Category: Quotes of the Day

Quote of the Day

Kwame Kilpatrick is facing 33 counts:

• One count of racketeering conspiracy, punishable by up to 20 years in prison

• Nine counts of extortion, punishable by up to 20 years in prison; $250,000 fine

• Four counts of bribery, punishable by up to 10 years in prison; $250,000 fine

• 13 counts of mail and wire fraud, punishable by up to20 years in prison; $250,000 fine

• Five counts of filing false tax returns, punishable by up to three years in prison; $100,000 fine

• One count of income tax evasion, punishable by up to five years in prison

Chuck Baldwin minces no words about Paul Ryan

I have to like Chuck Baldwin, he does not mince words:

It has happened again. We go through this every four years, and every four years the vast majority of “conservatives” fall for it. This is such a broken record. What did Forrest Gump say: “Stupid is as stupid does”? And wasn’t it P.T. Barnum who said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”? Well, here we go again.

Neocon RINO George H.W. Bush picks “conservative” Dan Quayle. “Conservative” G.W. Bush picks neocon RINO Dick Cheney. Neocon RINO John McCain picks “conservative” Sarah Palin. Now, neocon RINO Mitt Romney picks “conservative” Paul Ryan. As long as there is one “conservative” on the ticket, mushy-headed “conservatives” across the country will go into a gaga, starry-eyed, hypnotic trance in support of the Republican ticket. I’m convinced that if Lucifer, himself, was the GOP Presidential candidate, he would get the support of the Religious Right and Republican “conservatives” as long as he selected a reputed “conservative” to join his ticket. And, by the way, the notable “conservative” wouldn’t think twice about joining such a ticket, either, I’m convinced.

Let’s just get this on the record: since 1960, there have only been two Presidential nominees (from the two major parties) who were not controlled by the globalist elitists. One was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; the other was a Republican, Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was shot and killed; Reagan was shot. Every other President, Democrat or Republican, has been totally controlled, which is why none of them have done diddly-squat to make a difference in the direction of the country. On the issues that really matter, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are just more of the same!

via Chuck Baldwin — Paul Ryan: More Of The Same.

He goes on to say that Ron Paul is the only one; and I disagree with that. However, I will say this; he is right about Romney and Ryan. Which is I am voting for:

Goode/Clymer in 2012

He will not win the election

But voting for anything else is simply Anti-American

Click here to Donate

 

 

Quote of the Day

I should state right here that when I first started off on my Grand Hollywood Adventure, I was a socially left leaning, moderate fiscal conservative, proudly independent, ignoring party affiliations and casting my ballot for whoever I thought was best for–or, in any case, would do the least damage to–my beloved country.

Had I been born a generation earlier, I would have described myself as a Kennedy Democrat. As it was, I suppose the Libertarian tag might fit, but I’ve always borne a healthy suspicion of anything that smacks of an “ideology.”

All that said, I was pretty much apolitical. The closest I came to studying issues was to pick up one of P.J. O’Rourke’s books for a giggle or two. But then, I also got a kick out of Michael Moore’s first film, Roger and Me. Politically, I was the proverbial wise-ass kid with a permanent seat in the rear of the classroom where I could safely heckle the nuns without collecting too many stripes across the back of my knuckles.

Then, on September 11th, 2001, everything changed.

I remember watching the collapse of the first tower and feeling–literally feeling the breath just leave my lungs, my chest filling with a terrible, ghastly void; a sense of distant screams in a windswept wasteland and loss loss loss oh my God all those people all those people they murdered all those thousands of people…

Though it was but seconds, it seemed minutes, many long minutes before I could draw a breath. I quietly excused myself and hurried to the bedroom to spare my young children the memory of seeing Daddy collapse helplessly into a series of horrified, aching, gut-wrenching sobs.

As soon as I’d composed myself, I rejoined my family. I really have no memory of the ensuing hours, only that my wife and I decided I should go to work, that we’d try to keep the kids calm by maintaining our normal schedules. Only God knew what the future held…

I was working my first network series gig as a staff writer on a show called Wolf Lake while Carnivale was in development at HBO.

I was greeted by coworkers in various states of shock, portable TVs turned to the news in all the offices. Like every American, I was approached by a number of colleagues who wished to vent and commiserate.

But unlike every American, my coworkers expressed little or no anger toward the terrorists who had committed this atrocity. Rather, they directed their vitriol towards American Imperialism, American foreign policy, American arrogance, American warmongering, American racism and, most of all, our American President, the evil, unfathomably stupid, idiot Christian, bumbling Texan oaf, George W. Bush.

And what did I say?

Nothing.

Not a damn thing.

I was just shocked silent. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Were these people crazy?

Quote of the Day

As it is the 29th of February, let me perform an uncustomary retraction. Looking back over the history of the last 10 years, through which I have been writing these columns, I’m now persuaded of a major misjudgment. While I supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq — still do, and “would do it again” without qualms — I see ever more clearly that the “Bush doctrine” of exporting “democracy” was an unnecessary mistake.

Our interests in these countries were military; we had dangerous enemies to destroy. That was achieved with dispatch by U.S. and allied forces: with remarkably few casualties all round. We had a continued interest in preventing the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, and in the destruction of Islamist cells in Iraq. All fine and good: these were necessary adventures, for the defence of legitimate western interests.

I was never comfortable with the grand bureaucratic project of “nation building” that followed. But while I hinted at my objections, I nevertheless conferred the benefit of the doubt on an American-led project, predicated on post-War successes in Germany and Japan.

In retrospect, the circumstances were so utterly different, and the times so utterly changed, that the mission was unachievable, and could only come to grief.

Quotes of the Day

(via)

—–

Speaking in Michigan today ahead of the state’s primary, Mitt Romney broke with his party’s generally universal opposition to organized labor, saying, “labor unions play an important role in our society.” He noted that they can provide training so their members can learn new skills, “so they’re an important part of America’s economy.” While Romney goes on to say he’s in favor of anti-union right to work legislation and opposes “union bosses,” it’s refreshing to hear a Republican acknowledge that labor unions can serve a legitimate and positive role in the country.

—-

On the brighter side: Maybe it’s a good sign that getting significant Democratic buy-in for this resolution took some strong-arming. According to Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now, the resolution got 15 Democratic supporters only “after days of intense AIPAC lobbying, particularly of what some consider ‘vulnerable’ Democrats (vulnerable in terms of being in races where their pro-Israel credentials are being challenged by the candidate running against them).” What’s more, even as AIPAC was playing this hardball, the bill’s sponsors still had to tone down some particularly threatening language in the resolution.

But, even so, the resolution defines keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapons “capability” as being in America’s “vital national interest,” which is generally taken as synonymous with “worth war.” And, though this “sense of Congress” resolution is nonbinding, AIPAC will probably seek unanimous Senate consent, which puts pressure on a president. Friedman says this “risks sending a message that Congress supports war and opposes a realistic negotiated solution or any de facto solution short of stripping Iran of even a peaceful nuclear capacity.”

What’s more, says Friedman, the non-binding status may be temporary. “Often AIPAC-backed Congressional initiatives start as non-binding language (in a resolution or a letter) and then show up in binding legislation. Once members of Congress have already signed on to a policy in non-binding form, it is much harder for them to oppose it when it shows up later in a bill that, if passed, will have the full force of law.”

No wonder Democrats who worry about war have the “jitters.”

——–

USA TODAY’s editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals. If our country doesn’t change, it could very well come to that one day

—–

Arpaio said he plans to endorse one of the four remaining GOP candidates in the coming weeks. But the sheriff added he would not make his choice known before he announces the findings of his birth certificate probe at a news conference set for March 1st. This endorsement would be his second in the race; in November 2011, he endorsed then-candidate Rick Perry.

Santorum, he said, seemed to have no problem with the nature of his investigation.

“He had no problems with what I told him that I may be doing,” Arpaio told reporters.

The sheriff said he is conducting the investigation after receiving requests from “the tea party.”

——

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.“

—–

SANTORUM: The next was the church. Now, you say, “Well, wait. The Catholic Church?” No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country, and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism. And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is a shambles.

That’s Rick Santorum August 29, 2008. That stuff is out there. It’s headlined on Drudge and the left has it, and Santorum will have to deal with it. He’ll have to answer it. I don’t know. It’s just not the kind of stuff you hear a presidential candidate talk about. It’s not ordinary in that sense. Snerdley says, “Yeah, yeah, it’s kind of refreshing.” Snerdley likes devil stuff. I mean, he watches movies about it. He has The Exorcist on a loop at home and it helps with his sciatic pain.

——

As Jeffrey Bell, author of the new book The Case for Polarized Politics, notes in a Wall Street Journal interview, Santorum’s style of social conservatism is deeply American. No other Western country saw the rise of such a social-conservative movement after the social upheaval of the 1960s. Bell traces American social conservatism back ultimately to the God-given natural rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. Sure enough, Santorum is given to quoting the Declaration.

That won’t stop Santorum-haters from portraying him as threateningly un-American. He can play into the negative image of him. In one interview last year, he said that as president he would warn people of the dangers of contraception, a task better suited to a youth minister or Catholic premarital counselor than the leader of the free world.

Santorum occasionally needs to curb his enthusiasms. But the implicit message of his candidacy is unassailable: Denounce and dismiss it as you please; American social conservatism is here to stay.

 

Quote of the Day

Santorum’s votes for expanding the role and size of government in the Bush years mostly show his lack of respect for local control and a federal government limited to the powers defined in the Constitution, but that unfortunately made him a typical Republican of the time. His support for Medicare Part D shows that there is no blunder so big that some Republicans won’t make it so long as they can claim it is a “market-based solution.” Santorum dislikes political diversity and wants to impose uniformity when he can, which is why he regards the Tenth Amendment as more of an obstacle than as part of the Bill of Rights. Santorum is certainly hostile to libertarianism when it comes to matters of moral behavior and social policy, but most of the bad votes he cast in the last decade were the product of his contempt for limited and constitutional government.

Quote of the Day

Nobody expects the Republican presidential nominee to be a libertarian purist, but it helps if he or she at least has a libertarian streak. In Rick Santorum’s case, he’s actively hostile toward libertarianism, and that’s an obstacle not only to him winning the nomination, but also to having a chance in a general election against President Obama.

With Santorum emerging as a true contender for the Republican nomination, he’s been coming under fire for his many votes to expand government. He took earmarks, voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan and backed No Child Left Behind. He pushed dairy subsidies, steel tariffs and sided with unions over workers.

On the other hand, should he win the Republican nomination, he’ll come under fire for his views on social issues. To be clear, it’s one thing to make a moral case for protecting the right to life of the unborn, which Santorum does passionately. But it’s another thing to argue, as he did in an interview last October, “One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.” Well, there’s a reason why no president has talked about these things — because the president has absolutely no business lecturing Americans about their sex lives. If there’s a discussion to be had about sexual promiscuity in society, it should be left to churches and other private institutions.

As Cato’s Gene Healy noted in his Washington Examiner column on the topic this week, Santorum explicitly declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”