tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:01:14 +00001st Republic 14th StarSomeone who's not a right wing whacko and has a military background sharing his views.noreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)Blogger955125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-7038506910952729264Thu, 03 Jul 2014 20:54:00 +00002014-07-03T16:54:43.561-04:00The case for Mitt Romney in 2016? COME ON!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br>Emil Henry at Politico writes:<br>
<br><a href=" Case for Mitt Romney in 2016: I’m absolutely serious</a>.<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>Here's my take:<br>
<br>Mitt Romney's mendacity was breathtaking in its scope. He's a sociopath -- someone who thinks he's entitled to whatever he wants, regardless of consequences. Someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him.<br>
<br>He went far behind the usual salesmanship of political speech. He changed his positions on every major issue to move from the moderate who governed Massachusetts to the "severe conservative" who wanted to be President.<br>
<br>He even turned his back on his own signature achievement -- Obamacare was just fine to Romney when it was called Romneycare.<br>
<br>And if you really want to see why Romney doesn't deserve the office, consider this:<br>
<br>1 -- "Corporations ARE people, my friend."<br>
<br>2 -- "I like being able to fire people."<br>
<br>3 -- "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax..."[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."<br>
<br>4 -- And finally, his performance at the "Benghazi" press conference. The self-satisfied smirk he showed as he walked away from the podium -- that he was GLAD that Americans had died because he thought it was going to deliver the White House to him -- showed better than words why Romney should not be trusted with high office. Ever.<br>2014/07/the-case-for-mitt-romney-in-2016-come-on.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-1929318381026489486Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:05:00 +00002014-06-30T20:05:37.917-04:00The more things change...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br><a href=" commenter posted on Media Matters today</a> about elections having consequences, and more Democrats in office being necessary to counter Republican policies. Here's my response:<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>I'll take the "con" view on this one.<br>
<br>Elections seem to me to be irrelevant.<br>
<br>No matter who wins, the circumstances don't change. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class gets ever smaller.<br>
<br>In 2006 and 2008 Democrats begged for support so they could retake the House and up their majority in the Senate. They promised to end the excesses of the Bush junta. Then when they won, the first thing they did was announce that there'd be no investigations, no hearings, no impeachment. Oh no -- "we're looking forwards, not backwards." Then they got crushed in 2010.<br>
<br>When Democrats win, it's a fair bet that either Republicans will just say that THEY won, and then claim the prize. Or the Democrats who win are basically Republican-lite. Or the Democrats who win are milquetoasts who roll over for everything Republicans want.<br>
<br>We're told that EVERY election is "the most important" one. But as far as I can tell, no matter who wins, there's not much difference in peoples' lives.<br>
<br>Oh, sure -- Clinton and Obama were better than Bush. Under Obama, Bin Laden is dead. The Benghazi attackers are being brought to justice. Clinton showed us the way to a balanced budget and a pay down of the national debt. But let's be honest -- they do just enough to keep us from completely giving up hope that liberal and progressive policies will be enacted.<br>
<br>Bill Clinton played a role in NAFTA and GATT and proclaimed that "the era of big government is over" and went along with the Defense of Marriage Act.<br>
<br>Obama says he admires Ronald Reagan and tries to compromise with Republicans to the point that he compromises with himself in trying to get them to agree to something -- ANYTHING -- just so he can call it bipartisan.<br>
<br>Obama took a much smaller stimulus package than was needed for the economy. He refused to consider single payer health care right out of the gate -- didn't even make Republicans give him something in exchange for giving up single payer. And all the Republicans voted NO on the plan they said they wanted. But they got to keep the concessions Obama had made to them.<br>
<br>Obama continues with the worst excesses of the Bush "war on terror" including drone strikes based on who knows what evidence, if any, the continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo, and the continued re-authorization of the Patriot Act.<br>
<br>So are Obama and Clinton better than Bush or McCain or Romney. Sure. But that's damning with faint praise.<br>
<br>People support liberal and progressive policies. And we don't get them. No matter who's in charge. In fact, the reverse is true -- we're not only NOT making progress, we're regressing. Alito and Roberts are going to take us back to the Gilded Age before they're done.<br>
<br>And Democrats will either be helping, or will be wailing "oh, if only we had 60 votes in the Senate!" And if they had 60, they'd want 70. And if they had 70, they'd want 99. And if they had 99, that one Republican would still be running the show as the 99 Democrats tried to out-compromise each other in their quest for bipartisanship.<br>
<br>So, in short, I've decided that elections really don't matter that much -- I see them as kind of the difference between going back to the 1870s incrementally, or doing it all at once. We're going to go -- it's just a question of how long it will take.<br>2014/06/the-more-things-change.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-3347150798563809835Wed, 09 Apr 2014 23:31:00 +00002014-04-09T19:33:01.168-04:00Jim DeMint might be the stupidest Senator ever<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br>Honestly -- Jim DeMint, former U.S. Senator from South Carolina, might be the stupidest person to ever serve in the Senate. And that's saying something. Just read this stupid shit:<br>
<br>From Hunter at <a href=" Daily Kos</a>:<br>
<br><a href=" DeMint grumbles that 'big government' didn't free the slaves</a><br>
<br><i>"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people. Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like [British abolitionist William Wilberforce] who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people.</i> <b><i>So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves.</i></b> <i>In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God."</i><br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?<br>
<br>Where do I begin?<br>
<br>First, in the 1860s, the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, were the party that advocated expanded government powers to build infrastructure, negotiate trade agreements, collect customs, acquire territory, protect borders, etc. Oh, yeah -- and FREE THE SLAVES!<br>
<br>In those days, the Democrats were the party of "limited government" and "small government" and "states' rights." By which they meant "keep your Republican hands off my nig*ers."<br>
<br>It wasn't until the 1930s that the Democrats started to increasingly be identified with civil rights for African-Americans, a transformation that was complete by the 1960s. At which point former Democrats who still advocated "states' rights" became Republicans.<br>
<br>So much for the actual history.<br>
<br>Now, what about how the slaves got freed?<br>
<br>Does DeMint REALLY believe that hundreds of thousands of slave owners who believed in sates' rights each thought up on their own the idea of freeing their slaves, and that it just happened on its own?<br>
<br>That's RIDICULOUS.<br>
<br>For starters, slave owners resisted every single attempt at gradual emancipation or compensated emancipation. They were not only determined to hold onto slavery, they were determined to EXPAND IT.<br>
<br>If these individual slaveholding believers in individual rights just allowed slavery to end without government "interference," then how does DeMint explain the Reconstruction Era and the Segregation (Separate but Equal) Era, when former slaveholders and their descendants tried to reimpose their vision of African-American life in America -- slavery and peonage?<br>
<br>What got the slaves freed? What got African-Americans on the path to equal treatment under the law? Individual altruism from believers in "states' rights?"<br>
<br>BULL. SHIT.<br>
<br>It was the government.<br>
<br>It was the government, in the form of the Union Army that waged war against an insurrection, defeated it, and restored federal authority.<br>
<br>It was the government, in the form of the Emancipation Proclamation.<br>
<br>It was the government, in the form of the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.<br>
<br>It was the government, in the form of Truman's 1948 Executive Order to desegregate the military.<br>
<br>It was the government, in the form of the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision.<br>
<br>It was the government in the form of the 1960s Civil Rights Acts, Voting Rights Acts and Fair Housing Acts.<br>
<br>For Jim DeMint to ignore this reality goes beyond the usual Republican construct of an alternate reality into outright fantasy. Either he's saying something he doesn't believe because he's throwing red meat to his base or he's the stupidest man to ever serve in the Senate.<br>
<br>Either way, he's not helping.<br>2014/04/jim-demint-might-be-stupidest-senator.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-579780083449512512Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:49:00 +00002014-04-01T20:01:50.125-04:00Don't blindly accept your faith<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_OSaJE2rqxU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><a href=" Mediaite:</a><br>
<br><a href=" News Priest: Noah Producers ‘Missed the Mark’ and Will ‘Pay for It Dearly’</a><br>
<br>Fox News’ resident Catholic priest/religious analyst in not impressed with the new Bible-based film Noah, despite its early success at the box office this weekend. Father Jonathan Morris told Fox & Friends Sunday that the Darren Aronofsky-directed film “missed the mark” by not telling the story from the point of view of faith and will “pay dearly for it,” though he did not specify whether that meant in the eyes on the Lord or at the hands of consumers.<br>
<br>“You know, it’s a classic case of the book is much better than the movie,” Morris said Sunday morning, saying he was “disappointed” in the film because it could have been so “awesome.” Fox’s Anna Kooiman noted that Christians have been “up in arms” over the movie while “environmentalists are excited about it.”<br>
<br>According to Morris, God, who is only referred to as “the creator” in the film, comes off as an “impersonal force that tells you to do crazy things,” while Noah seems “borderline schizophrenic.” And as for the initial box office numbers, he said Noah’s $40 million weekend “pales in comparison” to the opening weekend of The Passion of the Christ, which holds the record for the best-ever winter number of $83.8 million.<br>
<br>“Great actors, and a great director, but just wrong starting point,” Morris concluded. “Didn’t start from the point of view of faith.”<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>My take:<br>
<br>I'm upset with the film producers for giving in to the "protesters" and adding a disclaimer in the first place.<br>
<br>WHO says there's only one version of the story of Noah, and that only that story can be turned into a movie?<br>
<br>Events and questions are SUPPOSED TO BE thought about, imagined, and explored. That's the only way we can arrive at an understanding of what they mean.<br>
<br>Let me use "The Last Temptation of Christ" as an example. Protesters showed up to complain about the final scenes in which a delirious and about to die Jesus imagines that he uses his powers to come down from the cross. He gets married, has a family, and lives a normal life. He meets Paul preaching the good news of Jesus and tells Paul that none of those things happened. Paul tells Jesus that it doesn't matter, because the story of Jesus' birth, death and resurrection is powerful enough to attract converts even if it isn't true.<br>
<br>That's the point where Jesus realizes that it's just a vision -- the normal life and the wife and the children were the "final temptation," presented by Satan, trying to keep Jesus from fulfilling his earthly mission. Now understanding that he's being tempted, he resists, the vision ends, and Jesus completes his divine mission by dying on the cross.<br>
<br>I can't imagine why anyone would be upset. The question of how Jesus could be both divine AND mortal is THE central question of the entire Christian faith.<br>
<br>If Jesus was the son of God, came to earth as a man in order to be tested to see if he could live a blameless life and die to redeem mankind for its sins, and if he knew who he really was, then the life he led wasn't a test. He would have known that he couldn't be tempted, he would never have sinned, and completing his divine mission would not have been a challenge.<br>
<br>On the other hand, if Jesus was a man, he would have been tempted like any other man, he would have given in and sinned, his life would not have been blameless, and mankind would not have been redeemed in the eyes of God.<br>
<br>So, in order to make sense of the central tenet of the entire Christian faith, the question of how Jesus could be BOTH divine AND human can't just be accepted at face value -- "it's so because I say it's so." It MUST be explored. If it's not explored, it can't be made sense of in a way that enables the faith to continue.<br>
<br>That's why books and films like "The Last Temptation of Christ" help consider the possibilities and come up with explanations.<br>
<br>I'd say it's the same with Noah and the Ark or any other story from the Bible or the traditions of any other faith. "It's so because I say it's so" isn't enough. If people are going to adhere to a faith, they need to be able to make sense of its tenets by thinking critically about them and exploring the possibilities.<br>
<br>So, pay the protesters little heed. Do the research and the thinking and the imagining if you're going to make sense of a religion.<br>2014/04/dont-blindly-accept-your-faith.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-6068339578901216492Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:50:00 +00002014-03-25T20:50:19.066-04:00Donald Rumsfeld -- it doesn't matter what you think<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zaP7ZrmkcuU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br>AND you're a racist<br>
<br><a href=" the Huffington Post</a>:<br>
<br><a href=" Rumsfeld: 'A Trained Ape' Would Be Better At Foreign Policy Than Obama</a><br>
<br>First, you're the guy who kissed Saddam's ring and then said he was the personification of pure evil and needed to be eliminated. (Watch the video.)<br>
<br>You're the guy who said the United States <a href=" need a rebuilding plan</a> for after the invasion of Iraq.<br>
<br>You're the guy who falsely said there <a href=" were WMDs in Iraq</a>, and identified their location as pretty much everywhere -- north, south, east and west.<br>
<br>You're the guy who <a href=" soldiers being shot to pieces in Iraq</a> because of inadequate equipment that you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you might wish to have, thus letting those soldiers know that you considered them expendable.<br>
<br>EVERY decision made in the Bush administration was wrong. EVERY ONE. The only question left for historians is whether George W. Bush is one of the worst Presidents ever or THE worst.<br>
<br>And you were part of that administration. Everything you did was wrong. Your willingness to treat soldiers as an expendable commodity was wrong. Every decision you made about the invasion of Iraq was wrong.<br>
<br>You're a goddamned disgrace. You ought to have slunk away in shame. You should not be opining on whether other administrations are right or wrong.<br>
<br>Now, to the racism.<br>
<br>Just the other day, a Belgian newspaper published THIS photo:<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br>So, comparing the first African-American President to an ape is racist and has no place in the public discourse. For that matter, YOU have no place in the public discourse.<br>2014/03/donald-rumsfeld-it-doesnt-matter-what.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-1525014864551523107Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:30:00 +00002014-03-25T19:30:49.754-04:00The conservative version of "free speech"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br><a href=" the Washington Examiner:</a><br>
<br><a href=" Interview: Gov. Scott Walker's Limited Government Pragmatism</a><br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>Look at the screen shot:<br>
<br>Yesterday the Washington Examiner, a conservative outlet, posted its "exclusive" interview with Governor Scott Walker. The Examiner portrayed Walker as a successful Governor and likely candidate for President.<br>
<br>I pointed out in the comments section that Walker will likely see the inside of a prison cell before the presidency, and posted links to articles about the <a href=" of</a> <a href=" aides</a> who <a href=" gone</a> to jail, and the number of shady actions he's taken, including setting up a <a href=" email server</a> in government offices so that his staff could illegally engage in campaign activity while on government time.<br>
<br>And the Examiner erased my comments.<br>
<br>They left some of the replies to my comments, so the replies stick out like a sore thumb -- if the replies are out of context, they don't make sense.<br>
<br>So, just remember this when conservatives tell you they favor free speech and that liberals like me are against it.<br>
<br>The Examiner thinks Walker is going to be President.<br>
<br>I pointed out -- accurately -- that he's a crook.<br>
<br>And the Examiner had no defense but to erase my comments.<br>
<br>What's that say for the truth of my comments?<br>
<br>And what's that say about the hypocrisy of conservatives who claim to favor free speech?<br>2014/03/the-conservative-version-of-free-speech.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-2393839954936680924Fri, 21 Mar 2014 23:02:00 +00002014-03-22T11:12:36.066-04:00Yes, Paul Ryan is a racist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br>From <a href=";
<br><a href=" Left’s Laughable Effort to Label Paul Ryan ‘Racist’ Crumbles</a><br>
<br>-----<br>
<br><a href=" what Ryan said</a>:<br>
<br>“We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>Here's my take:<br>
<br>I only had to see the headline to know the story was by Noah Rothman. Rothman -- the guy who thinks Scott Walker is presidential timber, and that Paul Ryan is an intellectual.<br>
<br>Look, Paul Ryan is a lightweight pretending to be an intellectual. The next time you're ready to mock Joe Biden, just remember that he easily bested both Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan in the vice presidential debates.<br>
<br>He lies -- a lot. Ask him again about his superhuman marathon times and the number of high peaks in Colorado he's climbed.<br>
<br>Ask him again about the kid who wanted lunch in a brown paper bag -- he not only stole the story, he got the point wrong because he substituted his ideology for the actual life lesson of the kid whose story it was.<br>
<br>Paul Ryan talked about and "inner city" and "men" and being unwilling to work or learn the culture of work. We ALL know what that means -- it means Blah people. it means "those people." It means "you people."<br>
<br>Of course he's wrong about the Blah people. But who can really blame him? He probably doesn't know any outside the token Republicans, like Allen West.<br>
<br>Noah Rothman can try to excuse Paul Ryan's racism, I suppose -- after all, Rothman is paid to tell us how great Scott Walker and Paul Ryan are.<br>
<br>But I challenge Noah Rothman or anyone else to come with a plausible alternate explanation for me -- ANY plausible alternate explanation.<br>
<br>If Paul Ryan DID NOT mean that black men are shiftless bums when he said "inner city" and "men" and unwilling to work or learn the culture of work in the same sentence, then tell me what he REALLY meant. Go ahead -- I DARE you to try.<br>2014/03/yes-paul-ryan-is-racist.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-2198765231379874510Sat, 01 Mar 2014 13:25:00 +00002014-03-01T08:25:38.612-05:00Republicans -- definitely NOT racist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br><a href=" the audio recording here</a>:<br>
<br>From <a href=" Matters</a>:<br>
<br><a href=" The Program And Listen To The Full Audio Of The Racist Roast For Joe Arpaio</a><br>
<br>Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne laid down the basic comic framework for his fellow roasters, totaling a dozen conservative dignitaries of local and national reputation. "Apologies to the Civic Center," said Horne, <i><b>"but half of the kitchen staff was arrested tonight upon arrival of Joe and his deputies.</b></i> Because of a budget crunch, the sheriff's cutting way back. No more green baloney for prisoners -- just an extra beating at suppertime. Over the years, Joe's touched many people. We know because many are now pressing charges."<br>
<br>Chuckling throughout Horne's routine on stage next to Arpaio was Russell Pearce, a recalled state senator with a documented fondness for neo-Nazi websites, and the primary architect of Arizona's controversial immigration bill S.B. 1070. Pearce smiled as his one-time ally in the 1070 fight, Arizona State Rep. John Kavanagh, began his set asking, <i><b>"How many Hispanics did you pull over on the way over here, Arpaio?" He later added, "All these years I figured he was rounding up Hispanics because you had a grudge from [fighting in] the Spanish-American War. But if you were in the Korean War, how come you're not rounding up Asians?"</b></i> Kavanagh was doing a bit about the difficulties of dining out with Arpaio -- <i><b>"When we go into a restaurant, most of the wait staff and cooks dive out the back window" -- when he spotted a passing waiter who appeared to be Hispanic holding a platter of stuffed chickens, and screamed, "There's a brave one! Get him!Sic 'em!"</b></i><br>
<br><i><b>The crowd roared; the waiter turned red.</b></i><br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>My advice -- remember this whenever Republicans tell you their latest policy proposals to restrict early voting or require voter IDs are NOT racist. And remember this if you find yourself wondering if the latest Republican minority outreach effort is sincere.<br>2014/03/republicans-definitely-not-racist.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-8197025736567117217Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:36:00 +00002014-02-25T18:45:50.243-05:00If you're reading the Bible, read more than one verse<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br>From <a href=" and Stripes</a><br>
<br><a href=" general: Forget the sword; Jesus will return with an AR-15</a><br>
<br>A former Army general believes that when Jesus returns, he’s gonna be packin’ heat.<br>
<br>Retired Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, now the Family Research Council’s executive vice president, says the Son of God will be armed with an AR-15 assault rifle when he returns, in a speech at the Pro-Family Legislators Conference in Dallas.<br>
<br>“[Jesus is] coming back as a warrior, carrying a sword,” Boykin said. “And I believe now, I’ve checked this out — I believe that sword he’ll be carryin’ when he comes back is an AR-15.”<br>
<br>Many in the audience laughed and some applauded, according to audio of the speech released Tuesday.<br>
<br>“Now I want you to think about this: Where did the 2nd Amendment come from? Where did the 2nd Amendment come from? I ask my students this; I ask men’s groups. I ask, ‘Where did the 21nd Amendment come from?’”<br>
<br>Boykin, in a somewhat comic voice, replied: “ ‘From the Founding Fathers! It’s in the Constitution!’<br>
<br>“Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus.”<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>Boykin is recounting <a href=" 22:36</a>:<br>
<br><i>"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."</i><br>
<br>Boykin misses the point of the swords. They were not meant to be used, but to be SEEN.<br>
<br>The swords were meant to show the fulfillment of a prophecy.<br>
<br><a href=" 53:12</a> said that the Messiah would be arrested as a common criminal.<br>
<br>Jesus had his followers procure two swords so that his group of disciples and he would appear to be criminals when they were in Jerusalem for Passover, thus providing "proof" that Isaiah's prophecy had been fulfilled.<br>
<br>You can be sure that Boykin is wrong, because when one of the disciples used one of the swords -- Peter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant in Gethsemene when Jesus was arrested -- Jesus immediately rebuked Peter, told him to put the sword away, and restored the servant's ear.<br>
<br>In order to be seen as criminals, Jesus and his followers didn't have to commit actual criminal acts. That's why Jesus stopped Peter instead of allowing him to continue fighting. In addition, not fighting enabled the faster arrest of Jesus and faster fulfillment of his earthly mission. If he had resisted and fled, he wouldn't have been tried, executed and risen from the dead "on schedule."<br>
<br>You can also be sure that Boykin is wrong because none of the disciples is recorded as ever having resorted to violence after the death of Jesus, even when arrested, jailed and martyred.<br>
<br>Citing one Bible verse is often misleading. It usually takes knowing the context to understand the entire story.<br>2014/02/if-youre-reading-bible-read-more-than.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-8244644485301921632Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:18:00 +00002014-02-25T18:19:42.969-05:00When can I expect conservative howls of outrage?<a href="; imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="; /></a>
<br>From <a href=" Story</a>:<br>
<br><a href=" documents prove U.S. Army actively targeted leftist protesters, group says</a><br>
<br>New records obtained by the Defending Dissent Foundation prove that the United States Army used a multi-agency spy network to gather intelligence on nonviolent, antiwar protesters and to disseminate their findings to both the FBI and local police departments.<br>
<br>Activists filed a lawsuit against Thomas Rudd and John Towery — Panagacos v. Towery — in 2007, alleging that the U.S. Army had directed operatives to infiltrate and collect information about the activist movement in the Washington area.<br>
<br>According to the newly released documents, the U.S. Army paid Towery, a Criminal Information and Systems Officer, to spy on the antiwar group Port Militarization Resistance (PMR), as well as the Students for a Democratic Society, the Industrial Workers of the World, and Iraq Veterans Against the War.<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>When can I expect Issa to start overseeing an investigation into this government overreach?<br>
<br>When can I expect conservatives to howl about how big government is acting in a lawless fashion?<br>
<br>I mean, conservatives are ideologically consistent, right? And since they've complained so long and loud (and falsely) about conservative groups being targeted by the IRS, they will of course be just as outraged that liberal groups were targeted, right? RIGHT?<br>
<br>These soldiers and law enforcement types should know better.<br>
<br>Dissent is not disloyalty.<br>
<br>Disagreement is not treason.<br>
<br>And while you're busy investigating people who pose no threat because you don't like their politics, you're failing to investigate the ones who pose a real threat.<br>2014/02/when-can-i-expect-conservative-howls-of.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-5731015790446733508Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:59:00 +00002014-02-16T14:59:59.120-05:00<br><iframe src="; width="635" height="500" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe><br>
<br>From <a href=" Points Memo</a>:<br>
<br><a href=": Bill Nye And GOP Rep. Spar In Climate Change Debate</a><br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>This is the wrong "journalistic" approach.<br>
<br>Two people, neither subject matter experts, "debate" a topic as though it's a question with two possible answers, either of which could be true, and both of which are equally credible.<br>
<br>You might as well "debate" whether David Gregory's first name is David.<br>
<br>The answer to climate change is known -- it's not an "on the one hand, maybe yes, on the other hand, maybe no" proposition. Quit treating it like one.<br>
2014/02/from-talking-points-memo-watch-bill-nye.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-956244902395011769Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:27:00 +00002014-01-14T05:13:30.395-05:00Save us from these "strategists"<iframe class="video-embed" src="; width="480" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen scrolling="no"></iframe>
<br><a href=" Media Matters:</a><br>
<br><a href=" Woodward, Fox News, And How Gates' Memoir Got "Hijacked"</a><br>
<br>The money quote:<br>
<br>"Gen. Jack Keane claimed Gates' memoir showed "President Bush wanted to win and President Obama, simply put, wanted to get out.""<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>And that, simply put, is the fundamental problem with the conservative American view of how to use a military.<br>
<br>This mindset is why John McCain's solution to insurgents operating in Fallujah in 2014 is to go back to 2008 -- recall Petraeus to active duty and send in the troops.<br>
<br>It's why Air Force General Robin Olds, as decorated and capable a tactical commander as the Air Force could produce, could visit Lyndon Johnson in the late 1960s and tell him the solution in Vietnam was "just win the damned thing."<br>
<br>The problem is that it doesn't occur to these individuals to wonder what "winning" means in the strategic sense.<br>
<br>Tactically, all Robin Olds had to do is use his planes, guns and missiles to defeat North Vietnamese planes, guns and missiles. The problem is that the supposed strategic political objective -- a South Vietnam capable of fending for itself and spreading democracy -- was unachievable. NO ONE except US policymakers believed South Vietnam would ever become a strong, effective bulwark of democracy -- and most of the individuals making the policy didn't believe it either. If the US wanted, we could still be in South Vietnam, still militarily defeating the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, and the strategic picture would still be the same -- North Vietnam would still be there, and South Vietnam would be pretty much a client state of the US.<br>
<br>Tactically, all the US had to do in Fallujah was surround the city, engage in combat with the insurgents, and either kill them or run them out of town. In the strategic sense, what did that short term tactical victory help accomplish? NOTHING. I served in Iraq, and I can't tell you what the Bush administration's strategic objective there was.<br>
<br>Now it's the same in Afghanistan. Jack Keane thinks all we have to do is "win." He isn't going to tell you what "win" means, though -- because he CAN'T. The US can destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban and anyone else who opposes the Karzai government or its successor, and strategically it will not matter.<br>
<br>I've written about this concept several times before, and I just don't understand how the likes of Jack Keane get to be four star generals without realizing this basic concept -- first, tactical military operations should be conducted only to further accomplishment of a strategic national objective.<br>
<br>Second, there are only two sensible ways to conduct those tactical military operations, short of having to defend your own territory because you've been invaded:<br>
<br>1 -- A mission of short time and limited objective, after which you return home. Example: Invade Iraq, topple Saddam Husein because he's an evil dictator, and then go home.<br>
<br>Example: Destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in response to the 9-11 attacks, and then go home.<br>
<br>2 -- Occupy every square inch of the country you're operating in, and plan to do it for as far into the future as you can see, so that you can impose your will.<br>
<br>Anything less than those two methods will result in a slow bleed -- the expenditure of blood and treasure that accomplishes nothing of national strategic value.<br>
<br>What we end up with when the Keanes and the McCains and the Oldses have their way is circular logic:<br>
<br>1 -- We have to stay because things are bad here, and we need to make them good.<br>
<br>2 -- We have to stay because things are good here, and if we leave, they'll get bad.<br>
<br>It becomes an endless loop -- we're staying because we can't leave, and we're not leaving because we have to stay.<br>
<br>And now McCain and Keane are adding a new wrinkle -- once we finally extricate ourselves from something we should have never done in the first place because it had no clearly defined strategic objective, LET'S GO BACK AND DO IT AGAIN!<br>
<br>Are you kidding me?<br>
<br>Save all of us in uniform from such "strategic" thinking.<br>2014/01/save-us-from-these-strategists.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-3675784804598546011Sat, 28 Dec 2013 01:46:00 +00002013-12-28T18:05:50.588-05:00Why Do Conservatives Call Themselves Christians?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br>I don't understand why conservatives claim to be Christians.<br>
<br>The Nativity is the story of a young woman who gets knocked up before marriage – apparently a “slut” who expects everyone else to pay for her birth control. Not only that – she then tricks a man who isn't even the father into supporting her.<br>
<br>Mary and the tricked Joseph then travel to Bethlehem, where they freeload like typical lazy poor people by sleeping in a barn instead of getting jobs and paying for a hotel room.<br>
<br>After that, they con three job creators into giving them expensive gifts that they can trade, presumably for drugs.<br>
<br>After THAT they prove their status as members of the lazy 47 percent by becoming illegal aliens in Egypt. I presume that Joseph would have worked as a carpenter and taken a job away from a God-fearing, hard-working, flag-waving, conservative Egyptian, except that he was a lazy immigrant – you know how THEY are.<br>
<br>Joseph and Mary later make their way to Narareth, where their son becomes a long-haired, sandal-wearing hippy, preaching peace and love and turning the other cheek and not “Second Amendment remedies” and "stand your ground" and “preemptive strikes.”<br>
<br>As an adult, Jesus quits his job and wanders the countryside, proving that he’s one of the lazy liberals who want “free stuff” by sponging off friends and acquaintances instead of getting a job and working hard. He demonstrates his commitment to communistic anti-government activities by hanging out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other disreputable people.<br>
<br>During one of his socialistic lectures, he displays a bent towards fascism AND communism by ordering everyone to put all their food together into one basket. He then “redistributes” the food without regard to who which “makers” produced it and which “takers” lazily expect to be fed for free.<br>
<br>Further displaying his socialistic tendencies, he performs healings, but he doesn't ask for payment – not even a co-pay!<br>
<br>In another of his communistic lectures, he tells the job creators that they should give away all their "hard-earned" wealth to the poor. He tells his followers that if they want to demonstrate their commitment to his communistic teachings, they have to give everyone food, health care, shelter and compassion regardless of their circumstances. He tells them that if they do this, their reward is that they get to live in his father’s house, where they get to obtain more “free stuff” forever.<br>
<br>Eventually he vandalizes a house of worship, demonstrating that he has no respect for conservative, establishment institutions. The authorities demonstrate their commitment to “law and order” by arresting him and then summarily executing him for his communistic sedition.<br>
<br>After he dies, his friends fan out to set up communes where the adherents of his socialist doctrine share everything they have with everyone else.<br>
<br>What’s for conservatives to like?<br>2013/12/why-do-conservatives-call-themselves.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-2936550549148761314Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:35:00 +00002013-12-23T18:42:46.104-05:00Mike Huckabee: Practice What You Preach<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="; imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="; /></a></div>
<br>From <a href=" and Liars</a>:<br>
<br><a href=": Most Christians Like Me are Respectful and Tolerant of Those Militant Homosexuals</a><br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>Tell the Dixie Chicks and Martin Bashir all about "free speech." If you didn't advocate for them, if you argued to have them taken off the air, if you argued to have their records burned, then your arguments in favor of free speech for the Duck Dynasty guy ring hollow.<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>Mike Huckabee respectful and tolerant? <a href=" just one example of his intolerance and disrespect</a>:<br>
<br>Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>"Traditional" marriage as defined in the Bible?<br>
<br>Is it Abraham being married to Sarah and Hagar and Keturah?<br>
<br>Is it Jacob marrying two of his first cousins at the same time, Rachel and Leah -- one of whom his father in law tricked him into marrying?<br>
<br>Is it Jacob taking two more wives, Bilhah and Zilpah?<br>
<br>Is it Moses, who had two wives, Zipporah and an unnamed "Ethiopian" woman?<br>
<br>Is it Solomon, whom the Bible says had 700 wives and 300 concubines?<br>
<br>Is it David, who had five named wives -- Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Eglah, and Bathsheba -- and countless more wives and concubines?<br>
<br>-----<br>
<br>The definition of "marriage" has changed a lot over the years, so to call only one version of it "traditional" and "proper" is short-sighted and narrow-minded.<br>2013/12/mike-huckabee-practice-what-you-preach.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (1st Republic 14th Star)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18970194.post-1570589012796176087Sat, 23 Nov 2013 19:20:00 +00002013-11-23T14:20:42.265-05:00Rush Limbaugh -- not fit to lick her combat boots<iframe class="video-embed" src="; width="480" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen scrolling="no"></iframe>
<br>From <a href=" Matters</a><br>
<br><a href=" Recalls His Idea For Women In Military To Synchronize Menstrual Cycles, So They'd Be "Ready To Be Banshees"</a><br>
<br>----<br>
<br>Any of the women with whom I've served during my 31 years in the military have two things in common:<br>
<br>1 -- They volunteered to serve, something el Rushbo has never done.<br>
<br>2 -- They could whomp Rush Limbaugh with on