| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
good luck with your religious war
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:03 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again.....How naive of you PlainOl......
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM, plainolamerican
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > his views on national security are asinine
> > ---
> > leaving the jews and muzzies to fight their own war is hardly asinine
>
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On Dec 31 2011, 2:57 pm, GhostOfAdams <virtua...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > No thanks. I love his interpretation of the constitution, But his
> > > views on national security are asinine and his expectations about what
> > > a president can actually move forward and accomplish are wholly
> > > unrealistic.
> > > Again, No thanks.
>
> > > On Dec 31, 12:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Why Conservatives Should Support Ron PaulFriday, 30 December 2011 11:33
> > > > Dennis Behreandt
> > > > As Ron Paul has surged over recent weeks becoming a front-runner for
> > the Republican nomination despite mainstream attempts to derail his growing
> > popularity, among some conservatives, concern is growing.
> > > > Specifically, among those conservatives most concerned with foreign
> > policy, Ron Paul is viewed with skepticism, if not disdain. Support for the
> > Texas congressman, they say, will mean weakening America's position in the
> > world, leaving Israel weak and undefended, and giving Iran a free hand to
> > go nuclear. On the basis of these concerns, Paul's conservative critics
> > say, he would be bad, and possiblydangerous, for the country as president.
> > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only would a Ron Paul
> > presidency help the country become economically stronger and militarily
> > more secure, it would reinvigorate the conservative cause.
> > > > To begin, it is necessary to put Ron Paul and the movement that
> > supports him into contextvis-a-visthe modern conservative movement at
> > large. Much continues to be made of Ron Paul as alibertarianrather than a
> > conservative. But while there may be some utility in considering Paul and
> > his supporters as libertarian, for some certainly are, it is more useful to
> > consider Paul an outgrowth, or an example of, American orthodoxy.
> > > > There is a subtle but important difference between an orthodox
> > political movement and a conservative political movement. In a broad sense,
> > those of a conservative mindset seek to save and preserve institutions
> > because they view those institutions as having demonstrated some
> > utilitarian value to culture and society simply by the virtue of their
> > existence. This was a theme explored by historian Jerry Z. Muller of the
> > Catholic University of America in the introduction to his bookConservatism:
> > An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present.
> > > > According to Muller, "The conservative defends existing institutions
> > because their very existence creates a presumption that they have served
> > some useful function, because eliminating them may lead to harmful,
> > unintended consequences, or because the veneration which attaches to
> > institutions that have existed over time makes them potentially usable for
> > new purposes."
> > > > Because existing institutions vary from nation to nation, conservatism
> > likewise varies from nation to nation. As a result, conservatives have
> > sought to save and preserve many things over the years in many countries.
> > Soviet conservatives sought to preserve Soviet institutions, for example.
> > An American conservative would look askance, for instance at an attempt to
> > paint the Soviet planning agency GOSPLAN as a vital and important
> > institution as it would violate the tenets of free enterprise most American
> > conservatives hold dear. Yet it would not be surprising to find that a
> > Soviet conservative might think that GOSPLAN should have been preserved.
> > > > In the United States, the institutions that tend to be of interest to
> > conservatives are of broadly two types. The first are those explicitly
> > created by the charter of government that brought the nation into being.
> > Therefore, American conservatism tends to be supportive of the separation
> > of powers among the branches of government. As a consequence of this, for
> > example, American conservatives often lament the prospect of judicial
> > tyranny or the tendency of modern presidents to rule by executive order,
> > which many see as infringing upon and diminishing the Constitutional role
> > of Congress. This also explains the seemingly contradictory position some
> > conservatives take of actually supporting the idea of a powerful,unitary
> > executiveas they see the Hamiltonian ideas of a more powerful presidency as
> > of central importance.
> > > > Second, American conservatives have generally been supportive of the
> > cultural institutions that they see as existing prior to the state. Among
> > these are defense of traditional values, defense of the family, and defense
> > of the idea of the common law. In both areas among conservatives these
> > things are valued primarily for theirutility. Because they exist, they must
> > therefor perform a useful function and we tamper with them at our own risk.
> > > > In contrast to the conservative point of view, the orthodox outlook
> > says that a given institution exists because it is in alignment with a
> > transcendental truth. Says Professor Muller: "...the orthodox defense of
> > institutions depends on belief in their correspondence to some ultimate
> > truth.... The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and
> > practices because they are metaphysicallytrue: the truth proclaimed may be
> > based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to
> > all rational men...."
> > > > It is from this latter point of view that we must understand the
> > phenomenon of Ron Paul. In the introduction to his bookLiberty Defined,
> > Paul places himself firmly within the orthodox American tradition by
> > acknowledging that he believes in natural rights that precede the
> > foundations of government. He writes: "The definition of liberty I use is
> > the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It
> > is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for
> > Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632-1704)." Put
> > succinctly by Jefferson, this is the idea "that all men are created equal,
> > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> > that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These
> > are, to put it as Muller did, "natural and accessible by all rational men."
> > > > There is a substantial nexus between the orthodox American point of
> > view represented by Ron Paul and the modern American conservative movement.
> > The orthodox view holds that the rights enjoyed by individuals, including
> > to live, to build a family, to own property, to speak one's mind, to
> > associate with whom one wishes, etc., are inviolate and that governments
> > lack any legitimate interest in legislating in these areas. Meanwhile, the
> > conservative simply sees the outcomes of the exercise of these rights as
> > the institutions (the family, for instance) as worth protecting because of
> > its utility. But both the orthodox American and the conservative American
> > can agree on the value of the family and other such institutions. Moreover,
> > the explicit political institutions brought into being during the founding
> > era were created largely by orthodox American thinkers. In defending these
> > institutionsbecause they now existconservatives find themselves in
> > agreement with orthodox Americanists who defend them because in their view
> > it is morally right that they existedin their proper formin the first place.
> > > > Because there is a nexus of interests between the American orthodox
> > outlook and the conservative outlook, there should be a natural affinity
> > between the two. And while this has not necessarily been the case at least
> > since the 1950s, with both sides tending to look askance at one another,
> > the opportunity now exists for the two movements to work together for the
> > same goals. Consider some of the outcomes that are possible:Foreign
> > Affairs: Conservatives want the United States to be the preeminent power in
> > the world, both economically and militarily. The orthodox position cares
> > nothing for this as a goal in and of itself. Nonetheless, the orthodox
> > Americanist approach naturally creates conditions wherein the United
> > Statesmustbe the preeminent military and economic power. The orthodox
> > position is to call for the shrinkage of government down to
> > Constitutionally authorized levels (thus Ron Paul's plan to eliminate five
> > cabinet departments). The shrinkage of government means the government will
> > need to tax less and inflate the money supply to a lesser degree, leaving
> > vastly more money in the pockets of Americans, supercharging the free
> > enterprise system by leaving property in the hands of its rightful owners.
> > Under such conditions the U.S. will dominate the world economically because
> > all other nations will have, by comparison, larger and more intrusive
> > governments that disrupt their economies.Military Strength:
> > Counterintuitively, Ron Paul'sdesireto bring troops home would improve the
> > U.S. military's capabilities. Currently, with large deployments abroad,
> > both men and material tire and wear out. There are obvious costs involved
> > with regard to the necessary health care and maintenance this requires.
> > Less obviously, budgets for new and improved types of equipment come under
> > fire as the maintenance cost of keeping expeditionary forces in the field
> > grow. Over time this leads to a military with decreased war-making ability.
> > It is easy to see this starting to play out in the U.S. military. Warships
> > are increasingly old and are not being replaced. Frontline aircraft face
> > similar pressures. We currently fight with F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, all
> > featuring designs dating to the 1960s. The B-52 bomber is older still, a
> > remnant of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Harsh, but accurate!
Muslims, my Ass
Barack Obama,
during his Cairo speech, said:
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America 's story."
AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those
Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims
first landed? Funny, I thought they were
Native American Indians.
Were those
Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving
day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and
Native American Indians.
Can you
show me one Muslim signature on the United
States Constitution?
Declaration
of Independence ?
Bill of
Rights?
Didn't
think so.
Did
Muslims fight for this country's freedom from
England ? No..
Did
Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the
slaves in America ? No, they did
not. In fact, Muslims to this day are
still the largest traffickers in human
slavery.. Your own half brother, a devout
Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even
though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black
Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot
of what the Muslim world really thinks of your
family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr.
Obama?
Where were
Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this
country? Not present.
There are
no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or
helping to advance the cause of Civil
Rights.
Where were
Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage
era? Again, not present. In fact,
devout Muslims demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture. So much so,
that often they are beaten for not wearing the
'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a
direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights,
aren't they?
Where were
Muslims during World War II? They were
aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim
grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler,
reviewed the troops and accepted support from
the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Finally,
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th,
2001? If they weren't flying planes into
the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field
in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on
our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle
East . No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Muslim world
celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other
cable news networks that day. Strangely,
the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent
over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June
4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To
many Americans, their silence has meant approval
for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr.
Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America .
Oh, I'm sorry, I
forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.
They were Muslim.
And now we can
add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American
soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a
doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be
counseling soldiers returning from battle in
Iraq and Afghanistan but has been proven to have Al Qaeda links.
That, Mr. Obama
is the "Muslim heritage" in America
.EVERY AMERICAN, CANADIAN, BRIT, AUSSIE and KIWI
MUST READ THIS !!
Be sure to
SEND IT TO ALL .
Muslim Heritage, my ass
WordPress.com
