About that Ann Barnhardt podcast

Yesterday, when I wrote about the Anti-Christ, it was in response to what she was saying on that podcast.   Being rather absent minded, I forgot all about not having finished listening to all of it.

Truth be told, what she was saying was getting a bit too far.  It is like Podesta in a way.  The way to success, it seems, is to get the people who want the echo chambers.  To listen to her after that point was to drink the kool aid and join the cult.

She has rather strong opinions, which is her right.  What she says may be correct, too.  In order to track it all down, I'd have to do some research.  But you know, everything she says ain't gospel.  She's been wrong before, and she could also be wrong again in some of the things she's saying.

She was referring to Pat Buchanan's piece that asked the question of whether or not Putin was one of us.  No, Putin isn't one of us.  He is a Russian nationalist.  An equivalent on this side would be an American Nationalist.  Nationalists in America are a rare beast.  Putin may be a traditionalist, so a comparison there may be useful.  Even so, he is not an American, so he can't be one of us.

The rest of what she wrote, I won't comment upon.  You could see where Maha would point to Barnhardt as a typical representation of the GOP.  Or of conservatism.  No, I don't think so.  She is an individual with her unique point of view.  As for the GOP, one of these days they may figure out what they want to be when they grow up, but they aren't nationalists and they probably aren't traditionalists either.

People can go too far.  Sometimes when you do that you cause a situation that may have no exit to it.

Somebody might get the idea that I am advocating moderation.  No.  I'm not a moderate.  I am an extremist for truth, while recognizing that truth is a slippery thing.

Update:

I'm looking into this a bit further.  Some of what she says checks out, but not all of it.

Okay, the thing that concerns me is that this may be a disinformation attack.  There may not be any proof here, any hard proof of Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attack.  Unless that is provided, we won't know.  It is only a superficially plausible charge, just like a lot of the conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.

If Bush covered up anything, it looks really, really bad.  However, the mere charge of it ( without proof ) also looks really, really bad.  If there's no real proof of any involvement, it will end up being politically damaging.  Just remember who benefits from that.

Update:

It should be pointed out that Obama seems to be giving the Saudis a cold shoulder.  Why would he do that?  Because of this?  Or could it be because it is to his advantage politically to do this?

But what could be the end result?  Pakistan has offered to sell nukes to Saudi Arabia.  Do you realize what this could mean?

If the Saudis did this, there needs to be a response.  But to play politics with it could be very grave.  Washington has to get this right.  At the moment, they don't inspire confidence.

It's too bad that Ann Barnhardt lent her voice to this.  If she has anything real, she should have been out front with it.

Update:

One final remark upon this as I finally listened to it all.

She pointed out that our leaders in DC aren't very bright.  She did have something up, if I am not mistaken, that illustrated how stupid some of these people in the House really are.  Everybody should be careful, that just because some member of Congress says something, that it should be regarded as intelligent or competent.

I hope she's wrong about the overall quality of the leadership.  But I'm a little worried about that at the moment.

Also, if you don't quit on the Lord, then don't quit on the people either.  She seems to be.