Spaceballs Can Teach Us A Lot About The Current State of the RNC

Well…What DO we got?

To answer in short– a hell of a lot.

The problem is that there are a bunch of spineless wimps running the RNC. They don’t understand that the DNC is willing to do ANYTHING, lie, cheat, steal to get their people elected. All we have to do is hit them with the TRUTH– but when you’re a democrat, the TRUTH is ugly and hurts like a sonofabitch– in fact, any truth telling is considered an all-out assault against them–like a cross against a vampire. The RNC, though, always wants to play “nice.” They don’t want to go into the gutter– but at the same time, they don’t realize that they don’t have to go in the gutter– they just need to tell the TRUTH. Until they realize that, we’re in for a long, upward battle. Like During WWII, which was ended with the dropping of two atomic bombs, the simple telling of the TRUTH are the atomic bombs the Republicans have in their arsenal that for some reason known but to God they are unwilling to use!

For Heaven’s sake, they won’t even allow two conservative superstars, Sarah Palin and Colonel Allen West- to speak at the convention!

With the dismal outcomes of Obama’s empty promises he made in 2008, his administration’s direct connection to the murder of Brian Terry, his squandering of our taxpayer dollars for no other reason than to benefit his Union and “green job” campaign benefactors, his stonewalling on energy, his total irreverence for the First Amendment and freedom of Religion and of conscience; his de facto increase in the size of the Dependency Class in America; his administration’s extended use of drone technology to target American citizens; his administration’s selective administration of the law (i.e., their refusal to prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation case); not to mention his wholesale complicity with the destruction of the unborn; we not only have a Cuisinart- we have the most powerful weapon known to man on our side–the TRUTH– and it’s high time the RNC uses it.

86 thoughts on “Spaceballs Can Teach Us A Lot About The Current State of the RNC

  1. Cluster August 15, 2012 / 1:07 pm

    Leo, take heed. I believe you will see Romney and Ryan take the gloves off, and I think you are starting to see it. Romney was pretty ruthless with Newt during the primary, and I think we can expect that to increase threefold with Obama soon. Timing is everything, and there is still time to expose the truth for all to see. Currently, America is seeing just how nasty and divisive the Democrats can be, and what’s ironic is that democrats will be the first ones to tell everyone that independents are turned off by political attacks, that of course excludes them in their mind – but it doesn’t. Let Obama dig his own grave, and then when he realizes that those efforts were all for naught, Romney and Ryan will unveil the truth of his ideology and how that has hurt America.

    Incidentally, I consider Allan West to be a rising star, but would prefer that Palin retire. In my opinion, Palin is all about Palin.

  2. Cluster August 15, 2012 / 1:14 pm

    Leo, the timing of your thread could not have been better. Democrats are now trying to hide the truth:

    Some Democratic lawmakers want to make sure that one question does not get asked at the upcoming first presidential debate – about Simpson-Bowles.

    Read more:

  3. Count d'Haricots August 15, 2012 / 1:45 pm

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell

    • neocon1 August 15, 2012 / 2:04 pm

      You do not bring pillows to a knife fight with the Hells Angles, then only you fight by the queens bury rules…

      • neocon1 August 15, 2012 / 2:06 pm

        For Heaven’s sake, they won’t even allow two conservative superstars, Sarah Palin and Colonel Allen West- to speak at the convention!

        yeah but the joisey loudmouth RINO is the keynote speaker….

        THIRD party, TEA time.

      • Count d'Haricots August 15, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        I believe that’s “Queensberry” neo. but we get your point.

  4. Leo Pusateri August 15, 2012 / 2:13 pm

    I hear you guys. It all brings me back to that Limbaugh bit when Larry King interviews Ken Starr and James Carville, when Carville accuses Starr and forces him to defend allegations of his being from Mars, flying around in spaceships and feeding kids cigarettes-

  5. doug August 15, 2012 / 2:55 pm

    The RNC is betting that by taking the most powerful tea party member out of congress and putting him in one of the least powerful of positions that the conservatives will believe their lip service and will turn out to vote for Romney. It’s an RNC power grab away from true conservatives and the moderate suburban type Rinos who control the blogs and media are obliging.

    • Bardolf August 15, 2012 / 9:25 pm

      This is an interesting point of view. Where did younhear about that possibility?

  6. Cluster August 15, 2012 / 3:10 pm

    I am sure I am late to the party on this one, but I think I know our problem:

    ‘Folks, where’s it written we cannot lead the world in the 20th century in making automobiles?,” said Joe Biden.

    Our current President and Vice President have sh*t for brains.


    You are the furthest thing from a true conservative, not too mention having really nothing of value to add.

    • Count d'Haricots August 15, 2012 / 4:04 pm


      Is this poseur still on about “Establishment Republicans” picking Romney?

      Someone should send him the DNC talking points for August; he’s about 4 months past his prime with this sad meme.

      Next he’ll be spinning the “Romney can’t get more than 25%” story. Remember that one? Just about as successful as the “establishment” ploy.


      • Cluster August 15, 2012 / 4:48 pm

        Oh yea, and doug wants us all to believe that he is a concerned conservative! They are so transparent.

      • doug August 16, 2012 / 3:48 pm

        Cluster, there is a difference between a conservative and a Republican, between a libertarian and a conservative. A conservative would not vote for someone like Bill Clinton. A Republican just might.

        A Republican could very easilly vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries, a Conservative would not.

        A Republican would like to work for the apparatus of the Federal Government to be in control by the GOP, a Conservative recognizes that if the GOP controlled the federal government, that GOP would do what is necessary to retain power, even if that means advancing non-conservative principles.

        The solution is of course to have the conservatives control the GOP then have the GOP control the federal government. The only problem with that is that the GOP establishment recognizes that if the conservatives control the federal government they would most certainly not do what is necessary to stay in power – that is to advance non-conservative principles.

        Hence, we are currently in a situation where the GOP establishment is trying to wrest away control of the GOP from the conservatives while not risking losing their votes.

        We no longer can afford for the federal government to get bigger, yet our current GOP promises for it to continue to grow, yes, even the vaunted Ryan plan has our federal government growing, but that is okay for the GOP, just as long as they are the ones controlling that growth.

      • Retired Spook August 16, 2012 / 4:36 pm

        The only problem with that is that the GOP establishment recognizes that if the conservatives control the federal government they would most certainly not do what is necessary to stay in power – that is to advance non-conservative principles.

        Doug, I’m sure there are some in the GOP establishment who view it that way. I would submit that, if the Conservative wing of the GOP were to get control of the White House and working control of Congress for 2 presidential terms, and apply true conservative principles to governance, there would never be a need to resort to non-conservative principles to maintain power. To the best of my knowledge, it’s only been tried once; in the 1920’s. In spite of a deep depression in 1920-21, Harding and Coolidge utilized a hands off economic policy, cutting both spending and taxes substantially. Real annual GNP growth for the decade 1920-1929 (including 2 years of depression) averaged 4.2%, and, despite the depression, the country was back to full employment by 1923. Now that might not work in modern times, but I’d sure like to see it given a try, because what we’re doing now ain’t working. And I think you’d be hard-pressed to find an electable team that has the knowledge and skills to pull that off better than Romney and Ryan.

  7. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J August 15, 2012 / 3:20 pm

    From Gallup: “Vice presidential picks typically enjoy a lopsidedly positive reaction from Americans when they are first tapped to be on a presidential ticket. However, that doesn’t apply to Ryan, likely owing to his leading role in authoring major conservative alternatives to President Obama’s policies on healthcare and the federal budget — plans that elicited significant Democratic criticism and pushback.

    Still, Ryan appears to have two important things working in his favor at this point: 1) relatively strong support from Republicans, with about four in 10 evidently excited about him as an “excellent” choice for vice president; and 2) relatively low name ID nationally. This gives the Romney campaign a valuable opportunity to introduce Ryan to voters as his visibility skyrockets. Of course, this advantage could also become a disadvantage if the Obama campaign is able to define Ryan first in less flattering terms.”

      • Cluster August 15, 2012 / 3:32 pm

        Oh and I agree. And again, here’s Obama’s plan:

      • Caveat Emptor, Role Playing with an emphasis on the "Play" Part August 15, 2012 / 4:08 pm

        Cluster Cavalor when he gets another 20% I’m sure the Obama campaign Romney will be concerned. In an effort to inform voters we’re staying away from polls this far out.

  8. Cluster August 15, 2012 / 3:34 pm

    Well obviously the judge is racist:

    And then the Governor has the gall to say this:

    “We will continue our outreach efforts to make sure all legal Pennsylvania voters know about the law, and know how to get a free ID to vote if needed.”

    Making sure that legal citizens know how obtain a FREE state issued ID?? What a heartless bastard.

    • Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J August 15, 2012 / 3:42 pm

      I feel the jusge Robert Simpson made a very well educated decision under the law. And now on to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

      • Caveat Emptor, I'm A Demon! Not a pathetic adolescent with no Social Skills living in Mom's Basement. August 15, 2012 / 4:13 pm

        On to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where, obviously, they’re not bound by making decisions “under the law“!

    • Count d'Haricots August 15, 2012 / 7:06 pm


      They’ve always been violent!

      “- A man suspected of shooting and wounding a security guard in the lobby of a Christian lobbying group had been volunteering at a community center for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

      Don’t you see Cluster? You have no right to disagree with these people! They are entitled to take violent actions.

      Meanwhile, in Ohio a group of white ruffians jumped and severely beat a black man because they were “bored”. The victim, picked solely based on skin color, was first beaten with a baseball bat, then, while unconscious was kicked, beat and left for dead by a wild pack of 13 and 14 year old white thugs.

      The mother of two of the perpetrators, Latasha Alford said “peer pressure” played a role in the senseless racist attack.

      Wait … that’s not quite right … the criminals were all black, the innocent victim was white.

      Now the world makes sense again.

      A group of disadvantaged children, with no options or hope for their future because of the oppressive society that punishes people for ethnic reasons lashed out at the first randomly selected person, who happened ~ purely coincidentally ~ to be white.

      • Cluster August 15, 2012 / 7:32 pm

        You’re right Count – what was I thinking? And you know what, that white guy deserved it! He probably asked them to show ID.

  9. Cluster August 15, 2012 / 5:39 pm

    Well this just in, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone but Michelle Obama is a racist.

    The future first lady justified her demands for more black and female law school faculty by attacking the “traditional model,” in which law students were educated through the Socratic method. She also opposed the traditional meritocratic hiring principle, where professors with better legal pedigrees were more often hired, arguing that it limited the success of women and blacks.

    Is she actually saying that women and blacks are incapable of being hired on merit??


    Full essay here:

    How many here are completely nauseated by the Obama’s, the Biden’s, and basically every progressive that ever walked the planet. Show of hands please.

    • Jeremiah August 15, 2012 / 6:07 pm

      The Obama’s, Biden’s, and every progressive, every progressive liberal ***hat that ever walked the face of the earth are truly sick people.
      I hope Obummer likes his new house in 2013; I hope he’s sittin’ in a prison cell for treason somewhere.

      • patriotdad1 August 15, 2012 / 9:16 pm

        What would you say is the most likely basis for any possible treason charge?

      • Retired Spook August 15, 2012 / 10:19 pm

        What would you say is the most likely basis for any possible treason charge?

        Leaking quite a bit of incredibly highly classified information to the NYT for starters. Had I leaked something a tenth as sensitive back in the 70’s and 80’s, I’d still be in Leavenworth.

    • Amazona August 15, 2012 / 7:57 pm

      Cluster, I share your opinion of the true ideologue Leftist, but so many who support the Left do so in complete ignorance of the ideology, merely caught up in the fantasy paradigm of Liberal=Good, Conservative=Bad.

      So I don’t lump them all together.

      This is why I think we need to focus on ideology, so well-meaning people can be brought to the realization that the demographic they have been told represents hate and intolerance and greed really only represents the most simple and basic foundational American conviction—that the United States Constitution is the best way to govern our nation.

      The Left has been brilliant at adding all sorts of non-political connotations to the term “conservative”, and we have helped them, with the recent demand that to be a Conservative you have to share all of a specific set of social values.

      This is like telling people “If you believe in the Constitution but also think gay people should be allowed to call their unions marriage then we just don’t want your vote or anything to do with you.” We have gone along with conflating opinions, emotions and issues with the basic definition of politics and in so doing have made a lie of the once-true statement that the GOP is a big tent.

      We have started refining our criteria of who can come into that tent, and in so doing have given the Left plenty of ammunition to use to make the case that conservatism is only for religious Christians who hate abortion, etc.

      And now we are dancing to their tune again, painting all who vote Dem with a broad brush and defining them as despicable.

      • Cluster August 15, 2012 / 8:54 pm

        I am with you Amazona, however (a nice way of saying but), I am so tired of liberal dishonesty and over emotional rhetoric that someone has to call these assholes out. Dennis Miller was just on the factor and said that he hopes Chris Christie comes out and throws down the gauntlet during his key note address at the convention and I agree 100%.

        I am tired of constantly having to defend myself against baseless accusations. We are not racists, we are not anti gay, we are not anti poor, etc, etc, and those people that still don’t get that, at this point I say F them. At this point, it’s time we call the accusers out on the carpet for the dishonest scum that they are.

        I hope I didn’t sugar coat that.

      • Jeremiah August 15, 2012 / 9:03 pm

        We have started refining our criteria of who can come into that tent, and in so doing have given the Left plenty of ammunition to use to make the case that conservatism is only for religious Christians who hate abortion, etc.-Amazona

        There’s an old saying – “You give the devil and inch, and he’ll take a mile.”

        We live in a different era, an era where there are many well-educated, intelligent folk…who are well-educated and intelligent for all the wrong reasons/purposes.

        But each side, both Left and Right are well cemented in their ideologies of how they want to live, and thus how they want the country run politically. This is why the country is so divided, there is a stark division between Conservatives and Liberals.

        Here is how compromising works, which is why I started out with “you give the devil and inch, and he’ll take a mile,” however, this only applies to Conservatives welcoming Leftist ideas onto the party platform. If you accept the LGBT idea of marriage onto the Conservative party platform, you’re not going to reform the people living such wicked lifestyles, but they are going to work to reform the Conservative party platform so that it exemplifies and becomes more similar the Left’s party platform, so that there is acceptance of homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general across the board…and the laws of this country will reflect…as they have since Madeline Murray O’Hair took school prayer away from our schools. Since then, our schools have become places where social issues are predominantly fed to the next generation by the communist Left.

        And of course, as to how compromise works on the Left, if you want to change your views concerning a belief in God, and therefore marriage so forth and so on, you are gladly welcomed. I have yet to see a change in the Left-wing to where Conservative ideas on both social and economic issues are welcomed onto the Liberal party platform. In fact, I’m sure that this has been the norm since the 1960’s when the radical Left-wing revolution took our nation’s schools by storm.

        But that’s just me…you can welcome more Liberal socialist ideas and people into the party….no skin off my nose. I’m gonna continue to do what I do, and you’ll continue to do what you do. At least I’ll have a clear conscience when things go south for things that I did not advocate for, or have any control over.

      • Amazona August 16, 2012 / 1:00 am

        Well, Cluster, don’t worry—you managed to keep it just short of inducing a diabetic coma….

        I don’t think that people who have read my posts for the past six or seven years think I am too passive, too afraid to take on a battle. I think I am pretty aggressive when I see the need, and I am with you on this about 80%. When I see a necessary fight I fight. It’s just that I think many who lean to the Left for emotional reasons, usually out of conviction that the Right is mean and scary, are not going to be open to conservative ideas if we call them names. I prefer to save my energy and scorn for the leaders and the pathologically vicious like the trolls who post here, and cut the well-meaning but befuddled a little slack.

        Jeremiah, your response shows me that you didn’t understand a word of what I said. In fact, you are doing exactly what the Pseudo Lefties do, which is to fiercely hold on to what you think is a political position but which is really just a muddled up mess of emotion with a political label slapped on.

        Let me start with the basics. Politics is, or should be, about the best blueprint for governing the nation, and I believe that Constitutional Conservatives are in agreement that this is the Constitution of the United States.

        So the election should be about whether the nation will be governed by this system or the opposite, the big-government model with unlimited size, scope and power.

        When you start thinking of things like the LGBT stuff as actual “politics” you start to allow the confabulation of the basic ideology with a multitude of individual issues and everything falls apart.

        Ideology divides us into two camps.
        Issues shatter us into innumerable splinters.

        We can win this election if it is about Constitutional government vs Leftist government, and we can lose it if we demand that people make many other, emotion-based, and personally important decisions as well.

        We have to be clear about what is our goal and to me it is to put into power in this nation an administration and Congress dedicated to reestablishing adherence to our Constitution. That is our political ideology.

        So why try to drag issues into this race which have nothing at all to do with that ? No honest person can say that I have been anything but relentlessly brutal in my opinion of the utter inhumanity and atrocity of abortion. No honest person can say that I have failed to repeatedly make the strongest case possible for keeping the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. So please do not try the cheap trick of trying to invent a moral high ground and claim that I am soft on these issues, because it would be a lie

        It’s just that I see these as ISSUES, not as the determination to govern the nation under its Constitution.

        And in a nation governed according to our Constitution, the federal government has no role in these issues.

        You talk of “…Conservatives welcoming Leftist ideas onto the party platform…” but I never said that. I think these ideas should not be part of the equation at all, as they have nothing at all to do with whether we will govern according to the Constitution or not.

        I will tell you the same thing I tell the Lefties: We need a plan for the foundation and framework of the house and you are fussing about the wallpaper and curtains.

        I say do one thing at a time and do it well. So I think we should refuse to talk about any of these ISSUES and stick to ideology—and ideology is how to govern the country, this way or that way.

        And many people, when presented with an uncluttered, unemotional, outline of the opposing ideologies, will choose the Constitutional Conservative one, even if they happen to cling to some of the issues that appeal mostly to the Left.

        Ditto for the whole God/Satan thing. God will do as God will do, but hanging every attitude and every justification on a personal conviction that is not shared, or may be shared but with less, shall we say, absolute and rigid insistence on complete acceptance of this point of view, may be personally gratifying, allowing you to preen in your imagined moral superiority, but it will do nothing to remove emotional barriers to understanding and accepting our POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.

        While my religious beliefs are an integral and important part of my life, they are not exactly the same as yours. If I were to be unclear on my political ideology but attracted to the emotional aspects of Leftist illusions, I would not be tempted to look favorably at the Right if I got the message that to do so I would also have to buy into a whole package of religious, social and personal beliefs laid out with such absolutism by someone like you.

        But I could be comfortable with just an evaluation of the two political ideologies if they were made clear.

        It is possible to have Bhuddist Conservatives, and Jewish
        Conservatives, and atheist conservatives, and agnostic conservatives, and Wiccan Conservatives, and Conservatives representing the widest possible range of belief systems.

        It is possible to have gay conservatives and transgendered conservatives and homosexual couples who ardently believe in the Constitution but who also yearn for the social blessing and spiritual bonding of marriage. Just because we think they should use a different word to describe it does not mean they believe less in the wisdom and vision of our Founding Fathers. It’s just that they will also believe that the Constitution is about the structure of our nation, and that issues like these must be, according to that same Constitution, left to the States, or to the people.

        Just because the Left has been successful in using these kinds of issues to divide us as a nation doesn’t mean we have to do the same thing. When we let ourselves be led by the nose into accepting their definitions, so we start to define things like homosexuality as Leftist, we lose. Yes, the Left has been successful in laying claim to homosexuality as an identifying issue, but I don’t feel like letting the Left tell me what I have to do, and I reject that idea.

        The Constitution, the United States itself, were only possible because our Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand that a belief in God did not demand lockstep agreement of every one of them on every detail of theology—they carefully discussed the role of God in the founding of our country in a broad and inclusive sense. I think we are foolish to forget that, and to now try to hammer the nation into a more narrow and rigid acceptance of a narrow and rigid theology.

      • Amazona August 16, 2012 / 1:16 am

        “At least I’ll have a clear conscience when things go south for things that I did not advocate for, or have any control over.”

        And while you are being smug and self satisfied, perhaps an honest little corner of your brain will admit that the nation, the actual UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, has lost what might be its last chance to salvage a Constitutional government because you decided from your position of absolute conviction that people who are different from you have no place in our political calculation.

        Your personal style may be to browbeat and lecture but there is a philosophy that people can be more easily led to a belief than scolded and driven to it.

    • Amazona August 15, 2012 / 8:03 pm

      Someone recently said: “Hatred does more harm to the vessel in which it is stored, than on the one whom it is poured.”

      And later the same day said: “I despise Hollywood…I wish that place would burn to the ground, and wash away.”

      • Jeremiah August 15, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        Hate for the things God hates leaves one with a clear conscience, and therefore, no harm done, but is a healthy kind of hatred. You prolly didn’t catch a hint of sarcasm in there did ya. 😉

        Hollywood is not a bad place on the earth in general, it’s what the people have used it for that makes it a bad place. But again, no skin off my nose, the people who made it that way will have to stand before God and give account.

      • patriotdad1 August 15, 2012 / 9:17 pm

        a healthy kind of hatred


      • patriotdad1 August 15, 2012 / 9:25 pm

        Hate for the things God hates leaves one with a clear conscience, and therefore, no harm done

        Yeah, my hatred of others is fine and dandy because it lines up with what my imaginary friend hates, so it’s all OK!!

      • Amazona August 16, 2012 / 1:23 am

        Well, I have trouble with the concept of a “healthy kind of hatred” as well as with such a facile excuse for hating. And when people start telling me that something bad is OK because of a conviction of knowing what God really thinks, I head for the nearest exit.

        As for claiming that God hates, well, evidently your theology is pretty Old Testament. I’ve never been able to equate God with hate, but maybe that’s just me.

        I am reminded of an observation that I, and many many others, have made, which is that each of us believes in a God who is reflection of our true selves. Instead of a harsh and judgmental man believing in a kind and loving God and finding himself becoming kind and loving, he usually just defines God as harsh and judgmental, which gives him a pretty good excuse to be the same.

      • Jeremiah August 17, 2012 / 12:05 am


        Let’s say you and I are married, just for the sake of arguing…I know you’re widowed, or at least that’s as I understand it, I don’t know if you’re courting again, or what, but just for the sake of this discussion…let’s assume that you and I were married, okay?

        If you and I were married, we put a great degree of trust in one another, right? A mutual bond of affection for one another, and to help each other … God said “it is not good for man to be alone, so I will make him a helper” that being the woman for the man…I would work to provide the income for you and I to make it together, the food, cleaning supplies, etc. And you would cook the meals, do the laundry, dust and mop, and your outdoor chores.

        Okay, so we have a good thing going here…but let’s say one day one of us decides that we aren’t satisfied, and we break the mutual bond of trust that we vowed at the marriage ceremony…and again, this could go either way…it’s like one day we get up, and you are angry because I didn’t take you out to dinner after work on a Friday evening payday, so you take the Saturday morning pot of coffee, and throw it in my face….okay, I forgive you, we kiss and make up and I make a promise that it won’t happen again, we’ll go out to dinner every Friday evening payday…but that Monday morning rolls around, and you ask me if you can take the checkbook and go buy some new clothes, and I say no…and that evening when I get in from work, there is no meal prepared for me to have after a hard days work…

        Alright, I keep rejecting you with little things like these, and as time goes along, what type of attitude would you say you are developing towards me? I have a Facebook page, and I watch the statuses thread on a pretty regular basis, and over the past few years I have seen many comments of women towards their boyfriends who have said on many occasions…”I HATE YOU!!!!” “I HATE, HATE, HATE HAATE YOU!!”

        Now, that would be your reaction to me rejecting you…now you’re rejecting me…in this example, I do all the things that I did not do for you in your example…I take you to dinner on Friday evening paydays, I buy you new clothes, have flowers sent to you, I do everything I possibly can to please you…but you, in turn, reject me intimately, time after time, day after day, month after month…I’m beginning to feel pretty bad about the whole situation, and am probably beginning to feel dare I say, hatred!! SO, I file divorce papers, and we split, and go our separate ways.

        What I’m trying to say, is, Amazona, you misjudge God’s character when you say “I’ve never been able to equate God with hate.” The truth is, God loved each and every person who lived in the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but in their lack of obedience, in their lack of returning the favor of love that God showed them in kind, He destroyed them in their wicked deeds of rebellion, chief among them being the sin of homosexuality…just like He destroyed every living person except for 8 at the Great Flood on the earth.

        Yes, God does love sinners, but He does not love sin…and one of those sins is hatred…many people have been murdered in the heart alone, in fact, there has been more people murdered in the heart than by guns, or arrows, or spears, or knives, or by the bare hands…because, see, hatred in the heart is where murder starts. But there is, as I said, a healthy kind of hatred…hate for those things that God also hates, and one of those is a lawless heart, one like our President’s. Under his actions children have been placed in boxes, and put on shelves left to die a slow agonizing death. Under his actions, many will contract the AIDS virus, because he chose to support homosexual marriage. Under his actions, many will struggle to put food on the table for their families, because he has put restrictions on the type of work that is in their area, under his actions, there is less of a future for America now than ever before in history.

        And no, please don’t equate me with purveying myself to be the “only true Christian” because there are many, many, many people out there like me who believes that our God is not just a loving God, but a just God, as well.

        With that said, the weekend is coming…so may you have a happy Friday, Saturday, and Sunday!!

        Keep up the good work debating these leftists!!! Give ’em a good right hook for me!!! 😉

      • Amazona August 17, 2012 / 1:24 pm

        Jeremiah, I am not quite sure what spun you off into a detailed and elaborate description of a fantasy marriage, or another theology lecture.

        My point is that we need to keep our eye on the ball, the ball is the return to a Constitutional America, the ideology of the Constitutional Conservative is the return to a Constitutional America, and by slapping on a laundry list of personal and social and religious issues we tell people that the only way they can vote for return to a Constitutional America is if they share these narrow views on these issues.

        And a snarky claim that anyone who wants the “big tent” of actual POLITICAL conservatism to return is really just working with the devil by being weak and accepting “Leftist values” and contributing to the erosion of the nation is simply missing the point.

        We are self-destructive if we allow our specific political ideology to be cluttered with social and moral and religious and personal issues that serve only to narrow our appeal to Americans.

        And it is also hypocritical because a TRUE Constitutional Conservative knows that these issues cannot be addressed by the federal government. Those who pay lip service to the Constitution and then insist that that Constitutional party has to include stances on things that are, constitutionally, required to be dealt with at the state or local level, or by the People, are inconsistent and no better than those who say they are for the Constitution but just think it should be bent to accommodate THEIR agendas.

      • Jeremiah August 17, 2012 / 5:02 pm


        I understand that you want to welcome others to Conservatism through an understanding of the Constitutional model of governing, and how liberals are working to destroy the Constitution.

        But you needn’t leave out or forget that God’s sovereignty transcends our Constitution, and this is what our Founding Fathers recognized first and foremost when drafting the Constitution, despite the fact that they left out any mention of God or Jesus Christ, their allegiance was to Jesus as King of kings before any dreams that they had of molding the republic into a place of prosperity. That as Jesus did, governments should seek to serve the people, and the good of the people, not the rulers.

        God does not hold people responsible for obeying civil governments, when it means obedience to that government would constitute a direct defiance of His commands.

        Some, in the colonies left during the American revolution to return to England to swear allegiance to the British crown, they believed that the American revolution was “unjustified” … but I disagree, to rebel against the monarchy was justified, and morally sound judgment for lower government officials to protect the citizens from people higher up on the ladder who are committing crimes against that nation’s citizens.

        I am not arguing against the Constitution, but in favor of it…as the signers of the Declaration said that they were not doing this as mere individuals but as “Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions.”

        Who is the Supreme Judge of the world? Almighty God Our Creator. whom the Founding Father pledged the lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

        Israel wanted out from under the oppressive regime of Pharaoh … so God put Moses as leader of His people. Benjamin Franklin made a proposal for the great seal of the United States, which was never adopted, but this proposal still exists in his writings at the library of Congress that deals along the lines of Moses’ leadership…which reads….”Moses standing on the shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto, Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

        So, Amazona, your arguments in favor of a return to the Constitutional model of governing are praiseworthy, but we cannot rely solely on the Constitution’s words alone. Any argument without the Bible to support it falls flat…Oh, you may make a step forward in arguing the Constitutional form of governing alone, only to be set back two steps. And thus, the enemy, in this case, the left and atheists gain a step on you.

        Just remember where freedom comes from; it doesn’t come from the people, or its rulers, but it comes from obedience to God and God alone.

        Realize too, that I am not trying to be obnoxious or offensive; but am trying to be of help to you. And by doing so, I convey to you that the primary need of society is the Gospel of Christ. John Adams said – “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and righteous people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other.” Thus, we have to work to transform people by the Word of God…unless the peoples hearts are changed by the Spirit of God through our planting the seed through witnessing, it is unlikely that we will be able to pass good laws or elect very good leaders…and this is why we have to get schools back into their prospective places of teaching what is right as opposed to the way it is now in our schools, they’re teaching everything wrong. They are the future of America, and that’s why it is important for us to teach them the moral principles of the Bible, as well as principles concerning the roles and responsibilities of civil government.

        And that’s just half the battle…

      • Amazona August 17, 2012 / 9:36 pm

        Jeremiah, whatever. We do not live in a theocracy and the Founding Fathers, while quite religious in their own different ways, were careful to keep a general concept of God as the center of their beliefs but not to be specific about any particular means of believing in or worshiping God.

        So while you dearly want to have a country in lockstep with your own particular religious views, I reject that out of hand.

        And BTW I don’t even read your religious lectures so you are wasting your time and energy. This is a political blog, not a religious lecture hall.

      • Jeremiah August 17, 2012 / 11:56 pm

        Okay, so we aren’t in agreement. I’m fine with that. I’ve laid out my side, as you have yours. It is my hope that something that I’ve said will take hold, and move you in a positive way, and that you will take hold of the power that is available to you through the Word.

        I know that what I believe is the pure unadulterated truth, the beliefs that molded this nation from the day at Plymouth rock, onward. I’ll not badger you anymore about it.

  10. Jeremiah August 15, 2012 / 9:24 pm


    “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible”
    George Washington

  11. Cluster August 15, 2012 / 9:34 pm


    My frustration lines up primarily with the liberals in the media, in the DNC, and in the Obama regime. I agree with Amazona that a lot “progressives” are just too stupid to know any better – patriotdad being a prime example, and it behooves us to convince them in other more diplomatic ways. But I want Chris Christie to come out and call the media, the DNC and those surrogates in the regime out on the carpet as only he can do it. That would be a joy to watch.

    • patriotdad1 August 15, 2012 / 9:58 pm

      If you think stupidity is a trait confined to liberals, you should hang out in the comments section on Fox Nation some time.

      • Cluster August 15, 2012 / 9:59 pm

        It’s definitely not exclusive to liberals, they just happen to enjoy the largest share.

    • Jeremiah August 15, 2012 / 10:32 pm

      I don’t know, Cluster, I think the dumb ones are those who sit back while the government checks roll in. They “don’t have anything to worry about” as long as the government continues doing what they’re doing by taking taxpayer money and funneling it into the “poor.”

      I believe that a lot of the people who post here are well-educated people, smart people…who are indoctrinated with the communist manifesto. They know what they’re fighting for, and understand that what they’re fighting for suppresses the goals and lifestyles of those who live for God and are economically inclined to support the free market….leftists understand this, they just don’t care that laws which reflect their ideas do such. Satan is never satisfied, and that’s just a fact…he wants the family abolished, which he has almost done in America, he wants marriage abolished, as many people as possible murdered, he wants the united states to be an unsafe place to live, he wants prisons packed to the max so the taxpayers will have to keep forking out for their upkeep, he wants a greedy materialistic society, he wants an oppressive governmental regime to control Washington, D.C., that would mirror a government like Stalin or Hitler had in place. And these things are well on their way to being accomplished if people do not rise up and do what needs to be done to correct the problem.

    • Amazona August 16, 2012 / 1:30 am

      I definitely think we need to carry the battle to the Left, and pin their ears back. I just want to outthink them and outsmart them, not just outsnarl them.

      P-pop is right, the Left does not own stupidity. But they seem to base their appeal on gullibility, and their support is based upon ignorance often shored up with stupidity.

      How many Lefties are on the Left because of their knowledge of its ideology, because of the study they have done on its structure and its effects on society and its successes and failures? None that I have met.

      Yet most on the Right are on the Right because they HAVE read and studied the origins and history of our nation, and its Constitution, and the successes we have achieved under that Constitution.

      This is the biggest difference I have seen between the Left and Right in this country.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. August 16, 2012 / 6:55 am

        Just like I can’t define your ideology for you Amazona, you can’t define mine for me. I got a good chuckle about how little you really understand about politics. Reading books that cater to your worldview doesn’t make you learned it makes you one dimensional. I just recently finished Hannity’s book Let Freedom Ring. When was the last time you read anything written by Krugman or Woodward?

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. August 16, 2012 / 6:59 am

        And as far as pinning the Left’s ears back you can’t do that anymore than the Left can pin the Right’s back. People rarely change their political beliefs, they feel like many moderate republicans feel now that their party has moved away from their political beliefs.

      • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 7:47 am

        Instead of simply stating she’s wrong, provide some contrary evidence.

        I happen to know she’s read Krugman, Michael Kinsley, Jim Hightower, Al Gore, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Helen Gurley Brown, Michael Moore, Camile Paglia and many others. She’s discussed and quoted these many times. When was the last time you read Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell?

        And speaking of ironic; “People rarely change their political beliefs,”??? Really? Didn’t David Horowitz write something similar when you were still a liberal Amazona? Or was it Ronald Reagan? So many former liberals, so little bandwidth.

        Then again, I don’t know why I’m responding to a juvenile sociopath. Why aren’t you using that “esq” sobriquet anymore?

      • Retired Spook August 16, 2012 / 8:24 am

        How many Lefties are on the Left because of their knowledge of its ideology, because of the study they have done on its structure and its effects on society and its successes and failures? None that I have met.

        That certainly explains the old phrase, “knee-jerk Liberal”, and the vast majority of Liberals I’ve met over the years fall into that category. And yet I’ve never heard anyone referred to as a “knee-jerk Conservative.

      • Amazona August 16, 2012 / 9:27 am

        And who could have more credibility than someone with an invented persona, a bogus name, a plastic body, pretend credentials, a fake position on a fake job, who lives a fantasy life in Hell, where her associates include part of an interstellar hive?

        I have a feeling that “chuckle” is really more of an insane cackle.

      • Amazona August 16, 2012 / 9:32 am

        “Diane”, I have repeatedly asked you people to define your ideology, and so far none have. None. NONE.

        I merely present the most basic of the two opposing ideologies, because without an understanding of this no rational commitment can be made to either side.

        And I repeat my assertion that anyone with a serious commitment to Constitutional governance will also, by definition, be willing to address his or her issues within the restrictions of that law —that is, to understand that the role of the federal government, under our Constitution, is severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and cannot constitutionally mandate any solution to any social issue.

      • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 11:18 am

        That’s not entirely true Amazona, I recall one immature sycophant explaining that Liberals believe in fairness, and progress, and kindness, and unicorns, and kum-buy-ya, and the right to own a house, and the right to own a car, and the right to earn a living, and the right to free medical care, and sunshine, lollipops and rainbows ~ that’s how this refrain goes, so come on, join in everybody!

        Sorry, I had a Leslie Gore moment there.

        My blood sugar just goes up every time I hear another liberal describe what they “believe in” since we believe in dirty water, dirty air, pushing grandma off a cliff, and don’t care about kids with Down Syndrome or Seniors with Alzheimers.

        I gotta go eat some minority children and get my evil conservative mojo back.

  12. Bardolf August 15, 2012 / 10:13 pm

    No mention that 41 years ago a GOP president ended the gold standard. Getting rid of PBS or moving SS money to badly run govt funds which just creates a stock bubble means next to nothing.

    Aside from a national Romneycare which Romney is against on constitutional but not philosophical reasons what atomic bombs are in the GOP arsenal?

    Too little military spending? Over-regulation?

    • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 7:49 am

      Try again, this time in English and without the alcohol overcoat.

      What is your question?

      • bardolf August 16, 2012 / 1:38 pm

        Bean Counter

        The premise of the thread is that the RNC is not willing to use big truths to deal with the DNC.

        But big truths don’t favor the RNC. I gave an historical example which had its anniversary yesterday, namely the truth that Nixon introduced fiat money. That’s done more damage to the economy than Obamacare ever could. Leo goes on a long list, but forgets the truth that GOP appointees are responsible for Roe v. Wade and that conservatives like yourself see abortion as a secondary problem well after the economy.

        The truth that Ryan wants to increase wasteful military spending when the US already outspends most of the world combined is a big truth, the fact that a few remaining manufacturing unions support Obama not such a big truth.

        The Brian Terry story isn’t a big truth, the continuation of 2 wars which have resulted in >100,000 casualties which are still supported by Romney is a big truth.

        The question is why crazies here believe that Obama is a anti-business? He is really like MItt, merely anti-free market.

      • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 2:13 pm

        So … you don’t have a question?

        But, that’s okay. You want to pout about Nixon I’ll join in; Nixon should have NEVER gone to China. There, I said it, and I feel better. *whew* you’re right, reliving decades old slights is cathartic.

        No real value to this discussion but hey it get you in the debate, albeit ancillary, but it’s good you’re trying to be involved.

        But, as long as we are on a nostalgic “Truth” Patrol, which of the “2 wars” was Brian Terry in? I forget, was that Santa Cruz County Afghanistan or Santa Cruz County Iraq?

      • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 2:16 pm

        And, before I forget to mention, that’s mighty clever of you, that whole “bean Counter” thing since that’s my handle,

        Did you figure that out by yourself or did someone explain tit to you?

        You know, the “Count the Haricots” French connection?


      • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        One last thing, i don’t think you’re using the “Greater Than” symbol correctly; it’s not shorthand, the symbol “>” is part of an equation where the value to the left is greater than the value to the right of the symbol.

        Keep that in mind.

      • Amazona August 16, 2012 / 4:54 pm

        The Brian Terry story is not a big truth?

        The United States government entering into a deal with a drug cartel from another country, and supplying it with vast numbers of weapons to take back into their country, without the knowledge of the other country, to enable them to beat down and take over rival drug cartels is not a “big truth”?

        The agenda of using the ensuing carnage to support efforts to control US gun sales is not a “big truth”?

        The murder of a US law enforcement officer with weapons provided by our government, a man whose own government had not only armed his killers but had decreed that the first shot he could fire if he was attacked would have to be a BEAN BAG, essentially meaning he was made defenseless, is not a “big truth”?

        As usual, your entire post is nonsense, but this is more malignant than most of your silliness.

  13. Cluster August 16, 2012 / 9:09 am


    Our effort to win in November can not be one dimensional. That is how McCain lost in 2008, aside from the fact that he had all the appeal of oatmeal. We can take the fight directly to them, while at the same time outsmarting them. The Medicare debate is one that we can win, and one of which we can run intellectual circles around them. At the same time, we can take the gloves off and call out their hate and divisiveness in a manner that exposes them as small, petty people. Now I agree that that scorn needs to be reserved for the media and particularly people like DWS and Axlerod, but I think it’s important that we not shy away from it.

    • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 11:06 am

      The problem, as I see it Cluster, isn’t winning or losing a debate, Spook pointed out above that the knee-jerk reaction is what they count on, that’s why they are so good a bumper-sticker talking points. When was the last time any dimocrat or Obama-mania media lap-dog referred to Paul Ryan and Medicare in the same sentence without saying “end Medicare as we know it”?

      Obama has robbed $716 Billion from Medicare, Ryan wants to save Medicare but they won’t debatethese competing concepts, they’ll demagogue it.

      Amazona and Spook discussed a Republican rapid response team during the 2010 elections; no one at the RNC took that advice. Still, Romney’s team did a fair job in the primaries of shutting down the attacks and counter-punching quickly. Many around here bemoaned the zeal with which Romney’s surrogates responded at Romney’s behest. IIRC, you and I applauded it saying, if he will do this to Newt/Rick we can only hope he will react this way with Barry and the Chicago Thugs?

      The fight has to be taken to them; if the election is about Obama and his failures then Obama loses; if the election is about what Obama intends to do then Obama loses.

      We just can’t depend on the Romney campaign to do all the rapid responding. We need more surrogates willing to take the fight to them; we need the pugnacious Christie on c-BS ABC CNN NBC, we need Rick and Newt to lick their wounds in private and expose the Chicago-swamp politics for what they are, we need Palin, Bachmann and Ron Paul repeating that Obama robbed $716 Billion from Medicare.

      I don’t have to be simpatico with their particular brand of Conservativism, I just want them out there night after night and on every Sunday talk show reminding people that Obama robbed $716 Billion from Medicare.

      Btw, did you know that Obama robbed $716 Billion from Medicare? That would be big news if everybody knew Obama robbed $716 Billion from Medicare.

      Spread the word.

      I have found a way to add this line when I’m robo-calling for Romney. During the lull that happens when I’m about to transfer the call to the revenue team.

      • Cluster August 16, 2012 / 12:14 pm


        I am 100% in agreement, and really like Romney’s rapid response thus far. This line of yours caught my attention:

        Ryan wants to save Medicare but they won’t debate these competing concepts, they’ll demagogue it.

        And they will demagogue it but we can not let them get away with that, and that’s what I mean by taking the gloves off. Call them out by saying that the democrats don’t think Americans are all that bright, otherwise they wouldn’t so freely lie to you. The media bristles when someone calls Obama a liar, but we need to not let that deter us, because he does lie to the American people nearly everyday. Let’s call him out on that.

        I think we should also implicate Holder and Obama with the New Black Panthers and their recent tirade on the GOP convention. After all it was Holder who refused to do anything with regards to their voter intimidation which has emboldened the Panthers to where they are now inciting violence. Call them out!!

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 1:24 pm


        they put a HIT out on a man and NOBODY did anything……..cowards all.

    • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 11:25 am

      anybody can be anything they want….just leave the titles and agendas at the door.
      there is absolutely NO reason in the world for anyone to define themselves by their sexual desires or pathologies unless it is to be used as a weapon. Same with religion, race, and any other AGENDA.

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 11:29 am



      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 12:35 pm


        LOL X 10,000

        credibility than someone with an invented persona, a bogus name, a plastic body, pretend credentials, a fake position on a fake job, who lives a fantasy life in Hell, where her associates include part of an interstellar hive?

        I have a feeling that “chuckle” is really more of an insane cackle.

  14. bloodypenquinstump August 16, 2012 / 1:08 pm

    “And now we know why Harry Reid has not produced a federal budget in over three years. He’s too busy managing his own suspicious wealth:”

    So you are saying we need to see everyone’s tax returns. I agree.

    • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 1:22 pm


      what would it prove?

      • Count d'Haricots August 16, 2012 / 1:32 pm

        Stumpy is struck on stupid. Like the little kid that taunts in a snarky sing-song voice; stumpy is too stupid to know what tax returns are or what they “prove” so he keeps bringing it up because the DNC told him to.

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 1:35 pm



      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 1:48 pm

        Bwaaaaaa ha ha ha

        Unions protest Democrats at Illinois State Fair

    • Cluster August 16, 2012 / 1:39 pm


      We don’t need the tax returns, we need a justice department.

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 1:49 pm

        we need a whole NEW government after this chicago mob regime.

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 1:54 pm

        Pssssstttttt unions…the golden goose is DEAD!!
        there is
        MONEY………….Helllloooooooooo Mc Fly is anybody home??

        Democrats are looking to extend their majorities in the House and Senate. But many lawmakers are fearful that a massive overhaul of the state’s pension systems —**** the most underfunded in the nation**** — would spark a union backlash.

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 1:57 pm

        Margaret Thatcher opined “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”.

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 4:13 pm

        Ubamas civilian army?

        Kill ‘All White’ Men, Women, Babies, Blind, Cripple, Fa**ots, Lesbians & Old Crackers, Says New Black Panthers Vile Radio
        Opening; Then ‘Dig ’Em Up’ & ‘Kill ’Em Again’

        “If they are white kill ’em all. … Kill them now.”

        maybe ole Jer is on to something……

      • neocon1 August 16, 2012 / 4:27 pm

        As the officer attempted to provide aide to the girl, her father, identified as Christopher Middleton, 26, came running out of a nearby restaurant and aggressively approached the officer and began shouting, officials said. The cop argues that he identified himself as a police officer but Middleton still hit him in the face and knocked him to the ground before striking him repeatedly.

        chicago cop on ground being assaulted kills assailant……Noooooo Problem

        Neighborhood watch captain on ground being assaulted…….second degree MURDER, racist mobs, death threats, hits with bounty’s placed.

        welcome to AmeriKa

  15. theshadowiswatching August 18, 2012 / 2:37 pm

    OK—— enough is enough.

    From now on, accusations of homosexuality are going to be removed and the person who continues to make them will be removed if this continues. Moderator’s call—no whining.

    Reprinting examples of black crime will not be tolerated unless they are relevant to the topic. Moderator’s call—-no whining.

    This blog is not a place to engage in racial stereotyping or sexual commentary. Moderator’s call—-no whining.

    Moderators have discussed the direction of the blog when these kinds of activities are allowed and find them unacceptable.

    Profanity is not allowed and we do understand what is meant when only letters are used. No. It is that simple. No. Moderator’s call—-no whining.

    Keep it clean, keep it on topic, and do not fall prey to the urge to respond to posts with nothing but insults. Entire conversations will be removed when they degenerate in personal squabbles. Moderator’s call—-no whining.

Comments are closed.