Lt. Col. Allen West gives amazing 4th of July speech!

Hoorah Col West. We will do our best to make sure you are on I95 all the way to DC. Happy Birthday America, God Bless.

“Under real tyranny, he would have been hauled away in handcuffs, and nobody would have heard him speak again.” I believe that may have been Mr. West's point…. if we don't stop what's already under way, that's where we'll end up and the time to speak is NOW, not when it's too late. Anyone over 40 and paying attention should be able to recognize what is happening

Reporting dissent that appears to be inaccurate is one thing, so the statements can be debated, debunked, disproved and countered… as in the birther movement. But I'm talking about open dissent in the press and on the airwaves being unrestrained, which is never allowed under REAL tyranny. Real tyrants, like Saddam, like Fidel, like Hitler, like Franco… wouldn't allow such things for a cold minute.

The Bush tax cuts totaled, by his own figures, $1.3T. The problem wasn't that it was too little, or too late, it's that it was too far away. Too much of the money was spent overseas, creating jobs that paid $10K per month, or way too much. We shouldn't have spent that money at all, but if we were going to, it should have been spent here in America, beefing up our security at our airports, seaports, water supplies, securing our borders. Instead, they wanted to outsource running our ports to Dubai World (imagine how that would have worked out, with Dubai World in financial difficulties… we might have been bailing them out, too.)

Don,

You state (elsewhere) that you are a “moderate Republican” and that you are at least in your early 50s (born during Ike's presidency).

QUESTION…

Then how is it that you unfurl the banner of islam (in the GLENN BECK thread about Founding Women) as a sterling example of better/more “rights” for women than could be found in colonial America?

NOTE: Anyone is welcome to see my response (with sources) that clearly shows just how 'rights' work in islam.

You mention “Real tyrants”… “like Hitler”, and how they “wouldn't allow such things for a cold minute” (as though they simply 'appeared' out of thin air and began, in full measure, their ruthless dictatorial crushing of the people.)

…you ever actually READ history (no, really), instead of just puke up Harvardian talking points?

I can go through ALL of the monsters you mentioned, but we'll start with Hitler.

STEP 1 ~
After his service (and wounding) in WWI (1918-19), he earned the regard and eventual loyalty of a little band of SEIU-type thugs, known as The Free Corps (future BROWN SHIRTS).

STEP 2 ~
Shortly thereafter, he joined and soon became the chairman (July, 1921) of the NSDAP (military intelligence group), where he found voice (and a much larger audience).

STEP 3 ~
After the military failure (but political gain) of the Munich Putsch (late '23), and his short stint in prison for 'treason'… the MONSTER began to move rapidly.

STEP 4 ~
During his time in prison, Hitler realized that the quickest way to NATIONAL power (and the power to attack the world by force) was to seize that power constitutionally from the weak and ineffective government rather than by force of arms. And from 1924 to 1929, he and his curr-dog henchman PATIENTLY, CAREFULLY and INSIDIOUSLY lied, conjoled, threatened and bribed their way into national prominence.

NOTE: Hitler was ALL ABOUT “rights” during this period… a “man of the people”. “Free” speech was encouraged… especially that which fueled the fires against the government.

Kinda like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4
<…, you see my point, don't you?

In case not, I'll spell it out for you. Totalitarian monsters of the last century (those you mentioned above) gained power far more like constrictors than like lions. They moved S L O W and purposefully toward their goal, gliding ever-so-gently over and around their prey, so as not to alarm them.

…a lot like the current brood of vipers seeking to complete their coiling before the free heart of America once again, comes awake.

“Real” tyrants, Don. Yessir, sometimes they ARE 'patient'. Read HISTORY sometime… it's a real eye-opener.

That Japanese admiral was never more right (then, or NOW) than when he prophesied ~ “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve”.

CM Sackett

Well done, Art!

As I've said elsewhere, “Until the last breath is long away, and the body cold… LIBERTY!”

Tyranny is like rape (twin gutless sons of the same whore)… intent IS the same as action.

CM Sackett

I agree that we should have been beefing up security at airports, our borders etc. Afa as the Bush tax cuts they represented just aprx 7.9% of the budget. The problem was the costly spending during the Bush years (with both Repubs and then Dems controlling congress) ignored how he was going to pay for them. It was all poorly designed tax policy albeit with good intentions.
Lest I fail to mention the embarrasingly expensive creation of the bloated beast known as Homeland Security after 911. That along with the two wars was a recipe for a mess.

Our current administration has ignored our Constitution and exacerbated a financial crisis which has placed this nation in greater peril than any enemy could have ever hoped to. The Tea Party movement is seeking a repeat performance of the Republican revolution of 1994 in the hope that it will save the country from disaster. But no substantive change (for the better) occurred after 1994, and no substantive change will result from this effort either, as long as the hawks are permitted to control our foreign policy decisions. It's not the economy, but our foreign policy, that will decide our fate as a nation. We cannot afford the cost, or the arrogance, of seeking to be an empire.

We need to return to a humble foreign policy, a strong manufacturing base, and family values that emphasized healthy social behavior. These are the things that made us strong. To simply replace Democrats with Republicans is a charade that will yield no meaningful value to this nation. We can't settle for just another change of politicians; we've got to enforce a change of politics.

I think West is smarter than that. In the crawling stage, it isn't tyranny, it's just pathetic. Tyranny is nothing but bravado unless and until it's enforced, and that isn't done from a crawling position.

And Tyranny need have nothing to do with cash and money, nor must liberty have much to do with fruits of one's labor. This would suppose that liberty can't apply to those who do no labor; and that those who live under a despotic government that they'll be executed for criticizing, aren't subject to tyranny as long as they have money they're free to spend.

The first man to impose tyranny on the new nation of America, was John Adams, with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. People are often Progressives when they're underdogs trying to rise to power, and become Conservatives when they get there.

In the beginning…

EVERYTHING has a beginning… even tyranny.

In the crawling stage… it IS tyranny… AND pathetic.

John Adams did NOT “impose” tyranny… he was only one man among many, and the Alien and Sedition Act was targeted, although it was abused… THAT is how free sovereigns learn.

Do we have agreement? If not, then Progressive vs. Conservative is a non-sequitur.

Art

Don,

Facts (let alone TRUTH) are fast proving to be, at best, 'inconvenient' and troublesome things for you.

I'll share just one of your misrepresentations:

You said, “And as soon as he got himself appointed Chancellor, he outlawed all the opposition, pretty much wiping them out in a single “night of long knives.”"

NOTE ESPECIALLY the historically and UTTERLY INCORRECT time-warp phrase “…as soon as…”

FACT: Hitler was made 'chancellor' on Jan. 30, 1933
FACT: The “night of the long knives” began on June 30, 1934… ended early morning, on July 2.

…that is a calendar time-frame of SEVENTEEN MONTHS, not “as soon as”.

POINT?

You continually use bits of History, picked like flowers for your bonnet, rather than taking the whole of it as a helmet against the flak of our enemies.

You are, of course, free to do so for yourself. That is part of the beauty AND the terror of being a man. But to attempt to peddle such 'emporic' (I know, I just created another new word… I like it) robes as suitable and proper raiment for AMERICAN FREE MEN during this current Storm ~ is beneath the honor of a Republican… even a 'moderate' one.

Sackett

“DON”,

I just noticed this filthy little tale-tell line in your last pile:

“Essentially, an allergic reaction to a bee sting,…” IN REFERENCE TO THE GUTLESS MURDER OF ALMOST 3,000 CITIZENS by those hell-bent on the total destruction of our REPUBLIC.

To jog your putrid memory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw

…a “BEE STING”?

“Don” (or whatever your name is…), you really should have had your handlers edit your pile a bit better before you shoveled this one.

NO American (in heart, spirit or purpose) would call the heinously GUTLESS acts of those goatshags… a 'bee sting'.

NO man over 50, with seemingly as much 'knowledge' (whether Googled or gained through experience) could be so innocently BLIND to the signs of the pattern of tyranny being replayed. WILLFULLY NON-SEEING, yes (which makes one COMPLICIT).

NO man, who loves this Republic… AS IT WAS FOUNDED could go so far out of the way of reason, fact AND History… willfully… to present such distorted 'counter-points' again, and again, and again… as YOU DO.

Harsh words?

You called 9/11 a 'bee sting'.

…I'm being extraordinarily kind and restrained.

CM Sackett

I am so glad to read your reply to Don's “bee sting” remark. He gives himself away as a Liberal with every post, but THAT one was the clincher. That's the problem with liberals who try to act like concern trolls on conservative sites. They just can't help themselves and have to show their true colors.

Thanks.

One day then, they will come for the Conservatives. And I will be speaking up for you then, as I do for liberals and progressives now. The Founders were the Liberals and Progressives of their day. The conservatives were the loyalists, being like William Franklin. They made up about a third of the New England Colonial population, and in the south, an even higher percentage. They were probably the reason why General Lincoln in 1779 couldn't get a militia raised to defend Charleston when he got word the British were on their way.

***
And in the crawling stage, it isn't tyranny. How can it be tyranny when it's only a load of indefensible, unenforceable rhetoric? Unless you think actual tyranny need consist of nothing but words. If you do, then surely you must believe that speech is too dangerous a thing to be granted protection.

At this time, in our country, as in President Lincoln's… it is actually protected speech, whether we like it or not. (But especially if we don't like it. Speech we like needs no protection.)

Follow the ball here, Don… it's not even bouncing.

We are NOT speaking of the speech of THE PEOPLE ~ but the rhetoric AND actions… of THE GOVERNMENT.

As for your self-proclaimed 'patriotic' “as I do for liberals and progressives now.”, please note that while one holds the banner of one side of a conflict… it is impossible to be an advocate for the other.

As the old saying goes, you stand “in the middle of the road” ~ both sides will simply run your arse over. Or as the King put it, so succinctly, about something far more critical even than our national survival…

““I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!”

…that's just the way it is for non-committal fence-sitters.

Oh, btw. If you truly wish to 'practice' that garbage you just preached… go spend your time, effort, thoughts and self on huffpuff, etc. standing as staunchly against their lies… as you do against the facts and truth you've sought to counter here.

CM Sackett

Check your grammar, child. That is EXACTLY how the sentence reads.

Don, you will learn, as you get older, that MARK TWAIN was oh, so right:

'Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.'

…and the only people who waffle, shift and change position as often as a politician, is a politician ~ or their 'progressive'/communist supporters.

Either way, that's part of what STINKS.

I'm actually more of a progressive than a liberal. I believe that there are some problems that the private sector can't solve, because they're the ones causing them. Government has to be strong enough to regulate the private sector and enforce the regs, otherwise the inevitable result is either feudalism or revolution, and possibly both, in that order.

It takes more than a President to take away freedoms. It also takes Congress. A President won't stay in office long enough to get it done, and it's too easily blocked, by both the Senate and the courts, anyway.

“But when you say that such an event should change everything about us and how we think of ourselves, that it should have Americans quaking in fear at the specter that it might happen again, and ready to relinquish all our freedoms, and abandon the rights we held so precious to prevent it… then it is you who are belittling America.”

Check every post I've ever made… on ANY site. I have never even intonated anything like you suggested.

Like every American I knew then, or know now, those gutless attacks did NOT strike 'fear' into our hearts, nor did it 'change how we felt about ourselves'. They only ignited a determined fury, long-held in check by the 'better angels of our nature' (remember Don, 9/11 was just ANOTHER brick in the wall of gutless shame of these dogs). That fury, and the subsequent actions of our American Warrior/HEROES (yessir, I do separate them and their selfless courage/service from the actions AND intents of some of those who send them. Learned that from history, too), was based on WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW ABOUT OURSELVES ~ the attacks didn't 'change' any of that… but only strengthened the resolve of our heart.

As for the British taking all the attacks by muslim cowards 'all in stride' (and yes, I have traveled and worked in the U.K. a bit, myself)… whatever they “knew” of their national heritage, AS A GOVERNMENT… died several years ago.

Want proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PTBIGxJb5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHOvWXX1dqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnOdD46WI0M&feat…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137QG-6n5z0&feat…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq1ZZ3ZpHj0&feat…

And before you belch the mantra of “Tolerance”…

1. You and your ilk show NO 'tolerance' for the convictions of American citizens who HOLD FIRM TO THE CONSTITUTION of these United States.
2. 'Tolerance' is the morphine of EVIL (History is rife with evidence of this)

We, THE PEOPLE of these United States have proven to be a people of FORBEARANCE (being patient with those who oppose us ~ while remaining GIBRALTAR-strong and immovable from the principles, precepts and heart of our Founding). But there are things that cannot/will NOT be 'tolerated' by a free people.

…the above linked garbage is one of them.

CM Sackett

Actually, many in the government wanted war with France, over the XYZ affair.

And at first many Americans supported the Acts,which quickly changed after the implementation began.Which turned the majority against them and led to Jefferson being elected. Your response still does not support your claim of Adam's supposed “tyranny”.
Edit: By your standard ,that would mean, Woodrow Wilson,a progressive, was also implementing tyranny.

“The Founders were the Liberals and Progressives of their day.” You are playing word games here,an inherent trait of Progressives, the Founders were Classical Liberals a train of thought that espoused limited government and individual rights,a far cry from the Modern Liberalism that is in fact “soft fascism”. William Franklin was a Loyalist and a supporter of the outdated thinking of Monarchists,that Kings spoke for Gods and where therefore unassailable deities,not unlike the Egyptian Pharaohs or the Emperors of Rome,in other words,true supporters of tyranny.

My understanding was that the laws prohibiting speech against the WW1 were mostly local things.

I think McCarthy was trying to initiate tyranny.

And Jefferson's election was the most contentious we've ever had, I think. It took the House 36 ballots!

I disagree, it changed a great deal. Would the USA Patriot Act have had a chance of passing without 9/11? Would it even have been proposed?

Would we have set up Gitmo as a limbo-like detention facility, for the specific purpose that, being off “American soil” it was outside the jurisdiction of the courts? Would we have set up military tribunals the way we did (not to be confused with those used for actual spies acting for a foreign power, as during WW2)?

The emphasis changed overnight from “keeping America free” to “keeping America safe.” The Freedom part became expendable in the interests of the safety, and the Conservatives disguised it all by wrapping it in the flag, and pretending the fury we felt wasn't a child of the fear.

For the record, the British attacks were mostly by Irish, not Muslims. And intolerance has done more to destroy the good of this country than tolerance ever could.

I agree it takes more than a President to take away our freedom. Unfortunately the democratic party has become the party of ” Yes Oh Glorious Leader, Anything you want “.

Cm just watched all the clips. thanks for posting. Can't believe this is happening in England. I know many Muslims I just don't see this from them or anything close to it. Just incase however, as Americans we need to stop this in the bud. While England bends over backward to appease and keep the peace it is easier target to get kicked in the butt. What a sad state the world is in.

They have also become this:

Waters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU

Pelosi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Conyers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqbS0ApVK-Q

Specter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0

Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU

Etheridge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oqIP9yagkQ

I'm sure there are more.
Stark 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M

Stark 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM

Durbin- odd- 60-70% disapprove after it was passed even though they supported it before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JywSboFmjBU

Frank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

I think what they wanted, was sensible government, and recognition of themselves as Englishmen. In the Declaration, Jefferson lists 27 grievances against the King. The first 2 involve a lack of legislation, the kind, “wholesome and necessary for the public good,” and how the King refused to assent, refused to allow such to be passed unless held suspended until he assents, and then he refused to attend to them.

They wanted representation in the House of Commons at least, yet it was clear that had they been given as many as 10 royal charters, they would have had only 20 votes in the Commons. The Commons having well over 400 seats at the time, they would have remained a minority, had no voice in the House of Lords, and nothing would really have changed for them.

The fact is, in America they could acquire vast plantations such as only members of the royal family could have in England, and they could own slaves to work them, forbidden in England.

Instead, what they got from England was actual tyranny, a form of government devoid of governance… drunk with the power and majesty of the Empire as done throughout Africa and Asia, they thought that there was nothing more to governance than the exertion of power.

If they were that, then why such an issue over Health Care reform? Wouldn't it have gone through with a lot less fanfare? Wouldn't there have been a public option? You're spouting rhetoric again. The ” Yes Oh Glorious Leader, Anything you want” bit sounds a lot more like what GWBush was getting from the GOP. Dems have always been more of a loosely aligned coalition than a party. That's why, Clinton, even with control of House and Senate, couldn't get health care done, and Obama, with the same advantage, almost failed… and still didn't get everything in the bill he really wanted.

The only initiatives Bush failed to get done that I remember, were the privatization of Social Security, and the outsourcing of the ports, both of which he tried hard for, and both of which, it appears, would have had disastrous results.

Defining one word in terms of another doesn't always give you the difference between them.

The speed at which you may drive your car, is “regulated” by the posted speed limits. The speed at which you actually drive your car, is controlled only by your foot on the gas and brake pedals.

Your pressure on the accelerator does that. Or put another way… in this case, regulation, which is done by government, defines only the limit of what is legal or illegal. Control, which is exerted by the private sector in our society, defines the reality of what actually occurs.

There is also the practical difference between regulating… and enforcing the regulations.

Well played,Sir well played.

Neither. Requires no change in policy or operation.

I thought you could come up with a more intelligent reply. Sorry I overestimated you. It's definitely a control issue.

Request is a nice way to say If you want the bailout money, you will resign.

Most actual progressives don't really give a flying f@$# what Glenn Beck has to say about the progressives of the early 20th century.

Amen.

To these people, it's as if Tom DeLay, or for that matter, Richard Nixon, never existed.

You can say whatever you want, but since the 60s, Republicans have consistently played it dirtier than Democrats.

I'm sorry Sackett, but your appropriation of Niemoeller here is classless and disgusting.

If they come for the conservatives, I will speak up for you. Until then, I suggest you get out of your bubble and learn what people on the left actually think, because your little bubble there is clearly not good for you.

“First they came for the illegals…

Yet don't you find it odd that, for some reason, Glenn Beck is being elevated to this position of history buff? I hate to break it to you, but most of what Glenn Beck says is stuff that you learn in high school and college. Certainly in all the time I've watched him, I haven't learned a single thing about American history, and I didn't major in American Studies either. And yes, this includes the eugenics movement in the US and its connection to the progressive movement, our “Christian heritage” and Jonathan Edwards and all that other good stuff.

Beck's viewers could use to read someone like Alan Brinkley. You know, a historian.

Finally, am I the only one that Glenn Beck opens up his insane hour-long fear-and-prayer fest with Thomas Jefferson's “question with boldness” quote, given that the quote, in full, reads:

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

That in of itself is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with Glenn Beck's program.

I'll see your Paul Krugman and raise you Milton Friedman and a Fredrich F. A. Hayek, both nobel laureates in Economics.

No they don't teach much of what Beck brings to our attention. As far as what Jefferson said about question with boldness, Beck even wants us to question him. The problem is most progressives blindly follow their leader without question. I personally have no problem with the prayer fest as you call it. I have a strong belief in God and I believe you said you don't. As I pointed out on another thread, I believe in Freedom of and Freedom from religion. What you call a fear fest I consider an opportunity. I check out everything Glenn says. I have way over 1 tb of documentaries and videos on this computer. I check out every e-mail i receive about this administration, and as much as I dislike Obama, I do all I can to stop the flow of these false claims about Obama. I even bought Obama's books because I want to know the truth about what he said. We don't need to spread false rumors about this administration because the truth is bad enough.

I'm happy to see debate on here. Without the liberals showing up, we are just preaching to the choir.

Ah, I see they called in the second string night-shift.

Little late… lot lame. But for you ~

S.O.P…. FUBAR.

Yeah, well, I know I've promised to write you and never follow up on it, but I've got a whole lot of things to do that just keep piling up and, although if we ever met I'm sure we'd have some beers, a lively discussion, and a perfectly good time, I'm not sure that I've got the time or energy right now to engage in a serious discussion regarding these matters. I'm sure you think the same of me (and I'm sure in some cases you're right), but there are a lot of things about which you are not only woefully, but also willfully, misinformed.

Don actually raised a number of really salient points, none of which you took him up on in any meaningful way. There are perfectly valid counterarguments for everything that he said, but instead you seized on certain things that he said and ignored the larger issue at hand. You don't have to think I'm correct, but I do pride myself on being an impartial judge, even of fights that I have a stake in.

Honestly, Sackett, although I really don't know you too well, I can say with confidence that if we were ever stuck in a foxhole somewhere, I'd have your back, and I know you'd have mine. But your ranting about socialism and nation raping is tired. If you want to know what brainwashed masses are, speak to Chinese people who don't speak English – and you can imply I'm a communist all you want, but literally two days ago I gave a friend of mine (a Chinese person who doesn't speak English) a copy of the Declaration of Independence and a selection of works by Jefferson because I think that they're some of the most important things ever written and people like him, more than anyone, need to understand them.

Have you ever read “A People's History of the United States”, I suggest it. And I will allow Howard Zinn to summarize what “we” feel about America.

“I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which says that all of us have an equal right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality — and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that.”

And he wasn't talking about Barack Obama when he wrote that.

And so the problem is that Beck preaches a philosophy that gets people to believe things like, well: “The problem is most progressives blindly follow their leader without question.”+++++++++++++++++++++++=I don't need Beck telling me about progressives blindly following their leader. I see it in my own family although they recently came up with buyer's remorse.

Last I checked, your family does not represent all progressive voters. There are sheeple on both sides of the aisle, you should know that.

“Honestly, Sackett, although I really don't know you too well, I can say with confidence that if we were ever stuck in a foxhole somewhere, I'd have your back, and I know you'd have mine.”

…I am confident of the one, and you can rest assured of the latter.

We have, my friend (as was said of 'Nevill' ~sp~ in the first POTTER movie… “it takes great courage to face one's enemies. It takes even greater courage ~ to face one's friends”. We BOTH seem to be blessed/cursed with that :O), we have diametrically opposed views AND convictions as to:

1. WHAT is happening to our Republic
2. TO WHAT EXTENT it is meant to play out (by design of those you hold, at best it seems, in mild apathy ~ and me, utter 'to-the-last-breath' contempt).
3. WITH WHAT MALICE OF FORETHOUGHT it is being enacted

…and how much history-repeating deathly danger the Republic (and its citizenry) are facing.

For us both, TIME is (it seems) the ONLY teacher that could change those convictions in either of us.

If YOU are proved correct in your current assessments, I will JOYFULLY and quite PUBLICLY (and repeatedly) announce my shortcomings and misdirected energies for a 'nequam causa'… LOUDLY and publicly.

…but if, just IF what I, and millions of other citizens (and lovers of LIBERTY around this orb, like this phenomenal kiwi: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/ ) are on the money about what we see and sense… and if (BIG “IF”) we are unable to sufficiently fill the Gap, stem the tide and restore the original PTs and PIs (yeah, worked as a surveyor ~ MANY years ago) of the boundaries of government, as laid out by our (yours and mine) Founding Fathers…

…then there will be no one left to hear your quiet “Oh my.”

NOTE: I do not pen the above for 'drama's sake. It is what I believe, right down to the marrow in my bones.

That said, I give you my word ~ should you ever be in need against a common enemy (or wrongfully accosted by any of the 'lesser men' who skulk among the ranks of all gatherings of MEN), I WILL stand for you, and with you… with no regard to cost.

Other than that, well… you will certainly shake your head at my points-n-declarations, as I do many of yours. So be it.

Oh, btw, I WOULD LIKE to know if you could see about getting me copies of all the original ZATOICHI movies (if the Japanese DVDs will play in our country-code machines). That character's “Character” suits this old southern fella, right down to the ground!

Just let me know the price. And THANKS!

Sackett

“I have absolutely no tolerance for appropriating holocaust imagery to try and prove a political point,”

Aye, we are in molecular agreement there, my friend!

But, as I mentioned in my first reply to you (directly above), I meant it in a bone-chillingly HISTORIC way. As in, history is REPEATING itself… literally, in the hearts AND actions of those in 'power' (that we disagree on).

I DESPISE “politics”.

Someday, perhaps, we can sit down (you and I) and I will gladly show you my long history of carrying NO PARTY'S 'card'… EVER. I, like many of my fellows, have come 'out of the woodwork' of our daily lives, not to prop up either (or ANY) of the filthy, maggot-dripping 'parties' ~ but to stand in the GAPS their bumbling, self-serving/short-sighted insidiousness have ripped into the very fabric of our Republic.

Period.

…and we will stand, immovable and relentless until the country is RESTORED to its founding principles, form and extent of governance, rights of its citizens, and character of it Soul, or we are dead and dust.

Sackett

“Don't try and pretend it didn't change everything,”

Danny, figured you had figured this much out about me by now… I work in CONTEXT (or try to). Don's statement clearly declared the change he felt that gutless cruelty:

~”But when you say that such an event should change everything about us and how we think of ourselves, that it should have Americans quaking in fear at the specter that it might happen again, and ready to relinquish all our freedoms, and abandon the rights we held so precious in the paranoia to prevent it… then it isn't me belittling the event, is is you who are belittling America.” ~DON~

NOTICE, his sentence structure CLEARLY makes the point that it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE he was referring to… not any party.

…and THAT is what I addressed. And what I said, I stand by (we, THE PEOPLE, just got pissed. Piss-ants and gutless bullies don't scare men. That feeling is reserved for our Maker, alone.)

_____________________________________________

Now, what was your next statement?

Oh yes:

“…the Republican party thrives on the notion that 9/11 changed everything.”

NOTICE, please, I have NEVER (as in EVER) posted ANYTHING in 'support' of ANY party… anywhere.

Individual men… yes.

Particular laws… perhaps (don't think so, yet.)

Specific moments of acts of Character on the part of any given servant of the People… (ahhh, uhhmmm YEAH, when I see it).

In other words, I have never stated, or even left the faint whiff of support for ANY party… EVER… ANYWHERE.

It's AMERICA I support (and its Constitution, historic men and women of Honor, Courage and Character, and its overall OUTSTANDING history of GOOD in this old world).

CM Sackett

Thank you, Williamm!

I had seen that one (searched y-tube some time back). You'll really need to watch the originals (with the man who MADE “Itchi”… ITCHI!). Not for everyone, I understand that. But, for me, “Itchi” personifies the Character, Grace and Wisdom of true MANhood to a degree rarely seen.

But, that's just me.

THANKS again for posting up!

Not sure if this is what you are looking for.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dv…

We have agreement…

But then it must be acknowledged that with the Alien and Sedition Acts, John Adams and his colleagues introduced the “crawling stage of tyranny” more unequivocally than either Bush or Obama. And if we're going to give Adams a pass, then we owe one to Wilson, Bush and Obama, too.

For the record, though I am registered as a republican, I still vote for the candidate, not the party. OTOH, if I believe candidate M's victory yield disastrous results in normal times and even worse in a crisis… and candidate O (some of whose positions I still oppose, albeit fewer of them) is the only other with any chance of defeating M… then I will not waste my vote on some other candidate who may be more closely aligned with my views, but who has no chance whatever.

Sort of like Globull warming, eh?

Jaynie,
If your right to vote is guaranteed in America, you owe that guarantee to Progressives, not the Founders. The Founders didn't want it guaranteed, they wanted it to be at the whim of the state, who would be free to take it from you whenever it started to become inconvenient.

If you've ever voted a Senator in or out of office, you owe that power to vote to Progressives, not the Founders. The Founders didn't want ordinary people to vote for Senators, they wanted them chosen by their state legislatures. And if the legislature couldn't agree on a choice, then there would be a vacancy until they could.

I suggest you look past the labels and what you think they mean, and check what Progressives have given you over the years that you now take for granted.

Just curious would the Krugman of whom you are speaking be the same Krugman who was an economic adviser at Enron?

Aye, well stated TRUTH, sir.

Actually I wasn't trying for a point it was an honest question.If I were going to make a point,it would be that in the case of Greece,that I would view Krugman's opinion as suspect as he is a well known proponent Keynesian economics,which is in my opinion a major contributor to the economic situation that Greece now finds itself and all the infusions of governmental cash have failed to reverse. Europe in itself is a prime example of what can be expected when governments tinker in markets. Edit: Europe is also an excellent example of the fatal flaws of a Social Democratic system.

So you think “”Abraham Lincoln described it very well,” do you?

“He said, liberty is about each and every person having the ability to do what they want with the fruits of their labor.

“But tyranny is when someone else comes in and tries to make the decision about what you should be doing with your hard earned cash and money.

You think liberty and tyranny pertain only to money and the fruits of one's labor? What about the liberty to speak out? And the tyranny that silences those who would like to?

To me, this isn't describing it very well… this is cherry picking, and leaving out most of the orchard.

A heretic for our times

Good post