Tag: Washington DC

The Obligatory "Obama is going to have pricey inauguration" posting

I suppose I am supposed to be the “Outraged Conservative” about this here. Well, Surprise.

Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let’s party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama’s inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

“President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,” the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. “During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.”

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

Obama’s inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.

“That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it,” said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. “It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values.”

Douglass said the campaign sought to keep costs down by having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.

“Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate,” McDermott’s spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday. — via Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy – AP.

Okay, call me the guy who just cannot muster the strength to complain about this. The facts are that this is the first African-American President; I think that he has earned the right to whoop it up a little.  I mean, after all, A great percentage of Americans voted for the man. He won fair and square. So, I won’t be in amongst of the crowd of Conservatives who are going to bash him for this. I might bash him on some things, but this is not one of them.

He did win and he deserves to celebrate. I will give him that.

Others:, NewsBusters.org, Scared Monkeys, Wizbang, Right Wing News, Redhot, Townhall.com, Macsmind and RedState

Update #1: Interestingly, but not surprisingly; Larry Johnson disagrees.  Seeing Larry was one of the original racist PUMA’s or Hillary Supporters.


Obama should, but most likely won't

Before I start this, let me simply say from the outset, that I am not a George W. Bush fan, nor will I ever be. I am not a part of the Conservative wing that believes that George W. Bush is some sort of hero. Having said all Paul Krugman and Rep. John Conyers have both written articles calling for Obama to fully investigate the actions of George W. Bush during his tenure as President.

First off Paul Krugman writes:

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.

The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.

Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.

There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

The answer to this question is very simple. Obama simply does not want the political firestorm. As much as it is great thing to see an African-American man for President, I think it would be counter-productive to Obama’s term in office to do something like this. Because you just know; that the Neo-Conservative political machine would swing into action against Obama, if he did try and do something like this. I mean, I might have many reservations about Neo-Conservatives, but their organizational and fund raising abilities is not one of them. If Obama went for a full blown investigation against the Bush Administration, the Podhoretz and Kristol funded minions would be out in full force.

So, while the idea of a full blown investigation with charges being filed is a noble idea; I just highly doubt that it will ever materialize. Obama just does not want to be viewed as a vengeful partisan President.

John Conyers writes basically the same thing, and I can understand his feelings. But again, what is very important; is how this sort of thing will be perceived by the rest of America. Would be it perceived as justice, or would it perceived as a partisan witch hunt? Sure, if your a partisan or a liberal ideologue it would be viewed as justified, but what about those who are not? What they think; matters greatly.

One thing that all Democrats and all Liberal-minded people must remember is, that not all of America is of a Liberal mindset. Just because Congress is of a Liberal majority, does not mean that all of America is. Some just voted for Obama, because he represented a change from George W. Bush, not because they wanted to see a Liberal witch hunt trial.

Others: The Moderate Voice, JustOneMinute, The Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, No More Mister Nice Blog, Washington Monthly, Washington Post, Matthew Yglesias, Right Wing News, The Seminal, Democrats.com, The Sideshow, Comments from Left Field, The Note, The Immoral Minority, Riehl World View, Gateway Pundit, American Street, Hullabaloo, Seeing the Forest and The Impolitic

(via Memeorandum)

Snort Worthy Quote of the Day

The U.S. Justice Department’s 2008 report on what happened to assets it seized includes an intriguing list of items that were placed into use by various federal agencies instead of being sold off. Among them are the following assets received by the FBI: a “gambling device” valued at $2 (a deck of cards?), $120,000 in jewelry (for undercover work?), and $134 in pornography (for official jack-offs, I guess).- Source

Bush’s Last Presser

I watched part of it. But I found it painful to watch. Obviously the man is not much of a public speaker. Here he does a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking and just some plain ol’ “Oops! I made a few mistakes”. Still it is an end of an era. (Thank God!) However, I will be the first to admit, I will not miss the man, at all. I’m just glad it is over, finally!

The Video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I also noticed he mentioned that he had made some mistakes; Mission Accomplished, Social Security Reform, which thankfully did not happen, seeing how the markets went. He did however continue to defend his terrible handling of Katrina:

Bush defended his widely-criticized decision not to visit Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005.

Bush said that if he “landed Air Force One in New Orleans or Baton Rouge” shortly after the hurricane, “law enforcement would have been pulled away from the mission.” The media, Bush claimed, would have then asked how he could have “possibly have flown Air Force One into Baton Rouge” when “police officers that were needed to expedite traffic out of New Orleans were taken off the task to look after you?

Of course, that was not the issue, the issue is how long it took to get supplies down there and how it took to get the people out of that Sports Arena down there. To this day he does not see that. Also it was the fact of how it seemed no one was in charge. Not that I am surprised. As they say, you can’t fix stupid. I also noticed that he never did acknowledge that Iraq was a major misstep, but then again, we are dealing with an Neo-Conservative here, one can only expect so much.

I’m just glad not to have to write about the bastard any longer. Tongue

Update: I just realized that I made a rather humorous grammar error. I changed the “was” to an “is” in the first paragraph. Ha! Wishful thinking or Freudian slip! Ooops!

US Rejects Aid to Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuke Site

This is quite the interesting read.

Via the NYT:

President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.

White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.

The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.

This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months with current and former American officials, outside experts, international nuclear inspectors and European and Israeli officials. None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.

For some reason or another, I feel like the New York Times has just sold the United States right to secrecy up the river by revealing this. But on the other hand, I can see why Bush would do something like this. Bush was already mired in the war in Iraq. He knew our presence in Iraq was already causing tension in the middle east and knew also that sending these sort of bombs over to Israel to be used in Iran would just add to that tension. I give Bush a point here, he may have just done the right thing, but just telling Israel “no go” on these type of weapons. As it could have caused more problems that it might have fixed.

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.

Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive covert operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show, having concluded that the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies were failing to slow the uranium enrichment efforts. Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.

The covert American program, started in early 2008, includes renewed American efforts to penetrate Iran’s nuclear supply chain abroad, along with new efforts, some of them experimental, to undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies. It is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon.

Knowledge of the program has been closely held, yet inside the Bush administration some officials are skeptical about its chances of success, arguing that past efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program have been detected by the Iranians and have only delayed, not derailed, their drive to unlock the secrets of uranium enrichment.

[…]

Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama must decide whether the covert actions begun by Mr. Bush are worth the risks of disrupting what he has pledged will be a more active diplomatic effort to engage with Iran.

Either course could carry risks for Mr. Obama. An inherited intelligence or military mission that went wrong could backfire, as happened to President Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba. But a decision to pull back on operations aimed at Iran could leave Mr. Obama vulnerable to charges that he is allowing Iran to speed ahead toward a nuclear capacity, one that could change the contours of power in the Middle East.

Which proves what I have said time and again, our Government is not stupid, we know what we can get away with and what we cannot. Bush was not going to send our troops into a bloodbath. So, I give Bush credit here, he averted a major problem. However, I do see that Obama is going to have his work cut out for him in the White House. Iran is not going to go away quietly. If anything, with the gas market collapsing, Iran might just get a bit worse during Obama tenure. I just hope that, unlike Kennedy; Obama makes the right call on this issues, because if he does not, The United States could have some serious problems on its hands.

I strongly encourage you to go over to the NYT and read the rest of that report. It is quite the interesting read. Some would take away from it, that Bush was showing deference to the Arabs, but I think that it is much more than just that; in the sense that Bush knew that he would be getting in over his head. This is why he refused the Israelis permission to do flyovers and target Iranian targets.

Others: Associated Press, The Muqata, Israel Matzav, The Moderate Voice, RBO, Power Line, Hot Air, Israpundit, The Raw Story, Jihad Watch, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Weekly Standard, Balloon Juice and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Funny Video: Sponsor an Executive

This was sent to me by the smartest Democrat I know………………My Mom.  😀

Guest Voice "Act Now to Reject Con Con" by Chuck Baldwin

My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center, recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.

The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32 states have issued the call. The total number of states that are required to enact the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are only two states short of this disaster. As word of this potential calamity began to surface, the effort stalled with the total states issuing the call stuck at 32. With the election of Barack Obama, however, supporters of a Con Con have been emboldened and are now trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is currently in the crosshairs appears to be Ohio.

States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these states have since seen the error of their ways and have voted to rescind their approvals. This fact, alone, should be enough to kill the push for another Con Con, but don’t expect the powers that be to see it that way. Therefore, it seems that if Ohio approves the Con Con, only one more state would be required, and upon the call of that 34th state, a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt, state number 34 is already sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings, ready to act with “lightning speed” to seal the deal.

Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention is no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, “In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a [Constitutional] Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself.”

DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”

Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of Big-Government liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the founders’ Constitution–which was founded on the principles of Natural Law that protects individual liberty–would be replaced with some sort of “collective rights” document protecting an ambiguous “common good.” At that point, there is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore, the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our nation’s laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our forebears would be gone forever.

Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!

In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything they can RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of Ohio is currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact every person we know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them to be sure to let their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is. Residents and citizens of Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature rejects the call for a Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it would be wise for all of us who live in states that have not yet ratified the call for a Con Con to contact our state legislators to make sure that they understand the issue, and that they will do everything in their power to resist any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention.

For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go to the American Policy Center web site.

In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed. What will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is called and our U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a completely new constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new constitution? Which states will declare their independence from any such new union? Or, will they all surrender their state constitutions and go along with this Twenty-First Century New World Order–a New World Order that will doubtless incorporate some form of North American Community or Union?

It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those states that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be willing to declare their independence from whatever government would evolve from a modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we may need to resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would probably not number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be located on the East Coast.

I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick and tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants in both the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a Constitutional Convention is called–and our U.S. Constitution is wiped away or rewritten–are ready and willing to declare their independence all over again. So, I issue the call: where are the new Thirteen Colonies?

We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the time for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our ground will be upon us.

Original Article in Question at American Policy Center and an update to the Story

(Via NewsWithViews)

The Automotive Bailouts: The Other Side of the Story

I have been sitting here, trying to keep out of this. But I have sat and looked at the Republican and Neo–Conservative Spin on this Story and I’m sick of it. 😡

So, I am giving you, the other side of the story, from the horses mouth; without commentary from me.

I did not ask that you agree, I simply ask that you listen and hear this man out. Now I am almost sure, that the Blogs, that I have linked to, will remove my trackback, like the Neo-Con Fascists that they are. I mean, it is all about controlling the message with those guys.  🙄

Here we go:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Media Q & A:

Media Q & A Part 2:

Media Q & A Part 3:

There you have it. The other side of the story. You decide.

(Source UAW.ORG)

Guest Voice: "WHERE ARE DOBSON AND PCC NOW?" By Chuck Baldwin

I ask my non-Christian friends to bear with me on this column. As one will quickly see, this column is addressed to my fellow Christian conservatives.

Regular readers of this column know that one of my chief frustrations is the way Christian conservatives (otherwise known as the “Religious Right”) are so easily deceived by Republican politicians. The all-time classic illustration of this foible is the way the Religious Right was (and is) so enamored with President George W. Bush. No matter what Bush did: no matter how egregiously unconstitutional, no matter how utterly stupid, no matter how blatantly evil his actions were, Christian conservatives (almost universally) either robotically accepted and approved what he did, or blindly looked the other way. It was maddening!

It was as if Christian conservatives lost all ability to reason; it was as if they lost all discernment and discretion. Because George W. Bush claimed to be a Christian, and because he was a Republican, he could do no wrong. To this very day, the only group of people who yet approves of Bush’s Presidency is the Religious Right. Everyone else on the planet realizes that George W. Bush’s Presidency will go down in history has one of the all-time worst.

George Bush took a prosperous and robust economy, and led America to the verge of a second Great Depression. He has taken a (relatively) free and independent republic to the brink of becoming a globalist Police State. He has pushed the envelope of executive power; he has trampled individual liberty; he has made a mockery of justice; and he has made America the laughingstock of the world. In addition, Bush has misused and abused our nation’s bravest and finest by his illegal and inexcusable invasion of Iraq. No matter. The Religious Right still loves him. Why? Because he is a “Christian” Republican.

Since 2000, James Dobson, Pensacola Christian College (PCC), and their peers around the country have had an eight-year lovefest with George W. Bush. Life-size cardboard posters of Bush have stood in their bookstores for eight long, laborious years. Grade school children in their Christian schools have been subjected to Bush propaganda for eight tedious, tiresome years. To them, G.W. Bush ranks somewhere between Moses and the Almighty. And nothing Bush said or did seemed to matter.

I said all of that to call attention to a recent interview Cynthia McFadden had with President Bush on ABC’s Nightline this past Monday. During the interview, McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.

Now, acceptance of the Bible’s literalness is one of conservative Christianity’s most sacred doctrines. There is not a professor at PCC (or any other conservative Christian college or university) that would keep his or her job for a nano-second, if he or she even questioned the veracity of the Scriptures. Right? You know it’s true! Most conservative Christians would even go so far as to say that one cannot be a born-again Christian who does not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Well, what was George Bush’s response to McFadden’s question? He said, “You know. Probably not. . . . No, I’m not a literalist.” Notice, Bush twice denied the veracity of the Scriptures.

Now, Bush has no reason to “fudge” his answers, right? He has no more elections to face. No more, “He’s got to say this to get elected,” which was the flippant explanation given by the Religious Right to excuse Bush’s numerous apostate positions during the past eight years.

So, George W. Bush clearly stated that he does not believe the Bible is God’s Holy, inspired Word. Will Dobson and PCC still say that Bush is “one of us”?

Then, as Bush attempted to give a Christian testimony, he told McFadden, “It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life. All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter . . . .”

What kind of Christian testimony is this: “I got back into religion”? I doubt that this kind of testimony would grant membership in the Campus Church (which is not even a genuine New Testament church, you understand) at PCC or in virtually any conservative Christian church.

I am confident, however, that Bush’s statements will do nothing to diminish his god-like status with James Dobson and the rest of the Religious Right in America. For eight long and bloody years, Christian conservatives have been selling their convictions, doctrines, and even their consciences to George W. Bush. I will even go so far as to say that, in many respects, millions of Christians have turned President Bush into an idol. Many of them would forsake their pastor, their friends, and even their own family before they would forsake George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

Of course, none of this would have happened had Christians–and especially Christian pastors–not lost touch with their American heritage. Had they maintained a studied understanding of constitutional government, and of the principles of Natural Law upon which it rests, they would not have become dupes for Bush and his fellow neocons.

I doubt very much whether Thomas Jefferson was a born-again Christian (after all, he, like Bush, expressed doubt regarding the Bible’s literalness), but he fully understood–and embraced–the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and was more than willing to inculcate those principles into our country’s most sacred document: our Declaration of Independence. As such, Jefferson will be forever regarded as one of America’s greatest Founding Fathers and Presidents. Believe me, America was far better off with Thomas Jefferson than with George W. Bush!

So, where are Dobson and PCC now? Will any of them utter a word of rebuke to their “Christian” President for his apostasy? No, they won’t. (As a comparison, contemporary pastors most certainly did rebuke Jefferson for his public statements questioning Christ’s divinity, even though he was a Founding Father and author of the Declaration of Independence.) Of course, Barack Obama will not escape the public repudiation of Dobson and Company. Why? He is a Democrat. You see, it’s not principle; it’s partisan politics that matters, after all.

While we are asking questions, when will our fellow Christians and pastors finally open their history books? When will they read the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence? And when will they open their minds and hearts–even a crack–to the possibility that they might have been duped, and that there is more to being elected to the office of President besides being a “Christian” Republican? Probably never.

In four more years, there will doubtless be another “Christian” Republican for the Religious Right to fawn over. Where he or she stands on the Constitution won’t matter; neither will it matter whether this newest “Christian” Republican has any commitment to national sovereignty, the Bill of Rights, or to fundamental freedoms. All that will matter is that he or she professes to be a Christian, and has an “R” behind their name. And, quite frankly, this last election proved that even a Christian profession is not necessary. All that is required is the “R” behind the name.

(Via NewsWithViews.com)

Another Paleo-Conservative Reacts to Kristol's Column

Richard Spencer Offers up a bit of tapered response to Bill Kristol’s Column. Which is a bit more calmer than the “Off with his head!” response by some of the Libertarian Bloggers that I read. 😛

Although, I will be first to admit that the title of Richard’s Blog entry almost made me spit my coffee all over my laptop. 😀