This is mjfell's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following mjfell's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
An Open Letter To “progressive” Politicians Families in America must live within their means, and it’s time for the United States federal government to do the same. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. Since I lost my last full time job back in 2008, I’ve been able to make ends meet with less than half my previous income while simultaneously reducing my personal debt. As one of your constituents, I’m calling on you to advocate for spending cuts, not tax hikes, to balance the federal budget. Since 2009, federal spending has increased from 20% to 25% of GDP. Raising taxes to pay for this increase will accomplish nothing because, in true form, you’ll blow any new revenues on additional spending programs and never balance a thing. The treadbare argument in favor of future spending cuts in exchange for immediate “revenue enhancements” is thoroughly unconvincing, since history shows that the tax hikes always occur while the spending cuts rarely, if ever happen. Spending cuts MUST come first. With our national debt at 100% of GDP, it’s past time to get our fiscal house in order. To this end, I propose that all Legislative and Executive Branch salaries be cut to $0.00 until the United States federal budget is balanced in a responsible fashion. As a proud, patriotic member of the Tea Party, please know that we are involved in politics to help you know how we feel and to support legislators who listen to the people. Sincerely, Mr. MJFell
Toggle Commented Nov 9, 2011 on What The (Bleep) Just Happened? at Monica Crowley
No To Ron Paul- Attention Ron Paul: Iran wants nukes for offensive, not defensive purposes. How can even one true American support any candidate who denies the historic and contemporary evidence of creeping Sharia and global jihad? Especially as we approach the tenth anniversiry of 9/11? Any “religion” with an expressed goal to establish a theocracy is not a religion but a political group with a political agenda disguised as a religion, and as such is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the very tenents of Islam completely contradict the First Amendment. That ONLY “the great Ron Paul” can save our country and restore America to a Constitutional Republic is pure folly, plain and simple. That there are people who so adamantly and passionately believe that ONLY “the great Ron Paul” can save us is strong, clear evidence of personality cult disorder. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who will save America and restore our Constitutional Republic, not ANY elected official, including “the great Ron Paul”. Ron Paul’s electoral record is this: He’s been re-elected to Congress a number of times. His more ambitious moves like running for the GOP nomination have been met with repeated, resounding rejection by GOP voters. He even ran as a Libertarian candidate in a general election. How many Electoral College votes has Ron Paul won in his lifetime? America’s voting motto should be: The more the fringe leftist media protests about a candidate, the more we should vote for that person. And you’ll notice the fringe leftist media are not NOT protesting about Ron Paul… The LAST thing this world, much less this country, needs is another personality cult hero in the White House who’s OK with Islam and jihadists.
Toggle Commented Aug 26, 2011 on Barack and Irene at Monica Crowley
Storm Warning By mjfellright With Hurricane Irene bearing down on the east coast I, as someone who ”enjoyed” the hurricane experience while residing in New Orleans, offer one bit of advice: Board up the windows, load up your kids and pets and get the heck out of the way. That being said, there’s a much bigger, far more dangerous storm heading our country’s way which must be respected, and against which preventative steps must be taken. It’s the category five economic storm about to broadside and overwhelm the United States of America. A distinctively unique and “progressive” combination of oppressive taxation, business hostile regulations and big government socialist programs are alighning in such a way as to render America’s economy impotent and incapable of sustaining the economy and lifestyle to which Americans are long accustomed. One of the most fallacious policies of the current White House is their recently announced policy of halting the deportion of illegal aliens and granting work visas to those deemed by self imagined and self appointed elites as worthy of remaining in America. Despite the fact that the Dream Act failed to pass in Congress, and that millions of Americans out of work, it’s the considered opinion of unelected bureaucrats that swelling the “progressive” ranks through back door amnesty is more important than ensuring the economic stabliity and viability of natural born Citizens and legal immigrants. If this policy is not reversed, with people like Jeffery Immelt shipping good paying jobs overseas, ”progressives” will be responsible for condemning Americans to competing against illegal aliens for minimum wage jobs in perpetuity. Do ”progressives” really want to go down in history as the first to condemn Americans to a reduced standard of living while ensuring diminished opportunity for the next generation? Unless and until we reverse the job killing policies of ”progressives” this will be our fate.
Toggle Commented Aug 25, 2011 on Earthquakes of a Different Kind at Monica Crowley
The current White House occupant loves to blame the Tea Party caucus for "holding negotiations hostage". "progressives" continue to spew empty, unsubstantiated, hate filled rhetoric that the Tea Party is "racist". Much of what the Tea Party stands for was beautifully stated by Ronald Reagan in his 1964 speech "A Time For Choosing". Does that mean that in 1964, when the current White House occupant was a 3 year old incapable of reading a teleprompter, Reagan was a racist for opposing policies later espoused by someone elected in 2008?​=qXBswFfh6AY
Toggle Commented Jul 26, 2011 on The King's Speech at Monica Crowley
God Bless America! Government isn’t supposed to take care of us. Its job is twofold: to leave us alone so we can take care of ourselves, and to protect us from those who seek to deprive us of our unalienable God given Rights to Life, lLiberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If our government was doing the job intended by our Founding Fathers we wouldn’t be facing a debt crisis. How was it that the United States government was able to function prior to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, which on February 3, 1913 granted Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income? Why was it so important for Woodrow Wilson, leader of the “progressive” movement in the early twentieth century, to oversee the ratification of this Amendment to the United States Constitution? Wilson had to find a way to fund new federal bureaucracies formed after passage of major progressive legislation that included the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Federal Farm Loan Act. Wilson viewed the United States Constitution as pre-modern and cumbersome. He believed that the United States Constitution prevented the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights upon which the government could not infringe. Those just happen to be your Individual Rights as Citizens of the United States of America! Wilson believed that a big government that met the needs of those chosen by big government was more important that your Individual Rights. This anti-American philosophy formed the foundation of “progressive” thought and behavior that’s been part of the American political landscape ever since. The current White House occupant echoed Wilson’s beliefs in this 2001 statement: “…as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf…”. The only reason Americans are forced under threat of federal prosecution to pay income tax is to fund big government programs that are not enumerated in the United States Constitution as the responsibility of the federal government. In spite of the fact that Wilson and his “progressive” followers clearly understood this, the intent of “progressives” was, is, and always has been to “progress” beyond the United States Constitution. They see big government as necessary to doing things on your behalf…or more importantly, on behalf of those they deem worthy. There must be a paradigm shift in the way we view the politics in America. Republican vs Democrat is obsolete. That’s because “progressives” have infested both major political parties in the United States. Although it’s true that ”progressives” have siezed absolute control of the Democratic Party while remaining only a part of the Republican Party, this paradigm shift is still vitally necessary if America is to be restored. The real philosophical divide is between the intent of the Founding Fathers and the intent of “progressives”, regardless of party. The real political divide is between Americans and “progressives”. America isn’t simply a landmass indicated on a map or globe by lines. America is an idea. An idea that was outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. The American idea is that We The People can govern ourselves. That by the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God we are entitled by birth to the maximum amount of Individual Liberties consistent with law and order, and to the Right of privately owned property. These Liberties and Rights are to be equally protected by a Constitutionally limited government that derives its just powers from the consent of the people. The “progressive” idea is that a centrally planned big government, with extreme hostility towards private property, forces redistribution of wealth through “progressive” taxation in the name of social or economic “justice”. In order to ensure “fairness”, big government must be responsible for controlling businesses, industries and people who are incapable of governing themselves. These two points of view cannot coexist. By their very nature they are self contradictory. In the name of Liberty, it’s the responsibility of all Americans to rid ourselves of the “progressive” cancer. The choice is ours. Do you wish to restore an America where you reap the rewards of your own labor and are King of your own Castle, or do you prefer to be a slave to an all controlling oligarchy of self imagined and self appointed “elites” who keep you alive because they’ve decided your existence serves the interests of the collective? I know which side I’m on. God Bless America!
Toggle Commented Jul 22, 2011 on THE FIVE---TODAY! at Monica Crowley
2012 GOP Presidential No No’s Listed below are five GOP Presidential candidates and the reasons why they should be considered unfit to head the 2012 GOP ticket. Gary Johnson—His foreign policy is duplicitous. He describes himself as strong on national defense, yet calls for retreat in the war against radical Islam. His views on social issues will contribute to a further decay in America’s moral fabric. The GOP and America need and deserves a Conservative Presidential candidate, not a Libertarian. Ron Paul–His position to rush all troops home from foreign bases ASAP is as much a danger to America as is the “progressive” demand to force their green energy policy upon America without any tangible evidence of prudent preparation. He should remain Chairman of the congressional panel that oversees the Federal Reserve. His views on social issues will contribute to a further decay in America’s moral fabric. The GOP and America need and deserves a Conservative Presidential candidate, not a Libertarian. Mitt Romney—In a word: romneycare, the model upon which the highly destructive obamacare was based. He believes in man caused global warming and some form of economically hostile cap and trade. The GOP and America need and deserves a Conservative Presidential candidate, not a moderate. Newt Gingrich— He believes in man caused global warming and some form of economically hostile cap and trade. While a member of the House of Representatives he voted in favor of establishing the Department of Education and granting most favored nation trading status to Communist China. The GOP and America need and deserve a Conservative Presidential candidate, not a moderate. John Huntsman—His politically correct “diplomatic passivity” will not allow him to take the fight to the current White House occupant. He’s been publicly endorsed by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a known “progressive” who worked vigorously for passage of the stimulus bill, the omnibus spending bill, obamacare and the Frank-Dodd financial regulatory bill. The GOP and America need and deserve a Conservative Presidential candidate, not a moderate. America’s fiscal security, national security and moral fabric are under assault from the radical, “progressive” left. Under no circumstances should the American people be forced to once again choose between the lesser of two evils. The aforementioned candidates are all in some way(s) inappropriate to spearhead the Conservative movement’s drive to return America to its founding principles of limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, national security and equal justice for all.
Toggle Commented Jun 23, 2011 on Finally, A Win at Monica Crowley
The “progressive” Ten Commandments 1. You shall have no other gods before Me. Except money, and the redistribution thereof. Nothing is more important than for humans to decide what is fair, and to determine the equitable distribution of the world’s resources. 2. You shall not make unto thee any graven image. Except images of “progressive” leaders, which will be carefully crafted to convey a saintly, even god-like image. 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain. Except when to do so is the most effective way to disminish belief in Divine Providence. In such cases, use God’s name in any way necessary to achieve your ends. 4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Except when keeping the Sabbath day holy interferes with the all important tasks of demonizing Divine Providence and/or promoting human conceived notions of “equal justice”, “economic justice” and “social justice”. 5. Honour your father and your mother. Except when to do so involves being receptive to their ideas, which are based upon their love and care for you as their children. Under no circumstances shall you place honoring your father and mother before honoring the State, your Marxist teachers or their message. 6. You shall not murder. Except when necessary to prevent the birth of an unexpected, inconvenient or unwanted child. 7. You shall not commit adultery. Except in those cases when you’re horny. Then it’s OK, just don’t get caught. 8. You shall not steal. Except through “progressive taxation”, which is entirely necessary for the redistribution of wealth in the name of “equal justice”, “economic justice” and “social justice”. 9. You shall not bear false witness. Unless you’re involved in a heated political battle, in which case you’re free to twist your opponents words, message and intentions to suit your campaign’s needs. 10. You shall not covet. Except when to do so is necessary for the promotion of “equal justice”, “economic justice” and “social justice”.
Toggle Commented Jun 16, 2011 on Roasted Weiner at Monica Crowley
Monica's 100% correct in her accessment of the current White House occupant. He's voted "present" since his inaugurated. The legislation that he's signed into law was prepared and preloaded before he announced his candidacy. He's a puppet who was groomed to be the Manchurian candidate since the day he emerged from whatever excretory system expelled him.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2011 on He's Just Not That Into It at Monica Crowley
Vote Conservative, Not “progressive” or Libertarian Following the inauguration of the current White House occupant and the subsequent implementation of “progressive” policies, resulting in a cultural phenomenon known as the Tea Party, there’s been an explosion of political debate in the United States. This debate has taken place among and between Conservatives, “progressives” and moderates. Since the spring of 2008, I’ve been priviledged to engage in many long discussions on a myriad of topics with a good sampling of the population who represent today’s widely ranging political philosophies. There are many policy matters which are viewed by people from very different, often divisive perspectives. This writing is focused on two policies and the reasons why I believe that the best way for We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, is to vote for Conservatives, not “progressives” or Libertarians. “progressives” continue to promote the narrative of global warming, or to use the most recent and now more popular vernacular: climate change. The narrative is that planet earth is experiencing a warming climate due primarily to the emission of man-made ”greenhouse gases”. The most often and specifically referenced gas is carbon dioxide. According to Matt Rosenberg at Atmosphere Composition, the earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of Nitrogen and Oxygen. Together, the two comprise about 99% of the gas in the atmosphere. Here’s a listing of the key components of the atmosphere: Nitrogen – 78.084% Oxygen – 20.95% Argon – 0.934% Carbon Dioxide – 0.036% Neon – 0.0018% Helium – 0.0005% Methane – 0.00017% Hydrogen – 0.00005% Nitrous Oxide – 0.00003% Ozone – 0.000004% In addition, water vapor is variable but typically makes up about 1-4% of the atmosphere. “progressives” would have the world’s population believe that fluctuations in a trace element of earth’s atmosphere (0.036%) caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal will result in such catastrophic events as the melting of earth’s polar ice caps and glaciers. This will lead to the flooding of coastal areas and the extinction of numerous species. Meanwhile, Libertarians express the belief that America’s militaristic foreign policy is a major contributor to anti-American sentiment around the world. The chief proponents of this view are fond of quoting our Founding Father’s: “…foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”–Thomas Jefferson “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little politial connection as possible…Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambitions, rivalship, interests, humor or caprice?”–George Washington Based upon this philosophy, the Libertarian perspective is that America should immediately cease all foreign aid, withdraw our troops from around the world and enact large cuts in defense spending. You might well ask: What do these two expressions of quite distinct policies have in common? A fair question. In each instance, there’s an expression of admirable goals. Who doesn’t want to have cleaner air to breath, promote the general health of earth’s ecology or diminish our nation’s dependency on foreign energy? Who doesn’t see value in lowering the costs of defense spending, or reducing our entanglement in the affairs of other sovereign nations? The achilles heel of each of these policy perspectives is the same. Both the reduction of America’s dependency on fossil fuels (especially those purchased from countries openly hostile to America) and ending America’s role as the world’s police force are long term strategic goals. Both require thoughtful, careful planning and execution if they’re to be ultimately successful. A nation of over 300 million people, which currently derives less than 5 percent of its energy from “alternatives” such as solar, wind, tidal or organic, can’t expect to put an immediate end to the use of fossil fuels. This could quite possibly bring the nation’s already ailing economy to a grinding halt, resulting in a massive loss of business, leading to a dramatic decrease in already insufficient tax revenue and an extremely painful increase in unemployment. Is putting an end to the use of petroleum worth the accompanying reduction in the living standards and the overall prosperity of the nation? Is it worth the resulting ballooning of our national debt and further devaluation of our currency? Simarly, an immediate withdrawal of American troops from around the glode, coupled with a dramatic decrease in defense spending will predictably lead to the simultaneous creation of multiple power vacuums in many dangerous regions of the world. Is the impulse to immediately return to a completely non-interventionist foreign policy worth the risk of leaving the world a less secure place for mankind to live? Is it worth the geopolitical expansion of America’s enemies? What the nation needs to do now is elect fiscally responsible, Constitutional Conservatives who understand the need to make such dramatic policy changes in a thoughtful, strategic, implemental fashion. It’s true that we need to make immediate corrections to many current policies. America stands at the precipice of economic, cultural and geopolitical disaster. We do need to throw out the bath water. But we also need to make sure the baby doesn’t go with it.
Toggle Commented May 9, 2011 on The McLaughlin Group at Monica Crowley
Fake birth certificate + fake pictures of allegedly dead Bin Laden's body which is then dumped into the ocean to hide the evidence + carefully timed drop in oil prices = sound bite voters continue their lemming ways. DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!
Toggle Commented May 2, 2011 on The McLaughlin Group at Monica Crowley
True Jay. Sadly, today there are too many brainwashed useful idiots in college who've been indoctrinated into believing in the failed Communist "dream".
UG-- You and I are on the same page re: America first. I just don't believe Trump is the right candidate in 2012. He's much too compromised. He's flip/flopped on too many issues and he's he's a rookie politician. After watching obumlick in office for two plus years, it's clear he didn't win the office on his own, unaided political skill. He's ham handed and has a tin ear. David Axelrod is obviously the reason they won the White House in 2008. Don't think for a minute that someone as experienced and ruthless as Axekrid isn't ready, willing and eager, along with their media lapdogs, to bait traps in order to destroy/smear/misrepresent/lie about Trump the way they always do with Republican candidates.
UG-- Why is Trump also a RINO? Donald Trump Donated Hundreds of Thousands to Democrats Including Harry Reid and Rahm Emmanuel in 2010 Donald Trump, who has recently been touted as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2012, made several donations to the Democratic Party and prominent members of the Democratic Party during the 2010 election cycle. Trump, who switched party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and back to Republican in 2009, has flip-flopped on countless social and fiscal issues in the past few years and is now actively seeking to become the standard bearer of the Republican Party. Only a few months ago, Trump made a donation to the tune of $50,000 to Rahm Emmanuel, the former Chief of Staff of President Obama, so Trump’s credibility has come into question. The data, obtained from, a website that contains a database of political donors, reveals that Trump has no principles and is attempting to dupe Republican voters: $2,400 to Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader TRUMP, DONALD J NEW YORK,NY 10022 TRUMP ORGANIZATION/EXECUTIVE 3/26/09 $2,400 Reid, Harry (D) $2,000 to Anthony Weiner, a Democratic Congressman from NY TRUMP, DONALD J NEW YORK,NY 10022 TRUMP ORGANIZATION/REAL ESTATE DEVE 2/18/10 $2,000 Weiner, Anthony D (D) $10,000 to the New York Democratic Committee Trump, Donald J New York,NY 10022 The Trump Organization 9/20/10 $10,000 Democratic Cmte of New York State (D) $4,800 to Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democratic Senator from NY TRUMP, DONALD J SR NEW YORK,NY 10022 THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION/PRESIDENT 9/10/10 $2,400 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D) TRUMP, DONALD J SR NEW YORK,NY 10022 THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION/PRESIDENT 9/10/10 $2,400 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D) Trump, in the 2010 election cycle, also made donations to Chuck Schumer(D-NY), Bill Nelson(D-FL), and several other Democrats. It should be iterated that these are PERSONAL donations made by Donald Trump and not by anyone else in his name or his employees. Trump is a self interested opportunist willing to grease the palm of whomever it looks like will be pulling the levers of power. He has no principles. As a Tea Party organizer since February 2009, he does not measure up. Additionally, he's a media whore bully who's expressed postions will likely lead to a trade war and/or WWIII, neither of which are good for America, nor in line with Tea Party principles.
UG-- I would include Trump in the same category as Jeb, Newt, Romney and Huckabark.
UG--I think Trump running as a third party candidate would ensure four more years of obummer's "fundamental transformation" of America. This is not in the best interests of anyone on planet earth, much less the United States. If Trump is a true patriot, should he lose the GOP primary, he'll support the GOP candidate. If he runs as a third party spoiler, thereby sentencing America to take another step into a thousand years of darkness, it will only prove that he's nothing but a self interested attention whore.
KTLA: President Obama Touches Down in LA For Fundraisers - Team Coverage --‏
Axiom One: The more the Republicans can make the 2012 election like 2010, the better their chances of winning. Axiom Two: The less attention the Republican candidate draws to him/herself, the better the chances of winning. Axiom Three: No baggage and no need for flash. Given these Euclidean truths, here’s the early line. (Remember: This is analysis, not advocacy.)
On unions And Other ‘progressive” Nonsense- Can you say extortion? From Chicago to Madison to Sacramento to Washington DC and points inbetween: Do as we say and nobody gets hurt. Get the picture? To those who insist this is a fight for the middle class: Union members only make up 12.9% of the middle class. If you want to fight for the other 87.1% of the middle class, you should be against their having to pay higher taxes so government employee unions can enjoy a job that’s free of the threat of dismissal due to incompetence, cadillac medical benefits (with smaller payroll deductions than the private sector), and exorbitant retirement pensions. Unions have essentially outlived their usefulness to American society. The benefits they fought for back in the days of the robber barons are now secured by workplace rights legislation. The only value government employee unions have to offer is to crooked politicians who promise them cushy, taxpayer funded benefits in exchange for money and election cycle boots on the ground. Can you say quid pro quo?: You polilticians better give us what we want or you’ll get no union support. Get the picture? To those who believe that unions “fighting for what they believe” shows character: How can anyone truly believe that threatening small business owners with boycotts; people who’re hard working individuals, who’ve invested overtime hours without pay for weeks, months and years on end in the hope that they’ll achieve success, who simply wish to remain neutral in the government employee unions battle, shows character? To paraphrase former U.S. President Bill Clinton: It depends on what your definition of character is. Support us whether you want to or not and nobody’s business gets hurt. Defy us and we’ll do everything in our power to make sure your business fails. Get the picture? On the other hand, when Conservatives stand up and fight for what they believe, they’re violent, hate filled extremists… or… wait for it… wait for it… wait for it… wait for it… wait for it… wait for it… RACIST! What’s extreme is acting like $14 trillion in national debt should be of no concern. What’s extreme is describing legislation which cuts a $3.7 trillion federal budget by $61 billion (less than 1%) as extreme. What’s extreme is describing a budget that freezes a 25% increase in federal government spending as a serious attempt to cut spending. What’s extreme is describing recent Veterans of Foreign Wars as threats to U.S. national security. What’s extreme is saying that average, everyday Americans who simply want the government to follow the U.S. Constitution are dangerous to their country. What’s extreme is wanting to increase the U.S. debt limit without restraint ad infinitum. What’s extreme is a Department of Justice that picks and chooses which laws to enforce based on their political agenda. What’s extreme is a White House that believes being anti-Constitutional, anti-free speech, anti-free market, anti-business, pro-illegal immigration, pro-UN treaty restrictions on individual U.S. liberty is appropriate. What’s extreme is the empty class warfare rhetoric that “the rich”, the top 5 percent who pay approximately 58.7 percent of federal income taxes, don’t pay a fair share of support to a bloated, deficit spending, ever growing federal bureacracy. What’s extreme is the conscious choice made by big government collectivists to ignore the reality that the top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 95 percent. The United States doesn’t have a revenue problem. The United States has a spending problem. Continuing America’s massive deficit spending this recklessly in the name of “social” or “economic” justice is suicidal. Extremely suicidal.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley
First, who said the communists are a bunch of Goody-Goodies? Have noticed on this blog how people throw nazis and Hitler around. Sounds like the neo-nazis on the internet that say, "The Russians did worse." The Russians killed more? Compare the the existance of nazi Germany in years compared to the years of Communism. Also , not saying that this is a good time to raise taxes. But, what people don't say is that even Reagan raised taxes 6 times and expanded Social Security. Guess he was a liberal. Posted by: jay | April 02, 2011 at 11:58 PM ******************************************** First of all, I never made a statement that remotely resembles that anyone said communists are a bunch of Goody-Goodies. What I said was: Media giants like Time/Warner, and academics are quick to point out the evils of Third Reigh atrocities. This is fine. What's missing is the reporting of how Communists have killed twice as many people over the years. That over the years Communists have killed twice as many people as did the Nazis is historical fact. For you to alledge, even in the most roundabout fashion, that I, for pointing out historical fact, am a neo-nazi is empty, incendiary rhetoric at best. The point is: Big, all powerful, centrally planned governments comprised of small oligarchies that deprive individual of their liberties and impose absolute controls over their people don't turn out well for the masses. Learn some history. I suggest you restrain yourself from making such illogical leaps in your thinking and thank you in advance for refraining from making unfounded, unnecessary, and possibly slanderous comments about me. I will now restrain myself from calling you a neo-commie.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley
Agreed UG, there must be a major, concerted effort to nominate true Conservatives. No more squishes.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley
Have noticed in this political climate. That people throw the words ,"nazism, Hitler", etc around. Posted by: jay | April 02, 2011 at 11:30 PM **************************************************** Media giants like Time/Warner, and academics are quick to point out the evils of Third Reigh atrocities. This is fine. What's missing is the reporting of how Communists have killed twice as many people over the years.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley
The president of the United States has just played a central role in bringing an anti-American government to power in Egypt that may well reignite the Arab-Israeli conflict and produce new wars in the region, become a safe haven for anti-American terrorists, and subvert other U.S. allies in the Arab world.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley
The root problem with Islam lies in a book that was written after the Bible, with intent to achieve global domination through intimidation brought about by tactics of murder and mahem, capitalizing on Christianity's "turn the other cheek" preachings of love and forgiveness.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley
UG-- SPAM on Monica's bloc is as easily ignored as is SPAM on the grocery market shelf.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley
Now that the New York Times tells us that the Muslim Brotherhood is really strong, organized, widely supported by the army, and capable of taking over Egypt--all the things I wrote at the time and the mass media denied--the Washington Post confirms every point I made during the revolution about what was going to happen regarding Egyptian foreign policy. Just read this article and compare it to what we were told during the revolution: "Egypt's relations with Israel and the U.S. are likely to become more difficult in the months ahead with an infusion of Arab nationalism and skepticism about Egypt's landmark peace treaty with Israel. Many of those who helped oust President Mubarak, including secular democracy activists and Muslim Brotherhood leaders, say the 32-year-old treaty should be respected for now. But they add that when stability is restored, the pact should be submitted to the Egyptian people for approval, through a new parliament scheduled to be elected in September and then perhaps in a public referendum." In other words, all the commitments made by the military government are not valid after September and Egypt is quite likely to abrogate or simply stop paying any attention to its treaty commitments. And what is the U.S. government, the Obama Administration, going to do at that point since it is the guarantor of the treaty? Absolutely nothing.
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2011 on The Wounded Warriors at Monica Crowley