4um: The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat

Title: The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat
Source: Rockwell
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 19, 2008
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2008-05-19 09:39:44 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 2141
Comments: 154

If 4um is going to serve as a Commie-Establishment propaganda delivery system, then I say let it die.

Your shabby tactics would soon prove tiresome to any trial judge, and that's a slam dunk contempt citation.

If you threatened (or raised the spectre of) criminal charges to gain advantage in a civil action that is a breach of the ABA canon of ethics! (which are mirrored in many state ethics codes)

Now, if a lawyers' professional ethics are an obstacle or simply of no use in heated and protracted political discussions, then will you start by conceding that point?

Or, you can adhere to the rules of professional conduct and present cogent facts to support your position, if you have any.

It's my position that I could argue your case better than you've been doing, without "passion or prejudice". But, then again I'm from the home of Thomas Jefferson, and you're influences are no doubt the likes of Cecil Rhodes. It's becoming more apparent each passing moment that an Oxford education leaves you somewhat under-gunned against me or JT in an honest to by God stand up political debate.

Your words imply (falsely) he openly advocates or has expressed a desire for such. Imasmuch as that is a federal offense, your tactics are tantamount to accusations which are harmful to the poster and the forum.

I've been working with AIP (CP affiliate) for months now. I was disappointed in the last central committee meeting though and may switch to Libertarian. I'm waiting until after the June primary to change my registration.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

The language I cited in #37, given the context, can quite reasonably be so interpreted.

You're very slippery here, but we both know that no judicial officer would permit that, and it's still no substitute for intelligent debate including followups to JT's frustrating counters to your "cogent facts in #37."

In short you seem to want to corner JT on one point: He has alluded to some secret wish that an assassin's bullet would change the course of history.

My point is, If so, then so what? As Carol amply demonstrated it's not against the law to openly wish that terrible misfortune befall some unpopular and/or treasonous politico who wants to run our lives and steer the ship of state right up onto the rocks.

I for one hope that someday Bill Clinton ODs on Viagra and he has to pole vault to the nearest ER to seek emergency medical assistance and it's printed in the New York Daily News, while Hillary is in China or Bangladesh!"

Something can be permitted by the law, but nevertheless be morally reprehensible and worthy of severe condemnation.

I am fed up and more than ticked off by most of the Congress and by the Democratic Presidential candidates. Remember the expansion of the Bush’s illegal wiretapping?

Remember the temporary expansion of the FISA extension than Representative Harman was passed based on hyped security threats? WHY are the Democrats passing these attacks on civil liberties and Constitutional protections?

This just makes my jaws ache. For our elected representatives, and in particular the Democrats, to vote for these things is not an issue of "fear." If they are willing to destroy our rights because they are "afraid," then one must assume that they actually believe that Constitutional abridgements are "necessary" for our security. Bull. A total surveillance society (in other words not the one we thought we were living in) is not safer, and it certainly does not have the wall of privacy that is needed for a free citizenry.

While I appreciate Harman stepping up and speaking about this, it is just pure cowardice that our elected representatives would throw away our Constitution because they were scared. Apparently, that was a fairly self-serving fear, because the "hyped" threats were to Congress. COWARDS and fools.

How many times can the administration lie, deceive, obscure, cherry pick, and "hype" before the Dems wake up? What ever happened to "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me?"

Or how about the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that passed the House on September 25, 2007? That is the bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard (their military) a terrorist organization. Excuse me? We want to declare a government's military as a terrorist organization? Seems to me that the U.S. is on very shaky ground there. What about the School of the Americas now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation? You remember SOA is the one that trains Latin American military and police in torture, supression of "insurgency" and other means of controlling an "unruly" population? Since this is part of our military, should it be considered a terrorist organization? Or what about the CIA? The U.S. has an fairly long list of "helping" certain factions to power, arming "insurgents" to overthrow their government, etc. In fact, the U.S. has been aiding "dissidents" inside Iran to take over that government. Sounds like any of those might make the U.S. ripe for claims that we are state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, we are even arming and training "insurgents" (or those formerly labeled "insurgents") in Iraq.

The list could go on and on, but I'll just add one more that sticks in my craw - the hyped indignation about MoveOn.org's add prior to the Petreaus report. What pray tell happened to free speech? Why are our elected representatives taking time to "condemn" free speech? Why did they not do the same for Max Cleland, John Kerry, or John McCain. Shall we really get into personal attacks and defamation of character? Yet a number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate somehow felt they need to spend time and breath on some sort of display of false patriotism.

I am tired of the cowardice of Congress. I am tired of Democrats supposedly taking a stand while too many seem to be voting right in lock step with the Republicans. I am tired of excuses that are totally off the point. They can all - Dems and Republicans - start representing us, or they can get the hell out of Washington. That same message needs to be sent loud and clear to the Presidential candidates. We (and by that I mean the almost 75% of citizens of the United States) do not want more of what we have seen and experienced for the last seven years.

The Democrats also knew the Administration's history in willfully violating the warrant requirements of FISA, and they knew the Administration has yet to explain what it is doing and how it can be legally justified. They knew the Administration had engaged in activities that were so blatantly unlawful that the previous Attorney General, the acting Attorney General and the Director of the FBI were prepared to resign if the activities continued. Yet knowing all this, they passed a bill written entirely by the Administration and never vetted through hearings that gutted FISA, a 28 year old statute that had been carefully crafted and updated after extensive public hearings. They recklessly gutted a statute designed to protect our rights against government abuses that had occurred during the Nixon and prior administrations, abuses that, given the Bush/Cheney regime's history and statements, the Democrats knew were probably at risk here.

Second, the article confirms the suspicions that the Administration knowingly misled Congress, claiming a limited FISA amendment was necessary to correct the foreign-to-foreign intelligence gap when in fact they knew that the bill language they drafted went far beyond that limited fix. The Administration denies it would ever interpret the statute in ways that pushed an extreme view of executive power; are we to believe this from an administration that has never held back on pushing extreme views of executive powers?

Do the Center Party members of the Reichstag who joined in voting Hitler dictatorial powers bear equal responsibility with Nazis for the crimes of the Third Reich?

There is a difference, in asmuch as there's a big difference between having a Marxist and having a Fascist in power.

I don't say Marxist or Fascist just to call people names either. McCain's advocacy of endless war could have come from the mouth of Mussolini, and Obama's proposal of a global welfare tax sounds like something out of the Marx/Engels Communist Manifesto.

Is there a difference between a Marxist and a Fascist? Definitely. Does it mean that I'll be voting for one or the other? Definitely not.

ari, point of information. I retired from the NYPD a full 20 years before Homeland Security was established, so your attempt to connect me to it is, well, weird.

And I bet those retired generals who pushed a pro-war propaganda line on the networks for which they were advisers had nothing any longer to do with the Department of Defense.

My point is you keep revisiting the same "AHAH! GOTCHA!" for something he did not say, but only alluded to. If JT wished that Obama is removed from the political process by some misfortune he'd say so in clear and unambiguous language.

He's a retired police officer and he spent many years deterring crime and/or investigating violence, and there's simply no reason to repeatedly try to put him on the defensive for the crime of upsetting your Pollyanna sensibilities.

Lord knows if you want to wring your soft, pink hands, your buddies on that side of the isle have made enough people go away to prevent exposure of their lies and crimes.

How is it that you don't understand why most Americans (including JT, chris and me) would resent anyone changing the course of history that way again?

Had I and JT been old enough we almost certainly wouldn't have voted for JFK, but neither of us wanted him murdered by a cabal who preempted the will of the voters with contract killers and scope rifles.

And, JT's allusion to violence was wildly successful, because here you are still trying to punish him for the non existent crime of reminding you that as FDR said "In politics, nothing is as it seems."

Is it "morally reprehensible" to put you in a continuous loop that has you chanting something like "precious bodily fluids" because he made you unhappy? Perhaps you should leave political discussions to those who won't lose their perspective and resort to an ad nauseum tactic that's grating on others' nerves.

If he said "You better hope that a sniper doesn't murder your boy, DAWG" I'd say, "For your and your ilks' sake you'd better hope so, too!" And that would be the end of it.

If I'm unhappy, it's because I think every mention of possible assassination -- especially when it appears to be an approving mention -- makes that dreadful event more likely to occur.

If SOA/WHINSC doesn't expose the true evil in our "servants'" hearts then nothing does.

With the installation of ubiquitous cameras and REAL ID our servants become our masters, and they'll effect a bloodless (for them) coup against us and the constitution.

And Alan Dershowitz and the AG du jour are always ready to opine on how to make it all nice and legal like.

Again let me mention Red Beckman, one of the researchers who visited the 48 state houses to obtain (certified, he had to do it twice) copies of their 1913 house journals, and he proved that the 16th amendment was not ratified. (as he told me "Don't say not {properly ratified}. It wasn't ratified, period!")

Beckman also said "It's a race between the collapse of the economy and the grabbing of the guns. And, which comes first will determine the future course of America!'

Those who have no doubt what the shadow govt types are planning for us will have choices, not unlike those faced by the signers of The Declaration. And Ben Franklin understood all too well when he said that "it's better to fight and die on your feet than to live on your knees." After what this govt has done to innocents in the name of the WOT (actually, Eretz Israel) there is no doubt in my mind that I don't ever want to be reduced to federal custody, at least not while I'm alive.

I don't threaten or menace anyone, but, "If they mean to have a war then let it begin here."

Hard to want more of them if they are given such absolution when they are the majority.

I have seen some way dumb comments posted on various message boards but this one is surely in the top ten. LOL, I can't conceive of anyone getting the VP nomination if they were dead. Of course, there is something to be said for that. His upkeep wouldn't be all that great and he wouldn't need the protection of the gestapo and all that goes with being a live Veep. ahaha.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Not to any reasonable person. Wishing for a person to die falls far short from advocating assassination, as you have accused.

It is ever so clear to all, 75% of America knows what some will not admit. Every individual takes a different path, save the few who benefit from the chaos.

Beckman also said "It's a race between the collapse of the economy and the grabbing of the guns. And, which comes first will determine the future course of America!'

You might have to... the few have decided we should not be allowed to fight or speak. While we can, we should.

yes, ari, it does, but, again, your taking that one innocuous post and another from another poster, the other day, and attempting to characterize them as assassination threats is more than a complaint (imo). and, btw, "assassination talk" encompasses a lot of talk like that in the Cogburn article i posted to you above.

I work with skilled tradesmen who are incredibly good at what they do, but, they couldn't tell me who their state reps are to win a bet, and they know even less about national politics.

And, because of America's sordid political history many have automatically defaulted to the position that an African American president would be assassinated.

It's not wishful thinking for most. It's a conditioned reflex that began (for the older ones like me) with the Warren Commission report, and continued up to the murder of John Lennon and attempted hit of Ronnie Raygun.

Unlike Europe where assassinations always involve groups like the Bahder Meinhof Gang, in The US it's always lone nuts who just happen to score nearly 100% with piss poor weapons and no training or detectable outside support. The only thing they have going for them is, their actions seem to benefit the same powerful special interests, again and again.

Americans are petrified of whoever is doing it, and the success rate (that defies statistical probabilities) has the great unwashed convinced that presidents cannot be protected from real lone nuts. (which simply isn't true) Americans don't have to wish for it to understand how these assassins of convenience always surface when the "right people" need them.

In short, I've heard many Americans say, "Hell, they'll prolly shoot him!" and more often than not it's uttered with a sense of dread. It's the rare psycho who would actually wish for that. Nearly all Americans are irreversibly heartsick about at least one (and with most Americans all) of the victims of the "uniquely American lone gunmen" who have robbed so many of us of our childhoods and national pride.

I can promise you that neither JT's or my disdain for any candidate would prompt either of us to wish that on our fellow Lilliputians. One need not care about the intended target to care about our fellows who are living with enough violence induced trauma.

He won't tell you that because he cannot switch gears to a defensive posture for little more than a red herring argument. That's not how he fences on the net.

And I don't remember the constant assault on the poster that brought the concern, rather I remember the concern about those threatened by his candidacy.

In both cases, if either were a threat the same group is more aptly implicated, don't you think? Your post was really quite clear on that point.

It has been noted time and again that any puppet candidate is useful and expendable, once his purpose is served. The fear, to my way of thinking, each candidate is a Trojan Horse, and we all have reason to bolt the gate.

My Senior US Senator Joe Biden's pension is now worth something like 4.8 mil, and that doesn't include what he could steal or otherwise accrue in 29 years on the job.

I'd say that the reason that politics attracts mercenaries is, it's better than being a movie star. Sex, drugs, money, power!

The one thing that Ted Kennedy's inheritance couldn't buy is power, the ultimate aphrodisiac!

And, the sons of Martha's Vineyard are bored with money, cars, sailboats and drugs before they reach college.

What else is there to help them achieve..ahem...satisfactory states of arousal but power?

Assassination warning spoils Obama party.

Byline: David Gardner

BRITISH Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing caused uproar last night bypredicting the assassination of Barack Obama if he becomes the first black U.S.president.

The 88-year-old novelist's remarks came as the Democratic candidate toasted themost successful day in his White House campaign.

Mr Obama, the 46-year-old son of a black Kenyan man and a white American,dismissed Mrs Lessing's comments.

Miss Lessing said: 'He would probably not last long, a black man in theposition of president.

They would kill him.' She said it would be better if Mrs Clinton, 60, becameAmerica's first woman president with Obama as her running mate. 'Hillary is avery sharp lady. It might be calmer if she wins,' she told a Swedish newspaper.

But one Democratic analyst said: 'Suggesting Obama is in danger if he wins theelection in November is not only divisive, it is insulting to the Americanpeople.' Princeton University political science professor

Melissa Harris-Lacewell raised assassination fears last month, saying: 'Formany black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed. It ison people's minds.

'You can't make a prediction like this - like he has a 50 per cent chance ofgetting shot.

But the greater his visibility and the greater his access to people, there is adanger.' Last month, TV host Harry Smith caused an outcry, asking Ted Kennedy,brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy: 'Sometimes agents of changeend up being targets. Doesn't it make you at all fearful?' Black presidentialcandidate Jesse Jackson received death threats during his campaigns in theEighties and former Secretary of State Colin Powell ruled out a White House runafter his wife feared he would be killed.

Illinois senator Mr Obama chalked up a clean sweep in voting on Saturday to winfresh momentum in his deadlocked race with

Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

He easily won the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washingtonstate, as well as a victory in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The gains cut into the former first lady's slim lead, leaving Mr Obama ahead ina Newsweek poll by 42 per cent to 41 per cent.

Mr Obama was expected to do well again in 'Incredibly offensive'

tomorrow's primaries in Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland, which all have ahigh black population.

Mr Obama is battling behind the scenes to persuade the 'super delegates', theelected Democrat officials who can make up their own minds who to back, toswitch allegiance to him, particularly those representing states where he wasclearly the popular choice. Mrs Clinton has kept a comparatively low profile,focusing her energies on the next big states to vote on March 4 in Ohio andTexas, where she is leading in the polls.

But she hit out angrily last night over claims that she was 'pimping out' herdaughter Chelsea, 27, to win votes, insisting she was a mother first and apolitician second.

Responding to a comment by American TV reporter David Shuster, she said: 'Ifound the remarks incredibly offensive.' Shuster was suspended by cable channelMSNBC on Friday despite apologising on air.

Republican front-runner John McCain suffered a setback at the weekend when hisonly remaining challenger, former Arkansas governor and preacher Mike Huckabee,53, beat him in Louisiana and Kansas.

But with almost two-thirds of the Republicans delegates wrapped up, it wouldtake a calamity for the 71-year-old Arizona senator to lose the nomination..

And who allows them term after term of such gluttony? Career politicians; NOT what the founders intended. A man leaves to serve his community, then returns to his own business.. subject to the laws he makes. Far far different that the professional streetwalkers that are very very long in the tooth.

I'd say that the reason that politics attracts mercenaries is, it's better than being a movie star. Sex, drugs, money, power!

LOL !!! I've heard it said that DC was Hollywood for ugly people. Babylon alone was not enough, it needed the law behind it. And so it goes, flows and grows. Utter rot. Which leads to?

Not in a thread about the assassination of Obama that the very poster has posted, and when his answers are in reply to questions about whether he posted it because that was what he wanted to happen.

Since you objected to my calling the comments the other day "assassination threats," I have been careful to avoid the term. Even though that is what I thought -- and still think -- those comments were.

You will notice I have not used the term in this thread, until now, in answering you.

(As for the term "wish," you used it yourself in defending those comments to me the other day.)

Oxford, for a guy who cringes at the thought, you cant stop talking about the event.

Insult me all you want. I'll be satisfied, as long as you stop the assassination insinuations.

yep, i admit it. i have and do wish for the demise of truly evil people. you've probably seen me post that i wish something would happen to mcCain before november. do you have a problem with that? does that make me an uncivilized human being in your view? what if i said that the nation would be better off if cheney and his fellow fascists no longer graced this planet? do you find that repugnant too?

How do you propose to rid DC of parasites who worship endless war, intentionally open our borders to criminals and anti-Americans, lay layers of taxes on our backs that cause us to move away from family and friends, give themselves health care while charging us unaffordable fees, grant themselves immunity to the laws they create and develop a voting scheme that ensures a re-selected for incumbents at a rate of 95%?

This entire event by ari is an effort to get banned so he can return to the dust bowl a martyr. Since free speech is encouraged here, he's taking the wrong track.