Our main problems are the amount of foreign welfare we pump out of our country at the expense of the taxpayer and it is the world policing we have done, especially since the end of the Cold War, also at the expense of the taxpayer. When Bush campaigned he said he would advocate a "humble foreign policy" That is because us conservatives were sick of being the world's policeman, getting involved in conflicts we should have no part in. Of course when 9/11 happened we were shocked, but we should not have been if we would have just looked at what was happening in the world. We all underestimated both the cause and the effect.
All World Superpowers in history have experienced terrorism. All terrorists come from countries within their sphere of influence, of places they have intervened, and while usually those acts were confined to the countries of intervention, advances in travel and technology have come since Rome and Britain experienced terrorism when they were world superpowers. Now terrorism can happen more readily at the Superpower's home country. Terrorism is a symptom of empire. The only way to effectively eliminate foreign terrorism is to eliminate unnecessary government intervention abroad. The only way to effectively eliminate terrorism is reduce government intervention both at home and abroad. It should be reminded that Oklahoma City happened because of government intervention at home in the form of Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Saturday, April 7, 2007
State of The Republic
I know the speech is from 1998, but it is still relevant today. Please take the time out to read it:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr012898.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr012898.htm
Friday, April 6, 2007
Fresh from the Mailbox...
The American Conservative Magazine (Started by Pat Buchanan)
Deep Backround by Philip Giraldi (A former CIA Officer)
He did a small article, a few issues ago, that we were covertly funding and arming Fatah Militas sympathetic to Abbas, in order to combat Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Then about a week or two later stories start popping up in the MSM about new violence between Fatah and Hamas ended by a compromise between the two in the form of a unity government. I take this source to be credible, he has been pretty accurate on other articles. This is today's article:
Those who have harbored concerns that the new Democratic Congress would differ little from the Republican one on foreign policy have noted with dismay recent developments regarding Iran. On March 12, the Democratic Party leadership announced that it would decouple the issue of Iran from consideration of funding measures for the troop surge in neighboring Iraq. Opponents of possible military action directed against Iran sought specific language in the appropriation that would deny funding for military operations outside Iraq without prior congressional approval. The proposal seemed reasonable enough given the Bush administration's track record on the use of force, but apparently that was not acceptable to some Congressmen and lobbyists.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which was meeting in Washington for its annual conference, mobilized immediately, initiating an intensive lobbying campaign against the measure. AIPAC instructed its supporters to flood Congress with calls, adding that it is best to telephone just after lunchtime, when there are more staffers to answer the phone. Democratic Caucus Leader Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Illinois who served in the Israeli Army, organized resistance to the measure from inside the House of Representatives, while Charles Schumer from New York did the same in the Senate. Emanuel promised that the offensive language would be dropped. The Democratic Party subsequently held closed-door meetings and decided to exclude Iran from the funding discussion because of "possible impact on Israel." Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, under intense pressure from AIPAC, initially favored linkage but reluctantly agreed that there was too much opposition to proceed. Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York stated that reluctance to be "taking things off the table" vis-a-vis Israel's security was the reason for the decision, especially "if you're trying to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way." Ackerman's belief that a possible nuclear first strike is the height of civilized demeanor might be disputed, particularly as the lack of any legislative hurdle empowers woman Shelley Berkley of Nevada, citing "widespread fear in Israel about Iran," provided a groundbreaking definition for the word "negotiating," adding that the threat of an impromptu attack on Iran is the "most important negotiating tool that the US has..."
Separate bills introduced by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and by Republican Congressman Walter B. Jones that would forbid military action against Iran without congressional approval are meanwhile languishing due to a lack of co-sponsors, while the mainstream media is also continuing to do its bit on Iran, as it did in the lead up to Iraq. Senator Webb's legislation, accompanied by lengthy floor speech, was tabled on March 5, but was not reported in either "newspaper of record," the New York Times or the Washington Post. Neither newspaper would respond to queries as to why Webb was considered unworthy of mention. And neither Webb nor Jones was receiving any support from their respective political parties in their efforts to stop another catastrophic war of choice.
Deep Backround by Philip Giraldi (A former CIA Officer)
He did a small article, a few issues ago, that we were covertly funding and arming Fatah Militas sympathetic to Abbas, in order to combat Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Then about a week or two later stories start popping up in the MSM about new violence between Fatah and Hamas ended by a compromise between the two in the form of a unity government. I take this source to be credible, he has been pretty accurate on other articles. This is today's article:
Those who have harbored concerns that the new Democratic Congress would differ little from the Republican one on foreign policy have noted with dismay recent developments regarding Iran. On March 12, the Democratic Party leadership announced that it would decouple the issue of Iran from consideration of funding measures for the troop surge in neighboring Iraq. Opponents of possible military action directed against Iran sought specific language in the appropriation that would deny funding for military operations outside Iraq without prior congressional approval. The proposal seemed reasonable enough given the Bush administration's track record on the use of force, but apparently that was not acceptable to some Congressmen and lobbyists.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which was meeting in Washington for its annual conference, mobilized immediately, initiating an intensive lobbying campaign against the measure. AIPAC instructed its supporters to flood Congress with calls, adding that it is best to telephone just after lunchtime, when there are more staffers to answer the phone. Democratic Caucus Leader Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Illinois who served in the Israeli Army, organized resistance to the measure from inside the House of Representatives, while Charles Schumer from New York did the same in the Senate. Emanuel promised that the offensive language would be dropped. The Democratic Party subsequently held closed-door meetings and decided to exclude Iran from the funding discussion because of "possible impact on Israel." Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, under intense pressure from AIPAC, initially favored linkage but reluctantly agreed that there was too much opposition to proceed. Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York stated that reluctance to be "taking things off the table" vis-a-vis Israel's security was the reason for the decision, especially "if you're trying to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way." Ackerman's belief that a possible nuclear first strike is the height of civilized demeanor might be disputed, particularly as the lack of any legislative hurdle empowers woman Shelley Berkley of Nevada, citing "widespread fear in Israel about Iran," provided a groundbreaking definition for the word "negotiating," adding that the threat of an impromptu attack on Iran is the "most important negotiating tool that the US has..."
Separate bills introduced by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and by Republican Congressman Walter B. Jones that would forbid military action against Iran without congressional approval are meanwhile languishing due to a lack of co-sponsors, while the mainstream media is also continuing to do its bit on Iran, as it did in the lead up to Iraq. Senator Webb's legislation, accompanied by lengthy floor speech, was tabled on March 5, but was not reported in either "newspaper of record," the New York Times or the Washington Post. Neither newspaper would respond to queries as to why Webb was considered unworthy of mention. And neither Webb nor Jones was receiving any support from their respective political parties in their efforts to stop another catastrophic war of choice.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Why Hugh Hewitt is an Establishment Parasite
Hugh Hewitt thought he was smart. He really thought people would see it his way. He ambushed Tom Tancredo in an interview with twisted logic and zealous fervor and made a HUGE ASS out of himself. Why? Because he has a boyfriend in the race, Mitt Romney. Romney is backed by Bush's backers, both fundraising and public relations, mainly through Jeb, just in case McCain stays steady. I had a Pro Romney commenter present the following oped from Newsmax the other day to justify Romney's "conservative" credentials. The "author" is Ronald Kessler. Who is Ronald Kessler? He wrote two fluff biographies for George W. Bush and Laura Bush.
Rudy doesn't have a chance in hell, and that is surprising considering he would have home court advantage. If neither Romney or McCain win, the party establishment will fall back on two CFR and AEI buddies, Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. Of course the CFR(PDF) is trying to push the SPP as a vehicle for the North American Union. Tom Tancredo and Our Next President, Ron Paul, are both fighting this theft of our sovereignty. That basically sums up why Hugh Hewitt is a parasite and why we must support FINANCIALLY either Tom Tancredo or Our Next President Ron Paul.
Rudy doesn't have a chance in hell, and that is surprising considering he would have home court advantage. If neither Romney or McCain win, the party establishment will fall back on two CFR and AEI buddies, Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. Of course the CFR(PDF) is trying to push the SPP as a vehicle for the North American Union. Tom Tancredo and Our Next President, Ron Paul, are both fighting this theft of our sovereignty. That basically sums up why Hugh Hewitt is a parasite and why we must support FINANCIALLY either Tom Tancredo or Our Next President Ron Paul.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Ron Paul on Bill Maher
Ron Paul was on Bill Maher's show Friday and it confirmed some things I suspected about both people.
Bill Maher is a joke. He wasn't that good at standup but it is better than his politcal commentating. His viewpoints are very narrow, he's very full of himself, and he get his lunch handed to him whenever someone who actually has a grasp of history and politics goes on his show. I personally think that Maher forms his position by listening to the talking heads instead of personal research. When one does make their decisions based on the talking heads they exhibit a lesser level of rhetoric, they are simply left speechless by someone who actually researches the facts. In this case that person was Republican Candidate for President Ron Paul. Don't take my word for it, here is the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU
Bill Maher is a joke. He wasn't that good at standup but it is better than his politcal commentating. His viewpoints are very narrow, he's very full of himself, and he get his lunch handed to him whenever someone who actually has a grasp of history and politics goes on his show. I personally think that Maher forms his position by listening to the talking heads instead of personal research. When one does make their decisions based on the talking heads they exhibit a lesser level of rhetoric, they are simply left speechless by someone who actually researches the facts. In this case that person was Republican Candidate for President Ron Paul. Don't take my word for it, here is the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)