January
15th 2008
Posted under Election 2008
A Candidacy Fueled By Anger, Hate, and now Hypocrisy:
John McCain scares us…truly. He is so consumed with hate and anger that he is self-destructive, which begs the question – what else would John McCain destroy?
—
For those who haven’t been following, McCain leads Huckabee 28% to 19%, a huge lead, according to Rasmussen’s latest poll, Jan. 13.
Weaver on 15 Jan 2008 at 2:27 am #
Heh, the latest from The Shot:
Domenici just endorsed McCain, the same Domenici whom McCain erupted at in 2000:
Source.
roho on 15 Jan 2008 at 1:10 pm #
No doubt, McCain is the most “Scary” man in my lifetime to run for President!……………And General Curtis Lemay was George Wallace’s running mate as a Pentagan Democrat.(But he understood the constitution)……………………”Little Napoleon” is a scary man.
Harold Crews on 15 Jan 2008 at 2:06 pm #
Can you imagine the ads the Dems will run if McCain is the Republican nominee? Reruns of Johnson’s ads against Goldwater maybe. The race would be against a Dem who is cozy with defence contractors and who supported the Iraq War and Atila McCain.
roho on 15 Jan 2008 at 2:23 pm #
For a crazy man that has 70+% of the American Voters demanding border security, and the existing laws of America to be enforced, he seems very confident?…………Rasmussin and most polls are tainted, and I no longer believe the electronic voting system is even secure! “Conspiracy” has become one of those special PC words like “Antisemitic” or “Rascist” that has an overwhelming aire of authenticity in the ranks of the sheeple.
The intresting thing about “Conspiracy” is that if you can paint someone or a group with it long enough, the sheeple have heard the allegation in consistancy over a long enough period of time to assume it is fact! The GLOBALIST insiders within the GOP have worked so hard at every turn to label the “Ron Paul Campaign” as a hodge-podge of mixed conspiracy nuts, for the sheeple to hear.
At the same time, this kind of information is ofcourse suppressed by the MSM: http:www.votefraud.org/ and even forgotton posts such as http:www.worldnetdailey.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15082
This then makes any attempt at voter fraud much easier when it is “Conspiracy Nuts” that are claiming fowl!
Patroon on 15 Jan 2008 at 3:33 pm #
Unless Romney wins today and Huckabee wins Saturday or Guliani wins Florida, McCain coiuld wrap this up by Feb. 5. Republicans may be voting for him for the same reasons Dems voted for Kerry in 2004, the best of a bad lot.
Weaver on 15 Jan 2008 at 3:39 pm #
Wouldn’t McCain mean “son of Cain” in Irish? I wonder if that’s meant to be the Cain from the Bible, the first human to commit murder.
I keep telling people that while they’re watching Iraq and Iran, I’m watching McCain. McCain with his finger on the button… now that’s frightening. And really, Obama with his finger there is scary too.
We Americans just assume our country will continue on forever, and we seem to have no fear of our government.
Weaver on 15 Jan 2008 at 3:49 pm #
Wow, Romney appears to be 1 pt behind McCain in Michigan…
Maybe if Don Black held a press conference endorsing McCain, McCain would lose his independent support base.
Andrew T. on 15 Jan 2008 at 5:09 pm #
Family Guy (one of my favorite shows) on the Insane McCain experience!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vIAfBqWOL4
csason on 15 Jan 2008 at 5:17 pm #
I like the way you thunk in that last sentence..Weaver..
I am surprised though..for all the hoopla about McCain’s projected
personna..you know, “I’ll protect the American people” and supposed
underlying war drum theme..I don’t buy it for a second.
Not even for a millisecond. Now Romney, on the other hand, who is in fact sworn to stop Jihad- ah yes.. HIS backers see it as their destiny to
eliminate anything but Mormonism from the planet..especially the
religions that won’t take a pamphlet, or watch a DVD.
Nah, McCain is, and has been a crybaby for a while now..
His actions speak much louder. He is the reincarnation of Jimmah if I have ever seen one.. His whole demeanor reeks of the middle, I beleive. He
appears to want to be remembered as the POTUS who found the common ground between ALL situations of conflict.
The only reason he began to support the dreaded ‘surge’ was because
it was time to get ready for the dance..
Anyone who’s heart changed so much they hugged the man that previously tortured them shouldn’t be expected to have a secret set of
testicles hidden somewhere.
csason on 15 Jan 2008 at 5:19 pm #
In re-reading my post..I realized it might appear I was FOR more of the same ‘global war on terrah’..
Just to clarify.. NO..I am not..
I just think McCain is a very very very good liar…and should be despised
for too many reasons to go into here.
David L on 15 Jan 2008 at 8:38 pm #
McInsain wants to be our first Caesar. Save Ron Paul, the Democrats will crush any Republican candidate. You can’t win on a war platform when 70% or more of American citizens are against it. I’ve voted Republican all my adult life, the Republican Party can kiss my … never mind!
roho on 16 Jan 2008 at 12:41 am #
5 Candidates showed up in Israel back in January 2007. They all were on the same stage, regardless of Party. They were all pandering for Jewish money. They were all committed to WAR. They knew who their “Puppet Masters” were, and had no issue with pandering together, inspite of each one’s knowing that the Primary Debates were still ahead of them. They were like trampy little actresses showing up for the traditional “Casting Couch” in Hollywood. Their place of meeting was called the “7th Herzliya Conference”, and they knew that they could not be elected without “THE APPROVAL” in advance. Some had already made the journey, not needing to prove their loyalty.(Hillary Clinton)……….But, on this day 1-23-07 Guiliani, Edwards, Gingrich(Backed Out), Romney, MccAin, had all committed to protect the Nation of Israel.(Emperor Dubya recommitted this week). Yet McCain, makes the statement this week that “He can not tell a soldier in Iraq that he is deporting his mother!”………………….In other words, I will destroy America if needed, inorder to save Israel!(I’m not antisemitic and would feel the same way if we were talking about ZIMBABWE!)…….These 5 guys are GLOBALIST, loyal to ONLY the banking families of the world!(And Fred Thompson did not go see “Baroness Margaret Thatcher” prior to his candidacy, inorder to look at the crown jewels!)……………………Huck was never even a consideration, but committed his loyalty in the last few weeks with his very detailed speech to the CFR!………………If you want to be a FREE MAN?…………….VOTE FOR A FREE MAN!…………..RON PAUL.
Suzanne Stallings on 16 Jan 2008 at 4:10 pm #
McCain’s desire for amnesty has put him outside the mainsteam of conservatives!
According to the grassroots, 80% of Americans defeated amnesty twice.
That seemed to get McCain’s attention, but once a traitor- always a traitor!
Ron Paul is the trustworthy candidate in the dimishing pack!
Weaver on 16 Jan 2008 at 4:13 pm #
What’s this about Margaret Thatcher? I know her liberalism wrecked havoc on Britain, but I’d chalked it up to more conservative mental numbness.
Andrew T. on 16 Jan 2008 at 5:45 pm #
Weaver,
Thatcher was a conservative. If you’re looking for a British Prime Minister that’s anywhere as good as Thatcher in the near future, don’t get your hopes up.
Weaver on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:23 pm #
A free-trading, open-borders “conservative…”
I know, I know: like Reagan, how wonderful…
She spoke of ending immigration and of how even the National Front should join her as this book argues page 210, but she never lived up to her promises.
Andrew T. on 17 Jan 2008 at 1:17 am #
Nothing too bad about free-trading (=/= NAFTA or EU).
I can forgive her on her immigration position. The backdrop for immigration policy was somewhat different back then. We’re not all Tancredos, after all.
The National Front is really a semi-fascist party. Why would you want to work with that element?
Weaver on 17 Jan 2008 at 2:22 am #
I don’t like the National Front, though the BNP has moved in a direction I approve of, but my point was she catered to anti-immigration activists and then gave them nothing.
She did what big business politicians always do: promise conservatives the world, while giving them nothing and even stabbing them in the back.
Andrew T. on 17 Jan 2008 at 5:36 am #
The BNP has moved in a direction you approve of? Let’s see, here are some of the party’s current policies:
-Reintroduction of capital punishment for petty, minor crimes
-All citizens must serve in involuntary military conscription
-Phony “right to bear arms”. I quote: “all citizens, upon completion of compulsory national service, are to maintain a standard-issue military assault rifle and live ammunition in their home.”
-Heavy corporatist, protectionist economic regulation
-Holocaust denial
-Exile all Muslims from the UK
-View everything through a racial lens
Pretty ridiculous direction, in my book. And you’d be ridiculous to sanction such goons.
Weaver on 17 Jan 2008 at 5:48 am #
1. This is Britain we’re discussing, not America.
2. They favor voluntary repatriation.
3. I’m all but certain it does not deny the Holocaust; the BNP is extremely Jewish friendly, allying with them against the Muslims. I’m not sure what website you’re getting your info from, but if it ends in Poverty Law Center or Defamation League… well, you deserve to be misinformed.
4. I’ve always thought such right to bear arms is ideal, such is the Swiss example. I think the gun freedoms in the US are second best, because our citizens have no training but our government is too crazy to create a better solution.
5. military conscription is or was used in Israel and Switzerland, and its purpose is entirely defensive as far as the BNP goes. There hasn’t been a conflict the BNP yet likes, its blood-and-soil and claims only the British Isles as its rightful territory, and I doubt it’d mind secession and decentralisation provided immigrants aren’t allowed in. You’ll find BNP-type nationalists actually care for their people and their troops, especially those who’s own children serve or have served in the military. Wars are a trait of the modern global state’s desire for empire and universal human rights (all living everywhere have rights to ___ fill in blank.) The British Empire was a mistake as far as nationalists are concerned, because it was destined to fall as all empires do. Empires are not sustainable, and those who love their nations do not wish to build them, because such inevitably leads to harm against their own as Rome suffered and as Britain suffered.
6. The BNP leans distributist and I’m very much protectionist. It does not tend to favor the powerful businesses of Britain, which work so hard to make money at Britain’s expense. The danger of powerful business is it seeks profit at the expense of others, however the goal of distributism is to break up this power, preventing any from making significant profits at the nation’s expense, thus eliminating the warfare-healthcare corporate powers.
===
You’ve got the BNP figured wrong. Many of the criticisms you’re associating with nationalism are in fact more pronounced in the modern international state. Europe and America are very much corporatist in the bad sense, and the term can be misapplied and blurred into distributism by those who fail to realise the entire purpose of distributism is to prevent the abuses we suffer under today by corporatism. In purpose, distributism seeks to be the opposite of it.
The difference here is I believe capitalism leads to corporatism, while you believe distributism leads to corporatism. We’re at least both rejecting the same system.
Andrew T. on 17 Jan 2008 at 6:01 am #
Capitalism does not lead to corporatism, because the only way that capitalism exists as such is through voluntary private associations that are not aided and abetted by corporate welfare. Build a wall of separation between money and State. As soon as corporations begin to use the government lobby to gain subsidies, the definition of capitalism ceases to apply. I use capitalism only in the sense of market laissez-fair. Once again: our economic system is not capitalist.
The BNP leadership does indeed deny the Holocaust (an event that has irrefutable documentation and testimony). Nick Grifin, party leader is quoted as saying: “There is no doubt that hundreds, probably thousands of Jews were shot to death in Eastern Europe, because they were rightly or wrongly seen as communists or potential partisan supporters. That was awful. But this nonsense about gas chambers is exposed as a total lie.”
I believe there is a genuine European right that can move beyond the dead end of authoritarian silliness. Have you heard of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn? He was a truly brilliant man, who wrote articulately on many subjects. He is admired by many, including the Acton Institute, Chronicles Magazine, and the Mises Institute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Weaver on 17 Jan 2008 at 6:35 am #
Well, whatever he’s said in the past, the BNP is extremely Judeo-friendly atm. It even has Jewish councillors.
Both the far right in America and Europe are wary of Jews, so it shouldn’t be surprising if Griffin seems to actually believe the Holocaust didn’t happen as is said. Even Dr. Fleming at Chronicles, whom I strongly doubt is anti-semitic, has posted doubts about some of its claims (when criticising a prominent Holocaust denier in an article) though he says it’s not worth going into (too unPC), something bad did happen (whether 4million or 6million.)
Maybe Griffin decided the whole thing was a farce after discovering some falsities in it, or maybe he was attracted to the old National Front and decided to believe its propaganda. In any case, today he works closely with Jews. And that someone doubts the Holocaust does not mean someone hates Jews. It simply means that person holds an extremely unpopular political position. I’ve no reason to doubt the Holocaust, though I do know of a Confederate prison where Yankees starved to death because of a general lack of food, what little was there was given to the Confederate soldiers instead. So, if Griffin truly does deny the Holocaust, I’d want to hear his side before denouncing him for it – the man is just too amazing to dismiss over a historical debate at a whim, though perhaps it could be argued he’s mad if he’s denying obvious events.
If you look at him today, Griffin and the BNP work closely with Jews. And if you’re concerned for Jews, that’s what to look at. It’s perfectly understandable for a Jew to be wary of white Christians, however the greater threat in Britain atm is Muslims, especially among the general populace because while the far right leadership might tend to be wary of Jews, the populace isn’t.
Weaver on 17 Jan 2008 at 6:36 am #
Btw, what’s your source for that quote? I just doubt he’d be dumb enough to say that, unless he was very young at the time.
Weaver on 17 Jan 2008 at 10:23 am #
Incredible guy. I’ll read his The Menace of the Herd. Learning to speak and to read so many different languages seems excessive though impressive.
Andrew T. on 17 Jan 2008 at 6:14 pm #
Griffin said that in 1997. This is the source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8QQwU00Jk
Weaver on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:02 am #
Bah, that was when he was younger. It’s been over 10 years since then.
I might understand criticism of the BNP for having a leader who’d take such a stance, if there was an alternative. However, for better or worse, there’s no other party that wishes to reduce immigration into Britain.
The Holocaust is just a historical issue, and there’s no one else in Britain who gives a damn for Britain. It’s pretty much globalists v. BNP.
Andrew T. on 18 Jan 2008 at 5:20 am #
There are a bunch of other far-right parties in Britain. Most of them are explicitly raciailist and are for Nazeism either explicitly or by association. BNP used to be just like that, but they’ve been castrated a little bit under Griffin’s tutelage because they want to have an actual shot at parliament (not that it’s worked, of course. They haven’t a single seat in Parliament).
Weaver on 18 Jan 2008 at 11:23 pm #
The BNP wins local councillors though and currently runs the most popular political website in Britain.
It’s both Christian (as opposed to Nazi) and emphasises decentralisation (not fascist.) It is true that the National Front which the BNP evolved from was fascist, but the current BNP just cannot be labeled that.
Anyway, fascism hasn’t been as destructive as has communism, so the Labour Party ought to scare people even more, even though it’s no longer as socialist and has now decided that free trade and corporatism accomplish its globalist goals better, as have most of the left it seems.
Weaver on 18 Jan 2008 at 11:46 pm #
If you’ve taken any political science courses, you’ll know that fascism is portrayed as the only alternative to Marxism. Traditional alternatives are wholly ignored, though there’s a small space for them in the “reactionary” category.
Traditionalists are easily attracted to fascism as the only alternative, the only defense against modern nihilism. That’s not to say that all fascists are good traditionalists but rather that many of them are not monsters, they’ve simply been lured into a monster. The BNP however has reformed itself, and is no longer a monster as it was when it was the National Front.
Anyway, Richard Weaver opposed miscegenation, T.S. Eliot thought a populace being of the same ethnic and religious makeup is for the best, Aristotle either recommended or at least mentioned how citizens ought to be descended from citizens on both sides of their family, Plato obviously thought the same of citizenship as the previous, John Calhoun (whom I might be related to, I’ve some Calhouns in my family…) defended slavery…
And obviously I don’t like immigration into Britain. It should be perfectly understandable that I’d be drawn to the BNP. Britain has learned the golden rule of empires – they always fall; hopefully it will remember this lesson. The only concern I have of the BNP is that it would turn Britain again towards empire. I’ve never lost sleep over Griffin’s true thoughts of the Holocaust… The Jews were expelled from Britain once, but I doubt they’ll be expelled again. And if it is thought likely that the BNP would do so when given the chance, it’s all but certain that Muslims would do such. Judging by how many jews are supposed to be in the BNP today, they must have decided it was less dangerous atm than the largely anti-semitic immigrants. And if the immigration continues unabated, the Muslims will probably win the country.