This is a must watch. I’m not sure if this is a recent angle, but it was just posted recently. The funny thing is that at first the crowd is booing, but eventually quiets down. I suspect they know what she is saying is true.
Is anyone else as baffled by this Bergdahl affair as I am? Regardless of whether Bergdahl is a regular POW or a deserter, to me, the Obama Administration comes off looking stupid and incompetent, because the speculation that he was a deserter was already out there as a prominent part of the public record, so how could the Administration not have anticipated some negative reaction? At the least they should have acknowledged that there were questions and that they would be properly investigated on his return.
Our old friend Sean Scallon seems upset by the rush to judgement, and I agree that Bergdahl shouldn’t be definitively declared guilty by Obama’s critics before an investigation and +/- a trial, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Administration was stupid to not have seen this coming. Here is the comment I posted at Chronicles:
Sean, I’m not sure I understand your point. The Obama Administration had to be aware of the Daily Mail story that Dr. Fleming refers to. I’m baffled by this. The Admin seems to not have anticipated the backlash. But given the highly partisan nature of things these days, how could they not have? And doesn’t the fact that they “forgot” to inform Congress not suggest they might have known they were going to get pushback? It makes the skeptic in me think that they might have REALLY needed to get Bergdahl back for some reason. But even if that is the case, why they didn’t just withhold judgment and say that there would be an investigation instead of acting as if they had just secured the release of Jeremiah Denton is beyond me.
Since we’re on the subject of pop culture, this is worth noting. Steven Seagal has called for Obama’s impeachment.
The actor appeared at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix, AZ on February 22, 2014, and was not aware that he would be speaking but what he did say, he spoke plainly in the seriousness with his message.
During the conference, a lot of funny political jokes were said but Seagal said that what he is about to say will not fit into the funniness of the night’s event.
Seagal said, “What I have to say is quite serious. What I want to say is that never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people, like the people who are running it… at this day.”
I know that Seagal is mostly a straight to video actor these days, but since so few people in Hollywood and pop culture are on our side, any defections are noteworthy. I don’t know where Seagal stands on all the issues, but what he says here is pretty hard core, and that he was willing to attend this venue is comendable. He has clearly identified himself with us Reds in the us against them war.
Since were talking about hard rock, here is a story worth mentioning. Weaver and Hawthorne, this one’s for you.
Korn frontman Jonathan Davis is unleashing the mother of all conspiracy theories — President Obama‘s secret agenda to become a tyrannical dictator with Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber and Kanye West‘s assistance!
We asked Davis about his band’s new “Spike in My Veins” music video — which is filled with clips of Miley and other pop culture phenoms — and suddenly it was all aboard the crazy train.
You gotta see it … right in the middle of LAX, Davis spewed a theory about Obama using celeb scandals as a “distraction” … while he screws us out of our freedoms.
Dear Fellow Constitionists,
Over the past few months the Constitution Party, with your help, has made inroads on several fronts – a new website, a new newsletter format, social media and internet advertising, ballot access battles in several states, and many more behind-the-scenes efforts by tireless patriot volunteers across the nation. We are making tremendous strides towards helping states build and improve their websites, improving our media relations, growing our social media outreach, too many ways to be listed in this brief email.
We are actively engaged in building a strong political opposition to the current two-party duopoly that is rapidly descending into a chaotic tyranny, as is evident from President Obama’s recent State of the Union address to Congress, the nation, and the world.
President Obama laid down the gauntlet at his first cabinet meeting of the year when he said, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
Click here to hear Darrell Castle (2008 Vice-presidential candidate) and Cynthia Davis (four-term Missouri State Legislator) present the Constitution Party Response to the State of the Union.
Our goal is simple: we want to re-establish the American Constitutional Republic, according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers.
Forget everything you have known about or experienced under the tutelage of the current two major parties. The Constitution Party is not your granddaddy’s political party. It is not your father’s political party. It probably isn’t the political party you first supported. The Constitution Party is committed to putting Principles before Party. Which principles? The principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the 1787 Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Find out about our basic Seven Principles on the national website.
The Constitution Party does not play Super Bowl politics. The Constitution and the impact it has on the American people, indeed the world, is not a simple football game between two opposing teams, whose strategy is to win the victory at all costs. Scoring a constitutionally-correct touchdown means standing up against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and saying “No, that is not within the authority granted to my office by the federal Constitution (or state Constitution, etc.). I will not do it.”
The Constitution Party is committed to putting forth constitutionally-committed candidates. Congressmen, the President, the Courts, elected and appointed officials at all levels of government have lost the vision of what constitutes a representative republic based on the Constitution. It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty.
We need you to make real change happen in America.
We need your time, your volunteerism. We are a grassroots, from the heart, organization. 99.9% of us take no pay for the work we do to build the Constitution Party. We do not rely on lobbyists or Daddy Warbucks. We are fighting against a corrupt system, which has no desire to support a political party that will not give those in charge the power, glory, and gain they seek. We need volunteers at all levels. Visit the State Parties page of our website to contact your state leaders or area chairman. Roll up your sleeves, it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it and that somebody is you.
We need your financial support. It doesn’t matter how small or how often, just donate. Only you can provide the resources necessary to fight for ballot access in several states. Only you can give us the resources to expand our advertising outreach. Only you can choose to invest in a political party with the will to make the hard decisions necessary to restore Liberty. Only you can make a donation today!
We need your Vote. We need your commitment to vote for, or become, a constitutionally-committed candidate. No one else is going to do it for you. Stop wasting your vote on candidates who continue to support party over principle. If you don’t vote or run, then who? Contact your State Party or area chairman to find out more.
Explore our website and our commitment to the Constitution, then decide for yourselves if you are willing to take the next step and become an active participant the great struggle for Liberty, both for ourselves and our future generations.
National Communications Director
Editor’s Note: All the links in this letter are not intact due to formatting issues, but the link to the actual response is working.
Originally posted, in slightly different form, at Independent Political Report.
David Brooks is frustrated. Congress won’t grant amnesty to all those potential Americans “hiding in the shadows,” it can’t pass gun control, and it hasn’t given us any fun wars lately. Brooks is also disappointed by the American public’s lack of enthusiasm for DC’s military adventures. Members of Congress, always mindful of the next election, aren’t about to further alienate voters. That makes Brooks sad. Brooks, a thorough Neocon, gleefully backed the Iraq War as a means to achieve “national greatness.” To him, a strong central government is the answer to everything, since, in his own words, “ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington.”
The solution? Brooks says it’s time for the president to assume more power and get things rolling again. Here’s his argument, from an opinion piece entitled Strengthen the Presidency:
Here are the advantages. First, it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything. Second, executive branch officials are more sheltered from the interest groups than Congressional officials. Third, executive branch officials usually have more specialized knowledge than staffers on Capitol Hill and longer historical memories. Fourth, Congressional deliberations, to the extent they exist at all, are rooted in rigid political frameworks.
What should Obama do, in Brooks’s opinion? Simple: “So how do you energize the executive? It’s a good idea to be tolerant of executive branch power grabs and to give agencies flexibility.”
Yeah — nothing like a few “executive branch power grabs” to liven things up.
Don’t dismiss this as just the ravings of a typical government supremacist. What Brooks is advocating is a very real, very frightening possibility. Obama is already taking steps to do exactly what Brooks is talking about. Obama has appointed long-time DC insider John Podesta to his senior staff. Podesta has long been an open advocate of a powerful chief executive. In a Center for American Progress paper in 2010 entitled, “The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change,” Podesta wrote: “Concentrating on executive powers presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”
Liberty activists should fear this man. Podesta’s progressive ideology is a blueprint for the welfare-warfare state:
In 2008, Podesta authored his book The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate, and Our Country. In it, he articulates a vision of progressive values based on four core lessons: 1) Progressives stand with people, not privilege; 2) Progressives believe in the Common Good and a government that offers a hand up; 3) Progressives hold that all people are equal in the eyes of God and under the law; and 4) Progressives stand for universal human rights and cooperative global security.
(Catch that last line? And some people don’t believe me when I argue that civil rights and militarism are DC’s yin and yang.) Like all DC insiders, John Podesta knows how to deploy his noble-sounding ideals to turn a buck:
Since President Obama entered office in 2008, Boeing has spent $840,000 on The Podesta Group’s services, relying on the firm to lobby in favor of lucrative defense appropriations at the White House and on Capitol Hill.
What can we expect from Obama in the coming months? More wars, more forced multiculturalism, more authoritarian government.
In other words, what we can expect from ANY administration.
Things that make you go hmmm…
This is gonna have conspiracy theory tonugues a waggin’.
I’m not sayin’. I just sayin’.
The health director who approved the release of President Obama’s birth certificate has died in a plane crash, Hawaiian officials said Thursday.
Loretta Fuddy died after the Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft she was travelling on went down shortly after leaving Kalaupapa Airport at around 3:15 p.m. local time (10:15 a.m. ET) on Wednesday.
The other eight people on board were rescued, Richard Schuman, president of Makani Kai Air, told NBC News early Thursday, adding that that there was no indication as to why the plane had crashed.
Somehow an unqualified man pretended to sign for the deaf as the U.S. president gave his gushing tribute to Nelson Mandela. People are asking how this could happen:
The key address in the memorial service for Nelson Mandela was given by Barack Obama, whose words were brought to life for deaf spectators and TV viewers by a “sign language interpreter”, who could be seen gesturing energetically behind the sombre US President.
Yet the man, not only seen by the tens of thousands in Johannesburg’s FNB stadium where the memorial took place on Tuesday, but also by millions across the world on television, was a “fake”, according to Bruno Druchen, the national director of the Deaf Federation of South Africa.
Mr Duchen told the Associated Press “there was no meaning in what he used his hands for”. He and other language experts pointed out that the man was not signing in South African or American sign languages and could not have been signing in any other known sign language because there was no structure to his arm and hand movements.
As one ANC member put it, “What this man was doing was making no sense.”
But in a way, it made perfect sense.
Many commentators criticized the entire event as poorly planned and managed. Security was laughable. And for the ANC to put an unqualified sign language interpreter to stand beside the president of the U.S. was just the icing on the cake. The “interpreter” has explained his erratic performance by claiming he was “hallucinating, hearing voices.” Yes.
So this was perfect. What better way to communicate the message that it is “progress” to dismantle a society that worked and replace it with one that does not? That a man caught in the act of plotting mass murder is to be hailed as a saintly peace maker? Or that an African advocate of communism, the most bloody anti-human ideology the world has seen, should be honored with U.S. flags flown at half-mast?
I’d say a nonsense medium for a nonsense message is entirely appropriate.
The feminization of society is about to take a bold leap forward. From the New York Post:
Thanks to a plan by President Obama to create a “unisex” look for the Corps, officials are on the verge of swapping out the Marines’ iconic caps – known as “covers” — with a new version that some have derided as so “girly” that they would make the French blush.
“We don’t even have enough funding to buy bullets, and the DoD is pushing to spend $8 million on covers that look like women’s hats!” one senior Marine source fumed to The Post. “The Marines deserve better. It makes them look ridiculous.”
The thin new covers have a feminine line that some officials think would make them look just as good on female marines as on males — in keeping with the Obama directive.
In conjunction with this change in uniforms, the Marine Corps Hymn has been updated as well to reflect the Corps’s new image. Here’s an exclusive first look:
From the power suits of Yves Saint Laurent
To the flair of Armani
We will rock these girly uniforms
On the runways and at sea
First to fit our feet in pink footwear
And wear dress blues like a queen
We’re the first branch to go unisex
We’re Obama’s New Marines!
Okay, I’m always skeptical about conspiracy theories, but c’mon! This video of Obama steadying a woman about to faint and saying, “I gotcha–you’re okay” is just too symbolic of Obama coming to the rescue of people needing medical attention.
It’s odd that the woman didn’t wobble until Obama turned his attention to her. Also notice that the two people at her side didn’t seem to notice any problem. And why did Obama suddenly turn around to catch her?
Strange. Very strange.
I am writing to you to urge you to vote against the President’s resolution granting him authority to bomb Syria.
Syria is involved in a civil war that the US has no business meddling in. Syria has not threatened the US and is not a threat to the US.
In 2008 Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary primarily because he had opposed the invasion of Iraq. He then won a Nobel Peace Prize based on his opposition to the War in Iraq.
Now Obama is advocating military interventionism no different than his predecessor George W. Bush. I thought the Democrats were supposed the be the party that opposes military adventurism.
I urge you to stay true to the professed position of your party and vote against the bombing of Syria and repudiate this new direction of a supposedly anti-war President.
Obama has now said he will go to Congress for authorization to attack Syria. I’m surprised by this. I wonder if Obama is looking for a way out. The vote will have to wait at least until Congress returns on Sept 9.
So let’s hear your predictions on how the vote will go. I’m not confident, but I predict it will not pass. Between now and 9 Sept. Congress will hear from their constituents and there is no popular support for this war.
Write your Congressman and Senators and let’s head this disaster off at the pass. I’m going to write mine.
By Frosty Wooldridge
“It is very sad that our first African-American president will be judged in history as the most inept, corrupt, wasteful, subversive, destructive and divisive present ever. A man twice elected because of the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.” Email sent by Daniel Johns
When historians investigate the rise, failure and fall of Barack Obama, they will uncover a plethora of unpleasant realities that Americans on both sides of the political aisle refused to investigate. Clearly, power brokers awarded him a free pass from personal accountability and responsibility because of his skin color. Obama never showed competence as a business man, or running a company, as a distinguished educator, honored lawyer or success at anything other than rhetoric.
His only job before ascending to the position of U.S. Senator from Illinois: community organizer. Before that, he lived out of the United States in Muslim countries and attended Islamic schools until the age of 11 or so. No one knows. He “earned” sub-par grades in high school and in college at Columbia and Harvard. No one knows where he acquired the money to attend such prestigious and expensive institutions—or how he obtained scholarships or passed entrance tests to merit admission. In fact, no one knows anything of his youth other than he smoked or snorted a lot of drugs like marijuana and cocaine. That’s about the only thing he ever admitted.
Or that you were wrong. In response to the latest Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq, Americaneocon blames Obama’s foreign policy. Huh? It was the Bush administration that agreed to this non-negotiable provision with the
puppet Iraq government:
“All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”
Now that U.S. occupation forces have left, old battles have resumed. In fact, no other outcome was possible since the Allies of WWI deliberately cobbled together random regions of the old Ottoman Empire to ensure oil-rich Iraq would be unstable and easily exploitable.
Iraq is fracturing into its component cultural regions, which Americaneocon notes, but wrongly attributes to Bush’s “global democratic revolution”:
There’s been a few bright spots, like the northern Kurdish region, where democratization is taking hold. But that’s despite the best efforts of this administration to sabotage the movement toward freedom in the country. What a shame.
In fact, the Kurds have long agitated for their independence. One of the sad ironies of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was the charge that Saddam “attacked his own people,” referring to his use of poison gas against the rebellious Kurds. Of course, the U.S. government not only failed to condemn Iraq at the time — after all, Saddam was D.C.’s paid-for client then — but even tried to shift blame to Iran.
The following essay was submitted by Alan Cornett. Mr. Cornett is a minister, a former associate of Russell Kirk, and most importantly, a man of fine sartorial tastes.
Rand Paul Yells “Stop!”
Rand Paul, in a spontaneous act of political naysaying, captured the imagination of conservatives across the country on Wednesday as he filibustered the confirmation of John Brennan as head of the CIA. Twitter was, well, atwitter and C-SPAN gained an actual audience while Paul brought the first breath of life to a dreary GOP since Mitt Romney’s ugly defeat in November.
Paul’s issue wasn’t really Brennan, but rather forcing the administration to admit they couldn’t blow up Americans. No one thinks that Obama & Co. are scheming to launch domestic drone attacks. But this is an administration that acknowledges no theoretical limit to its own authority. The President simply did not want to concede the point; the Nobel Peace Prize winner prefers to dictate rather than to be dictated to.
For Paul to succeed in forcing the administration’s hand to admit, at least on paper, that they could not kill an American citizen on domestic soil just because they wanted to came as a surprise to just about everyone including, I’m sure, Rand Paul himself. As it was the second embarrassment to the administration in a week (the sequester failing as economic Armageddon being the first), it may be that the wings of Icarus are finally beginning to melt.
But Paul’s challenge to a hypothetical domestic drone program is at root as much about challenging a Republican foreign policy that has largely been unquestioned by its leaders since 911 as it was a stick in the eye to a hubristic administration. Paul’s slight of hand was to mask this internal challenge as a partisan rallying point.
While Rand Paul stood for the Bill of Rights on the Senate floor, a score of Republican Senators dined out with the President he chastised. Among them were drone lovers Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. On Thursday while the administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder drafted a statement admitting that of course they couldn’t blow up Americans here in the good ol’ US of A, Obama’s GOP dinner companions decried Paul’s filibuster.
McCain worried the Democrats might see all this filibustering as abusing precious Senate rules, calling it “ridiculous.” Graham allowed as how the filibuster was reason enough to cause him to vote to confirm Brennan. They sounded like yesterday’s men, managers of the status quo. Paul was unconcerned with Brennan per se, of course, but now McCain and Graham have given a de facto endorsement of a drone position that even Obama officially repudiates.
Some Senators did sense the shifting winds, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s other Senator, who joined Paul on the Senate floor. McConnell faces re-election next year and no doubt sees siding with Paul during his shining moment as advantageous. But now the Senate’s highest ranking leadership has acknowledged Paul’s agenda as a sympathetic one. There is at least a crack where there was none before.
Rush Limbaugh, supportive yet wary, spoke with Paul on his radio show. Rush applauded the filibuster stand, but question Paul about his overall drone position, sensing that Paul really is hacking at the root of a foreign policy that Rush has done much to prop up. Paul conceded drone use in foreign combat, but wisely returned the issue civil liberties. That is his wedge: a plea to Constitutionalism in order to reshape the thinking of a party that has gone far astray.
For at least 48 hours the debate parameters changed, and not inconsequentially a President backed down. Rand Paul showed that it is still possible to stand athwart history and yell stop.
Alan Cornett on Twitter: @alancornett
The White House has blinked.
See this from the Capitalism Institute.
See this from the Washington Examiner.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”
This is progress. A straight “no” is better than evasion. Paul indicates he is “quiet happy” with the answer. But the key issue, IMO, is the word “combat” which I will try to explain in a longer post when I have time.
I’m sorry, I just can’t resist posting about this story.
One thing that I have maintained all along about the “birther” issue is that Obama, whether guilty or not, has behaved like a guilty man. When he released the short form birth certificate and people questioned its authenticity and wanted to see the long form birth certificate, the thing to do is not to brush it off or roll your eyes or make snide comments or hide behind your spokesman or call the other side names or hire lawyers to fight it in court or claim that Hawaii won’t release it or whatever else. All that makes you look either like you have something to hide and/or like you’re a dude who is completely oblivious to guy code. (This being a family friendly site prevents me from saying that in a more graphic manner.)
When Philip Berg, for example, questions your credentials, particularly in the context of this already being a big story, (not just some random claim from a lone wacko) the appropriate response is to march into the Hawaii DOH and demand they release a copy of your long form which you would then wag in the face of all the doubters and personally attempt to shove up Philip Berg’s posterior. When they ask for it in court you gladly turn it over saying “Here you go Judge. Anything else I can help you with?”
When Donald Trump calls you out publicly and says he will donate 5 million dollars to the charity of your choice if you produce your college records, you produce your college records. This does three things. It clears any doubt there may be about you, it makes Donald Trump look like a fool, and it get your charity 5 million dollars. What did Obama do? He wiffed. (I’m not defending the way Trump led us to believe he had something new when all he had was a challenge.)
So, when Bill Maher laid down a five million dollar challenge to Trump, what did Trump do? He did what a man would do, he stepped up and produced. Obama should take a lesson. I didn’t see the Maher interview. I’m sure he was his usual snide mocking self. But now that Trump has called his bluff, is he going to pay up or look like a sniveling weasel?
Original video can be found here.
This post is for our readers to get their election predictions on (virtual) paper, before the fact. Here is mine.
There is a very real possibility that Romney could win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral College. This is because Romney is likely to win a lot of Red States by huge margins, but lose Electoral College vote rich swing states by narrow margins. That said, and so Kirt doesn’t accuse me of equivocating, I predict Romney will win both the popular and the Electoral College vote. This is admittedly an easier prediction to make now than it was a couple of months ago, but I have been predicting a Romney victory all along. I know I have stated that in the comments somewhere, but I couldn’t find any on a quick look. If anyone can find a comment thread where I stated that then please post a link. The reason I have always believed Romney is going to win is because it seems to me that all the people who think Obama is going to win and even win easily are forgetting about 2010. Did the 2010 mid-term repudiation not happen? (I know, Clinton won in ’96 after the ’94 mid-term.)
As in 2010, all the late momentum has been going Romney’s way. He has been drawing huge crowds. I think he’ll win Ohio (he almost has to) and I could see him winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Iowa. Plus he will win Florida, Virginia, and Colorado fairly handily. (CO by the least.) North Carolina has never been in play this election.
We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping :-)) off TAC’s effort.
Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.
In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red