My Rants (Issue 2 -- 28 JAN 2011)--"A conservative is simply a liberal who doesn't know it yet."

My Rants Issue 2 -- 28 JAN 2011     This represents a periodic (every so often) statement of my rants, my observations, and my wisdom.  The views expressed are mine, and do not represent the views of any organization or association of which I may be a part.  For now.   Read and embrace.     Normally in "My Rants," I point out the, uh, ineptness, shall we say, of conservatives and the American people in general.  Here I will offer some hope.  Note the time of this song (late 1970s).  It happened once, and it can happen again.   Carter=Obama.   Reagan=Palin.   Cold War=GWOT (Global War On Terrorism).   Russians=Sheetheads and Marxists.   Eastern bloc=Islamic world and the Democrat National Committee.   Berlin Wall=That big black block in Mecca.   I could go on, but some of my readers are still too weak for the strong meat of full-blown Walkerism.   Charlie Daniels - Late 1970s - In America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kB7OR161-U&feature=related     1991--The American people rejoice in the victory over Saddam Hussein, then complain he was not removed.   2001--The American people want sheetheads killed.   2003--The administration in power Hussein is removed from power, and the American people complain that fighting continues and some WMDs aren't found.   2004--Then the American people re-elect the administration about which they complained.   2006--Then the American people undercut, just two years later, that administration and troops they sent overseas and vote out the administration's party.   2008--The American people vote in what amounts to a Marxist cousin to Hussein and the people they wanted killed in 2001.    2010--Then American people "shellac" the party they gave full power to just two years earlier, basically for doing exactly what the party said it would do.   If a specific world leader were to be so fickle, inconsistent, and unpredictable, no other country on Earth would ever trust him/her, and would likely consider the person mentally unbalanced.  Yet somehow we entrust a similarly-minded collective leadership--that is, the American people--with "freedom" and political power.   Someone please tell me again why we traded one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away.     Cutting the budget is easy: Just cut out welfare.  When the welfare bums go crazy and start committing crimes, we, uh, exercise our right of self-defense and eliminate the threat.  Boom!  No more welfare bums, which resolves a few other problems we have.   Next issue, please.     Obama is allegedly planning a call for more gun control, specifically, the reintroduction of a "high-capacity" magazine ban.  If any serious gun control gets through the increasingly pro-gun Congress, especially the House of Representatives, it will ONLY be because the American people failed.  Probably, it will be because they put the economy--materialism--ahead of the righteousness of the right to arms.   Yes, yet again they would sell out the "freedom" the Tea Partier- and libertard-types champion so much, in favor of their pocketbooks and portfolios.   CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.  (Screw the other organizations like that.  They are just money-seekers, egotists, or puristically naive.)     A conparison of conservatives:  (NOTE: The topic below was chosen for demonstration purposes.  Comparable comparisons can be made on any number of social and legal issues.)   Typical social conservative, circa 1980: Supports "sodomy laws" restricting certain types of sexual acts.  (Laws upheld by SCOTUS, 1988.)   Typical social conservative, circa 1995: Ambivalent or opposed to sodomy laws.  (Laws overturned by SCOTUS, 2003.)   Typical social conservative, circa 2010: Offers no support whatsoever for, possibly even opposing, sodomy laws, but still opposes "same-sex marriage".      Consider: Even homosexual-rights advocates (liberals) circa 1980 opposed sodomy laws, but did not call for "same-sex marriage," sometimes opposing it, seeing marriage as a sexually-repressive and, more to the point here, heterosexual institution.    CONCLUSION: The typical conservative of 2010 is, at least on this point, the liberal of 1980, though taking a few years to get there.  And as stated before, comparable phenomena of transition exist on other issues.    Hence my definition: "A conservative is simply a liberal who doesn't know it yet."   Sincerely, A Reactionary     There is a lot of development of "non-lethal" or "less-lethal" weapons systems for use against people like protesters or common criminals.  Yet this raises the question of why, when such people are engaged in a behavior justifying ANY sort of kinetic response--that is, they have crossed the line between legal and reasonable activity, and entered the realm of illegal and distructive activity--there is any reason to not use LETHAL power.  If they are simply "legitimate protesters" or "non-violent" criminals, why use such kinetic weapons at all?  Yet the Left attacks people like me for even suggesting such a thing--"murderer," "deranged," "fascist" (not that I really mind that last one too much).   CONSIDER: In the oh-so-blue state of New Jersey (Chris Christie notwithstanding), "non-lethal" ammunition is essentially illegal.  The only argument is that if someone is in a situation justifying "shooting," then the situation must actually be so grave as to justify lethal force.  Using the non-lethal stuff suggests the shooter simply wanted to shoot someone, but wanted to avoid the results of actually killing them.   Thus, to call for the use of lethal force in a situation where authorities plan non-lethal force is simply to agree in principle with the state of the law in the great *puke* state of New Jersey.     Just sayin'.     Leftists silence the Right at will (see recent example here: http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2011/01/free-speech-loses-another-round.html ), and those on the conservative/Right... say we shouldn't respond and must be careful about our rhetoric.  Is it any wonder things have gone as far as they have.   Below are some thoughts on how the Right can go about silencing the Left:   Short of, uh, "extreme" measures, there really is no way to silence them at the present time.  it will take literally decades, even centuries, to restore the social, legal, and political condition of the country that for so long kept the Left's rhetoric down and held their advance to a relatively slow crawl.    The problem is as follows: The Legged One Ann Coulter holds that conservatives have to accept arguendo half the errors and lies of the Left just to have a substantive conversation.  The mistake here is that it simply yields half the battleground to the enemy.  The Left has already won!  The answer, then, is to not yield ground at all.  In a discussion, attack the enemy immediately and completely.  John Ziegler of "Media Malpractice" fame does this part very well.     When they hit us with the usual charges--"racist," "violent," whatever--simply say, "Whatever," and push the issue itself.  (I was once called an "ignorant racist" on YouTube, and I responded with, "I am offended.  I am not ignorant.")  Then counter with charges of "treason," "anti-Americanism" and "unpatriotic."  Don't accept the Left's value system--i.e., nothing is worse than White racism--but instead push a more traditional value system--i.e., nothing is worse than opposing our people/nation/country.    In truth, the nature of Left and Right gives the Left a great deal of advantage in debate.  As Bill O'Reilly once noted, liberalism has "superior theory."  That is, it sounds better than the more realistic conservative/Rightwing approach to matters ("bringing us all together" sounds better than "stand with your people").  I believe this explains how humanity has tended more and more to the Leftist assault on traditional and natural ways and orders.  The Left's advantage is their ability to exploit their own gains.  After all, wasn't there so much evil in our past?  I'm sure you can list several such items, issues where liberals have managed to change traditional attitudes.  Then these changes serve to open the way for more moves to the Left (e.g., abolition led to civil rights led to same-sex relationship acceptance), and the issues serve as historical evidence in people's eyes against traditional values and orders in general.    So ultimately, it will not come down to outdebating.  It will come down to a collective conviction to not only hold the line, but actually be reactionary in seeking to go back to older, truer ways.  This will serve to (re)create the social pressure that kept radical Leftist ideas quieted, and then in turn restore the legal and political attitudes necessary.    But this sort of thing will never happen.  Conservatives are too selfish, self-centered, short-sighted, and uneducated to invest in such a long-term project.  (And for the record, they are too scared and self-centered for any effective "extreme" action--witness their blustering rhetoric but practical non-response at Waco.)  They are too busy indulging in their freedom to work to preserve it.     That's all!

A "My Rants" extra--(From ACT! for America) "Here Comes the Revolt of Islam"

For those who still blame America for what the sheetheads do, LTC-now-REP Allen West says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k As most of you probably know, ACT! for America and the NRA are about the only two issue-specific (national security/GWOT and right to arms/RKBA, respectively) political/activism organizations I support.  While many serious specific issues face America and the Western world, these two cover what have always been in my political view the most serious facing our society, and in fact set the stage for dealing with most of the others.  Visit our News page Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations; Guy Rodgers, Executive Director; and Brigitte Gabriel, on the set of ACT! for America's new television program. The networks airing the show have a presence in over 190 markets nationwide. Check your local listings for Family Net and ALN. The program premieres Feb. 5th at 2:30 PM ET on Family Net and Feb. 6th at 4:00 PM ET on ALN.   http://actforamerica.org/index.php/home/10-newsmaster/2228-here-comes-the-revolt-of-islam Home > Recent News > Here Comes the Revolt of Islam Here Comes the Revolt of Islam [Excerpt:  "By Western standards, reform means the adoption of secular, Western democratic methods of government. For Islamists, reform means exactly the opposite - the removal of secular government institutions borrowed from or imposed by the West, and the restoration of the Koran as the sole authority in Islamic countries."] Family Security Matters January 25, 2011 by Joel Gilbert   As debates rage in the halls of Congress over President Obama's domestic policies, developments in the Middle East may soon dominate the political agenda once again. As 2011 unfolds, a dangerous two-part equation will emerge that could alter the landscape, as Iran and its Islamist allies recognize an historic opportunity:     1 - A vacuum in the balance of power in the Middle East triggered by America's removal of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan     2 - President Obama presidency perceived as a lame duck, to be followed by a Republican with a vastly different strategic agenda.     An Urgent and Irresistible Opportunity President Obama has repeated many times, and in many places, that "America is not, and will never be at war with Islam."  Reconciling America and Islam was one of Obama's first goals upon taking office.  It takes little imagination to conclude that following US withdrawal from the region, President Obama is highly unlikely to re-engage US forces in any Middle East conflict, even if US allies and interests are at risk.  As Obama continues to look like a one-term president, the window of opportunity for region-wide uprisings may prove irresistible to Islamists. Meanwhile, the unstable and illegitimate Western backed regimes in the Middle East are becoming easier targets every day:   ·         Egypt - The Muslim Brotherhood withdrew from recent parliamentary elections due to massive government fraud and are out of the political process. With September elections looming, President Mubarak's 30-year reign, and quite possibly the military backed regime, are on the way out. ·         Iraq - When the US withdraws at the end of this year, the real battle for Iraq will begin. Pro-Iranian Islamist forces are likely to try to seize power from what they consider an illegitimate secular regime imposed by the US occupation. ·         Lebanon - Hezbollah recently withdrew from the government, has its own army, and is backed by Syria and Iran. A Hezbollah takeover of Lebanon is well within reach. ·         Afghanistan - As the US withdraws this year, reconstituted Taliban forces will seek to expel Karzai's government which has no popular support. ·         Pakistan - The nuclear-armed US ally has an unstable government which does not control parts of the country. Pakistan's security services are linked to the Islamist Taliban movement entrenched in the North along with their Al Qaeda allies. ·         Jordan – King Abdullah's tenuous monarchy rules over a population of 70% Palestinian Arabs, in two-thirds of the original Palestine mandate.  Islamists view King Abdullah as an illegitimate Western puppet.   ·         Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States - The Saudi and other royal families are totally unacceptable to Islamists who see them as rich elites ruling poor masses. ·         Yemen - is home to a new Islamist insurgency led by Al Qaeda elements. ·         Tunisia - is already in flux, its leaders have fled. ·         West Bank - The PLO has no popular support. An Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank could be met with an overthrow by HAMAS, just as they did in Gaza.   Islamism and Reform      By Western standards, reform means the adoption of secular, Western democratic methods of government. For Islamists, reform means exactly the opposite - the removal of secular government institutions borrowed from or imposed by the West, and the restoration of the Koran as the sole authority in Islamic countries. After World War I, European victors carved up the Ottoman Empire into arbitrary nation-states and introduced "nationalism," a Western concept based upon geographic boundaries to inspire political loyalty. However, for Muslims, the foundation of identity and loyalty revolves around religion, while the religio-political community defines nationhood. Thus, "nationalism" never successfully integrated into the world of Islam, where loyalty can only be to God, the sovereign of the world and all mankind. In the last century, other Western ideas also failed in the Muslim world.  Western government institutions resulted in rubber-stamp parliaments. Western financial systems resulted in rich elites and poor masses, and Western military assistance resulted in defeats to Israel.   Islamism is an indigenous, grass-roots movement championed by both poor and educated Muslims throughout the Muslim world. Islamists do not consider themselves to be revolutionaries, in the sense of revolution changing society in a new way.  Rather, Islamists strive to apply traditional principles to reestablish the past strength and glory of Islam. Today, Islamism is the only serious alternative form of government in the Islamic world and meets the aspirations of the vast majority of all Muslims over Western secular government.    Here Comes The Revolt of Islam     The next phases of Obama's presidency will present Islamist movements with an urgent and irresistible opportunity to seize power from non-representative secular rulers, in order to change the reality on the ground before a less sympathetic Republican administration takes office. The "Revolt of Islam" is likely to disrupt oil supplies with the ensuing global ripple effects for Western economies already in crisis.   After two years of policy making in White House, President Obama's world view is indistinguishable from Reverend Jeremiah's Wright's radical left philosophy that mirrors Islamist thought: the world's problems are due to American dominance, and justice will only be achieved with America's decline - both economically and militarily.  Can anyone argue that a weakened America is not the end result of the administration's policies, domestic and foreign?  For the entire world, this concept is fatally flawed – a strong America has helped maintain world peace for decades.  A weak America will invite regional conflict as players like Iran and its Islamist allies with expansionist agendas fill the vacuum in the balance of power voided by American self-doubt.   Get ready, here comes The Revolt of Islam! ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation.

Special "My Rants" item: Hannity might actually have intelligence!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA8WtrnyTA4&feature=player_embedded   (My apologies for the typos of whoever posted this.)   Sean Hannity - Tax The Arabs "We have every right to go in there and frankly take all their Oil."   Transcript (Translation into arabic needed) Contact me Sean Hannity: I interviewed Donald Trump earlier this week and we were talking about OPEC, and it infuriates me, gas is now going to go up to three, four, five dollars a gallon again. You know we're going to head right up in to that territory, which is another tax on the american people, we have all this oil in this country, every time the oil debate comes up; we get lectured, 'O it's going to take years to do it.' We could literally do this immediately and here it is; Kuwait, this country would not exist for us and their oil minister is out there lecturing us and basically saying, 'no no no you can handle that, get used to it, we're going to jack up these prices.' Pat Caddell: Ten dollars a barrel. Blonde to the right: Wondering when the liberals are gonna blame the high prices on bush and cheney. Sean Hannity: Well that's going to happen soon. Elise Jordan: It's just so disgusting, I really think we need to use our levarege here against these autocrats [1]. And not be pushed around when we'ere the ones securing Kuwait, we're the ones securing the Saudis. And they're braging you know, now - 'O Hundred dollars a barrel'. But what I think interesting though, they aren't factoring in Iraq and Iraq's increased oil production over the next.. [Interrupted] Hannity: But there's two things i've said, I said why isn't Iraq paying us back with oil and paying every american family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers. And why didn't they pay for their own liberation? [Message from Hannity] For the Kuwait oil minister - how short his memory is! Elise Jordan: Mhhm Sean Hannity: You know we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation, as these sheikh etc etc, you know were living in hotels in London and New York as (Donald) Trump was pointing out. And now they're gauching us? And say 'Oh of course we can withstand...' Pat Caddell: Not only that, we have that - first of all. But oil, remember that there is so much oil. The world is drawning in oil right now. But the dollar, remember having driven the dollar to where it is - down. What it's doing is, because oil is priced in dollars, they're rasing it (i.e. oil prices) to make more money. And the problem is we're chasing our tail here with this. Sean Hannity: Mhhhm Pat Caddell: And it's outrages. The fact of the matter is - and there's alot of speculation, but these guys, the kuwaitis - when I saw that I went Oh My God you know? People they just.... Sean Hannity: Exactly! The Blonde next to Hannity: How much jobs can we create if we just unleashed our economic ..? Sean Hannity: And build nuclear power plants, that's simple. All the above and then we can develop new technology in the process. Elise Jordan: And also not have weak foreign policy muscle. Because that - I mean they're (i.e Gulf leaders) are showing out by doing this...     COMMENT: Please!  Hannity's lips to President Palin's ear!   Some of the anti-American comments at the link are hilarious.  But what's more hilarious is that, in the name of "freedom," their "freedom"-threatening speech is allowed.  "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy."--some sheethead in the UK.

Typos (hopefully) corrected--Who needs liberals when you have Tea Partiers?

Probably missed a few bad edits, but oh well.   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_defense_cuts   Article: Tea partiers say defense in mix for budget cuts This says it all:   In an unusual (COMMENT: Not really) political pairing, liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas.   "I'll work with anybody," Frank said of the effort, which could attract other liberal Democrats who have tried for years to reduce post-Cold War military spending and tea party-backed Republicans.   And yes, the Tea Party groups (such as they are) are culpable:   That's why tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military budget needs to be part of the mix.   "The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table," said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots.  (COMMENT: "Patriots"?  HA!) "It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are 'off the table' must be taken off the table."   There are at least two Republicans offering at least some cautionary notes to disarming America to assuage the uneducated Tea Partiers:   The schism within the GOP is philosophical as well as generational. Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 48, a tea party favorite, says all spending should come under scrutiny, from food stamps to foreign aid to money for wars. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 74, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, worries about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.   ...   Tea party-backed Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said lawmakers "at the end of the day, will take a look at all the fat in the budget." But he said it was premature with two wars to say how Congress will make the cuts. Scott has two brothers in the military — one in the Air Force, the other in the Army.       COMMENT: First, the largely-conservative Tea Party movement sold out the domestic social-conservative positions in the name of their pocketbooks and portfolios.  Now, they are selling out their patriotism in the name of typical conservative shortsightedness and stupidity--"Well, it jes' kinda seems to me [spit]..."   Unlike virtually every other aspect of government, military operations have to be done right THE FIRST TRY.  There is no appeal to regulatory agencies or courts if something goes wrong.  One little error can have irreparable consequences.  While sometimes the military system can be wasteful (and yes, if such waste can be responsibly reduced, then have it it), it does guarantee results.  Redundancy of such things as equipment issuance, paperwork processing, and training looks bad, but they serve as real-world guarantees that troops WILL have the equipment they need (or might potentially need--recall the Germans' lacking of cold-weather gear for "Operation: Barbarossa"), that paperwork WILL be where it needs to be, and that forces actually WILL know what they need to know.   Here's a novel idea: Instead of cutting spending on saving the country and their precious "freedom", cut spending on lazyasses who don't support themselves.  A little hunger might just motivate them to work for a living.

Who needs liberals when you have Tea Partiers?

Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 12:55 PM   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_defense_cuts   Article: Tea partiers say defense in mix for budget cuts This says it all:   In an unusual (COMMENT: Not really) political pairing, liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas.   "I'll work with anybody," Frank said of the effort, which could attract other liberal Democrats who have tried for years to reduce post-Cold War military spending and tea party-backed Republicans.   And yes, the Tea Party groups (such as they are) are culpable:   That's why tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military's budget needs to be part of the mix.   "The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table," said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots.  (COMMENT: "Patriots"?  HA!) "It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are 'off the table' must be taken off the table."   There are at least two Republicans offering at least some cautionary notes to disarming America to assauge the uneducated Tea Partiers:   The schism within the GOP is philosophical as well as generational. Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 48, a tea party favorite, says all spending should come under scrutiny, from food stamps to foreign aid to money for wars. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 74, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, worries about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.   ...   Tea party-backed Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said lawmakers "at the end of the day, will take a look at all the fat in the budget." But he said it was premature with two wars to say how Congress will make the cuts. Scott has two brothers in the military — one in the Air Force, the other in the Army.       COMMENT: First, the largely-conservative Tea Party movement sold out the domestic social-conservative positions in the name of their pocketbooks and portfolios.  Now, they are selling out their patriotism in the name of typical conservative shortsightedness and stupidity--"Well, it jes' kinda seems to me [spit]..."   Unlike virtually every other aspect of government, military operations have to be done right THE FIRST TRY.  There is no appeal to regulatory agency or court of something goes wrong.  One little error can have irreparable consequences.  While sometimes the military system can be wasteful (and yes, if such waste can be responsibly reduced, then have it it), it does guarantee results.  Redundancy of such things as equipment issuance, paperwork processing, and training, but they serve as real-world guarantees that troops WILL have the equipment they need (or might potentially need--recall the Germans' lacking of cold-weather gear for Operation: Barbarossa), that paperwork WILL be where it needs to be, and that forces actually WILL know what they need to know.   Here's a novel idea: Instead of cutting spending on saving the country and their precious "freedom", cut spending on lazyasses who don't support themselves.  A little hunger might just motivate them to work for a living.