Quote:
Hello Friends,

Before I get into the subject of this post I want to thank my good friends for continuing to post in this and my other threads during my prolonged absence. Much appreciated and kudos for your excellent posts.

Most of you know that I am not a "fan" of Ron Paul or his son Rand. Thankfully we're rid of the old kook but now we have to contend with his son who's merely a younger version of his father but packages his father's rhetoric in a nicer "package" and by doing so has succeeded in blindsiding many conservatives and members of the GOP. Needless to say the ronbots have a new savior in Rand.

Personally I was totally disgusted with his filibuster grandstanding. Need I remind you he never mentioned anything about Brennan's stance on Jihad, his defense of the muslim brotherhood, the fact that he converted to islam while he was stationed in Saudi Arabia and much more. All this he ignored and droned on about drones which as you'll see in the below article is no different then drone policies under President Bush.

He and many others consider his 13 hour filibuster a great success but the dangerous Brennan is now the head of the CIA. Now we've got a closet muslim president and head of the CIA. Paul's filibuster accomplished absolutely nothing and had nothing to do with the nefarious and dangerous Brennan. Grandstanding par excelance and so many fell for it.

Interestingly enough Rand voted for Kerry (another isalmic supporter and for those that remember a supporter of Syria's Assad in the recent past), Hagel who is known for his support of isalm and extremely anti Israel as is Brennan. Kerry too but not as outspoken about it.

So, he voted for Kerry, Hagel and now Brennan but he's considered to be the new "savior" of the conservatives and Republicans. Ask your self this. How could he have voted for the them especially Brennan if their views don't mesh with his own an of course his father's? Since they do he had no problem voting for them.

The article below poses many questions but the most serious is that if and when the extreme left praises and agrees with this so called conservative then something is terribly wrong.

All I can say again like father like son and God forbid if he's the next GOP candidate for president.

The below article is excellent and well worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

RAND PAUL/VAN JONES 2016

The Senator from Al Qaeda

- Daniel Greenfield (Bio and Archives) Sunday, March 10, 2013

Here’s an easy way to tell when your position isn’t a conservative one. When you’re standing with Van Jones, your position isn’t a conservative one. When you’re standing with Code Pink, then your position is not a conservative one.

No amount of noise or chest-beating is going to change that.

The Republican Party has taken a severe beating in the last year. With so many hopes down the drain, some will take a victory where they can find it, even if it’s a younger version of Ron Paul.

There are Conservative sites that are positively giddy about Rand Paul getting positive mentions from John Cusack and Van Jones. Code Pink’s endorsement is being treated like some kind of victory.

Are we really getting worked up about getting a pat on the head from the left? Are we all Paultards now or are we all RINOs now?

Or is finding someone to the left of Obama to side with… supposed to be a victory for conservative principles?

“Will the Left finally get the Tea Party now?” Breitbart’s site asks. If Andrew Breitbart were alive, he could have answered that question in one four letter word.

The left “gets” the Tea Party. It gets it as a middle class bourgeois defense of its property and rights against the the rule of the left.

That is what the Tea Party is. That is what the Left is.

Code Pink and Van Jones who are happy to see the Republican Party adopting their views

Even saner heads are calling Rand Paul’s filibuster a political victory. The only place that it’s a victory is in the echo chambers of a victory-starved party. And to Code Pink and Van Jones who are happy to see the Republican Party adopting their views.

The “brilliant victory” was that some Republicans tried to go further on the left than Obama on National Defense. Maybe next they can try to go further left than him on Immigration, Gay Marriage and Abortion.

And if that doesn’t work, Rand Paul and Jon Huntsman can get together on ending the War on Drugs.

Most Americans support using drones to kill Al Qaeda terrorists. Most Americans don’t know about the filibuster or care. Most Americans want political and economic reforms, not conspiracy theories.

The Paul filibuster was about drone strikes on American soil, the way that Obama ‘only’ wants to ban assault rifles.

This isn’t about using drones to kill Americans on American soil. That’s a fake claim being used by Rand Paul as a wedge issue to dismantle the War on Terror. Now that he manipulated conservative support for that, he can begin moving forward with his real agenda.

Rand Paul is on record as opposing Guantanamo Bay and supports releasing the terrorists. He’s on record opposing drone strikes against Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, saying, “A perpetual drone war in Pakistan makes those people more angry and not less angry.”

This position is no different than that of his father. The only difference is that Rand Paul is better at sticking statements like these into the middle of some conservative rhetoric.

It’s the same trick that Barack Obama pulls every time he gives a speech.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, saying the two “think the whole world is a battlefield.”

Like Ron Paul, Rand shifts the blame to America. It’s not Senator McCain who thinks the whole world is a battlefield. It’s Al Qaeda.

Here, in the middle of Rand Paul’s drone rant is what he really stands for and against.

It’s one thing to say yeah, these people are going to probably come and attack us, which to tell you the truth is probably not always true. There are people fighting a civil war in Yemen who probably have no conception of ever coming to America.

The people fighting that “civil war” are tied in with Al Qaeda, including the Al-Awlaki clan, whose scion, Anwar Al-Awlaki helped organize terrorist attacks against America and was linked to 9/11.

Friedersdorf (Andrew Sullivan’s underblogger) goes on to say we do know the U.S. drones are targeting people who have never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States, so we’re talking about noncombatants who have never pledged to carry out attacks are being attacked overseas.

Think about it, if that’s going to be the standard at home, people who have never really truly been involved with combat against us. Take Pakistan where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. This is more from Friedersdorf.

Think about it. If it were your family member and they have been killed and they were innocent or you believe them to be innocent, it’s going to - is it going to make you more or less likely to become involved with attacking the United States?

This isn’t about stopping Obama from killing Americans. This is straight-line anti-war garbage.

You know, or how much - if there’s an al-Qaida presence there trying to organize and come and attack us. Maybe there is. But maybe there’s also people who are just fighting their local government.

How about Mali? I’m not sure in Mali they’re probably worried more about trying to get the next day’s food than coming over here to attack us.

And a politician reciting Michael Mooreisms like these is supposed to stand for a “Conservative Victory”?

I think that’s a good way of putting it, because when you think about it, obviously they’re killing some bad people. This is war. There’s been some short-term good. The question is, does the short-term good outweigh the long term cost, not only just in dollars but the long-term cost of whether or not we’re encouraging a next generation of terrorists?

Is this the new conservative position now? That killing Al Qaeda terrorists only encourages more terrorism?

Is this the new conservative position now? That killing Al Qaeda terrorists only encourages more terrorism?

Are we all Paultards now?

The other thing about this is, is you need to try to understand who - who are these terrorists? Members of al-Qaida. There are no people walking around with a card that says “al-Qaida” on it. There are bad people and there were bad people associated with the terrorists. We’ve killed a lot of them who were in Afghanistan training and part of the group that attacked us. But there are terrorists all over the world that are unhappy with their own local governments. Some of them are unhappy with us, too. But to call them al-Qaida is sometimes a stretch, and sometimes open to debate, who is and who isn’t. But then they use other words, and words are important. They’re either a member of al-Qaida or associated forces. I don’t know what that means.

And here is the ultimate point.

This isn’t about opposing drone strikes on Americans, it’s about using that to salami slice the debate to get to his real agenda which is opposing drone strikes on Al Qaeda.

Ultimately we as a country need to figure out how to end war. We’ve had the war in Afghanistan for 12 years now. The war basically has authorized a worldwide war.

This is Rand Paul’s position. It’s the position of anti-war protesters in 2002. It’s Barack Obama’s original position before he discovered that war wasn’t so easy to end.

If you stand with Rand, this is what you stand with.

Everyone can do what they please, but if you’re going to stand with Rand, then let’s be clear about his positions and agenda. And be clear about whether you share them or not.

No more dressing this up in “Rand Paul is standing up for the Constitution.” That’s the same dishonest claim his father made for years. And none of the even more dishonest, “Drone strikes on Americans in cafes” nonsense.

That’s not what this is about.

1. Do you think that the United States is murdering innocent Muslims and inspiring terrorist attacks?
2. Do you think that if we just leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone?
3. If you think all those things, then wasn’t the left, which has been saying all these things since before September 11, right all along?

Is Van Jones agreeing with you… or are you agreeing with Van Jones?

One blogger called the filibuster the biggest Republican victory since the midterm elections. Sure. In one case, the Republican won the House of Representatives. In the other a guy who believes that drones are a New World Order conspiracy got to trend on Twitter at night for a few hours.

For years Ron Paul supporters believed that flying a blimp and googling Who Is Ron Paul would lead to the people coming over on September 11 being caused by American foreign policy. It hasn’t and it won’t. Every Paultard victory was an imaginary triumph that took place in their own bubble. Now the Republican Party is climbing into an even smaller version of that bubble.

And then a few years from now we can celebrate every one of the Paul clan’s publicity stunt complete with the No Drones blimp while losing by a landslide to Hillary Clinton.

The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don’t win by abandoning conservative values

The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don’t win by abandoning conservative values.

• You don’t win by going liberal on immigration.
• You don’t win by going liberal on government spending
• You don’t win by going liberal on social values.
• And you don’t win by going liberal on national defense.

You either have a conservative agenda or a mixed bag. And Rand Paul is the most mixed bag of all, because the only area that he is conservative on is limited government.

If the new Republican position is open borders, pro-terror and anti-values, then what makes the Republican Party conservative?

Reducing conservatism to cutting the size of government eliminates it and replaces it with libertarianism. It transforms the Republican Party into the party of drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, terrorism… and spending cuts. And the latter is never going to coexist with a society based on the former.

This isn’t the popular thing to write. The popular thing to write is to praise Rand Paul for his political theater and to call it courage. And then maybe to timidly dissent in one or two areas, while praising him as the future of the Republican Party.

But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party… then the party has no future

But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party… then the party has no future.

I don’t blog on Sultan Knish to be popular. If I did, I would have embraced Paul Ryan as the savior of the Republican Party, back when that was the thing to do. I would have never criticized Bush until 2007 or so when it became legit. And I would be busy evolving on gay marriage and immigration.

Still I considered not writing this. It would have been easier to throw up some easy observations about Obama. And move on.

But I regret not speaking out in the past as much as I should have done. And while it would be easy to let this go, to let Rand Paul have his anti-war moment and let Marco Rubio have his immigration moment, so they can run in 2016 and show how wonderfully diverse our party is while bringing in the ‘kids’... I don’t believe that we can win through political expediency that destroys principles.

We tried that in two elections and we lost. Watering down what we stand for until we stand for nothing at all except the distant promise of budget cuts is how we walked into the disaster of 2012.

John McCain in 2008. Mitt Romney in 2012. Rand Paul in 2016. And what will be left?

To be reborn, the Republican Party does not need to go to the left

To be reborn, the Republican Party does not need to go to the left. It doesn’t need to stumble briefly to the right on a few issues that it doesn’t really believe in. It needs to be of the right. It needs to be comprehensively conservative in the way that our opposition now is comprehensively of the left.

If we can’t do that then we will lose. America will be over. It’ll be a name that has as much in common with this country, as modern Egypt does with ancient Egypt or as Rome of today does with the Rome of the imperial days.

And we will be able to distract ourselves with the latest political gimmick. The latest piece of theater.

Conservative media voices have been growing incoherent lately, adopting positions that contradict their last positions and the positions that they will take a week from now.

We are suffering from a conservatism without context where each day and each week’s position exists in a vacuum and is not guided by bedrock principles.

Too much of that same media has become guided by attacking Obama. Not by attacking Obama from conservative principles, but just by attacking him. And the problem with that is when you define yourself by attacking Obama… you become defined by Obama.

Conservatives are defined by positive principles, by the presence of values, not by negative principles, by pure antipathy. We attack Obama because of what we believe to be true, not because we believe that everything he believes is false.

The slippery slope is that when you become defined by what you attack, then you lose sight of what you do stand for. And then suddenly you find yourself standing on the same side as Van Jones and Code Pink.

Reagan said that conservatism is a three legged stool. Social, fiscal and national defense

Reagan said that conservatism is a three legged stool. Social, fiscal and national defense. Either we have all three. Or we have nothing.

There are Conservative sites that are positively giddy about Rand Paul getting positive mentions from John Cusack and Van Jones. Code Pink’s endorsement is being treated like some kind of victory.

“Will the Left finally get the Tea Party now?” Breitbart’s site asks. If Andrew Breitbart were alive, he could have answered that question in one four letter word.

The left “gets” the Tea Party. It gets it as a middle class bourgeois defense of its property and rights against the the rule of the left.

That is what the Tea Party is. That is what the Left is.

The left is not concerned about the Constitution. It does not care about civil rights. It cares about taking over. Allying with the far left against the middle left is allying with the people who really want to enslave you to further radicalize the system.

If the Cold War should have taught us anything, alliances like these end with the duped handing a victory to the left.

We can fight the left. We can fight the Islamists. Or we can cheer a man who is pushing the agenda of both.

There’s nothing conservative about that.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.

Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Hi Jim,

Good to see you here after such a long while.

A few things are quite obvious from your post.

1. You didn't read David Greenfield's article cos in it he shows how the ronbot's latest "savior" mentioned opinions in his grandstanding filibuster that are even farther left then B Hussein's rhetoric. Shame cos it's an excellent article.

2. Yep, it's true David Horowitz was an extreme left winger in his youth BUT, and this BUT is important, when he discovered the hidden agendas and dangers of the left and extreme left he became a conservative and has been a soldier fighting for conservatism and conservative values ever since. No flip flopping since his change and he's done much and accomplished much ever since.

3. You seem to forget that in 2008 you were a Hillary Clinton supporter and became an overnight conservative when she lost the Dem primaries to to B Hussein, the fraud and great pretender. You changed again in 2012 from a conservative to a ronbot (who like his son has many left wing opinions).

So when it comes to consistency you're not a great example. A life long Dem to a ronbot and now as you call yourself a paulbot.

4. As a loyal ronbot or paulbot I find it interesting that you mention "parties within parties". I sorta remember your showing (and bragging) that the ronbots were the reason that the GOP lost the elections. That certainly is a party within a party me thinks.

5. The author of the article David Greenfield is a consistent conservative who has no problem criticizing Republicans, Democrats etc. when needed. He is extremely factual in his posts and if you can, debate the issues he writes about .......... but Idoubt that you can, and not the so called sarcasm that's supposed to be a reply to what he wrote. Aside from posting on Front Page you can find Daniel's articles on many conservative sites and he also posts them all on his blog "Sultan Knish".

In any case it's always good to see old friends again.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:

Just a hearty welcome back from a "Paulbot" ;-) That finds it funny your quoting an article from a former Liberal turned Conservative Republican think tank helmsman fellow. Ain't it funny how our parties seem to have parties?

Quote:
Hello Friends,

Before I get into the subject of this post I want to thank my good friends for continuing to post in this and my other threads during my prolonged absence. Much appreciated and kudos for your excellent posts.

Most of you know that I am not a "fan" of Ron Paul or his son Rand. Thankfully we're rid of the old kook but now we have to contend with his son who's merely a younger version of his father but packages his father's rhetoric in a nicer "package" and by doing so has succeeded in blindsiding many conservatives and members of the GOP. Needless to say the ronbots have a new savior in Rand.

Personally I was totally disgusted with his filibuster grandstanding. Need I remind you he never mentioned anything about Brennan's stance on Jihad, his defense of the muslim brotherhood, the fact that he converted to islam while he was stationed in Saudi Arabia and much more. All this he ignored and droned on about drones which as you'll see in the below article is no different then drone policies under President Bush.

He and many others consider his 13 hour filibuster a great success but the dangerous Brennan is now the head of the CIA. Now we've got a closet muslim president and head of the CIA. Paul's filibuster accomplished absolutely nothing and had nothing to do with the nefarious and dangerous Brennan. Grandstanding par excelance and so many fell for it.

Interestingly enough Rand voted for Kerry (another isalmic supporter and for those that remember a supporter of Syria's Assad in the recent past), Hagel who is known for his support of isalm and extremely anti Israel as is Brennan. Kerry too but not as outspoken about it.

So, he voted for Kerry, Hagel and now Brennan but he's considered to be the new "savior" of the conservatives and Republicans. Ask your self this. How could he have voted for the them especially Brennan if their views don't mesh with his own an of course his father's? Since they do he had no problem voting for them.

The article below poses many questions but the most serious is that if and when the extreme left praises and agrees with this so called conservative then something is terribly wrong.

All I can say again like father like son and God forbid if he's the next GOP candidate for president.

The below article is excellent and well worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

RAND PAUL/VAN JONES 2016

The Senator from Al Qaeda

- Daniel Greenfield (Bio and Archives) Sunday, March 10, 2013

Here’s an easy way to tell when your position isn’t a conservative one. When you’re standing with Van Jones, your position isn’t a conservative one. When you’re standing with Code Pink, then your position is not a conservative one.

No amount of noise or chest-beating is going to change that.

The Republican Party has taken a severe beating in the last year. With so many hopes down the drain, some will take a victory where they can find it, even if it’s a younger version of Ron Paul.

There are Conservative sites that are positively giddy about Rand Paul getting positive mentions from John Cusack and Van Jones. Code Pink’s endorsement is being treated like some kind of victory.

Are we really getting worked up about getting a pat on the head from the left? Are we all Paultards now or are we all RINOs now?

Or is finding someone to the left of Obama to side with… supposed to be a victory for conservative principles?

“Will the Left finally get the Tea Party now?” Breitbart’s site asks. If Andrew Breitbart were alive, he could have answered that question in one four letter word.

The left “gets” the Tea Party. It gets it as a middle class bourgeois defense of its property and rights against the the rule of the left.

That is what the Tea Party is. That is what the Left is.

Code Pink and Van Jones who are happy to see the Republican Party adopting their views

Even saner heads are calling Rand Paul’s filibuster a political victory. The only place that it’s a victory is in the echo chambers of a victory-starved party. And to Code Pink and Van Jones who are happy to see the Republican Party adopting their views.

The “brilliant victory” was that some Republicans tried to go further on the left than Obama on National Defense. Maybe next they can try to go further left than him on Immigration, Gay Marriage and Abortion.

And if that doesn’t work, Rand Paul and Jon Huntsman can get together on ending the War on Drugs.

Most Americans support using drones to kill Al Qaeda terrorists. Most Americans don’t know about the filibuster or care. Most Americans want political and economic reforms, not conspiracy theories.

The Paul filibuster was about drone strikes on American soil, the way that Obama ‘only’ wants to ban assault rifles.

This isn’t about using drones to kill Americans on American soil. That’s a fake claim being used by Rand Paul as a wedge issue to dismantle the War on Terror. Now that he manipulated conservative support for that, he can begin moving forward with his real agenda.

Rand Paul is on record as opposing Guantanamo Bay and supports releasing the terrorists. He’s on record opposing drone strikes against Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, saying, “A perpetual drone war in Pakistan makes those people more angry and not less angry.”

This position is no different than that of his father. The only difference is that Rand Paul is better at sticking statements like these into the middle of some conservative rhetoric.

It’s the same trick that Barack Obama pulls every time he gives a speech.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, saying the two “think the whole world is a battlefield.”

Like Ron Paul, Rand shifts the blame to America. It’s not Senator McCain who thinks the whole world is a battlefield. It’s Al Qaeda.

Here, in the middle of Rand Paul’s drone rant is what he really stands for and against.

It’s one thing to say yeah, these people are going to probably come and attack us, which to tell you the truth is probably not always true. There are people fighting a civil war in Yemen who probably have no conception of ever coming to America.

The people fighting that “civil war” are tied in with Al Qaeda, including the Al-Awlaki clan, whose scion, Anwar Al-Awlaki helped organize terrorist attacks against America and was linked to 9/11.

Friedersdorf (Andrew Sullivan’s underblogger) goes on to say we do know the U.S. drones are targeting people who have never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States, so we’re talking about noncombatants who have never pledged to carry out attacks are being attacked overseas.

Think about it, if that’s going to be the standard at home, people who have never really truly been involved with combat against us. Take Pakistan where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. This is more from Friedersdorf.

Think about it. If it were your family member and they have been killed and they were innocent or you believe them to be innocent, it’s going to - is it going to make you more or less likely to become involved with attacking the United States?

This isn’t about stopping Obama from killing Americans. This is straight-line anti-war garbage.

You know, or how much - if there’s an al-Qaida presence there trying to organize and come and attack us. Maybe there is. But maybe there’s also people who are just fighting their local government.

How about Mali? I’m not sure in Mali they’re probably worried more about trying to get the next day’s food than coming over here to attack us.

And a politician reciting Michael Mooreisms like these is supposed to stand for a “Conservative Victory”?

I think that’s a good way of putting it, because when you think about it, obviously they’re killing some bad people. This is war. There’s been some short-term good. The question is, does the short-term good outweigh the long term cost, not only just in dollars but the long-term cost of whether or not we’re encouraging a next generation of terrorists?

Is this the new conservative position now? That killing Al Qaeda terrorists only encourages more terrorism?

Is this the new conservative position now? That killing Al Qaeda terrorists only encourages more terrorism?

Are we all Paultards now?

The other thing about this is, is you need to try to understand who - who are these terrorists? Members of al-Qaida. There are no people walking around with a card that says “al-Qaida” on it. There are bad people and there were bad people associated with the terrorists. We’ve killed a lot of them who were in Afghanistan training and part of the group that attacked us. But there are terrorists all over the world that are unhappy with their own local governments. Some of them are unhappy with us, too. But to call them al-Qaida is sometimes a stretch, and sometimes open to debate, who is and who isn’t. But then they use other words, and words are important. They’re either a member of al-Qaida or associated forces. I don’t know what that means.

And here is the ultimate point.

This isn’t about opposing drone strikes on Americans, it’s about using that to salami slice the debate to get to his real agenda which is opposing drone strikes on Al Qaeda.

Ultimately we as a country need to figure out how to end war. We’ve had the war in Afghanistan for 12 years now. The war basically has authorized a worldwide war.

This is Rand Paul’s position. It’s the position of anti-war protesters in 2002. It’s Barack Obama’s original position before he discovered that war wasn’t so easy to end.

If you stand with Rand, this is what you stand with.

Everyone can do what they please, but if you’re going to stand with Rand, then let’s be clear about his positions and agenda. And be clear about whether you share them or not.

No more dressing this up in “Rand Paul is standing up for the Constitution.” That’s the same dishonest claim his father made for years. And none of the even more dishonest, “Drone strikes on Americans in cafes” nonsense.

That’s not what this is about.

1. Do you think that the United States is murdering innocent Muslims and inspiring terrorist attacks?
2. Do you think that if we just leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone?
3. If you think all those things, then wasn’t the left, which has been saying all these things since before September 11, right all along?

Is Van Jones agreeing with you… or are you agreeing with Van Jones?

One blogger called the filibuster the biggest Republican victory since the midterm elections. Sure. In one case, the Republican won the House of Representatives. In the other a guy who believes that drones are a New World Order conspiracy got to trend on Twitter at night for a few hours.

For years Ron Paul supporters believed that flying a blimp and googling Who Is Ron Paul would lead to the people coming over on September 11 being caused by American foreign policy. It hasn’t and it won’t. Every Paultard victory was an imaginary triumph that took place in their own bubble. Now the Republican Party is climbing into an even smaller version of that bubble.

And then a few years from now we can celebrate every one of the Paul clan’s publicity stunt complete with the No Drones blimp while losing by a landslide to Hillary Clinton.

The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don’t win by abandoning conservative values

The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don’t win by abandoning conservative values.

• You don’t win by going liberal on immigration.
• You don’t win by going liberal on government spending
• You don’t win by going liberal on social values.
• And you don’t win by going liberal on national defense.

You either have a conservative agenda or a mixed bag. And Rand Paul is the most mixed bag of all, because the only area that he is conservative on is limited government.

If the new Republican position is open borders, pro-terror and anti-values, then what makes the Republican Party conservative?

Reducing conservatism to cutting the size of government eliminates it and replaces it with libertarianism. It transforms the Republican Party into the party of drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, terrorism… and spending cuts. And the latter is never going to coexist with a society based on the former.

This isn’t the popular thing to write. The popular thing to write is to praise Rand Paul for his political theater and to call it courage. And then maybe to timidly dissent in one or two areas, while praising him as the future of the Republican Party.

But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party… then the party has no future

But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party… then the party has no future.

I don’t blog on Sultan Knish to be popular. If I did, I would have embraced Paul Ryan as the savior of the Republican Party, back when that was the thing to do. I would have never criticized Bush until 2007 or so when it became legit. And I would be busy evolving on gay marriage and immigration.

Still I considered not writing this. It would have been easier to throw up some easy observations about Obama. And move on.

But I regret not speaking out in the past as much as I should have done. And while it would be easy to let this go, to let Rand Paul have his anti-war moment and let Marco Rubio have his immigration moment, so they can run in 2016 and show how wonderfully diverse our party is while bringing in the ‘kids’... I don’t believe that we can win through political expediency that destroys principles.

We tried that in two elections and we lost. Watering down what we stand for until we stand for nothing at all except the distant promise of budget cuts is how we walked into the disaster of 2012.

John McCain in 2008. Mitt Romney in 2012. Rand Paul in 2016. And what will be left?

To be reborn, the Republican Party does not need to go to the left

To be reborn, the Republican Party does not need to go to the left. It doesn’t need to stumble briefly to the right on a few issues that it doesn’t really believe in. It needs to be of the right. It needs to be comprehensively conservative in the way that our opposition now is comprehensively of the left.

If we can’t do that then we will lose. America will be over. It’ll be a name that has as much in common with this country, as modern Egypt does with ancient Egypt or as Rome of today does with the Rome of the imperial days.

And we will be able to distract ourselves with the latest political gimmick. The latest piece of theater.

Conservative media voices have been growing incoherent lately, adopting positions that contradict their last positions and the positions that they will take a week from now.

We are suffering from a conservatism without context where each day and each week’s position exists in a vacuum and is not guided by bedrock principles.

Too much of that same media has become guided by attacking Obama. Not by attacking Obama from conservative principles, but just by attacking him. And the problem with that is when you define yourself by attacking Obama… you become defined by Obama.

Conservatives are defined by positive principles, by the presence of values, not by negative principles, by pure antipathy. We attack Obama because of what we believe to be true, not because we believe that everything he believes is false.

The slippery slope is that when you become defined by what you attack, then you lose sight of what you do stand for. And then suddenly you find yourself standing on the same side as Van Jones and Code Pink.

Reagan said that conservatism is a three legged stool. Social, fiscal and national defense

Reagan said that conservatism is a three legged stool. Social, fiscal and national defense. Either we have all three. Or we have nothing.

There are Conservative sites that are positively giddy about Rand Paul getting positive mentions from John Cusack and Van Jones. Code Pink’s endorsement is being treated like some kind of victory.

“Will the Left finally get the Tea Party now?” Breitbart’s site asks. If Andrew Breitbart were alive, he could have answered that question in one four letter word.

The left “gets” the Tea Party. It gets it as a middle class bourgeois defense of its property and rights against the the rule of the left.

That is what the Tea Party is. That is what the Left is.

The left is not concerned about the Constitution. It does not care about civil rights. It cares about taking over. Allying with the far left against the middle left is allying with the people who really want to enslave you to further radicalize the system.

If the Cold War should have taught us anything, alliances like these end with the duped handing a victory to the left.

We can fight the left. We can fight the Islamists. Or we can cheer a man who is pushing the agenda of both.

There’s nothing conservative about that.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.

Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Hey Peter & Friends,


The realization of progressive progress continues.............................................

America, Are You Prepared To Die For A Communist Dictator?

As history is about to repeat itself for those who are paying attention, a major storm is coming. We have our Communist/Muslim Brotherhood plant, Barack Hussein Obama, running around now stating that he isn’t a dictator. Anyone who has paid attention over the past five years knows that whatever he says is always the exact opposite of what he does.

He promised us back in 2008 that he would build a civilian army that was to be as well equipped and as well funded as the US military. Have you happened to notice the amount of ammunition, guns, and military equipment that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased lately? At the same time, our military is being cut back due to the sequester that Obama himself ordered! Our top Generals are being weeded out at an alarming rate. Does this bother you at all?

Even with sequester cuts, Obama and his minions are still giving US Taxpayer dollars to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Does this not bother you? According to the talking heads in the media, Obama was re-elected by just over fifty percent of this country. My question is this: are those who elected him willing to die for him? Just as they did for Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?

Our founders went to war for much less than We the People are enduring now; and with only three percent of the population standing for Freedom, THEY WON! The time is coming soon where we MUST once again stand for Freedom and Liberty. Unfortunately, fellow Americans on both sides of Obama will lose their lives. Our founders left us the blueprints in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for what to do when our government is no longer “by the people and for the people”. This one will not be for those who sit on the fence. The red lines are being drawn as we speak. Whom are you willing to die for? Our Founding Fathers or the Muslim Brotherhood and Russia? As always, fellow Patriots, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings.

Hi Rick,

Thanks for a great article about the dangers America is facing with the fraud and great pretender B Hussein's regime. The situation will get much worse before there is any chance of getting better for the simple reason that so many are still enamed with him and are still buying his lies as truths. I have no doubt that they will eventually will wake up but I hope it won't be to late when they do.

Shalom,


Peter

Quote:
Hey Peter & Friends,


The realization of progressive progress continues.............................................

America, Are You Prepared To Die For A Communist Dictator?

March 26, 2013 by Tim Powers 32 Comments

inShare20

As history is about to repeat itself for those who are paying attention, a major storm is coming. We have our Communist/Muslim Brotherhood plant, Barack Hussein Obama, running around now stating that he isn’t a dictator. Anyone who has paid attention over the past five years knows that whatever he says is always the exact opposite of what he does.

He promised us back in 2008 that he would build a civilian army that was to be as well equipped and as well funded as the US military. Have you happened to notice the amount of ammunition, guns, and military equipment that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased lately? At the same time, our military is being cut back due to the sequester that Obama himself ordered! Our top Generals are being weeded out at an alarming rate. Does this bother you at all?

Even with sequester cuts, Obama and his minions are still giving US Taxpayer dollars to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Does this not bother you? According to the talking heads in the media, Obama was re-elected by just over fifty percent of this country. My question is this: are those who elected him willing to die for him? Just as they did for Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?

Our founders went to war for much less than We the People are enduring now; and with only three percent of the population standing for Freedom, THEY WON! The time is coming soon where we MUST once again stand for Freedom and Liberty. Unfortunately, fellow Americans on both sides of Obama will lose their lives. Our founders left us the blueprints in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for what to do when our government is no longer “by the people and for the people”. This one will not be for those who sit on the fence. The red lines are being drawn as we speak. Whom are you willing to die for? Our Founding Fathers or the Muslim Brotherhood and Russia? As always, fellow Patriots, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings.

Hello Friends,

With all the discussion and fighting about same sex marriages going on one has to focus and understand what the real fight is all about.

Over the years we've seen how the progressive liberals/Socialists/Marxists and all the other "isms" have been waging a war against religions (except for islam) and family life we grew up in and enjoyed. The same sex marriage offensive of the left is part and parcel of this package. Namely destroying every vestige of religion and family life from the American society.

Daniel Greenfield wrote an excellent article on same sex marriage but his emphasis is that the left is not really fighting for same sex marriage but in reality is using that as a platform to destroy marriage altogether. They've done their best to remove God out of the equation and this is just another step in their radical liberal progressive agenda. The article is definitely worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

The Deconstruction of Marriage

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 11:36 PM PDT

The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country-- it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.

The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.

The left's deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.

Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change 'rose' to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.

The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.

As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell's Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left's deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.

The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.

To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.

The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.

The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.

That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.

The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.

And that is what we are truly fighting against.