previous post next post  

The Gates of Thermopylae

[Kat]

Stepping away from immigration for a moment, I think it's time for a reality check. In November, lest Mike Huckabee gets his wish for a miracle to make him the Republican nominee for President, I will be voting for McCain. Period.

With the prospect of Barak Obama and his cult of personality becoming the Democrat nominee, it's time to stop messing around with all the angst about McCain and some of the things I think he's done wrong in the past, which I won't enumerate. He has at least three important qualifications above Barak:

1) He knows we're at war
2) He believes in victory as paramount to our national security
3) He understands he is running for president of the United States, not the world

We're standing at the Gates of Thermopylae while the conservative "senators" back in Sparta debate whether Sparta should join the war.

[continued in flash traffic]

If you don't understand that, let me clarify. At the beginning of Obama's campaign, there was a small ruckus about Obama not wearing the American flag on his lapel like the other candidates. He went on to claim that he did not need to wear the flag to show his patriotism. At the time, I thought that the move was very likely meant to separate him from the "herd" and play to his base of supporters. Those who believe that America is "on the wrong track" or, worse, is the new Dark Empire. Politicians do all sorts of things to make statements.

One of Obama's empty platform promises is that he will sit down with all the leaders of the world, if they are willing, and talk to them, reach out and try to change their minds. Even, on his list, were such notables as Kim Il Jong and Fidel Castro; two of the modern day murdering, oppressive dictators of the world.

Obama also talks about pulling the troops out of Iraq and, I imagine if he can get away with it, reducing Afghanistan to even more of a footnote than it is now. I believe it's also likely that he will leave Musharraf blowing in the breeze while the Democratic Islamic Forces of Waziristan over run the country and the nukes. But, that is supposition. He did state emphatically that he would withdraw our troops, post haste, from Iraq, regardless of consequences.

Obama is telling people that he is going to raise the taxes and they are cheering. Our fore fathers are spinning in their graves. You have to hand it to a charismatic fellow that can tell people he's about to screw them and they like it. Of course, he's actually telling them he's going to screw somebody else and give it to the poor as if he's Robin Hood. As if that ever really happens without the government taking their giant bite and handing the bread crumbs to "the people". Or the fact that it often and typically ends up that the people cheering for robbing somebody for their benefit, get robbed themselves.

Obama has talked endlessly about "regaining" America's place as a leader in the world. Among those things that he believes America should be leading is the global charge against global warming. I am certain that Obama will try to enact some parts of the Kyoto treaty even without signing it. I think he will introduce additional taxes on energy direct on the customer at the pump or taxes on energy companies like oil and others. A move that many people applaud, believing it will take some of the "profiteering profits" from the oil companies and put it towards something meaningful for them like social services or some huge renewable energy research. The problem, of course, is that these same folks never realize that that tax gets passed on to them directly, as to every other corporate tax in the form of higher prices for services and products.

You really have to wonder at people that believe that corporations would or should simply eat that tax and settle for less profit for "the good of the people". Frankly, the government doesn't care that you are getting taxed two or three times for the same services through either the back door or a direct tax because they get all the money one way or the other.

But, let's not go down the fork discussing the electorate just yet. I believe that Obama will introduce the much demanded (and it is, believe me, I talk to "normal" people) National Health Care Program. Regardless of cost or feasibility.

These things are amongst the many that have me opposing Obama and not too Happy about Hillary.

Yet, while contemplating the recent flap over the Che Guevara flag at two of Obama's offices in Houston, it finally came to me exactly why Obama wasn't wearing the American flag on his lapel.

Obama does not want to simply be the leader of the United States, but the leader of the world. It is hard to play to an international constituency with their own multitude of flags when you are wearing the flag of the United States of America.

Obama is a socialist. Full stop. He is pandering to the basest instincts of any constituency by promising them things that are beyond his power along with giving them, in the words of Caesar, Bread and Circuses. It would be very interesting to see who his supporters are and what organizations they belong to or even what nations they may have relations to.

While many are pointing to the flag and talking about Obama's Che Loving Supporters, they miss the most likely details of the origins of these flags and supporters. It was the Cuban flag with Che's image on it. While it may be that they are simply leftist "revolutionaries", the people manning the offices were not that young nor ill dressed in the pictures. These folks are likely either members of the organization that supports Fidel Castro and has been working very hard to get the US to lift the embargo and begin normalization of relations with Cuba or have equally atrocious origins with A.N.S.W.E.R or the World Socialist Workers Party.

Other things come to mind such as Obama specifically naming Castro as one of the "world leaders" he would sit down and talk to about whatever it is he thinks we have in common or would like to talk to them about. On reflection, this seems to have been a direct pandering to this base of socialists who have great love for Fidel and Chavez. Another instance comes to mind in that it was Robert Kennedy in Massachusetts that accepted the "free" oil from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The Kennedy's now being major supporters of Obama.

While no real connection can be made, Mr. Obama's rallies, complete with notable celebrities, are beginning to remind me of Hugo Chavez rallies where the alleged democratic people of Venezuela were shouting "socialism or death" right up until the moment they realized that Chavez actually meant "make me president for life or you will die".

I would like to know, with all seriousness, exactly where and from whom Mr. Obama's donations come from. Many people were focused on Hillary's campaign, the re-emergence of Mr. Hsu who brokered millions in donations from China during Bill Clinton's run for president. Yet, know one has sought to significantly investigate or challenge the origins of Mr. Obama's campaign contributors to my knowledge. Everyone appears to be taking his word that he received them all from average poor and middle class Americans who are looking for "change". or some other approved source.

Pardon me if some of his relations and platforms makes me think otherwise. I am really beginning to believe that America cannot afford Barak Obama, even as some temporary fit or pique. Some conservatives are willing to send the Republican party to the wilderness to learn some lessons about true conservatism in order to force the party to return to its base. I think that is the craziest thing I've heard right at this moment.

Let me return to the beginning of this post. I liken these Conservatives to the Senators in Sparta who debated endlessly while Leonidas marched out of the gate with 300 men. All the while Xerxes has already landed his million man army and is marching on the Gate.

We've been discussion immigration policy here for several days. The answer to nearly every point from conservatives is that immigrants are not or are refusing to "assimilate" into American culture and society. Yet, I fear that all of this fear over the lack of assimilation of the immigrants has turned many blind to the probability of being "assimilated" into the international club of socialist nations bowing down to the UN, the Kyoto treaty and international criminal courts.

You see, I've figured out that there are worse things than not having a perfect conservative candidate. There is being absorbed into Xerxes' Empire.

So, while you all continue to debate and demand, I've decided to pick up my spear, sling my hoplon over my shoulder and march down to the Gate. I'll be voting for McCain come November. I'll be double damned if I'm going to be subsumed into Xerxes Socialist Empire.

You all don't wait too long to join the battle lest the concession speech in November starts with this epitaph to the Spartan soldiers:


'Stranger, go tell the Spartans that here we are buried, obedient to their orders.'

28 Comments

We hear the word "change" a lot with the Democrats. Obama wants to "chat" with Tehran. Number one on the list of things to do with them is to kill all of the Jews. Number two on their list of things to do is to have the rest of us on a prayer rug five times a day or we will also have to be killed. This is what they say. When Holocaust survivors were asked if the learned anything from it they are said to have said, "if someone tells you that they want to kill you, you should believe them. Perhaps Obama thinks he can "chat" with them and "change" them to where they'll kill just half the Jews. Perhaps he thinks he'll offer them the Presbyterians and Sikhs and they'll "change" and not want to kill all of us. He and Oprah don't have enough couches to effect a "change". The islamofacists in Iran have islamorabies. There is no cure for rabies. McCain doesn't strike me as one that feels the need to "chat" thinking that there will be a "change".
 
I will not vote for anyone with a Che Guevera flag in his office(s).
 
there are worse things than not having a perfect conservative candidate. Agreed. Absolutely, there are much worse things. As bad as I believe McCain would be in the White House, either of the D candidates would be worse, and Obama is probably worst of the lot. (And a year ago I wouldn't have thought any other candidate would be worse than the Bitch Queen.) Unfortunately, I also think McCain would be only a stop-gap, and a very short-lived one at that. With a President McCain and a Democrat Congress, I have little doubt that an amnesty bill for immigrants will become law before the end of 2009. I also believe that any such bill will have a fast track to citizenship for most of the former-illegals. Immigrants vote overwhelmingly Democrat. As soon as those former-illegals can vote, the balance of power will swing to the Democrats. Forever. Or at least, for as long as the United States lasts, which I predict will be no more than thirty years. Thus, I really don't know that voting for or supporting McCain is worth it. There appears to be no hope for the Republic either way.
 
To all those who dislike McCain and think we good Conservatives need to "send a message" to the GOP leadership by sitting out the general election in November, I say this: DON'T! For God's sake, DON'T! This attitude is exactly why we've had Reid and Pelosi running Congress since 2006. And it will almost ensure an Obama or Hillary presidency. Egads! Do you really want this? I don't know how much damage a McCain presidency would cause, but I DEFINITELY know what damage Obama or Hillary could do. We've seen the damage that 8 years of Bubba's leadership and influence have done to major institutions like the military, State Dept, CIA, FBI, etc. It's why we've had such things like Jamie Gorelick's "wall", Joe Wilson's inept African yellowcake "investigation", and Wilson's wife Valerie and others in the CIA and FBI leaking national secrets like a seive, constantly thwarting and undermining our efforts to combat Jihadist terror and pull out of Iraq. The stakes are simply too high to allow another 4-8 years of this kind of damage simply to "send a message". I understand and share your discontent with the GOP leadership. But let's work WITHIN the party to change things, not give the Dems an electoral victory at such a crucial time that will force us into a wilderness from which we may never return.
 
the more poetic rendering of that inscription is: "Go tell the Spartans, thou who passeth by, that here, according to their LAWS, we lie." (CAPS are mine) As wary as I am of the LAWS that will come out of this, I march at your shoulder, my shield shall be yours, my spear at your service. ..for tonight we dine in Hell.
 
There are *lots* of translations of Simonides' epitaph: Go tell the Spartans, thou who passest by, That here, obedient to their laws, we lie. -William Lisle Bowles Stranger, tell the Spartans that we behaved as they would wish us to, and are buried here. -William Golding Stranger! To Sparta say, her faithful band Here lie in death, remembering her command. -Rev. Francis Hodgson Stranger, report this word, we pray, to the Spartans, that lying Here in this spot we remain, faithfully keeping their laws. -George Campbell Macaulay Stranger, bear this message to the Spartans, that we lie here obedient to their laws. -William Roger Paton Tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here obedient to their laws we lie. -Steven Pressfield Go, stranger, and to Lacedaemon tell That here, obeying her behests, we fell. -George Rawlinson Go, way-farer, bear news to Sparta's town that here, their bidding done, we laid us down. -Cyril E. Robinson Go tell the Spartans, you who read: We took their orders, and lie here dead. -Aubrey de Sélincourt H/t to Wikipedia authors.
 
Congratulations! I'm so glad it isn't taking some people nine months. I've been a McCain girl all along, so this wasn't an issue for me. Although I would have gladly backed Mitt, Rudi or Fred were they to have gained the nomination. However, two things. The Che flag is, in my opinion a tempest in a teapot. The office was being set up by volunteers. Obama can't be held responsible for every action by every volunteer in every field office. Should the flag remain up, and I doubt it will, then it's a problem. But in it's current context it just makes us look silly to bring it up. Next, Robert Kennedy, Jr. is endorsing Hillary Clinton as are the majority of his brothers and sisters. His sister Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former LT. Gov. of Maryland has been on Fox discussing it. Senator (do I get a good doobie point, Armorer?) Ted Kennedy, his son Patrick the Congressman, Caroline and Sargeant Shriver's daughter Maria are endorsing Obama. Also, Robert Kennedy is not the one at Citizens for Oil dealing with Chavez, that is his brother Joe (former Massachusetts congressman, Joseph P. II). I correct these details not to nitpick, but because going forward we need to be totally correct in our statements about Obama. You can throw out twenty good points about Obama and the left will sieze on the one you have wrong. They will hold it as proof in the face of the undecided voter to lower your credibility. This is a race where every vote will matter. I feel it will be very close. We can't afford to loose any votes to overexuberance. There is plenty enough out there to damn Obama with. Welcome to the fight.
 
thanks, but I'm at work and can't correct it. I'll make note for the future (and not writing at God's hour in the morning might make it easier to remember the right people) But, you are so obviously correct that we must be deadly and accurate with any statement.
 
Good catch, Maggie. Getting the details right is important, because people will attack your message through botched details. Even if not relevant. No point in giving them free ammo.
 
And I used the proper title.....Senator. Aren't I a good girl?
 
Kat, as I read your post, "The Gates of Thermopylae", I see many things. About Obama and MOST politicians of both sides of the aisle, including Liberals, Conservatives and even the Neocons, take a trip and visit reality, at least once in a while. As we look at what everybody is yelling for, the word is "CHANGE!" The questions become the following: 1. What are we changing? 2. Where are we moving from? 3. Where are we moving to? 4. How? 5. When? 6. Why? After we recover from the cold shock of our visit with reality, we'll discover we need to be adults. The questions get tough, but they require STATED answers, OPENLY! 1. What are the benefits of doing/not doing it? 2. What are the consequences (negatives) of doing/not doing it? 3. How did you come to your conclusions? Yes, I mean the details! Our past, present and future leaders need to grow up and take accountability for their actions, like our Military. About your quote from "The Gates of Thermopylae", there is a line that stand out to me, "For tonight, we shall dine in hell." This crowd would go there, the Devil would come out and say, "No, no, no, no, not here, you people even are a pain in the ass to me. Here's a book of matches, go start your own. Get out of here!"
 
Ahhhh - Lt. Gov. Her Excellency Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. God's Gift to Republicans in The Free State of Maryland. Thanks to that wet noodle, the state got its first Republican administration in over four decades. Never mind the ascendancy of her successor, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. You know, the one that HATES PUPPIES Great post there K-MO.
 
This just in...Nader is thinking of getting in the race, too. http://goto.naderexplore08.org/dm?id=3FEE0514068DDC29C628FE6A94967442CA171365984464B4 Will leftists be happy enough with Obama or Hillary? Or will Nader spoil the Dem vote?
 
McCain? OMFG no! McCain is the consummate Washington insider, he's not part of the solution, he's part of the problem. McCain-Keating 5 McCain-Kennedy McCain-Feingold Democratic/socialist self-serving bedfellows all. So much for McCains 'conservative' values, never mind his oath of office to the Constitution. On and on.... Troops in Iraq for 100 years. "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". Both of which are essentially bellicose promises of eternal war. Danged pesky Constitution, weakened economy and devalued currency be damned. On our economy and to paraphrase McCain's statements; "I don't have a clue about economics". National debt anyone? Our children and grandchildren being born into debt slaves to the ChiComs and Saudis just isn't appealing to me. As for his POW "hero" status... View the "Missing, Presumed Dead" trailer(s) on about how "the heroes", Senators McCain and Kerry derailed attempts to find out what really happened to our POWs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0 The more lengthy and in-depth expose' of McCains duplicity is in this video. I strongly encourage all military personnel to view it. Wrapping ones head in duct tape is recommended to avoid brain pan shrapnel... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g In addition, consider; McCain's foundations receive funds from George Soros and Theresa Heinz Kerry. Yeah, that's the sort of conservative folks I wanna rub shoulders with. McCains "Mexico First" staff advisers. And, what should be the final nail in this morally corrupt and Constitutionally challenged mans candidacy coffin... Prez Bush calls him a "true conservative", as if that RINO has a clue what a 'conservative' truly is. McCain rates not only a "no" vote, but an emphatic HELL NO vote! Enough is enough. McCain will get drubbed so badly by whomever the Democratic candidate is, that Bob Doles feeble effort will seem 'heroic' in comparison. The damage a McCain presidency will do to 'conservative' and traditional American values would be irreparable. If you want a socialist/statist society, at least be honest about it and vote for the candidate with the "D" next their name on the ballot. Evil is still evil, dishonesty is still dishonesty and I'll have no part of it! Diogenes, wherefore art thou? The Republic is dead, long live the Republic. Cue Senator Palpatine, er, McCain. And yes, put a hooded cloak on him and McCain DOES bear a startling resemblance to the Star Wars character.
 
If you wanna get people spun up in a hurry and then watch them sputter in confusion, say these three lines in this order in a deadpan tone of voice. Space the lines for effect. I won't vote for Obama because he's black. I won't vote for Clinton because she's a woman. I won't vote for McCain because he's a Vietnam vet... Don't wait for it, don't look around to see if anyone took the bait, just be ready. Depending on who's listening and how savvy they are, they will either insert the word 'just' in front of 'because,' or they won't. Have fun, but watch your vocal emphasis. BTW, all three of those statements are true for me, though I expect a lot of people are going to vote for one of these candidates precisely and only for the reason given. Odds, anyone? V/R
 
Kevin, you're an idiot. [Deleted. 5 Yards and loss of down for Rulez violation. Sanger - that one was almost a technical! -the Armorer] On the other hand, the things you wrote about McCain were stupid, rude, ignorant, venal, inane, and mostly just plain wrong. [Deleted. 10 yards and loss of down. Keep this up, Sanger, yer gonna give him a Safety.] Really though, fella, do you actually believe the dumb sh*t you wrote or was that for shock effect?! C'mon, admit it, you haven't really had an original thought in all of your, what?, 19 years, and you thought this would be easier than actually having to learn something, right? BTW, I really liked this "Evil is still evil, dishonesty is still dishonesty and I'll have no part of it!" Well, bully for you, but are you planning not to vote ever or did you just climb down off your cross? It's got to be one of the two because clearly either you don't understand the way the world really works, or like most nutcase lefty-loosey's, you've decided to pretend that 'oughtta be' ought to be, without regard to whether the oughtta be is really what you need and want, or even if it's possible. I'll bet you believe in Term Limits too, right? lol, Here's your sign. [Oh, to hell with it. -the Armorer]
 
Kevin, In an effort to have an open mind regarding criticisms of my candidate, I watched both videos. First let me say, I was surprised to see Bob Dornan and Bob Smith involved with such character assasination. I can only conclude that they are very emotionally involved with the POW/MIA issue and their appearance reflects their frustration. However, if I have to weigh testimony about John McCain's actions as a POW, I am going with Bud Day over Bob Dornan. The guy behind the "Veteran's Against McCain" movement seems very disturbed and it is unfortunate he got Dornan and Smith spooled up in his tinfoil wrapped vitriol. I understand when people want to discuss McCain's immigration policy or his liberal ties, etc. These are valid points of contention. However, when you want to go with painting McCain as a collaborator..........I am disgusted. If you actually believe any of the venom spewed in those videos, then I really must dismiss your comments as if they were Cliff's. If Obama, Hillary & McCain are not to your liking, then you, Kevin, should most certainly stay at home on election day.
 
Sanger. Dude. Please. You didn't just bend the Rulez, you just tossed 'em. With snark. At me, even. I admit, I like snark, but that kinda snark just invites retaliation and makes the discussion go south for everyone, however entertaining it can sometimes be. Now lets take on some of your assumptions about Kevin. He's a decorated Marine combat vet/Army Reserve/Army National Guard veteran whose been my buddy since 1974. He's my age. He's a small business owner. He's run for elective office and won. Which isn't always a good thing, admittedly, but it does mean he's put himself and his ideas out there. In his case it was the school board - and while people I know who work in the schools cringed at some of his politics - he was universally acknowledged to have brought some sound business acumen to the table the Board sorely needed. He's been a Libertarian forever, so he is prone to tilting at windmills. And being disappointed. And he does get a lot of his news from World Net Daily, not the most reliable source. But not the worst, either. But he didn't deserve the scorn you dropped on him. And I would have said that if I didn't know him. Heck, I would have said that if it was Cliff. Well maybe not if it was Cliff. Golly, Sanger - you're one of the smarter and well educated guys around here, you of all people should be able to just savage his arguments, without the personal touch. And I love it when you do that. But this, no, I don't love this so much. So, write it out, take a deep breath, then hit delete. Then write the comment that takes down his position, not him. Because you can do that better than you snark - which is pretty formidable.
 
Democratic/socialist self-serving bedfellows all. So much for McCains 'conservative' values, never mind his oath of office to the Constitution.
First, there was no perfect conservative candidate this year or any other. It seemed rather that no one else wanted to run behind the president except these men. Pardon me if, no matter what, Ron Paul was not getting the nomination, period. As far as I'm concerned "conservatives" are just like the rest of us in a democracy: sometimes you have to compromise in order to hold the line and that is where we're at and the purpose of calling the post "Gates of Thermopylae". While I don't doubt that, with McCain, there will be somethings we don't like, I also don't doubt that, with Obama, there will be many. You say "evil is evil", quite right. and one of the worst evils in a democracy is to do nothing, to not vote, to not even hold the line because the perfect candidate did not appear. Frankly, sir, I do not find anything "Evil" about McCain. However, I do find certain things objectionable such as the zealotry of Mr. Paul's supporters. I have never liked that and it is one of the reasons Obama definitely gives me pause. Give me a good compromise candidate and I'll show you an American president. "Perfect candidates" and "pure ideology" remind me of too many historical incidents where the same turned out to be not so perfect nor pure.
Troops in Iraq for 100 years. "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".
Well, you must be confused by my post because I think I'm sure that Iraq will be an ally for a long time and don't think we should leave right off the bat. Further, I doubt that we're going to bomb Iran any time soon. Tus no comprende armed negotiations? You're talking to the wrong crowd if you think we're worried about that or would be overtly upset by it. I can think of a 100 reasons to do it in the first place, warmongerer that I am. Fortunately, I can think of 101 not to, so we're still good. ;)
Both of which are essentially bellicose promises of eternal war. Danged pesky Constitution, weakened economy and devalued currency be damned.
You know that is just a bunch of blow hard BS. Of course, you may have been confused about the last thirty years or so. It seems that we are at about the 37 year mark of this 100 year war with ME terrorists and Islamic crackheads, all things considered, so, take heart! We've only got 63 more years to go!
On our economy and to paraphrase McCain's statements; "I don't have a clue about economics". National debt anyone? Our children and grandchildren being born into debt slaves to the ChiComs and Saudis just isn't appealing to me.
Number one, its too late. We're already in debt to certain folks and dependent on their cheap goods and energy resources. Like McCain is going to make that better or worse? All that is so much hyperbole, anyway. Not only does McCain not understand economics, but neither do you, apparently. Did you hear the news this morning? We've reduced our trade deficit by several billion. How you may ask? Well, sometimes, when the dollar goes down and it looks like it isn't trading well against the Euro, it does trade nicely in other places where fortunately, our products sale nicely. NAFTA, CAFTA and all those other AFTAs that every one complained about is very likely the reason that jobs were building here in the US. Secondly, trade deficits only matter if you can no longer produce or increase your GNP and GDP exponentially and your trade deficit partner competes with you on the same economic scale. So, China nor Saudi Arabia, has ever done so. What it will take for it to matter is for the United States not to grow economically or industry wise, which will occur when we start posting net negative labor. Which I've warnded about but no one believes.
As for his POW "hero" status... In addition, consider;
I saw these videos before. I actually read a considerable amount on the issues, which if I remember correctly, included the problem trade embargoes and relationships with a nation who borders the rather important trade routes to the China Sea. I'll be perfectly honest with you. I didn't think that there was anyone left in captivity and I do know that our recovery teams still go to Viet Nam and search for the remains of our MIA. they are being brought back when we find them. Which I believe was one of the most important efforts we could make and one of the most important aspects of the agreements with Viet Nam. Being cognizant of war and casualties, the idea that we may not bring home every MIA person is sad, but not unusual in wars with high casualty rates. In 2004, when I was writing about Kerry and Viet Nam, that was one issue I did not hold against him considering the situation. I don't consider McCain a "collaborator" at all. This is nearly forty years later. You'll have to forgive me if I think its about time to move forward. Worse, though, considering the respect he has from men who were captured with him and served with him, I find these accusations highly specious.
McCain's foundations receive funds from George Soros and Theresa Heinz Kerry. Yeah, that's the sort of conservative folks I wanna rub shoulders with.
McCain's foundations? Receiving donations from charitable institutions? Shocking. Okay, not. There are many organizations that do such things and I rarely see that as a problem if they are not contributing to his campaign directly and have little to do with his politics. You'll have to try another approach on that one.
McCains "Mexico First" staff advisers.
I admit that gives me pause, but you are definitely talking to the wrong person about Mexico and any concerns. As I will write in a day or so about Castle Siege and modern security, a fortress cannot stand alone and we need strong allies on our borders, both economically, socially and politically. The idea that we should hold Mexico in contempt while they reside on our borders is highly foolish considering. By the way, I am THE NEO-CON. In fact, late of the Democrat party who switched to Republican for a number of reasons, but I confess that I am not anywhere near as conservative as some might wish. If you haven't already figured that out from my other posts. So, that epitaph of "RINO" does not offend me so much as the demand that we find some perfect conservative who will somehow win an election in a country that is certainly more liberal than the country of fifty years ago and more than a hundred.
McCain will get drubbed so badly by whomever the Democratic candidate is, that Bob Doles feeble effort will seem 'heroic' in comparison. The damage a McCain presidency will do to 'conservative' and traditional American values would be irreparable. If you want a socialist/statist society, at least be honest about it and vote for the candidate with the "D" next their name on the ballot.
So, what are you worried about? McCain won't win according to your analysis and there is no problem, right? then you can set about, looking once again for your perfect candidate who, if we're lucky, will turn out to be human and imperfect. You'll have to excuse me if I refuse to vote for perfection since, as I noted earlier, the perfect are rarely so and most often results in the evil you are so concerned about.
Evil is still evil, dishonesty is still dishonesty and I'll have no part of it!
I'll leave out the rest of what you wrote, but ask with all honesty if you have ever taken acting classes because that speech was worthy of dying Caesar. Where we are at is, as you point out, a place where there we choose between Obama/Clinton and McCain where each has their own "evils" there is always the "greater evil". And, by letting that greater danger prevail and insuring absolutely that many such "evils" that are objectionable to the "republican base" are instituted, I believe we would be committing a worse "evil". You can say that these two men are the same, but they are not. We have one positive that we don't have with Obama. With McCain, we can make his life very hard if we feel he is straying to far. he will have to make promises and come through with them if he wants the conservatives in congress to go along with any of his plans. I doubt seriously that we have that same power with obama.
 
I apologize, Kevin (and to anyone else who was offended by what I wrote). It was late... I was tired... Ummm... the moon was full (or maybe not)... Uh, well, bottom line is that I got upset at what you wrote and so I just wrote what came to mind and then posted it. I really had been up a long time, and I shouldn't have been writing at that time of the day, but I was and did, etc. I really do regret being so mean, even though I still don't like all of what you wrote, and I will endeavor to not be so big an a$$ in the future. :-[ V/R P.S. John, education only lets you be an a$$ in more creative and ugly ways...
 
Another aspect of Barak Obama's world view that I find disturbing is his attitude about Palestine.
Des Moines Register, March 12: Obama told the Muscatine-area party activists that he supports relaxing restrictions on aid to the Palestinian people. He said they have suffered the most as a result of stalled peace efforts with Israel. "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," Obama said while on the final leg of his weekend trip to eastern Iowa.
I like FactCheck.org for breaking down the truth vs. spin with these things. Here is their take. It seems to me that Obama's attitude is a little too "former President Jimmah Carter" for my tastes. I think if Israel's security and their right to exist matter to you, then you would not want Obama.
 
Sanger, No worries mate. If my DI couldn't make me blub in 13 weeks, words on a blog don't bother me. I've heard worse. I'd already hunkered down inside my bunker, knowing full well what the result would be of calling down 'friendly fire' on my position. We're all friends here (mostly), it's just that the majority of you are so, so... historically challenged and so, so.... wrong on the solutions to our nations problems... And RINO/CINO McCain is so, so.. NOT the answer. My precious vote deserves better than this poseur. INCOMING! 8)
 
Israel has a right to exist and are fully capable of taking care of themselves. 300+ nukes and the best trained and equipped military in the region pretty much ensure that. Their ELECTED leadership is another matter entirely. IMHO, their current PM is a (expletive deleted). "Land for peace" has resulted in NOTHING but more terrorist attacks. But, that is THEIR problem, NOT that of the United States. Israel is a big-boy sovereign nation, so cut the purse strings and let them deal with their own problems in their own way. You might be interested in just how much WE, that is, our government, funds, trains and equips the friggin' terrorists of the PLO and by extension, Hamas to "keep the peace...." Cough... cough... BS... cough, cough. Truth of the matter is, the United States Government spends millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars to support the terrorists of the PLO and their various branches. The information is out there and most disturbingly, the so-called Palestinians who call openly for the destruction of Israel, are trained, equipped and funded by YOUR tax dollars. We fund the anti-Israeli bloc to the tune of at least 3-1 over our support to Israel. Oh yes, and of course, our government continually 'forgives' the loans made to both Israel and the anti-Israeli bloc. Gee thanks DC.... Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee, whomever (save the one who shall not be mentioned candidate), will continue to support this expensive duplicity. Israel is MORE than capable of taking care of herself and as a sovereign nation, should not have to look to Washington for approval to secure their own survival. As a side note and to be a stickler... can anyone, ANYONE please provide me with the reference to the Constitutional authority to expend even ONE PENNY of US tax dollars in so-called foreign aid? To ANYBODY? Oh, the corruption and waste I've seen.... Our foreign policy is So fugged up and you need look no further than our State Dept for the reasons why... Well, that and those folks who don't officially exist....
 
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
can you say where it prohibits it? That includes, by the way, the times we were paying tribute and then decided not to, the lend lease act that armed England during World War II and various other assistance to nations deemed an ally or necessary for the protection of interests of the United States. Which historical moment would you like us to remake so that you can claim some unconstitutional act for providing monetary aid to anyone? Not that I like that we give money to the Palestinians, but it goes under the heading of everything else.
 
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Next question?
 
Kat, "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" I dinna see ANY provision in your cited amendment that provides for "foreign aid". Unless, you are part and parcel of the mindset that the general welfare clause authorizes the Federal government to fund ANYTHING that they deem as 'general welfare'. If that's your belief, then the limited and specifically enumerated powers that the Federal government is authorized to have is a moot point. You really don't wanna open that Pandoras box now do you? I don't really (wish to) believe that you want to buy into this mindset. Which, btw, has been used by the socialists to promote funding of anything they consider the 'general welfare'. But, hey, why believe me? Let's examine a few of the writings by the authors of the Constitution have written. 1792, in disapproval of Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist French refugees "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788 "The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend it's jurisdiction." Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. Thomas Jefferson But, heck, what do I know? I only can read what the authors of the Constitution wrote and intended... James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon these limitations in a letter to James Robertson: “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” And again, I see NO authorization for the expenditure of one penny of the US taxpayers for bribes, er, aid... Your serve.... and don't even get me started on the 'commerce clause"....
 
Lend Lease Program: constitutional or not? I'll think of the others later, but that's the first that pops into my mind. WE hadn't declared war yet when we did it. Is it only good because we did eventually go to war? And what would our fore fathers have thought about those two wars in Europe? Or the expansion of US territories into the pacific that led to the confrontation with Japan? My point is, I refer to the founding fathers continuously myself and believe they were extremely intelligent far thinking folks. But, I am unsure that their desire not to pay for french refugees from the monarchy of france was solely based on their lack of desire to spend tax money on foreigners than it did not to spend it on monarchists when france was in the middle of its own revolution (allegedly republican in nature). I am somewhat surprised that some would believe these things had some purist isolationist reasoning and was not a part of political expediency of the day. Another issue, of course, was how much, or little, the American government was collecting in taxes in the first place which would make such expenditures perilous in the face of barely paying for a small army and navy.
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
Actually, I was thinking the expenditures were more in line with our "defense", not "general welfare". In which case, section 7 clearly provides for the House to raise revenue for specific expenditures, a right that is enumerated. From my perspective, its our job to direct or limit whatever those expenditures are by electing, protesting, writing or otherwise complaining loudly about the types of revenue raised and their expenditures. In which case, I have much more objection to spending the funds on experiments on how much tv children watch. However, let me say that in some ways I agree with you that we have, in part, been paying "tribute" to nations in the form of military expenditures and other programs in order to maintain their alliance or neutrality. Something we have recently come to do after WWII and within context of the Cold War. On the other hand, I'm pragmatic enough to realize that such payments are in lieu of the potential constant war we would be in in order to defend our trade which, I believe, the founders had several wars over including 1812 and the infamous trip to Tripoli. So, if we held your constitutional view to be the correct and only view based on these few snippets of language outside of their historical context, my question to you is "then what?" Which wars, payments for, alliances, etc are you willing to support to maintain your originalist views? Let us look at Egypt and their 2bn a year. The Suez Canal through which major trade passes. Do you believe that: Our lack of support and the probability of an Islamist government or some other hostile government allying with Egypt would a) keep the suez open to American trade? b) keep the Suez open and not raise any taxes or tariffs that would be harmful or damaging to US trade and possible survivability? c) keep the Suez open and not allow Somalian pirates, Palestinian terrorists or some other "non-state actor" from attacking our shipping? And, if such thing should happen, what should we do about it, if anything? Would you be adverse to war with any nation that did so or would that be against the original constitution as well? Considering, as I note, our little trip to Tripoli and the replacement of a non-allied, hostile king? Wherein we began, under those same founders, to pay tribute, but got royally ticked off when they kept raising the rates and then Jefferson wanted to resolve it through "the medium of war":
After finding American commerce in the Mediterranean had almost stopped due to the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission, consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. The following year, Congress authorized a maximum of $80,000 to spend on tribute treaties with all the Barbary States. In 1787, the United States signed a tribute treaty with Morocco. This proved to be a reasonable treaty, costing the United States a one-time only tribute of about $20,000. Except for a few brief disagreements, Morocco never again harassed American shipping. Algiers, the most powerful of the Barbary States, was a different story. In the summer of 1785, pirates from Algiers captured two American merchant ships and held the 21 men aboard them for ransom. The United States offered $4,200 for the captives. The ruler of Algiers, called the dey, demanded nearly $60,000. The Americans refused, and negotiations dragged on for more than 10 years. The two commissioners most involved in tribute treaty negotiations were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Adams favored paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce moving again in the Mediterranean. Jefferson disagreed. He saw no end to the demands for tribute. He wanted matters settled "through the medium of war" and proposed a league of trading nations to force the end of Barbary piracy. In 1790, pirates from Algiers captured 11 American ships and more than 100 prisoners to add to those already held for ransom. This shocking news produced a serious debate in the newly formed U.S. Congress over the need to build a navy. But it took five years before Congress authorized the construction of six warships. Finally, in 1796, the United States signed a peace treaty with Algiers. The United States agreed to pay $642,500 plus annual tribute of naval supplies and presents to the dey. In exchange, the dey promised to release of the American captives and protect American shipping. The United States had to borrow money to make the primary tribute payment.
So, contrary to popular belief, some of our founders, indeed, did imagine, participate in and finalize treaties that included forms of payment to render American interests secured. Of course, some of the fellows did not hold up to their end of the bargain:
Over the next two years, the United States negotiated similar tribute treaties with Tripoli and Tunis. The treaties with these countries cost a total of $160,000 plus supplies and presents to the Barbary rulers. William Eaton, a former U.S. Army officer who became the American consul (diplomatic representative) at Tunis, disliked the Barbary tribute system. He wrote that "there is no access to the permanent friendship of these states without paving the way with gold or cannonballs; and the proper question is which method is preferable." Before long, the rulers of Tripoli and Tunis complained about delays in the delivery of the annual tribute supplies. The ruler of Tripoli, the pasha, demanded a new treaty with a much larger tribute. Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to England scrambled to gather expensive presents owed to the pasha of Tunis. One of the gifts was a pair of pistols mounted with gold and set with diamonds. In May 1801, the pasha of Tripoli canceled his treaty with the United States and declared war on American shipping. Even before he knew that Tripoli had declared war, newly inaugurated President Jefferson ordered a naval squadron of four warships to the Mediterranean. But this squadron did not accomplish much. Nor did a second one sent the following year. U.S. Navy ships did blockade Tripoli harbor, but only for a short time. Frustrated by the timidity and even incompetence of the U.S. Navy squadron commanders, William Eaton started to work on a plot to overthrow Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli. To seize the throne for himself, Yusuf had murdered his older brother and forced another one, Hamet, into exile. Eaton contacted Hamet and promised him U.S. support in overthrowing his brother. Eaton believed that once on the throne of Tripoli, Hamet would repay the United States with permanent peaceful relations.
Pardon me, but there seems to have been a lot of founders involved in organizing, negotiating and paying for just such schemes only a few years after the Constitution was written. I believe that Jefferson saw both moves as pertaining to 1) the president's duties of negotiating treaties, duly approved by congress and 2) the defense of the United States which could not long survive without access to trade within these regions. Maybe you'd like to dig ol' Tom and a few others up and explain to him his flip-floppish ways on limited government or his ignorance about the constitution?
 
Oops...but then there is Madison:
About a year later, Dey Omar wrote to President Madison, proposing a renewal of the tribute treaty the United States had signed with Algiers in 1796. Madison wrote back that "the United States, whilst they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none." He concluded that it was the "settled policy" of the United States "that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."
so, I was saying, would you be supporting war for these same reasons? And, if so, why then are you adverse to the war in Iraq as if it was either separate from the war with the new Barbary Pirates or separate from any need of the United States to secure its alliances and trade partners for our future security? You have been served.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.