Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,753
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by nathanbedford

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Trump's presidential bid draws scorn and bemusement in Europe

    07/31/2015 11:02:55 AM PDT · 29 of 62
    nathanbedford to Mariner; flaglady47
    In just a few moments ago I posted a reply to the effect that Donald Trump would caricature of us abroad but I take very little joy at this apparent vindication.

    Having lived in Germany now for several years I can tell you that the state of reporting about America in Europe in general and Germany in particular is truly appalling. Imagine America without National Review or talk radio and with only the three networks and the two remaining cable channels. The result is a population that regards America in many ways quite fondly but in many other ways as an incomprehensible menagerie of Neanderthals.

    I have often described going into a bookstore near my little village with a big table featuring only books about America but all of them were negative, especially about George Bush who was president at the time, and not one was positive. The uniformity of opinion here is appalling. Everyone is opposed to fracking, everyone is green, everyone opposed the war in Iraq, everybody thinks George Bush is a moron, 40% of the country thinks the CIA blew up the World Trade Center.

    So it is not surprising that the left-wing media in Europe caricatures Donald Trump but it is also sad that we have someone who makes it so easy for them.

  • Mitt Romney defends Obama while attacking Ted Cruz

    07/31/2015 10:25:16 AM PDT · 58 of 76
    nathanbedford to flaglady47
    Is not a question of whether I find Trump to be a personally agreeable fellow, that is irrelevant because it is a President we are electing. I want a "brilliant" president and I can see that Trump is in fact brilliant but clearly he is not brilliant in the sense that he does not possess the kind of character we should want in a president. He is brilliant at showbiz, he is brilliant at the art of the deal, he is brilliant at public-relations but he is not the man to lead a nation. He is not the man whose finger should be but inches from the red button.

    Because this is a conservative forum, I can say that he is not the man to lead a conservative movement. He is not a conservative he is intellectually and philosophically incoherent and has been all over the lot on every side of every issue for decades. His history belies the kind of stability we want in either a conservative or a president-which of course is one in the same. It is the richest of ironies that Trump rises to the top with the support of the conservative movement by pointing out the absence of true conservatism among the Republican elite and by adopting an anti-immigration stance when he himself has no historic claim on any of these issues.

    I do not believe that Trump has a better chance of getting elected than Cruz. There are just too many people viscerally opposed to Trump. While I concede that Cruz has earned his share of negatives (earned is clearly the appropriate word, Cruz has drawn his negatives by his actions not by gratuitous flippery). I think he is possessed of the intellect (clearly superior to Trump's), a sense of history (clearly distorted in Trump), the forensic ability (he never puts a foot down wrong, unlike Trump), and the integrity (do we need to catalog Trump's divorces and corporate bankruptcies?) to overcome those negatives. In other words, Trump has probably hit his ceiling but Cruz can go all the way.

    But even assuming you are right and I am wrong, Cruz cannot get elected and Trump can, what we will have in the White House is not a conservative but a man whose body is but a life-support system for his ego. You will not have a conservative, you will have a man lurching from issue to issue on an ad hoc basis, committing gaffe after gaffe, disgracing the party and caricaturing the nation before the world.

    I see no conservative victory in that picture.

  • Mitt Romney defends Obama while attacking Ted Cruz

    07/31/2015 9:48:24 AM PDT · 33 of 76
    nathanbedford to TomGuy
    … And Obama is in Africa making headlines…

  • Mitt Romney defends Obama while attacking Ted Cruz

    07/31/2015 9:42:13 AM PDT · 27 of 76
    nathanbedford to flaglady47
    Trump got to the head of the line by saying initially what needed to be said about immigration. But true to what I predicted, and of course I was not alone, Trump has begun to confound us all by talking out of both sides of his mouth. I have read and reread his latest about whom he is going to locate, deport and then let back in and it makes no coherent sense. It is not the kind of thinking upon which we can make policy. It is incoherent blather.

    You read Ted Cruz's book.

  • Mitt Romney defends Obama while attacking Ted Cruz

    07/31/2015 9:23:10 AM PDT · 15 of 76
    nathanbedford to SoConPubbie
    I just watched an Internet clip in which former Gov. Jim Perry of Texas in answer to a question posed on MSNBC's morning show about what McConnell and John Boehner have done wrong replied, they failed to show that they could work with the president!

    Perry, Romney, Kasich, Christie, all the rest of them, simply do not have a clue-or more likely do not want to have a clue. Trump is demonstrating daily what the people want and these clowns persists in reading from a script prepared for them by their media advisers who tell them that the people want politicians to work together and get things done.

    I don't want the likes of Perry to get anything done with Barack Obama or his likes in Congress, I want a Paladin, a champion who will fight for some cause other than K St. I do not want Trump, he remains the wrong messenger with the right message, but his appeal is obvious and it should be obvious to people like Romney and Perry.

    So Ted Cruz remains stuck at 4% or 5% in the polls and even risks not making the cut off into the top tier. In Ted Cruz we have a true conservative fighting the fight every day on our behalf in Congress sticking his neck out, deploying his considerable talents to expose the left, today it is Kerry yesterday it was McConnell, while Trump struts from event to event making less and less coherent sense, lurching from one ideological position to another but drawing mindless praise from conservatives who should know better.

  • Trump Goes Mushy, Incoherent on Immigration (gee, who coulda seen this?)

    07/30/2015 7:07:16 PM PDT · 107 of 344
    nathanbedford to C. Edmund Wright
    I agree with all of your comments on this thread as I agree with your comments generally. I especially agree with your comments in this reply which echo comments I made as long ago as May 22:

    Donald Trump is the poster boy for violating Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. He will tear the image of all the debaters and all candidates down in his narcissistic ambition. Romney did it, yes, but Trump gets personal.

    My core objection to Donald Trump is that he is an ideological loose cannon. He cannot be defined as conservative because he is sui generis which is a kind way of saying, a narcissist. He is much in the mode of Ross Perot in many respects including personality traits as well as ideological confusion.

    There is also a great deal of ideological confusion among the electorate, hence the appeal of the Ross Perots and the Donald Trumps. Many people believe that political parties are the problem, that an outsider is the solution. The solution is a conservative who can come from outside, or inside, or from Mars as far as I'm concerned but he must hold true to conservatism.

    Donald Trump is simply not conservative, he is an opportunist but he is an ideological and philosophical opportunist as well as an opportunist of personal ambition. He is not a deep thinker, he is ignorant of history, he is akin to any huckster, like Bill Clinton, who can read an audience and summon up the sociopathic skills necessary to persuade by pandering. Some of those emotional hot buttons about which he panders include issues with which you and I both agree such as our trade relations with China but about which I decline to be bamboozled.

  • The Real Danger from the GOP’s Latest Mutiny Against John Boehner

    07/30/2015 2:57:30 AM PDT · 8 of 19
    nathanbedford to cotton1706
    No doubt the writing in the headline to this article was in keeping with the normal practice, written by headline editor rather than the author of the piece The conclusion of the article:

    The hostility could spill into town halls across the country with Republican voters who want their leaders in Washington to fight for more firebrand policies and it could deepen schisms within the GOP before lawmakers return in September.
    The headline:

    The Real Danger from the GOP’s Latest Mutiny Against John Boehner

    So the headline writer believes that it is a "real danger" if Republicans want their leaders in Washington to fight for more "firebrand policies"? The real danger is not the latest mutiny but the causes of discontent against John Boehner by the bulk of the party's rank-and-file. We see here a replay in the House of Representatives of the same scenario which recently occurred in the Senate when Ted Cruz stood in the floor of the Senate and accused Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to his face of looking Cruz and every Republican Senator in the eye and lying to them.

    The media reacted, inexcusably allegedly conservative pundits like will and Krauthammer not excluded, by decrying the lack of decorum. This article notes:

    Republicans will leave Capitol Hill with bruised feelings and suspicions about one another’s loyalty rather than back slaps and best wishes for the extended summer break.

    It is past time for preoccupation about decorum and etiquette, it is time to stop treating symptoms and time to stop shooting the messenger.

  • French Farmers Block German, Spanish Trucks

    07/30/2015 1:42:02 AM PDT · 13 of 17
    nathanbedford to Mollypitcher1
    Recently, my son was hung up near Paris when the roads were blocked by taxidrivers protesting the use of the Internet to circumvent the taxi industry.

    In Germany we recently experienced a postal strike, although the effects were minimized by supplemental deliveries and by the fact that everybody uses the Internet anyway. Before that, a railroad strike.

    Fortunately, thanks to Ronald Reagan and his showdown with the air controllers we have a different culture in America in which strikes by public employees are on the whole discouraged. On the other hand, public employees unions have been getting their way to such an unrestrained degree that they have no cause to strike until they met Scott Walker.

    We will see how the European Union deals with these problems. The problem for the elitists in Brussels is that there is no democratic outlet if the suffering is in France but the remedy is in Brussels and owned by a largely unelected and unresponsive bureaucracy.

  • French Farmers Block German, Spanish Trucks

    07/29/2015 10:56:50 PM PDT · 9 of 17
    nathanbedford to nickcarraway
    Where is the capital of France, is it in Paris or is it in Brussels?

    To decide this matter, the French farmers want the capital to be in Paris where they have immense political power. But for other issues, such as attracting European Union citizens to come to spend a summer as a tourist on their farms, they want all the benefits enduring to a citizen of the European Union and they love the rules set forth in Brussels.

    We conservatives understand the arguments made by Milton Friedman that trade among nations benefits both the buyers and sellers because the more efficient producer of goods is benefited by the sale and the consumer is benefited by the lower price and higher quality. But the European, especially French farmers, argue that other values should not be disregarded.

    I live in Bavaria which, believe it or not, drove out Walmart. The Germans both officially and by consensus concluded that German retailers, even mom-and-pop retailers, offered more civilized working conditions and a good way of life for the moms and pops but Walmart, with its presumed advantages to consumers, undermined a German way of life.

    When I first came to Germany I was appalled at the restrictions on shopping times. In those days if the holiday fell on a Friday or Monday and you didn't stock up on your groceries you could be out of luck for three full days. Today, these restrictions have been relieved and shopping approaches the American model a little more. But still, down here in Bavaria the assumption is that the consumer will buy his foodstuffs during regular hours to the same degree as he would buy them if they were available 24/7. The retail salesperson needs his home life too. The Bavarians might be right or they might be wrong but who should decide?

    Should the decision be made in the municipal village city hall, or in Munich the capital of Bavaria, or in Berlin, the capital of Germany, or in Brussels or some other city which has some function in the European Union? Should the decision be made by some supranational entity created to arbitrate trade disputes among nations like GAAT?

    Does our answer change if we're dealing with a predatory, mercantilist trade partner?

    I have been arguing for some time that liberals go forum shopping when they want to win an argument. We might say that the American Civil War was an example of liberals deciding that decisions about issues like tariffs or slavery should be made in Washington rather than in Richmond or Atlanta. Certainly, the antidemocratic aspects of the European Union demonstrate the left's penchant for getting its way by changing the rules of the game. We conservatives instinctively want to do away with political solutions to economic problems, preferring to let the market sort the matter out. So we instinctively argue that the French farmers should look in the mirror and find out why their produce is so expensive. We instinctively say that the farmer should not be able to get a politician to tell the consumer that he may not have a German product, or that he must pay an excise tax to get it.

    Yet we are making the same arguments in America today, or, rather, Donald Trump is making these arguments. Donald Trump is saying, there is more at stake here than the consumer getting a cheaper or a better car, we must consider the automobile assembly worker's job lost to Japan. He points to China and says, here is a predatory economy, a mercantilist economy, which is hollowing out American manufacturing and we are not considering the needs of our workers but only of a few megacorporations dealing with China. The matter gets worse when we jigger of our Constitution so that trade deals negotiated by that hard-nosed negotiator, Barack Obama, need only be affirmed by the House and the Senate instead of by two thirds of the Senate. In effect, we seek a political solution to an economic problem, we have done so by forum shopping, and we have even rigged the forum.

    These are not easy questions, but it is easy to say that our current economic relationship with the likes of China must be fixed or more than automobile assembly workers or assemblers of televisions and telephones will be ruined.

    What is the difference between those who object to Obama selling the country out to the Chinese and French farmers blocking the roads? Are all these issues to be decided in the streets as the French farmers would do? Do we have a responsible government, meaning do we have a responsible Republican Party because we assume Obama is not motivated by any patriotic impulse, to negotiate these matters to an agreeable conclusion?

  • Obama: If I Ran for a Third Term, I Could Win

    07/29/2015 10:03:34 PM PDT · 146 of 149
    nathanbedford to Jim Noble
    I think I understand your argument better now, which is that an ambitious Democrat like Obama might pull the old switcheroo which we have seen Vladimir Putin accomplish a couple of times in Russia.

    I agree with you that the language is inartful but I continue to think that the problem is greater than language, it is a threat because our body politic is very sick and vulnerable.

    In other words, language in the long run is not the problem and, certainly, language will not spare us if we are headlong on a course of self-destruction.

  • Single-family housing is an ecological disaster and Seattle’s mayor was right then, wrong now

    07/29/2015 9:33:24 PM PDT · 19 of 37
    nathanbedford to artichokegrower
    The population of America has more than doubled in my lifetime.

    After World War II with the aid of the G.I. Bill and mortgage loan guarantees to veterans, pioneers in housing like Leavitt of Levittown made suburban America the goal of every inner-city dweller and created one of the most harmonious, democratic, and prosperous societies on earth. They created a wholesome atmosphere where Beaver could grow up, an atmosphere heartily despised by leftists.

    Every man a freeholder, every dwelling a castle. Government numerically on a small scale where the freeholder could actually talk to his mayor and councilman and have his voice heard and his opinion weighed. These are the indicia of real Jeffersonian democracy but they are anathema to the left.

    The left always tries to change the forum to one which it can dominate. We see that with Obama's Iran negotiations, he rushes the deal to the Security Council rather than to the House and the Senate where he has already changed the deal anyway from two thirds needed for approval to two thirds needed for disapproval. So the left seeks to undo all the freedom that comes with suburbia by changing the locus, by getting rid of suburbia.

    The left will succeed in the next half-century if it can succeed once again in doubling the population of America. I say one more time to reflexive exponents of open-ended population expansion who think this is a conservative position, that you cannot have liberty and overpopulation.

  • When will Jim Robinson banish Trump supporters from FR, like he did in 2007 with Giuliani advocates?

    07/29/2015 5:56:43 AM PDT · 418 of 422
    nathanbedford to ken5050
    There is a difference between having unquestioned power and exercising it wisely. No one can dispute Jim Robinson's power to regulate this form as he pleases and to exclude posters with whom he is not pleased.

    But we all pray that he exercises that power wisely. So far, so good. However, we always must remember our values and we must also have a care for proper procedure. We must understand what we are, we are a political forum for the exchange of ideas. A heavy-handed censorship is inimical to that concept. We must have an exchange of ideas, even unpopular and somewhat offbeat ideas if we are to have a forum.

    We must ask ourselves, what are we afraid of? Cannot our conservatism stand the test? Are we afraid of our values? Will we not learn and refine our understandings as we defend them? If we cannot defend them are they worthy?

    I have written on my about page:

    ... A man with unflinching fortitude to behold, accept, and deal with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect. There was not an ounce of self-deception in the man. This character trait alone should make every poster on FreeRepublic long to share the avatar and name of Nathan Bedford Forrest especially those Posters who evade unpalatable reality by resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, zotting, and just plain old-fashioned hardheadedness.

  • Obama: If I Ran for a Third Term, I Could Win

    07/29/2015 5:31:05 AM PDT · 135 of 149
    nathanbedford to Jim Noble
    Seven years ago your analysis would have been summarily dismissed as outlandish but, alas, we have entered an age of the plastic, elastic Constitution, a time in which words on parchment mean whatever a closed elite deems them to mean, an age in which those who who are charged by the instrument with the defense of the instrument instead turn their talents and their powers to the distortion of the Constitution to make room for the advancement of special interests. Those charged by election under the Constitution with the administration under Article 2 have long ago turned their talents to the advancement of an ideology which seeks to subvert the Constitution.

    So the words mean little and the party in opposition will do little. But the essential problem is not the wording of the Constitution which is clear enough for an honest man, the problem is that if we have come to the place where a brazen distortion of the Constitution should be perpetrated by the likes of Barack Obama to extend himself into a third regime, we will have an entire breakdown of civil society and we will probably have widespread violence if not civil war.

    Barack Obama is not a man to shrink from civil war but I believe that his contemplation of it would be entirely focused on timing rather than on the morality of it.

  • The Left's Contempt for America: Left-Right Differences, Part VI

    07/28/2015 6:21:45 AM PDT · 5 of 5
    nathanbedford to Kaslin
    Howard Zinn and Dennis Prager are talking past each other just as leftists and conservatives talk past each other.

    That is because Howard Zinn and leftists have a different scale of values than we do. Notice that Dennis Prager persuasively defends America as a bastion of liberty and a defender of liberty around the world. We as conservatives instinctively accept this as the true test of virtue. But Howard Zinn and his leftists have a different scale of measurement, in fact, their test measures not how far has a society advanced individual liberty but how successful has a given society been in advancing collectivism.

    So Howard Zinn sees the American involvement in Vietnam as evil and not just because so many people died but because the object of the war was unpalatable to him. If America had succeeded in Vietnam it would ideally have created a Madisonian democracy and a free market economy. Neither of those institutions are desirable to leftists. Leftists want a planned and controlled economy and a collectivist society where individual rights are surrendered to group values.

    We see today in Cuba and in Venezuela economic misery justified because the values of collectivism and planning have prevailed. We see countries with economic bounty like Chile disparaged even though capitalism has provided more wealth than the previous communist regime.

    What kind of a society do you want to live in? Every time Howard Zinn's way has been tried the result is been economic penury, actual tyranny and wholesale murder. If I still have the freedom because I do not live in a leftist society to choose between a People's History and the Black Book of Communism to write the history of the left, I know what conclusions I will draw.

    I choose liberty.

  • House Republicans: IRS Commisioner Must Go, Even if It Takes Impeachment

    07/28/2015 5:12:30 AM PDT · 11 of 35
    nathanbedford to SeekAndFind
    In order to believe that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will get to the bottom of the IRS suppression of the Tea Party one must first believe that the establishment controlled, Republican-controlled House of Representatives actually opposes what happened to the Tea Party.

  • Republicans have no one to blame for Trump except themselves

    07/27/2015 5:25:05 AM PDT · 20 of 25
    nathanbedford to moneyrunner
    You can only screw the people so many times before they get wise. The Democrats have managed to do that to their Black base for over half a century. It appears that the white, non-college working class Republican base is wising up faster.

    The great Republican landslides by Nixon and Reagan came from the same source: blue-collar, lunchpail Democrats. I'm not advocating that we adopt Nixon's political philosophy but the man knew how to count votes and how to get votes. I have, however, often argued that the candidate who captures issues of middle-class jobs and relates them to Democrat policies of environmental madness at the EPA, of job killing regulations at Obama care, of job stealing trade deals and job stealing amnesty, could recapture that middle-class demographic and win the White House for a generation.

    Now Donald Trump has done exactly that to the astonishment of rinos, Democrats, and pundits, in short the entire professional political class was blindsided. The rinos are not stupid they just figured they could talk conservative and govern establishment for yet another cycle but they simply miscalculated.

    It is clear that the old shell game played by the Rino establishment is being flatly rejected by the base of the Republican Party but what is not yet clear is whether Trump's campaign will have equal power with lunchpail Democrats. This campaign is not exclusively Trump's, of course, both Cruise and Walker have been on the right side of these issues but Trump has broken through the clutter. He has done so at the cost of making himself personally of noxious to a huge portion of the Republican electorate and therefore he remains:

    The wrong messenger with the right message

    If Cruz or Walker can ignite the same passions and spread the flames to the hard-pressed Rust Belt, and the hard-pressed coal belt, one of them can easily gain the nomination and win the election when Trump falters as he inevitably will. We simply do not yet know whether these issues will gain traction with working Democrats as they have with Republicans.

  • Senate Votes to Revive Export-Import Bank, Keep Obamacare

    07/27/2015 12:06:12 AM PDT · 110 of 113
    nathanbedford to JohnBrowdie
    John, I have read the article and I am aware of the possibility of bringing Obama Care up for a straight up vote on repeal which, even if successful, will fail in an attempt to override Obama's veto. Beyond the value of putting these Rinos on record, the rest is pure political theater which we nevertheless ought not to despise as we approach the election.

    But my motivation for taking my leave of any moral obligation to support the Republican Party is not because of this last affair in the Senate, it was not even precipitated by the rebuke of Sen. Cruz. The blatant lies of Mitch McConnell who was then supported by his lieutenants in the Senate is sufficient but not necessary cause, the justification having been clear for some time. The fact that his lieutenants then undertook to kill the messenger only reinforced the only obvious conclusion and the only moral choice for a conservative: to abandon party loyalty and actually work against the Republican establishment even if it costs an election.

    As I said in the previous post, this is a hard decision. It is not taken lightly and the consequences have been soberly considered. We are not about winning an election, we are about saving our constitutional democracy.

    That does not mean that this point in the primary season that I believe we should support Donald Trump, we have Ted Cruz and Walker to support. My position with respect to Donald Trump is to let him have his say while we patiently point out his biography and history in the expectation that his meteoric rise will see its eclipse as more and more conservatives know the facts of Donald Trump and as Donald Trump confirms every criticism out of his own mouth.

    To return to the idea of withdrawing support from the party and even working against its establishment, I'm not at all sanguine about this prospect. I have seen how the establishment destroyed the Tea Party as an effective instrument and I expect that all maverick movements will be assailed by all the money and all the media at the establishment's disposal. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will wield their considerable powers ruthlessly in defense of their positions. I have no doubt if an election is in the balance, they will ruin if they cannot rule. We have come to the point where we must with "unflinching fortitude behold, accept, and deal with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect" and unflinchingly take the ultimate step.


  • Senate Votes to Revive Export-Import Bank, Keep Obamacare

    07/26/2015 3:09:38 PM PDT · 67 of 113
    nathanbedford to Norm Lenhart
    I confess that for some time I had been in the "lesser of two evils" camp believing that there always seemed to be one more emergency or one more threat that meant that the country simply could not survive a Democrat administration. I remember invoking this argument on behalf of George W. Bush against John Kerry while we were fighting in Iraq and I even found reasons to support John McCain because Barack Obama was a radical leftist, even a communist.

    It has become clear now beyond debate that it matters not, at least not enough when measured against a long perspective of history, whether a Rino or a Democrat holds office in the Congress or in the White House. This is a hard statement but the behavior of the Rino Republicans in Congress has made disillusionment the only enlightened reaction. The administration of George W. Bush, while conservative in some respects, was so flawed from an ideological point of view that it forfeited respect for the few good and well intentioned things it did but, alas, many of them even miscarried. One need only look at judicial appointments of Bush father and son to make that point.

    In my defense I would say that it is necessary to go the full measure if one wants to own the high moral ground. In other words, it was necessary for the world to see how Hitler despised Neville Chamberlain's well-intentioned policies of appeasement in order to clear away the debris of misunderstanding and make plain the kind of evil Hitler represented. Because of Chamberlain's concessions by 1939 no thinking person could dispute Hitler's guilt for starting the war.

    So now we know, Churchill was right and Norm was right too, there can be no modus vivendi with these people, it is war to the death with the Republican establishment. In war there is only one strategy and that is victory. Either the Republican Party is riven asunder and the Democrats proceed to destroy the Republic, or conservatives prevail and save the Republic. Either conservatives win and save the Republic or Rinos prevail and combine with Democrats to squander our heritage.There is no accommodation possible. No appeasement now. It is September 1939.

  • Senate Votes to Revive Export-Import Bank, Keep Obamacare

    07/26/2015 2:36:17 PM PDT · 51 of 113
    nathanbedford to jimbo123
    Just when the head of Planned Parenthood steps forward to complain that videotapes cavalierly discussing the dismemberment of babies and the sale of their body parts for being unseemly now comes Sen. Orrin Hatch to decry incivility in the Senate when Ted Cruz exposes Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a liar.

    You see to these people crunching babies to death and lying to your colleagues and to the American people are not the problem, the problem is lack of decorum, the problem is not the problem but talking about it out loud in public is the problem.

  • CNN/ORC poll: Trump elbows his way to the top

    07/26/2015 1:10:00 PM PDT · 107 of 147
    nathanbedford to Gaffer
    You and I are on the same track, I was merely trying to offer a new perspective about where the party stands at the moment. I think the play is bigger than just immigration.

  • CNN/ORC poll: Trump elbows his way to the top

    07/26/2015 1:06:37 PM PDT · 106 of 147
    nathanbedford to central_va
    I lost track, what finally happened? Was I exhumed?

    I promised to haunt them if molested.

  • CNN/ORC poll: Trump elbows his way to the top

    07/26/2015 12:26:05 PM PDT · 93 of 147
    nathanbedford to Gaffer
    Instead of viewing the developments in the Republican race as separating the field on pro-amnesty and anti-amnesty, consider the race is breaking down between those people who speak out against the Republican establishment and those who do not. Viewed from this perspective, the results of Trump, Walker and Cruz (rapidly improving therefore included) versus Jeb Bush are equally well explained.

    Of these three candidates, Trump has been only a talker. Trump has been the hypocrite but Cruz and Walker have actually fought the fight, they have put their political reputations and their political careers on the line in public confrontations with the establishment. Walker took on the establishment in his state and won, Cruz took on the establishment in Washington and lost that battle but history has yet to tell us whether he has won the war. He claims, with some justice, that his battles won Republicans the Senate. While Walker and Cruz were battling, Trump was contributing to Democrats, registering as a Democrat, declaring himself for abortion, and praising Hillary. Eventually, Trump's support will fade away as the public tire of his act and the party will turn to those men who have tempered their politics in the real fires that count.

    Trump remains the wrong messenger with the right message.

  • NBC Brings Back Racist Pat Buchanan For Meet The Press This Sunday

    07/25/2015 9:47:28 PM PDT · 17 of 60
    nathanbedford to ObamahatesPACoal
    Pat Buchanan has been right longer than any other figure in contemporary America.

    He has been right on immigration and on trade. He has been a stalwart and consistent cold warrior when it counted. He was right about George HW Bush and the Reagan revolution-and he did something about it. He has warned us early on about the folly of waging war in the Middle East and he sees clearly the difference between American national interests and Israel's national interests. He has been right about America's place in the world and the dangers of overextension and overcommitment. He has been right in insisting that America's foreign policy should at least be related to America's imperishable national interests.

    He has been a consistently brilliant columnist for decades eclipsing the likes of George Will and Dr. Krauthammer because he has been right where they have been wrong and equaling Mark Steyn in all things except facility with language. He understood the difference between the Republican base and the Republican establishment long before that was cool.

    He appeals to my paleconservative soul.

  • Required to Apply for Permits to Park on Their Own Driveway

    07/25/2015 12:02:10 AM PDT · 25 of 53
    nathanbedford to RedHeeler

    Let us start with causes rather than symptoms.

    If we are going to double our population every lifetime we will simply imprison ourselves. We have got to understand that the strength of a nation and a nation's economic wealth and power will no longer come from numbers but from technology. Indeed, it is not just in how we regulate our front lawns that population growth dictates, it is in every aspect of our human endeavor.

    We conservatives are facing a future in which we will be both prisoners and our own jailers unless we can deal with causes. So we must stop unrestricted immigration and we must contain population growth. As an ideal for those who love liberty, we should begin gradually to reduce the population of America but, of course, without government pressure. Today the government expands population through immigration to pad Democrat voter rolls and to provide cheap labor and a pool of consumers for business. Government must at least become neutral.

    That means that our economy has to adjust away from a consumer base which is essentially a Ponzi scheme, we bring in more and more unproductive citizens who have just enough money, often from the government, to buy consumer goods, usually made in China. This scheme is the opposite of the Chinese model which is mercantilist. Our model cannot sustain itself for ever. Consider Social Security which seeks to perpetuate itself by introducing more and more takers and fewer fewer contributors.

    So we must find a way of basing an economy on technology which is a technological problem and then we must find a way of distributing the wealth created by technology, such as robots, consistent with conservative values.

    If we do not do it in a fashion consistent with conservative values, the left will do it for us through impositions of tyranny and in the process will dissipate all the vast wealth, all the human benefits, that technology might produce. If we are having difficulty regulating how we maintain our front lawns, imagine the difficulty of trying to distribute wealth created by machines. Yet if we do not do so, we will have a system which will create a very small , very limited and very elite class which owns and maintains robots and a very vast, uneducated, ignorant, dependent, and extremely poor class of consumers. If we do nothing the left will expropriate it all and we will have something between the oligarchs of Russia and the madness of Venezuela. We cannot permit the left to solve this problem.

    The problem with our lawns is only a wake-up call.

  • Required to Apply for Permits to Park on Their Own Driveway

    07/24/2015 11:06:14 PM PDT · 23 of 53
    nathanbedford to QT3.14; cva66snipe; Captain7seas; roadcat; zencycler; DaveyB; S.O.S121.500; Mad Max
    Please see my post #20.

  • Required to Apply for Permits to Park on Their Own Driveway

    07/24/2015 10:51:33 PM PDT · 20 of 53
    nathanbedford to roadcat; grania
    The next time an article gets posted about overpopulation and the swarm of reflex posters reappears pooh-poohing the problems of overpopulation, consider this kerfuffle which is really quite trivial.

    Our conception of property rights was created at a time when America was a vast wilderness and we only sparsely populated a thin strip along the Atlantic coast. To the west was a vast fastness of wilderness where one could go, clear the land, live out of sight and out of mind of our neighbors and dispose of our property as we individually and alone saw fit. Today we are a country of 315 million people, the population has more than doubled in my lifetime, much of that population increase consists of people who do not share my culture, my language, my very Teutonic conception of orderliness, my sense of civic responsibility.

    So people who are as tight-assed as I am seek to have their environment ordered according to their lights. I don't want my neighbor's front yard to have a disused toilet bowl as a planter, I do not want to see his car up on blocks, I do not want him posting commercial signs. In short I want him to have a nice, well groomed, Protestant appearance to his half-acre.

    I do not live in the wilderness, I grew up in a leafy suburban upper-middle-class town built largely after World War II. I cannot escape my neighbor therefore I must regulate him but because I need to regulate him I must equally submit myself to regulation. There is the rub.

    I am afflicted with normal human nature, I want my neighbor to be regulated according to my tastes but I want to be free of the appearance police myself. When my neighbor is regulated it is to keep property values up but when I am regulated it is fascism on the hoof.

    Not only are we imprisoning ourselves in gated gulags in order to avoid the onrush of population which doubles every century, we are desperately trying to protect ourselves from foreign and alien cultures who do not conceive of well manicured lawns as a desirable or even normal way of living. We can no longer flee these people by going into the wilderness, we can only regulate them.

    These are the problems that come with population and with immigration. When we try to solve them with regulation we inevitably trade away our freedoms.

  • E.J. Dionne Jr.: Why GOP should listen to Kasich

    07/23/2015 9:54:03 PM PDT · 10 of 32
    nathanbedford to Red Steel
    Kasich's flip as governor can be read as Schwarzenegger lite.

  • Up to 87 pct. of undocumented migrants could stay in U.S., study says

    07/23/2015 3:57:59 PM PDT · 4 of 10
    nathanbedford to Oldeconomybuyer
    For accuracy's sake the numbers presented in this article can be doubled, tripled or even quadrupled.

  • DHS Secretary Won't Describe ISIS As 'Islamic' Terrorists

    07/23/2015 3:39:57 PM PDT · 19 of 27
    nathanbedford to jimpick
    Islam is a theocracy.
    Islam, therefore, is more than a religion, more than a culture, more than a way of life, it is a governing system.
    Islam explicitly rejects toleration of competing religious, political, and cultural views.
    Islam explicitly rejects the legitimacy of other religious, political, and cultural systems.
    Islam explicitly aims to incorporate every mortal on earth into its political, cultural and religious system.
    Islam explicitly endorses "jihad" as a legitimate method of extending its system.
    Jihad explicitly embraces violence as a method of propagating the Muslim system.
    There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth.
    A substantial minority of Muslims explicitly endorse terrorism as a legitimate tool of jihad.
    Terrorism employs violence, including murder, to achieve political aims.
    Terrorism's tactic is to incrementally intensify murderous violence to instill fear, to demoralize and to ultimately cause the polity to surrender.
    Terrorism's strategy is to force representative democracies to either resort to repressive countermeasures or surrender.
    Ultimately, a representative democracy which accepts a critical mass of Muslims into its midst will be forced to choose between surrender or tyranny.
    Ultimately, a non-Muslim system which accepts Muslim immigrants will be so beleaguered by terrorism that it will be forced to choose between surrender and gulags.
    It is more democratic and less tyrannical for a democracy to halt Muslim immigration than it is to defend against Muslim terrorism by increasingly repressive methods.

  • Republican Donors to Walker, Rubio and Bush: Boycott the Debate if Trump Participates

    07/23/2015 2:58:36 PM PDT · 51 of 145
    nathanbedford to Michael van der Galien
    One detects no small measure of hypocrisy among these fatcat donors who are protected under the Citizen s United case in dominating elections with their campaign contributions because those contributions are the equivalent of free speech. Yet these same big donors would deny Donald Trump his opportunity to speak.

  • Democrats drop Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from dinner name

    07/23/2015 9:03:35 AM PDT · 13 of 15
    nathanbedford to yoe
  • Donald Trump's Border Wall Would Cost Billions, Experts Say

    07/23/2015 4:55:58 AM PDT · 31 of 125
    nathanbedford to 2ndDivisionVet
    Where to begin…?

    A fence need not be 100% perfect to be good. It is a specious argument that says because a solution is not the perfect solution it should not be employed even though it is a good solution.

    A fence is to be regarded as a force multiplier, that is fewer people are required to defend a border, whether in war or border security, because the fence is there. The author implies that the fence will require more personnel when the opposite is the case.

    If the terrain is too rough to build a wall, build a fence if the terrain is to rugged to build a fence, it is undoubtedly to rugged for the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants pass through. Those rugged areas can be surveilled by drones which are efficient and cheap because they not require extensive manpower.

    If a fence intrudes on private property, the federal government always has the power of eminent domain and federal government does not require a rancher to agree to give up his land, the federal government need only fairly compensate the owner for the very little that would be lost to the rancher of very sandy, very dry, very unproductive landscape.

    The contention that, "a wall would stave the flow of undocumented (does the author mean illegal?) Immigrants is preposterous." Did the Berlin wall stop the flow?

    The contention:

    "There's a billion dollars a day in trade that's going back and forth between the United States and Mexico... Anything that blocks that hurts the United States."

    Hurts whom? Does it hurt workers who have been displaced by jobs that have been shipped to Mexico? What is the balance of hurt and who should bear the pain?

    The author insists that a wall is not feasible and the proof of that is that one has not yet been built. The fact that one has not yet been built is rather proof of a lack of will on the part of the Washington establishment and their fat cat Benefactors.

    No one suggests that a wall along the Mexican border will stop "undocumented immigrants" from flying into American airports and jumping ship. Will the author tell us that not all remedies for this are perfect and therefore we should attempt none?

  • Cruz On Trump: "He's Taking On The Washington Cartel"

    07/23/2015 3:44:42 AM PDT · 3 of 13
    nathanbedford to LS; Gaffer

    Heads up

  • Donald Trump jumps the shark

    07/22/2015 9:46:36 PM PDT · 39 of 117
    nathanbedford to WilliamIII
    If it is true that we can know a man by his enemies, we know this much about Donald Trump, his enemies include:

    1. The Republican establishment.
    2. Illegal immigrants.
    3. The media.

    So far so good but what about these enemies:

    1. POWs?
    2. Mexicans?

    That is not so good. What about these friends:

    1. The Democrats who were in the party when he was a Democrat?
    2. The abortionists when he was in favor of abortion?
    3. The Libertarians when he was in favor of legalizing drugs?
    4. The occupy movement when he was in favor of taxing the wealthy?
    5. Those who wanted to impose background checks and ban assault weapons?
    6. Liberals who, like him, believed in universal health care?
    7. Hillary Clinton when he supported her and funded her?

    I like Donald Trump for (most of) his enemies but I'm a little bit nervous about being his friend.

  • What? Evangelicals Come Against Franklin Graham's Views on Islam

    07/22/2015 9:05:47 PM PDT · 41 of 59
    nathanbedford to markomalley
    Islam is a theocracy.
    Islam, therefore, is more than a religion, more than a culture, more than a way of life, it is a governing system.
    Islam explicitly rejects toleration of competing religious, political, and cultural views.
    Islam explicitly rejects the legitimacy of other religious, political, and cultural systems.
    Islam explicitly aims to incorporate every mortal on earth into its political, cultural and religious system.
    Islam explicitly endorses "jihad" as a legitimate method of extending its system.
    Jihad explicitly embraces violence as a method of propagating the Muslim system.
    There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth.
    A substantial minority of Muslims explicitly endorse terrorism as a legitimate tool of jihad.
    Terrorism employs violence, including murder, to achieve political aims.
    Terrorism's tactic is to incrementally intensify murderous violence to instill fear, to demoralize and to ultimately cause the polity to surrender.
    Terrorism's strategy is to force representative democracies to either resort to repressive countermeasures or surrender.
    Ultimately, a representative democracy which accepts a critical mass of Muslims into its midst will be forced to choose between surrender or tyranny.
    Ultimately, a non-Muslim system which accepts Muslim immigrants will be so beleaguered by terrorism that it will be forced to choose between surrender and gulags.
    It is more democratic and less tyrannical for a democracy to halt Muslim immigration than it is to defend against Muslim terrorism by increasingly repressive methods.

  • Venezuelan farmers ordered to hand over produce to state

    07/22/2015 9:31:45 AM PDT · 60 of 116
    nathanbedford to Anitius Severinus Boethius
    After these poor, illiterate campesinos give up the last of their meager belongings they will emigrate to America and vote socialist out of their ignorance once again.

  • Cruz Pushes 8 Key Issues on Highway Bill

    07/22/2015 9:11:15 AM PDT · 26 of 32
    nathanbedford to LS
    I can only speculate. Do you suppose Cruz is made as simple calculation based on inquiries with colleagues that they would not support nor would they appreciate such a bill? They calculate that there are enough people getting subsidies under Obama care that the game has changed and repeal is not so popular.

    It could be just that Cruz figures that this game has been tried once and a second failure will only label him as an ineffectual maverick senator when he needs to campaign as an effective leader who can get things done.

    The real answer is, I just don't know.

  • Cruz Pushes 8 Key Issues on Highway Bill

    07/22/2015 8:20:39 AM PDT · 21 of 32
    nathanbedford to Gaffer


  • Cruz Pushes 8 Key Issues on Highway Bill

    07/22/2015 8:10:11 AM PDT · 19 of 32
    nathanbedford to Gaffer; LS
    I think Cruz has at least three objectives:

    1. To accomplish what he says he is trying to accomplish i.e. the reining in of Obama, the stopping of the Iran deal etc.
    2. To expose Rino Republicans and get them on record which they have been quite artful in avoiding up till now even when they no longer have Harry Reid to thank.
    3. To get himself elected president.

    I'm not sure whether Cruz has one or all of these motives nor can I venture which he finds the most attractive.

  • Cruz Pushes 8 Key Issues on Highway Bill

    07/22/2015 7:45:22 AM PDT · 17 of 32
    nathanbedford to Gaffer
    It is hardly to be expected that the same establishment Rinos who lack the moral fiber even to negotiate small victories with Obama will somehow find the courage to deny him or his government funds. In fact, that has been tried before and tried by Cruz and earned him only opprobrium from his own side.

    We are in very close agreement in our assessment of the character of the Republican establishment. Make no mistake about that. We are simply arguing tactics about whether more leverage can be brought against them with Ted Cruz's ploy rather than some other approach.

    Try them all.

    Among the "all" to be tried includes article 5.

  • Cruz Pushes 8 Key Issues on Highway Bill

    07/22/2015 7:34:21 AM PDT · 14 of 32
    nathanbedford to LS
    Your points are well taken, they in fact echo the thrust of my reply. In other words, I agree Cruz will get nowhere with this tactic but I am not necessarily in agreement that he ought not to try. I fear your solutions will not be tried either and then we are left to decide whether it is better to try that which will not work or nothing at all.

  • Cruz Pushes 8 Key Issues on Highway Bill

    07/22/2015 7:07:00 AM PDT · 3 of 32
    nathanbedford to Gaffer
    Right you are but I wonder if it will be Cruz or Trump who is most criticized for the harm he is doing to the Republican "party? "


    07/22/2015 5:00:58 AM PDT · 14 of 24
    nathanbedford to SJackson

    Schumer will be given leeway to vote against the deal unless his vote is needed to protect the deal and then he will fall in line.

    It may be that Schumer's vote will be counted initially as rejecting the deal but when it comes time to override Obama's veto, Schumer will support Obama to the degree his vote is needed, otherwise he probably will vote no.

    Democrat senators who are up for reelection in states where Jews are heavily represented will be given their option so long as their votes are not decisive.

  • Stop Iran Rally - White House, Lafayette Park (Cruz to speak!)

    07/22/2015 1:53:12 AM PDT · 5 of 14
    nathanbedford to Hetty_Fauxvert
    It has now been leaked through the intervention of Senator Tom Cotton that there are secret protocols attached to the Iran deal.

    Clearly the left thinks it has discovered a new way to impose its will on the people without reference to the Constitution. First we turn the supermajority required to confirm the treaty on its head and now we require two thirds to overcome the the president veto in order to reject a treaty. We were advised by Speaker Pelosi that if we want to know what was in Obama care we had to pass it. Evidently, even if we pass the Iran deal we will not know what is in it.

    Obama care left the door open for bureaucrats to regulate and in effect expand or alter the law passed by Congress. Not satisfied with that way around the Constitution, Obama simply ruled by fiat when political pressure demanded it. I have no doubt that the Obama's Iran deal, besides secret protocols, will have much flexibility invested in the United Nations to substantially alter the terms of the deal, with hardly anyone expecting those terms to be improved from an American perspective.

    Truly, we are moving precipitously into a new post constitutional age of tyranny imposed by domestic legislation or international treaty but all to the same end.

    I am very disappointed in Ted Cruz for not opposing, as did Tom Cotton, the structure of this deal from the very beginning. It is a little bit late now, the fix is in.

  • “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology

    07/22/2015 1:38:29 AM PDT · 17 of 21
    nathanbedford to Pelham
    From your previous posts I am aware that you are well informed about The Frankfurt School and the negative contribution made by the scholars you mention.

  • “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology

    07/21/2015 8:53:20 PM PDT · 12 of 21
    nathanbedford to Ray76
    Lind, in the article you posted, describes how The Frankfurt School has inculcated victimhood into society and help create a hierarchy of the victimized classes and oppressor classes.

    For those who question why we should know how The Frankfurt School affects the way our culture thinks and works, I invite their attention to all the recent articles which have been appearing in these threads describing how the Obama administration is assembling data by scouring every corner of our lives in order to deploy that data in restructuring society. This has been made intellectually possible by The Frankfurt School who has told us that privileged whites are oppressing black victims.

    Obama's plan is made legally liable by Supreme Court opinions, the last by justice Kennedy, holding that disparate impact without evidence of intent to discriminate or even of actual discrimination, is enough for the feds to dictate how state and city jurisdictions must operate in virtually every field of human endeavor. There will be virtually no limit to this intervention, it marks the absolute death of federalism, it is naked tyranny.

    This is how The Frankfurt School works:First you get the theoretical basis, then you win the culture, then you win the political debate, then you win the election and then you win the litigation. That is why it is important to understand Saul Alinsky, The Frankfurt School, Cloward and Piven, as well as Marx and Engels themselves.

  • The Enemies of Scott Walker

    07/21/2015 8:34:22 PM PDT · 28 of 34
    nathanbedford to MEG33; sgtyork
    Since writing that reply, I have been reminded by sgtyork of Gov. Perry's indictment in Texas which caused me to remember the ethics charges against Newt Gingrich.

    Then I remembered the threats of prosecution against the office of the United States' attorney general and against the attorneys who hadserved in the Bush administration-an outrageous distortion of the law.

    Not quite so obvious but in the long run perhaps even more intrusive is the consolidation in a bureaucracy like the EPA the power effectively to legislate, to prosecute alleged violations of its own regulations, to adjudicate those alleged violations, and to punish. This in a stroke does away entirely with the concept of separation of powers which is fundamental to judicial review. In a stroke it does away with representative democracy. In a stroke it eviscerates the reality of effective appeal: Appealing an administrative ruling is a very steep climb.

  • “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology

    07/21/2015 8:06:55 PM PDT · 7 of 21
    nathanbedford to Ray76
    Saul Alinsky is infamous among conservatives for writing a field manual about how to wage Marxists warfare. That he has been wonderfully successful in his tactics became undeniable when Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States. We know we face a second Saul Linsky administration if another one of her acolytes, Hillary Clinton, is elected in 2016.

    We know that Saul Linsky was a Marxist but many conservatives are unaware of the intellectual history of the left which extends before Marx and Engels to the French Revolution and many are equally unaware that another field manual for the waging a Marxist warfare was written after Marx and Engels by an equally successful group of Jewish intellectuals who operated under the rubric of The Frankfurt School.

    Essentially, The Frankfurt School intellectuals, concerned that the communist revolution did not overwhelm Europe in the wake of World War I, developed a strategy that would enable Marxism to conquer by undermining societal obstacles inherent in Western culture which were resistant to the onslaught of Marxism. In other words, they sought to tear apart the building blocks of Western society so that society could be replaced by a Marxist model. In doing so they altered the emphasis and the tactics of Marxism by incorporating the theories of Sigmund Freud and shifting the emphasis from economics to culture and converting the battlescape into a culture war.

    The building blocks of society which they targeted for destruction included the family, especially the father as a paternalistic figure, because it is the essential atomic unit. The church was targeted as part of the fabric of society supporting the family and providing an emotional, intellectual, theoretical and theological justification for society. The role of women in society, the role of men in the family, homosexual marriage, no-fault divorce and other such cultural changes were all mooted by The Frankfurt School and its academic offshoots and the cultural wars fought over these issues should be seen in this context.

    Other institutions such as the nationstate and patriotism, the rule of law and the judicial process, became targets to the degree that they sustain civil society. Primary among the institutions suborned was academia from kindergarten through postgraduate study. The infiltration has been thorough. But this is not merely a matter of placing fifth column agents in faculty lounges, it is a matter of epistemology. The Frankfurt School sought nothing less than to change the way we think. It has succeeded astonishingly well in altering how we know what we know.

    The doctrine of "critical thinking" has taken over our academic institutions from top to bottom. It's extreme version it causes philosophical and intellectual emasculation and often results in cynicism, really it's intended consequence. It fosters a culture in which only a fool is patriotic, religious, etc. It manifests itself in relativism and the related disparagement of America as a virtuous nation and our founding as a remarkable accomplishment.

    Ray76, you have rendered a great service to conservatism by bringing the writings of William S Lind to our attention. I can recommend of the reader that he explore other writings by Lind to your profit. Many liberals operate quite unconsciously in a mind controlled environment created for them by The Frankfurt School. In another article Mr. Lind has described that condition as a "psychic cage." Conservatives need not live their lives in this psychic cage and the key to freedom is to understand how The Frankfurt School has morally and intellectually imprisoned much of our society. To understand is to be armed to do battle in our never-ending culture wars which we simply cannot avoid nor can we declare ourselves conscienceless objectors. Most important, to understand is to be free.

  • If Trump doesn't apologize soon...

    07/21/2015 7:06:55 PM PDT · 104 of 193
    nathanbedford to Jim Robinson
    ...McCain's litte dog McGrahamnesty is piddling all over the floor at FOX News headquarters.

    You certainly have a way with words. :-)

  • Black Confederate Flag Supporter Killed In Highway Motor Accident Caused By Hecklers

    07/21/2015 8:32:39 AM PDT · 17 of 48
    nathanbedford to vetvetdoug
    No, I do not remember that incident, but I do recall a national convulsion about a gay who was allegedly dragged behind a pickup truck.

    Our national outrages are selective, which is to say they are selected for us.