Ron Paul won a straw poll in Iowa and came in a close second in Alabama. Here is a comment I left over at the HuffingtonPost.
Congratulations to Ron Paul and all those who want to restore the American republic. It's interesting that the article mentions that the campaign bought attendees tickets. I wonder where the campaign got money. How did the campaign get people there to vote? I reckon this means that the money bomb where thousands donated to the campaign was good for something. The dedication of Ron Paul supporters must be quite intense for them to turn out to vote in a poll where the malcontents would surely try to discount Paul's win.
Critical Commentary from a Libertarian Perspective.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Oh Lord, Jeffrey Bitchin' about so-called Anti-Semitism
Jeffrey Lord, the resident idiot, over at The American Spectator, blogs about what he sees as the anti-Semitism of some of Ron Paul's supporters. Lord visited dailypaul.com and claims that he could not help noticing certain comments.
The problem with Lord's supposed outrage is that he does not validate his sentiment that the comments are anti-Semitic. The comments focus on putting America first and they highlight the negative aspects of the Israeli state. Zionism is a form of statism, so it's no surprise that Ron Paul supporters are against it.
Lord uses the term anti-Semite as a cuss-word as most paranoid Jews do. Apparently, no criticism of Israel or the actions of individual Jews is ever objective or logical, if Lord is to be believed. That sentiment represents a sort of enduring sin where Jews could do no wrong, and every criticism of Jews could only come from tainted Gentiles who are animated by hate.
I guess when Mark Levin insults other Jews he is an antI-Semite too. Or, is it the case that only Jews could criticize Jews?
Lord should keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionist. Plus, the Talmud flattering to non-Jews.
The problem with Lord's supposed outrage is that he does not validate his sentiment that the comments are anti-Semitic. The comments focus on putting America first and they highlight the negative aspects of the Israeli state. Zionism is a form of statism, so it's no surprise that Ron Paul supporters are against it.
Lord uses the term anti-Semite as a cuss-word as most paranoid Jews do. Apparently, no criticism of Israel or the actions of individual Jews is ever objective or logical, if Lord is to be believed. That sentiment represents a sort of enduring sin where Jews could do no wrong, and every criticism of Jews could only come from tainted Gentiles who are animated by hate.
I guess when Mark Levin insults other Jews he is an antI-Semite too. Or, is it the case that only Jews could criticize Jews?
Lord should keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionist. Plus, the Talmud flattering to non-Jews.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Michelle Bachmann drinks Trump's Cool Aid
Lately, Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann has been rubbing shoulders with Donald Trump. The results of their canoodling could be witnessed at the CNN Western Republican Leadership Conference debate, which occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. Like Trump, Michelle thinks that countries that were preemptively attacked by the U.S. should reimburse the U.S. for costs associate with destroying their people and infrastructure.
The imperialistic conceit of Michelle Bachmann is disgusting. The supposition that there is some implicit liability for countries that were attacked by the U.S. to reimburse the aggressors costs is superstition. Bachmann seems to be saying that the U.S. is fighting wars based on altruism and not for national defense. Furthermore, she believes that the U.S. definition of liberation is sufficient for all peoples of the world. Trump is rubbing off on Bachmann, and she is more of ass for it.
The idiocy and depravity of such a sentiment is overwhelming. Here is the transcript of what Michelle Bachmann said:
COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann... [...] Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?
BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact... that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.
Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.
Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.
COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann... [...] Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?
BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact... that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.
Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.
Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.
The imperialistic conceit of Michelle Bachmann is disgusting. The supposition that there is some implicit liability for countries that were attacked by the U.S. to reimburse the aggressors costs is superstition. Bachmann seems to be saying that the U.S. is fighting wars based on altruism and not for national defense. Furthermore, she believes that the U.S. definition of liberation is sufficient for all peoples of the world. Trump is rubbing off on Bachmann, and she is more of ass for it.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Patrick Buchanan is terrified...
Patrick J. Buchanan is mostly right when he says that changing demographics is bad news for the Republican party and possibly whites. This is so, because in the next few decades there would come a time when the American state would not be controlled by whites, but by non Caucasians.
The white supremacists of all temperaments are uneasy about all of this. The state was used to enforce and enshrine white supremacy and privilege. The big question is what would happen to white interests when the state is controlled by mostly non-Caucasians.
As Bob Marley would say, "Guiltiness rest on their conscience."
The white supremacists of all temperaments are uneasy about all of this. The state was used to enforce and enshrine white supremacy and privilege. The big question is what would happen to white interests when the state is controlled by mostly non-Caucasians.
As Bob Marley would say, "Guiltiness rest on their conscience."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Rush Limbaugh's Big Gaffe
Rush Limbaugh gave a great plug to Ron Paul economic plan. However, Rush made a big gaffe when he said that Ron Paul stole the ideas from him and anonymous Republican or Conservatives.
"Now, these are not really Ron Paul’s ideas. On this program I myself have suggested freezing spending at 2008 levels. Let’s freeze spending back to Clinton’s years. Paul is stealing that idea. Cutting the EPA? We’ve long been an advocate of this … eliminating whole bureaucracies. But nobody on our side has ever seriously proposed this and Ron Paul is going to. "
Ron Paul is older that Rush Limbaugh. In fact, when Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, he was calling for a reduction in the Federal government and spending. Consequently, prior to 1988 Ron Paul had been advocating Federal spending cuts. Rush Limbaugh is out of place. He needs to respect his elders and get back to reality.
"Now, these are not really Ron Paul’s ideas. On this program I myself have suggested freezing spending at 2008 levels. Let’s freeze spending back to Clinton’s years. Paul is stealing that idea. Cutting the EPA? We’ve long been an advocate of this … eliminating whole bureaucracies. But nobody on our side has ever seriously proposed this and Ron Paul is going to. "
Ron Paul is older that Rush Limbaugh. In fact, when Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, he was calling for a reduction in the Federal government and spending. Consequently, prior to 1988 Ron Paul had been advocating Federal spending cuts. Rush Limbaugh is out of place. He needs to respect his elders and get back to reality.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Herman Cain is a Liar
Herman Cain claims not to know about Neocons yet he names only Neocons as individuals who are helping him on policy or who he would have help him. Cain is a liar or worst he is a naive ignoramus as Bill O'Reilly has alluded to. Bolton, Kissinger and McFarland are figurehead Neocons. Perhaps, Cain should read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It," then he would realize by deduction that he himself advocates a position that he cannot give a name to.
ITEM #1:
MR. GREGORY: But you're familiar with the neoconservative movement?
MR. CAIN: I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement. I'm familiar with the conservative movement. And let me define what I mean by the conservative movement. Less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility.
ITEM #2:
MR. GREGORY: What about foreign policy advisers? Who, who has shaped your thinking about the U.S. in the world and foreign policy?
MR. CAIN: I've looked at the writings of people like Ambassador John Bolton. I've looked at the writings of Dr. Harry--Henry Kissinger. KT McFarland, someone who I respect. So...
MR. GREGORY: Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?
ITEM #1:
MR. GREGORY: But you're familiar with the neoconservative movement?
MR. CAIN: I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement. I'm familiar with the conservative movement. And let me define what I mean by the conservative movement. Less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility.
ITEM #2:
MR. GREGORY: What about foreign policy advisers? Who, who has shaped your thinking about the U.S. in the world and foreign policy?
MR. CAIN: I've looked at the writings of people like Ambassador John Bolton. I've looked at the writings of Dr. Harry--Henry Kissinger. KT McFarland, someone who I respect. So...
MR. GREGORY: Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)