RRD:I am posting this today because I will be otherwise occupied until the 10th,& may not have time to post this later.I think I speak for most Americans when I say you are in our hearts this seventh of July. Attached are creative-commons licensed photos of the 7/07 attack & the memorial. The links below are for attribution for the photos. User:Ellywa - Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ellywa User:Hahnchen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hahnchen Adam Stacey http://moblog.co.uk/view.php?id=77571 File:London-07.07.2005-trapped underground.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
RRD:I am posting this in advance because I will be away for the weekend. Thomas Sowell on the meaning of the Holiday: July 4th - Page 1 - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/06/28/july_4th Attribution links: File:Lincoln Memorial July 4th 1.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
RRD:I cannot do justice to the essay with brief quotes,but I will outline the key points. Asia Times Online :: The real face of Hizbul Tehrir http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF28Df04.html ......"Those investigating Brigadier Ali Khan and several other senior officers of the Pakistan army for their HuT links say despite claiming to be a non -violent political party, the HuT had a violent jihadi agenda to overthrow the government and remove the military top brass. ..... ....." Pakistani intelligence sleuths responsible for monitoring HuT activities say the group is working in tandem with al-Qaeda under the garb of pan -Islamism. ".... ..... "At the same time, Tayyab Muqeem, a London -based key HuT leader, declared in July 2009 that many HuT activists had been sent to Pakistan to bring about Islamic sharia by force. He claimed that HuT had successfully converted four senior officers of Pakistan army during their training at Sandhurst elite military training academy in the United Kingdom. According to an October 2010 report by the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, far from being deterred, the HuT has continued efforts to infiltrate the high echelons of the Pakistan army and Pakistani social elite. The report titled "Hizbul Tehrir in Pakistan: Discourse and Impact", quoted Shahzad Sheikh, a Karachi-based HuT leader, as saying that the group had been persuading the Pakistan army to stage a bloodless coup to overthrow the government in Islamabad. ".... ....." According to Maajid Nawaz, a former HuT member now serving as director of the United Kingdom -based think-tank Quilliam, the menace of the HuT infiltrating the Pakistani armed forces was exported from Britain: 'Hizbul Tehrir advocates violent overthrow of democratic states through military coups in order to enforce a single interpretation of Islam. Recruiting from the world's Muslim-majority armies is a fundamental tenet of their call. Groups such as HuT do not seek to launch a mass movement; rather they specifically target the intellectual elite and the military apparatus of the countries in which they operate.".... ...." Once this sector is taken, a military coup can be staged by key officers sympathetic to the cause, who would in turn face minimal resistance from society."..... ...."But the HuT's tactics to achieve its objectives differ from place to place. For instance, the group had for some time followed the "keep your ideology in your heart" strategy in the United Kingdom, without vocally or tacitly supporting any of the violent acts being carried out by militants. But in Pakistan.... the group ........ extends its sympathies and support to militant groups that, according to HuT, are sincerely fighting to establish Islamic rule and strongly resisting the "nefarious designs of the infidels against the Muslims of Pakistan and Afghanistan".......
......" I tell you Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the party holds to be truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes ? Two and two are four." "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane." ... 1984 RRD:In a surreal spectacle reminiscent of Bill Clinton questioning the meaning of the word "is".Harold "axis of disobedience" Koh continues to claim with a straight face that we are not engaged in hostilities in Libya.It is amazing how pompous and delusional people can become when they isolate themselves from the world outside the Ivory Tower. Outside of some Obama sycophants these claims are viewed with disbelief & ridicule.Why does the Obama administration not simply declare--like previous administrations--that it does not regard the War Powers Act as being Constitutional? It says something profoudly disturbing--from a purely psychological standpoint--that the Administration chooses the most brazenly bizarre argument they can make,and sticks to it. It is as they were trying to see how much they can get away with.Like a compulsive con artist who tries--for the "fun" of it--to see how much he can put over on his victims. More disturbingly,it is also the kind of thing one would expect to see in a personality cult;where the leader's words are supposed to replace reality. Senate Foreign Relations Panel Backs U.S. Libya Mission Businessweek http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-28/senate-foreign-relations-panel-ba...
Dr.Naguib Sawiris a Egyptian Media Mogul & a champion of the separation of religion & state,has been threatened with boycotts,the prospect of being charged with "Religious Contempt",& at least one death threat.His crime?Posting a picture of Mickey & Minnie Mouse in muslim garb.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/egypt-christian-mogul-enrages-islamists-with-... Facebook groups have been launched against him. ....."Named “We are joking Sawiris,” the Facebook group said: “If you are really a Muslim, and you love[sic] boycott his projects. We have to cut out the tongue of any person who attacks our religion.” .... ....."At least 15 Salafi lawyers have filed lawsuits accusing Sawiris of religious contempt, an official at the prosecutor general office said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media."...
RRD:At times I wonder if the GOP leadership is deliberately trying to make me suffer a heart attack.First the scum throw their support behind a bill to make it easier for Obama to get his nominees confirmed....
Then this: GOP compromise on debt: Cut military spending? - The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-compromise-on-debt-cut-mil... The correct and irreplaceable role of the US Gov is in DEFENDING THE UNITED STATES.Not in any of this other garbage.This is exactly what this traitor has been seeking for years.He imagines himself as the anti-Reagan who will protect the world from us.And now we learn that there are Republicans who seek to act as his enablers.There should be no cuts to the Military.Any savings should go into rebuilding our Military to make it better able to defend us from prospective enemies.My God we could suffer a nuclear first strike from Iran,the Muslim World is falling to Islamists from Egypt to Yemen and these fools are thinking of CUTTING our Military?It's insanity. I sent these fools to Washington to defeat Obama's agenda.Not to pass it. If they go down this road,I will do everything in my power to politically crucify these scum.
RRD:This is the third in a series of informal essays that I will be publishing at irregular intervals on the 2012 presidential candidates.It is generally directed at Objectivists--and to their specific concerns--but those who are not Objectivists may benefit from it anyway. The first dealt with Santorum. See: Why Santorum Must Be Defeated - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/why-santorum-must-be-defeated The second Romney: Who should we support for the #2012 election:Why we need better candidates.Part 2: Romney #obamacare #tcot #tlot #teaparty - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/who-should-we-support-for-the-2012-elect... Most of the series will be circulated privately so that it cannot be used later by the Democrats, but those parts dealing with the worst candidates--whom I will be opposing publicly--will be public. Those who read part 2 can skip to the section entitled GINGRICH.As this is a reprinting of that. Many have adopted a kind of ABO attitude( i.e.:Anyone but Obama) towards the 2012 presidential election.There is a danger in personalizing this election.Obama is,in fact,our enemy.But he is not our only enemy.As Obama is fond of pointing out,there are Republicans who have advocated(indeed,even pioneered) the same policies and ideas that he has. These policies will really be no less immoral,or destructive if they are carried out by someone with a R after their name,then if they are carried out by someone with a D after their name. What's more,our goal should not be simply to get rid of Obama.It should be to reverse his agenda(and the agenda of statists more broadly). How do we do this? As Ayn Rand noted you cannot trick people into freedom(i.e. you cannot pander to the lowest common denominator & then "institute freedom",once in office.You will be reversed at the next election.) Contrary to the claims of those who denounce "purity"(by which they seem to mean a principled,consistent,moral stance) the best way to win a battle of ideas IS TO HAVE ONE. The only way to wage such a battle is with someone who understands--& who is capable of articulating--the principles of Individual Rights & Limited Government.Such a person need not be perfect(though to the extent that they are flawed they risk defeat & failure) but neither can they be a mee-toist weakling.Nor can they be a cowardly mediocrity who is more concerned with being liked by our enemies in the news media then with winning. Nor can they be a Neo-conservative/Rockefeller Republican(who are not even Conservatives,much less Objectivists) who "recognizes" the "fact" that the welfare state is a "reality that we must conform to",and who simply wish to do it "better"..."differently" etc... Rather they must be someone who understands that the welfare state is irrational and must and will fall,one way or another.(Either by repealing it,or because it goes bankrupt). They must understand that the collapse of the United States,at best, would be a catastrophe for us,and at worst could mean the end of Western Civilization.(fn1) They must understand that Enviromentalism--as a ideology--is a anti-humanistic religion masqurading as a rational belief system,which seeks to impose a totalitarian neo-asceticism on us(fn2).And that no compromise with it,or appeasement of it,is possible if we are to survive. The problem is that all of the likely 2012 nominees are,to one degree or another,deeply flawed.We may have no choice but to go with the least bad one of them.But that is not yet the case. And that is the purpose of this series:To identify the problems with the existing candidates and to seek out alternatives who have not considered running,and to evaluate them,and,if possible,persuade them to run. I am through with passively accepting the existing candidates as if they are representative of the best we can hope for. I ask all who are reading this to put forward the best potential candidates you can think of.Potential candidates other than those listed below. Now I will list the likely candidates and explain why they range from flawed to horrendous.I will deal with them,individually,in a series of separate essays. Michele Bachmann(Declared) Jeb Bush John Bolton Herman Cain(Declared) Chris Christie Newt Gingrich (Declared) Rudy Giuliani Jon Huntsman(Declared) Bobby Jindal Gary Johnson(Declared) Peter King Bob Mcconnell Thaddeus Mccotter Sarah Palin Ron Paul (Declared) Tim Pawlenty(Declared) Rick Perry Charles Elson "Buddy" Roemer Mitt Romney(Declared) Rick Santorum(Declared) Obviously,as circumstances change,I may add to,or subtract from,this list. GINGRICH: For why I regard support for the Individual Mandate to be a disqualification see the Romney article above. Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/... Romney, Gingrich Flunk Poli-Philosophy http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/56-health-care/997-romney-gingrich-flu... YouTube - Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate Change
HUNTSMAN: I published this story when Huntsman declared.From it you may guess that I have some reservations about a Huntsman presidency. Huntsman Declares,demands civility towards obama.Fuck them both #tcot #tlot #teaparty - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/huntsman-declaresdemands-civility-toward... The post goes into more detail,with less profanity. GARY JOHNSON: I will not support someone who advocates withdrawal from Afghanistan.Further his statements about "soft power",and "leading by example" are ominously similar to Obama's.In particular the latter calls to mind Obama's grotesquely pompous statement that we should lead the world not by a "example of our power,but by the power of our example".To which David Brooks replied(paraphrase)that it was unlikely that Russia or the Mullah's Islamic Republic of Iran would be impressed by the "power of our example"(This is one of Brooks' statements that actually makes sense). Foreign Policy http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy Frankly Johnson strikes me as Ron Paul-lite. Which brings me to. RON PAUL: See the links on foreign policy below: Ostrichism? | Don't Let It Go http://dontletitgo.com/2011/06/23/ostrichism/ Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul | Don't Let It Go http://dontletitgo.com/2011/05/11/why-i-wont-vote-for-ron-paul/ fn1. By "Western Civilization" I mean the values of Reason, & Political Liberty,(including Freedom of Speech, Individual Rights,Representative Government etc).If the US and Europe fall,China and/or Islamists could lead the world into a new Dark Age.With Chinese style technocratic dictatorships in the non-muslim parts of Asia,and Neo-Medievalistic ones in the Islamic World(possibly including Europe). fn2: I hold that Enviromentalism is a anti-humanist neo-pastoralist,neo-ascetic movement that has more in common with Jainism(see below) than with any rational belief system.It is a movement which places "Nature","The Earth","Mother Earth",and various forms of wildlife on a equal footing with Man.In short the problem with Enviromentalism is NOT that it seeks to prevent human beings from being poisoned,but that it does NOT concern itself with human beings & human welfare.Instead upholds the belief that "Nature" is some form of intrinsic value,apart from it's value to Homo Sapians.This is why we see a vast effort expended to preserve the spotted owl under the mystical rationalization that it's destruction will(somehow) throw off the "delicate" "ecosystem" of the Earth,leading to some unexplainable cataclysm. (Though in fairness even Jainism is less anti-humanistic) Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
RRD:Consider this:the Republicans won in 2010, in a overwhelming repudiation of the Obama administration and it's policies.What has happened since then? *The GOP broke it's promise,(and emboldened Obama) by settling for a trivial 50 billion in cuts,(which,in reality,turns out to be less than $400 million) *Currently due to the moral cowardice(fn2) of the GOP leadership the media is discussing--not whether a balanced budget amendment will be part of the deal,or a repeal of Obamacare,or a end to funding the war in Libya--but whether Republicans will accept tax increases. *At the same time this is occurring,the Senate leadership is trying to make it easier,not harder,easier,for Obama to have his nominees confirmed.Is this the message these clowns thought we were sending to them? fn1 http://theneointellectual.blogspot.com/2011/04/cbo-budget-deal-cuts-this-fisc... fn2. At first I believed that they were simply inept negotiators,now I am convinced that it is altruism undercutting their "convictions".(I use altruism in the way Ayn Rand used the term) See: Altruism — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html ...."What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self -sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self -sacrifice—which means; self -immolation, self -abnegation, self -denial, self -destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self -esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes .” “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It , 61.
Altruism — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html ...."What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self -sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self -sacrifice—which means; self -immolation, self -abnegation, self -denial, self -destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self -esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes .” “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It , 61.
RRD:Though Ellmers severely disappointed me with her support of Boehner's budget deal,here she is eloquent. Obama, GOP radio duel over government debt ceiling - CSMonitor.com http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0625/Obama-GOP-radio-duel-over-gov... Obama: “I am committed to working with members of both parties to cut our deficits and debt,” the president said. But he added, “We can’t simply cut our way to prosperity.” .... "Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina gave the Republican response, criticizing the Obama administration for wanting to raise taxes. Ellmers, who owns a small medical practice with her husband, accused the Obama administration of wanting to "stay the course, keep spending money we don't have, and raise your taxes –all in the name of 'stimulus.'" She added that “The job creators we hear from, they don’t have their hand out. They don’t want a bailout. All they ask us to do is get government out of the way.” ....
RRD:Actually Coburn is already on thin ice for supporting the tax increases in the Gang of six plan,as well as praising Pelosi as "nice".If he does this he will face a primary challenger & probably to no avail.While no one can say with certitude what,if anything,goes through the minds of the MSM,I suspect that at least some of them are pushing for tax increases for two reasons:1.They believe in them.2.They know,(even if some Republicans are too stupid to),that if the GOP controlled House passes a tax increase they will lose the House.However I doubt most Republicans are that stupid. Here's a idea:We will support tax increases as part of a debt reduction plan,if Democrats will pass & Obama will sign a full repeal of Obamacare. After all,shouldn't everything be on the table? The debt talks need Sen. Coburn’s help - The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-debt-talks-need-sen-coburns-help/2...
Last night Obama delivered a speech in which he declared that he would permit Americans;innocent men,women,& children,to be given the choice between being burned alive,and leaping to their deaths.He announced that those who are America's allies can expect to be betrayed to our enemies.He announced that he would piss on the graves of all those who died both on 9/11 and in Afghanistan.He announced that he would let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban,and,by extension,let Pakistan fall to the Islamists(the full blown,full throated Al-Qaeda sympathizers),possibly leading to a nuclear armed Al-Qaeda. He has done this,in part,because he has taken the advice of a drunken buffoon--who predicted that the surge would fail and that Iraq should be carved up into pieces--over the advice of the military commander who successfully planned and executed the surge. He has overridden his military commanders,despite the fact that he has no military experience whatsoever(something that was vital when Kerry ran against Bush,but not apparently when Obama ran against Mccain). The "feminist president" who has sent our military into Libya on humanitarian grounds,is oblivious to the fate of Afghan women who have allied themselves to us,and their daughters,even though a much stronger case can be made that a stable Afghanistan--where girls are educated--is in the long term interest of the United States;than can be made for helping Libyan rebels who include Al-Qaeda sympathizers. But Obama is not solely to blame.Obama is not a curse imposed upon us by The Fates.He is not a invader who conquered our country.He was chosen by the majority of voters in 2010.And he may,for all I know,be chosen again in 2012.Whether through laziness,stupidity or depravity,the majority of American voters choose someone who taught the tactics of a man--Saul Alinsky--who joked about hanging businessmen from lampposts.Alinsky who declared that the goal of Alinsky-Activists is POWER(he would literally scream the word). The knowledge of what this man was,was apparent to anyone who excercised even the slightest diligence about who they sent to the White House.And his positions on matters from Socialized Medicine,to his statements that the surge would fail,to his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions,to his comparison of the Iraq War to the invasion of Georgia, to his choice of advisors, to his despicable "race speech" in which he attempted to defend his relationship with his self-declared uncle,the America and Israel bashing Jeremiah Wright,all these things were known to me at a time when I did not have regular internet access.How then can people claim ignorance of these things,unless through a frightening indifference to who occupies the White House? No,the fault is not "in ourselves",it is in those who elected him. All the talk,all the bluster,the promises to avenge the dead,which I remember so very clearly in the aftermath of 9/11,were casually tossed into the garbage when these fools voted for this creature.And just like the fools who cheered Chamberlian for the Munich agreement,and then turned around and conveniently forgot their previous positions,so we can expect that after the next catastrophic terrorist attack the same people who support withdrawal & who voted for Obama will be cursing him,but not themselves.
RRD:In a despicable betrayal of the voters who sent them to stop Obama,not give him more power( one which makes you wonder why we sent these scum to Washington) ,the Senate plans a cloture vote on a bill to make it easier for Obama's nominations to sail through the Senate.The vote is expected to take place today or tomorrow.This outrage is co-sponsored by seven Republicans: Lamar Alexander, Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Mike Johanns, Jon Kyl, Richard Lugar, and Mitch McConnell. No that is not a misprint.After everything we have endured,after one of Obama's advisors--Harold Koh--tells him that the Libyan war does not fall under the war powers act,since we are "not engaged in hostilities",after the rebuke of the American People in the 2010 election,these fools want to give Obama more power.Call your Senator.(Since this See below: FOR BACKGROUND: Speed Up Presidential Appointments, But Do Not Enact S. 679 | The Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/speed-up-nominations-and-con... For the story itself: Senate Plans to Abdicate its Confirmation Duties | RedState http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/06/21/senate-plans-to-abdicate-its-co... ....."Today, Chuck Schumer, with the help of Mitch McConnell and Lamar Alexander, plans to vitiate one of the Senate’s few remaining constitutional duties; advising and consenting to presidential appointees. The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act (S.679), which was never reported out of a committee, would eliminate the confirmation requirement for 200 presidential appointees. This bill would completely abrogate the safeguards against tyranny that were established in the “Appointments Clause” of the constitution. [The Heritage Foundation has a useful primer on the bill.] The bill has seven Republican co -sponsors: Lamar Alexander, Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Mike Johanns, Jon Kyl, Richard Lugar, and Mitch McConnell."... .." The Senate is scheduled to hold the first cloture vote on S.679 later this evening or on Wednesday"....
RRD:Excerpt from a excellent essay warning against the danger of accepting the enemies premises. “Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp ....."Clarity is the first step toward understanding, and understanding is the prerequisite to rational evaluation. For three generations now, America has needed a blunt confrontation with the policies that have been leading the nation toward dictatorship and into bankruptcy. Such confrontations were stillborn in 1940, 1964, and 1980 because in each case Republicans failed to stand up, on principle, for capitalism, liberty, and individual rights. Republicans repeatedly collapsed into the quicksand of compromise and accepted the welfare state principles of their opponents while arguing about the “proper” amount of government coercion they would enact. The trend toward statism continued, because the incremental steps accepted by Republicans obscured the stark difference between America’s founding vision and its statist future."..... ......" The protests and the polls are clear: Americans have, by and large, rejected the radical leftist agenda. But the issue is not yet closed. The Democrats have one last resource—one secret weapon—with which they can save their plans while avoiding political suicide in the next election. That weapon is the Republicans. If the Republicans compromise—if they accept federally -mandated health insurance in the guise of a “co -op” or the like, or a cap -and -trade bill that is marginally less draconian than the Democratic version—they will have once again capitulated to their opponents, abandoned liberty, and ruined the opportunity to redirect this nation toward its founding moral principle: individual rights, protected under a constitution in a free republic. "....
RRD:Huntsman,aping Obama by announcing his candidacy where a previous,revered,president declared his(Lincoln for Obama,Reagan for Huntsman),has declared that we must "respect" Obama.I went through this bullshit with Mccain,and I will not go through it again with Huntsman. Huntsman will not get the nomination. His candidacy is stillborn. It is dead. Kaput.It is a rotting,festering,maggot infested corpse. I am not going to declare that I will,or will not,vote for him,because if,by some miracle,he gets the nomination,the election is over.Obama will walk into a second term. And,frankly,I have better things to do with my time,(and life),than to waste it pretending that unserious candidates will be elected.My time would be better spent laying the moral and philosophical groundwork for the defense of individual rights. Huntsman is Mccain without even the personal,martial courage. He is a joke. The fact the the psuedo-cognescenti are clueless & brain-dead,about this means nothing. http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/21/huntsman-declares
RRD:CALL your own Senators and Congressmen,and the GOP leadership.No increase in the debt ceiling without major cuts.The time of Republicans playing General Mcclellan must end. See: “Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp ....."Clarity is the first step toward understanding, and understanding is the prerequisite to rational evaluation. For three generations now, America has needed a blunt confrontation with the policies that have been leading the nation toward dictatorship and into bankruptcy. Such confrontations were stillborn in 1940, 1964, and 1980 because in each case Republicans failed to stand up, on principle, for capitalism, liberty, and individual rights. Republicans repeatedly collapsed into the quicksand of compromise and accepted the welfare state principles of their opponents while arguing about the “proper” amount of government coercion they would enact. The trend toward statism continued, because the incremental steps accepted by Republicans obscured the stark difference between America’s founding vision and its statist future."..... ......" The protests and the polls are clear: Americans have, by and large, rejected the radical leftist agenda. But the issue is not yet closed. The Democrats have one last resource—one secret weapon—with which they can save their plans while avoiding political suicide in the next election. That weapon is the Republicans. If the Republicans compromise—if they accept federally -mandated health insurance in the guise of a “co -op” or the like, or a cap -and -trade bill that is marginally less draconian than the Democratic version—they will have once again capitulated to their opponents, abandoned liberty, and ruined the opportunity to redirect this nation toward its founding moral principle: individual rights,protected under a constitution in a free republic. ".... Republicans Open to Unconditional Short Term Debt Ceiling Hike? - Guy Benson http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/06/20/republicans_open_to_uncondi... White House Leaves Door Open to Short-Term Debt Limit Vote - Washington Wire - WSJ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/20/white-house-leaves-door-open-to-shor... Contact info for House Republican Leadership.The links will take you to their web pages where they have both e-mail contact forms(which require a local zip code,obtainable online),as well as their phone numbers.If they do not answer their Washington D.C. phone numbers,I urge you to call/fax their local numbers. Senate Republican leadership: Mitch Mcconnell Senate Republican leader. http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact Contact Senator Kyl Second ranking Senate Republican (retiring in 2012) http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm E-mail Me - Contact - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander third ranking Republican. http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email House Republican Leadership: John Boehner Speaker of the House E-Mail Me | John Boehner - 8th District of Ohio https://boehner.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx Eric Cantor second ranking House Republican Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) :: Seventh District of Virginia http://cantor.house.gov/contact/ Kevin Mccarthy House whip,third ranking House Republican Contact Kevin Mccarthy https://forms.house.gov/kevinmccarthy/webforms/issue_subscribe.html
RRD:Dr.Lewis cogently makes the case that the failure of Republicans to take a principled stance on Individual Rights has led to their compromising again and again,snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. “Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp
RRD:No,this isn't a defense of Ethanol subsidies.It's a post pointing out that the problem isn't Ethanol subsidies.It's Government subsidies,period.While Conservatives,Libertarians,& Objectivists celebrate this,the fact is that many of the same people who voted for this also want to end subsidies to oil companies;but not solar,wind,or Lithium battery subsidies.Indeed Obama et-al want to INCREASE SUBSIDIES.Unless this cut is followed by the elimination of other energy subsidies, this is not a victory,merely a change of government beneficiaries.It may have a minor effect on the deficit,but it will not alter the larger problem of government intervention in the economy;which itself is result of the failure to recognize individual rights. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/usa-senate-ethanol-idUSN16213754201...
RRD:I wonder if Carney believes that by pretending that "we all share" the goal of helping Libyan rebels(who include Al-Qaeda synpathizers fn1) topple Qaddafi,that he can make it so? White House warns Congress against 'mixed messages' on Libya - TheHill.com http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/166627-white-house-warns-congress-... ...."Carney also issued a warning, saying it is "important for Congress not to send mixed signals about a goal… we all share."..... RRD:But we don't all share that goal.And our signals aren't mixed.They're unequivocal:get out.Now. fn1 We are aiding our enemies in Libya.Demand a end to the Libya war now. - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/we-are-aiding-our-enemies-in-libyademand...
RRD:........and in so doing PROVES!ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE REALLY LIBERALS WHO SOLD OUT FOR THE MONEY!!!! Just like the editorial staff of the New York Times? I mean does anyone think,(rolls eyes) that Paul Krugman would write his drivel if he were not PAID to do so?I mean will Krugman now agree,right now,to write editorials for free?No?Why then he clearly must not really believe....etc.etc. Do these geniuses at Politico stay up all night thinking of these brillant arguments? ....."In search of donations and influence, the three prominent conservative groups are paying hefty sponsorship fees to the popular talk show hosts. Those fees buy them a variety of promotional tie -ins , as well as regular on -air plugs –praising or sometimes defending the groups, while urging listeners to donate –often woven seamlessly into programming in ways that do not seem like paid advertising."..... Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck sell endorsements to conservative groups - Kenneth P. Vogel and Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56997.html RRD:Seemlessly?Have these people listened to Rush Limbaugh read his Heritage script?Or Levin his Hillsdale or American for Prosperity,or Goldline script?You mean....those WERE ADS!I ....I feel shocked!Shocked & betrayed(and alone,and afraid,in "a world I have not made")that Rush & Levin are not reading these plugs out of the generosity of their hearts.Nor was I suprised,(though I was disappointed) that Limbaugh would try to defend Heritage regarding the Individual Mandate(Levin's defense of Americans for Prosperity,on the other hand,is not at all hypocritical,he would defend them from Obama anyway,though he might devote less time to doing so if they were not a sponsor).But that does not alter the fact that Limbaugh provides good commentary and some good links.I never take anything,anyone says as the gospel truth.The reason I don't is not because they may have a financial incentive,but because I believe people must think for themselves.
This is the second in a series of informal essays that I will be publishing at irregular intervals on the 2012 presidential candidates.It is generally directed at Objectivists--and to their specific concerns--but those who are not Objectivists may benefit from it anyway.
The first dealt with Santorum. See: Why Santorum Must Be Defeated - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/why-santorum-must-be-defeated Most of the series will be circulated privately so that it cannot be used later by the Democrats, but those parts dealing with the worst candidates--whom I will be opposing publicly--will be public. Many have adopted a kind of ABO attitude( i.e.:Anyone but Obama) towards the 2012 presidential election.There is a danger in personalizing this election.Obama is,in fact,our enemy.But he is not our only enemy.As Obama is fond of pointing out,there are Republicans who have advocated(indeed,even pioneered) the same policies and ideas that he has. These policies will really be no less immoral,or destructive if they are carried out by someone with a R after their name,then if they are carried out by someone with a D after their name. What's more,our goal should not be simply to get rid of Obama.It should be to reverse his agenda(and the agenda of statists more broadly). How do we do this? As Ayn Rand noted you cannot trick people into freedom(i.e. you cannot pander to the lowest common denominator & then "institute freedom",once in office.You will be reversed at the next election.) Contrary to the claims of those who denounce "purity"(by which they seem to mean a principled,consistent,moral stance) the best way to win a battle of ideas IS TO HAVE ONE. The only way to wage such a battle is with someone who understands--& who is capable of articulating--the principles of Individual Rights & Limited Government.Such a person need not be perfect(though to the extent that they are flawed they risk defeat & failure) but neither can they be a mee-toist weakling.Nor can they be a cowardly mediocrity who is more concerned with being liked by our enemies in the news media then with winning. Nor can they be a Neo-conservative/Rockefeller Republican(who are not even Conservatives,much less Objectivists) who "recognizes" the "fact" that the welfare state is a "reality that we must conform to",and who simply wish to do it "better"..."differently" etc... Rather they must be someone who understands that the welfare state is irrational and must and will fall,one way or another.(Either by repealing it,or because it goes bankrupt). They must understand that the collapse of the United States,at best, would be a catastrophe for us,and at worst could mean the end of Western Civilization.(fn1) They must understand that Enviromentalism--as a ideology--is a anti-humanistic religion masqurading as a rational belief system,which seeks to impose a totalitarian neo-asceticism on us(fn2).And that no compromise with it,or appeasement of it,is possible if we are to survive. The problem is that all of the likely 2012 nominees are,to one degree or another,deeply flawed.We may have no choice but to go with the least bad one of them.But that is not yet the case. And that is the purpose of this series:To identify the problems with the existing candidates and to seek out alternatives who have not considered running,and to evaluate them,and,if possible,persuade them to run. I am through with passively accepting the existing candidates as if they are representative of the best we can hope for. I ask all who are reading this to put forward the best potential candidates you can think of.Potential candidates other than those listed below. Now I will list the likely candidates and explain why they range from flawed to horrendous.I will deal with them,individually,in a series of separate essays. Michele Bachmann(Declared) Jeb Bush John Bolton Herman Cain(Declared) Chris Christie Newt Gingrich (Declared) Rudy Giuliani Jon Huntsman(Declared) Bobby Jindal Gary Johnson(Declared) Peter King Bob Mcconnell Thaddeus Mccotter Sarah Palin Ron Paul (Declared) Tim Pawlenty(Declared) Rick Perry Charles Elson "Buddy" Roemer Mitt Romney(Declared) Rick Santorum(Declared) Obviously,as circumstances change,I may add to,or subtract from,this list. ROMNEY: Romney is one of the three worthies(along with Huntsman & Pawlenty),who are deemed "serious"(or as I call them LERS:Liberal Enough Republicans),by the MSM.They have been so named,presumably,so that they can ideally remove any serious ideological threat to Obama,and at worst,ensure that the most malleable Republican gets in. Romney's nomination would be a godsend to Obama & a possible death-blow to the GOP(since it would likely lead to a Tea Party third party).Once nominated Obama would be able to declare that,except for a few "extremists",the debate over the Individual Mandate(and the debate over Global Warming),is now "settled",and that it is simply a matter of how to implement Robama's(Obomney's?) policies. It would be the greatest victory achieved through bluster on the one hand,and cowardice on the other,since the Rhineland was surrendered to the Nazis. Romney has repeatedly made the "conservative case",for the Individual Mandate.He is routinely trotted out by the left as their golden boy,and with good reason:He is,despite efforts of his defenders to argue otherwise,one of the chief Republican enablers of Socialized Medicine(along with the "Wise Man" Dole,the thankfully ex-Senator Bennett,and Gingrich). But Romneycare was a STATE law,and this is a FEDERAL law,you say? Exactly.The whole debate over Obamacare will be reduced to whether the State Government,or Federal Government should be violating our rights;with morality thrown out the window. What's more,(as shocking as this may be to many Federalists),Federalism is not a fundamental moral principle.(Which is one reason that it does not resonate with many Americans).It is a legal question.And yes the rule of law is important,but it is NOT a moral principle.The law can be wrong and can be changed.Morality cannot.Morality forms the basis of laws. With Romney as a candidate the moral fire will be gone(At least in the campaign if not among individuals),the base will be demoralized,and the ultimate victory will likely be Obama's.At best Romney's nomination will make it dramatically more difficult to repeal Obamacare(we will have to split our time between attacking Obama and arguing with Romney)at worst we risk total defeat. The same is true for global warming. Whoever wins the moral debate,will win the ultimate battle. The only reason that I am hesitant to declare that Romney's nomination would spell total doom is because Mccain's nomination did not lead to Global Warming becoming part of the official platform of the GOP.Nor did Bush/Rove's "compassionate conservatism" lead to a permanent change in the GOP.Nonetheless we cannot--and need not--take the chance. Romney would be nearly as bad as Mccain(nearly,because on a purely political level he would at least attack Obama rather than attacking Obama's critics).He,along with Gingrich and Santourum(see above),would be a nightmare for the GOP. As if to provide a dramatization of the role of morality--and moral certitude--in political debates,see this bizarre performance by Romney in his debate with Ted Kennedy,during the contest over Kennedy's Senate seat.Note that Kennedy,a drunkard and adulterer,(whose drunkeness and irresponsibility cost a young woman her life),is self-righteously denouncing Reagan,(a man who despite his many flaws is a giant by comparison).Note how the belief that he is right,that he is in the right,moves him to speak with passion and energy.And note how Romney,who either accepts these same principles,or desperately wants the voters to think that he does,cowers.Cowers before a man who has innocent blood on his hands,and who is attacking a man revered by much of the country,(and by much of eastern europe),for helping to speed the fall of the Soviet Union. This is what moral conviction(even if it is delusional)gives to people.And what moral surrender,(or appeasement)takes from people. "I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.” (Skip ahead to 2:30 for the segment) HT: Romney Denies Being Republican During Reagan Era (Video) | Yes, But, However! http://yesbuthowever.com/romney-denies-being-republican-5000849/ YouTube - The Real Romney?
Other photos: 
