Presentation of the book "Blue Planet in Green Shackles", National Press Club, Washington D.C., 27. May, 2008
It is a great pleasure to be here. Let me thank all those who helped to make the English translation and publication of my book "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" possible, especially Fred Smith and his Competitive Enterprise Institute, and those who co-organized the presentation of it in this very prestigious place. I am really excited to finally hold in my hands - after the Czech, German and Dutch editions - the English version of my book.
The authors often claim that their books speak for themselves. I cautiously agree and will, therefore, speak not about the book itself but about my motivations to write it.
To make my position and my message clear, I should probably revoke my personal experience. My today's thinking is substantially influenced by the fact that I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom and wanted to command not only the people but also the nature. To command "wind and rain" is one of the famous slogans I remember since my childhood. This experience taught me that freedom and rational dealing with the environment are indivisible. It formed my relatively very sharp views on the fragility and vulnerability of free society and gave me a special sensitivity to all kinds of factors which may endanger it.
I do not, however, live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. The name of the new danger will undoubtedly be different, but its substance will be very similar. There will be the same attractive, to a great extent pathetic and at first sight quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him, (of something greater than his poor self), supplemented by enormous self-confidence on the side of those who stand behind it. Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.
I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism. Feeling very strongly about it and trying to oppose it was the main reason for putting my book together, originally in Czech language, in the spring of 2007. It has also been the driving force behind my active involvement in the current Climate Change Debate and behind my being the only head of state who in September 2007 at the UN Climate Change Conference in New York City openly and explicitly challenged the undergoing global warming hysteria. Vaclav Klaus has challenged Al Gore to debate Global Warming. As we wait, Hell will freeze over and envirofreaks can blame it on Climate Change.
My central concern is - in a condensed form - captured in the subtitle of this book. I ask: "What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" My answer is: "it is our freedom." I may also add "and our prosperity".
The book was written by an economist who happens to be in a high political position. I don't deny my basic paradigm, which is the "economic way of thinking", because I consider it an advantage, not a disadvantage. By stressing that, I want to say that the Climate Change Debate in a wider and the only relevant sense should be neither about several tenths of a degree of Fahrenheit or Celsius, about the up or down movements of sea level, about the depths of ice at North and Southern Pole, nor about the variations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The real debate should be about costs and benefits of alternative human actions, about how to rationally deal with the unknown future, about what kind and size of solidarity with much wealthier future generations is justified, about the size of externalities and their eventual appropriate "internalization", about how much to trust the impersonal functioning of the markets in solving any human problem, including global warming and how much to distrust the very visible hand of very human politicians and their bureaucrats. Some of these questions are touched upon in my book.
My deep frustration has been exponentially growing in recent years by witnessing the fact that almost everything has already been said, that all rational arguments have been used and that global warming alarmism is still marching on. It could be even true that "We are now at the stage where mere facts, reason, and truth are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda" (R. McKittrick, private correspondence).
We are regretfully behind it. The whole process is already in the hands of those who are not interested in rational ideas and arguments. It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also - as a consequence of political decisions - in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality. It is in the hands of rent-seeking businesspeople who are - given the existing policies - interested in the amount of subsidies they are receiving and look for all possible ways to escape the for them often merciless, but for the rest of us very positive, general welfare enhancing functioning of free markets. An entire industry has developed around the funds the firms are getting from the government.
The basic questions of the current climate change debate are sufficiently known and well-structured:
1) Do we live in an era of a statistically significant, non-accidental and noncyclical climate change?
2) If so, is it dominantly man-made?
3) If so, should such a moderate temperature increase bother us more than many other pressing problems we face and should it receive our extraordinary attention?
4) If we want to change the climate, can it be done? Are current attempts to do so the best allocation of our scarce resources?
My answer to all these questions is NO, but with a difference in emphasis. I don't aspire to measure the global temperature, nor to estimate the importance of factors which make it. This is not the area of my comparative advantages. But to argue, as it's done by many contemporary environmentalists, that these questions have already been answered with a consensual "yes" and that there is an unchallenged scientific consensus about this is unjustified. It is also morally and intellectually deceptive.
Global warming is already affecting the nation's forests, water resources, farmland and wildlife, and will have serious negative consequences over the next 25 to 50 years, according to a report issued yesterday by the federal government.
The scientific assessment by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which was commissioned by the Agriculture Department and carried out by 38 scientists inside and outside the government, provides the most detailed look in nearly eight years at how climate change is reshaping the American landscape. The report, which runs 193 pages and synthesizes a thousand scientific papers, highlights how human-generated carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have already translated into more frequent forest fires, reduced snowpack and increased drought, especially in the West.
Anthony C. Janetos, director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute of the University of Maryland and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said the document aims to inform federal resource managers and dispel the public's perception that global warming will not be felt until years from now.
"They imagine all these ecological impacts are in some distant future," said Janetos, one of the lead authors, who noted that many animals and plants have shifted their migratory and blooming patterns to reflect recent changes in temperature. "They're not in some distant future. We're experiencing them now."
The document concludes that Americans must face the fact that many of these changes are locked in even if the country takes significant steps to cut emissions in the coming decades.
"Climate change is currently impacting the nation's ecosystems and services in significant ways, and those alterations are very likely to accelerate in the future, in some cases dramatically," the report says. "Even under the most optimistic CO2emission scenarios, important changes in sea level, regional and super-regional temperatures and precipitation patterns will have profound effects."
Richard Moss, vice president and managing director for climate change at the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund, said in an interview that the report represents "the very first upfront acknowledgment from the administration that we are already experiencing climate change impacts."
As recently as July 2007, the administration submitted a report to the United Nations that omitted any discussion of how global warming will affect wildfires, heat waves, agriculture or snowpack.
Moss, who led the U.S. Climate Change Science Program coordination office during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, praised the program for producing the analysis, which is part of a long-delayed series of official climate reports. "At the same time," he added, "we all need to be looking at how the administration now intends to use the results of this information, because it really is worrisome."
The researchers said that of 1,598 animal species examined in more than 800 studies, nearly 60 percent were found to have been affected by climate change.
In addition, the number and frequency of forest fires and insect outbreaks are "increasing in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska," while "precipitation, stream flow, and stream temperatures are increasing in most of the continental United States" and snowpack is declining in the West.
The Agriculture Department, the study's lead sponsor, issued a statement yesterday highlighting some of the report's findings for farmers, noting that the higher temperatures mean that grain and oilseed crops will mature more rapidly but face an increased risk of failure and "will negatively affect livestock."
#3
First of all, the total extent of Global Warming is, at most, 1.5 degrees since 1900. Not enough to set forests on fire. And that is a 1.5 degree AVERAGE over the course of the entire year.
Secondly, warmer temperatures mean WETTER weather because you have increased evaporation from the ocean. Wetter weather means more rain and less extensive fires.
Warm/Wet
Cool/Dry
Those are pretty much your choices with climate. This year is extremely cooler than last year was over most of the globe. There might indeed be fires this year, but not caused by increasing temperatures, but caused by less moisture in the air due to less ocean evaporation.
#4
Anthony C. Janetos, director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute of the University of Maryland and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said the document aims to find more grant money and inform federal resource managers and dispel the public's perception that global warming will not be felt until years from now.
#5
The document concludes that Americans must face the fact that many of these changes are locked in even if the country takes significant steps to cut emissions in the coming decades.
Which is precisely THE reason NOT to do anything to reduce CO2 emissions since this would cripple our economy and leave us LESS capable of adapting to climate change (if it is occuring at all). In this case the MSM invoking the standard moonbat question: "What about the children?" leads to the very sensible reply that we want to leave our children as strong an economy as we have now so that they an adapt - not live in mud huts like the third world.
Rupert keeps telling me not to be so sure Obamas going to win in November. I keep telling Rupert he doesnt read enough conservative blogs and thus doesnt realize how many conservatives are so tired of getting poked in the eye and stabbed in the back that theyre gonna take their principles all the way to nowhere on Election Day by sitting home or voting third-party rather than voting for McCain, which is the ONLY WAY to keep Obama out of office. But theyre just Na. Ga. Da. (not gonna do it). Because they want to punish the Republican party. Teach them a lesson!
Sorry, I know lots of you who feel that way are very wonderful people who I really do respect, but Ive said it before and Im saying it again: I think your plan is shitty. Youre going to get Obama elected, you realize that right? If youre cool with that, more power to you, but I for one will NOT welcome my new Dumbass Overlord Obama. . . .
Were done with Bush now and were getting a new president. And its probably going to be Obama because so many people who otherwise could prevent that outcome simply wont do it because McCain doesnt say what they want him to say about whatever their pet cause is. It doesnt matter to these people that there is no Reagan waiting in the wings to take over after Obama pulls a Jimmy Carter on the country.
I generally avoid saying much on this blog that I think would piss off or otherwise displease the bulk of my readers, but this is one case where I truly dont give a shit because I genuinely believe that anyone who disagrees with me on this is flat-out wrong. I believe it with all of my heart and soul and I believe that history backs me up on it, and that emotion should have no place in a decision like this. I dont give a flying fuck that McCain is more liberal than we would like and that hes basically an asshole, because Im operating with the awareness that hes still better than Obama by about a hundred orders of magnitude.
I do not believe youre going to teach anyone a lesson by sitting this one out or writing in Fred Thompson or Sunny Lucas. I believe that way too many people are ignoring the forest for the trees and that in doing so, theyre going to have a hand in electing Obama. Some say thats fine because if the countrys going to be ruined, better that its ruined by a Democrat, and somehow magically well come up with a fantastic, real conservative in 4 years even though there is no one like that on the horizon and everyone knows it. Like I said, I think thats a super-crappy plan.
Usually I dont want to be wrong but I sincerely hope I am on this one. Well find out in about four and a half years, and if Im still blogging then, Ill post a great big IM A GODDAMN MORON post and all of you who sat this one out or voted third-party can point and laugh at me as smugly as you deem fit. I actually hope that happens, but I dont think it will.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2008 06:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She forgot to add that given the technology of today and the compostion of the education and information industries, as well as the desire of the left to suppress free speech via the "Fairness" doctrine and as yet unveiled autocratic tricks, that a Carteresque presidency could wreck this country for many decades if not permanently (please, no admonitions about how we survived other threats to the republic, these times are suffciently different that those comparisons don't apply).
Other than that, she's spot on.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/28/2008 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
*sigh*
Okay, let me put it this way.
We conservatives are the most mature and adult voters out there. We've had the discipline to settle for less than 100% of what we wanted in the spirit of compromise. We've done this for YEARS.
What HAS it earned us?
No respect whatsoever. McCain insists on planting his boot in our faces to keep his liberal media fans happy. To get cred during the Amnesty fiasco, Bush slandered us, implying that we did not have the best interests of the nation at heart, dipping into the liberal democrat playbook of character assasination for cheap points.
And here, ms. lucas hikes her skirts and pisses on us some more.
Now, let me say this. Despite how McCain, Lucas, Bush, the entire RNC hierarchy, and YOU, paint us, this is all CALCULATED. You KNOW we're the most mature out there. You KNOW we can think ahead. You KNOW we can weigh cause and effect. You know we make rational economic decisions. You KNOW we have the internal moral strength to forgive, overlook this brazen calculated treatment, and truly move on. It is basically conservative ideas and beliefs about human behavior that you count on when tax cuts are passed to boost the economy. EVERY TIME, THOSE IDEAS AND BELIEFS have proven correct. At the core is the belief that respect for people consists in offering them the guarantee that they can keep the fruits of their labors, and that incentives and inducements are better than threats, coercion, and the force of Law embodied in a gun pointed at the head of the electorate.
DESPITE THIS, you continue to shit on us based on those CALCULATIONS you are making about us. Like the libs, you accuse us of a bad attitude while secretly counting on us being better people THAN YOU ARE. Your accustation that we don't think ahead for the future is incorrect: YOU ARE COUNTING ON OUR ABILITY TO DO SO, AND TO DO SO IN THE FACE OF DISRESPECT AND PRETENDED HATRED AND DISGUST OF US AND OUR BELIEFS TO CURRY FAVOR WITH THE LEFT WING MSM, so they'll say nice enough things so that the middle just might vote for McCain.
Now, when we respond to this sort of treatment in the same way that the american people respond economically to the equivalent that the Democrats inflict on them, your response is MORE OF THE SAME?
We conservatives know we, and the American people, have the inner strength to survive Obama and the Democrats. I think you know that as well. The way you are acting, I kinda believe that you sense, within yourselves, that you haven't that strength yourself.
#3
If we get Obama and a massively Democratic congress with a filibuster-proof majority -- and there's a strong likelihood that we'll get the latter even if McCain wins -- the Democrats will be entrenched for 12 to 16 years, and perhaps even 20. The republic can't stand that. Times are different now; what's going to happen to us while conservatives wait for the messiah? By all means, let's work within the Republican party to change the dynamic. If we promote real conservatives and show that they can win, the party WILL get it's sanity back -- but isn't it best for it to regain its sanity while at the same time keeping the Demonrats from trashing everything we've gained? Pissed-off conservatives keep talking about the cleansing nature of a time in the wilderness, but the wilderness is much wilder and deeper now. Better to deal from a weak position in power than a principled position on the sidelines.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
05/28/2008 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sorry guys.
I'm a lot stronger now.
Much stronger.
I can last it out. I believe the nation can last it out because I can last it out.
Again, exactly WHAT have you learned about human nature, when current behavior of the 'saviours' of the nation demonstrate that you haven't learned the key concepts that have always worked before.
I understand the frustration--I'm a disappointed Fredhead m'self, and I put McCain third or fourth on my depth chart (at best) at the beginning of all this. However, with all due respect, I would remind you that politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.
I'd love to vote for my Theoretical Ideal Conservative Candidate. But guess what: Theo ain't on the ballot. He never is. No use waiting around for him to magically appear. (The Left thinks Obumble is their magic perfect candidate who'll sweep all imperfections away in a tsunami of Leftist perfection. We're supposed to be smarter than that.)
You can't get everything you want right now--in politics, or in life in general--so you get what you can get when you can get it. Advancing the cause requires patience, a willingness to take the long view, spend a lot of time slogging and making your case one voter at a time, and a willingness to measure progress in small increments. Vote for the best available viable choice in the current election--and then work in the off season to evangelize your fellow citizens to your way of thinking and get more of the good ones to take a shot at running for office and work for them in the primaries and when that election cycle is over, do it all over again.
There's no easier way.
The problem with letting the other team have four years to screw up is that we can't afford the consequences of the screw-up. If Obumble gets in, we'll abandon Iraq and Afghanistan the way we stuck it to South Vietnam and Cambodia. The people who stuck their necks out in reliance on our help--remember all the purplefingers?--will get driven from their homes, imprisoned, or slaughtered. The Jihadis will get to crow that they defeated the Great Satan, and anyone who even thinks about standing against Islamofascism will get the message that you can't rely on Uncle Sam.
Remember the 1970s, after Vietnam? Fun times, weren't they?
Consider, too, that Ahmadinejad and his ilk are actively developing nukes, and the missiles to carry them--weapons which they have every intention of using. I'll agree with anyone who says we aren't doing enough to prevent that now, but what makes you think the Obumble administration will do any better? Obumble wants to give the man flowers and candy--while we're surrendering half the Middle East to him, and solemnly pledging never to send troops ever again, lets we offend elite anti-American world opinion.
The logical conclusion of all this is that we wake up one morning and there's a smoking radioactive crater where Tel Aviv used to be. Or Warsaw . . . Munich . . . London . . . Baltimore . . . take your pick. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions wounded.
If that happens, do you really think a government headed by Barack Obama and Harry Reid and John Murtha and all the other jihadi collaborators on the Dem left is going to suddenly embrace its inner Churchill and fight back?
Look, I'm sure the Republic could survive four years of Obumble. Even if the mad mullahs got nukes and used them, we could still defeat them. I'd just prefer to do it without all the loss of innocent life if I can possibly avoid it.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2008 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mike, you impress me.
I am going to get up out of my chair and wish I could buy you a beer.
#8
I'm with Ptah.
If we support McCain, then we approve the changing of the Republican Party to the left, and forever lose our soul.
I will add that nothing the GOP will do can bring us back, except sell out to us. Then, McCain will have to denounce his past liberalism.
This will never happen. McCain will never be president. The party is leaderless and those who think 'my party, right or wrong' are the real tools.
#9
*sighs*
I won't act like Aris and reply to every post. However, I'm still waiting for someone to really address the concern I raised in my first comment.
And while I appreciate your support, wxjames, I have to point out that it is in the nature of the Religious Right (the backbone of the conservatives) to forgive, forget, overlook, and truly move on. The problem is that doing so without the prerequisite understanding of what offends us will not be redemptive: it will not help. None of the responses have yet addressed the core of the offense.
#10
uh huh - you don't address the SCOTUS choices that will come up during the next term. Certainly McCain won't appoint the same life-term judges I would suggest, but I bet I could live with his choices better than Obama's
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2008 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I must point out that Rachel is using an emotion-based argument to convince conservatives to leave emotions out of their decision-making this election season.
I'm with Ptah. Contrary to Mike's counter-argument...I'm not looking for the "perfect" conservative candidate to vote for. I'm looking for the candidate with whom I share a majority of viewpoints that are conservative and, where there are differences or uncertainties as to where that candidate stands, he or she actually consults with the base of their party rather than the incumbent party royalty that has been ensconced in their places of power for so long that they don't think that $50 per hour for picking cabbage is bad pay(e.g. see John Mccain's address to union workers in Arizona last year). In other words, one whose decisions and policy prescriptions are governed by conservative values and not electoral calculations.
Conservatism is a very simple concept to master and promote (at its heart, smaller government, more liberty and strong national security), and has been electorally validated as a winning strategy. I personally think Karl Rove destroyed the party by constantly bisecting the conservative baby until nothing is left and the GOP supports only shreds of a conservative platform that, made whole, would not only please the conservative base but also WIN ELECTIONS.
I will not be bullied to vote based on the tired threat of socialists taking over, particularly when there is little light between the GOP candidate's domestic policies and the Dems.
#12
What some are saying is - what do you want, slow death or a quick death? The operative word is death. It's unavoidable. However, you can't have a rebirth until there is death. Human nature being what it is, the foundation of the republic has already been compromised beyond recovery by both party machines, personal ambitions, internal cultural contradictions reaching the point of 1860, and international events beyond our control. You have those who are saying, just be patient and go quietly, don't make waves.
Remember the 1970s, after Vietnam? Fun times, weren't they?
Yeah, been there, done it, still here. And what followed? A conservative retrenchment that was in turn compromise by those who said 'we all need to get along' or in other words, be patient, be quiet, and don't make waves [(C)Republican National Committee]. How'd that work out?
I notice everyone takes council of their worst fear imbuing Obama with the worst possible outcome for our future. I doubt its going to be good, but its not going to be a doomsday. Just look at the new Donks who don't buy into the Pelosi-Reid agenda. You think they want to be on the watch when some American city goes up? Hardly. They understand the political consequences. There are only so many safe seats that the Donks can rely upon. Even stubborn George W had to back down when the populi arose on the amnesty issue. Being a Donk in a swing district is going to be political hell for the next couple years if they want to run again on the programs that the leadership wants to force through the Congress. Someone has forgotten the Donk behavior when the Clintons took office and their two year lovefest in Congress which resulted in the Trunks taking power as the American people got to experience what it really was all about.
The logical conclusion..
Please, show me the logic, not a rationalization solely predicated upon fear and loathing.
#13
I'm voting for McCain w/a gasmask on. He's right on Iraq, pro-life (one of the Religious Right's biggest causes correct?), cutting earmarks and supposedly going to appoint constructionist judges. He's dead wrong on the border, CFR, water boarding and gitmo. Keating 5 will come up and he was a total ass w/the gang of 14 and opposing Bush tax cuts. I disagree w/him in part on the environment. I believe he did cheat on his first wife when he was in J'ville in 78 and is overall a hot headed asshole. Sure, he's barely to the right of Hillary on domestic policy but is way right on foreign policy - which is what this blog is kind of about. Maybe out of 10 things I agree w/him on 5. That beats the 1 out of 10 things I may agree w/obama or shillary on. In all honesty he's only a little more rino then W.
Those who want to not vote, or vote 3rd party -hey, that's you're privelege. However, I'd ask you to think about us who went to Iraq a couple fucking times before you decide to sit home. At least Mcpain will try to ensure the job gets finished and our work & all the brothers we lost were not in vain. I think you know what the other two will try to do.
#14
For some of us living in blue state hell (I'm in NJ) we don't have to deal with this problem. My electoral votes will go Dem regardless of my vote. I don't have decide if I can hold my nose and vote for Juan.
Tough choice for those of you who's votes count though.
Finally, something positive about living in shitty NJ.
#15
With either choice, the Republicans are f00ked. You want to prolong the death or get it over with? The only reason I will (maybe if he doesn't really piss on my wheaties) is because I believe his foreign policy will keep the west safer than Obama's.
However, I believe that with either choice, the domestic situation will deteriorate. Taxes will go up, freedoms will go down. McCain is liberal light and we will just get a lesser does of shit from him.
I do believe that if the Republicans get blown out in all elections, the current "leaders" of the party will get tossed out on their ear, or we will see the rise of another party. It is just how much of the shit sandwich that will be forced fed us until we demand it stop.
#16
To those of you that will vote for BHO (by sitting out)...
I hope you can live with yourselves when you see the consequences unfolding.
Read something up on the commie putch in Czechoslovakia in 1948 and see the consequences--it took 2 generations to reverse the it and still another to reverse the damage.
I am exaggerating? I wish I were. I think that the consequences will be far worse.
#17
Please let me offer some history from up here on your northern border; history that might have some bearing on the choices you have to make this year.
Back in the 1960's we Canadians voted for an "Super Hero" by the name of Pierre Elliot Trudeau to be our Prime Minister and leader of our government. He pretty much wrecked the country to the point where we're STILL suffering from his ministrations and will continue to suffer for a very long time.
It's a depressing fact to face, but one HAS to vote for the lesser of all the evils presented to one. To vote for a greater evil, or to refuse to vote at all is a moral abdication.
Pardon me for stepping into your business here but I thought my words might help the discussion.
1) Only one major party
2) Smaller parties will be allowed, but only those that would be in "coalition" with Democrats
3) Democrats will shift politically to the far left--the powers that be would feel they have a mandate for their far reaching utopian agenda.
4) Fairness Doctrine (not its current mild form) will be established to make sure any movement that would deviate from the toe line will be nipped in the bud.
The net summary--if you think there will be any legal Republican party/movement left, keep dreaming.
#20
First, let me say that this discussion is one of those things I love about the 'Burg: good people making their points with passion and conviction.
I'll just throw a couple more thoughts into the punchbowl:
1. I'm less interested in the Republicans as a brand name than I am in conservative ideas. Right now, if you're pro-life, if you're one of those narrowminded "Christers", if you actually want to see America defeat its enemies, if you would rather that people govern themselves than be ruled over by their betters, the Dems don't really want you.
You gotta work with what's available. If you want to influence public policy in a conservative direction, it's gonna be from working with the Trunks. Even in such a relatively friendly environment, the process will be slower than you like, the steps of progress will be smaller than they should be. That's life. There are no viable sudden magical transformation strategies.
2. If the conservative base sits out the '08 election, how do you know that won't accelerate things in the wrong direction? I remember after Clinton won in '92, there was all this punditry to the effect that the people had rejected Reaganism, the Trunks would need to purge themselves of the religious right and embrace universal single payer health care if they were ever gonna win an election again, yadda yadda yadda. Fortunately for us, 1994 happened, but if it hadn't . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2008 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Wise words, Canuckistan sniper, and a reminder that what we do here affects more than ourselves. Broadhead6, as always, brings a fighting Marine's perspective -- short, sharp, and to the point.
Bottom line: If you don't vote, your wishes will not be consulted next time, nor will you get any respect for taking your ball and going home. At your job, do you quit every time management doesn't do things entirely your way? In your marriage, is it always how you want it, or sometimes what your spouse needs, or a compromise in the middle -- or sometimes what neither of you would like, but what is best for your children?
The American system of choosing an executive was designed to require compromise among a variety of viewpoints, and to pick the one candidate least disagreeable to the majority of voters, to reward pragmatism, not idealism. Everybody has to compromise, not just Conservatives; those who do not compromise lose completely instead of winning partially. This election it appears at least a simple majority of Republican voters think the war on terror trumps Conservative ideology or domestic issues.
And despite all the posturing, that is what this year's presidential election is about: continue or quit. Not your ideals or mine, but just about the war, because that's the key difference between the candidates that made it to the end of the American process this time. To say so is not a threat, but simple recognition of reality. So choose among the options your fellow Americans have agreed on, and live with the result. Or don't choose, and live with the result anyway, knowing that you could have made a difference.
#22
So this is becoming a different version of just another moonbat board with all the horror we can expect if George Bush Obama is elected?
Please, listen to yourselves. Remember the commentary we've had on the lefty moonbats with all their fear projections. What's the admonition - Don't take council of your fears.
"the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius :)
#23
Ptah, consider "punishing" of Republican party in 2006 elections. How that worked out?
Sure, there will be ambers of conservative spirit surviving. But with no power to grow into a fire. Not for a long time. The Left will make sure of it.
#24
Ptah, consider "punishing" of Republican party in 2006 elections. How that worked out?
I voted straight republican. The issue that concerns me now did not exist then. Please address it.
Sure, there will be ambers of conservative spirit surviving. But with no power to grow into a fire. Not for a long time. The Left will make sure of it.
Y'know. It just hit me. Y'all are assuming something of me that isn't true. Please re-read what I said in my first comment, understand what I didn't say, and address my concern.
No. I was always a free man, even living for 30 years under commies. But I prefer not living in misery, and that applies twice so for my children.
Taking history as my consultant, I can project the trends and causalities. And casualties too. We are on a historical cusp, and the projections vis-a-vis POTUS BHOP are not pretty. In fact, I am trying to be very conservative and avoid scare-mongering.
McCain is right on the war, the WoT, standing up for ourselves in the world, abortion, cutting earmarks, and federal judges. He's right on water boarding (it's torture) and wrong on Gitmo. He's right on the economy (he doesn't know much and so will leave it alone) and wrong on Global warming (he favors cap and tax trade).
So while he's not my favorite Republican (no one is), I'll vote for him.
I will not willingly step aside and let the progressive Left wreck this country.
Ptah wants to know, best I can tell, whether we have the 'strength' to survive Obama and the Dhimmicrats. I'm sure we do, but why tempt fate? Obama will be a Carter-style disaster, perhaps worse, and it will take us 20 years to fix what he wrecks. Why should I spend 20 years doing that when I can avoid the crash?
Simply put, Ptah, I'm a physician, and I know that preventive medicine is a hell of a lot easier than radical chemotherapy.
If that's not Ptah's question, perhaps he should state it more clearly.
Barack Obama is going to be a disaster. Barack with a Dhimmicratic House and a 55-seat Dhimmicratic Senate is going to be a major disaster. I can vote for McCain and try to stop this, or fail to vote and hope that in 4, 8 or 20 years that we can get control back and start to un-do the damage.
If I'm 'strong' enough, that is.
No thanks. I have the strength, Ptah. I'm also sensible.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/28/2008 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Please re-read what I said in my first comment, understand what I didn't say, and address my concern.
Okay, will try to re-digest and get back at ya later on.
#28
The trunks will get trounced this November in the House, regardless of who wins at the top of the ticket. We will then get to the important election.
The trunks have been leaderless since Gingrich was sandbagged. Hastert was just a Chicago aelderman with a trunk and Boehner hasn't been any better. These guys are the too old, go along to get along, earmarking, coun try club Republicans whose only purpose is to answer the question, How does this effect my chances of re-election? If the House trunks elect another, they are well and truly screwed. If they elect a Mike Pence or a Jeff Flake, they can have a leader who could turn the House around by 2010 with a program to combat bhop. If they choose another Pelosi with a pecker, it will be the end of the party, and none too soon.
Interesting times.
So interesting that NJ will be in play for McCain. So don't stay home.
#29
Everybody has to compromise, Ptah. That's the nature of the American system. You get no points for maturity or anything else because you have compromised in the past, nor are you entitled to have your concerns placed ahead of mine if you cannot persuade me that I ought to give way, let alone the rest of the electorate. And as far as I can see, you haven't bothered to try.
As for being disrespected -- have you not noticed what Conservatives say about the rest of us, even here at Rantburg? Sauce for the goose as well as the gander, my dear.
#30
The trunks will get trounced this November in the House, regardless of who wins at the top of the ticket.
I find it interesting in the hand wringing that everyone considers DINOs to be Pelosi zombies. How'd that work out in the votes to end the war? IIRC two of the three special election Donk victories were by essentially DINOs. The Trunks don't have a copyright on conservative values.
#33
This is an interesting discussion and one of the reasons I love rantburg.
I'll probably suppress my gag reflex and vote for McCain.
Why? Because the alternative - Lying Obama and a democratic congress with, perhaps, a super-majority gives me nightmares. The people calling the shots will be the same ones who bow and scrape to the Kos kiddies at the annual KOS conventions.
Do you think they will 'hesitate' to go for the kill? Perhaps not as drastic as what twobyfour spelled out but a 'multicultural' law here, a 'politically correct' law there an 'anti-discriminitation' law over there.
And pretty soon you can't have a discussion. You can't criticize.
No you can't produce a film like Fitna which a 'protected class' finds it offensive.
Sorry Fred, you will have to go before the US Human Rights Commission (based on the Canadian Comission) because some Muslim took offense to Rantburg. And no, while the US taxpayer is paying for your prosecution *you* have to spend hundreds of thousands for your defense.
And no you won't have to close Rantburg. But since you can't afford the fees anymore and you know any statement anyone makes can be turned into yet another Human Rights Comission investigation....
Oh and everyone hand over your firearms.
Just imagine the entire country being run like Columbia University or any of the other 'liberal' collage campuses.
Survival. The other way of looking at it is what has not happened as a result. The nation is still free and wealthy. There have been no significant disasters. Most of this is because, I am convinced, that there has been a powerful and relevant conservative faction able to resist decadence and deterioration. Withrawal will lead to irrelevance and a loss of the vital conservative influence. Conservatives are the anchor. Even if the anchor doesn't move where it wills, it does its job.
And as for insults, respect, attitude, glorious achievements, and etc. - of what relevance are those to conservatives ? Trivial fripperies. We are here to do what we must, not what we want.
Feelings and self-actualization are for liberals.
#35
If I accept the proposition that the Obama presidency would be an unmitigated Carter-esque disaster, then why is the GOP not challenging the Dems on this very point. Why are they not forcing the Dem candidates to go on record to DEFEND or DISMISS those failed policies from the past and proposed failed policies of the future?? Why are they not hammering these demagogues left and right on the vapid populism of their message??? The reason, I fear, is because "the voters don't like it" and they are, as is referenced earlier, more concerned about getting re-elected than ensuring the values that have undergirded the GOP for decades are upheld. They have bought into the line sold by the left that disagreement=hate. They have bought into "unity" rather than principled opposition. Why are they not joining the ideological battle???
Personally, I don't believe the blue-dog Dems and other dems with conservative constituencies will toe the line on every far-left crazy socialist domestic or international policy put before them were BHOP to be president. It is one thing to pronounce support for a liberal policy when it faces a strong GOP minority and president; it is an entirely other thing to pronounce support for that policy when nothing stands between you and the voters but a liberal Dem president's rubber stamp.
John Mccain has made the conscious choice to convince potential Obama/Hillary voters to vote for him by moving left; in doing so, he has chosen to abandon conservative voters. He is hoping that the fear factor of an Obama presidency will keep the conservatives on the GOP bus; while his Dem-lite platform will attract more moderate Democrats to vote for him. This is a calculated move on his part; for those who are truly fearful of America under the Obamessiah, I think your energies are better focused on restoring the GOP message to one conservatives would vote for rather than convincing conservatives to vote for a candidate with uninspiring, unrepresentative principles or ideals.
If i understand Ptah's argument about why conservatives are frustrateed correctly, the critique that conservatives lack foresight because they can't see that not voting for Mccain is equivalent to a vote for Barack does not hold water. The very reason conservatives won't vote for Mccain is BECAUSE of our long memories and accurate foresight. Specifically, we have seen this song played again and again. The GOP has appealed to conservative fears of socialism in the past to get elected and then failed to aggressively champion conservative principles in office. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
#36
Interesting discussion, although I had to skip through some of the whining.
Said it before, here, and got yelled at, but I'll say it again: Voting is not a privilege, it is an obligation.
Post, rant, kick and scream all you want: Voting is the only thing that counts. It's the Kos Kiddies that keep voting and can't understand why they can't elect 535 Pelosis.
If we can't outvote the Iraqis, we don't deserve to be a republic.
Just my humble opinion, one of many - sort of my "vote".
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/28/2008 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#37
In the best of all possible worlds, democracy would mean you get to vote for the person you want. In reality, it usually means you get to vote against the person you want the least. Regardless, I'm not ready to give up on democracy just yet.
#38
The problem is the Republicans refuse to govern as Republicans - they vote for pork, take and spend more of our taxes, and pander to illegals and the big biz that backs amnesty.
When they start acting like Republicans then they'll deserve my vote.
Look at the Farm bill that is making Sam Donelson and the Rockefelelrs and other "farmers" rich, while fleecing us regular taxpayers.
Its time for another GOP revolution, and that means throw the bastards out of the party.
And the ONLY way to do that is to get involved, and take the place over like Goldwater and Reagan did.
The Country Club Repubs who run things now like an ivy league frat house full of self-entitled legacy brothers need to be thrown over the side of the boat so the Sam's Club Repubs have a party to go to.
Thats why the GOP is losing elections - they've screwed the base. repeatedly. They DESRVE to lose.
#39
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Hencetoforth start from grassroots. Make sure that your conservative rep knows what is your view on issues. Remember 1:10000 formula (every expressed view delivered to a politician counts for 10000 views not expressed).
But in order to do that, you need the conservative party and mechanisms for such an expression in place. You may engage in wishful thinking about rebirth from ashes as much as it pleases you, but that won't make any difference.
#40
OS, they've screwed the base. repeatedly. They DESERVE to lose
They do, but not the way that while this is being sorted out, the Libs will get all the pickings and make sure that conservatives are dead as a political force. For good. By any means necessary.
#42
I hate to bombard this thread, but OldSpook touches on a very important point. GOP representatives know what their conservative base expects, they simply refuse to give it to them. The GOP party machinery knows what conservatism is and how to run on a conservative platform, they are simply REFUSING TO DO SO. The Republican party has made a conscious decision to dishonor the wishes of a major sub-set of its constituency ...for WHAT? It appears in an attempt to buy votes and maintain their position in office.
This would not be so egregious an offense if I hadn't read message board after message board fuming with the same sentiments of disgruntled conservatives (most recently in response to a post on the NRCC blog). If the GOP could genuinely claim they were not aware of the wishes of the rank and file members of their party, conservatives would not be so angry (IMO), but it is so much worse than that. GOP office holders are making the conscious choice to thumb their noses at the voters. In my mind, saying one thing to get elected; and then behaving in an inconsistent fashion with stated positions once elected is inexcusable. At least with the Dems, when they violate their campaign promises, it will be because the actual policies they implement are TOO CONSERVATIVE for their base.
I won't forget GOP senators and the president himself calling their fellow Americans pleading for border enforcement intolerant and xenophobic. I can take that from an adversary because I expect it from them; but I will not accept that from professed members of my own party.
OS is right, the GOP deserves to lose. The party needs to be uprooted and re-constituted from the bottom up.
#43
Too much is up for grabs;
The wars, our borders and illegal immigration, our financial crisis, appointing judges, stem cell, abortion, health care, same sex and all the rest all on the table.
McCain has it right on the war. Regarding the border, he did say he "heard us", I would like to hope something will happen from that remark. The rest well is just the rest.
Obama is so wrong for America.
If you don't vote, you don't deserve to complain not having been part of the election process.
I'm hoping that McCain makes the right choice for VP.
Posted by: Jan ||
05/28/2008 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#44
The maker-god of ancient Kemet has spoken my name: I am truly blessed. ;-)
I wonder if the November election is gonna be determined by whether it's pissed-off Hillary supporters or pissed-off rightwingers that are gonna stay home the most.
Posted by: named by the god ||
05/28/2008 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#45
The problem is the Republicans refuse to govern as Republicans . . . Its time for another GOP revolution, and that means throw the bastards out of the party. And the ONLY way to do that is to get involved, and take the place over like Goldwater and Reagan did. The Country Club Repubs who run things now like an ivy league frat house full of self-entitled legacy brothers need to be thrown over the side of the boat so the Sam's Club Repubs have a party to go to.
Well said, 'Spook.
The place for that revolution to start is down in the weeds. Find a good guy running for local or state office and work for him. Write letters to the editor, post comments. Maybe get yourself on a precinct or county committee. Build up some street cred in local politics. Next election cycle, get yourself more involved.
Please note: this process may take years before you see significant results. It may go faster, but don't count on it. Be patient. The revolution will not be over by November.
In the meantime, there's a presidential election coming up. There are two candidates who have a realistic shot at winning. One of them wants to hand the mass-murdering jihadi goon squads a victory they don't deserve and could never earn by force of arms. The other one doesn't.
That's the choice you get this cycle. Vote accordingly.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2008 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#46
and we would never know who you voted for anyway
I'll be voting for the guy I gave $ to: Duncan D. Hunter. For POTUS, McCain. Others have made their thoughts known, and can expect to hear back about it when President Obama cuts the military and negotiates surrenders hudnas with Chavez, Dinnerjacket, Assad..... On notice, so don't be surprised when I get in your face next year, k? In the meantime I want to know what all you anti-McCain citizen patriots will be doing to rescuscitate a grassroots GOP party, besides bitching?
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2008 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#47
btw - Hotair has the latest in Obama team-building rumors: John Fn Kerry for Secretary of State. Go ahead, don't vote
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2008 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#48
In the meantime I want to know what all you anti-McCain citizen patriots will be doing to rescuscitate a grassroots GOP party, besides bitching?
Like my ma (a lifetime democrat) always says, If you don't vote - you can't bitch so STFU!
BTW, for you that want sitting it out, please consider voting for a veep--chances are that McCain may select someone that is more in traditional conservative mold.
#50
The thing is, we have to vote to slow the advance while we build up for the counterattack.
That means get involved in your local and state party, and push like hell to get Republicans that have a backbone in as candidates.
Meanwhile, criticize loud long and hard, via email, phone and fax the elected SOBs that are screwing you over (ex: immigration & amnesty). BE ACTIVE. Go to the town hall meetings, phone local talk shows, write letters to the editor (even the local penny papers), etc.
Oppse them and push hard in primaries and caucuses to get better candidates to run against the incumbent if they are crap - force them to swing toward our side to save themselves.
And when it comes down to it, (and it will) hold your nose and vote, even if its for the lesser of 2 evils. Act so as to produce the least harm and buy some breathing room.
Its fallen to our generation to fight a rear guard delaying action, and to deal with the incompetents and fifth columnists who have rotted the GOP, all while trying to rebuild the party into what it should be.
As an historical analogy, we get to be the 101st at Bastogne, complete with people wearing our uniforms that are fighting for the other side.
Let's pray that we can still find a Patton in the GOP.
We may get beat, but Im not going to lose while on my knees begging, nor on my ass doing nothing. I'm going to fight.
Giving up is NOT an option.
Can you do something more than bitch on a message board? Can you give up TV time, or porch time, and get "political" with local, state and even national GOP people, even for just a few hours a week?
What you do will show how much your freedom means to you - how much are you willing to REALLY give up?
Doing NOTHING is a recipe for defeat, and the mantra of the keyboard coward.
#51
It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
So whats it going to be? Is this a worthy enough cause?
#52
Like my ma (a lifetime democrat) always says, If you don't vote - you can't bitch so STFU! Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-05-28 17:54
Regretably, I have some of.... those in my family as well. I wish they'd do a bit of soul searching and ask themselves how it is the Democratic party has arrived with the Obama character as a candidate for Commander and Chief. Another Clinton is unspeakable, but this guy and his pals are simply over the top.
#54
You are passionate indeed, OldSpook, but you put your blood, sweat, toil and tears to work every single time. Thank you for the very appropriate Teddy Roosevelt quote.
#57
I'll ditto+ TW and Frank G (minus the Turbans :) and buwaya's insights, which are also very solid. The rest of you are also mostly 'on the money' with the exception of the 'don't vote crowd' who haven't seen the riots in Denver yet, or the VP choices so far. Patience is a vitue...let's see what October brings.
(Also, that 'contact your Congressdude/dudette with the 1=10k effect is real. I'm writing today!)
The nice thing about a communication effort is every two years they can be fired knowing why ....come to think of it, this is the year to vote out the 433.5 dummys! (I'm still supporting Jean Schmidt in my district in Ohio, so she has another 2 years to not screw up)
#58
How can we hope to overcome the greater evil if we do not dare to rebel against the lesser?
Ptah? Did that make sense when you thought it, cuz it sure doesn't now. Dying on principle is noble, but you're still dead. In politics, it's just plain dumb. There are elections every 2/4 years. You make your best shot at each of those contests. In the POTUS case, the effects are 30-40 years+ when it comes to SCOTUS appointments, ESPECIALLY if the Donks get a filibuster-proof vote margin in the sentence. These are NOT the times to pout and stay out, especially at the POTUS and congressional levels. If you have a blue safe district, spend your money on candidates in others who share your beliefs. The ones you don't like will see who's getting support, and why, and will learn or be replaced with better candidates. I think the coming flood of smart and blooded vets from Iraq and Afghanistan will be the vanguard for a better GOP, but not if there's no party
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2008 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#59
Yeah, Ptah, that's the ticket!
Let's fight against bubonic plague instead of common cold!
#62
McCain may just be the rigth guy at the right time. He is correct on Iraq. We can't lose that or it will cost us for 30+ years (just like Carter losing Iran has). He has a track record of being tough on frivolous spending. He says he hears us on immigration...we'll see. And his judges will be a whole lot better than Obambis.
But he is an ornery SOB. He WILL get in the face of an idiot reporter (the vehicle for many of our woes today). He will likely get in the face of a democratic Senate or HOR member if they cross him. Being president is going to be a whole lot different than being a member of the senate club.
So my vote (and I will vote, despite living in Marin County, CA home to more nuthouse liberals than I care to ponder) will be for McCain. And I will take OS's directive and get involved with the local Republican organization.
I understand the need for change. I also understand the attractiveness/simplicity of the argument that says that if we only let it get really bad, then most of the people will "get it". But that bet is a huge risk and cedes all the cards to the other side. Not a good strategy IMO.
#63
Personally, I'm not giving the NGOP or McCain a dime. I will vote for him in November. But every time a request for money comes my way, I send back a list of demands that need to be met before I donate.
Close the borders.
Enforce the laws.
Lower taxes and reduce spending.
Otherwise they don't get a thin dime.
We have some real good republicans running for the house and senate here in Colorado and I will send money to them as that is where the battle needs to be fought for the future of the party. Basically, hit the NGOP where it hurts and they CAN'T ignore the base.
#66
DV - I have no problems with that - I've done the same, and told the $ callers the same. Tough love. They need the message, just don't kill the errant child before it can self-correct, is all I'm saying
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2008 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
#67
I've seen it posted here that McCain is right on judges, spending, the war and wrong on immigration gitmo and waterboarding.
I'm not convinced he's going to be right on judges or spending - despite what he says. He is the epitome of the country club republican. He acts as if his first alligence is to the members of the senate. The republican voters are a distant second.
I'm not convinced he's right on anything but the war. But between him and the other two communist clowns you almost HAVE to vote for him.
I just hate sending the message that McCain is a good choice by the Republican party and voting for him.
#70
Whom do you think you'll have a better chance of influencing while he is in office...McCain or Obama? I may not like a lot of things about McCain, but I do think I will have a better path to influence his decisions...especially since they will be light years closer to mine than Obama's.
#71
I will be going to bed in a few minutes, so I will note what everyone who's opposed me is avoiding noting.
I have not, in any way, disputed that Obama or Hillary will be bad for the country. Mike's initial response, and every one like it, is REDUNDANT: as a conservative, I can figure stuff out and Mike added nothing to my knowledge. Rachel added nothing to to my knowledge. Every dire scenario played out in comments on this topic added nothing to my knowlege. I know what will happen if McCain does not win.
So, I shall grant that every dire occurrance and every dire scenario that is being detailed here will transpire if Obama is elected. Every last one. But, after every one, you demand of me "Are you so stubborn that you will let this happen?"
BACK AT YOU. You'd rather let Obama win and let the West sink into damnation and oblivion than give conservatives the respect that being a key constituency deserves? McCain would rather let the hope of the Free world sink into slavery and a socialist morass rather than treat conservatives with respect?
McCain is gonna bust his hump wooing democrats. Some of those democrats he's convinced he will not win over unless he spits in the face of conservatives. He will woo the support of the MSM, and he's convinced he will not win some over unless he plants his boot in the face of conservatives. And if he wins them over, he'll damn well make sure he keeps them, and if it means kicking us until we keep silent and submit he'll do it. That's how the Egyptians keep the Copts, their dhimminis, in line: abuse, abuse, abuse, until they submit.
I regret to inform you that I do not deserve that. I expect it from the MSM. I expect it from the Democrats. I expect it from the Left. I will not tolerate it from those who claim to be my friends.
If you need my vote, need my support, ACT LIKE IT. If you're trying to terrify me into obeying by painting scenarios of disaster because you know you need me, BELIEVE your own scenarios and act as if I'm your life preserver, not a boat anchor. To reward good with evil, loyalty with contempt, is not prudence. It's not even stupid. It's demonic.
Three months ago, I'd probably have fallen back into line. But not now. He whom I carry is not worthy of any of this, and he has little patience with those who abuse me. He will, of course, guide me to do the right thing, when the time comes.
#72
I don't need you. I am my own man, and my own vote. I will vote the best I can and spread my opinion (hopefully a knowledgable one) the best I can. I will not listen to "it's not my fault!" bullshit next year, ok? You do what you will.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2008 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
#73
Well, McCain has shown that he will respond to sufficient conservative pressure, but it needs to be maintained. (c.f. immigration/amnesty and his grudging retreat and potential backsliding).
Ptah - organize a letter writing and phone calling campaign to pressure McCain on things that concern you.
For me that his absolutely stupid support of AGW and Amnesty (without border fence).
I'm going to personally try to make that SOB and his staff miserable. Make that your mission - "Change McCain".
But I'm also going to hold my nose and vote for him.
As for those in Colorado: Im likely to be involved in the 6th with Will Armstrong through a mutual friend in the GOP. Going to be an interesting primary.
Shame the GOP basically abandoned the 7th to that shithead surrender weasel, gun control, global warming hoxer Perlmutter.
#74
Ptah, I have to say to you and those who insist on following your path:
Look at the results. Atcitons speak louder than words.
You bring us Obama, then its YOU who will be to blame.
You better be prepared for the consequences of your actions, like the people that failed to oppose Mousolini and Hitler. Because consequences will be imposed by the world - and they will fall on all of us - and on you and those liek you especially hard, because guys like me will be hunting guys like you down to ensure you endure your true share of the pain you bring to the nation.
As for me, Im going to fight - fight against the most extreme leftist in the Senate, Barak Hussein Obama, and I will also fight to kick some sense into John McCain.
Consider this as well with your "Let Obama win" punishment scheme:
To not oppose Obama and as "Punishment" allow him to win by withholding support of McCain is to severely screw over all my brothers and sisters in the armed services.
Because Obama will throw their lives away, throw their gains away in Iraq, bleed all ove again when we are forced to go back in, and destroy the armed forces like Jimmy Carter did.
Do you really want to throw the troops away by yanking the rug from under them like that, just to wreak revenge on McCain for nto being conservative enough?
If so then I severely overestimated your comittment to the country and conservative values.
You appear to be more into some sort of wierd revenge, more of a mirror to the twisted angry people on the fringe left.
Actions have consequences - are you prepared to face the consequences you will be foprcing on to others, epsecially the armed forces?
Think. Don't go all liberal and revert to pure emotion, anger and spite.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad watched as two of his bodyguards checked the young, room service fellow, doing a quick spectrographic scan of the tea and biscuits on his silver cart to insure they hadnt been poisoned.
Is the suite to your liking, your Excellency? asked Millard Holt, counsel for Rapp, Tapp, and Tippytoe, chief lobbyists for the state of Iran. We always recommend the Four Seasons to all our clients
Are you a Jew? asked Ahmadinejad.
No no, Im not, said Holt, his voice high and nasal Im here to brief you prior to meeting President Obama, Excellency. Our source within the White House has informed us that the presidents opening remarks will be very conciliatory, very favorable to our interests. Hes going to call for increased trade, a stepdown of all U.S. military exercises in the region, an exchange of scholars
You look like a Jew, said Ahmadinejad.
The room-service fellow, a lanky long-haired blonde in a white uniform, rolled the cart over, laid out bone china cups on the coffee table. He had a Snoopy gold earring stud.
Well . . . hmmm . . . a Jew? Holt adjusted the perfect Windsor knot in his necktie. I hate to disagree with your Excellency, but my family came over on the Mayflower
What is this Mayflower? demanded Ahmadinejad.
A sailing ship that brought the original settlers to America, said Holt, puffing up slightly, his smooth cheeks the color of rare veal. The Founding Fathers, if you will
Your family owned a slave ship, sneered Ahmadinejad, as though he had cracked the code. I knew you were a Jew. He flicked his fingers in dismissal. Out of my sight. . . . Go read it all.
Robert Ferrigno is author, most recently, of Sins of the Assassin.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2008 10:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
* Footage reported to show Israelis killing Palestinian
* Court judgment supports view it was a hoax
* Read more from Piers Akerman here
The death of 12-year-old Palestinian boy Mohammed al-Durra by gunfire from the direction of the Israeli forces, as reported by French TV reporter Charles Enderlin, was huge world news eight years ago.
But it now seems that what we saw was not what actually happened. The dramatic footage of the youngster crouched beside his father as Israeli bullets whizzed by him, the scenes of his death and his fathers wounding were ghastly but compelling viewing.
Locally, it was reported by The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, The Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald, the latter stating unequivocally that Rami (sic) Al-dura, 12 (was) killed by Israel fire while cradled in his fathers arms.
Invocations of the young al-Durras death became a regular ritual on Palestinian television, songs encouraging children to join him in martyrdom were written, streets were named after him, mothers were exhorted to encourage their infants to be like him, his image was even used on stamps.
The murderers of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl used the clip when they posted footage of their nauseating crime on the internet.
The al-Durra imagery truly became, in the words of one Canadian journalist, the farce that launched a thousand suicide bombers.
Doubts arose about the footage shot by a Palestinian cameraman for the network France 2 when it was revealed the same person had been responsible for faking other news footage.
You help me get out of the Hariri investigation, and Ill help you get out of the corruption charges. The Syrian and Israeli governments simultaneous announcing of their peace talks last week was timed with such transparent cynicism that the respective heads of state, Bashar Assad and Ehud Olmert, might as well have used that wording.
Syria had just gotten a major boost with Hezbollahs effective takeover of Lebanon in the Doha agreement, and now Israel was, moreover, anointing Assad as a peace-seeker. As for Olmert, his legal woes are mounting, and getting parts of the Israeli establishment to view him as a key to peace is a known way to extricate oneself from such woes.
But whatever the blatant utility of its timing, the Syrian-Israeli announcement prompted a rash of writings on the prospects of a Golan-Heights-for-peace deal. The London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi claimed on Saturday that Assad was caught between his foreign minister Walid Muallem, who supports a deal with Israel and a Syrian realignment with the West, and his deputy Farouk Sharaa whos keen to remain aligned with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Amir Taheri also wrote that the apparent warming toward Israel stemmed in part from Syrian fears of growing Shiification of the country by Iran, which has recently opened fourteen cultural centers in Syrian provinces.
For Israeli Middle East maven Guy Bechor, all that wouldnt matter because a peace deal would mean Assads minority Alawite regime [would] be toppled since his regime has no legitimacy in Syria as it is, particularly when it comes to the [Sunni] Muslim Brothers, whose power keeps growing.
The upshot would be that the Golan Heights would turn into a radical spearhead against Israel with forces amassing there from Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere and life in the north [of Israel] turn[ing] into an unbearable nightmare of terror attacks.
Meanwhile the Bush administration was reported to be incensed at Israel with one official calling its announcement of the Syrian talks a slap in the face. The administration was right, of course, to criticize Olmerts choosing as peace partner the thuggish Assad regime with its string of terror-assassinations in Lebanon, major facilitation of the Iraqi insurgency, andseemingly most telling from Israels standpointrecent abortive nuclear ambitions.
Lost, though, is the fact that since adopting the cause of Mahmoud Abbass Fatah terror organization, also as an alleged peace partner for Israeleven though, for instance, it gives Palestinian kids the identical education as Hamasthe Bush administration has been a major encourager of Israels own ongoing peace pathology of courting and rewarding terrorists and despots.
Of the various points made about the hypothetical Israeli-Syrian deal, the most resonant concerned the asymmetry entailed: whereas Israel would be giving up something very tangible, the strategic Heights, Syriaan example par excellence of the volatile, fractious Arab Middle Eastwould be giving promises, promises, easily trampled and forgotten.
Those of an empirical cast of mind would look at other Israeli peace deals as precedents. The wind blowing from Egypt, for instance, has been particularly cold latelyand not only because Egyptian Sinai continues to serve as a weapons conduit from Iran to Hamas.
Earlier this month Egypts Culture Minister Farouk Hosni said he would burn Israeli books himself if they were found in Egyptian libraries. Last week an amateur Egyptian soccer team in Rome, which included Egyptian diplomats from the embassy there, decided to boycott an international tournament because it turned out it would have to play an Israeli team.
The latest is that a group of elderly Egyptian-born Jews from Israel have had to cancel a visit to Egypt because this sparked a frenzy in the Egyptian media.
And if one casts ones empirical gaze toward Jordan, with which Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994, the situation isnt much better. The Intelligence and Information Center gives examples of blood-curdling anti-Semitic material in the Jordanian press including the partly government-owned Al-Dustur.
Israel didnt, at least, make any significant land concessions to Jordan, and as Bechor points out, the Sinai Peninsula is so large that the situation there is always reversible . Yet with Syria the situation will be different: from an empty buffer zone, the Golan Heights will turn into a crowded anti-Israel region for generations to come.
The basic problemone that neither Olmert nor Bush has the guts to look atis that the Arab Middle East remains intensely hostile to Israel. That means keeping Israel both viable and a formidable, valuable U.S. ally requires strengthening it and not turning its remaining strategic assets into a clearance sale for hostile parties. At this late date, its a lesson still not learned.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
05/28/2008 10:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism. Feeling very strongly about it and trying to oppose it was the main reason for putting my book together, originally in Czech language, in the spring of 2007. It has also been the driving force behind my active involvement in the current Climate Change Debate and behind my being the only head of state who in September 2007 at the UN Climate Change Conference in New York City openly and explicitly challenged the undergoing global warming hysteria. 
Global warming is already affecting the nation's forests, water resources, farmland and wildlife, and will have serious negative consequences over the next 25 to 50 years, according to a report issued yesterday by the federal government. 
Robert Ferrigno, National Review
By P. David Hornik
