Pat Buchannan Condemns and then Agrees with Breivik

That's basically the story. Breivek, the guy who killed all those people in Norway, is just evil; his ideology doesn't matter. And it's reprehensible for the European media to note that he does seem to have been a fan of many Conservatives warning about the dangers of Islam. Because of course reading about and enjoying anti-Muslim rhetoric has nothing to do with his actual act of violence, even if he said that the two were connected.

But as it turns out, Breivak was, apparently, largely correct in his analysis of the problem.

As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

in fairness to Buchannan he is an isolationist and a nativist; he prefers a strategy of keeping the Muslims in their own land and not interfering with them. Which is frustrating in a way; he's clearly an anti-Islam bigot, but he often opposes military engagement with them.

Still this article is engaging for the way in which it condemns people like me for pointing out that conservative basically agree with Breivak, and then basically agrees with Breivak (on the problem, if not the solution).

Put forward a Plan

Not posting a lot right now; I am pretty worked up about this raising the debt ceiling debate. But there was a comment Speaker of the House Boehner made on the Rush Limbaugh Program on Thursday.

It would have been nice if the President would have put a plan to the table months ago, but the President has refused to put any plan on the table. It's obviously been driving me right up a wall.

Well Republicans put forward a plan. And it didn't go so great for them. The Ryan plan has proved to be pretty unpopular, with it's plan to replace Medicare with a voucher system. So naturally, having shot themselves in the foot, Republicans think it would be only sporting for Democrats to follow suit.

It's Madness

Katie Kieffer's latest article is about Elizabeth Warren. Warren has been tapped to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection bureau and is unacceptable to Conservatives because she wants to protect Consumers. And anyway, according to Kieffer, they don't need protection.

Does Warren want financial companies to write contracts at a second-grade level because she assumes consumers are too dumb or lazy to read the fine print? She tells Time Magazine that consumers shopping for loans, “… drown in a sea of words that are theoretically disclosures, but they scream, ‘Don’t read me.’”

Mortgage brokers do not go to bed at night dreaming up confusing fine print clauses. Financial companies write lengthy contracts partly to comply with existing regulations and to protect themselves from consumer lawsuits. And Warren wants more bureaucracy?

I think this wouldn't stand out as much if I weren't in the middle of studying the Mortgage crash of 2008. In recent history we have examples of Mortgage fraud on a massive scale, and Kieffer, in so far as she is aware of it, blames Government Regulation for the avarice and predatory lending practices of this industry.

There is a story, quoted in the movie "Inside Job," and the book "All the Devils are Here, The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis," in which 15 or so of Mortgage options offered by Countrywide were placed before Greenspan. He commented that someone with an advanced degree in Mathematics still wouldn't be able to determine which of them was the best deal. And this is the system that Kieffer and other Conservatives are fighting to preserve; they want predatory lenders to have impunity.

Sometimes I believe there is truth in the theory that Conservatives can't tell the difference between money earned and money stolen.

Ann Coulter sez Single Moms are Evil

Ann Coulter's latest article is in praise of adoption, which I am also keen on, having been adopted. I do think adoption is a good solution to an unwanted pregnancy. But while half of it is nice stuff about how Adoption is good, the remaining half is about how bad single mothers are, culminating in this masterpiece of nastiness.

The plague of single motherhood isn't an inevitable decay brought on by stupid choices of the underclass. Destroying the family is the active social policy of liberals.

So much to unpack. This is why I don't read Ann Coulter anymore; it's exhausting.

First of all, note the mention of the "underclass." I wonder who Ann Coulter considers part of this "underclass?"

But more importantly is the idea that liberals want to destroy the family. I know this is orthodoxy in Ann Coulter's world; but if you believe it how can you stand to be around liberals in any sense of the word. I mean if the stuff Ann Coulter says is true, and it isn't, we Liberals deserve to be hated, scorned, and cast out. Possibly worse.

Capitulation and Compromise are not Synonyms

Limbaugh's latest article is intended to paint a happy alternate universe in which it is Democrats unwillingness to completely cave to Republicans that is causing the problem.

I'll quit accusing Democrats of obstructing spending and entitlement reform when they quit obstructing spending and entitlement reform.

In other words Democrats need to give Republicans whatever they want; that's bipartisan. For the moment Democrats are firm in their assertion that reform needs to include both increasing revenue (i.e. taxes) and spending cuts. They also aren't keen about doing entitlement "reform" in the middle of a crisis. In response to this suggestion of compromise, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor walked out of talks. Basically Cantor seems to require Democrats to surrender completely before he's willing to discus "compromise."

Capitulation and compromise are not synonyms.

Ben Shapiro attacks Jon Stewart

Not much of a fight. The crux of Shapiro's argument, from his latest article, is that Stewart criticizes Fox for being Conservatively biased while not admitting that the mainstream media and himself are liberally based. Of course Stewart has responded to these charges by saying that the media isn't liberally biased as much as it is biased towards sensationalism and laziness, and saying that he has a majority comedic bias while leaning left.

This is apparently lying, because Jon Stewart is, according to Shapiro, more of a leftist than a comedian.

He uses his comedy to propagandize. That's not against the law and not immoral, but it is a betrayal of his self-proclaimed primary motivating force: to be funny. True comedy attacks the targets at hand. It does not pick and choose based on political affiliation. Stewart does, and that's why the quality of his comedy has declined dramatically since Bush's re-election.

I'd disagree with that last statement; Stewart continues to be hilarious. I'd also argue that he does attack Liberals pretty regularly. Just recently he unloaded on Wiener who was not just a liberal but a personal friend.

I pretty much agree with Stewart's Fox Analysis; there is a difference between having a small "b" bias and an agenda. Stewart has a liberal bias. The media has a liberal bias. FOX has a conservative agenda. It drives what they do; and it's clear. Wallace himself gave the game away when he noted that the mainstream networks give one side of the story and FOX gives the other.

But what Shapiro is accusing the media and Stewart of having is an agenda; their news and their comedy are beholden to their agenda. If something contradicts their agenda, they toss it out. There's sufficient evidence in both cases to suggest that this isn't true; but I don't think you can convince either Shapiro or his readers of that.

To Stewart and his ilk, there is no religion other than "goobermint." There is no god other than "goobermint."
All Dem/Prog/Libs have no individuality. For the good of the "hive" they must be subsumed into the omnipotent, "goobermint." They can't stand individual thought or action, it frightens them too much. The "utopia" can only be obtained when all become one.

All must become slaves of the Goobermint! Sorry that doesn't have much to do with FOX, just made me laugh. I suggest this person should go out and meet some actual liberals before spouting off like a moron.

What I want to know is just what 'gives' with all of those marxists Jewish types? Huh?????

Jewish types? Oy. There are actually a number of posts complaining that Stewart is hiding his jewishness by using the name Jon Stewart. He certainly doesn't go out of his way to hide his Jewishness on his show; it's pretty much front and center so not sure what the problem is.

It's comical and farcical that the liberal propagandist Jon nitwit Leibowitz actually considers himself to be a comedian!

Not sure how it's farcical, but being a comedian, assuming you are funny (which Stewart is), is kind of funny.

Herman Cain and the Muslims

Herman Cain has stated that he will not have Muslims in his administration. He then said he might have Muslims in his administration but they would go through some more rigorous review before being approved for Government Service. Well Michael Gerson, who's article was printed at Townhall, has taken issue with this approach, and frankly, makes some very good points. He compares Cain to George Soros who was uncomfortable with President George W. Bush's religious fervor.

There are, of course, theological expressions of Islam and conservative Christianity that are inconsistent with pluralism -- either Wahhabi Saudi Arabia or John Calvin's Geneva. There are also traditions consistent with pluralism. Sharia law may be interpreted as the replication of seventh-century Medina. It may also be viewed as a moral norm or conception of justice that is variously applied in systems of human law.

The Cain/Soros view rests on the assertion that the most radical expression of a religion is also the most authentic. . . .

The Constitution addresses this matter directly. Article VI requires legislative, judicial and executive officials to take a loyalty oath to the Constitution. It continues: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Good points, reasonably well made. But, as you might expect, not very satisfying for the Townhall readers.

And now, we are being ever so softly, that islam is a religion of individual choice, to be offered the same protections as Christianity and Judaism. I have rattlesnakes on my property but Idon’t bring them into my house.

Put all the muslims, korans, arabs, and PC were it belongs: IN The Toilet and flush many times!
If they do not like the way they are treated Send Them Back in Body Bags!
I love everyone; but not these Killers!

Another Townhall reader suggests that "ISLAM presents one of the greatest threats to the world since the OTTOMAN empire." Which seems odd since we've had both Hitler and Stalin since the Ottoman empire. But I guess Hitler and Stalin weren't Muslims.

Fixed Dollars

Mike Needham's latest article takes on American Pessimism pointing out how much government support for a dependent person has grown since 1962.

Between 1962 and 2009, government support for a dependent person grew from just over $7,000 to nearly $32,000. They’re policies, like Obamacare, will only accelerate the trend we’ve seen over the past forty years.

That's pretty interesting. Of course, due to inflation, dollars are not constantly the same value. A 1962 dollar is worth $7.10 2009 dollars. Which means $7,000 in 1962 actually translates out to $42,727.30 in 2009 dollars.

Of course it's possible he's accounted for constant dollars. Impossible to say really.

Why I don't post so much

Partially it's because my position and duties have increased. But partly it's because of articles like John Ransom's "The Left Hates Sarah Palin and Paul Revere." No, seriously. That's the title. The left, by which he means TV reporters, hates Paul Revere (I'd concede the Sarah Palin part, although in fairness she hates us right back). Specifically there was one unflattering report of Sarah Palin's comments and a follow up report. They were as follows.

“Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there - that, ‘Hey, you’re not goin' to succeed. You’re not goin' to take American arms. You are not goin' to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have,’" Palin said. “He did warn the British.”

In fairness, these were off the cuff remarks she made while apparently standing in line in a cafeteria. So Palin makes some comments about Paul Revere and the right to bear arms, New York Magazine makes fun of them then explains in their second post that she's historically correct.

And from this little non-story John Ransom determines that we Liberals hate Paul Revere, and all real patriots (who are, all coincidentally, conservatives).

. . . at least those bitter patriots who cling to their religion and their guns, named Palin, Revere, Bachman, Cain, Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, etc, etc, amen.

Yep. We liberals hate conservative politicians (or at least disagree with them.

Now to make sure I spend the rest of the day depressed, lets look at the comments.

all the male liberals bash Sarah because, well, lets face it, there neanderthal wives scream at them to do so, in there heart they like Sarah but with there 400 pound gorilla staring down at there weak spine, they voice rejection to Sarah, while on the other hand, the females are just horrible looking.......who could blame them to hating Sarah......they are all daydreaming back in their high school days.........so yes , Sarah the prom Queen......

Yes, this reflects a healthy attitude towards women. I am not married by the way, nor do I have a Girlfriend forcing me to make fun of Sarah Palin. I make fun of her, when I do, because it amuses me to do so.

All the commiweasel males who hate Palin must be homos who envy her her looks, particularly her shapely legs. Politics aside, what normal male would so vehemently despise and viciously attack an attractive and charming woman, who also happens to be a mother? Further proof that liberals are not very manly, even those who consider themselves heterosexual.

Well, Sarah Palin does have very shapely legs. But really it's the fact that she's kind of an idiot that I make fun of.

But wait let's get really ugly.

I'm about sick of the commie/progressive/socialist scum that have infested this nation. Its time to round them all up and ship them off to Cuba, Russia, Iran or any commie third world country of their choice.

Its time to let them know they are not welcome in America to send them packing!

As for you stankin, flea bitten, camel sucking, religion of hate muzzies - You're not welcome here either! Go back to your own God forsaken third world hovel! We don't want you in America!

During times of war, the President has the authority to detain and hold enemy aliens. This should be taking place now.

Yep Liberals and Muslims aren't welcome in America. Pretty goddamn depressing.

The Liberal Plan for Women

Kevin McCullough's latest article takes Liberals to courting the woman vote, doing things like allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to assume control of the DNC.

They intend to win the votes of women, and they will lie, confuse, and mislead if necessary to do so.

Yep we're just awful. He lists a number of prominent Conservative woman politicians to prove that Conservatives just care about women more, and then says this.

. . . a simple question for Rep. Schultz, "Where is your proof that the GOP is at war with these ladies?" Because while I'm not 100% certain, I'm fairly sure none of them embrace your ideas of equality for women--a world without men, where butchery of your own children is praised, immoral liberties are encouraged, and the idea of nurturing one's children is the equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb.

A world without men? This in an article where he admits that admits that Schultz is married and has children (and even concedes that she might be a pretty good mother). It then turns around and ascribes to Schultz all of these cliches.

Presumably McCullough really does believe that we liberals, particularly liberal woman, want a world with no men and praise the butchery of our own children. Either he believes that is what sort of people we are or he is simply a deceitful propagandist.

The comments seem to contain multiple posts by a guy who believes that Liberalism is wanting to turn Heterosexual males into Diaper Dads.

UNTIL 50% of men in office are repalced by women.. that's their whoopi-agenda.

(now you know...) .. DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO MADE...

This includes School Boards, local, County and State government (in which to warm up) along with the Federal Government. To be 'included' are Judges all the way up to and 'including' SCOTUS. Add to this.. corporations plus Government departments and agencies.

YOUR SONS.. 50%.. ARE TO BECOME DIAPER DADS

.. while mommy legislates, adjudicates, governs or runs a corporation.

That should probably be "DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO BE MADE." Still kind of awkward.

Surveying the Field

Jonah Goldberg's latest article is in praise of a field of electable Republicans, people like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and Mitch Daniels. Both Romney and Gingrich have shown that they can reach the middle ground (Romney with his Romneycare defense, Gingrich with his mockery of Ryans Medicare phase-out).

For those paying attention, these should be fascinating developments given the perennial claims that the GOP base is too right wing, extremist and closed-minded to tolerate such philosophical diversity. (And with the exception of Gingrich and Paul, there are no Southerner candidates in a party allegedly captured by the South.)

. . . It also suggests that the front-runners -- a group that includes former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- might be ahead of the rank and file of the GOP.

Now that's an interesting tack to take; suggesting these moderate candidates are more intelligent than the base. Of course Gingrich did have to walk back his comments on phasing out Medicare (and has also stated that anybody who replays clips of that appearance is lying), and Romneys defense of Romneycare was in the middle of an attack on Obamacare. So maybe the base still has a few cards. And let's see what the base has to say.

Would anyone in their right mind vote for Ron Paul?! He's odd, weird, and did I mention odd? Strange choice.

Romney has flipped flopped more than my beach sandles. Newt does a commercial with Pelosi on climate change and wants health care mandates?

NO WAY is Romney electable! We all ready know that. I heard him described yesterday as a cardboard person. Very descript.

Bomb thrower Newt needs to get out also...he might just be trying to sell books.

Michele Bachman is another limited appeal bomb thrower.

Still there are some things that unite them.

EVEN IF YOU THINK THE CHOICE ISN'T CLEAR , ..IT IS !!!!!!!...... YOU CAN VOTE FOR A COMMUNIST,SOCIALIST,MARXIST,MUSLIM OR .....AN AMERICAN, ITS VERY SIMPLE AND ANY RED BLOODED AMERICAN SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING THIS DECISION..................
BHO = AMERICAS PUBLIC ENEMY MUSLIM TERRORIST NUMBER ONE

So I'm sure they'll pull it together when the election actually comes around. Or not.

Fear the Muslim and his Money Donating Ways

John Ransom's latest article is about an South Florida Imam and some of his family members who donated to the "Muslim Taliban," who were going to use that money to overthrow the Pakistani Government and maybe kill Americans in the process. Of course this leads to a fairly blanket if sarcastic condemnation of American Muslims.

Oh, those poor Muslims in America. Cue the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other unindicted co-conspirators to give us one of their stock racism lectures.

Unindicted co-conspirators are always feeling the backlash in the U.S. of the actions of just a few very prominent heroes in their community. Those heroes, we’re assured, always seemed harmless as they were plotting to murder and maim.

The presumed “backlash” probably has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims tolerate such people in their midst. The spokesmen for the mosques always seem SO shocked that such people are their leaders. Their ignorance is reassuring to me.

Actually Muslim Leaders are waiting for the rule of law to proceed, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Ba-Yunus said the mosque has suspended Mr. Khan indefinitely and has been in regular contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI.

If the accusations against the imam are true, "we unconditionally condemn" his actions, said Mr. Ba-Yunus. But he emphasized that "these are the alleged acts of a few people and one family" and not representative of the broader Muslim community.

That's probably not good enough for the likes of Ransom and his readers; they should be condemning him unconditionally even before the evidence is in. Of course his readers have pretty strong opinions on Islam.

Time to round them all up and ship them back to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran or wherever it is these vermin migrate from.

There is no peaceful muzzie and they all need to be deported right out of this Christian nation.

I wonder what he wants to do to the ones who were born here.

All muslims are soldiers in the Army of Islam. Be he shopkeeper, book keeper, imam or terrorist, all are soldiers.
Some train in far off bases to commit acts of terror.
Some emigrate to foreign countries where they become an intelligence network, a disbursing corps and a supply corps. They set up safe houses and underground railroads for the terrorist arm. The terrorists are but the Special Forces of the Army of Islam. They are the spearhead of military action.
The "moderate" muslims are the regular soldiers and everywhere they settle they awari the call to take up arms and follow their Special Forces in conquest for Islam.
We are at war. We are at war with a religion. We are at war with a religion that is also an army.
And that army is over ONE BILLION strong.

Now that's grim and apocalyptic. But why focus just on our Muslim Enemies, when there are also liberal bedwetters out there?

Liberal bed wetters - Their keyword is racist or racism. What a tired bunch of morons!

And if wanting a bunch of smelly, nasty, dirty swine deported out of America is racist, well so be it!

As for the libtards - I want you deported as well. You do nothing but lie, steal and destroy everything you touch. You serve no purpose other then to suck at the public teet. Time for the law of the fittest to take over and allow you to expire as should have occurred by natural selection at some point in your despicable little lives. You are good for nothing!

I actually do hold down a regular job, but it is tangentially related to the Government so I suppose I am despicable.

Thoughts on Thor

Relayed from AlternativeRight by Bleeding Cool. The reviewer saw it as a multi cultural mess, but it was defended by commentators.

The movie works fine from a White racial perspective - I see the addition of a Black Heimdal as a minor concession to get the film produced and marketed in 2011 America. And this Black Heimdal has a really bad job - being a Black doorman/gate keeper who must work 24/7/365 far, far away from the fun of the White gods in Asgard.

Thor is perfectly cast - the little Nordic White boy actor of young Thor is also very good, so is the presentation of Loki - a sinister, alien looking being who was taken at birth from a foreign race and raised to be a son of Odin, even though he isn't. NS folks should notice a nice parallel to alien Semitic races who have lived amongst us, but are always, somehow not quite right.

The Thor - Jane Fonda chemistry is excellent, a really solid White god/mortal romance. Jane isn't some pushy feminist , she's certainly smart, but she lets her man do all the fighting and goes for the Elizabethan strong Nordic guy with the long golden locks.

There are no - ZERO promotions of race mixing, multi culturalism, anti racism, cultural marxism etc.

I actually really liked Thor on the level of dumb comic book entertainment. But after reading this guy, maybe I was missing something.

That said, while I find this moderately amusing, it's silly to pretend this tiny website is somehow representative of America Conservatism. These are a small subcategory of open racists, as witnessed by their low comment count; an article at Townhall (where I cull plenty of comments) might have up to 500 comments; the longest comment count I see here is maybe a tenth of that. So, amusing but irrelevant.

Someone is Paying John Hawkins to write Articles

Possibly. His articles are reprinted at Townhall, at any rate, and one presumes they aren't reprinted for free. It looks like he runs a number of websites, so possibly that's where his money come. His latest article is lazy as hell. It starts out with the observation that many liberals seem proud of America in the wake of our killing of Osama Bin Ladin.

Not that there aren't patriotic liberals. They certainly exist, much in the same manner that albino alligators exist. You see one every once in awhile in captivity, but if you ever run across one in the wild, you'll be genuinely surprised.

The rest of his column is a list of hateful things "liberals" have said. Not even recent comments. But oldy moldies from such liberal champions as Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright. In the wake of killing Osama bin Ladin it wouldn't be too hard to troll Liberal columnists and bloggers to find a few not joining in on the glee of Osama's death. But that would be too much work for the lazy Hawkins.

I wonder if he genuinely believes his quotes reflect mainstream liberalism; probably. I don't grant him enough wit to know how full of crap he is. His readers also genuinely believe Liberals to be hateful.

Liberals only seek to fundamentally change America, weaken her, overcome her and rule over her, and if they can't have theri way with her then destroy her.

Get the h*ll out of my country if you think it's so bad.

That last one is a common charge; which is fascinating when you think about it. The truth is that for many of these far right tea party guys, America is far closer to my vision than it is to theirs. They are going to have to overturn a century of progress to get us back to the Laissez Faire small Government Ideal. So why don't we ever offer to let them move to a third world strongman state? I guess because Liberals recognize a kinship with conservatives; we are all part of the same nation.

Equivalence

This is from Dennis Prager's latest article, in which he chides Robert Klitzman for writing an article critical of his country, when he lost his sister in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Asking what America did to elicit the hatred of Muslim terrorists is morally equivalent to asking what Jews did to arouse Nazi hatred, what blacks did to cause whites to lynch them, what Ukrainians did to arouse Stalin's hatred or what Tibetans did to incite China's hateful treatment of them.

It's a little different Prager because you have to take into account power and previous actions. Blacks in the South and Jews in Germany had no power. America has been, since the end of WW2 and possibly before, the most powerful nation on the planet.

Secondly we have actually done some lousy things in the middle east, even if we aren't going to talk about Israel and the Palestinians. We help prop up friendly dictatorships and have been since the days of the Shah.

Prager seems to belong to the "America is the bestest nation on all the earth" belief system; in which criticism of American actions abroad shows hatred of America somehow. His readers pretty much agree.

Hate America First!

It's written in stone. And it's the law of the liberal, progressive, far left.

It's sad how Conservatives look at things sometimes; they seem genuinely unable to understand how one can be critical of something that one loves.

Gerson Vs. Rand

Michael Gerson's latest article takes on Ayn Rand and the recent movie (first part of a trilogy) of her Seminal Work "Atlas Shrugged." He is not a fan.

If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others

Gerson points out that she saw average Americans as looters and parasites and that she wasn't a fan of Christianity. He says that her philosophy, with it's laser like focus on freedom of the individual, doesn't work.

But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea -- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness. This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory -- at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity -- is the evidence of a rigid ideology. Socialists take a similar path, embracing equality as an absolute value. Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with serious human costs.

Conservatives have been generally suspicious of all ideologies, preferring long practice and moral tradition to utopian schemes of left or right. And Rand is nothing if not utopian.

So a good take down. But, there are other points of view, such as those of Gerson's readers.

i am not sure why gerson does this hit piece. it may be that he is simply a pawn of the overlords who recognize that freedom for the individual is the greatest threat to their desire to be complete rulers of the masses. consequently, knowing the overlord's wishes, gerson seeks to discredit the movie before more and more people tune in to the socialism that is creeping surreptitiously into the american gestalt.

I just checked the list of pawns and Gerson's name isn't on it. Oh and there are no overlords. And I am certainly not an overlord.

Thank God for the movie. It was released just when we have the most totalitarian government ever in power in the USA. Ayn, we miss you. You would see instantly the parallels between the Obama Administration and Stalin's USSR. Your old nemesis is right here, right now, in Washington, D.C. And the clueless observers like Gerson don't even recognize it!

We live in the most totalitarian government in power? Why doesn't overlord Obama just get rid of those annoying Tea Partiers than? Send them off to Alaska (America's Siberia).

Gerson's writing is that of a disgusting blue-blood republican that may even be more dispicable than Obama. Gerson wants the rest of us to go back to the slimy days when Republicans cut deals with democrats to sell out the public in favor of the elite (to whom if you ever watched him or read him he considers himself one of). . . . Gerson you disgust me truly.

Funny that Ayn Rand, who was pretty elitist, is being held up as a champion of the little guy.

Trump! Trump! TRUMP!!!!

Several articles about Trump today. Cal Thomas wrote about how Trumps connection to Christianity may not be all that sincere.

He [Trump] did say he goes to church "as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there's a major occasion." Christians know a lot of people who attend church only on Christmas and Easter and special occasions. They are usually not serious about their faith. Not to judge, but if Trump intends to use faith to win votes from people of faith, then those people have a right to determine whether he is sincere or simply trying to manipulate them.

I pretty well agree with Thomas here; if he is playing to get Conservative Christian votes by pretending to be one of them, well, they have a right to ask how committed he actually is.

That said, Conservative Christians generally don't actually care about the faith of their candidates, so long as they vote the right way. Trouble is Trump has shown himself to be all over the map on that score.

Thomas does carefully exclude Trumps biggest selling point to the Right, i.e. his willingness to take Birtherism seriously. I suppose that makes sense, no sense bringing up embarrassing aspects about your base.

Larry Elder has no such compunction though, and dedicates his article to the proposition that Trump is asking questions that the media won't.

But are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 or are unsure that he did?

Are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe that "Bush Lied, People Died" our way into the Iraq War or are unsure that he did?

Are they wackier than the majority of Democrats who, in 2008, held Bush responsible when gas prices hit $4 a gallon?

What's the point? When people are unhappy with a politician and/or his policies, they sometimes see the worst -- whether or not there is a factual basis. But the media do not even have a name for the Democratic equivalent of "birthers," despite these vicious, unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of Bush.

Poor Elder. Not a very strong section. But lets go through it.

First of all, 9/11 "Truthers" have never been taken seriously by any major Liberal pol. Liberal website Salon went out of their way to take the mickey out of the Truthers. In contrast there are several Republican pols who are taking this seriously, from state legislators putting up bills that require Presidential candidates to put up Birth Certificates to Presidential Candidates and Congresspeople giving a wink and a nod to Birthers.

Second and three are just said. People think that Bush lied us into Iraq because what he told us about Iraq turned out not to be true. We didn't find weapons of mass destruction. There is strong evidence that Bush and his advisors were determined to invade Iraq regardless of the evidence. Did they genuinely believe we needed to invade Iraq? Probably. Did they present all the evidence to the American people so they could make up their minds with all the facts? It does not seem so.

And of course our invasion of Iraq had something to do with Gas Prices going up.

Finally, yes, the media do have a name for people who think that Bush allowed or caused 9/11 to happen. It's Truthers as mentioned above.

Elder does more than wink at the Birthers, but makes it clear that he thinks they have some good points. Which is nice, since he's Black. This is helpful for Birthers, who are regularly accused of being racist for questioning whether or not President Obama is legally qualified to be President. This is because some of them are clearly racist, and others seem concerned that Obama isn't a real America like the rest of us. So Elder does provide a valuable service to the Birthers here.

Still, even with Elder, you can't get around some of the ugliness in their comments.

I am not so concerned about the so-called "birther issue as the "What are we going to do to Obama when his birth issue proves to be correct. I always have the image of his grandmother stating that "li'l Barry was born in Kenya," in front of me.

There has to be some kind of splendiferous punishment for the con - death by firing squad seems too little in view of the level of the fraud.

When you tell a 224 year old Christian nation that we are not a Christian nation any more and you are going to change the foundation that made us great, then people are going to have questions.

Barack Obama is a limp-wristed-panty-waist, who does not like getting his own hands dirty, instead he surrounds himself with those who are willing to do whatever criminal act or illegal operation Barack Obama has in his bag-of-community-organizing-tricks.

Interesting mix. The top one speaks for itself. The middle one plays off of the belief of many on the right that Liberals just aren't very good Americans. And the bottom one is homophobic crap, which I guess is slightly better than being racist.

Who Loves America?

Michael Medved's latest article takes on that old conundrum, why are liberals and conservatives so different. Turns out conservatives see America as a great place and liberals aren't as keen on it.

The right views America as exceptionally blessed and righteous — chosen by God (or fate, if you prefer) to inspire humanity with distinctive ideals of liberty, self rule and free markets. The left, on the other hand, expresses an intensifying tendency to see the U.S. as exceptionally guilty (for slavery, "genocide" against Native Americans and arrogant imperialism) and exceptionally backward when it comes to "social justice." Progressives never tire of reminding us that the United States lacks the welfare state guarantees that characterize other wealthy nations, and that it tolerates a vast gap between rich and poor.

Or to put it another way, Progressives want an America that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy.

Medved is pretty transperant here; this is the simplistic way Conservatives beleive that Liberals look at America. We don't like it, and want it to be more like Europe. Conservatives love America and are content having a small powerless Government with a strong military, because they believe in the American people.

Putting Troops First

Mike Needham's latest article is intended to put pressure on Congressional Democrats to cave and pass the Republican Budget.

President Obama and Senator Harry Reid have an obligation to explain to our military why they have refused to come to the table and either pass H.R. 1 through the Senate or pass an alternative.

Needham does let on that he'd be satisfied if they just passed the military section of the resolution; and I'm more or less with him on that. We are fighting a couple of wars, no reason to stop paying our troops. That said, this is a pretty big bargaining chip for either side to play around with.

Of course Needham doesn't mention some of the controversial riders attached by Republicans, such as defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR, limiting the EPA and defunding the Consumer Protection Complaints database. It is possible that the American people would see some of those as Republicans settling scores on the backs of our troops.

Not many comments, but one notable one.

These pathetic, excremental democrats will hold out paying our troops in order to blame Republicans.

Die democrats, die!

Nice.

I'm Using Technology

Apparently Robert Knight feels that with all this talk about Japan and Libya, we are losing sight of what is really important; making sure the Gays stay second class citizens.

Now there’s a scenario for building respect for the military among the nation’s youngsters. Boy: “Look, mom, those men in uniforms are, uh, making out right there in the food court! I’m not sure I want to be a soldier after all.” Liberal mom: “Well, that’s a relief. I didn’t want you to be in the military anyway. All those guns give me the creeps. But why do you find this odd? Are you some kind of religious bigot? Honestly, we’re going to have to call your school and ask them to step up the tolerance training. You won’t even wear that nice polka dot dress and pumps I bought you.”

"All those guns give me thec creeps?" Anyway it's sad drivel, of the sort you expect from a town hall third tier columnist trying to build his profile by being extra hateful. Fortunately his readers enjoy hating Homosexuals.

Homosexuals are about trashing this country and Christianity. Look at every program advanced by the Leftists, it is at it's root, anti-Christian. No open homosexuals should not be allowed in the miltary since the lack the discipine to be good sailors, Marines, ect.

So there you go.