« Escrow the Witch Hunt (updated 29sep18) | Main | Ruminations – 1oct18 (updated 3oct18) »

29 September 2018


Don Bessee

Now that's interesting, the pony tail of ignorance previously howled about the separation of Church and state.


Don Bessee

How will they get the stanky, rancid Russian dressing smell off ya po' ol' fakenewsman?

Former top FBI lawyer James Baker gave "explosive" closed-door testimony on Wednesday detailing for congressional investigators how the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" reflecting "political bias," according to two Republican lawmakers present for the deposition.
"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's extremely troubling."

Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left the bureau.




Posted by: Don Bessee | 03 October 2018 at 05:48 PM

The Ponytail of Ignorance is perfectly happy with organized religion(s) when they are avowedly socialist in political orientation!

Really Punch.....The National Council of Churches? You’re not even trying anymore! They’ve been in the pockets of socialists since 1908!

What a yutz!

Don Bessee

Its always nice that the socialist/dems overplay their hand, this time to our benefit in the mid terms -



Todd Juvinall

Paul Emery | 03 October 2018 at 05:39 PM

The druids are part of that conglomeration and if I recall the Druids were into sheep. I think your creds are very poor.

Paul Emery

They represent 40 million Christians and 38 denominations.

Also the provided link notes: "Last week, America Magazine also called for Kavanaugh’s withdrawal, rescinding its previous endorsement of the nominee. The national magazine is published by Jesuits, a Catholic religious order for men also known as the Society of Jesus."

Here is a list of member churches.

African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Churches USA
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
Assyrian Church of the East
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Church of the Brethren
Community of Christ
Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
Ecumenical Catholic Communion
Episcopal Church in the United States of America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Friends United Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Hungarian Reformed Church in America
International Council of Community Churches
Korean Presbyterian Church in America
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, American diocese
Mar Thoma Church
Moravian Church in America
National Baptist Convention of America
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
Orthodox Church in America
Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Polish National Catholic Church
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
Reformed Church in America
Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada
Swedenborgian Church of North America
Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, archdiocese of the Eastern U.S.A.
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church


So? Besides. NEVER herd of'm. They hold no water, have no effect on my life.
No Paul, not playing your game.
The Judge has been cleared. The word is getting out. "NO credible accusations"
You complain about lies? But your religion has no problem with it.
So, you have no bitch. Consider them converts.
I bet you have lied plenty. Unless your Jesus H. Christ. Somehow I won't buy that even if you said so.

Paul Emery

Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterian, Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox are all Socialists right Fish?

Don Bessee

More fakenews from the drunken grey lady, using documents they were not entitled to ya po' ol' fakenewsman, you said that was not ok when it happened to shrillary. What say you now?

All estate matters were handled by licensed attorneys, licensed CPAs (certified public accounts) and licensed real estate appraisers who followed all laws and rules strictly. All matters were filed with the IRS and New York taxing authorities.
The returns and tax positions that The Times now attacks were examined in real time by the relevant taxing authorities. The taxing authorities requested a few minor adjustments, which were made, and then fully approved all of the tax filings. These matters have now been closed for more than a decade.

President Trump had virtually no involvement whatsoever with these matters. The affairs were handled by other Trump family members who were not experts themselves and therefore relied entirely upon the aforementioned licensed professionals to ensure full compliance with the law




Not a good day for LIBs in the news.
The Judge gets cleared.
Funny business of spying on the Trump campaign.
The DOXXing LIB tool goes to jail
Polls closing in on any Proggy wins. (hell at least one is toast.)

Keep up the donkey crap. We can use all the vote fertilizer you give us.

Paul Emery

If he has nothing to hide why not release his tax returns Don?


Punchy 616pm

So, the Jesuits publishing America magazine speak for all those churches? How many people who weren't Jesuits were polled?

My guess would be none were polled, the folks with editorial control spoke hoping the recipients would go along. In fact, I know a woman who was recently knighted by the Republic of Serbia and considers herself Serbian Orthodox who is horrified at the lack of due process and presumption of innocence given Kavanaugh, and fears for her sons going forward.

Looking at the original piece in America Magazine, the following screed just pops:
"When Republican leaders in the Senate refused even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, they were not objecting to his qualifications or character but to the likely outcome of his vote on the court were he to be confirmed. When Senate Democrats were mostly united in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well in advance of any hearings (and before any rumor of Dr. Blasey’s accusation was known), they were using the same calculus. While regrettable in both cases, such results are, as we have said before, the predictable outcome of the fact that “fundamental questions of social policy are increasingly referred to the court for adjudication as constitutional issues.”

In other words, this is about payback by the current minority party for Merrick Garland being ignored and so the current minority party has resorted to character assassination and ignoring of key American legal values, specifically due process and presumption of innocence.


Sorry Paul.. No law says he must. Where was"O"'s school records? SEALED!!! And why was that? What did he hide? Funny you didn't give a crap then,, and still don't. And that was you voted the first time for him.

Don Bessee

The regular refuge of the pony tail of ignorance. Fail to address the issue and flip to another question. I guess that works in the Nevada city watering holes.

So you are ok that the Trump family taxes were stolen? Trumps sister is a Federal Judge. I know its OK if its the socialist/dem supporters. Right? Did you even read the family lawyers statement or my post.

Read yet still not comprehend.



George Rebane

The Dems are now dissing the FBI about performing a faulty background examination. Wasn't a split second ago that the Dems were on the Repubs' case for dissing the FBI for doing actually that was wrong - sandbagging the DoJ on whether or not to prosecute an individual who clearly violated the law?

M 406pm - What's your point?

PaulE 539pm - as I've explained many times before in these pages, Christians are NOT politically of one mind. Long ago they split into politically right and left factions, the latter in a desperate attempt to compromise Christian principles and tenets in order to hang on to union educated young people who have drunk the socialist kool-aid. Is that again one nuance too far for you?

 Bill Tozer

The truth seekers:




Posted by: Paul Emery | 03 October 2018 at 06:29 PM

I said National Council of Churches not the individual denominations Punch but if this is the latest thing that makes you happy.....have fun with it!

Don Bessee

I am surprised that the po' ol' fakenewsman didn't go there first! They do so love their revisionist history!



 Bill Tozer

@ 7:11 pm
James Carville was the orginal Swamp Creature. :)

Maddog the Warrior Monk:



Trump text alert


Todd Juvinall

Paul Emery | 03 October 2018 at 06:16 PM

We have over 800 non-profits in Nevada County. Your list is too funny.

Trump got elected without exposing his tax returns which I have supported for them all. So the NYT can guess all it wants but we don't care.



In a way only Sammy could say it.

 Bill Tozer

Did the NYT with its 100,000 pages of tax returns, memos, interviews, and other filler (which they have held for a year now) mention the smoking gun, aka, Russia, Russian Collusion, and proof that Trump is in the pocket of Putin? Nary a word?

Darn. And all this time the fakenews folks guareenteed that the tax returns hide the dirty secret that Trump was Putin’s puppet. It’s in the tax returns, it is I tell ya. Too funny. Trump became a billionaire and President with Russian money. Blackmail stuff!
The only proof there is is how far the Leftinistas are detached from reality. Coo coo for Cocoa Puffs.



OUCH!! Another win for Trump.(sorta)
Another union bites the dust here in Ca... And guess what?
It's right here.

WOW pay raises too!!!!! No LIBS,, YOU didn't do that.
"With the collective bargaining agreement null and void, Eskaton Village Grass Valley was allowed to change its workers pay rates. It's since told 102 employees they're getting raises. Additionally, employees can now receive a free meal every shift — something impossible under the old agreement, Ryan said."

Tell us again how great unions are.

 Bill Tozer

How far are the academics detached from reality? Peer reviewed, no less.

“As for the whole sexuality part of it, Wilson noted that owners were more likely to intervene when they saw two male dogs humping each other than they were when a male dog was humping a female dog — which she interpreted as potential evidence of some sort of internalized bias against homosexuality.

Basically, the whole reasoning behind Wilson’s study is the belief that researching rape culture and sexuality among dogs in parks is a brilliant way to understand more about rape culture and sexuality among humans. This is, of course, idiotic. Why? Because humans are not dogs. That’s right: In case you haven’t noticed, there are quite a number of measurable differences between dogs and people, and the way that dogs interact with other dogs is actually quite different than the way that people interact with each other.

To be fair, as Reason’s Robby Soave notes, Wilson was at least up-front about the limitations of her study. For example: She admits she has no way of knowing whether or not any given instance of dog-humping actually constituted rape:

“It is difficult if not impossible to ascertain when canine sexual advances are un/wanted, or when they are rapes rather than performances of canine dominance, which introduces considerable unavoidable ambiguity in my interpretations of this variable,” she writes.

No kidding.


Wilson writes that her research involved “nearly 1000 hours of public observations of dogs and their human companions” at three dog parks in Portland, claiming that during her sojourns to these dog parks, there was “one dog rape/humping incident every 60 minutes.”

“Dog parks are microcosms where hegemonic masculinist norms governing queering behavior and compulsory heterosexuality can be observed in a cross-species environment,” Wilson concluded.

Due to this, dog parks remain “oppressive spaces that lock both humans and animals into hegemonic patterns of gender conformity,” she claims, adding that “oppressive patriarchal norms reach a zenith in dog parks, rendering them not only gendered spaces but spaces that exhibit and magnify toxic…themes intrinsic to gender binaries.”


I suppose chronic liars are detached from reality.

 Bill Tozer


Imagine: “I’m not a drinker. I can honestly say I never had a beer in my life. … It’s one of my only good traits. I don’t drink. … Can you imagine if I had, what a mess I’d be.” —Donald Trump

For the record: “I find it hilarious that now if you drank in college it’s disqualifying from seeking any position of power. Not only did most of the people saying that probably have one too many themselves, but you know who didn’t drink in college? Donald Trump.” —Lisa Boothe

Non Compos Mentis: “[Ted Kennedy] stood up and owned moments where he knew he’d stepped over the line … and he wasn’t about to be nominated to a lifetime position. In fact, he said to the people of Massachusetts, if you think I shouldn’t stay here, then, you know — he took those returns and then he was elected another six times.” —John Kerry

Hyper hypocrisy: “You have ask yourself why would anybody put themselves through this if they did not believe that they had important information to convey to the Senate. I found [Dr. Ford’s] presentation, I found her willingness to say ‘I don’t remember that but I remember this’ to be very convincing and I felt a great swell of pride that she would be willing to put herself out there under these circumstances.” —Hillary Clinton, who couldn’t deride accusations against her husband with enough ferocity

Braying Jackass: “Ultimately [it’s] not whether he is innocent or guilty. … Have enough questions been raised that we should not move on to another candidate? … Move on to another candidate.” —Cory Booker

That’s cute, coming from a flake: “[Kavanaugh’s] interaction with the members was sharp and partisan and that concerns me. And I tell myself you give a little leeway because of what he’s been through. But, on the other hand, we can’t have this on the Court. We simply can’t.” —Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Political futures: “What I can tell you with certainty — we’ll have an FBI report this week, and we’ll have a vote this week.” —Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination

Hell hath frozen over: “As someone who voted against NAFTA and opposed it for many years, I knew it needed fixing. The president deserves praise for taking large steps to improve it.” —Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

… “I’m starting to think maybe Brett Kavanaugh didn’t actually do anything wrong.” —Jim Treacher

And finally: [O’Rourke wrote].. “perma-smile actresses whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks.”— the Columbia Daily Spectator

 Bill Tozer

The Grievance Studies Scandal hoax isn’t just a problem for academia....nor is it a joke.


Don Bessee

Here is one for the po' ol' pollhead -

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.




,,,George@659pm '''M 406pm - What's your point?'''

You just made my point,,,again!!!

'''GR103pm -Notice to casual readers - please pay attention to how many responses come from leftwing readers addressing the tsunami of left-embarrassing items for which factual coverage (links, citations, references provided) is included by our rightwing readers. If you see one, it's a rare bird worth noting and tracking how the debate then proceeds. But alas, almost all such responses involve a quick change to a new off-the-wall topic that breaks the discussion thread, or is simply relegated to their crickets.'''

I referenced Donnie's breaking news about Ocasio-Cortez terminology mixup,,,and made what you call a '' rare bird''' response.

To test a theory,,, I conducted a test to see if the reverse is true by referencing the NY Times proving with factual evidence that the Misogynist-in-Chief is a lying sack of dirty Depends.

,,,and,,,crickets,,,showing your 103pm to be just another of your biased, one-sided, double-standard comments.


WOW Dougy,, Use propane in your honey oil lab? Your making less sense than usual.

 Bill Tozer

Co-exist? More like unintended consequences.

“Hadley’s insight is simple: When external sources of truth are knocked down, only one is left: the self. And the self, despite the hopes of well-intentioned postmoderns, is remarkably unwilling to acknowledge evidence of its own errors and bias. The self’s confidence in its rightness is too deeply rooted in our evolutionary psychology to really be threatened by the teachings of an abstract theory.

But for the same reason, a person will gleefully question the rightness of others. Postmodernists perhaps hoped that by deconstructing truth, people would aim the critique inward, humbly asking “Why is my truth any better than yours?” Instead, they phrase the same idea differently, defiantly asking “Why is your truth any better than mine?” It’s a recipe for perpetual conflict.

This “relativism for thee, but not for me” contradiction has not gone unnoticed by the observers of academic postmodernism. Asked why he abandoned his studies with the great deconstructionists Paul de Man, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama recently explained in a Chronicle of Higher Education interview that these eminences “were espousing a kind of Nietzschean relativism that said there is no truth . . . yet most of them were committed to a basically Marxist agenda.” He pronounced this contradiction “total bullshit.”



On a different matter, thank goodness that Team Blue has identified the Russkies and rapist Supreme Court nominees as the real threat to this country. Damn that Trump for messing with the Chinese.


 Bill Tozer

On a back burner issue....the quasi-forgotten FBI collision with the DNC


Todd Juvinall

Now the democrats are saying the FBI is doing a coverup. And Trump at 51% approval. This is amazing. Where is Emery?

 Bill Tozer

@ 8:31 am
A most disturbing article. The biggest threat to us right now is China. They are on the move militarily and cyper wise. With all bull pucky and other issues going on, the impending threat is China China, China. We need the President and the Excutive Branch to spend at least 50% of their time and resources on this mega threat alone, IMHO.

George Rebane

*M* 744am - You again misunderstand. Was your citation of the NYT piece some kind of a challenge or invitation to open a debate thread? NYT's position on Trump is yesterday's news, at least in these pages. And the way the Left defines what is a lie is quite a bit different than the Right's version.

When Trump delivers one of his over the top non-consequentials like 'This is the lowest unemployment since the Great Flood (or whatever).', the Left dutifully puts it down in its Lie List. But when Obama informs the country that 'you can keep your doctor' in his new Obamacare, that is a consequential lie that affects people's healthcare planning, and is totally ignored by the Left and its lamestream. There is a difference - perhaps you missed it.

But if you feel that your germane points are being ignored by other commenters - a claim that would be hard to validate - there is no reason for you to continue to submit to such disrespect.

Paul Emery


I disagree with you about Obama's statement about Obamacare in that you claim it was ignored. It was one of the main reasons, along with his disastrous middle Middle East foreign policy, that I didn't vote for him second time around. He sold out on healthcare and it was noticed. I reacted appropriately which is something RR contributors by and large didn't do when they supported Bush second time around. His first term was a disaster and the second worse. That's what you get when you're a blind patriot to a political party.

Don Bessee

The socialist/dems are what they are -




George Rebane

PaulE 1100am - Obama's claim was NOT ignored by the Repubs attempting to repeal/replace Obamacare, but I do maintain that it was ignored then, and still is, by the Dems and their lamestream. Of course, I stand to be corrected.

BTW, what again made the Bush2's first term a disaster?

Don Bessee

True dat -

Thursday on CNN “Newsroom,” anchor Jim Sciutto brushed off accusations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court justice nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh as simply “politics” as network commentator Scott Jennings defended the judge’s temperament at last week’s hearing.
“To be honest with you, I think Judge Kavanaugh reacted exactly the way most Americans would react to being smeared,” Jennings stated. “If somebody said the things about me that they said about him, I think I would have asked somebody to step outside.”




Come now George.. Paul and his "illegal war" crap. Bush took the fight to our enemy, on their front lawn. Paul was in the "we need to apologize" camp.
There was even a LIB back then saying "the fighting should be in OUR streets". Well,, they just about have their wish today.


re: Paul Emery@11:00AM


Don Bessee

Their true socialist self shows through -



Paul Emery

Illegal invasion of Iraq. Based on lies. When Bush left office the country was left with Trillions of dollars of debt, thousands of casualties and the worst economy since the depression.

Don Bessee

Barny Frank and slick willy own the housing crash by forcing banks to give loans to unqualified people backed up by our money!


 Bill Tozer

Illegal immigration and fraud.


 Bill Tozer

Yes, abortion is a very contentious issue, but still.....at a silent demonstration? It is who they are. 45 seconds


George Rebane

PaulE 106pm - The invasion was not illegal, and the "based on lies" was Monday morning quarterbacking to the whole western world.

Do you liberals now have a 'Blame Bush2' narrative for the Great Recession in which Obama kept us in while doubling the national debt for no measurable gain (<2% growth for eight years)?

Boy, the path around this barn has now been worn into a ditch.

Re Mr Tozer's posts - all these factors about welcoming illegal aliens are totally invisible to our progressives. They focus on separating children from jailed illegal alien parents; something American children have experienced for decades without a protesting squeak out of the loony lefties whose MAGA is Make America Grovel Again.


DAMN Paul,, now you deal in wholesale bullshit?
EVERY intelligence outfit around the world stated WMDs existed.
(plenty of VETS that were there and got sick from them will agree)

Your right about the "worst economy". Forget Barney Frank? Frank Dodd?
It was such a GREAT idea to give loans to those who could NEVER,EVER pay them back. And backed by Uncle Sam. Now who was really in charge? You pals of the LEFT. BIG majorities in both houses.
But of course you will blame Bush.. He signed the Bills. Not the bastards and bitchs that wrote them.

Paul Emery

It happened during his watch George as did the war in Iraq. It happened with His financial people in charge and his CIA and intelligence people. Are you saying he's blameless for both situations? The point of what I'm saying is that I recognized the faults of Obama and didn't support him for a re-hire which is his second term. Most of the RR bloggers, yourself included, supported him second time around and look at the mess he left when he termed out.

Paul Emery

Also I didn't support Obama 2nd time partially because of his economic policy which rewarded the same financial insti8tutions that were partially responsible for dragging us into a ditch and making a profit out of it.

Todd Juvinall

Is Paul Emery still feeling the effects of BDS? My goodness, he must have a mental illness.


Seek mental help Paul... You REALLY need it.

Paul Emery


You are such a genetic Republican. You can't help it. I didn't expect anything different from you.

Paul Emery


Do you actually believe Bush was a good President?

 Bill Tozer

Amazing. Bush 2 has been lobbying hard with all he got for Kavanaugh. He’s been busting Flake’s tiny nutsack.

Amazing again. Only the Illiberal Left could ever unite Bush 2, Trump, the RINO’s, the conservative Nevertrumpers, Bill Kristol & Gang, Ben Sharpio, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Mitch, the Freedom Caucus, Rand Paul, Ann Coulter, and, of course, the Deplorables. Thanks, Leftinistas, we owe ya one. That is one thing you have done well in many, many moons.


Todd Juvinall

Paul Emery | 04 October 2018 at 02:02 PM
But I am not mentally ill like you and make stuff up all the time. Is that a Druid problem? Or did you forget to sacrifice a goat?

Being a generic republican means what to a Druid? I support individual rights, smaller government, less regs and the rule of law. Along with a lot more. So if you oppose me because I believe in those things you Paul Emery must be a commie/socialist and or an anarchist. Which is it?


Toes 203pm

I was gobsmacked a few minutes ago... it also brought Bret Stephens on board!!

"For Once, I’m Grateful for Trump

In the president, one big bully stands up to others."



Paul. Still better that the son of a bitch that took his place.

NOW,,, Trump is undoing all the Liberal damage that was done.
Trump has done better than Reagan!! Put that in your bong and smoke it.


Watch the old LIB kron get silenced.


Jeffpelline says:

October 4, 2018 at 6:16 am

I wonder if George Rebane knows how to spell “misogynism”?

Don’t know.....pretty sure he knows how to spell “Morbid Obesity” though.


Fish.. Don't get too close. His girth has it's own gravitational pull. A donut would sit in geosynchronous orbit at three feet.


All hail the Judge. He is now a GOD to all frat houses.
He and his friends invented BEER PONG!!!!

 Bill Tozer

@ 2:42 pm

Well, if there was anything in the FBI interview summaries, something would have been leaked by now. Loved how Scumbag Diane Crimescene was commenting this morning on a report she has not read. :)

No leaks, no nothing. That got their gluteal clefts so tight they can’t even boof.

Paul Emery

So Walt you are saying that the country was in better shape in '08 when Bush left than '16 when Obama left?

Paul Emery

I'm a Green Libertarian Todd.


,,,Local wannabe fiscal conservatives wouldn't know a fiscal conservative if it bit them on the ass!!


 Bill Tozer

How did I miss this one? Trump turns the tables, calls Senator Patrick Leahy “Patrick Leahy/drink”, lol. Guilty til proven innocent, right?


Senator Leahy responded to Trump’s implication that the current longest serving member of the Senate has a drinking problem with two redundant words, “Bogus, baloney.”, sweet.

Leahy sounds drunk to me. That Trump is something else.


You tell me! The ONLY reason things were "better" the day the prick you voted for left, was because Trump was already acting Presidential.
The economy was slightly better due to the Dakota oil fields, something "O" and the LIBS could not control. State and private land was being drilled on. And FRACKING! Capitalism thumped Proggyism

Then of course gun sales.. Millions upon millions SOLD... Thanks "O", My Ruger stocks thanked you.

You can keep kissing "O"'s ass Paul, all you like.
Your boy even tried to take credit for today's economy.. He got laughed off the stage.

Try again Paul,, your revisionism ain't working,, and your memory sucks worse than Ballsy Ford's.


LOL Dougy! "O" spent more than all Presidents combined. No need to go into details. We all know it.
Did your order show up?

Todd Juvinall

Paul Emery | 04 October 2018 at 03:28 PM

Green libertarian? What the hell is that? Do you have a manifesto? Tell us all your positions on what I listed for you as a generic Republican. Oh maybe there is no such thing as a green libertarian. Maybe that is only in your mind. Who is your mentor and political mentor?

 Bill Tozer

DACA: coming to a school room near you.



Posted by: ***M*** | 04 October 2018 at 03:34 PM

Anywhere between 6.8 and 10 trillion in debt added during the Obama administration!

On the plus side.....the price of adult diapers didn’t increase significantly.


Don Bessee


A top lawyer working with the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign contacted the FBI’s general counsel in late 2016 and provided documents for the Russia probe as federal investigators prepared a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page, sources close to a congressional investigation told Fox News, citing new testimony.
The FBI official who was contacted, James Baker, revealed the exchange to congressional investigators during a closed-door deposition Wednesday. He said Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann initiated contact with him and provided documents as well as computer storage devices on Russian hacking. The sources said Baker described the contact as unusual and the “only time it happened.”

Perkins Coie was a key player in the funding of the controversial anti-Trump dossier, which Republicans have long suspected helped fuel the FBI’s investigation. The DNC and Clinton campaign had hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS in April 2016, through Perkins Coie, to dig into Trump’s background. Fusion, in turn, paid British ex-spy Christopher Steele to compile the dossier, memos from which were shared with the FBI in the summer of 2016.



Don Bessee

Perhaps @ 457 it should be- COLLUSION! CONSPIRACY! COMEY! CLINTON!

Are you F&$((@ kidding!?!



Paul Emery

My mentor is Mother Earth Todd. Simple, don't rely on government, rely on your culture to do the right thing. If they don't and abuse to the earth is apparent that's when we have to rely on government and laws to insure survival of the earth which nurtures us and sustains the life we enjoy. That's just a start. Avoid political party's except when absolutely necessary. Encourage deadlock so one Party does not have control (that's why its important for the Dems to win the house). Neuter the power of the President so he becomes largely symbolic and not have much power. Go local for most government services. Encourage independent Charter Schools run by the parents, don't force inoculations without parental consent. Bring out troops home, don't be the police force of the world. I can go on and on. Read Ron Paul's "why we fight" concerning out foreign policy.

Here a link for a start . Read this then we can talk,



"Simple, don't rely on government, rely on your culture to do the right thing. "

Cool. So you want to pay for your own healthcare and approve of national borders in order to maintain a cohesive culture. Not so bad.

How do Green Libertarians feel about Cultural Marxism in modern universities?

It's none of my business, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a ton of opinions you can't state here in order to maintain friendly relationships with KVMR, etc. Spending the day fighting with Todd is a relatively safe pastime.

In other news, MAGA appears to be filling a lot of hearts lately.


"Republican enthusiasm surges amid Supreme Court battle"

Don Bessee

Snort, snigger, guffaws @ the pony tail of ignorance's comic stylings @ 544!


Paul Emery

Here is Ron Pauls essay Why We Fight for your reading pleasure

Why We Fight, and Why We Shouldn’t
by Ron Paul Posted on September 10, 2005

Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.” To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the war, to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver on the policy of nation building, no matter how ill-founded that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission, of which they so reverently speak, has changed constantly from the very beginning.

Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds were sown many years before. The actual military conflict, involving U.S. troops against Iraq, began in January 1991. The prelude to this actually dates back over a hundred years, when the value of Middle East oil was recognized by the industrialized West.

Our use of troops to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was the beginning of the current conflict with Muslim fundamentalists who have been, for the last decade, determined to force the removal of American troops from all Muslim countries – especially the entire Arabian Peninsula, which they consider holy. Though the strategic and historic reasons for our involvement in the Middle East are complex, the immediate reasons given in 2002 and 2003 for our invasion of Iraq were precise. The only problem is they were not based on facts.

The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This reflected a dramatic shift in our policy, since in the 1980s we maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah. Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapons technology. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and Shi’ites, or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed now for over a hundred years.

In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neoconservatives as justification for the preemptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq. This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people, since the victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign policy of humility, no nation building, reduced deployment of our forces overseas, and a rejection of the notion that we serve as world policemen. The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq and restructuring the entire Middle East. Though the plan had existed for years, it quickly was recognized that the fear engendered by the 9/11 attacks could be used to mobilize the American people and Congress to support this war. Nevertheless, supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the already planned preemptive war, and as we now know the “intelligence had to be fixed to the policy.”

Immediately after 9/11 the American people were led to believe that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible for the attacks. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not friends, was kept from the public by a compliant media and a lazy Congress. Even today many Americans still are convinced of an alliance between the two. The truth is Saddam Hussein never permitted al-Qaeda into Iraq out of fear that his secular government would be challenged. And yet today we find that al-Qaeda is now very much present in Iraq, and causing chaos there.

The administration repeatedly pumped out alarming propaganda that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us with his weapons of mass destruction, meaning nuclear, biological, and chemical. Since we helped Saddam Hussein obtain biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s, we assumed that he had maintained a large supply – which of course turned out not to be true. The people, frightened by 9/11, easily accepted these fear-mongering charges.

Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel’s influence on our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for years, along with the neoconservatives, for an Iraqi regime change. This support was nicely coordinated with the Christian Zionists’ enthusiasm for the war.

As these reasons for the war lost credibility and support, other reasons were found for why we had to fight. As the lone superpower, we were told we had a greater responsibility to settle the problems of the world lest someone else gets involved. Maintaining and expanding our empire is a key element of the neoconservative philosophy. This notion that we must fight to spread American goodness was well received by these neo-Jacobins. They saw the war as a legitimate moral crusade, arguing that no one should be allowed to stand in our way! In their minds using force to spread democracy is legitimate and necessary.

We also were told the war was necessary for national security purposes because of the threat Saddam Hussein presented, although the evidence was fabricated. Saddam Hussein’s ability to attack us was nonexistent, but the American people were ripe for alarming predictions by those who wanted this war.

Of course the routine canard for our need to fight, finance, and meddle around the world ever since the Korean War was repeated incessantly: UN Resolutions had to be enforced lest the United Nations be discredited. The odd thing was that on this occasion the United Nations itself did everything possible to stop our preemptive attack. And as it turned out, Saddam Hussein was a lot closer to compliance than anyone dreamed. It wasn’t long before concern for the threat of Saddam Hussein became near hysterical, drowning out any reasoned opposition to the planned war.

The one argument that was not publicly used by those who propagandized for the war may well be the most important – oil. Though the administration in 1990 hinted briefly that we had to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait because of oil, the stated reasons for that conflict soon transformed into stopping a potential Hitler and enforcing UN resolutions.

Publicly oil is not talked about very much, but behind the scenes many acknowledge this is the real reason we fight. This is not only the politicians who say this. American consumers have always enjoyed cheap gasoline and want it kept that way. The real irony is that the war has reduced Iraqi oil production by one-half million barrels per day and prices are soaring – demonstrating another unintended economic consequence of war.

Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the industrial revolution, when it was realized that the black substance bubbling out of the ground in places like Iraq had great value. It’s interesting to note that in the early 20th century Germany, fully aware of oil’s importance, allied itself with the Turkish Ottoman Empire and secured the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil. They built the Anatalia railroad between Baghdad and Basra, and obtained oil and mineral rights on twenty kilometers on each side of this right-of-way. World War I changed all this, allowing the French and the British to divide the oil wealth of the entire Middle East.

The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it wasn’t long before American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in the control of Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq. After WWI, the British generals upon arriving to secure “their” oil said: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” Not long afterward a jihad was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave. The more things change, the more they stay the same! Too bad we are not better at studying history.

After World War II the U.S. emerged as the #1 world power, and moved to assume what some believed was our responsibility to control Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh from power in Iran and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet.

We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, we also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s – aggravating the situation in the Middle East and causing unintended consequences. With CIA assistance we helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets. We even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967 – which today leads us to threaten another war. All of this has come back to haunt us. Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences.

Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neoconservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October 2002 to be rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United States government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this time. By October the vote was deemed urgent, so as to embarrass anyone who opposed it. This would make them politically vulnerable in the November election. The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of proponents of war in the November election.

The resolution, HJ RES 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granted the President to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons:

1. “To defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq”

2. “Enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Many other reasons were given to stir the emotions of the American public and the U.S. Congress, reasons that were grossly misleading and found not to be true. The pretense of a legal justification was a sham.

The fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to transfer the war power to a president was ignored. Only Congress can declare war, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law. To add insult to injury, HJ RES 114 cited United Nations resolutions as justifications for the war. Ignoring the Constitution while using the UN to justify the war showed callous disregard for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution. The authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter without legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of the hands of the executive branch. Surely they never dreamed an international government would have influence over our foreign policy or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict.

The legal maneuvering to permit this war was tragic to watch, but the notion that Saddam Hussein – a third world punk without an air force, navy, and hardly an army or any anti-aircraft weaponry – was an outright threat to the United States six thousand miles away, tells you how hysterical fear can be used to pursue a policy of needless war for quite different reasons.

Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been discredited, and are no longer used to justify continuing the war. Now we are told we must “complete the mission,” and yet no one seems to know exactly what the mission is or when it can be achieved. By contrast, when war is properly declared against a country we can expect an all-out effort until the country surrenders. Without a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, it’s left to the President to decide when to start the war and when the war is over. We had sad experiences with this process in Korea and especially in Vietnam.

Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die. We’re told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government – and women, Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer.

Thankfully, our founding fathers understood the great dangers of a democracy. They insisted on a constitutional republic with a weak central government and an executive branch beholden to the legislative branch in foreign affairs. The sooner we realize we can’t afford this war the better. We’ve gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic community.

But could it be, as it had been for over a hundred years prior to our invasion, that oil really is the driving issue behind a foreign presence in the Middle East? It’s rather ironic that the consequence of our intervention has been skyrocketing oil prices, with Iraqi oil production still significantly below pre-war levels.

If democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be, and a war for oil is blatantly immoral and unproductive, the question still remains – why do we fight? More precisely, why should we fight? When is enough killing enough? Why does man so casually accept war, which brings so much suffering to so many, when so little is achieved? Why do those who suffer and die so willingly accept the excuses for the wars that need not be fought? Why do so many defer to those who are enthused about war, and who claim it’s a solution to a problem, without asking them why they themselves do not fight? It’s always other men and other men’s children who must sacrifice life and limb for the reasons that make no sense, reasons that are said to be our patriotic duty to fight and die for. How many useless wars have been fought for lies that deserved no hearing? When will it all end?

Why We Should Not Fight

Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight, it might be better to talk about why we should not fight. A case can be made that if this war does not end soon it will spread and engulf the entire region. We’ve already been warned that war against Iran is an option that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than those given for the preemptive strike against Iraq. Let me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be fought.

It is not in our national interest. On the contrary, pursuing this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us free reign over the entire Middle East and its oil? Tragically, we’re setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It’s possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than Vietnam.

This war has never been declared. It’s not a constitutional war, and without a proper beginning there can be no proper ending. The vagueness instills doubts in all Americans, both supporters and non-supporters, as to what will be accomplished. Supporters of the war want total victory, which is not achievable with a vague mission. Now the majority of Americans are demanding an end to this dragged-out war that many fear will spread before it’s over.

It’s virtually impossible to beat a determined guerrilla resistance to a foreign occupying force. After 30 years the Vietnam guerillas, following unbelievable suffering, succeeded in forcing all foreign troops from their homeland. History shows that Iraqi Muslims have always been determined to resist any foreign power on their soil. We ignored that history and learned nothing from Vietnam. How many lives, theirs and ours, are worth losing to prove the tenacity of guerilla fighters supported by a large number of local citizens?

Those who argue that it’s legitimate to protect “our oil” someday must realize that it’s not our oil, no matter how strong and sophisticated our military is. We know the war so far has played havoc with oil prices, and the market continues to discount problems in the region for years to come. No end is in sight regarding the uncertainty of Middle East oil production caused by this conflict.

So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the development of an Islamic state, with Iranian-allied Shi’ites in charge. This has led to Iranian support for the insurgents, and has placed Iran in a position of becoming the true victor in this war as its alliance with Iraq grows. This could place Iran and its allies in the enviable position of becoming the oil powerhouse in the region, if not the world, once it has control over the oil fields near Basra.

This unintended alliance with Iran, plus the benefit to Osama bin Laden’s recruiting efforts, will in the end increase the danger to Israel by rallying the Arab and Muslim people against us.

One of the original stated justifications for the war has been accomplished. Since 1998 the stated policy of the United States government was to bring about regime change and get rid of Saddam Hussein. This has been done, but instead of peace and stability we have sown the seeds of chaos. Nevertheless, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein has been achieved and is a reason to stop the fighting.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological or chemical or nuclear weapons, so we can be assured the Iraqis pose no threat to anyone, certainly not to the United States.

No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the war, and ironically our presence there is now encouraging al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to move in to fill the vacuum we created. The only relationship between Iraq and 9/11 is that our policy in the Middle East continues to increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

We should not fight because it’s simply not worth it. What are we going to get for nearly 2,000 soldier deaths and 20 thousand severe casualties? Was the $350 billion worth it? This is a cost that will be passed on to future generations through an expanded national debt. I’ll bet most Americans can think of a lot better ways to have spent this money. Today’s program of guns and butter will be more damaging to our economy than a similar program was in the 1960s, which gave us the stagflation of the 1970s. The economic imbalances today are much greater than they were in those decades.

Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote. Democracy, where the majority dictates the rules, cannot protect minorities and individual rights. And in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21st century to impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized.

It boils down to the fact that we don’t really have any sound reasons for continuing this fight. The original reasons for the war never existed, and the new reasons aren’t credible. We hear only that we must carry on so those who have already suffered death and injury didn’t do so in vain. If the original reasons for starting the war were false, simply continuing in the name of those fallen makes no sense. More loss of life can never justify earlier loss of life if they died for false reasons. This being the case, it’s time to reassess the policies that have gotten us into this mess.

What does all this mean?

The mess we face in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and the threat of terrorism within our own borders, are not a result of the policies of this administration alone. Problems have been building for many years, and have only gotten much worse with our most recent policy of forcibly imposing regime change in Iraq. We must recognize that the stalemate in Korea, the loss in Vietnam, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan all result from the same flawed foreign policy of interventionism that our government has pursued for over 100 years. It would be overly simplistic to say the current administration alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq.

By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the admonitions against entangling alliances and nation building. Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the Constitution doesn’t permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security.

The consensus on foreign interventionism has been pervasive. Both major parties have come to accept our role as the world’s policeman, despite periodic campaign rhetoric stating otherwise. The media in particular, especially in the early stages, propagandize in favor of war. It’s only when the costs become prohibitive and the war loses popular support that the media criticize the effort.

It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door.

Congress at any time can prevent or stop all undue foreign entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by refusing to finance them. The current Iraq war, now going on for 15 years, spans the administration of three presidents and many congresses controlled by both parties. This makes Congress every bit as responsible for the current quagmire as the president. But the real problem is the acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national security. Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs and comes back to haunt us. Minding our own business is not only economical; it’s the only policy that serves our national security interests and the cause of peace.

The neoconservatives who want to remake the entire Middle East are not interested in the pertinent history of this region. Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country was like mixing water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger, and hostilities – with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorships. The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each region, or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist central authority is never considered – yet it is the only answer to the difficult political problems this area faces. The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and the Shi’ites in the 1990s served those regions well, and no suicide terrorism existed during that decade.

The claim that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq would cause chaos is not proven. It didn’t happen in Vietnam or even Somalia. Even today, the militias of the Kurds and the Shi’ites may well be able to maintain order in their regions much better than we can currently. Certainly the Sunnis can take care of themselves, and it might be in their best interests for all three groups not to fight each other when we leave. One thing for sure: if we left no more young Americans would have to die for an indefinable cause.

Instead, we have been forcing on the people of Iraq a type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an Islamic state under Sharia’ law. Already we read stories of barbers no longer being safe shaving beards; Christians are threatened and forced to leave the country; and burqas are returning out of fear. Unemployment is over 50%, and oil production is still significantly below pre-war levels. These results are not worth fighting and dying for.

In this war, like all others, the propagandists and promoters themselves don’t fight, nor do their children. It’s always worth the effort to wage war when others must suffer and die. Many of those who today pump the nation up with war fever were nowhere to be found when their numbers were called in the 1960s – when previous presidents and Congresses thought so little about sending young men off to war. Then it was in their best interests to find more important things to do – despite the so-called equalizing draft.

The inability of taxpayers to fund both guns-and-butter has not deterred those who smell the glory of war. Notoriously, great nations fall once their appetite for foreign domination outstrips their citizens’ ability or willingness to pay. We tried the guns-and-butter approach in the 1960s with bad results, and the same will happen again as a consequence of the current political decision not to cut back on any expenditure, domestic or foreign. Veto nothing is current policy! Tax, borrow, and print to pay the bills is today’s conventional wisdom. The problem is that all the bills eventually must be paid. There’s no free lunch, and no free war. The economic consequences of such a policy are well known and documented. Excessive spending leads to excessive deficits, higher taxes, and more borrowing and inflation – which spells economic problems that always clobber the middle class and the poor.

Already the suffering has begun. A lackluster recovery, low paying jobs, outsourcing, and social unrest already are apparent. This economic price we pay, along with the human suffering, is an extravagant price for a war that was started with false information and now is prolonged for reasons unrelated to our national security.

This policy has led to excessive spending overseas and neglect at home. It invites enemies to attack us, and drains the resources needed to defend our homeland and care for our own people. We are obligated to learn something from the tragedy of Katrina about the misallocation of funds away from our infrastructure to the rebuilding of Iraq after first destroying it. If ever there was a time for us to reassess our policy of foreign interventionism, it is today. It’s time to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs of our people, and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in our image through the use of force. These efforts not only are doomed to fail, as they have for the past one hundred years, but they invite economic and strategic military problems that are harmful to our national security interests.

We’ve been told that we must fight to protect our freedoms here at home. These reasons are given to make the sacrifices more tolerable and noble. Without an honorable cause, the suffering becomes intolerable. Hiding from the truth, though, in the end is no panacea for a war that promises no peace.

The most important misjudgment regarding Iraq that must be dealt with is the charge that Muslim terrorists attack us out of envy for our freedoms, our prosperity, and our way of life. There is no evidence this is the case. On the contrary, those who have extensively researched this issue conclude that the #1 reason suicide terrorists attack anywhere in the world is because their land is occupied by a foreign military power. Pretending otherwise and constantly expanding our military presence in more Arab and Muslim countries as we have since 1990 has only increased the danger of more attacks on our soil, as well as in those countries that have allied themselves with us. If we deny this truth we do so at our own peril.

It’s not unusual for the war crusaders to condemn those who speak the truth in an effort to end an unnecessary war. They claim those who want honest reasons for the enormous sacrifice are unpatriotic and un-American, but these charges only serve to exacerbate the social unrest. Any criticism of policy, no matter how flawed the policy is, is said to be motivated by a lack of support for the troops. Yet it is preposterous to suggest that a policy that would have spared the lives of 1900 servicemen and women lacks concern for the well being of our troops. The absence of good reasoning to pursue this war prompts the supporters of the war to demonize the skeptics and critics. They have no other defense.

Those who want to continue this war accuse those who lost loved ones in Iraq, and oppose the war, of using the dead for personal political gain. But what do the war proponents do when they claim the reason we must fight on is to honor the sacrifice of the military personnel we lost by completing the mission? The big difference is that one group argues for saving lives, while the other justifies more killing. And by that logic, the additional deaths will require even more killing to make sure they too have not died in vain. Therefore, the greater number who have died, the greater is the motivation to complete the mission. This defies logic. This argument to persevere has been used throughout history to continue wars that could and should have ended much sooner. This was true for World War I and Vietnam.

A sad realism struck me recently reading how our Marines in Afghanistan must now rely on donkey transportation in their efforts at nation building and military occupation. Evidently the Taliban is alive and well, as Osama bin Laden remains in this region. But doesn’t this tell us something about our naïve assumption that our economic advantages and technical knowledge can subdue and control anybody? We’re traversing Afghan mountains on donkeys, and losing lives daily in Baghdad with homemade primitive bombs. Our power and dominance clearly is limited by the determination of those who see us as occupiers, proving that just more money and sophisticated weapons won’t bring us victory. Sophisticated weapons and the use of unlimited military power is no substitute for diplomacy designed to promote peace while reserving force only for defending our national interests.

Changing our policy of meddling in the affairs of others won’t come quickly or easily. But a few signals to indicate a change in our attitude would go a long way to bringing peace to a troubled land.

1. We must soon, and Congress can do this through the budget process, stop the construction of all permanent bases in Iraq and any other Muslim country in the region. Think of how we would react if the Chinese had the military edge on us and laid claims to the Gulf of Mexico, building bases within the U.S. in order to promote their superior way of life. Isn’t it ironic that we close down bases here at home while building new ones overseas? Domestic bases might well promote security, while bases in Muslim nations only elicit more hatred toward us.

2. The plans for the biggest U.S. embassy in the world, costing nearly 1 billion dollars, must be canceled. This structure in Baghdad sends a message, like the military bases being built, that we expect to be in Iraq and running Iraq for a long time to come.

3. All military forces, especially on the Arabian Peninsula, must be moved offshore at the earliest time possible. All responsibility for security and control of the oil must be transferred to the Iraqis from the United States as soon as possible, within months not years.

The time will come when our policies dealing with foreign affairs will change for the better. But that will be because we can no longer afford the extravagance of war. This will occur when the American people realize that war causes too much suffering here at home, and the benefits of peace again become attractive to us all. Part of this recognition will involve a big drop in the value of the dollar, higher interest rates, and rampant price inflation.

Though these problems are serious and threaten our freedoms and way of life, there’s every reason to work for the traditional constitutional foreign policy that promotes peace over war, while not being tempted to mold the world in our image through force. We should not forget that what we did not achieve by military force in Vietnam, was essentially achieved with the peace that came from our military failure and withdrawal of our armed forces. Today, through trade and peace, U.S. investment and economic cooperation has westernized Vietnam far more than our military efforts.

We must remember initiating force to impose our will on others negates all the goodness for which we profess to stand. We cannot be fighting to secure our freedom if we impose laws like the Patriot Act and a national ID card on the American people.

Unfortunately, we have lost faith and confidence in the system of government with which we have been blessed. Today too many Americans support, at least in the early stages, the use of force to spread our message of hope and freedom. They too often are confused by the rhetoric that our armies are needed to spread American goodness. Using force injudiciously, instead of spreading the worthy message of American freedom through peaceful means, antagonizes our enemies, alienates our allies, and threatens personal liberties here at home while burdening our economy.

If confidence can be restored in our American traditions of peace and trade, our influence throughout the world would be enhanced just as it was once we rejected the military approach in Vietnam.

This change in policy can come easily once the people of this country decide that there is a better way to conduct ourselves throughout the world. Whenever the people turn against war as a tool to promote certain beliefs, the war ceases. That’s what we need today. Then we can get down to the business of setting an example of how peace and freedom brings prosperity in an atmosphere that allows for excellence and virtue to thrive.

A powerful bureaucratic military state negates all efforts to preserve these conditions that have served America so well up until recent times. That is not what the American dream is all about. Without a change in attitude, the American dream dies: a simple change that restates the principles of liberty enshrined in our Constitution will serve us well in solving all the problems we face. The American people are up to the task; I hope Congress is as well.


"My mentor is Mother Earth" YUP!!! Paul started smoking dope.
He ate the whole damned weed bar. It's supposed to get you through a few days. But Nope, chowed it down at one sitting.
You gotta be pretty spun to come up with a line like that.
Now can you tell us what she really said? Was it a good conversation? Did she tell you that id she could live through the dinosaurs, and freezing her tits off more than once, she can handle humans without a care? She will keep right on spinning LONG after you dead, gone, and forgotten.
You forget that Mamma Earth is one stone cold bitch. It's kill or be killed. Law of the jungle rules supreme.
If you were any other critter, you would be another's dinner. Just a matter of time.
She tell you that too?
I hope she tells you to adapt or DIE. The choice is yours.

Don Bessee

Talk about manspreading @ 607. Brevity has its own value!



And you question why he didn't get elected.
Thanks for showing us why.



Now the principals are denying it.


Dunno what the truth is. Lacking open source hardware and some sort of trusted supply chain it's a problem that will grow. God knows what the 17 US intelligence agencies have buried in existing chips, commercial software, and communications infrastructure. It's for the children of course.

Todd Juvinall

Sp Paul Emery 's mentor is Mother Nature. Thought so. And he has a man Name Paul as his manifesto? Mental illness. Seek help.


But, but,,, the female sex doesn't lie. They must be believed. According to Proggys.
While “Mean Girls Day” is being marked Wednesday in reference to a mention of Oct. 3 in the popular 2004 cult movie, the parents of a former Seneca Valley High School student claim in a federal lawsuit filed this week that their teenage son was terrorized by false accusations made by five “mean girls” at the school.

Michael J. and Alecia Flood of Zelienople, Butler County, the parents of a teenage boy identified in the lawsuit as T.F., seek unspecified civil damages against the girls’ parents, the school district and Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger’s office. The lawsuit, which includes the term “mean girls,” alleges they “conspired in person and via electronic communication devices to falsely accuse T.F. of sexual assault on two occasions.”


They got believed. Now I hope they get the book thrown at them.


Ron Paul on Medicare:

Ron Paul on the 17 intelligence agencies:

Ron Paul on Roe v. Wade:

Paul Emery

What does this mean to you Todd?

"Men come and go but Earth abides"



Paul is changing religions again.


Paul!,,, See the polls? I can see why you don't want to bring that up. Yes, it's tough to even speak of what's going on today, hence your trip into idiot land.
No a bit of good news for Proggys. Except the repeal of that fuel tax.. Good news for you on that. Enjoy those gigs out of town and feel real good about the money your giving to the state. You can pass the time patting yourself on the back thinking about it.

Paul Emery

Walt writes "No a bit of good news for Proggys."

What's a Proggy Walt? Tried googling it and got references to Progressive Rock. What does that have to do with the conversation? Are you saying "No a bit of good news for Progressive Rockers?. What does Progressive rock have to do with this conversation?


OK true believers,, you say AGW is real. Well,, where is the extra heat? Gotta have it to generate twisters. The trend is supposed to go up if AGW was here and now. So we await the stutters or just good old crickets.

Paul Emery


What does this mean to you ? I'm speaking your language by quoting the bible.

"Men come and go but Earth abides"



I'm sure you can figure it out Paul. Ask your "explain it" app.
You can always ask your other members. Dougy and Bobby.
I'm not your mamma to explain the facts of life and politics to you.

Todd Juvinall

So Paul Emery is now a Christian? WOW! I thought you were a goat sacrificing deist!

Rand Paul is your GOD as well. You are one mentally ill man.


How bout the Judge being cleared by the FBI?
You still in the guilty till proven innocent camp?
Come on Paul,, Come back to reality.

 Bill Tozer

From the Encyclopedia of Worthless Information:

—Corey Spartaclurtz Booker’s high school yearbook reveals his nickname was “Sugar”. Oh Sugar. What’s up, Sugar? How you doing, Sugar? Hmmm. Hey, wasn’t cocaine known as ‘Sugar’ back in the days when Spartacluz was in high school?

—Senator Flake was born in Snowflake, Arizona....a town named after his great great grandfather, Mr. Flake.

—Fat stupid people should not breed...as if they could, try as they may.

“A few minutes ago, Trump gave us a preview of the state of emergency he is creating to justify the end of democracy as we know it. RESIST!” —Michael Moore on yesterday’s FEMA emergency alert test

Paul Emery

Never claimed to be a Christian Todd. Used a quote from the Bible which is your spiritual inspiration and was wondering what your interpretation of the quote is. give it a go. It's your spiritual document.

Don Bessee

Just a po' ol' change up with a why, why, why and a layer throwing an out of context Bible quote that he does not believe in. What a typical pony tail of ignorance game. It must work for him in the bars.



Todd Juvinall

Here is my response to the Don Rogers defense of Ms. Ford.

"I want to thank the left and democrats for this mess. It has energized the right and if held constant we may retain the Congress. It used to be the R's would screw things up and lose a sure thing. Now the mantle is headed over to the left. If a person looks at the timeline on this fiasco and smear of a good man, you see it is the democrats in the drivers seat. The Judge was believable and I say he is totally innocent. Ford is not telling the truth. Sorry but her account is bogus and even her friends say it never happened. Men have become neutered, well, some men, and I suppose that may get them a kudo from the girls but there are many women that say Ford's claim is bogus. And they prefer their men to be real men. Not pink hat wearing girlie-men."

Todd Juvinall

Paul Emery, you quote a Bible you don't believe as a chastisement to those that do. That is a true mentally ill thing to do. You are a pagan and in need of help. Please seek some.

The comments to this entry are closed.