The microchip will soon be instituted. Mark (no pun intended) my words!!!
along with super computers and other methods, keeping a watchful eye on us will be rather easy.

Cant believe Brian Sullivan is so naive.  My parents came from the first country (Ukraine) taken over by the Russian communist regime.  Does Sullivan need more countries taken over by dictators or crazy loons; i.e, Germany, N. Korea, etc. I hardly think the Patriot act would have done Sullivan harm.  I hear more information when people talk on there cell phones.

You don’t need to place them under observation idiot.  Just read your history.

Brian Sullivan, your argument is an argument from lack of imagination or argument from ignorance—which are logical fallacies.  Have you never heard of the NSA and its ability to monitor all phone and email communications?  Are you also unaware of the illegal actions abusing this power?  Put two and two together, it’s not as hard as you imagine.  Since when does “legality” stop administrations that do not even adhere to the US Constitution.  Your ignorance of recent abuses of power is astonishing.  Do you watch Fox?

Extremists – on EVERY issue – are bad, Bad, BAD news!  Period.

(And, of course, Michelle Malkin is one of those extremists.)

Obama will not need to employ either tons of government employees or technology to spy on millions of citizens.  He just needs to employ the methods that Hitler and others have used throughout history.  Enlist the “youth of our nation”, then indoctrinate them to “report” anyone who acts in a manner that does not support the governments goals.
Neighbor spying on neighbor is an easy way to monitor millions.  Obama has stated he wants a “youth organization of volunteers”.  Most people think of the Peace Corp. but when he couples this with massive funding for ACORN these volunteers take on a vary different role.  Beware of people who don’t remember history…..for they are bound to repeat it.  We need more people speaking out, writing articles, joining TEA parties, etc. and less people sitting back and waiting for “change”….whether it’s good or bad change.

Anyone who thinks Michelle Malkin is an “extremist” is an ignoramus and/or a malignant narcissist.

Conservatives/Classic Liberals/Libertarians want our Liberties protected.

Leftists want the power to take our Liberties away and to force their destructive ideas on anyone who disagrees with them.

The Homeland Security Department “report” (of which I have a copy and have read cover to cover) is the first step in recruiting informants to watch out for and provide surveillance information about anyone who makes any derogatory remark about the Obama administration.  That administration already has a built-in and paid for informant networks in the groups “Code Pink” and the ACORN organization.  If you think I am paranoid you are certainly welcome to your thoughts, but check back in about a year and see what you think.  Oh by the way, check out who comes out tomorrow to counter, watch and report on those of us who attend the Tea Parties.

Since when did an American defending the Constitution become an extremist?  Since when is it racist to oppose pork-laden-out-of-control spending?  Since when is it “violent” to gather peaceably?

I didn’t have plans to attend a tea party, but the ridiculous insinuations have caused me to take a stand. I will not side with those who slander and seek to discourage freedom of speech. I will not be intimidated by the obnoxious media.  I will not watch this great country crumble to a mediocre socialist state. I encourage others to get off the sidelines and remind our government that “we the people” are still in charge.

Brian R. Sullivan said, “How could the Dept. of Homeland Security monitor millions of Americans? (“The “bitter” people in the heartland didn’t vote for Obama, so now they are under the watchful eye of his Homeland Security Department.”) The only legal authority for such surveillance would be under the Bush administration “Patriot Act.”
———————————
Obama has not only continued telephone wire taps to and from foreign countries, but has expanded it to include calls made to and from within the US, that my friend is a fact.

Another fact is that Obama has set aside 80,000 military troops and to be greatly expanded if the citizens were to revolt and impose Martial Law.

As has been said, ‘You can fool some of the people some of the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.’

http://email.wnd.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=be886d518980f26cd634594fec457cf5&CID=3882983523&ch=D81B35B88192F272A38F52DE9AA971FD

and:

http://www.usjf.net

Brian:
May I present you with a reading list:
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, by Robert Gellately
The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaea,
Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg,
Wilsonism, by Heckscher;
and the not-to-be-forgotten Zion Covenant Series by Bodie Thoene(Taynee) written in ‘80s and ‘90’s.
You may also want to read about the Large Hadron Collider’s ability to make today’s electronic capabilities seem like the stone age.
ACORN may sport green t-shirts…but then there were the brown shirts.

Napolitano needs to step down immediately and Congress needs to open an investigation into Obama and his administration.  Obama is now not only guilty of fraud and deceit for hiding his foreign birth, but now for using office for personal gain.  Impeachment should be at the top of the list for the man that was never vetted, never challenge, not qualified and incompetent.  He and his staff should be removed immediately.  The Supreme Court needs to hear the case on his citizenship, remove him from office and find the Democratic Party guilty of fraud also, and remove Pelosi and Reid and put them in jail with Obama.  In my 50+ years I have not seen the corruption or deceit that Obama and the Democratic Party has shown, even though Carter was close on incompetence.

This is not only true of Obama’s administration, but also the past Republican administration. The government does not like people who speak out against the government, specifically those people who are of a libertarian bent and want the government to have less control over their lives. These are also the people who abhor paying taxes, not because they abhor paying taxes, but the system is so screwed up and is not a fair system. Also, many of these people are angry over how the government wastes money, by giving it overseas, and by the waste in our military and other agencies. But, there is a large groundswell (just look at the tea parties) that is against the government we have now which is so removed from our constitution and what our forefathers fought for.

Anyone who does not think “it can’t happen here” needs to read “The Third Wave” by Ron Jones.  Just Google it… it will come right up. The narrative will give you an idea of just how easy it is to co-opt people into becoming little nazi snitches.

EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE.
  Barry Goldwater…..1964

from a Disgruntled Military Veteran-OIF 2003

Wesley in Dallas quoted that old saying: You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

Unfortunately you can fool most of the people most of the time and many of our elected representatives depend on that fact.

Well, Brian, we are trying to organize and form some peaceful, Constitutionally based groups to make our voices heard. And what am I hearing?? I hear that some “right wing” groups are now on terrorist watch lists. The implications of that go way beyond the obvious “monitoring”. Being on certain lists affects other areas such as credit, gun ownership, employment, etc. And don’t tell me I am being paranoid..I know real people in the real world who experience and fear this.

Sullivan,

Just how much is the Obama Administration paying you to post on this website anyway?  I understand the DHS also produced a report on left-wing extremists, however, it indicated the left-wing extremists only conduct cyberattacks or attacks against businesses.  Where the right-wing extremists only conduct terrorist type activities that result in bloodshed.  Nope, no bias there at all.  The last time I checked, the head of the DHS is appointed by the President and I’m sure they receive strict guidance on the type of people (political affiliation) to hire to their staffs.  The timing of this report is no coincidence by any means.  Just watch the tea parties today and how the MSM paints them as “right-wing extremists” that are paranoid because a black man was elected President.  It is quite typical in fascism for those in power to label the opposition as paranoid.  You managed to use the word multiple times in your last post. 

Fascism is right at our doorsteps and no matter how hard left-wing radicals like you try to portray it as something else, the other 58 million voters in this country that chose McCain will not be fooled. 

You should go back over to the Huffington post or salon.com where you can incite mob rule and bash conservatives.  You clearly do not belong here.

Brian Sullivan said in post #23:

“Wesley in Dallas, who has previously admitted he suffers from neurological problems, thinks 80,000 troops are on stand-by to impose martial law. What units, precisely? At what bases are they stationed?”

I said Neurologist, as in Neurosurgery for my back, I have told you before to stop twisting my words and lying about what others say! Sheesh…

btw-80,000 is just a start, to go where they think they are most needed, but mostly in DC for now. obama and his cabal are a bunch of paranoids, he honestly believe those who disagree with the way he is running the government are anarchists preparing a nationwide revolt.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Protecting individuals and their personal property, their labor, and their plans for the future is a primary function of government. They believed the government should never steal from the unpopular few and redistribute to the masses. The Founders embedded these rights in the Constitution. They believed the rights of life, liberty and property where given by God and should be protected from the power of government.” Although I was disappointed in the Republicans spending like Democrats and Bush using the $350 Billion for bail outs and his stance on illegal’s, but as for the rest he did keep us safe.

Those who voted for obama are now disappointed that he has kept President Bush’s wire tapping program, but has expanded it to all US phone calls, and internet to find people who are dis-enchanted with his way of governing, and may come together into anti-government groups he feels threatened by…he has a right to be afraid, he is no more qualified to run a mini mart, much less than our Government. He has however managed to bring Chicago politics to Washington DC, still has not filled his entire cabinet and midlevel appointees due to the fact that most of them are tax cheats, or under investigation. Even Democrats in the House and Senate are against many of his policies, and have voted such. Last Friday, his poll numbers have dropped from 85% to 52% as noted in three separate polls, Pew, Rasmussen and even one from CBS/USA Today.

I think it is funny that the Liberals in government now like to refer to themselves as Progressives, it is funny due to the fact that Bill O’Reilly has been calling them that for no less than 10 years.

Do you know why the Senate would not vote for Congresses bill on the Fairness Doctrine? Because it includes television news and newspapers, they would have to give equal time to both parties and actually would have to give equal rights to the Republicans, obama even said if the bill passes, he would veto it immediately.

We all know why the Democrat symbol is an ass (as in donkey).

I agree with those who see Obama’s “civilian
defense force” as similar to the Gestapo and the
KGB, along with other nation’s “watchers” of their neighbors for political purposes.  IF the
DHS IS involved, just add them to the list.
That said, I believe God’s word, and believe that we ARE entering into the “last days.” It is
GOD who raises up kings (leaders) and Kingdoms
(nations)for the good or bad of a nation.
  GOD does not have to perform any spectacular
event to “prove” HE is GOD punishing us for our
abominable sins against HIM.  Is all HE has to do is turn HIS face from us, and we’ll do it to ourselves.  Man will sink to his lowest level, left to himself.
America has thumbed their noses at HIM, have
mocked HIM, and has tried to erase HIM from every
area of our culture.  How would you expect GOD,
who is holy and righteous, to respond?  By winking HIS eye?  Shrugging HIS shoulders?
America has back-slidden. “Christians” are now
saying, “I believe in God, but…..,” when it
should be “But I believe God…..”  PERIOD.
HE gave us the solution:  “IF My people, which are called by MY Name,shall humble themselves AND pray, AND seek my face AND turn from their wicked ways, THEN will I hear from heaven AND will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
(Caps are for emphasis.)
  Think there is a chance America will follow the
formula HE set forth?  No?  Then look at today
as “the good old days,” as worse will come.

Just reported on the news, Department of Homeland Security thinks Conservative values signal a radical threat to the USA. What a load of crap!!! Also included were people who oppose abortion or illegal aliens are also a threat to our country.

Radicals is what the Conservatives have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore that is a direct threat and insult to Americans. It was Obama who gave Hamas $900 Million, bowed to King Abdullah, gave crappy gifts to France and England. What kind of idiot would give 25 DVD’s in NTFS format (The EU’s formats are PAL and SECAM) NTFS will not play over there, other than is was an insulting gift, in return for the priceless gifts Sarkozy gave BHO, who is still hiding his Birth Certificate, and his college records, and the passport he used when traveling to Pakistan when he was younger. Then he give the Queen of England an iPod with American show tunes loaded on it…just embarrassing.

Also on the news today, Texas Governor Rick Perry told Obama to stay out of Texas’s business, we do not want or need the $555 Million for a state bail out, and put it back in the coffers. Obama is in violation of the 10th Amendment, The Federalist Powers. The 10th Amendment was written by the States to create the Government as our agent, not the other way around. The Supreme Court has already ruled and reaffirmed the 10th Amendment…basically the government is saying, to get your money back, you will have to expand socialist programs, to do this or do that. So obama is in violation of the Constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court.

And it is not just Texas, there are 33 other States trying to pass similar legislation. The bill is called HRC-55.

Hitler’s Youth Brigades cannot happen here?  Check out The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (HR1388) soon to be signed into law.

This becomes the law of the land.

More in The Voice Magazine reported via Free Republic.

Oh, I almost forgot, DHS is also concerned with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans returning to the US, are a possible threat to the US Government, holy cow, are these people crazy??

Brian – you haven’t heard of the new volunteer force envisioned by our government?  “Paid” volunteers made up of children from elementary school to senior citizens?  Obama sees that as bigger than the military, fully operative and funded on a par with the military.  These are his words, not ours.  Only when your ox is gored will you see that opinions can be detrimental to your health and welfare.  Will it change your mind?  No, because you are not discomfited.  Political correctness is over, done, stale, overworked; it contributed to meaningless, vacuous garbage which is what we hear from the President, who can’t speak without a teleprompter, uh, uh, I’m getting to it, er, huh. Thank you Brian for your post, you illuminate views that we expect – and provide a basis to refute.

There is, and has never been, anything remotely resembling a conservative thought posted on this website by you, ever. 

I’m sure you associate fascism with anything right-wing and probably even believe Hitler was a fascist conservative. 

It isn’t un-American for anyone to suggest you just migrate your way over to the liberal blogs where you belong.  However, it is quite un-American for you to claim those with opposing views to yours on this website as “paranoid.”  Your liberal talking points and smear tactics don’t work here.  Do us all a favor and washout your mouth with buckshot.

Brian – I feel so left out.  Could you please respond to my comments?

Re: Charles, Post 25;

So much for you being a defender of the Constitution and protector of Freedom of Speech, Charlie!

(Think there’s really much difference between a dictatorship on the political left and a dictatorship on the political right?)

Re: Post 24;

A comment from the post …

“However, it is quite un-American for you to claim those with opposing views to yours on this website as “paranoid.”  Your liberal talking points and smear tactics don’t work here.  Do us all a favor and washout your mouth with buckshot.”

How does referring to someone as a possible “paranoid” (a person subject to the mental disease of paranoia) equate to being “unAmerican”?

And the comment “washout your mouth with buckshot” is one of the most inane, juvenile and offensively extremist comments I’ve seen here yet.

(The terms “double-standard” and “blowhard” come to mind here.)

MY MISTAKE!

My Post 37 above is referring to Post 34 (Charles) – NOT Post 24 (Marcia)!

Sorry, Marcia!

Wesley – George W. Bush definitely evidenced some very embarrassing conduct (and speech), poorly reflecting both on the presidency as well as on the United States.  Likewise, Bill Clinton CERTAINLY embarrassed himself, the presidency AND the country in the Lewinski affair.  And Reagan’s Iran-Contra involvement, for example, was certainly a major embarrassment.  So, I think your embarrassment over Obama giving the Queen of England an iPod with American show tunes on it seems to be overstated and not really comparable to the embarrassments caused by other presidents.

Carolyn – your comment … “meaningless, vacuous garbage which is what we hear from the President, who can’t speak without a teleprompter” … is just a partisan rant.  George W. Bush, with teleprompter or not, has clearly been one of the most tongue-tied, garbage-talking, poor-at-public-speaking presidents of the thirteen presidents of my lifetime.  And, of course, whether intentional or not, Bush, shall we say, also misrepresented a lot in his speeches!

Neither of you are very objective.

TK,

Yet another Obamabot employee on this website.  Suggesting I’m un-American by telling a liberal nuttjob like Brain Sullivan to post on liberal blogs with other fascist socialist apparently is ok with you then?  So what is labeling the opposition as “paranoid” everytime they present an opposing view? 

I personally do not care if I offended your delicate sensibilities with my comments.  The fact that you call yourself an American offends me.  Go to Europe where you belong.

Re: Post 21;

Your comment: “EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE.  Barry Goldwater…..1964”

I happen to believe in a lot of things Barry Goldwater had to say in “The Conscience of a Conservative” – BUT – he lost the 1964 presidential election by a margin of 2 to 1 – which still ranks as the worst loss ever in a U.S. presidential election.  Of course – a very large number of people back then were convinced that he was a warmonger and, if given the chance, he would use the most miniscule provocation to fire every American nuclear ICBM at Russia – in other words – many voters obviously felt he was an military extremist run amok! 

Personally, while I agreed with a lot of his political philosophy (some of the more “traditionalist” elements) – I did not vote for him because of his military extremism and his apparent willingness to unleash probable nuclear Armegeddon.

On other fronts, as the founder of American Conservatism, I’m sure you’re aware that Goldwater did support equal rights for homosexuals and that he did accept the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade?  (He also seemed not to be very fond of John McCain.)

If, as you infer, you’re a disgruntled military veteran of those times – I guess you probably agreed with Goldwater’s militaristic extremism.  I did not – and, like many others then, I felt that, if he was elected, that particular variety of extremism of his presented a definite danger to the future of the U.S. – if not the entire world.

Re: Post 7;

Hey, Benny, if you’re a Michelle Malkin/Ann Coulter groupie, so be it!

Personally, while I believe Malkin does have a point to make from time-to-time, apparently like with you, her obnoxious, self-centered, narrow-minded, loud-mouthed, blowhard manner, like Coulter’s, typically totally obscures the potentially-valid point she’s trying to make.

Like Coulter, her extreme, usually hyper and often irrational-sounding manner of presentation makes her far too unappealing and uncredible for me to seriously listen to anything she has to say.

Malkin and Coulter are probably narcissists – likely not much different than Savage and Hannity in that regard.

BTW, can you distinguish the specific differences between “Conservatives/Classical Liberals/ Libertarians” – and explain how they’re ALL better than the “Leftists” of whom you speak?  And, what about the “Rightists”?  Where do they fit into your equation?

TK,

So, now you are admitting to having a mental disease, quite fitting I think.

Brian,

If you call yourself a Conservative, you are about as Conservative as Nancy Pelosi.

You also said “I live on the outskirts of Washington. As a result of my Defense Dept. service and my Marine Reserve service, I remain in close contact with many Dept. of Defense civilians and many active and retired military officers. I frequently visit the military bases in the region: Quantico Marine Base, Andrews Air Force Base, Fort Beauvoir, the Washington Navy Yard, for example.

Brian R. Sullivan”
—————————
Why didn’t you mention you military service when I was talking about serving my country, not once but twice?

Since your statement, I made some calls, why is it that there is no record of a Brian R. Sullivan working in the Pentagon for the DOD? And if you were a Marine Reservist…no fair looking it up, how long is a Marine Reservist’s commitment?

DHS Secretary; Janet Napolitano has released the largest Government propaganda I have ever seen, read between the lines, and it is not just Right Wing Groups.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5410658/DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism

If this were true during the 1990’s and 2000 through 2008, we would have heard about it! What a load of crap, even much of the information is conjecture (made up), and a clear case of paranoia.

Re: Post 40;

Hey, Charlie – I didn’t say or suggest the following:

“Suggesting I’m un-American by telling a liberal nuttjob like Brain Sullivan to post on liberal blogs with other fascist socialist apparently is ok with you then?”

I ASKED YOU: “How does referring to someone as a possible “paranoid” (a person subject to the mental disease of paranoia) equate to being “unAmerican”?”

Care to answer the question instead of obfuscating?  I certainly didn’t call you nor infer that YOU were unAmerican, now, did I, Charlie?

And, my sensibilities certainly weren’t offended. In fact, it simply appeared to me that you weren’t making any sense whatsoever with your equation that anyone referring to someone as paranoid was tantamount to being unAmerican.  (Sounds like political correctness run amok, doesn’t it?)

And, BTW, Charlie, are you now also saying that all “liberals” are “fascist socialists”?  (I think Jesus was probably the first “liberal”.  Do you think that made him a “fascist socialist”, too?)

You sure got a way with words, Charlie.

Wow!

Re: Wesley, Post 45:

Your comment:

“TK,

So, now you are admitting to having a mental disease, quite fitting I think.”

WTF ???

I think you may be off the reservation again, Wes!

???

Re: Richard Young, Post 44;

Your comment:

“TK, If all you have to offer are personal attacks, go do it to someone face to face and see how long you stand. Leave the violent idiology (sic) with your Monkey Wrench Gang.”

To exactly what “personal attacks” are you referring, Dickie?  Where does “violent” come into the picture? And, exactly what is the “Monkey Wrench Gang”?

(BTW: If by “personal attacks” you happen to be referring to my personal opinions as stated herein of the on-air personalities of Malkin, Coulter, Savage and Hannity – those aren’t attacks.  They are simply my personal opinions of their public personas.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6098836.ece

Sarkozy slaps Obama down…

TK, I am not off the reservation, you should have worded it differently, your own fault, not mine.

Re: Wesley, Post 49;

Wes – worded WHAT “differently” ???

Re: Sullivan, Post 50;

Certainly, at least as this particular thread is concerned, I really think your following comments hit the nail squarely on the head!
___________________________

“I am appalled by the ignorance displayed by you and others in regard to being a conservative. I don’t think you nor they understand what a conservative is. I challenge you to define the meaning of the term.  As far as I can discern, you and others on this site believe that being a conservative means having an irrational, paranoid fear of “the left,” (as if liberals, liberal democrats, social democrats, socialists, Marxists, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Trotskyites, Maoists and anarchists were somehow identical), believing in nonsensical conspiracy theories, refusing to recognize that the United States has had a mixed socialist-capitalist economy for the past century without any damage to our civil liberties and that you faux-conservatives can interpret the Constitution on a selective basis.”
___________________________

“Instead, being a conservative means taking a certain view of human nature and holding a belief in certain values. I challenge you and others to state what those views and values are.”
___________________________

Far too many people, whether on the left or the right, take political comfort in (and find it easy) being “partisan automatons” – and I further believe partisan political extremism run amok (from either end of the spectrum and from any source) may well pose a significant threat to future U.S. security and well-being.

In my opinion, since some time in the ‘80s, the GOP’s main platform plank seems to have been, first-and-foremost, to be “anti-Democrat” or “anti-Liberal” – - and, since the Clinton impeachment effort and the 2000 election, it seems the left-wing of the Democratic Party has focused solely on being “anti-Bush”, “anti-Religious Right” and, especially in the last few years, generally “anti-GOP”.

Personally, I often feel that JFK was probably more politically conservative than are many of today’s self-anointed GOP ‘conservatives’. (???)

And, I do think that POLITICAL conservatism or liberalism – SOCIO-CULTURAL conservatism or liberalism – and – ECONOMIC conservatism or liberalism are three separate and distinct areas wherein any individual’s perspective (from very liberal to very conservative and anywhere in-between) can vary among the three.

But – far too many people are simply lemming-like partisans riding along on some kind of bandwagon, not knowing where they came from nor where they’re going.

Re: Post 55;

Exactly what “propaganda” are you referring to?

And, how about pointing out those “personal attacks” – explaining where “violent” comes into the picture – and explaining your “Monkey Wrench Gang” – as I requested in my Post 48.

(???)

To your way of thinking, I guess it’s easy to use “fewer words” when you don’t actually write or say anything.

(???)

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton
… famous words of Sir John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton were written in April 1887 in a letter to the English Theologian Mandell Creighton. They might have been uttered by James Madison–or by any of the framers of the constitutions for that matter. It is a sad commentary on man- but being so only reinforce that the people must reminded their government just who they answer to. I must remind them of not only the Constitution of these United States but also the opening words of the declarations of Independence; “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another..” 
Evert since early man began to gather in tribes and form civilizations, the chief impediment towards fostering man’s liberty eventually becomes government–not because government is bad–but because the people in it. Each time government usurps the will of the people and rejects the basic idea that those in the Government answer to the people they begin fearing the people and foster concerns about “right wing extremist”.
This is not to say that such persons do not exist – such would be foolish. However, a government relies on its citizens to help keep such organization in check (see Section 8 of the US Constitution, and read the debates regarding the 2nd amendment). In addition, people who believe, and TRUST the action of their elected officials usually provides that kind of support freely. Currently with its dismal performance, rating and confidence from the people –of and for Congress– the Congress may be voicing concerns of right-wing actions. The focus should be on is correcting the problem- requiring one admit a mistake. . This is not a democratic or republican issue beyond the childish and petty infighting with such labels. It is not about constantly blaming the last guy, for this is a sure sign of poor and weak leader….This is not a “democrats” or “republicans” it the REPULBIC’S problem.
We have both a Congress and Presidential Administration both more concerned about their own self-interests, incestuous politics, posturing or making flippant remarks about expressed public concerns- they fail freedom because freedom depends on the effective ability to restrain the accumulation of too much power in any one source.
Do you think Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or any of the Congress FEAR the American Public? Do you for one second think that ANY person in Congress or the Presidents Administration has any comprehension of an ordinary what a wage earner with 2.5 children and a wife, making a combined total income of $50,000 a year has to deal with?
The answer is a resounding NO! Once power is attained, they are become corrupted seeking only more power and more control. The rules no longer apply to them and all who tell, them daily how truly assume they are– in their own mind, exalt them – compound this matter.
What they know is about election time, they will toss “tea and crumpets” about glibly they become talking heads with “Well this last year “I”… and “I” did….and “I” was responsible for ..And if “I”  had my way…” and people like Mr. Sullivan will continue to suggest it was the “BUSH Administration that is the root of all evil and sin that ails mankind” all the while blissfully ignoring the one fact that it is the CONGRESS that MAKES LAWS, be it the Patriot Act or any other Act. Moreover, the President of the United States has full EXECUTE CONTROL over the Department of Homeland Security and “to believe or state otherwise is foolish, un-informed and dangerously naive. The very same “thousands of patriotic and dedicated members of Customs and Immigration, the Border Patrol, the Air Marshals, the Coast Guard and other agencies…” will follow the law and direction of those appointed OVER them- filing to do so would result in the label “traitors, snitches, and criminals.”
I am not sure what the “the people at AIM think” since unlike many, I do not speak for everyone- but I do speak for me. There are real issues developing in this country and if anyone thinks that concentrated power in a large government- one you effectively have no direct control over is NOT dangerous ––-then I would argue you know nothing of history or the human race. Do you think you have ONE single modicum of control over what Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid want voted on?
If the President of the United States issue an executive order on Friday that said something to the effect of “Anyone who purchases a hand gun must: 1) register said gun and; 2) must submit to an inspection of that weapon, at any time, by any duly certified Federal Law Enforcement Officer, FBI Agent, DEA Agent upon demand. Failure to comply will result in the forfeiture of the weapons and a $12,000 administrative fine.  What would YOUR recourse be? Moreover, just to make it interesting what about those “thousand of dedicated members” who would be expected to carry out such an order?
Many need to wake up and realize that freedom is not FREE, the rights you HAD were earned by those who believed in the Constitution,– and that does not make them a “Right Wing Radical.”

Thanks RY –I “endeavor to preserve” (smile). Discussions about politics inevitably bring out strong emotions in many because it often assails their “inner core”. Conservatives are angry at waste, leftists are angry with conservatives and everybody thinks that somebody else ought to be feeling guilty. Strong emotions do not necessarily replace rational thought about the issues or negate the need to think about thinks strategically and the resulting second and third order effects. — More often it’s the thinking that got people so emotional in the first place. However, getting emotional does not make one Correct… facts do and facts– at least what you can show is a fact– require intellectual honesty and examination.

Wesley in Dallas,

Brian Sullivan has a long history of twisting peoples’ words, of lying, and of resorting to ad hominem attacks. He’s stated that he has no need to show respect due to his superiority over others. I guess it is all part of his psychological experiments he’s so fond of. However, the truth is he seeks to sow strife on blogs that don’t toe the approved government line.

Brian

Since you asked let me take a stab at what I think most would say a conservative is. Others feel free to chime in.

For one, conservatism can be on many levels. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, moral conservatives and so on. Usually they all go hand in hand but not always.

A political conservative generally believes in small government as opposed to the nanny state. They want opportunity, not entitlement and the freedom to exercise their God given ability to advance their lot in life. They want to use the fruits of that ability to do as they believe their conscience dictates, not as government dictates. They believe the solution to man’s woes is not more government but “self” government which is rooted in a clear recognition of absolute values of right and wrong. A conservative believes that men and women have an incredible capacity for great good as well as great evil or as the saying goes, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Therefore, all men, particularly those in government need to be held accountable to a higher authority then themselves. They believe the best form of government is government by law and not by men. This I believe requires a recognition of an ultimate lawgiver (for sake of discussion we’ll call this entity what the founders called Him, our Creator) to whom we all must give an account. This in turn requires a belief that morality and truth are absolute and not relative. To say it simply there is a right and wrong way to do things and we do not determine what that right and wrong is but the law given by the ultimate lawgiver does.

Generally speaking the most foundational difference I have observed between liberals and conservatives is liberal’s believe man is basically good and capable of managing his affairs. Conservatives do not but most look outside of themselves to know what is right or wrong.

This isn’t an exhaustive list of distinctions by any stretch but I think it at least touches on some the core differences.

Does this describe you Brian? If it does not I would say a large majority of those who would call themselves conservatives would say you are not a conservative.

Awaiting your reply
Jim

TK,

Jesus was the first liberal?  Wow!  Now there is a delusional thought if I’ve ever seen one.  Seeing how the majority of the liberals in this country are out to destroy anything resembling Christianity, I find it laughable you would even make such a suggestion.  You spend so much time spinning your propaganda on this site that you don’t remember what is what anymore. 

Is it “politically correct” to label an entire group of people with conservative values (58 million in the last election) as “paranoid” because they believe in small government, low taxes, free enterprise and strong national defense?  Are they really “paranoid” when these same people see a massive expansion of government control in the financial markets?  Are they “paranoid” when the President goes abroad to Europe and bashes his own country to appease his audience?  Are they “paranoid” when nearly every organization in government is increasing spending, but the Defense Department is being cut during a time of war?  Are they “paranoid” that our new President views America as just another country in the world and should be subjected to international economic regulations and international governance?  No, these conservatives, or “right-wing extremists” as defined by the DHS, are not “paranoid” but afraid the country they know and love is becoming a lot like socialist Europe.  Have you lived in Europe?  Do you have a clue how it really it is over there?  Have you experienced government run and controlled health care first hand?  I lived in Europe for five years and the grass is certainly not greener my friend. 

Brian S.,

What happened when FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans during WWII?  Why did the IRS audit Bill O’Reilly 3 times during the Clinton administration?  If you really believe the President cannot abuse their powers, then you are more naive than I thought.

You wrote: “I’m sure you associate fascism with anything right-wing and probably even believe Hitler was a fascist conservative.”
Yes, I believe that you do so think. But by so doing you make my point. You are “sure” about something about which you know nothing and hold strong opinions about matters of which you are ignorant. “Google” me to get some idea of how misguided your thinking is about me and my beliefs. 

I guess this is your attempt at attacking me once again from your lofty perch.  I have read many of your posts on this site and if you are a conservative, then I must be Barney Frank.  You are correct, I do not know you and nor do I care to know you on a personal level whatsoever.  However, I can conclude, based on your rants on this site, that you are not a conservative.  Jim summed up what it is to be conservative well enough and if you don’t share those values, then you may be a RINO.  I’ll still go with my original assessment though and say you are a liberal.  Your statement that JFK was more politically conservative than today’s conservatives proves my point.  Thanks for making it easy. 

You believe Obama to be like FDR?  Are you a fan of FDR?  FDR’s reign was about as close to fascism as America has ever come.  His “New Deal” was essentially a carbon copy of the economic plans of Hitler and Mussolini.  Here is where you will typically say I don’t know anything about history.  Relax Brian, you’re not always going to be the smartest guy in the room.  Give your ego a day off.

Brian, you said you would sue on liable, or you sure you didn’t mean slander? I have sued for slander and the offender was found liable, I think that is what you mean. However, I see nothing but opinion, you cannot sue for an opinion, I would have to side with Richard.

You have another problem attempting to prove your so called suit, and one NEVER shows their hand, such as telling the person you claim you want to sue, and you NEVER tell people in a Blog situation your intent or that you have hired a P.I. Besides it being a Civil Matter, do you have any idea how difficult your case would be…if it is true, in a Blog situation where you have called me and other names and liars, I do not think you have a chance in hell.

Earlier when I asked you that I could find no record of you being part of the Pentagon or the DOD, you replied with, “1) Dear Wesley in Dallas,
Of course, there is no record of me working in the Pentagon. I have been in the building many times but I worked elsewhere.”

In your Post #68 you said. “In addition, since I not only held SCI/TS clearances while working for DoD, I still retain clearances at a lower level.”

And “2) The clearances I now hold are essential to making my living. I continue to consult, lecture etc. for DoD.”

My Uncle <Name given only privately> has worked for the Defense Department through five Presidents, and has clearance on most upper levels.

What we need to do is to stop these off topic attacks on one another or AIM will shut the blogs down again.

I was bought up to show respect to everyone, unless they would not do so in return after trying again and again.

Back to the Topic at hand, this from our new DHS Secretary Napolitano.

Here is here memo to DHS, Police, and some military officials:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5410658/DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism

It is very interesting, and a must read, also read between the lines, such as those who attended the TEA Parties yesterday.

Sully writes: To Many of You:
It seems obvious you are very afraid.

“tw” repeats the microchip idea in which Timothy McVeigh believed.”

Ha! No fear here, God is faithful!!!

And as if to equate a belief with a wacko proves the idea untrue. A little fundamental logic can go a long way. and a little research.

Re: Post 57;

You are clearly the ranking expert here on “simple”.

Re: Charles, Post 70;

First, if you don’t think Jesus was far more “liberal”, in almost all ways, than were the rabbis, the ruling class, the occupying Romans and Jewish society of his day – then you just don’t know the history of that time and place.

Second, you go on-and-on in your post chastising me for labeling an …“entire group of people with conservative values (58 million in the last election) as “paranoid”” …

IN FACT, in NONE of my posts here have I used the word “paranoid” to label anyone – nor did I chastise anyone for being a “conservative” – nor did I chastise any real or imagined “conservative values” (other than saying that I am pretty conservative on many – but not all – issues – myself!).

AND – - in your chastising of Brian Sullivan in the same post – you state that he made the statement … “JFK was more politically conservative than today’s conservatives” …

FIRST – I made the statement – NOT Sullivan.

SECOND – MY exact statement was: “Personally, I often feel that JFK was probably more politically conservative than are many of today’s self-anointed GOP ‘conservatives’. (???)”

THIRD – YOU APPARENTLY MISSED the meanings conveyed by my use of “often feel” (as opposed to “believe”); “probably” (as opposed to “definitely”); “many” (as opposed to “all); and “self-anointed” (as opposed to me labeling them)- – followed by “questioning” question marks!!!

Either you may not read too well; may not understand what you read; may have poor recollection – - or – - maybe you just don’t care much for the real facts and their relevant details. 

Whatever – you’re W-A-Y off-base.

Re: Wesley, Post 71;

A few basics: “libel” is written; “slander” is spoken.  In both cases – “truth” is the defense – or – the “proof” of the libel or slander.

In litigation, the plaintiff generally has to show the defendant willfully “spread mistruths” (in writing or verbally) – and that the spreading of those mistruths damaged the plaintiff in relation to his/her work or reputation.  Multiple parties must have heard or read the mistruths.

If Young is purposely BSing – and if Sullivan has truth on his side – and if Sullivan can show that he was damaged in his reputation or in his work because of what Young BSed – Sullivan wins.

Pretty simple stuff – and plenty of people have been found guilty of libel for things they posted on the internet, things written in blogs, etc.

In fact, in my local town, a former town manager has sued a local blogger because of supposedly untrue posts about that manager that appeared in the blog.  The manager claims he was denied a job or two elsewhere because of these untrue blog posts – and the matter is pending settlement or trial.

TK,

Just remember you are as guilty of Slander / Defamation of Character more so than anyone on this site, possibly with the exception of Sullivan. Even if you do go to court, you are facing an uphill battle, since you incited the comments made about you in the first place. Fact: 99% of all Internet cases are usually thrown out, I have been there and done that, and it was a business site I worked for, I had Emails, Instant Messages, telephone calls where I told the callers I was taping the calls, I also had over 75 witnesses, it was still iffy, but I finally did win. The trial lasted two months.

This is just a friendly reminder of what you will be getting into.

Re: Wesley, Post 79;

Geez, Wes, you’re getting out there, again!

I’m NOT suing anyone.  I’m not threatening to sue anyone.  I have no reason to sue anyone!

I was simply correcting some misstatements YOU made in your Post 71 – for YOUR own benefit!

(And there’s no such defense to slander or libel as “inciting the untrue comments” made by another about one’s self!  And there’s nothing “iffy” about the litigation: IF one willfully and knowlingly spreads significant mistruths about you – if you can prove they were mistruths – and if those mistruths negatively and demonstrably affected you in terms of your reputation or your work – YOU WIN!  Period.  The only “iffy” thing is one’s ability to clearly demonstrate that one was harmed in terms of reputation or work. 

(In my former town manager’s case – if a potential employer to whom he applied for a job testifies that the former manager didn’t get the job because of information (which is provably false) posted on the blog in question – the former town manager wins!)

And, Wes – BTW – I surely haven’t gotten on your case, here, so back off on your partisanhip-motivated accusations of “slander” and “defamation”.

If I don’t like something that was said here, or the manner in which somebody said it, I’m going to respond accordingly; if somebody willfully and wrongfully dumps on my head – I’m going to dump back; if there are PUBLIC figures I think are saying or doing disagreeable things, I’m going to chastise them for it; and, if somebody here demonstrates over-and-over-again that he or she is a purely ideologically-motivated, rockheaded and simple-minded jerk – I’m probably going to respond to that one way or another, too!

So, get off your high horse!  The two guys who are being obstreperous here are “Charles” and “Richard Young” (and both have challenged others’ freedom of speech!).  So – why don’t you go and give them some of your “friendly reminders”!

Geez!

Re: Young, Post 81;

You know, Young, you ought go back and do some reading on “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” – and then come back here and point to those posts or those instances where you are certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that some “Liberal stalker is looking for a fight”!  Personally, I certainly have not come across anything here that smacks of “liberal” or “stalking”.

And – while you’re trying to figure out what to read to learn about “Liberalism” and “Conservatism”, keep in mind that “liberalism” comes from the Latin noun “liber” – meaning FREEDOM – and that “conservatism” comes from the Latin verb “conservare” – meaning to SAVE or PROTECT. 

It would seem to me that ALL patriotic Americans, regardless of how you choose to label them, are probably committed to “SAVE and PRESERVE FREEDOM” – don’t you think?  (“Conservare liber” to you!)

You’re just coming across to me as an extremist, animatronic ideologue spouting memorized talking points probably not even fully understood.

Things seemed like they were going along OK here – until you started your badgering.  And, check the posts – you started ragging on Sullivan and myself without making a cogent point or adding to the discussion one bit – and now you’re acting like a poor, little victim who has been wrongly mistreated and abused!

Your should have taken your own advice: …“I would never have entered the discussion”…

Brian R. Sullivan
RE: April 16 at 12:07 am |  #65

Mr. Sullivan, just a few points if you please.
The first point is – it is clear you have little or no interest in intellectual discussion, or the pursuit of or additional examination of ideas. Nor do you seek insight into any position that suggests an examination of your position may be warranted. It would seem you are firmly entrenched in your position; ergo any effort to reach a common ground beyond complete abdication would be like trying to teach a pig to sing…it is quite impossible and annoys hell out of the pig.

Point 2.. It is also clear your knowledge or understanding of the government and its reach/ limitations is fundamentally non-existent (at worst) or ends at junior high civics level at best. Perhaps this is the reason you cannot advance arguments beyond personal attacks. Again perhaps this is method you use to deflect, suffice it to say you are more interested in attacks than discussion.

Point 3. My illustration was posted as a what if…(something you fully skipped over)  although completely within realm of reasonable possibility (see my summary at the bottom regarding Presidential execute Order) In so far as the Law enforcement officer regarding the executive order- the point you argue –“Do you think the various federal and local law enforcement agencies are automatons who would carry out an illegal and anti-Constitutional order?” –Is flawed on its face because the order WOULD be legal (absent any federal court, of final jurisdictions, order to vacate) and failure to follow it would be unlawful.  – You should really become better informed .. I am not a reactionary nor do I claim such an action would not be without consequence—rather it could happen and there would not be a thing you could do about it in the short term and even then ONLY if you get a FEDERAL court to rule.. no small feat and takes years…

As a point of reference regarding Executive Orders, (even absent Presidential Findings) -a Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

Brian R. Sullivan
RE: April 16 at 8:11 am |  #68

“–In addition, since I not only held SCI/TS clearances while working for DoD, I still retain clearances at a lower level. Thus, your statements put you in jeopardy in two other ways.
1) If what you state about me being a liar and a fantasist is true, you have a legal obligation to report me to DoD. That’s because I filled out several forms over the years for background checks, to get and retain my clearances. If I lied, then I committed a serious felony. If a person knows that a felony has been committed, then he/she is under legal obligation to report the matter to the relevant authorities. If such person does not report such a felony, he/she is guilty of “misprision of a felony.” 
2) The clearances I now hold are essential to making my living. I continue to consult, lecture etc. for DoD. By defaming me, you have put my ability to earn a living in jeopardy. That is yet another ground for me to sue you.”

The preceding is complete RUBBISH .-–-.first off you letter sequence with regard to your purported clearances is improperly sequenced – and by the way what compartmentalization’s were you cleared for? 

Second, no one–by default retains clearance at a “lower level” simply by virtue of having once had a clearance at a higher level.

Unless the person you are writing to has signed the required security agreements, he/she has no legal requirement to report you to DOD- period end of story.  I could go on and really but this would be absurd…  what you might want to be careful of is claiming a federal authority or award to/or of which you are not legally entitled – this could potently cause you some legal issues of your own… but hey what ever floats your boat.

Finally after having read your threads– I stand by an earlier posit.. There is no point in trying to have any discussion with you- you claim much, but there is little in your thread that supports your balderdash.

Regards

Richard…thanks.
I joined this blog to engage in thought provoking commentary and learn too. I think folks should feel free to express ideas, but that should not be confused with useless diatribe– and continued attacks on a person just because they don’t agree – the key is see if the point is valid…and reasonable –- seem there are a few here that just enjoy attacking and cannot support their position. Where I come from, we call that critical thinking.

B/R

Charles
RE:
April 16 at 9:39 am |  #70 |  Link

Well said. Nice to see there are at least 2 or 3 in here interested in reasoned narrative.

b/r

Rich,
No problem, I certainly have empathy for anyone suffering from any debilitating disease. My points were directed at the flawed arguments and not the person. I do not know him and I respect any serving member.

However, know this too, (perhaps in the Ann Coulter fashion –shudder) I think one should not hold or use that status to advance or defend an argument or position– unless the position to be advanced is directly related to ones service. An example would be a discussion on say the “Don’t ask don’t tell policy and your relevant opinion based on experience and service, OR a discussion on Military Ethics, leadership etc.

We must also remember putting our service out there also subjects us to scrutiny and examination – I freely admit while I endeavor to be an “objectionist” (see both sides) – I do demand more of us who are serving…  but I agree no personal attacks…. Anyone is free to be a “pin head”– I joke.
B/R
jc

Well put Jerry and Richard!

I was asked on another blog, ‘Can an Executive Order be overturned, and if so, who has the power to do so.’

That seems to me to be pretty straight forward; Presidents have the authority to overturn a previous Executive Order. In fact Obama is planning on overturning more than 200 Executive Orders (mostly Bush 43’s E.O.’s).

However, if an Executive Order is considered not worthy, dangerous to the US and it’s citizens, [or] excuse the phrase…just stupid. On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one of its most important decisions: Alexander v. Sandoval, which held ‘that there is no civil right to force our government to use languages other than English.’

This was used by the Supreme Court in one of Bill Clinton’s most outrageous “midnight” actions was his Executive Order 13166 unconstitutionally trying to make not speaking English a new civil right. He ordered all executive-branch agencies to provide all federal benefits and services in foreign languages. Four days before Clinton left office, Attorney General Janet Reno published 15 pages of “Guidance” in the Federal Register, and the other executive departments then did likewise. 

*This Supreme Court decision in Sandoval gives us the opportunity to take a strong stand against the spending of our tax dollars to promote languages other than English. For example:

Congress and the Bush Administration should rescind Bill Clinton’s unconstitutional Executive Order, which is based on a lower court ruling now reversed by the Supreme Court, and rescind all the department regulations that followed. Rep. Bob Stump (R-AZ) has introduced H.R. 969 to accomplish this.

Congress should cut off funds from all the busybody civil-rights bureaucrats who are right now attempting to enforce Clinton’s Executive Order and to intimidate the schools, doctors, small businesses, and state agencies into providing services in foreign languages.

We should terminate Bilingual Education, one of the most expensive frauds in the federal budget. It’s so unpopular that it was rejected by voter initiatives in California and Arizona. The test scores a few months ago proved that children are progressing faster since Bilingual Education was terminated and the kids were forced to speak and learn in English.

We should abolish all election ballots printed in languages other than English. Since the law requires naturalized citizens to speak basic English and only citizens may legally vote, there is no excuse for non-English ballots.

State Governors can also use the Executive Orders for their State.

Back to DHS, has anyone read the Secretary’s memorandum to all Law Enforcement officials?

http://infowars.com/media/rightwing-dhs.pdf

I believe this to be dangerous to all citizens, since the DHS took pictures of all license plates of automobiles entering all the TEA Parties, and video taped the demonstrators, monitoring internet blogs, and anyone who openly disagrees with new policies. You are all intelligent people, and can read between the lines. I am a registered gun owner, but not in any fashion a fanatic, but it puts me on their list, I have a clip of standard ammunition, and a clip of hollow points for when I am away and my wife is left alone. Although I have taken het to the range many times, she would be nervous and scared, I have taught her if she just hears anyone breaking in, just fire a warning shot, if she is in danger, shoot them. Fortunately we have never fired the weapon except at the range.

I do believe militia’s should be monitored.

Wow, you covered a lot of ground in your post.. Short of creating a “war and peace” in this forum I am not sure we can formulate solutions but- an open discussion is possible. – If you have ever had three lawyers in the same room you have noticed you will get three different answers to the same question and usually they will be based on “opinions”

The requirement one “speak and understand” the language of a society one chooses to be citizen is not an outlandish idea. To require the ballot –one of the most intrinsically cherished and protected instruments in any democracy be printed in the nations language in this case-English NOT cultural hegemony as many would claim. To the contrary, it results in a society identity and a blending of common values- the corner stone of any society. The push to have ballots printed in multiple languages is simply a reveling symptom that shows the extent to which timidity, prudence, convenience, reluctance and fear that has penetrated the fiber of the West. In addition, is the result of a form of self-censorship and self –repression that has come to be know by as POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.  PC is political and newspeak to imply, allude to or insinuate rather than affirm or maintain. This is demonstrated in the ballot issue… if you want to vote, you are supposed to be a citizen, if you want to be a citizen then learn the language.

You address DHS and several other issues. I cannot validate or refute that DHS took photos of citizen’s license plates during the TEA party. I will add that merely taking photos is not illegal, how they are used (i.e if entered into intelligence databases without criminal relationship) would potentially be illegal.  The real issue is freedom of speech, and demonstration and to some extent civil disobedience is the fundamental right citizens have to seek redress with its government. If the governments attempts to “chill”  such activity – it would be a breach of constitutionally protected freedoms and is not to be tolerated– at least in my educational background.

The last paragraph leads me to my original thesis.. Today we have a congress, in general, and a Federal government as a whole that is becoming less and less responsive to its people. Perhaps this is inevitable simply by virtue of the size of the nation- this understandable in part. What is not acceptable is a congress that has become so self-involved, arrogant that is has become completely dismissive of the community as a whole. The only way to resolve this is to vote them all out….send a message we are tired, this also address the lopsided “seniority issue” and levels the playing field.

The “militia” is monitored –is is YOUR National Guard, who by the way is the only constitutional entity specifically designated to “… to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.” This is the role of the militia and, contrary to popular belief NOT that of US. Army…  but I digress… this is not a republican issue and it is not a democrat issue, it really is about the American people taking their government back and making it responsible the nation as a whole and not to individual fiefdoms and power-mongers. 

BTW ..Executive Orders are only “binding” on Executive agencies the CIA and DOD—coincidentally they are NOT binding on the President since they are his orders he can change or negate them.

jc

Re: Young, Post 83 and Post 88;

Post 83 – I have no idea what it is you’re trying to say here.  It’s just a muddle.  Makes no sense whatsoever.  (And – you never directly respond to any specific issue or question that’s been raised about ANY of your posts.)

Post 88 – As I said – you seem to have a problem, with reading, or with comprehending, or with retention.

In your Post 88 to Jerry – you state:

“I do not think Brian is listening. My posts regarding Brian Sullivan’s status as a human being and a Marine, were/are a little off base after reading his post #33. I had no idea that Brian’s physical condition is so very severe.”

PAY ATTENTION, Young!  Statements in Sullivan’s Post 33 relating to health problems were referring to Wesley In Dallas’ self-described health problems (that were originally discussed between Sullivan, myself and Wesley quite some time ago) – - that post was NOT TALKING ABOUT SULLIVAN’S HEALTH PROBLEMS!

Would you mind explaining how anyone is supposed to take anything you say seriously – when there are countless examples right here in this thread of you CLEARLY not knowing what you’re talking about – even when you’re directly referring to someone’s earlier post with which you disagree!?!?

In the face of someone disagreeing with or questioning you – all you seem to be able to do is evade directly responding to the issues raised regarding your posts – while trying to make snide or sarcastic comments labeling those addressing or questioning you as “Liberals” or “liberal stalkers” (as if you really know what “liberal” (or “conservative”, for that matter) actually means).

You’re just a partisan ideologue who perceives every real or imagined philosophical political variation from your personal party line as, in your mind, “an ATTACK by LIBERALS”.

If Sullivan was referring to that kind of perspective or world view as a form of ‘political paranoia’, he was probably close to the mark.

If nothing else – at least re-read Sullivan’s Post 33 to see if you can determine for yourself exactly who’s health problems he was referring to!

Conservare liber.

I do agree with you on everything you have said, including the National Guard, the militia’s which worry me are the possibly illegal ones, and/or the racist or White Supremacy types.

Equally disappointed in the Mainstream media as I am with our current Congress. In regards to the 34 unhappy Governors, there is recourse which could be taken, however I hope it never happens. That would be an Article V Constitutional Convention, which must be ratified by two-thirds by each State.

If using the US Military as police, it violates Posse Comitatus, of which I still think Janet Reno used in Waco, TX. A few years after the incident, films were studied which did show US Military firing on the compound both from the ground and by helicopter.

Posse Comitatus can only be invoked in a Marshall Law situation.

TK,

I never meant to mention my health problem, but did so under the influence of powerful drugs for post Chemo cocktail treatments, if I could remove them, I would.

…if I could remove them, I would. Should have read, if I could remove the post, I would.

Re: Wesley In Dallas, Post 96;

Wesley – as I said when the matter first came up quite some time ago – I wished you all the best with regard to your health issues – (and I explained back then that I have a very special and a very high regard for those suffering long-term debilitating illnesses because I saw my Mother go through such circumstances – with amazing strength and grace!).

I only mentioned the matter here in responding to a way-off-the-track “Richard Young” because he obviously totally misconstrued what “Brian Sullivan” was recounting in his Post 33 regarding health issues – very mistakenly believing Sullivan was referring to himself when he was, in fact, referring to your health issues as you described them to Sullivan in the past.

(Actually, I was surprised that you didn’t correct Young yourself on his non compis mentis mistake!)

Anyway – I do agree with several of your comments in this thread – and I offer continuing Good Wishes as regards your health.

(I’m still waiting for you to tell me WHAT I “should have said differently” here!)

Have a good weekend!

Thank you, TK…

Mr. Sullivan,

You’re not the first to argue that Thomas Hobbes was an atheist. That’s been an ongoing argument by many scholars from even while he was alive. However, the definition of atheist in the 17th century isn’t what it is today. It’d be better to describe Hobbes as a Deist or perhaps even an agnostic rather than a traditional Christian, but not an atheist.

Hobbes himself wrote about his beliefs about God quite a bit. He did feel strongly that philosophy and theology didn’t mix. As has been written about Hobbes, “In the Elements of Law Hobbes offers a cosmological argument for the existence of God.” However, he argues, the only thing we can know about God is that he, “first cause of all causes”, exists. Our knowledge is limited in this way because our thoughts about God are limited: “we can have no conception or image of the Deity. So when we seem to attribute features to God, we cannot literally be describing God. We’re either expressing our inability, as when we call God incomprehensible, or we’re expressing our reverence, as when we call God omniscient and just. The same indeed is going on when we call God a spirit: this is not ‘a name of anything we conceive’, but again a “signification of our reverence.”

I do like the fact that you rightly point out that both conservatism and liberalism of the 17th century, even through the 19th century, weren’t what those words connote today. However, I would say that conservatives are being realistic of the nature of humans, i.e., they have great potential but are fallen. Liberals on the other hand believe that humans are pure at birth and perfectible being basically good and reasonable if they can just be given the right kind of economic environment and trained to be good citizens, through government of course, as in Brave New World. If only it were true.

Brian R. Sullivan
Post # 100

I think that the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals – on which almost all of their disputes rest – is a differing view of the nature of man. To put it in the briefest terms, conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, liberals have a optimistic view.

*We all know the definitions of Republican and Democrat have changed since the 18th Century and earlier, just as it is different today in other countries.

It was Great Briton who first brought the slaves to America, as the British called them…WOGS [Workers Of the Government] which they have done on every country the invaded…re: the British Empire.

FYI-Indians are not native to North America; they came from Asia and crossed into what is today’s Alaska. Although I agree they had a right to be here. However they did not institute a sovereign Nation. If you want to put blame on someone, how about he Spanish invading northern South America who annihilated the Inca Nation, and northward into what became Mexico and the southern part of Northern America. Mexicans are the product of inter-breeding with the S.A. Indians, and the Spaniards.

Trust me; I can wait for Part two.

RE: Brian R. Sullivan
April 19 at 7:31 pm |  #100 |  Link

So what is your Thesis? Stop quibbling or equivocating—state the position and then support it (beyond your legal stuff -which I suspect no one cares about).

Secondly when presenting work of others in your own it is appropriate to give credit—to not do so is intellectual dishonesty (at best) and plagiarism at worst.

RE: Brian R. Sullivan
April 19 at 7:31 pm |  #100 |  Link

In your last post ..what is your Thesis? Stop Equivocating state a point and then support it..

Also when it is very bad from to include a substantial amount of others work in your own without providing credit..

b/r

Brian R. Sullivan
Post # 100

I think that the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals – on which almost all of their disputes rest – is a differing view of the nature of man. To put it in the briefest terms, conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, liberals have a optimistic view.

*We all know the definitions of Republican and Democrat have changed since the 18th Century and earlier, just as it is different today in other countries.

It was Great Briton who first brought the slaves to America, as the British called them…WOGS [Workers Of the Government] which they have done on every country the invaded…re: the British Empire.

FYI-Indians are not native to North America; they came from Asia and crossed into what is today’s Alaska. Although I agree they had a right to be here. However they did not institute a sovereign Nation. If you want to put blame on someone, how about he Spanish invading northern South America who annihilated the Inca Nation, and northward into what became Mexico and the southern part of Northern America. Mexicans are the product of inter-breeding with the S.A. Indians, and the Spaniards.

Trust me; I can wait for Part two.

BTW-I have tried to post several times, I have warned everyone that when AIM shut down all blogs were do to Off Topic Comments, Diatribes, and very long posts, I was told this when I call AIM about six weeks ago when we could no longer post. They did have a previous limit of 100 Comments, and may have gone back to that policy, or could be shutting them down again.

I made donations to AIM so I could help the site for giving me a chance to express my feelings.

Brian R. Sullivan
Post # 100

I think that the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals – on which almost all of their disputes rest – is a differing view of the nature of man. To put it in the briefest terms, conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, liberals have a optimistic view.

*We all know the definitions of Republican and Democrat have changed since the 18th Century and earlier, just as it is different today in other countries.

It was Great Briton who first brought the slaves to America, as the British called them…WOGS [Workers Of the Government] which they have done on every country the invaded…re: the British Empire.

FYI-Indians are not native to North America; they came from Asia and crossed into what is today’s Alaska. Although I agree they had a right to be here. However they did not institute a sovereign Nation. If you want to put blame on someone, how about he Spanish invading northern South America who annihilated the Inca Nation, and northward into what became Mexico and the southern part of Northern America. Mexicans are the product of inter-breeding with the S.A. Indians, and the Spaniards.

Trust me; I can wait for Part two.

BTW-I have tried to post several times, I have warned everyone that when AIM shut down all blogs were do to Off Topic Comments, Diatribes, and very long posts, I was told this when I call AIM about six weeks ago when we could no longer post. They did have a previous limit of 100 Comments, and may have gone back to that policy, or could be shutting them down again. I made donations to AIM so I could help the site for giving me a chance to express my feelings.

Brian Sullivan,

I made a big mistake by turning on a fellow Marine. I had been typing to a highschool buddy (Major Eric Kennedy). Eric id going down hill fast with Lou Gerhig’s and cannot talk or write. He can only use a computer. I have been very upset and gave you a very bad time. Reading your comments, they are sound and valid. I do not want to hurt you or anyone. I have reread all your comments with a cool head and find you to be far more correct than I.

I will go to a Psychologist and see if I am in fact a Pathalogical Liar. You may well be right in your opinion of me.

I would rather you a Friend than an Enemy. You are too far ahead of me and a much stronger person than I.

As for everyone in this blog, let me be an eample of how not to be, use Brian’s.

The following was taken from StudentNewsDaily-dot-com- and not that I am supporting or arguing for either rather – trying to find common denominator. Today the term Liberal, Conservative, Leftist and Rightist are batted back and froth and I do think about half the time most people have no idea who is who and what is what…

That said, I think the following is an accurate summary… I would support Recce1 in that I sincerely doubt the framers could have been called Liberal by today’s perception.. they were fundamentally opposed to government beyond the State level, – in fact it could be reasonably argued that the Liberal agenda was exactly what they fought the revolution over… 

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.  Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights.  Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.  Believe that people are basically good.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems. 

BTW
Brian R. Sullivan
April 19 at 9:08 pm |  #77 |  Link
I have no idea what Idea you are referring to..but I am sure you do..in some odd way.

“To put it in the briefest terms, conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, liberals have a optimistic view.—- ” Taken from Sullivan text aptly punctuates my commentary “oday the term Liberal, Conservative, Leftist and Rightist are batted back and froth and I do think about half the time most people have no idea who is who and what is what…”

Re: Post 86;

More or less, as originally understood in Europe some 300-400 years ago, you have your “Conservative” and “Liberal” definitions pretty much exactly backwards – and – several of the points you make about so-called “Liberals” are just pretty much untrue.

AND, if you look back into the history of the study of economics – it was originally considered to be “economic liberalism” to promote and believe in “the free market”!

AND, Jefferson and Jackson, DEFINITELY in the “liberal” camp in terms of their accurate historical political description – - were OPPOSED to strong central government, were opposed to a “centrally-controlled economy” – and were states rightists all the way!

You apparently have some misunderstanding of the origin of the terms.  Re-read Sullivan’s summary of Hobbes and Locke (Post 76) – because his description is pretty much on the ‘real-world’ mark.

Also – conservatives tend to define “liberalism” FAR DIFFERENTLY than liberals themselves define it – as liberals often define “conservatism” differently than conservatives do.  And, of course, conservatives ONLY use the word “liberal” in a pejorative sense – and liberals typically use the word “conservative” pejoratively.  AND – each camp has adherents who may differ drastically in terms of the “degree” of their conservatism or liberalism.

If ideological partisans and extremist would refrain from “labeling” – or trying to force all those who disagree with them into the same small box or slot – political discourse and interaction in this country would be F-A-R more productive.

As I have heard it, conservatives weren’t the “right” until liberals moved “left”. At any rate, I have been a conservative all my 50+ years and have not been pessimistic about our country or our citizens—only the government when it is
controlled by socialists and internationalists. Unfortunately, there have been some in both parties or we would not be where we are now.
As a conservative I believe in the constitution, including the right to LIFE and all the amendments, not just the ones that affect me directly. Our federal government regularly violates the 10th amendment and most of us are either too busy or too uneducated to protest.
I see leftists labeling more often as seen by several news pundants recently as well as our AG.

I have been skimming the posts on this and while many of you seem to be educated, I think there is too much “conditioning” early on. From experience I have seen that most liberals won’t even discuss points with conservatives..they just snicker at us or act superior. Whether this is out of fear that we might actually tell them something they don’t know or just acting superior.
Whether the marine (thank you both for your service)who apologized earlier was being facetious or had been drugged…I was sad to see him give up his position in a way that the other side would never have done.
If liberals expect us to respect their views, they should start to respect ours. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

Folks,

Being wheelchair bound and the battery having trouble taking a charge I find it more important to find a way to get a new battery today a major problem at the moment. It looks like negative Karma drained the battery. Fooey on these blogs. In these tight financial times, maybe it is just better to smoke the happy weed and roll around in a circle in my appartment.

Re: 88

I was a bit unsure to whom you addressing your response– but after checking I see 86 was mine–

Did you READ the post… ?? My first declaration was they were NOT my definitions, I found them found at StudentNewsDaily-dot-com- (you might want to check that out) since I dislike plagiarism but since end notes are difficult here.. I only referenced it.

Secondly after searching –fairly extensively –a variety of text, book and dictionaries IMHO the narrative is appears to be reasonably accurate. 

For example “liberal” in dictionary.com defines it as
1-favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2-favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers…. etc, etc

Moreover I did not MAKE any points about liberals – I simply commented on what was already written

– and if you think the description is “untrue” by please articulate what is “false”–  Since true and false are absolutes – this should be easy.  But perhaps you mean “not accurate” in either case I welcome your differentiation – if it is just your opinion then just say so, but do not declare it as false without predicate– please.

Not sure what history you are reading but Andrew Jackson, the dominant political figure of the his time helped institute the NATIONAL POLITICAL NOMINATING CONVENTION; DEFENDED THE SPOILS SYSTEM; opened millions of acres of Indian lands to white settlement;.  Moreover, When South Carolina asserted the right of a state to nullify the federal tariff; ––Jackson made it clear that he would not TOLERATE ANY ATTEMPT TO RESIST FEDERAL AUTHORITY. This is HARDLY A STATES RIGHTS ADVOCATE…  (See digital History and American History Summary US Army War College Library)

Jefferson was in fact a “States Rights” differed and from the Federalists in that HE SAW GOVERNMENT AS A THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM; the only protection against that threat was democracy and strong protections of personal liberties. (Jeffersonian Democracy) Jefferson DID not believe that people were fundamentally good, but he did believe that government intrusion was a threat…. So you could HARDLY call him a liberal by the current definition.

I have not “MIS- understood” Sullivan’s post, in fact I found a lot of the “verbatim” information in a research paper recently completed that was titled Hobbes Vs Locke…  which simply takes me back to my original posit.. Most confuse Liberal, with Conservative, Left vs Right and progressive.. It matters not how you label so long as you have a proper foundation.

But you make a like error… that you suggest others make…Liberalism is not the same as being Liberal. First published Thu Nov 28, 1996; substantive revision Mon Sep 10, 2007
As soon as one examines it, ‘liberalism’ fractures into a variety of types and competing visions. In this entry we focus on debates within the liberal tradition. We begin by (1) examining different interpretations of liberalism’s core commitment — liberty. We then consider (2) the longstanding debate between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ liberalism. In section (3) we turn to the more recent controversy about whether liberalism is a ‘comprehensive’ or a ‘political’ doctrine. We close in (4) by considering disagreements as to ‘the reach’ of liberalism — does it apply to all humankind, and must all political communities be liberal?

Regards
j

2.1 Classical Liberalism (not my original work and as found Stanford University)

Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.

Classical liberals employ a second argument connecting liberty and private property. Rather than insisting that the freedom to obtain and employ private property is simply one aspect of people’s liberty, this second argument insists that private property is the only effective means for the protection of liberty. Here the idea is that the dispersion of power that results from a free market economy based on private property protects the liberty of subjects against encroachments by the state. As F.A. Hayek argues, ‘There can be no freedom of press if the instruments of printing are under government control, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly’ (1978: 149).

Although classical liberals agree on the fundamental importance of private property to a free society, the classical liberal tradition itself refracts into a spectrum of views, from near-anarchist to those that attribute a significant role to the state in economic and social policy (on this spectrum, see Mack and Gaus, 2004). Towards the most extreme ‘libertarian’ end of the classical liberal spectrum are views of justified states as legitimate monopolies that may with justice charge for their necessary rights-protection services: taxation is legitimate so long as it is necessary to protect liberty and property rights. As we go further ‘leftward’ we encounter classical liberal views that allow taxation for (other) public goods and social infrastructure and, moving yet further ‘left’, some classical liberal views allow for a modest social minimum.(e.g., Hayek, 1976: 87). Most nineteenth century classical liberal economists endorsed a variety of state policies, encompassing not only the criminal law and enforcement of contracts, but the licensing of professionals, health, safety and fire regulations, banking regulations, commercial infrastructure (roads, harbors and canals) and often encouraged unionization (Gaus, 1983b). Although today classical liberalism is often associated with extreme forms of libertarianism, the classical liberal tradition was centrally concerned with bettering the lot of the working class. The aim, as Bentham put it, was to make the poor richer, not the rich poorer (Bentham, 1952 [1795]: vol. 1, 226n).

Consequently, classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government.

Careful folks. After reading various posts here and from leading newspapers throughout the nation; I give words of caution to all Constitutionalists, “The Socialist Wolves are watching and looking to take a bite out of you”.

Hey Beaner…. let em bite away.

If you have a regular job, these Wolves can drag a person into a lawsuit that can last for months. Like that Rich Young that is being tracked down and mauled. “SUE” is the title of the “New Economy”. When times are hard, and they are going to get harder, it is a good idea to be silent. No one really knows who or what they are talking to anymore. The days of chatting over the back yard fence are long gone. An honest person an get cleaned out by these lurkers. If anything is to be said, just agree and shine them on.

I agree there is a fringe out there, that since they are unable to produce a compelling argument they will attempt try to inevitably chill free speech.. in the hopes – I suppose—that soon people will be unwilling to run the risk of allowing speech (here, or anywhere). If there is no dissent then—by extension I guess they must presume there is agreement.  I think they might study Algiers and other places where the people found themselves unable to express their view…. in my humble opinion.

MR Young:

Persistence is a trait that defines winners. The ability to shrug off adversity and endure ..is a hallmark value in the life of everyone who persists. It is what keeps you moving when there are those that fall around you…There are things that happen to us…they impact us for life.. but what keeps us going is the thought that lesser men and women would have quit.. we voice or ideas and fight in far away places for our family and our children… those of lessor courage will always find fault with what we do. They will always say “you could have talked it through..if only you had waited… no wonder the world hates us” This from people who have never left the nations border. These are the people who have never felt the weight of the ruck, or the pain of writing a letter to a family. They benefit from the freedom …and just find faults ..that is their right… I may not like them burning my flag…but it is a right we stand for…. I have never been in a wheel chair but remember sometimes you will forever impacts someone life so persist until YOU succeed.  I suspect you understand, adversity and the intrinsic value of obstacles.

B/R

Mr. Sullivan:
RE 99

Enough already.. In MY HUMBLE opinions you remind me of the Al Gore and his environmental ‘global warming’ alarmist clamoring – for the love of mike, enough already about you and our attorney – you scare no one and I doubt you impress fewer… Have you even read your own dribble?  Honestly, either file a law suit or shut the Freak up about it… I am sure that many have said you project feeble weak lame frail pathetic worthless strong stupid gay fragile weakling wimp wuss puny pitiful pansy elderly arrogant wanna be but …I won’t for that would be rude….  So why don’t you stop already.

The is a forum for discussion and your diatribe about a purported legal action is really tangentially irrelevant

Sullivan is a pretentious punk and he represents the diabolical principles of the Left very well.
What a cowardly weenie.
You have no honor, Sullivan, and you ain’t worth talkin’ to. Go troll somewhere else.

Mr. Sullivan,
In response to why Jerry C. was reading your private posts…anyone who posts a comment on AIM gets bombarded with all these quarrelsome posts when they log onto email, which I’m sure you have noticed but maybe haven’t considered.
I wish there was some other format for you guys to fight on. Reading all these posts that drag on and on makes one’s eyes glaze over.
I do not expect to see everyone agree with each other on these opinions…quite the contrary, the exchange of opposing opinions is enlightening. But it’s gotten well beyond the stage of entertaining and I imagine has driven away many who would just like to “comment”.
Thank you.
Marcia (proud and never pessimistic conservative)

It would appear posts here have been moved and/or deleted, since the last comment here a few days ago was #100 at the time was;

Brian R. Sullivan
April 19 at 7:31 pm [now post 100 is now post #76]

Then continued on:

ReadRight: Tea Parties Touch A Nerve

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/readright-tea-parties-touch-a-nerve

That is why comments are out of sequence, so more could be added here. What’s worse is they included duplicated comments which were made are now in this thread, posts could only be seen in your emails at the time.

Have we abandoned http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/readright-tea-parties-touch-a-nerve. Now Jerry’s is the 100th Post.
——————-
Boston Beaner 49

I think many of us are already on DHS lists.

…and may have to return there.

From pre 1900’s up to our 32nd President; FDR till 1945 till his death. The definitions of Republican and Democrat have gone through changes…ie, role reversals. Several Presidents, both Democrat and Republican were Progressives.

Until the Constitution is changed, the First Amendment still allows free speech; I will continue to express my opinions.

-Brian Sullivan’s #100:

However, you are a self-confessed liar. You appear to be devoid of honor, intelligence, probity or even common sense.

I have nothing but contempt, mixed with a small amount of pity, for you. Your attempt at an explanation for your falsehoods and insults in my regard strike me as childish and irrational. But, in any case, I am done with you.

**Nice Brian, you have achieved the type of language you have used on me in the past, another new low.

In my opinion, you did not hire a P.I. nor hire an Attorney, only to drop the case. If what you say is true, you would have wasted quite a bit of money. Your threat was only an attempt to irritate Jerry.

One more item: Libel = Defamation (or to Defame) = Slander.

Re: JerryC, Posts 87 and 91;

First, I fully agree with the statement you included in your Post 87: “Today, the terms Liberal, Conservative, Leftist and Rightist are batted back and forth and I do think about half the time most people have no idea who is who and what is what.”

Most of the time, the extremists at either end of the political spectrum sound like a bunch of middle schoolers throwing hissyfits in the Girls Room!

Second, I do agree with two of the definitional elements of “Liberalism” you included in your Post 91:

“1. – favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs;

“2. – favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.

Third, I do think that the following three elements you listed as inherentcomponents of Liberalism are not ALWAYS applicable to ALL so-called Liberals.  (Therefore, not always “true”.)

1.  I know Liberals who DO NOT believe that it is a “duty of the state to alleviate all social ills”;

2.  I know Liberals who DO NOT believe that the state should be in the business “to guarantee that no one is in need”; and,

3.  I know Liberals who DO NOT believe that thee is a “need for the government to all of people’s problems”.

Fourth, regarding Jefferson and Jackson: while there are ALWAYS exceptions to everything, I believe both were in the “classical Liberal” camp – in varying degrees I believe both were populist in their perspecives – and varying degrees, again, I do believe BOTH preferred stronger stateg overnments rather than a stronger central government.

(Although, Jefferson probably had a personality somewhat akin to Obama’s – and Jackson’s personality, much more militaristic and used to people “taking orders”, was probably closer to Cheney’s!  Personally, politically-speaking, I probably fall somewhere between the two in my perspective.  And, as tough and demanding as he was, in the end, Jackson was clearly a man of the people.

And, I agree that there’s a difference between “political Liberalism” and “being liberal” – - but, unfortunately, when the extremist right-wing screamers are yapping about “Liberals” – - what they’re REALLY yapping about is people be “liberal” in the mores, morals, ethics, values, etc.  Generally, I tend to think of these “socio-culturally liberal” people as “libertine” – - rather than as “Liberals”.

IN the end, though, I am thoroughoy sick of the labels, the extremists who use them incessantly (and, usually, erroneously), and the blind, extremist, partisanship that promotes the useless and endless ragging, ranting and raving.

As I’ve said before, “conservative” comes from the Latin verb, conservare, “to save or protect” – - and “liberal” comes from the Latin noun, liber, “freedom”.  So – it seems logical that the goal to “Save and Protect Freedom” – will take “Two to Tango” – Conservatives and Liberals working as a T.E.A.M. – “Together, Everyone Achieves More!”

(Probably an impossible concept considering today’s self-centered political screamers, agitators and provacateurs.)

It has come to AIM’s attention that threatening messages were posted on this page.  All comments from the offending user have been deleted from this thread and the user has been banned from commenting.

Accuracy in Media Comment Policy

We welcome comments and criticism as long as they are civil and pertinent to the topic.  Abusive comments—including personal or ad hominem attacks on other users, offensive language, and off-topic comments—will be deleted.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly violate these policies.

Re: JerryC;

My above Post to you (now re-numbered as Post 91 from, I believe, Post 101) originally indicated I was responding to your Posts 87 and 91 – - but it is now referring to your above re-numbered Posts 76 and 80.

(I think!)

Re: AIM Moderator – Post 92;

While Sullivan’s posts can become very abrasive (I’ve earlier argued with him about that myself) when people come on to him or disagree with him very abrasively or very obnoxiously – - in reality – - I would have to say that those of his posts that I’ve read along the way over the last 6-8 months – are probably among the most factually-correct and thoroughly accurate of all of the posts ever made on this site.

In additional defense of Sullivan – he is, himself, often attacked here in a very ad hominem way – and his toughest responses often follow some pretty virulent attacks made on him by other posters.  Looking back, you’ll see that I’ve had some back-and-forth with him myself and did complain to him about his manner of response on some occasions – but he’s clearly been one of the most intellectually honest and most accurate and thorough posters I’ve seen here.

Through a lot of years in college, law school, graduate school and even during some years of teaching – some of those people who taught me the most were among the most difficult people to deal with that I’ve ever come across!  Even at his most difficult-to-deal-with, I do think that Sullivan has offered some real education and insight here.

Thank you, AIM Moderator! I concur wholeheartedly! :^)

Me too. It is not safe.

RE: Marcia
April 21 at 7:00 am |  #89 |  Link

My response were not intended to be generally “quarrelsome” beyond challenging what appeared to be commentary what was either disingenuous, factually wrong or intellectually dishonest. (admittedly I did raise the BS flag about the law suit issues.. )  Beyond that I think it is important to realize that an HONEST disagreement of a substantive nature is not a “fight..”  I am not sure Sullivan and I were able to have such a discussion.. as I recall I did challenge an assertion– in an effort to understand his point… but no response was every presented… so no argument developed. 

RE: TK
April 21 at 7:47 pm |  #91 |  Link

Thanks for the comments – regarding the points of “Third, I do think that the following three elements you listed as inherentcomponents of Liberalism are not ALWAYS applicable to ALL so-called Liberals.  (Therefore, not always “true”.)
1.  I know Liberals who DO NOT believe that it is a “duty of the state to alleviate all social ills”;
2.  I know Liberals who DO NOT believe that the state should be in the business “to guarantee that no one is in need”; and,
3.  I know Liberals who DO NOT believe that thee is a “need for the government to all of people’s problems”.
I agree but remember these are only used to quantify a bases line; to GENERALY identify a general set of belief or values where most of a population termed liberal fall.  In a statistical correlations, if tue MORE would not agree with your position regarding 1, 2, 3 – there are always standard deviations. The salient point I make, without trying to be pedantic, is the significant part of the so called “Liberal platform would find that 1, 2, 3 to be part of their belief system and just because one or two were not does not change the core.
Regarding Jefferson and Jackson… operating with the foundation I provided as a base line for the use of the current term Liberal and Conservative – of today standards Thomas Jefferson would assuredly be considered a social liberal..  but then by today standards he would have also be considered a Radical Racist as well. s Richard Pierard and Robert Linder, the authors of Civil Religion & the Presidency (1988), write,
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and later, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address became the sacred scriptures of the new public faith. Just as the colonists saw their own church covenants as vehicles of God’s participation in history, so these public documents became the covenants which bound the people of the nation together in a political and religious union. . . . A leadership imagery developed that paralleled the biblical account of Israel and led to the Founding Fathers mythology. . . . Before long Washington had become the Moses-liberator figure, Jefferson the prophet.

Jackson on the other has is more of an enigma – even form a historical perspective Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism Andrew Jackson was not plainly a common man or an aristocrat, in fact a combination of the two. He was clearly in favor of a STRONG Federal. I am not sure he could –today be called a liberal.

I would disagree with the assertion “Jefferson probably had a personality somewhat akin to Obama’s” Because historical reading suggest Jefferson political principles were heavily influenced by John Locke (particularly relating to the principles of inalienable rights and popular sovereignty) and by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He was a proponent of “Enlightenment” and “The Age of Reason”, which is reflected in the Declaration of Independence.  MY PERSONAL opinion from reading is JEFFERSON labor under no misconception that everybody liked him and as a consequence they could be swayed.  Sometime hard choice had to be made.
I to grow weary of the labels, but what concerns me more is the increasing efforts at political correctness- I am not a reactionary nor right-winger. I suspect I am more libertarian and have become somewhat concerned at our refreshed efforts at becoming Trans-National… 
AIM Moderator
April 22 at 5:28 pm |  #92 |  Link

While I certianly understand it is your blog… and you have every right to remove commentary – I would argue that just because you can….does not mean you should… unless it is outright infalmatoy hate speech.

It is not like one HAS to read the comments – and I would argue that every “subjective decision” is one step closer to censorship. Lets face it ,,, life has people in it and some we may not like, we always have the choice to tune them out…I do not need someone to do it for me. Besides it screws up the sequence numbers—smile

Regards

Jc

Little or nothing said these days around people we do not know ‘very’ well is the best medicine. Too many people out there in society are looking for ways to regain their losses by any means possible and there are others just like them ready to assist. American Society is very much like post World 1 Society now. No one and nothing is safe in America any more. Stick only to family and old loyal friends. Time for the Honest to be silent and very cautious. But……….‘read, subscribe and donate’ to AIM on a regualr basis.

Good bye & good luck to all…….

Bye

In general we have strayed from the forum topic. The “left” side appears to have forgotten Alexander Hamilton’ sentiment and statement “Here, Sir the people govern. The question we have before us is, how do we restore the American experiment as understood by George Washington and James Madison? Thomas Jefferson gives us the answer in the Declaration of Independence:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”  I am not in advocating the dissolution of our government..  I so suggest strongly the Federal government has become so insulated from the people—not business interest—but the ordinary man—the result was the recent “Tea Party” syndrome. It is an INDICATION that many thing there is a problem.. Most elected officials however dismissed it.

just a commentary.

Re: JerryC, Post 92;

You know, the reality is that ‘Conservatives’ defining ‘Liberal’ – or ‘Liberals’ defining ‘Conservative’ – usually results in nothing more than a futile exercise of personal-agenda-driven subjectivism. 

It’s a lot like assessing the artistic quality of ‘The Mona Lisa’; most of the artworld considers it to be one of the finest paintings ever rendered; I look at it (in person) and see a too-dark, too-indistinct and somewhat amateurish (to me) painting of a rather homely female that conveys nothing to me other than the fact that it’s an old and somewhat historical artifact.

Will Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity EVER provide an objective, accurate and thorough definition of and perspective on ‘Liberal’ philosophy?  No. Will Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow provide the same on ‘Conservative’ philosophy?  No.

So – since, in reality, this is pretty much of a self-described ‘conservative’ forum, it’s unlikely that most posters here are going to view anything labeled ‘Liberal’ with an unjaundiced, non-argumentative, objective eye.

BUT – that seems to be the situation with almost everything today.  As I’ve said before, today it seems like it’s all about the “Me” (whether right or wrong) and each individual’s personal agenda.

Anyway – unless ‘Democrats’ and ‘Republicans’ and ‘Liberals’ and ‘Conservatives’ stop being all about ‘winning’ – - and learn to cooperate and collaborate for the G-R-E-A-T-E-R Common Good – - the country is just going to balkanize even more than it already has – - into ‘Red’ states and ‘Blue’ states, into ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, into ungracious ‘winners’ and bitter ‘losers’, into ‘FOXers’ and ‘MSNBCers’, into Daily Kos Internetters and Right-Wing Talk Radioheads.

In my lifetime – beginning in FDR’s third term – I haven’t seen extremist political partisanship any worse than it is right now – including all the right-wing/left-wing ‘Red Scare’ stuff during the McCarthy era.

There are a L-O-T of things that I’m opposed to – - but right up there at or near the top of the list – is my TOTAL OPPOSITION to extremist, ideological, political partisanship – which I think may well present a significant threat to the future well-being of this county.

Conservare liber.

In my opinion, the government saw the TEA Parties as a threat of civil unrest against the President’s agenda, yet there was no violence nor threatening. Yet activists groups who have shown violent behavior are okay, and fully covered by the MSM. You always see PETA, other Animal Rights Activists, Code Pink, Gays going into Catholic Churches causing problems, Gay Rights Demonstrations, but discrimination against Christians is allowed.

Now Terrorists are no longer being called ‘Terrorists’ now referred to ‘Man Caused Disaster’, the War on Terror has also changed to ‘Overseas Contingency Operation’, P.C. run amok once more. Orwell’s 1984 has arrived 25 year later, but it is here now, double-speak, the thought police. It also reminds me of the Christian Bale film, ‘Equilibrium’.

Obama, Geithner, Holder, and others in the Admin, including the Banking Committee under Barney Frank (who caused this whole economical failure, working with ACORN, and no oversight at all, have created a Catch 22. After the election nominated Barack Obama, businesses began their trek off shore, and/or massive layoffs on the word of doubling the Capital Gains Taxes, out biggest employers (Small Businesses) are falling faster than the value of the Dollar. Today the unemployment rose to 8.1% and expected to rise to 10% or above before mid summer.

As I have said before, if I wanted to live in a Socialist Society, I would already be there, I will be damned if I am going to pay for mortgages for those who should have never qualified.