Short Bio: I started blogging about politics in 2006, as a populist, skeptical left of center type, with a blog called simply, "The Populist."I suspect, but cannot prove; that my blog might have been hacked by some evil neoconservatives. I cannot prove that at all and also too, around the same time. Hackers from China where attacking wordpress blogs. I believe either the Neocons or the Chinese got my site. I don't know honestly know which.Either way, by 2007, I began to see that I really did not fit within the Democrat Party and liberal circles and after my blog was hacked; I created a blog called "Political Byline" and I kept writing; first as a Centrist and then as a Conservative PopulistFor my long bio, see the "About Me" section on this blog.
This comes via Gateway Pundit; an update to a story that I published about a week ago or so, about two black Teenagers who beat a white kid —- for sitting in the wrong seat.
Two Belleville West High School students were charged under the juvenile code today with felony counts of aggravated battery stemming from the violent beating of a 17-year-old student on a school bus earlier this week.
The incident grabbed national headlines and incited a heated debate about race when police said the incident, involving a white victim and black assailants, may have been racially motivated. They later recanted that claim.
The two teenagers—who are 14 and 15 years-old—were charged as juveniles because they are under the age of 17. Illinois law shields the disclosure of their names because they are minors.
Juvenile courts are more informal and private than adult courts. Juvenile court records are not available to the general public.
Jim is happy about it. But I do not think that it is enough. I believe these kids should be charged with hate crimes as well. Because it is quite obvious to me that this beating was racially motivated. I mean, why else would two black kids beat up a white kid? I mean, Black President is in the White House; so, why not beat up a white kid? It just makes sense to me. They should be tried on hate crimes.
The fact is folks; that given the chance, most blacks will beat up a white person. It is seen by blacks as a chance to get back at the white man for the way that the black man was treated for years. But the way our socialist liberal justice system is rigged, things are just not right. You let a group of black men beat up a white man and it is treated as a normal assault; but you let a group of white men, beat a black man; and it is automatically treated as a hate crime. A frightening example of this is the Christian Newsom murders that took place back in 2007. Tennessee was absolutely cowardly for not tossing in a hate crime charge, on top of the murder charges as well. Thus a perfect example of the absolute hypocritical state of our justice system in this Country.
It is, truly, a sad state of a affairs in this Country of ours.
Irving Kristol, the political commentator who, as much as anyone, defined modern conservatism and helped revitalize the Republican Party in the late 1960s and early ’70s, setting the stage for the Reagan presidency and years of conservative dominance, died Friday in Arlington, Va. He was 89 and lived in Washington.
His son, William Kristol, the commentator and editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, said the cause of death was complications of lung cancer.
Mr. Kristol exerted an influence across generations, from William F. Buckley to the columnist David Brooks, through a variety of positions he held over a long career: executive vice president of Basic Books, contributor to The Wall Street Journal, professor of social thought at New York University, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
He was commonly known as the godfather of neoconservatism, even by those who were not entirely sure what the term meant. In probably his most widely quoted comment — his equivalent of Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame — Mr. Kristol defined a neoconservative as a liberal who had been “mugged by reality.”
[….]
By now Mr. Kristol was battling on several fronts. He published columns and essays attacking liberalism and the counterculture from his perches at The Wall Street Journal and The Public Interest, and in 1978 he and William E. Simon, President Nixon’s secretary of the treasury, formed the Institute for Educational Affairs to funnel corporate and foundation money to conservative causes. In 1985 he started The National Interest, a journal devoted to foreign affairs.
But Mr. Kristol wasn’t railing just against the left. He criticized America’s commercial class for upholding greed and selfishness as positive values. He saw “moral anarchy” within the business community, and he urged it to take responsibility for itself and the larger society. He encouraged businessmen to give money to political candidates and help get conservative ideas across to the public. Republicans, he said, had for half a century been “the stupid party,” with not much more on their minds than balanced budgets and opposition to the welfare state. He instructed them to support economic growth by cutting taxes and not to oppose New Deal institutions.
Above all, Mr. Kristol preached a faith in ordinary people. . “It is the self-imposed assignment of neoconservatives,” he wrote, “to explain to the American people why they are right, and to the intellectuals why they are wrong.”
Mr. Kristol saw religion and a belief in the afterlife as the foundation for the middle-class values he championed. He argued that religion provided a necessary constraint to antisocial, anarchical impulses. Without it, he said, “the world falls apart.” Yet Mr. Kristol’s own religious views were so ambiguous that some friends questioned whether he believed in God. In 1996, he told an interviewer: “I’ve always been a believer.” But, he added, “don’t ask me in what.”
“That gets too complicated,” he said. “The word ‘God’ confuses everything.”
In 2002, Mr. Kristol received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, often considered the nation’s highest civilian honor. It was another satisfying moment for a man who appears to have delighted in his life or, as Andrew Sullivan put it, “to have emerged from the womb content.”
He once said that his career had been “one instance of good luck after another.” Some called him a cheerful conservative. He did not dispute it. He had had much, he said, “to be cheerful about.”
I will not lie. I did not agree with Mr. Kristol’s Politics or his version of Conservatism. In fact, I have been known to make a crack at people on other blogs; when they were spewing stupidity, especially the George W. Bush Cheerleaders, I would always say, “Where did you learn that line? From Bill or Irving Kristol?” or something usually to that effect. Some of Irving Kristol’s ideology was very controversial; like the desire for a full scale invasion of Iran; of which I found to be horrifically stupid. Thankfully, Bush’s people agreed. Much of his ideology can be summed up as Wilsonian; the man believed that war was the answer, always. I disagreed then and I still do.
However, it is not to say that Kristol was a total loss; He did work to take the Conservative movement away from the Anti-Semites within the Republican Party. He also exposed and expelled the blatant racists that had taken root since the days of Abraham Lincoln. Between Kristol and Buckley; Conservatism become a bit more intellectual and not the knuckle-dragging simpleton nonsense that it has become now; Sarah Palin being a perfect example.
May God Bless the man, I am sure will be missed. May he rest in peace.
As if obsessively policing 400-comment threads for any hint of disagreement weren’t enough to satisfy the paranoia of Pol Pot, how does Johnson find the psychic energy to moonlight as Internet Commissar of Affiliation-Investigation?
Okay, this is where I feel the need to say, “Whoa! Hold it Minute Doc!”
Let me explain something to Robert and to those who happen to follow the link over from his blog. My issue with Charles Foster Johnson is NOT with his banning people from his blog, okay? I do it, everyone who gives two farks about their blog not being overrun with trolls does it. Actually, I do not really ban people. If someone posts what I feel to be a overly stupid troll-like comment. I simply put their IP address into a “This is an idiot user “Filter” and it moderates their comment. I use it sparingly, if it at all. But there are times, when I must.
Now this is where I lean into my libertarian part of me. I believe in individual freedom; and that freedom includes the right to ban people, that you feel are being idiots on your blog. Granted, Charles Johnson’s banning of some can be characterized as poor Judgment. (…and believe me, I am being incredibility nice here.) But, as much as it grinds many of us of dislike Charles Johnson and his attacking of those fighting in the struggle against Jihad; it is Charles Johnson’s right to ban whom he wishes. After all guys, it is his blog, he does pay the bandwidth bill.
My issue with Charles Johnson is this. As JoshuaPundit; who has a very nice looking blog, by the way — points out very well, it is because of Charles Johnson’s slandering those who stand up to President Obama’s socialist Domestic polices. Including people like Jim Hoft and Pamela Geller. THAT and only THAT was the reason why I ran the ads and came out in defense of McCain and those on the side of Anti-Jihad.
So, let me clear, (Until my teleprompter breaks and I forget what I am going to say… *tee hee*) My issue is not with Banning, as I feel it is any blog owners right to do so. It is with the personal attacks. That is why I support McCain and Co. As much as I know that Charles Johnson’s Banning is Douche Nozzle’ish in Nature, it is his right as a blog owner and I have no quarrel with that, at all.
The Friday Church News Notes is designed for use in churches and is published by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Unless otherwise stated, the Notes are written by David Cloud. Of necessity we quote from a wide variety of sources, but this does not imply an endorsement. For instructions on how to unsubscribe to this list or to change mailing addresses, please consult the information paragraph at the end.
A WARNING ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATION WORK TODAY (Friday Church News Notes, September 18, 2009, www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – The amount of Bible translation work that has occurred over the past 100 years appears impressive. In 1910, the Bible in whole or in part was available in 722 languages, whereas today the number is roughly 2,500. The problem is two-fold. First, the vast majority of the new translations are based on the exceedingly corrupt critical Greek text, which omits 2,886 words from the Greek Received Text upon which the old Reformation Bibles were based. This is equivalent to omitting the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter from the Bible. These omissions include 45 entire and 185 partial verses and have significant doctrinal implications (Everett Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament). Further, the modern translation methodology itself is corrupt. Created by Eugene Nida fifty years ago, it is called “dynamic equivalency.” By this method, the translator is allowed to take frightful liberties with the infallible words of God, modifying and adapting the Scripture to “the culture.” The dynamic equivalency methodology even adopts pagan names for God. For example, the United Bible Societies and Wycliffe Bible Translators have used the following names for God: In Samba of Africa they used Nyaama (the sun); in Lame in Chad they used Yafray (mother of the heavens); in Ga in Ghana they used Ataa Naa Nyonmo (the father mother God). Philip Noss of the American Bible Society says, “God reveals himself through his word and through each culture” (“Bible Translation in History and into the Future,” Lausanne World Pulse, September 2009). (For more on this see the report “Dynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and Errors” at the Way of Life web site.)
EPISCOPAL NUNS JOIN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (Friday Church News Notes, September 18, 2009, www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – Ten nuns of the Episcopal Church in America joined the Roman Catholic Church this month. The nuns, from the All Saints Sisters of the Poor of Maryland, left the Episcopal Church because it has “become too liberal in its acceptance of homosexuality” (“Episcopal Nuns Leave,” USA Today, Sept. 9, 2009). The community’s chaplain, Warren Tanghe, also joined Rome. Christina Christie, the order’s superior, said, “We were drifting farther apart from the more liberal road the Episcopal Church is traveling. We are now more at home in the Roman Catholic Church.” In truth, they have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The Roman Catholic Church is not only permeated with its own heresies (e.g., the papacy, a sacramental gospel, veneration of Mary, priests who allegedly stand in the place of Chris t, the transubstantiation of the mass wafer), it is also filled with theological modernism. Pope John Paul II stated that the theory of evolution must be taken seriously by Christians (Vatican Information Service, October 23, 1996). Pope Benedict XVI calls Mary “Heaven’s Gate” (“All can enter eternal life, but the door is narrow,” Catholic News Agency, Aug. 27, 2007). As for homosexuality, it has been stated that 50% of Roman Catholic seminarians in America are homosexual (David France, “Gay and the Seminary,” Newsweek, April 20, 2002). This article describes “an aggressive gay ethos.” The total payout for sex abuse by the Roman Catholic Church in America is well over $2 billion. A conservative Catholic organization documented this wretched business in the fall/winter 2002 issue of the magazine Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, observing, “… the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church–about 90%–inv olve homosexual priests preying on teenage boys.” By forbidding to marry (among other things), Rome has long identified itself as an institution that has departed from the faith and that is giving heed to doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1-4).
I realize that this Blog entry is not going to do much for my Conservative Credentials; not that I honestly give two flips about that. But I happened to notice this little entry over at the White House Blog.
President Barack Obama stands with Paul and Janet Monti as he posthumously awards their son, Army Sgt. 1st. Class Jared C. Monti from Raynham, Mass., the Medal of Honor for his service in Afghanistan during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009.
Quote:
Today the President awarded Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in the East Room of the White House. Sergeant First Class Monti received the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroic actions in combat in Afghanistan, which the President recounted alongside his parents Paul and Janet Monti.
Here is a portion of the President’s comments, of which you can read the full thing here.
That’s when Jared Monti did what he was trained to do. With the enemy advancing — so close they could hear their voices — he got on his radio and started calling in artillery. When the enemy tried to flank them, he grabbed a gun and drove them back. And when they came back again, he tossed a grenade and drove them back again. And when these American soldiers saw one of their own — wounded, lying in the open, some 20 yards away, exposed to the approaching enemy — Jared Monti did something no amount of training can instill. His patrol leader said he’d go, but Jared said, “No, he is my soldier, I’m going to get him.”
It was written long ago that “the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet, notwithstanding, go out to meet it.” Jared Monti saw the danger before him. And he went out to meet it.
He handed off his radio. He tightened his chin strap. And with his men providing cover, Jared rose and started to run. Into all those incoming bullets. Into all those rockets. Upon seeing Jared, the enemy in the woods unleashed a firestorm. He moved low and fast, yard after yard, then dove behind a stone wall.
A moment later, he rose again. And again they fired everything they had at him, forcing him back. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire, Jared could have stayed where he was, behind that wall. But that was not the kind of soldier Jared Monti was. He embodied that creed all soldiers strive to meet: “I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” And so, for a third time, he rose. For a third time, he ran toward his fallen comrade. Said his patrol leader, it “was the bravest thing I had ever seen a soldier do.”
They say it was a rocket-propelled grenade; that Jared made it within a few yards of his wounded soldier. They say that his final words, there on that ridge far from home, were of his faith and his family: “I’ve made peace with God. Tell my family that I love them.”
And then, as the artillery that Jared had called in came down, the enemy fire slowed, then stopped. The patrol had defeated the attack. They had held on — but not without a price. By the end of the night, Jared and three others, including the soldier he died trying to save, had given their lives.
I’m told that Jared was a very humble guy; that he would have been uncomfortable with all this attention; that he’d say he was just doing his job; and that he’d want to share this moment with others who were there that day. And so, as Jared would have wanted, we also pay tribute to those who fell alongside him: Staff Sergeant Patrick Lybert. Private First Class Brian Bradbury. Staff Sergeant Heathe Craig.
And we honor all the soldiers he loved and who loved him back — among them noncommissioned officers who remind us why the Army has designated this “The Year of the NCO” in honor of all those sergeants who are the backbone of America’s Army. They are Jared’s friends and fellow soldiers watching this ceremony today in Afghanistan. They are the soldiers who this morning held their own ceremony on an Afghan mountain at the post that now bears his name — Combat Outpost Monti. And they are his “boys” — surviving members of Jared’s patrol, from the 10th Mountain Division — who are here with us today. And I would ask them all to please stand. (Applause.)
Like Jared, these soldiers know the meaning of duty, and of honor, of country. Like Jared, they remind us all that the price of freedom is great. And by their deeds they challenge every American to ask this question: What we can do to be better citizens? What can we do to be worthy of such service and such sacrifice?
Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti. In his proud hometown of Raynham, his name graces streets and scholarships. Across a grateful nation, it graces parks and military posts. From this day forward, it will grace the memorials to our Medal of Honor heroes. And this week, when Jared Monti would have celebrated his 34th birthday, we know that his name and legacy will live forever, and shine brightest, in the hearts of his family and friends who will love him always.
May God bless Jared Monti, and may He comfort the entire Monti family. And may God bless the United States of America.
For all of the criticisms that I level at President Obama; this is not one of them. I truly believe that President Obama “Gets it”; when it comes to loss of life in the Military. More so, than even President Bush. I believe sometimes, that Bush used the Military as a photo prop or even to boost his ratings. To me, as a writer who was and still is, far way from the beltway, it always seemed like Bush was posing, when appearing with Military personnel. I could be wrong on this, but I highly doubt it. Obama does genuinely care. I can tell this. He respects the men and woman who risk and ultimately give their lives for the Military and more broadly for their Country. To me, that strikes me as Obama being a “Truman Democrat”. I truly believe that Obama dislikes the notion of war. But he also understands that War is necessary for the preservation of the Republic. I also notice that Obama has stepped up to the plate in the Afghanistan war. The President knows that the situation in that country is extremely complex; even more so now, that it was when Bush ordered the invasion.
It has also been observed that President Obama has shrugged off the far left’s insistence that President should pull our ground troops out of Afghanistan and solve the Afghanistan war though diplomacy. Something that this writer highly disagrees with. There is only one way to deal with terrorists and Al-Qeada and that is with the end of gun or a missile. President Obama knows this and has; so far, stepped up the plate and made it quite clear that he intends to carry that fight on. As a Conservative and someone who believes that the war on terror is a reality, this is a welcome quality as a President and I personally commend him for that.
This is not to say that I do not have issues with his domestic polices. I do. I disagree with a good portion of it. But his policy when it comes to the war on terror and his respect for our Nation’s Military is not something you will find me criticizing at all.
So, on the behalf of this Conservative writer and supporter of our Nation’s Military; Thank you Mr. President and please, Keep it up.
………….Attorney General Eric Holder, who played a role in the Clinton pardons of Weather Underground members, may be reluctant to prosecute former political associates of the President, but if the FBI pursues the case and brings the evidence forward, there may be no other alternative.
If President Obama himself wants to see justice done—and he claims he didn’t agree with the Weather Underground’s campaign of violence and bombings—it would be easy enough for him to order Holder to bring forth all of the available evidence in the case.
If CIA officers can be investigated for treating terrorists harshly, why can’t terrorist bombers now running around the Chicago area teaching college students be brought to justice for killing a policeman?
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
