Updated, 5.13.18:
Originally posted 10.2.17:
The left wing is a syndrome of behaviors that is incompatible with traditional American life. You know, Limbaugh likes to say he knows liberals, but does he really? If you read about Sun Tsu, then you know about the Art of War. The Art of War says to know your enemy. The left wing is an enemy alright, but does Limbaugh and the like really know these people? If he did, victory would be assured, but I suspect that he does not. Or, another possibility. Sun Tsu also said to know yourself. Then, if Limbaugh really does know the Left, then perhaps he really doesn't know what his own side is about.
I'm not talking about the so-called Right. It is a lot easier to visualize opposites, so I think the so-called "Right" is often confused with being different from the Left. I use "Right" in quotes, because it is the premises that I question. Those who disagree with the Left do not have to be a member of the so-called "Right".
Adolf Hitler is a good example. Hitler is always associated with the so-called "Right". Hitler was a more militant form of fascism, which is not associated with freedom. Hitler's ideas were based upon race.
Freedom knows no racial lines. It knows no class lines. You have it or you don't. Fascists, Nazis, and Communists have not been known to be associated with freedom.
Reagan understood this distinction. It expressed it in his Great Speech that launched his career. If the so-called "Right" does not understand Reagan, then they cannot be successful against the Left, for they do not understand the reason for fighting them.
The so-called conservatives are often mixed in with the so-called Right. I would also remind people that the use of words is critical. If you allow the meanings of words to be confused, then you are on the way to defeat.
Limbaugh seems to understand this, and has talked about it; but then he doesn't eschew the Left's misuse of language. The premises of the Left can never be accepted, for it is always intended to overthrow freedom, and to enslave the population in their ceaseless grip.
Therefore, who is Limbaugh? Just a guy on the radio, as he says, or an important leader? I think the former. He may be on the side of freedom, but whose freedom? He can take it or leave it, which means when the wolf comes, he will high tail it out of town.
One thing you can put in the bank, so to speak, the "sheep" will know when they are not free.
the original post follows:
...who said that the communists will win is probably right. If this was still a serious country, he would have never been at West Point. They would have weeded him out for sure, and bounced his ass in the brig, or out on the street.
BTW, the National Review has ceased to be a serious conservative publication. If they were serious, they would not confuse conservatism with rightism. I keep pointing this out, but nobody seems to care, nor pay attention.
Limbaugh does it too, by the way. They all do. Why? I suspect that the conflict between the left v the right is what drives pageviews, and thus advertising. You see, that is all they care about--- money. If money is all they care about, then why defend freedom?
Hold your hats, I am going to get religious on you. Jesus Christ said it--- a man who is just a hired hand cares nothing for the sheep. When the wolf comes, he will run away. The Good Shepard will stay, and take care of the sheep. That is so that the sheep will be free. Instead, these hired hands will flee when the Big Bad Wolf of Communism shows up. They will do NOTHING, which is exactly how they are behaving now. Open your eyes, and see the truth.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Too much too fast
Liberalism has gone so far in this society that people do not know how bad it has gotten.
So, even if you were argue the same way you would have thirty years ago, it would be considered unacceptable. It is only unacceptable because the society is not the same as it was thirty years ago.
Some people might think that this is a good thing. But not everything about it is good, nor those who wish to change it further do so with our best interest at heart.
I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have watched these people for a long time. I absolutely do not trust them. This business with Trump absolutely CONFIRMS this.
Anybody who aligns with them in any way, such as John McCain has, does not have my support.
EVER.
Things may be going too fast for most people, I suppose. A starving man, or a man dying of thirst, must not be given too much too soon.
But you people are going to have to go one way or the other. It is either death or life. Going the way of the left is certain death.
So, even if you were argue the same way you would have thirty years ago, it would be considered unacceptable. It is only unacceptable because the society is not the same as it was thirty years ago.
Some people might think that this is a good thing. But not everything about it is good, nor those who wish to change it further do so with our best interest at heart.
I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have watched these people for a long time. I absolutely do not trust them. This business with Trump absolutely CONFIRMS this.
Anybody who aligns with them in any way, such as John McCain has, does not have my support.
EVER.
Things may be going too fast for most people, I suppose. A starving man, or a man dying of thirst, must not be given too much too soon.
But you people are going to have to go one way or the other. It is either death or life. Going the way of the left is certain death.
Kamala Harris' questioning Haspel
John McCain urges that Haspel not be confirmed. He plays up to the likes of Kamala Harris.
Here is a partial transcript given on the use of waterboarding. It is Kamala Harris and Haspel.
Harris' asks if it is immoral, and Haspel seems not to answer yes or no, as Harris wishes.
Now here is a question that follows Harris' line of thinking: is it immoral to kill an enemy?
Because if it is immoral to aggressively interrogate an enemy who wishes to kill you, then why is it moral to kill him? Get what I mean? These people wish to disarm you so that an enemy can kill you at will, and you are defenseless in the face of their aggression.
John McCain is one of these who do not wish to get their hands dirty because they wish to be above it all. It is more important to defend the country than to maintain their own "morality". Otherwise, why have a military at all?
John McCain's "morality" does not impress me at all. As for Kamala Harris, she wishes to burnish her liberal credentials. Anything the liberals touch turns to excrement, so that is what you vote for when you vote for her kind.
Here is a partial transcript given on the use of waterboarding. It is Kamala Harris and Haspel.
Harris' asks if it is immoral, and Haspel seems not to answer yes or no, as Harris wishes.
Now here is a question that follows Harris' line of thinking: is it immoral to kill an enemy?
Because if it is immoral to aggressively interrogate an enemy who wishes to kill you, then why is it moral to kill him? Get what I mean? These people wish to disarm you so that an enemy can kill you at will, and you are defenseless in the face of their aggression.
John McCain is one of these who do not wish to get their hands dirty because they wish to be above it all. It is more important to defend the country than to maintain their own "morality". Otherwise, why have a military at all?
John McCain's "morality" does not impress me at all. As for Kamala Harris, she wishes to burnish her liberal credentials. Anything the liberals touch turns to excrement, so that is what you vote for when you vote for her kind.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
The Iran Pseudo Treaty
Trump killed it, with good reason. The purpose of going to the Senate for ratification was given in the Federalist Papers. It is to help prevent "ruinous" treaties. The Iran Pseudo Treaty could well have been that.
It is already ruinous because it quit on the sanctions regime that may well have worked if it continued. It is already ruinous because it financed Iran with billions of dollars. Iran has made no secret that it would like to destroy Israel if it could. These crazy mullahs would likely use nuclear weapons if they got them, and handing over billions supercharged their efforts.
But the biggest reason to shit can this treaty was because it was an end around to the Constitution. Kerry even admitted it.
Now if we could just shit can Mueller.
Update, 9:11 am same day:
More here. Yep, the Constitution provision against ruinous treaties was overturned in the same spirit in which it was to protect. And Majority Leader McConnell enabled it.
5:06 pm same day:
This has got to be pathological. What I have read about this is that the Iranian Parliament never ratified it, and that's the same story here in America. Besides that, nobody in Iran seems to have signed off on it at all.
So, what kind of deal is it that isn't agreed to by both parties? It is a fiction. The Iranians have gulled the United States and all of the Western Europeans into dropping the sanctions and giving them a hundred and fifty billion bucks.
It is also questionable that they have kept the deal at all. After all, if they could get all this from the West for basically nothing, they can't have much respect for us. Yes, and that would make them right.
Until we get our own house in order, there is no reason why this country should be respected.
5:31 pm:
What I said at the time, which has a timeframe of about 11.19.15. My post was a couple days after that.
Actually, the "Deadwoods" in the GOP had to have had something to do with this.
It is already ruinous because it quit on the sanctions regime that may well have worked if it continued. It is already ruinous because it financed Iran with billions of dollars. Iran has made no secret that it would like to destroy Israel if it could. These crazy mullahs would likely use nuclear weapons if they got them, and handing over billions supercharged their efforts.
But the biggest reason to shit can this treaty was because it was an end around to the Constitution. Kerry even admitted it.
Now if we could just shit can Mueller.
Update, 9:11 am same day:
More here. Yep, the Constitution provision against ruinous treaties was overturned in the same spirit in which it was to protect. And Majority Leader McConnell enabled it.
5:06 pm same day:
This has got to be pathological. What I have read about this is that the Iranian Parliament never ratified it, and that's the same story here in America. Besides that, nobody in Iran seems to have signed off on it at all.
So, what kind of deal is it that isn't agreed to by both parties? It is a fiction. The Iranians have gulled the United States and all of the Western Europeans into dropping the sanctions and giving them a hundred and fifty billion bucks.
It is also questionable that they have kept the deal at all. After all, if they could get all this from the West for basically nothing, they can't have much respect for us. Yes, and that would make them right.
Until we get our own house in order, there is no reason why this country should be respected.
5:31 pm:
What I said at the time, which has a timeframe of about 11.19.15. My post was a couple days after that.
Actually, the "Deadwoods" in the GOP had to have had something to do with this.
These guys wouldn't be "homophobes", now would they?
Well, truth is truth, even if the words being used are rather ugly.
We have this brand of you know what running the country now. Witness that the former Boy Scouts will now admit openly declared homosexuals to leadership positions.
Whatever the liberals touch turns to garbage. The entire country is in their cross hairs.
Use of the words in this video are going to be offensive to many these days, but I am very close to the point of not giving a damn.
It expresses the point colorfully and truthfully. Truth is my gold standard.
Being called a "queer" used to be a fighting word. Use of this word was intended to be the ultimate insult. Perhaps people today don't like to be called something like that now, either, even if true.
We have this brand of you know what running the country now. Witness that the former Boy Scouts will now admit openly declared homosexuals to leadership positions.
Whatever the liberals touch turns to garbage. The entire country is in their cross hairs.
Use of the words in this video are going to be offensive to many these days, but I am very close to the point of not giving a damn.
It expresses the point colorfully and truthfully. Truth is my gold standard.
Being called a "queer" used to be a fighting word. Use of this word was intended to be the ultimate insult. Perhaps people today don't like to be called something like that now, either, even if true.
Cohen news
The left is hyping something, I suspect. There is a story about Cohen receiving a bunch of cash after the election. It was supposedly from some Russian oligarch.
Now, the question to me is this: how did Stormy Daniel's attorney get that information?
Was it a leak from the Cohen raid? Or is it fake news? If it is not fake news, then where did it come from? How do you verify it? What was the money for?
I suppose the whole point of the leak, should it be from a leak, is to carry out the trial in the media.
This is why the raid was questionable in the first place.
Did you ever notice how Democrats' secrets stay that way, and GOP secrets do not? Obama's records stay sealed. Slick Willie's medical records stay sealed, but George W. Bush's DUI doesn't. Trump's sealed record didn't stay that way with respect to a certain court case. The Democrats made a lot of hay on those disclosures, and tend to avoid a lot of bad publicity when their own records stay sealed.
If Obama was known to have claimed to have been a foreign student, how would that have affected the 2008 election? If McCabe hadn't sat on the the emails turned over by Weiner's lawyer, how would that have affected Hillary's campaign?
Such things is why the GOP is beyond hopeless. This is a stupidity that is legendary in its foolishness, and self-defeatism.
If this was a legitimate counter intelligence operation, wouldn't they have wanted to remain secret until they were ready to indict? Instead of that, this is plastered all over the news. It is for the politics of it, they don't even need a conviction of anything wrong in order to get Trump out of office.
It may not be anything wrong with what Cohen did, even if he did it, you know. But that is not the point.
Yep, it was the good 'ol GOP dopes who enabled all this.
Now, the question to me is this: how did Stormy Daniel's attorney get that information?
Was it a leak from the Cohen raid? Or is it fake news? If it is not fake news, then where did it come from? How do you verify it? What was the money for?
I suppose the whole point of the leak, should it be from a leak, is to carry out the trial in the media.
This is why the raid was questionable in the first place.
Did you ever notice how Democrats' secrets stay that way, and GOP secrets do not? Obama's records stay sealed. Slick Willie's medical records stay sealed, but George W. Bush's DUI doesn't. Trump's sealed record didn't stay that way with respect to a certain court case. The Democrats made a lot of hay on those disclosures, and tend to avoid a lot of bad publicity when their own records stay sealed.
If Obama was known to have claimed to have been a foreign student, how would that have affected the 2008 election? If McCabe hadn't sat on the the emails turned over by Weiner's lawyer, how would that have affected Hillary's campaign?
Such things is why the GOP is beyond hopeless. This is a stupidity that is legendary in its foolishness, and self-defeatism.
If this was a legitimate counter intelligence operation, wouldn't they have wanted to remain secret until they were ready to indict? Instead of that, this is plastered all over the news. It is for the politics of it, they don't even need a conviction of anything wrong in order to get Trump out of office.
It may not be anything wrong with what Cohen did, even if he did it, you know. But that is not the point.
Yep, it was the good 'ol GOP dopes who enabled all this.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Deliverence: "What law?"
There is a scene from the movie Deliverance, in which a sexual assault and, subsequent to that, a killing resulted. It happens in an area being evacuated because a dam project, in which the area in which they are situated will be flooded.
The men involved, other than the one having fled the scene, who was involved in the sexual assault, discuss what to do about the dead man. They decided to bury the dead man, and get out of the area.
Note that in the discussion, the man responsible for the killing ( played by Burt Reynolds ) does not want to go in front of a jury in that area.
Reynolds' character knows the law. You get the trial in the district in which the alleged crime occurs. This is in the US Constitution. However, in his case, that would be a decided disadvantage, as this was a mountain man, and Reynolds' character was an outsider.
Okay, what's the point? Something that I have been mentioning over and over again. In Washington DC, no Republican is going to get a fair shake. Likewise, no Democrat is going to be indicted.
An example of why this is true can be determined from the discussion in Rush's show today. But Rush did not talk about that. Too bad.
Mueller doesn't indict anyone. He obtains an indictment by seating a Grand Jury, which hears the evidence that the prosecutor presents. Mueller must convince the jury that probable cause exists to show that a crime occurred and who was responsible. This Grand Jury must have been awful easy to convince, I'd say. It seems to me that this jury is biased, and it was probably a bunch of Democrats in Washington DC, and they didn't need a whole lot of evidence to be persuaded that a crime occurred.
In other words, it is a political trial. Rush's point is that they did not expect the Russians to show up for their trial. Mueller's team asked for a delay, because the Russians' appearance was unexpected.
I criticized Mueller's team for being incompetent. Actually, they are likely to be incompetent as well as corrupt. Also, Mueller and this team is supposed to be all-stars. Once again, it is all hype, These guys were unprepared, and they had a case that wasn't a case. They had to bail because they knew that they could not win, most likely.
Anyway, these sophisticated types in DC are really no better than the country hicks depicted here in the movie.
Of course, it would be nice if Rush could explain as well as I just have.
The men involved, other than the one having fled the scene, who was involved in the sexual assault, discuss what to do about the dead man. They decided to bury the dead man, and get out of the area.
Note that in the discussion, the man responsible for the killing ( played by Burt Reynolds ) does not want to go in front of a jury in that area.
Reynolds' character knows the law. You get the trial in the district in which the alleged crime occurs. This is in the US Constitution. However, in his case, that would be a decided disadvantage, as this was a mountain man, and Reynolds' character was an outsider.
Okay, what's the point? Something that I have been mentioning over and over again. In Washington DC, no Republican is going to get a fair shake. Likewise, no Democrat is going to be indicted.
An example of why this is true can be determined from the discussion in Rush's show today. But Rush did not talk about that. Too bad.
Mueller doesn't indict anyone. He obtains an indictment by seating a Grand Jury, which hears the evidence that the prosecutor presents. Mueller must convince the jury that probable cause exists to show that a crime occurred and who was responsible. This Grand Jury must have been awful easy to convince, I'd say. It seems to me that this jury is biased, and it was probably a bunch of Democrats in Washington DC, and they didn't need a whole lot of evidence to be persuaded that a crime occurred.
In other words, it is a political trial. Rush's point is that they did not expect the Russians to show up for their trial. Mueller's team asked for a delay, because the Russians' appearance was unexpected.
I criticized Mueller's team for being incompetent. Actually, they are likely to be incompetent as well as corrupt. Also, Mueller and this team is supposed to be all-stars. Once again, it is all hype, These guys were unprepared, and they had a case that wasn't a case. They had to bail because they knew that they could not win, most likely.
Anyway, these sophisticated types in DC are really no better than the country hicks depicted here in the movie.
Of course, it would be nice if Rush could explain as well as I just have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)