahoma Democratic Party is in dire financial difficulty:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/08/democratic-consultants-demand-debt.html
JR at A Keyboard and a .45 reports on what he did for National Exercise Your Rights Day:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/08/national-exercise-your-rights-day-aar.html
Alphecca comments on the very poor showing for the Jessie Jackson-initiated gun protests across the country yesterday:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=373
Blogonomicon opines on the anti-gun media culture:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/29/3191868.html
Blogonomicon also has a neat vintage 1950s-era gun ad:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/29/3190769.html
Cameron Bailey reports that the Chinese Communists are alive and well as they have launched a web-based patrol to squelch dissent:
http://www.cameron-bailey.com/2007/08/chinese-totalitarianism-x2.html
Of Arms and the Law has some interesting news about atheist billionaire and Democratic political operative George Soros. One of his front-groups set up to push his extremist liberal agenda has been fined three-quarters of a million bucks by the FEC:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/08/soros_group_get.php
Red's Trading Post shares the good news about brisk sales yesterday:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/08/several-updates.html
Say Uncle provides VERY important commentary on the so-called 'gun culture':
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/08/29/culture-2/
Snow Flakes in Hell says that taking a newbie to the shooting range is one of the best things we can do for our cause:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1419
The Bitch Girls point to one of the reasons incumbents seem to be able to gain the upper hand against grassroots opponents:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7336
The War on Guns submits a VERY important request concerning the upcoming Republican YouTube debate on CNN:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-question.html
John Lott reports that he will be on Glen Beck's show TONIGHT on CNN to talk about concealed handgun laws:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/08/i-will-be-on-glenn-beck-cnn-program.html
Blonde Sagacity alerts us to the latest example of there being something mighty fishy in the Hillary Clinton campaign when it comes to campaign contributions. This is not the first time serious charges have been made concerning her fundraising activity:
http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2007/08/somethings-fishy-in-hillarys-campaign.html
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The Dilemma of the Libertarian-Leaning Voter
During a speaking engagement some time ago I fielded a question from the participants concerning my political preferences. The question was this: given that you are obviously libertarian in your views, why, then, do you tend to support Republican candidates?
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
Friday, July 06, 2007
LIBERTY ALERT! Dems Won't Back Down on Fairness Doctrine
Washington, DC (TLS). Like a bad rash that won't go away, Democrats in Congress just keep scratching the infected itch to do something to silence conservative talk radio.
After losing a round in the House when an amendment to an appropriations bill was passed that barred the use of federal funds to revive the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate indicated that they have no intention of giving up on trying to revive the ominous doctrine that would have the effect of silencing free speech on the radio.
There was a time back in the dark ages when such a doctrine was necessary. Radio was the ONLY form of electronic media. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented to keep citizens informed of political news on all sides of the issues.
Today, such a doctrine is simply not necessary due to the many various ways that Americans get their news. The fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly dominate radio does not mean the other side is not heard loud and clear.
And, as I have said, if Democrats and Liberals are hell-bent on bringing this monster back, then Republicans and Conservatives should make sure that the doctrine applies to mainstream network news.
This would mean that conservatives could demand equal time when Katie, Charlie, and what's-his-name on NBC roll out their nightly slant in favor of the Democrats.
And, of course, I would demand equal time to respond to Chris Matthews' nightly shenanigans.
Here are the details about the plan the Democrats are waiting in the wings to implement when they get a chance:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070705a.html
After losing a round in the House when an amendment to an appropriations bill was passed that barred the use of federal funds to revive the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate indicated that they have no intention of giving up on trying to revive the ominous doctrine that would have the effect of silencing free speech on the radio.
There was a time back in the dark ages when such a doctrine was necessary. Radio was the ONLY form of electronic media. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented to keep citizens informed of political news on all sides of the issues.
Today, such a doctrine is simply not necessary due to the many various ways that Americans get their news. The fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly dominate radio does not mean the other side is not heard loud and clear.
And, as I have said, if Democrats and Liberals are hell-bent on bringing this monster back, then Republicans and Conservatives should make sure that the doctrine applies to mainstream network news.
This would mean that conservatives could demand equal time when Katie, Charlie, and what's-his-name on NBC roll out their nightly slant in favor of the Democrats.
And, of course, I would demand equal time to respond to Chris Matthews' nightly shenanigans.
Here are the details about the plan the Democrats are waiting in the wings to implement when they get a chance:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070705a.html
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Lieberman Blasts George Soros, Democrats
Senator Joe Lieberman
Washington, DC (TLS). In a poignant interview with NewsMax Magazine, Senator Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) took aim at Democrat billionaire activists George Soros and those who share his disdain for America in the Democratic Party.
Stating that the Democratic Party in America has been usurped by those who carry a decidedly negative view toward America, its history, and its form of government, Lieberman stated that the George Soros influence in the Party is blatantly 'un-American.'
The Liberty Sphere has repeatedly warned about the atheist billionaire who has not only pumped millions of dollars into the Democratic Party and a host of Democratic candidates, but has undertaken a systematic scheme to influence public opinion through the mainstream media, with whom he meets on a regular basis.
During the 2006 election cycle, for example, Soros met with news execs at the major networks to discuss how to bury stories that made Bush look good and emphasize the stories that made him look bad.
Lieberman has a decided disdain for the likes of Soros and expresses deep disappointment in those who not only accept his money but tow his ideological line, such as B. Hussein Obama, John Edwards, and at one time, Hillary Clinton.
For this he was targeted for defeat by his own Party in 2006. But Lieberman showed the elitists and their emperor George Soros that he could not be outfoxed. He ran as an Independent and beat to a pulp the extremist Leftwing pacifist the Democrats put up to run against him.
Read this riveting interview here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/1/191100.shtml?s=lh
Washington, DC (TLS). In a poignant interview with NewsMax Magazine, Senator Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) took aim at Democrat billionaire activists George Soros and those who share his disdain for America in the Democratic Party.
Stating that the Democratic Party in America has been usurped by those who carry a decidedly negative view toward America, its history, and its form of government, Lieberman stated that the George Soros influence in the Party is blatantly 'un-American.'
The Liberty Sphere has repeatedly warned about the atheist billionaire who has not only pumped millions of dollars into the Democratic Party and a host of Democratic candidates, but has undertaken a systematic scheme to influence public opinion through the mainstream media, with whom he meets on a regular basis.
During the 2006 election cycle, for example, Soros met with news execs at the major networks to discuss how to bury stories that made Bush look good and emphasize the stories that made him look bad.
Lieberman has a decided disdain for the likes of Soros and expresses deep disappointment in those who not only accept his money but tow his ideological line, such as B. Hussein Obama, John Edwards, and at one time, Hillary Clinton.
For this he was targeted for defeat by his own Party in 2006. But Lieberman showed the elitists and their emperor George Soros that he could not be outfoxed. He ran as an Independent and beat to a pulp the extremist Leftwing pacifist the Democrats put up to run against him.
Read this riveting interview here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/1/191100.shtml?s=lh
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Al Gore Takes a Beating from a Scientist
Washington, DC (TLS). Conventional wisdom has maintained that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party to run in the 2008 Presidential election. Conventional wisdom has also maintained that Al Gore's stranglehold on the environmental issue is fast and secure.
So who still believes in conventional wisdom, anyway?
Certainly the Clintons believe that the Democratic nomination is rightfully hers and that the 2008 Democratic convention is nothing more than a coronation. Party loyalists and the elite old guard also believe that she will be the nominee.
And I don't really doubt them that much. In fact, this is the most likely scenario.
Yet, her securing the nomination is not yet in the bag. Hillary faces some landmines that have surfaced at a very inopportune moment in her rise to fulfill a lifelong dream. First, her negatives are actually growing in the polls, not abating. She is not perceived positively by a majority of the electorate, and a new poll suggests that at least 50% of likely voters state that they will NOT vote for her.
Such bad news is sure to create some nervousness on the part of Party operatives. They may well turn to someone else if Hillary's negatives continue to dog her campaign.
Second, Hillary faces a potential bombshell of a scandal involving illegal activity on the part of both Clintons. The centerpiece of the scandal is a videotape that shows the Clintons committing felonies with regard to receiving illegal contributions and making underhanded deals.
If she is indicted and goes to trial, she can kiss her political aspirations good-bye.
Enter Al Gore.
Gore has been waiting in the wings for an opportunity to take center stage and supposedly recapture what he has always considered his since 2000--the Presidency.
Should Hillary falter, it is a near-certainty that the Democrats will NOT turn to Barack Obama, since his polls numbers have plummeted faster than the speed of sound. Edwards has fared even worse. And none of the other Democratic candidates appear to be catching on.
Thus, Al Gore would be the Party's tenured star waiting in the wings to save the day...except the problem is that Gore is facing his own set of problems.
By making global warming the centerpiece of his public discourse over the past few years, Gore has thrown himself lock, stock, and barrel into the 'environmentalist movement'--which is actually a political movement that uses environmental issues to push an ideological agenda.
Gore has bought the propaganda of the movement without question--that mankind is to blame for global warming and that the only way to 'fix' it is to enact sweeping policy changes in society that will reflect a collectivist rather than a free market set of values.
In short, personal freedom of choice will suffer. Free market capitalism will be smashed. The only way the planet can be saved from the exceedingly wicked human beings who have trashed it and caused it to warm up is to put severe restrictions on those sinister human beings and their behavior in commerce and free enterprise.
The truth of the matter is that Al Gore is only listening to SOME of the scientists.
As we have repeatedly shown in countless articles on The Liberty Sphere, the scientific community is far from unanimous on the issue. In fact, with each passing month new evidence emerges that strongly suggests that the 'Al Gore hypothesis' which was born out of the environmentalist movement is totally wrong.
Americans are increasingly waking up to the scam. A poll just this week found that over 70% of Americans now believe that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon and not primarily a result of human activity.
The hard science supports their belief.
One scientist in particular has some sharp words for Mr. Gore and his film, 'An Inconvenient Truth.' Many of the assertions made by Mr. Gore and the film have been shown to be false. And this could spell real trouble for the Democrats in 2008 if they turn to Gore as their nominee.
Read the entire article here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
So who still believes in conventional wisdom, anyway?
Certainly the Clintons believe that the Democratic nomination is rightfully hers and that the 2008 Democratic convention is nothing more than a coronation. Party loyalists and the elite old guard also believe that she will be the nominee.
And I don't really doubt them that much. In fact, this is the most likely scenario.
Yet, her securing the nomination is not yet in the bag. Hillary faces some landmines that have surfaced at a very inopportune moment in her rise to fulfill a lifelong dream. First, her negatives are actually growing in the polls, not abating. She is not perceived positively by a majority of the electorate, and a new poll suggests that at least 50% of likely voters state that they will NOT vote for her.
Such bad news is sure to create some nervousness on the part of Party operatives. They may well turn to someone else if Hillary's negatives continue to dog her campaign.
Second, Hillary faces a potential bombshell of a scandal involving illegal activity on the part of both Clintons. The centerpiece of the scandal is a videotape that shows the Clintons committing felonies with regard to receiving illegal contributions and making underhanded deals.
If she is indicted and goes to trial, she can kiss her political aspirations good-bye.
Enter Al Gore.
Gore has been waiting in the wings for an opportunity to take center stage and supposedly recapture what he has always considered his since 2000--the Presidency.
Should Hillary falter, it is a near-certainty that the Democrats will NOT turn to Barack Obama, since his polls numbers have plummeted faster than the speed of sound. Edwards has fared even worse. And none of the other Democratic candidates appear to be catching on.
Thus, Al Gore would be the Party's tenured star waiting in the wings to save the day...except the problem is that Gore is facing his own set of problems.
By making global warming the centerpiece of his public discourse over the past few years, Gore has thrown himself lock, stock, and barrel into the 'environmentalist movement'--which is actually a political movement that uses environmental issues to push an ideological agenda.
Gore has bought the propaganda of the movement without question--that mankind is to blame for global warming and that the only way to 'fix' it is to enact sweeping policy changes in society that will reflect a collectivist rather than a free market set of values.
In short, personal freedom of choice will suffer. Free market capitalism will be smashed. The only way the planet can be saved from the exceedingly wicked human beings who have trashed it and caused it to warm up is to put severe restrictions on those sinister human beings and their behavior in commerce and free enterprise.
The truth of the matter is that Al Gore is only listening to SOME of the scientists.
As we have repeatedly shown in countless articles on The Liberty Sphere, the scientific community is far from unanimous on the issue. In fact, with each passing month new evidence emerges that strongly suggests that the 'Al Gore hypothesis' which was born out of the environmentalist movement is totally wrong.
Americans are increasingly waking up to the scam. A poll just this week found that over 70% of Americans now believe that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon and not primarily a result of human activity.
The hard science supports their belief.
One scientist in particular has some sharp words for Mr. Gore and his film, 'An Inconvenient Truth.' Many of the assertions made by Mr. Gore and the film have been shown to be false. And this could spell real trouble for the Democrats in 2008 if they turn to Gore as their nominee.
Read the entire article here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
Monday, June 11, 2007
If ALL Democrats Could Be Like This...
Washington, DC (TLS). Senator Joseph Lieberman, whom the Democrats abandoned during the 2006 election cycle in order to support a fringe-element Leftist anti-war pacifist, has stated in an interview that the U.S. should bomb Iran unless it stops feeding aid to terrorist insurgents in Iran.
If only there were more Democrats like Lieberman...not that Lieberman is a Democrat anymore. He was chased out of the Party by a bunch of extremist nutcases who would rather cow-tow to terrorists than use military force.
The nation needs more statesmen like Lieberman who put national security and honor ahead of personal political gain.
Read Lieberman's striking interview here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml
If only there were more Democrats like Lieberman...not that Lieberman is a Democrat anymore. He was chased out of the Party by a bunch of extremist nutcases who would rather cow-tow to terrorists than use military force.
The nation needs more statesmen like Lieberman who put national security and honor ahead of personal political gain.
Read Lieberman's striking interview here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)