America's Brave Heart
Catholics for Ron Paul
Citizens for Ron Paul
The Crossed Pond
For Sound Money
The Knight Shift
LDS 4 Ron Paul
Libertarians For Ron Paul
Paul for Ron Paul
Protect Ron Paul
Red State Eclectic
Ron Paul Fan
Ron Paul KC
Ron Paul 2008 NYC
Ron Paul HQ
Ron Paul Nation
Ron Paul New England
Ron Paul Press Hub
Ron Paul Registry
Ron Paul Rescue Us
Students for Ron Paul
Seniors for Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul
League of The Scarlet Pimpernel
Asia for Ron Paul
Bavaria for Ron Paul
Belgians for Ron Paul
Brits for Ron Paul
Brazilians for Ron Paul
Canadians for Ron Paul
Chile for Ron Paul
French for Ron Paul
Europe 4 Ron Paul
Holland 4 Ron Paul
Hungary for Ron Paul
Ron Paul Spanish
Indian & Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul
Poland for Ron Paul
Romania for Ron Paul
Venezuela for Ron Paul
- The American Belloc Society
- The American Chesterton Society
- The Anthony Powell Society
- The C. S. Lewis Foundation
- The C. S. Lewis Institute
- The Center for Literate Values
- The Center for the Restoration of Humane Learning
- The Eric Voegelin Institute
- The Eric Voegelin Society
- The G. K. Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture
- The Joseph de Maistre Homepage
- The National Humanities Institute
- The National Institute for Newman Studies
- The Orestes Brownson Society
- The Writings of Paul Elmer More
- The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal
- Samuel Johnson
- The T.S. Eliot Society
- The Venerable John Henry Newman Association
- The Vincent McNabb Society
When Bush the Decider claims unconstitutional powers and uses "signing statements" to negate U.S. law whenever he feels the rule of law is in the way of his leadership, he is remarkably similar to Hitler, the Führer, who told the Reichstag on Feb. 20, 1938: "A man who feels it his duty at such an hour to assume the leadership of his people is not responsible to the laws of parliamentary usage or to a particular democratic conception, but solely to the mission placed upon him. And anyone who interferes with this mission is an enemy of the people."
You are with us or against us.
That would be a rude way to wake up!!
Like this is what we really need....I suppose they would figure out a way to tax us and then funnel the money into Kofi's hands like the oil for food program
what is that old saying reference the life of a sailor in the British navy "it's all rum the lash and sodomy"?
Here is some more details on how the GOP used procedural tricks to defeat an attempt to role back part of the PATRIOT Act, which Lew and Daniel previously commented on:
Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, judges must automatically approve a request to search library records, thus the PATRIOT Act turns judges into rubber stamps instead of independent checks on federal law enforcement. Representatives Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul and others offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill restoring the fourth amendment requirement that the government show probable cause and obtain a warrant from an independent judge before using taxpayer funds to search library and Internet records.
The amendment was debated yesterday afternoon and at 3:41 Congress began was was supposed to be a 15-minute vote on the amendment.
However, at the end of 15 minutes, the Sanders-Paul amendment was winning. So, instead of bringing down the gavel and ending the vote, leadership 'kept the vote open' while it twisted arms to get Republicans to change their votes.
Like they did during the Medicare votes, the GOP leadership ordered the C-SPAN cameras to remain fixed on a wide shot of the House, so the American people could not see the House leadership browbeat members to abandon the Fourth Amendment and their constituents' freedom 'for the good of the party.'
While they could not see what was going on, the American people could hear Representative Sanders and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi inquire as to whether 15 minutes had passed and if so why the vote was still being held open. The official explanation from the GOP le"
It has been some time since I went on a real rant about all the evils of “sissyfying” the military. All of the years of indoctrinated political correctness, easing training standards for fear of hurting someone, easing recruitment standards because there are really just not enough good kids waiting to get in, eliminating the ability of commanders at the company level to issue stern punishment; all of these and more are examples of the things I am talking about.
Imagine this, a US Marine deserts and then defects. Unconscionable and unfathomable. The Corps just ain’t what it used to be…and to think I wrote a piece bemoaning the eventual beheading of this criminal.
I suppose this young man, though he be a translator, was never fully introduced to the meaning of Semper Fidelis.
China is indeed a Dragon rising in the east. All the effort and money spent elsewhere by the US will eventually be proven as a mistake.
China has undertaken a massive modernization program. Within the decade the fruits of that effort will be apparent.
There is no doubt that marriage can be hard. It takes men and women of real principle to see it through at times. A whole heck of a lot of people get divorced in this country. I am not saying that people ought not get divorced under any circumstance, just that maybe the high divorce rate is indicative of a failing of some core values of family and of keeping ones commitment. It is just so easy to treat marriage as a conditional arrangement that one can quit whenever they want.
Hopefully, I have not alienated every single person that has went through a divorce at this juncture. We all do what we think is right. My points are really focused on what society says is right. Our society has transformed to the point that the general attitude is that it si just better to get divorced than to try and work through problems and keep the commitments we have made. In one sense we have become a society of quitters.
Rush Limbaugh has as much as anyone else in the "New Conservative" movement served as a focal point and mouth piece for the cause. Thousands of very conservative Christians, small government believers, Constitutionalist and even libertarians have at times joined the ranks of the ditto heads. It seems that in the person of Limbaugh and the causes he championed we saw our very best hope to achieve our goals.
Limbaugh began as what we saw as an amplification of the principles espoused by Ronald Reagan. During the Clinton years we saw Limbaugh as a voice announcing the evil of the Clinton administration. It has only been since the installation of Bush II that many have began to see Limbaugh for what he really is.
What is he really? Is he really a man that stands on the principles of conservativism? Does he represent the goals of the Christian right? Is he at all a friend to those of libertarian beliefs? Does he really represent and advocate the principles of the Constitution as originally intended? Is he even a man of person principles and values that we ought to listen to?
The answer of course is NO to each of these. Limbaugh is firmly a member of the Party of Lincoln. He has stated several times recently his fondness for that man. He is not an advocate of smaller government. He really just wants to move pieces and parts of the government around. He does not support or defend Christian principles. he is certainly no friend to libertarians, even his economic beliefs are not as free market oriented as he attemtops to appear at times.
His political views are based much more on expedience than principle. This is his biggest flaw. It is the flaw of all men of Lincoln's and FDR's ilk. The idea that whatever is best to fix a short-term problem is acceptable without regard to long standing principles is a dangerous one.
Rush was forgiven by many for becoming addicted to drugs. After all it was just prescription drugs, right? Thousands still forgive him for his lack of real political principle-after all who else will stand up to the liberals?
The problem with listening to a man that bases his opinions on current expediency instead of solid principles is that invariably he will go far from the true path.
Rush is no friend to true conservatives or our movement. He has in fact confused and led astray thousands for far to long. It is time that we woke up and turned this guy off.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
I was a teenager during the 1980’s, I graduated high school in 1986 and college in 1990. All of my fond reckless memories are from this era. This is also the time that I became politically aware. During the hostage crises of 1979 I first became interested in things political. I had known more or less from early boyhood that being a soldier was something I wanted to do. The events surrounding the Iranian hostage crisis served to thrust me into the Reaganite camp rather firmly.
In 1979 I asked my mother if I could miss school to attend a speech Reagan was giving locally during the campaign. After the speech I deftly positioned myself right beside the exit door and was able to shake the man’s hand. After his election I wrote him a letter to thank him and I received a letter back with and automated but authentic looking Reagan signature at the bottom.
Reagan’s early talk of national defense and being strong before the world appealed to my awakening sense of what the world ought to be. I found myself enthralled by Reagan’s speeches and his words.
When he spoke of the Evil Empire and the need to stand on a wall and defend against it I was ready. I was only seventeen for a month, the minimum age that the Army would accept a person, and a junior in high school but still I joined up. I completed basic training the summer between junior and senior years and served in the National Guard all through high school and college. I was predisposed and maybe even destined to serve anyway but my early entry is due in large part to Reagan.
Yhose that write Reagan’s legacy will say many things. One of the truest of the things that will be said is that he was a coalition builder. Reagan brought in to the Republican Party a myriad of disenchanted groups. The Christian Right saw Reagan as the best hope to restore to America a moral base. States’ Rights and small government types heard within the words of Reagan a return to the right kind of government. Ordinary American without deep ideological beliefs say Reagan as the man to move us away from something.
To be sure there was something to worthy of the desire to move on. The 1970’s were in essence a very low point for America. Americans of all sorts looked to Reagan to move America forward.
As we examine the legacy of Regan we must ask what did we move away from or more aptly stated what did we move toward? Were the hopes and dreams of the Reagan Republicans realized?
Another foundation in the legacy of Reagan will undoubtedly be the he looked the bear in the eye and forced the Soviet Empire to crumble. This is something so stuck in the realm of legend that it is hardly worth disputing. D-N-I.net has an interesting set of statistics that demonstrate that although the first two years of Reagan’s presidency contained massive defense spending increases the following six years did not. They also show that the Soviet system was in trouble long before the 1980 increase here and that inevitably the system was destined to collapse.
Reagan’s legacy includes the concept that he was and always was a conservative. Reagan has missed most of the neo-con backlash because this idea has taken root and is not easily removed. It must be remembered that Reagan voted for FDR each time he ran. He supported liberal and quasi-socialist candidates as late as 1950. In many respect Reagan might be considered the first Neo-con.
Instead of the various groups getting the things they wanted from the Party of Reagan they have been slowly “waking” up over the last fifteen or so years to realize that the Party of Reagan is not the party of Jefferson. It is in fact the Party of Lincoln. It is a party that does not wish to do away with the socialism of FDR, they just want to change it a little. It is not a party of small and limited government. It is not a party of Christian values. Ronald Reagan rebuilt and redefined the Republican Party on the hopes and dreams of millions of people that wanted something different. Instead of Reagan moving us in the direction that these new Reaganites really anted to go we left the 1980’s set on a straight path toward Empire.
I shall not speak ill of the dead, especially a man that was once such a large hero of mine. Reagan will no doubt go down in the pantheon of “heroes” beside Lincoln, FDR and other sorts that have made America what it is. I will mourn his loss but I will not celebrate his legacy.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
Of course you might also be familiar with a proposal among Christians to pack up and move by the thousands to South Carolina.
Imagine a nation in which local people set the rules for government at the state level. No federal judiciary interpreting rights for millions of people. Instead people could decide to live in areas friendly to their outlook. That would be freedom. It is impossible to assume that a Nation as large as the United States can possibly meet the needs of each citizen. Our values and principles are too diverse. It is possible to allow states to determine what is allowed and not allowed within their borders. This was the original intent during the creation of the Constitution.
If the Federal government was willing to accept the valid Constitutional principle of States' Rights and act inside the very limited delegated powers of the Constitution secession or division of the union would not even be a topic that required discussion.
If Californians want to ban "smoking" and "tobacco" from their language let them. If some other state wants to publicly fund abortions let them. If on the other hand a state wished to allow people to smoke or prohibit abortions within its borders because that is the belief of the people then let that state be. If you do not like the laws of the state in which you live get them changed or move. It is simply not the place of the Federal government to tell and mandate to each state how these issues are to be addressed.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem