Site Meter
Share

The Tea Party Movement has been co-opted by Glenn Beck, Ron Paul Bot libertarians.  If allowed to continue, unchecked, they are going to destroy any hope of retaking either the House or the Senate in 2010.  They will doom our nation, destroy it, by allowing Barack Obama to cake-walk over the American People.

Libertarians are losers.

They have NEVER won.

They cannot win.

All they can do is siphon votes off various GOP tickets and turn elections over to the Democrats.  The perfect example of this is in Minnesota and Senator Al Franken.

Libertarians are now claiming that the September 12 Tea Party was a triumph for Libertarians, Ronald Reagan, Bob Barr, and Sarah Palin.  Their current “puppetmaster” is Richard Viguerie.

RACIST RIGHT

A war between Little Green Footballs and the far far extreme right has begun over Robert Stacy McCain.  It seems there are those in the far right who just don’t want to admit that their current little darling, Robert Stacy McCain is an out and out racist, who worked for the WTimes and has connections to the very worst of them.

The Pink Flamingo has an entire archive about these individuals.  Just follow the bouncing ball.  LGF is right on this story.

BETRAYED BY FOX

Fox is not longer “fair and balanced.

Any myth that FOX is fair and balanced ended on Friday.  For months The Pink Flamingo has been noticing the decidedly anti-Republican turn FOX News has taken. Please name one regular REPUBLICAN commentator or anchor with the exception of Mike Huckabee.  There is NOT one.

Democrats:  Shephard Smith, Brett Baier, Chris Wallace, Alan Combs
Conservatives:  Sean  Hannity,  the morning crew, Gregg Gutfield, Fred Barnes, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer
Independents: Greta Van Susteren, Bill O’Reilly has a man-crush on Obama
Libertarian:  Glenn Beck (is in love with himself), Judge Napolitano, Neil Cavuto, Jonathan Hoenig, Alexis Glick  (Napolitano is a Ron Paul Bot)
Far Right Conservatives:  Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce, Laura Ingraham
Palin-Haters:  Niccole Wallace

There is not one NORMAL Republican with the exception of Mike Huckabee, Ann Coulter is a Republican but reasonable?  Geraldo Rivera is a liberal Republican who is an Obama-lover.

Now we learn that John Stossel, yet another Republican hating Libertarian is joining FOX.  He will be hosting a show for libertarians.

LIBERTARIANS WILL DESTROY THE US

Right now, the fight is about the survival of our nation and our freedom.

For those who don’t get it, the ongoing battle some conservatives and libertarians see fit to wage, to prove who is the most “pure” conservative, and who is the heir to Reagan is a joke.  They are a joke.

This is a battle for our future.

It is about freedom.

It is about preserving our very lives, I am terribly afraid.

It is not about who who has a 90% ACU rating or who in the Senate is the most conservative voice.

This is a battle against the forces of evil, for we truly are up against evil.  It is a battle against evil, disturbed and twisted men and women who are interested only in their pocketbook and their absolute power.

Perhaps as a nation we are being tested to see if we deserve to survive.  If so, and we don’t get our act together and work together, maybe we don’t deserve to survive as a nation.

This is also a test of faith.

PURE CONSERVATIVES ONLY

Have you ever wondered who is calling the shots on just which Republican is “Pure” and just who isn’t?  Case in point.  Lindsey is treated like dirt by conservatives who absolutely adore Fred Thompson.  Lindsey’s lifetime ACU rating is higher than Thompson’s, but Lindsey is not “pure”.

“Over the course of his time in Congress he [Former Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)] earned a lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union of 86 percent. He was not quite as conservative (using 2002 numbers) as Rick Santorum (87), Strom Thurmond (91), Trent Lott (93), or Jesse Helms (99), but more conservative than Arlen Specter (42), Olympia Snowe (52), John Warner (82), and John McCain (84). [Yet, Hayes says: “(h)is voting record suggests a strong belief in federalism.”]…

The perfect example of the dastardly behavior of certain hard right conservatives is the way Lindsey is treated.  Case in point.

The “Conservative” Civil War has everything to do with anyone who does not agree and march lock-step with them.  They’re also not honest about things.  The prefect example of this is a column by Zbigniew Mazurak on “The Reality Check” – which is as far from reality…

Marurak wrote about the following:

“…the „moderates”. These people say that if the GOP is to become competitive, it must adopt „moderate” (i.e. liberal) policies on the issues – ranging from a Cap and Tax scheme, to a weak military, to bailouts, to raising federal spending, to enacting stimuluses, to banishing oil corporations from the ANWR and the OCS. These people are led by John McCain, David Frum, Lindsay Graham, Arnold Schwarzennegger, Mitch Daniels and Kathleen Parker….”

What a lie.  Lindsey is straight down the line conservative on every one of these issues.  That’s the problem.  Conservatives who read bunk like Newsmax and World Net Daily are terribly ill-informed, know-nothings who DO NOT have the best wishes of the GOP in their heart.

E. J. Dionne wrote some serious and true words about the GOP. If something isn’t done about the extremists trying to either take it over, or destroy it, we’re doomed.  The good news for the GOP is only 9% of Americans view themselves as “Very Conservative”.  Unfortunately this 9% wants to control the whole GOP.  NINE PERCENT – GET IT?  31% see themselves as “conservative”.  BUT – 35% see themselves as moderate.  Get that?

Please don’t confuse the beginnings of a civil war between conservatives as a civil war within the GOP.  It is about self-righteous conservatives who don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit they are not Republican, but will do anything possible to destroy good Republicans.

There is a fight looming within the far right.  They want a purge of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Rush Limbaugh was feuding with Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes because they criticized him.  Roger Simon is annoyed with Rush and Sarah Palin.  (I do agree with him about Glenn Beck).  He wrote:

“...It doesn’t matter what you say, as long as it is over the top and beneath contempt. “Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate,” Limbaugh said. “Hitler said he didn’t need to meet with his Cabinet; he represented the will of the people. He was called the messiah. He said the people spoke through him.”

Which means, I guess, if Hitler were alive today, he would be a talk show host…”

OUCH!

Hill Buzz is now calling Libertarians “Diaper Babies”.  I’m loving it – and what a perfect description!  It works for me.  Remember, these are the people who are responsible for “Senator Franken”.

“…Can the diaper babies cut the screaming and wailing long enough to see the reason in this?  Or will they take their toys and go play with a “Libertarian” candidate on the third party route, the way they threaten (and guarantee a Democrat win in the seat)? It’s frustrating this same nonsense plays out again and again in this town, but it’s the diaper babies’ favorite game, to be sure….”

THE ATTACK OF THE RON PAUL BOTS

A group of Ron Paul Bots, who have NEVER been affiliated with the GOP, have managed to get themselves elected to control a county committee.  Naturally a lawsuit is in the works.

“...six other “Constitutional Republicans” were ineligible for election to the committee because they hadn’t been affiliated with the Republican Party for at least three months before their candidacy filing dates, and/or because they’d belonged to other parties within a year before filing, in violation of the state Elections Code….”

They have their undies in a wad because a group of Ron Paul Bots, pretending to be Libertarian Republicans have been shown the door in Florida. They’re nuts.

“…One of the chief complaints of the state’s Republican Party officials was the attendance and promotion of Ron Paul conventions and meetings. Does this mean that Florida’s Republican Party does not recognize Dr. Paul as a member of the party? Lindsey Graham, South Carolina’s flamboyant Republican Senator, who has gained recognition from the Obama administration recently over his support of Sotomayor and the government’s health care proposal, has also targeted Ron Paul in several speeches….”

Share

12 Comments

  • theJAMs says:

    Maybe if “True” Republicans would act more like Republicans, than the Libertarian movement wouldn’t be getting some much traction. The traction is there because you can not tell the difference in most Republicans and the Democrats! Until more of us take to the streets to demand REAL change, there won’t be any. And there has been any since Regan left office. One side is just as corrupt as the other as they hose all us not in the Beltway!

  • Jimmie says:

    Just a couple points.

    First, fans of Ron Paul and fans of Glenn Beck are not synonymous.

    Second, Glenn Beck can take a large measure of triumph for the 9/12 march because he, of all the media figures, promoted it the hardest. Glenn is, as you noted, a libertarian.

    Third, I criticize Graham not because of his conservatism but because of his recent voting record, which, if you are being honest with yourself, has been decidedly compromise-minded of late. He also helped saddle us with one of the worst Republican Presidential candidates in recent memory. Remember, if not for Lindsey Graham and like-minded Republicans, the Democrats would not have been able to keep peoplle like Miguel Estrada off the bench. Graham helped the Democrats play the racial card. bad mojo for Lindsey.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    Lindsey is one of the most out-spoken leaders in the country combating Obama. He did not “help saddle” us with McCain. That is absolutely insane. Lindsey is not that powerful. He did NOT try to keep Miguel Estrada off the bench. He does NOT play the race card. That is a total lie.

    SJR

  • Bob D says:

    The author demonstrates an amazing misunderstanding of Ron Paul libertarianism. He equates Ron with neocons like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck! News flash for Pink Flamingo blithering idiots! Ron Paul is not a warmonger. He is the only one of the bunch who stands up against their views consistently.

  • This is a more fundamental struggle than you’re apparently capable of understanding or being able to mentally deal with, SJR.

    Despite your straw dogs (like accusing libertarians’ support of neo-cons like Fred Thompson) most are, in fact, very consistent in their cynical view of politics and politicians not, for the most part, being blinded by partisan insipidness.

    Your accusations that libertarians “cannot win” seems to forget that we have not yet seen the end of history. You, nor anyone else, can know with absolute certainty if our country will even exist in a few years much less which party or people will win elections. For example, throw terrorist nukes on D.C. and N.Y.C. into the equation and tell me what you get after that.

    Between the neo-con Republicans and socialist Dems pushing us down the same road, I’m not betting we’ll make it another hundred years in one piece or in any form even superficially resembling our Founding Fathers’ collective aspirations.

    You can have rule of law or you can have oligarchy (or some other sort of tyranny) in this country. We have oligarchy now and really need to return to the rule of law (U.S. Constitution).

    Jim Clyburn recently openly admitted that Congress routinely ignores the Constitution and, instead of members following their oaths of office, leaves the enforcement of that document up to the unelected members of the Supreme Court.

    None of the three branches of government is exempt from following/enforcing/promoting the Supreme Law of the Land. That is, according to their oaths to “protect and defend,” their first duty.

    SJR, where you lose the argument to a reasonable mind is your insistence on the Republican brand of socialism/fascism over the Democrat brand of the same. Your fanatical whining and hysterics is typical team sports politics.

    Our goal, on the other hand, is simply enforcement of the U.S. Constitution. In that argument, prima facie, you lose.

    Even if your team “wins,” the ultimate struggle, you lose–as do we all in such a case. If the Republicans are just a little less fascist/socialist than the Dems as Lindsey Graham is, then there’s no use supporting the Republicans, either.

    The only way the Republicans will ever again hope to distinguish themselves from the Dems is to go back to basic Constitutional government and give the power back to the people instead of handing control of our lives and our money over to arrogant politicians like Gaham and soulless corporations.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    The Pink Flamingo is a neocon!

    I completely disapprove of Ron Paul because of his anti-war stance.

    SJR

  • Is anyone REALLY “pro-war?”

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    It is my impression that libertarian like Paul are isolationists who don’t give a rip about national security. We live in a world where you can’t simply ignore what is going on. Our world is like a game of Risk. If you aren’t capable of defending your nation, you’re done.

    SJR

  • That’s the impression a lot of folks have when it is really just more gamesmanship on the part of neo-conservative types.

    Ron Paul would have voted for a declaration of war on Afghanistan but not on Iraq–for the reasons he has stated many times in the past. Unfortunately, the cowards in Congress have not declared war since December 1941. It’s easier for them to shift any potential blame to the President or the U.N., neither of whom have any Constitutional power to declare war for us.

    The “authorization” bills passed by Congress allow the President to wage the war on terror anywhere he wishes. This is illegal. They have handed over a responsibility that they are not allowed to delegate. The language in the Constitution leaves no room for doubt as to who must declare war.

    The sophistry used to justify this was laughable: the terrorists exist as organizations without countries or borders so that we can’t declare war against a country and defeat them. Well, strange then that we invaded and defeated, in sequence, Afghanistan and Iraq. Last time I checked, they were countries–with borders, even!

    I, myself, am a “military isolationist” in that:

    1. I do not want a large standing army.

    2. I want our army and air force here in and on our borders to defend us.

    3. I do not want to pay for the defense of wealthy European and asian countries.

    4. I do not want us to go to war due to entangling treaties.

    5. I do not want to police the world when we cannot afford it and when it puts us in an untenable, perpetual occupation of foreign countries.

    The military are for killing people and breaking things. They are not a police force. They cannot “rebuild” other countries. The should do their job, which they’ve already done having punished the enemy and destroyed the governments and killed or incarcerated those responsible.

    I have encountered way too many armchair military experts who cry that we cannot “lose face” by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan now. By the criteria that they set up for our “losing face” (apparently they want some sort of European style victory with little or no violence after our having won) we’ll be there forever. Those people will never stop such extremist violence. If they’re not doing it to us, they do it to themselves.

    (And I can’t get a straight answer from Lindsey Graham: are we at war with or are we just occupying those countries? If we’re at war, are we so incompetent as to not win in a matter of a very few years as we did in defeating the axis powers in WWII? If we’re occupying those countries then for what purposes except to funnel increasing amounts of taxpayer dollars to corporate interests? This reeks of a slow boil situation such as Vietnam where things are kept just hot enough to keep the dollars and blood flowing and nothing is ever finished by using enough force and/or by limiting our goals to begin with and )

    I despise the terrorists and their attacks on our country and think that we’ve already waged very successful punitive expeditions in retaliation against them. Now, let those countries recover–or not–on their own. I really don’t care any more than any other disinterested third party should care.

    It is far cheaper in dollars and lives–if you’ll compare the stats–to go in and defeat them again if they act up–as long as we don’t occupy these foreign countries for more than a few months at a time.

    We have to use common sense: we’ll never stop the terrorism in those countries. I would hope, if the situation were (theoretically) reversed, that Americans would fight just as hard to evict foreign occupiers so I can’t really blame, on a purely philosophical basis, individuals there for their fighting us in that situation. It is the duty of citizens of ANY country to resist foreign occupation. I would want to do far worse to them if they were to occupy us.

    I can and do despise what they’re fighting for and how they’re fighting (using women and children for example). However, until we have one soldier over there for every terrorist/potential terrorist(read “civilian”) then we’ll never stop the violence and even then our increased presence would just increase the terrorists’ recruiting efforts. Why abuse our military personnel by needlessly exposing them to violence and death when we’ve already accomplished all that we’ll ever accomplish there?

    Our goals when using the military have to be limited to what the military does best–killing, wounding, and capturing the enemy soldiers and destroying their industrial means of making war. Very little more is needed from them.

    We don’t need anything from Afghanistan–there’s nothing there. We don’t need Iraq’s oil and, even if we did, that does not justify aggression against them.

    As far as protecting our interests during peacetime, that’s what the US Navy is for. The recent trouble with the Somali pirates should have been handled from the very beginning by our navy. They have a long history of dealing with pirates.

    (Full disclosure: this is coming from a US Navy veteran who loves to see any branch of the military in action killing the enemy and breaking things but only when it’s justified and has gone through the legal process as intended by our Founders and as enshrined in the Supreme Law of the Land.)

    The U.S. government can’t just act as if part of the Constitution is obsolete or irrelevant. If it needs updating or changing, amendments should be made through the process described in the document itself. Until it is amended, we should enforce ALL of it and, as always, work to make sure any amendments and any other laws do not violate natural law.

    Such a duty of basic citizenship supersedes party loyalties when those loyalties ignore right and wrong on fundamental matters of law and morality.

  • SJR: “Our world is like a game of Risk. If you aren’t capable of defending your nation, you’re done.”

    I prefer to think of our country being like a fort on those old westerns. The problem is, we’ve left the front AND back gates open and are firing on the Indians, mixed in among our own and hitting both.

    Meanwhile, half the cavalry is off running the reservation instead of being available to fight the Indians who are attacking us here.

  • SJ Reidhead says:

    I gather you want hard-line immigration reform, right?

    I’ve always thought the average Ron Paul Bot & libertarian was on an ego trip.

    SJR

  • SJR :”I gather you want hard-line immigration reform, right?

    I’ve always thought the average Ron Paul Bot & libertarian was on an ego trip.”

    I merely want the current Federal laws enforced regarding illegal aliens and border control.

    No ‘bot nor ego trip here. I’ve always thought for myself as a mature adult and considered myself, as have many others =:>) a very humble fellow.

    True libertarianism is practically Constitutionalism–very little difference, IMHO. If anything, despite what some libertarian-minded individuals might do, it is the “anti-ego” party.

    We’re just asking that the law respects natural (God’s) law–as the Constitution mostly does–and that the laws, as Frédéric Bastiat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat ) in 1850 noted, are used only to negate injustice. That is, a law is a law AGAINST something and laws do not attempt to legalize plunder as they do on a regular basis today.

    Just asking that the law only negates injustice and that it is actually enforced is a very humble request, IMHO.

    True libertarians (not necessary Libertarian Party members) do not ask for favors and, indeed, REJECT favors from the state. That is also a very humble attitude in my opinion.

    I turn down and do not seek legalized plunder from the state. I also do not want anyone else to–at the Federal level at least. The states are free, under the Constitution, to have social programs including “safety nets,” medical insurance, whatever–or not.

    Almost every perversion of the law at the Federal level the typical neo-con or Christian conservative might rail against can be cured by going back to a true republican form of government. They seldom make the connection, however. Study, research, and careful thought might well replace reactionary exuberance if they ever do make the connection.

    Ironically, neo-conservatives often suggest a Federal solution at the level of government that caused the problem to begin with. True tolerance and diversity might actually be achieved in this country if the states were allowed to resume their proper roles. I’d rather have fifty experiments in democratic-republican government vs. a monolithic Federal government streamlining tyranny–no matter how slowly it advances.


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera