If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

1/07/2007

Genuine Conservatism:
No Blind Lock-Step Involved


I posted the following response to a member of another political forum this afternoon, in response to a comment he made to me. One of the regular posters here on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed suggested that I post it here as well.

I am tired of being labeled a ‘traitor’ to the party because I have become increasingly critical of the Bush administration and the 107th-109th congresses. I believe that most of the readers here feel the same, but also welcome opposing opinions. :)

_____________________

'Because your political glass was only 70% full you threw a temper tantrum and poured yourself a glass 100% full of political poison. Well go drink it and quit wasting our time with your petulant whining. You wanted the Dems in power, YOU got it.'

My political glass hasn’t been seventy percent full since the last Reagan administration.

Tell you what. I’m going to list the biggest grievances I have against the ‘republicans’ who have run the show for the past six years – as well as the few examples of conservative progress for which I have to give them credit. I suspect you can provide a similar list, with different headings.

First, the biggest negatives:

(1) As President Bush has said, there is no doubt that confronting Islamic fascism on foreign soil is significantly preferable to confronting it here on our own soil.

But, if we make the commitment to do so, it should be a full-fledged commitment. We should re-deploy troops that are performing non-military duty around the world, or who are assigned in non-essential areas, and place those troops in strategic areas along the Iraq border so as to stop the constant infiltration of insurgents and agitators from Iran and Syria.

As we did in Vietnam, we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. In this case we are feverishly bailing the boat while stubbornly refusing to seal the leak. A large number of American troop and Iraqi citizen fatalities are the simple result of the fact that we continue to allow Iranian and Syrian instigators, and equipment, to flow, virtually unfettered, into the war zone.

This war was waged for valid reasons. It is being prosecuted poorly. And the left-leaning politicians and media decision-makers are having a field day as a result.

If this war becomes our Vietnam II, we will have the democrats on the Hill and media propagandists to blame, once again. But the administration will have provided them the tools.

(2) Four major initiatives, all of which are abominations to genuine conservatives, were put on the books during the republicans’ reign, all of which would have made the Founders weep in disbelief:

Campaign Finance Reform

CFR’s major focus is to silence the voice of the individual in the political process, in deference to the gargantuan power of special interest groups and lobbyists, and the general unconstitutional over-reaching power that the state now has in all of our lives and liberties -- even down to issues of what we may say, and when and where we may say it … and the First Amendment be damned.

The Creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

Why is our leadership in Washington concerning itself with the security of the continent when the security of our republic is in such toxic disrepair, and when the threats to our lives and liberties have never been greater? And why should the U.S. enter into a security partnership with a country whose political and military leadership continues to demand that the most vulnerable aspect of our national security remains unaddressed, and who benefits from our exposed vulnerability?

In order for this agreement to succeed, America’s existence as a sovereign nation must cease to exist, the idea must be promoted that self-interest, self-protection and personal success is wicked and intolerant, and that a ‘we-are-the-world/equality-of-outcome’ mindset is a sign of a compassionate, highly advanced culture. It is an insidious partnership that primarily benefits Mexico, while, at the same time, handcuffing the American citizen and penalizing him for his relative prosperity.

The No Child Left Behind Act

Most genuine conservatives want to begin to limit the power of the federal government in education regulation. Many (President Reagan in particular) have sought to abolish the Department of Education altogether. The abomination known as No Child Left Behind dramatically increases the stranglehold that the federal government has on local education standards, buries administrators and teachers in a mountain of paperwork, provides very little individual attention to, or curriculum-focus on, students who excel, promotes cookie-cutter educational mediocrity, and has forced many schools to almost single-mindedly gear their curriculum requirements toward meeting arbitrary standards, many of which completely ignore both the history and importance of Western Civilization, and the basics of math, science and the English language.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act

A $400 billion socialist/entitlement/wealth redistribution program. It is the largest expansion of Medicare since the program was created in 1965.

In all fairness, I believe this President and his republican congress have accomplished two major conservative victories in the past six years: the appointment of two excellent Supreme Court Justices, and the providing of tax relief. But, when one compares the lists of plusses with the list of minuses, the feeling of betrayal is overwhelming.

(3) Some final words on the immigration crisis:

No genuine conservative champions open borders and guest worker programs for twelve million criminals who are bleeding the American taxpayer dry. When forced to, the president and most republicans on the Hill talk about the vital importance of national security, but they somehow can't see fit to secure our borders. For some of them, the only national security issues of any importance are located in the Middle East.

I consider my security breached when:

(1) Islamic operatives can freely enter my country across a two-thousand mile border.

(2) The fruits of my labor will be siphoned off, by an increasingly unaccountable federal government, to pay for social services, education, legal fees and court costs for criminals who are living and working in this country illegally.

(3) Representatives of the Mexican government are allowed to have a say (sometimes even more of a say than the American citizenry) as to how, and how resolutely, we patrol the very borders across which their own countrymen are invading our republic.

(4) Our administration and congress issue angry, patriotic, self-righteous political rhetoric over the firing of ballistic missiles from North Korea, and yet, passively and silently, know and conceal the fact that nuclear/biological/chemical contaminants and weapons can even more easily find their way into this country in a suitcase carried across our unguarded southern border.

(5) Many in leadership positions view as ‘racist’ or ‘intolerant’ those who decry the arrogant, parasitic, and anti-American-sovereignty agenda of a radical separatist organization like La Raza, and the alien criminal element it champions, while pandering to the worst kind of genuine racism, if and only if it furthers a political end and the amassing of globalst/elitist power.

If believing all of the above places me in your ’petulant whiner’ category, so be it. Genuine conservatives have always marched to a particularly clear and well-defined beat, and there is no blind lock-step involved.

~ joanie

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for bringing this over here. I DO appreciate it.

BTW, the Christmas ornaments arrived and they're BEAUTIFUL! They're packed away for next year.... :)

robmaroni said...

Good job!

BTW, If you posted this I the forum I think you're talking about, you may not be there much longer. :>)

SharonGold said...

This essay and the one below are two of the best indictments of the Republicans I've read. They're incompetent and an embarrassment to conservatism.

daveburkett said...

You have to learn to stop beating around the bush, girl. ;)

Anonymous said...

BTW, If you posted this on the forum I think you're talking about, you may not be there much longer. :->

I suspect the same. So just spend more time here instead.

smithy said...

If it becomes law, you might want to add the Social Security for illegal aliens thing that Cooper mentioned on another thread to your list of "abominations."

All_good_men said...

RINO Republicanism is a disease that is spreading uncontrollable since 1994. Government for government sake be their motto. It seems they throw us a small bone (originalist judges, tax relief) with the hopes we true conservatives will shut-up. We won’t. We need a new Tom Paine and I think we found Thomesina Paine instead. You go girl.

Anonymous said...

there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Isn't that obvious?

Arlene Albrecht said...

anonymous,

There was a time when most Republicans stood for conservative values and ideas. That has been happening less and less over the past 50 years.

I think this essay describes really well how the Republicans are becoming more and more like the Democrats and it goes into great detail to back up the claim. By your flip comment "There is no difference between Democrats and Republican. Isn't that obvious?" are you belittling this article? It sure sounds like it. You're making it sounds like any intelligent person would know it without having to say so. Are you superior to the rest of us?

3timesalady said...

Bush's pandering to Mexicans (from what I understand, he did that when he was governor of Texas too) is probably his worst trait. It makes American citizens feel like we're taking second place to the citizens of another country.

d_o'connor said...

You pretty much nailed the biggest offenses. The touble is I don't know who in the Republican ranks I would want to run in 2008. None of the ones who look like they'll be running seem to be real conservatives. It's looking pretty grim for the future of the party and the country.

Anonymous said...

Along the same lines, a must read:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm

Anonymous said...

How true. A republican form of government is not a spectator sport.

To stop Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from giving an amnesty, take action. Call for a full 10 year moratorium.

CALL NANCY PELOSI
Washington, DC - (202) 225-4965
San Francisco, CA - (415) 556-4862

EMAIL NANCY PELOSI
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
EMAIL FORM FOR NANCY PELOSI www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

John Cooper said...

Ms. Albrecht:

There was a time when most Republicans stood for conservative values and ideas.

It's been a while, I think - much longer than 1994 since Republicans in general had any idea about what has made this Country special.

I was driving down the road the other day and saw an SUV displaying an anti-capitalism bumper sticker. I wanted to pull the idiot over and ask him how he thought he was able to drive around in a nice motorized vehicle on refined petroleum products, if not for capitalism. The sad thing was, the guy was probably a Republican.

For the explanation, I have to defer to Ayn Rand, who wrote in 1960:

"It is generally understood that those who support the "conservatives" expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of "the American way of life." The moral treason of the "conservative" leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was Capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined--and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.

If the "conservatives" do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the "conservatives" dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism...Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society."

--Ayn Rand, Conservatism: an Obituary, a lecture given at Princeton University on December 7, 1960.

The real problem as I see it is that the word "conservative" no longer has any specific meaning. It means one thing to one republican and another to some other republican. With that in mind, when somebody asks if I'm a conservative, I tell them, "No, I believe in smaller government and more freedom."

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas wrote the following not too long ago:

GOP Abandons Conservatives

"The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by Congress last week may prove to be a watershed event for political conservatives in America. This latest expansion of the federal government, potentially the largest in our nation’s history, is firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left.

This leaves true conservatives, who believe strongly in limited government and identify with the Goldwater- era Republican party, wondering whether they still have a political home in the modern GOP. In the eyes of many
conservatives, today’s GOP simply has abandoned its limited-government heritage to buy votes and gain political power in Washington.

The unfortunate truth is that the Bush administration, aided by a Republican congress, has increased spending more in three years than the previous administration did in eight. Federal spending has grown by more than 25% since President Bush took office. The federal government now spends roughly $21,000 per household every year, up from $16,000 just 4 years ago.

Columnist Cal Thomas, in a recent article entitled "The Embarrassing GOP," raises an excellent question: "How much of that $21,000 could you spend that would produce better results for yourself and your family?"

Consider that Mr. Bush has not vetoed a single bill, nor does he even bother to employ conservative rhetoric. Chris Edwards of the CATO Institute says this about the President: "I’ve never seen him give a speech in which he says government is too big and we need to cut costs." Furthermore, the outlook for spending restraint during a second Bush term is nil: "When you have a president who has a bunch of his own spending initiatives like eduction and the Medicare drug bill, it makes it difficult for him to go out and say that Congress is being wasteful," Mr. Edwards states."

We all have come to realize that George W. Bush is no "conservative" as at least I understood the term to mean.

jim said...

Your list of grievances is impressive. I have a few others I would have added but I'm not sure they rank higher in terms of long term disaster. So good job.

smithy said...

A big story today is "President Bush Signs Bill to Make Health Care more Affordable, Accessible." It's just more government interference in an industry the government has no business in.

If they want to reduce healthcare costs, how about going after trial lawyers? They'r running good doctors out of business and making insurance preiums (for patients AND doctors) skyrocket. But the trial lawyers have too big a lobby for that to ever happen.

Anonymous said...

Good site,

Good essay,

Keep on keepin' on.

MontyPython2 said...

This'll curl your hair.

"Say Goodbye to Europe":

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467696394&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

stonemason said...

Joanie, if you take suggestions I'm suggesting a column on increasing foreign ownership in the U.S.

It's off topic, but here's an article that we ought to pay attention to, especially the sentence:

Ownership means political power. Foreign control means recolonisation, but by company this time, not country.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0701/S00042.htm

stonemason said...

P.S. Good column here. :)

trustbutverify said...

Sharon Gold said "This essay and the one below are two of the best indictments of the Republicans I've read."

I'd like to see both combined and run on the editorial page of a major newspaper. It's hard to argue with specifics.

The N. American Security agreement needs to be publicized more. I don't think more than 5% of voters are even aware of it, and it jeopardizes our sovereignty more than anything that has happened in my lifetime.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. I needed that. :-)

Anonymous said...

Good work and a nice compilations of the crimes against this country. I also believe the founders must be weeping.

2ndAmendmentDefender said...

Our administration and congress issue angry, patriotic, self-righteous political rhetoric over the firing of ballistic missiles from North Korea, and yet, passively and silently, know and conceal the fact that nuclear/biological/chemical contaminants and weapons can even more easily find their way into this country in a suitcase carried across our unguarded southern border.

This is the worst example of hypocrisy you mentioned. They are alarmed at warhead tipped missiles but they look the other way when suitcase bombs can be brought in as easily as drugs.

Arlene Albrecht said...

John Cooper,

I love this Rand quote:

"The moral treason of the "conservative" leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was Capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined--and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default."

But I don't agree with her that capitalism and altruism can't co-exist.

If the capitalist society leaves church and charities alone, all of the altruiusm that is needed will come from those two sources.

It's when GOVERNMENT gets in the business of altruism that capitalism starts to deteriorate.

calbrindisi said...

Cooper,

We all have come to realize that George W. Bush is no "conservative" as at least I understood the term to mean.

You can say that again.

Conservative's strong suits have always been in the economy (holding spending down) and foreign policy.

Bush is a big time spender of the worst kind. He not only didn't veto any spending bills, but he wrote some of the biggest ones passed during his presidency.

And his foreign policy has basically good intentions and bad follow through, which is especially awful when more lives than necessary are being lost on the battlefield because of the bad follow through.

He will go down in history as worse than Clinton economically, and only slightly better foreign police wise.

What a major disappointment, and what a handicap he'll been in 2008.

siliconvalleyguy said...

Oliver North wrote today about Bush's new Iraq plan:

"Though I have documented the bravery of Iraqi police and soldiers defending their own streets from terrorists, their courage has not been matched by elected officials in Baghdad. If Maliki fails to deliver on promises to crack down on the militias, equitably distribute oil wealth, reform his ministries, pay his soldiers and police and "create new jobs" in the next 10 months, the plan will collapse -- no matter how many U.S. troops we send to Iraq. At that point the new leaders in Congress will likely launch an effort -- as they did in 1974 with Vietnam -- to cut off funding, and thereby ensure disaster."

Bull's eye!

DonaldBarlow said...

Joanie,

Bush just presented the medal of honor to that soldier you wrote about a couple months ago:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2655

'Bout time, I'd say.

lori_gmeiner said...

Well said, Joanie.

Look at this idiotic observation from realclearpolitics.com today:

What does it signify, then, to demand that Republicans return to the conservative path? It's time for conservatives to admit the need to rethink and clarify their own precepts. To be sure, there are verities to which the wise and good may always repair, and conservatism is distinguished by its reverence for them. But these must be relearned in every generation, restated in the idiom of life, and applied to new circumstances. The challenge is as exhilarating as it is serious. Far from being a cause for despair, conservatism's perplexities may contribute to making this the most illuminating political season in 30 years.---Charles Kesler

This sounds like the same kind of argument the liberals make when they argue that the constitution is a “living document.”

Anonymous said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18790

Sandra said...

BOXER'S LOW BLOW
January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0


*********************************


"I guess that means I don't have kids. Was that the purpose of that?" Rice said. "Well, at the time I just found it a bit confusing frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that."

White House spokesman Tony Snow on Friday called Boxer's comments "outrageous."

"I don't know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it's outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism," Snow told FOX News Talk's Brian and The Judge.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243359,00.html

Sandra said...

NY TIMES, NEWS TURNED BLIND EYE TO STORY
NY POST By IAN BISHOP January 13, 2007 --
Against The Ropes: Boxer Fights Dirty

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01132007/news/nationalnews/times__news_turned_blind_eye_to_story_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm

WASHINGTON - Reporters and editors at The New York Times and the Daily News had their heads in the sand about Sen. Barbara Boxer's bitter personal screed against Condoleezza Rice - only the biggest story on Capitol Hill yesterday, thanks to The Post.

For missing - or ignoring - Boxer's shocking broadside in their two full pages of coverage of Rice's congressional testimony and the war in Iraq, readers bombarded the Times with accusations of a liberal bias, sources said.

The flub even prompted the paper's ombudsman to call reporters in Washington, wondering why they didn't cover it.

The Daily News also was asleep at the switch, devoting a lengthy story to lawmakers ripping President Bush's new Iraq strategy during Rice's testimony before Congress Thursday - without quoting her once.

Boxer, a liberal California Democrat, was largely given a free pass by the mainstream media for her questioning of Rice, during which Boxer intimated that the secretary of state can't understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq because she has no children.

The Post featured the Boxer-Rice story on its front page yesterday. Both the White House and Rice took Boxer to task yesterday for her remarks.

cw-patriot said...

I agree that, were the shoe on the other foot and a conservative had treated a high-office leftist in such a degrading manner, the mainstream media would be shoving this story down our throats for the next month, while simultaneously digging all over creation in order to discover other examples of conservative insensitivity and penchant to stereotype.

With that said, I don’t believe that Boxer’s treatment of Rice is deserving of major-news-story status. It was a small-minded personal affront. During the same week as the ‘you have no children so how can you understand’ comment, Boxer surely took part in a dozen behind-closed-doors discussions/connivances about which you and I will never hear, and whose ‘inappropriateness’ (or probably much worse) will have a much more profound effect on our nation.

I’m weary of superficialities posing as news when events in Iran, North Korea, along our southern border, and the like, are relegated jack-in-the-box (now you see them, now you don’t) coverage. And I’m afraid that the Boxer/Rice event falls under the ‘superficial’ heading that I believe steals time from genuinely earth-shaking (in the literal sense of the word) stories that deserve our rapt attention. Not that we are ever witness to such stories in the MSM, but I'll not be complaining about the lack of fluff as long as the meat-and-potato stories are consistently ignored.

~ joanie

Sandra said...

Apparently you don't see the significance of a left, pro-abortion advocate like Boxer attacking a woman for NOT having any children.

cw-patriot said...

Forget every opinion I voiced in the post above. My perception of this entire issue simply boils down to the fact that I am too much of a dolt to comprehend the major significance of it. Case closed.

Anonymous said...

?

Anonymous said...

Bush nominates prosecutor who let Sandy Burglar off the hook

Expected Bush appellate nominee at center of Berger document heist
World Net Daily ^ | January 13, 2007 | Jay Baggett

President Bush is reportedly expected to nominate longtime prosecutor Noel Hillman to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals less than a week after a congressional report criticized the then-justice Department official for "incomplete and misleading" assurances to the court during Sandy Berger's 2005 plea bargain for taking classified documents.

Noel Hillman

Hillman, a newly appointed federal judge in New Jersey, most recently served as lead Justice Department prosecutor against Jack Abramoff in the Capitol Hill lobbying scandal. During his tenure with Justice, Hillman oversaw the investigation of Hillary Clinton's 2000 campaign finances, indicting and prosecuting her finance director, David Rosen, for filing false reports. Rosen was acquitted in 2005.

WND has reported on the civil action against Clinton related to those charges.

Hillman also served as former chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section during the prosecution of Berger, President Clinton's former national security advisor, for removing classified documents from the National Archive.

WND has reported that Clinton signed the letter authorizing Berger's access to the classified documents that later came up missing.

Berger pleaded guilty in April 2005 to one misdemeanor count of removing a classified document and was given two years probation, 100 hours of community service, a $50,000 fine and revocation of his security clearance for three years.

In accepting the plea, Hillman assured the court that Berger did not have an intent to hide any of the documents or conceal facts from the 9/11 Commission and that "nothing was lost to the public or the process."

But a report on the investigation into Berger's removal of documents, issued this week by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, identifies multiple occasions when Berger had access to original copies of classified documents for which there were no other copies or which had never been inventoried.

The report singled out Hillman for his "incomplete and misleading" assurances that the Justice Department had accounted for all documents Berger had handled and that all materials had been forwarded to the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The report states:

There is no basis for concluding Berger did not remove original documents responsive to 9/11 Commission requests during the May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003 visits to the National Archives. Nevertheless, the Justice Department's representations to the 9/11 Commission left the impression that Berger's document theft was limited to what he admitted taking.

The public statements of the former chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Berger had access to original documents on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003, there is no basis for his statement that "nothing was lost to the public or the process."

The 9/11 Commission relied on assurances from the Department of Justice that a full and complete production was made, and that no original or any other responsive documents were withheld. No one told the 9/11 Commission that Berger had access to original documents. The 9/11 Commission was specifically interested in the office files of White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, and never was told that Berger had access to Clarke's original office files on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003.

Berger's actions "compromised national security much more than originally disclosed," Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, ranking Republican member of the committee that produced the report, said.

"It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience," Davis said.

Sources have told the Newark Star-Ledger that Bush is committed to the nomination of Hillman to fill the slot vacated last year by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"It's pretty close. It's what the White House wants to do." one knowledgeable source who asked not to be identified told the paper.

Hillman enjoyed the backing of New Jersey Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg for his recent appointment to the federal bench and would need it again for the appointment to the appeals court.

The White House reportedly declined to select an ideologically conservative nominee. Senate rules allow Lautenberg and Menendez to block consideration of a New Jersey judicial nominee they oppose.

danthemangottschall said...

anonymous,

That "dolt" comment was obvious sarcasm to Sandra who often nit picks whatever Joanie writes. I've noticed that and I'm sure she has too.

danthemangottschall said...

The Sandy Berger thing is a testimony to the "some pigs are more equal than others" nature of our government, and Bush is a strong advocate of that. Look at what he did by not pardoning the 2 border guards, but pardoned real criminals during the same time period.

This government is rotten through and through, and Bush is no better than the democrats he is claiming to battle.

Anonymous said...

Sandy Burglar got no jail time.

The two border guards get YEARS in prison.

Al said...

cw-patriot said...

Forget every opinion I voiced in the post above. My perception of this entire issue simply boils down to the fact that I am too much of a dolt to comprehend the major significance of it. Case closed.

1/14/2007


You can ban me from this site if you want—

But this above is why I don’t advocate giving females positions in situations where stress is a factor.

The emotions always take over.

Even as good as the mentality is, the emotions always take over.

Which is not true for (some) males.

Letting emotions rule NEVER has a good outcome.

The left “think” totally with their emotions.

That is why some can’t comprehend them and their “thoughts.”

cw-patriot said...

The statement to which you refer has absolutely no basis in emotion, and firm foundation in rational thought.

I presented a rational argument as to the fact that I am sick of both ‘journalists’ and pundits deciding that fluff stories that have to do with personalities, or ‘news’ articles that are of immeasurably less significance than the ones they fail to report, fill our television screens, newspapers and airwaves.

The response, ‘Apparently you don't see the significance of a left, pro-abortion advocate like Boxer attacking a woman for NOT having any children’, both (1) doesn’t respond to anything I said, and (2) claims that I do not see the significance of a ‘news’ story whose worth is based on:

(1) one woman’s personal attack on another
(2) the fact that the former woman is a hypocrite.

It is just a matter of time before we experience a terrorist attack again on our soil. Countless genuine news items regarding our enemies’ preparations for that attack, our (in many respects purposeful) lack of preparations to either prevent, or survive, that attack are being ignored.

For every ‘fluff’ piece of ‘news’ that involves a bread-and-circuses theme there remains a vital genuine piece of news that remains unspoken.

For that reason, I avoid listening to the former (let alone making note that one of said ‘stories’ was overlooked), in protest of the absence of the latter.

I don’t need to know that Barbara Boxer was rude to Condoleeza Rice. Nor do I need to be reminded that Barbara Boxer is a hypocrite. Boxer is a leftist. Hypocrisy is a requirement for membership.

If you see any of the above arguments, including my previous quoted response (sarcasm is not an emotion) as ‘emotional’, then let’s just say that our definitions differ, dramatically.

cw-patriot said...

dantheman,

Strange you should mention the 'some pigs are more equal than others' reference. I was discussing both 1984 and Animal Farm with someone a few weeks ago, and drew the exact same analogy. Sadly, the person I was talking with was hardly aware of the Berger theft/destruction, which, I'm afraid is probably the case with 95% of Americans.

Nonetheless, he got an earful. :)

Anonymous said...

cw----

I think what Al was trying to say was that that one post distracted from the real point of this whole website.

I myself am a lurker here who has never posted before.

I enjoy this site thoroughly and learn a lot from the news articles and the opinions posted.
I am very glad I discovered it one day by accident.

Al---I think that was in very poor taste for you to post that one post, even if that is what you thought.
It would have been better to send that to cw privately --if there was a way to do so.

cw---I think a better answer to Sandra would have been something like the following which you wrote later

"It is just a matter of time before we experience a terrorist attack again on our soil. Countless genuine news items regarding our enemies’ preparations for that attack, our (in many respects purposeful) lack of preparations to either prevent, or survive, that attack are being ignored."

---My suggestion would be for the original dolt post in answer to Sandra be erased---along with all the posts responding to it.

Now I will go back to lurking.

cw-patriot said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for the attempt at ‘peace making’. :) And welcome to the site. It’s always nice to know that more people are lurking, in addition to those who are posting. I hope you’ll see fit to return to the board again, with your own thoughts and observations.

I don’t believe I will delete any of the posts. I promised myself when I began this blog that bannings and deletions would be rare, and so far, in eight months I believe I have only deleted one post, because of profanity.

I offer an apology, if anyone sees my previous response in this thread as objectionable. I merely see it as warranted sarcasm. But, as should be the case in any conversation or debate, there is room for disagreement. I respect your, and Al’s, view that the response was inappropriate. I just don’t happen to agree.

Neither do I believe that Al’s comment was out of line. I do not agree with his assertion that women ‘should not hold positions in which stress is a factor’. No need to go into my reasoning for that (that would require an entire essay of its own :). But I do believe he has a right to hold that opinion, and to express it here. Neither do I agree with his assertion that my earlier response was emotional, but, again, he has a right to that opinion.

I am careful to debate issues of ‘women vs. men’ and their roles in society, mainly because I do believe that there are many roles for which men are better suited, psychologically and biologically, and vice versa. (Combat, for example, in the former category, and care-giving in the latter). But I don’t believe the level of stress involved is the determining factor.

At any rate, I’ll be leaving all of the above posts as they are – mistakes and misjudgments, for the reader to determine for himself.

Thanks for you thoughtful input.

Apologies to any posters to whom I may not respond over the next couple of days. Going to be signing off now, and for a couple of days. I know others will keep the motor running smoothly in my absence. :)

~ joanie

Anonymous said...

men are better suited, psychologically and biologically, and vice versa. (Combat, for example"

regards with combat true but TRUE ONly for a small numbers of even men because it needs to take a right person but he if he the right one then You BETTER watch out

Darius

daveburkett said...

danthemangottshall and anonymous--

Sandy Berger isn't going to jail for taking documents that are classified at the same level of secrecy as our nuclear secrets, and he will be able to get his hands on classified documents again after 3 years.

Stick a fork in America.

Sandra said...

Veterans Day faces expulsion by schools
January 13, 2007

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-115026-7662r.htm

TRENTON, N.J. (AP)

(snips)

a legislative proposal that would cease requiring New Jersey schools to teach about Veterans Day and Memorial Day

the proposal, which state lawmakers unanimously passed last month. It now awaits action by the governor.


New Jersey American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars groups have asked Gov. Jon Corzine to veto the bill so schools still have to teach about Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

The governor hasn't decided how to proceed. "We're reviewing that bill," Corzine spokesman Anthony Coley said.


But state Sen. John Adler, a sponsor of the bill, cited a 2004 report by a state commission that recommended giving schools more flexibility to decide holiday observations.

New Jersey school officials support the bill.

"It's simply time and flexibility," said Mike Yaple, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association. "There's nothing in the legislation that can undermine the amount of pride and honor a community feels toward their veterans."


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-115026-7662r.htm

Anonymous said...

http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/-/James-Flagg/Wake-up-America-

Anonymous said...

http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/-/James-Flagg/Wake-up-America-Giclee-Print-C10112264.jpeg

This one works.

Disregard previous post.

Al said...


I merely see it as warranted sarcasm.


Let’s just say that sarcasm is not cw-patriot’s strong suit.

3timesalady said...

Joanie has shown a lot of class on this subject. She even defended your right to say what you did about women and stressful jobs when someone else said that you were out of line. And yet you’re still pressing an issue that she had the grace to let go of. One thing for sure Al, she has you outclassed.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Joanie has handled this minor issue very diplomatically, even kindly. Al seems to not want to let go when it would even be best for him. It's time to back off Al. Try being a gentleman in respect to someone who treated you with respect inspite of your differences.

smithy said...

Knock it off, Al.

fascismisyourwosrtenemy said...

"The touble is I don't know who in the Republican ranks I would want to run in 2008. None of the ones who look like they'll be running seem to be real conservatives. It's looking pretty grim for the future of the party and the country."

d_o'connor--

It looks like Ron Paul might be in the race and Newt is testing the waters. Keep you eye out for Duncan Hunter too. It's not hopeless yet.

daveburkett said...

fascismisyourworstenemy,

From a NY Times (spit!) article on Saturday:

Nearly two decades after he was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, maverick Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul is weighing another White House bid — this time for the GOP nod in 2008.

Paul on Thursday filed paperwork with the Texas Secretary of State establishing a nonprofit corporation, the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee, which can accept funds Paul can use to “test the waters” for a full-fledged bid.

Should he decide to forge ahead with a campaign, Paul would file paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Paul intends to elaborate on his intentions in a couple of weeks, said Kent Snyder, who is chairing Paul’s exploratory effort.

Paul is well-known on Capitol Hill for his frequent lone “no” votes on many spending bills and other legislation, much of which wins overwhelming support among both Republicans and Democrats alike.

This a voting pattern that has earned the obstetrician-turned-politician the nickname of “Dr. No.” Paul explains that he votes only for measures he views as specifically authorized by the Constitution.

In 2006, Paul voted against the Bush administration’s stated position 64 percent of the time, more than any House Republican. His highest-profile departure from President Bush is on the Iraq war, which the congressman vigorously opposes.

In 2002, Paul was among just six House Republicans who voted against giving Bush authority to wage war in Iraq. Paul opposed the resolution for numerous reasons — including his position that it was an unconstitutional transfer, from Congress to the executive branch, of the power to declare war.

In a Jan. 5 speech on the House floor, Paul also criticized the administration’s then-tentative plans to increase troop levels in Iraq, which Bush confirmed in a speech to the nation Wednesday.

Paul has served in the House for nearly 17 years, but in three separate tenures. He started out on the wrong foot, losing badly in 1974 to Democratic Rep. Bob Casey, but rebounded to win an April 1976 special election after Casey resigned to accept an appointment to the Federal Maritime Commission.

That tour in Congress was brief for Paul. The Democrat whom he defeated in the special election, Bob Gammage, exacted revenge in the November 1976 contest for a full House term. But Paul won their personal rubber match, ousting Gammage in the 1978 election.

Paul left his House seat open in 1984 to pursue a bid for the Republican Senate nomination that failed. He then strayed briefly from the GOP fold, leading to his third-party campaign for president: As the 1988 Libertarian nominee for president, he won about 432,000 votes nationally — roughly 0.5 percent of the total in a race won by fellow Texan, Republican George H.W. Bush.

Paul returned to the Republican Party, then returned to the House in 1996 after unseating Rep. Greg Laughlin — who had switched from the Democratic Party after the GOP’s 1994 House takeover — in the Republican primary.

His mainly conservative constituents in the 14th District, which includes Victoria, Galveston and a 200-mile border with the Gulf of Mexico, are Republican loyalists for president: George W. Bush took 67 percent of the district’s votes in 2004. But Paul’s contrariness evidently plays well at home: He ran unopposed in 2004 and was re-elected with 60 percent last November.


http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/01/13/cq_2120.html

Anonymous said...

The NY Times and Ron Paul.

That's an interesting combination.

stonemason said...

From a NY Times (spit!)....

LOL! I second the "spit" part.

Anonymous said...

Saudis May Ban Letter ‘X’
NewsMax.com Jan. 15, 2007

A group of Islamic clergy in Saudi Arabia has condemned the letter "X” because of its similarity to a hated banned symbol – the cross.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which has the ultimate say in all legal, civil and governance matters in the kingdom, issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against the "X.” It came in response to a Ministry of Trade query about whether a Saudi businessman could be granted trademark protection for a new service with the English name "Explorer.”

The request from the businessman, Amru Mohammad Faisal, was turned down.

"Experts who examined the English word ‘explorer’ were struck by how suspicious that ‘X’ appeared,” Youssef Ibrahim writes in the New York Sun.

"In a kingdom where Friday preachers routinely refer to Christians as pigs and infidel crusaders, even a twisted cross ranks as an abomination.”

In response to the turndown, Faisal wrote an article that appeared on several Arabian Web sites, sarcastically suggesting that the authorities might consider banning the "plus” sign in mathematics because of its similarity to the cross.

Among the commission’s earlier edicts is the 1974 fatwa declaring that the Earth is flat.

Sandra said...

"I've done nothing but protect this country, and this is the way I get repaid."


On Tuesday, Jose Compean told ABC-7 he feels prison time is the ultimate insult to his service.

Compean said, "I feel betrayed by the government. My entire adult life, I've been doing nothing but working in the government. My four years in the military, and five years in the Border Patrol. I've done nothing but protect this country, and this is the way I get repaid."
_______________________________

Convicted former Border Patrol agents turns themselves in to federal authorities

Jan 17, 2007
http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=5947307

EL PASO, Tx. - Two former El Paso Border Patrol agents reported to federal officials Wednesday afternoon to start their prison sentence.

Ignacio Ramos turned himself into federal officials in downtown El Paso shortly before 2pm Wednesday afternoon. Former agent Jose Compean turned himself in a short time later.

Ramos, surrounded by family, friends, and supporters, walked up the federal courthouse steps early Wednesday afternoon. A group of about 50 people standing nearby shouted their support as Ramos exchanged tearful hugs with those around him.

Compean and Ramos are scheduled to start their prison sentences of 12 years and 11 years, at separate federal prisons.

In 2005, the two fired a combined 14 shots at a drug smuggler as he ran back across the border into Mexico. The smuggler was hit once in the backside.

Both agents failed to report the incident to their supervisor, prompting the court case.

On Tuesday, Jose Compean told ABC-7 he feels prison time is the ultimate insult to his service.

Compean said, "I feel betrayed by the government. My entire adult life, I've been doing nothing but working in the government. My four years in the military, and five years in the Border Patrol. I've done nothing but protect this country, and this is the way I get repaid."


US Attorney John Sutton released a statement Wednesday afternoon, stating the facts of the case and giving the reasons the government prosecuted Ramos and Compean.

To view the statement, click here or on the link provided under the agent's photos.

________________________________


According to this

http://www.narconews.com/Issue38/article1374.html

John Sutton is a stooge working under direct orders from the top of the US Justice Department and higher.