In a just released video interview, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs suggests Dutch PM Geert Wilders, of the Freedom Party for President of the US in 2012.
"It would be Mr. Wilders who best represents American ideals and values, and considering that you don't need a birth certificate to run for American President, I think we ought to run the guy in 2012"
39 comments:
It is a sad state that we can't find a single soul in the US to represent American values and ideals. I'm quite sure Ms Geller was being a little sarcastic, but seriously, is there no one left in the US of A who can represent our values ?
If that is the case I nominate Mr Daniel Hannan for 2012, afterall, I ca understand his bloody accent.
Yes, there are a few left who stand for Americanist ideals, who would make excellent Prez candidates:
Mark Sanford
Sarah Palin
Jeff Flake
Tom McClintock
Michele Bachmann
Daniel Hannan appeared simultaneously with Ron Paul Wednesday on Fox's Freedom Watch.
Eric, so if Wilders can run for prez, I can run for congress? with your and Pamela's support? Which district baby? :-)
A future leader of the GOP?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv6TxOrLTO4
I don't know how may of our regulars are musicians, but listening to Pamella Geller, is like listening to a beautiful sequence of dominant sixths, dominant thirteenths, major sevenths, minor ninths, minor sevenths, and minor thirteenths... and this is including her lack of rounding out her New York accent!
Sexy, sexy, sexy! I'm glad she is on our side. ;)
I love Geert, and I would *almost* support him, except look what happened with Arnie S. The guy had a fucking masters in Austrian economics - from AUSTRIA FFS - and look what he's doing.
But yeah, Geert...I'd lean that way for sure. Geert/Cheney 2012. And appoint Palin to the cabinet for god's sake. Secretary of State, I'd say, since foreign leaders love her so much. In fact she can do double duty and head up whoever handles endangered species lists because those are bullshit too :) Triple duty - Secretary of Education as well. :)
Hey, a gal can dream.
"I don't know how may of our regulars are musicians, but listening to Pamella Geller, is like listening to a beautiful sequence of dominant sixths, dominant thirteenths, major sevenths, minor ninths, minor sevenths, and minor thirteenths... and this is including her lack of rounding out her New York accent!"
Is that anything like listening to Yngwie Malmsteen? Because if it is, count me IN.
Omg - verification word "moperson" Mopey McMoperson lol
I noticed how Pamela did not make any distinction between Muslims and extremist violent Muslims and of course the interviewer and event were also Jewish, so no one to call her out on that. I have also on her website never seen this distinction. This is why she wants the whole US to fight 1,3 billion Muslims. It is very dangerous and bigoted to not make this clear distinction.
Well, google Chas Freeman and what happened to him
by the Obama administration to know what influence AIPAC has on US foreign policy. Also look at this Dutch documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98
Cheney? You want the GOP to run on a pro-torture, pro-chickenhawk, pro-secrecy program and dip into single digits polling because of that??? Not to mention Cheney supported the bailout... if you say yes to the Bush-Paulson bailout, what moral ground do you have to say no to the Obama-Geithner bailout???
Stefan's not a libertarian, so he wouldn't know this, but there was a time in the 1970s, early 80s when Dick Cheney, Congressman from Wyoming, was considered a "libertarian Republican."
Notice how Stefan, is talking about the "evil Jews," as in AIPAC. Never hear Stefan talking about the Egyptian lobby, or the Palestinian lobby, or any CAIR, just those "evil Jews."
Bigoted to not make a distinction between Muslims and radical Muslims?
Really? And who was it that flew those jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11? Was it a bunch of crazed Swedes, wanting to destroy America, cause we're no longer visiting their ski slopes and eating their smorgasboard?
Notice how virtually all other libertarian sites, and blogs completely ignore Pamela Geller? She has one of the most wildly successful libertarian blogs on the web, has THEE! most successful political Blog Talk Radio show, yet she's completely ignored by Reason, LewRockwell.com, the Ron Paulists, et.al.
Not saying these sites are anti-Semitic, but you gotta wonder why it is they give Ms. Geller the cold shoulder?
Venting here...
You know it just utterly amazes me, that I put up three! 3!!! great articles about extreme Democrat corruption in a row, and not a single comment in the comments section by the likes of Tom Knapp, Stefan, Bint, or any of the naysayers here at LR.
It's almost like you all are just here to bash Republicans.
Notice you put something up about Sarah Palin, and the wolves come out to bite away at her.
But post something about Obama and his connections to Chicago corruption, or Murtha, or Hillary-Hsu, and you can hear the crickets chirp.
Gotta wonder sometimes if some of these people who visit this blog are in reality partisan Democrats on the payroll of Moveon.org and Soros, just here to criticize the Republican Party and all Republicans.
Eric - The Management
"This is why she wants the whole US to fight 1,3 billion Muslims. It is very dangerous and bigoted to not make this clear distinction."That is a lie. You are a liar.
I can imagine that Cheney was years ago a "libertarian Republican" whom I would have supported. He had some very sane arguments in 1994 about why the US should NOT invade Iraq and the disastrous consequences it would have. This reflects a libertarian non-interventionist, non-nation building policy and one of diplomacy. He has somehow along the way changed radically, such a shame.
Eric, I hold Republicans to a higher standard as to their beliefs. Democrats are not ones you would hear about balancing the budget, no bailouts, limit the spending, shrinkt he govt etc.. No siree it is the policy of Republicans, but when they are in power, they act just like Democrats and DEMONSTRATE to all of us how utter foolish the Dems. philosophy is.
Yes, the Mr. Hsu you said is a cHinese national: this means he is NOT allowed to raise any money in or outside the US for US politicians, by law. I can also cite the issue of Peter Paul vs. the Clintons, or that Clinton had 8-10 times a chance to capture of kill OLM and that he has lost the codes for the nukes, which they could not find!!! He has also never come clean on all the records with WACO. Especially the fact that he sold military secrets to the Chinese is treasonous!
Where have I ever used the term "evil jews"??? and what influence does the Egyptian lobby actually have? Do you ever see Obama, Clinton, McCain, Gingrich, Cantor speak at such a lobby and it is news? No siree. There is only the Arab-American chamber of commerce. I know last year only Ron Paula and Chuck Hagel were Republicans to speak there.
LewRockwell.com is much more visited than reason and they are also more principled. Question is rather, has Geller reached out to Ron Paul, the Mises Institute etc. and written anything positive about them???????????????????????????????????? Once she makes a move, then the favor will be returned.
And as to yourself, everywhere around the blogosphere I see you making negative comments about Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, ignoring the Mises institute etc. etc for how long now???? People are bored about your childish rants. I guess you must be on AIPAC's pay list. How much per negative comment about Paul do they pay you??? The payment must be good, as I see you blogging all over.
BTW: Hannan has a very clear, audible accent. If you don't understand his accent, get a grip on the fact that English comes from England and many Americans has falsified some word and cannot even spell correctly. Also know that "standardized English" is spoken by more than 2/3 of English speakers worldwide.
Ron Paul and Rockwell, like their idol Murray Rothbard, are not Classical Liberals. They reject Lockean Social Contract theory and are Anarcho-Capitalist, and Nuts who author racist/crackpot newsletters for years on end.
Gellar would never ally with them for the same reason the Far-Left are off limits: They are nutters and useful idiots for Enemies of Liberty the world over.
Groups such as hamas, offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Soviets before them
Eric, I think you can use this old Rothbard article from 1983 to drive home the point:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html
"Ronald Reagan, Warmonger"
calling for his impeachment and what not, compeletly 100% wrong and exposing the same Lies of the Far-Left back then.
They are ultimately advocating and advancing Socialism in America, whether they are smart enough to realize it or not. Little wonder they only come to repeat left wing talking points and ignore Obama/left.
the KGB infiltrated American politics a long time ago, they founded the ACLU specifically to dumb down and Demoralize America
I highly suggest reading the following books:
Special Providence by Walter Russell Mead(in which he debunks the lies of the paultards/COmmies)
"God and Gold" by Mead, EXCELLENT
"America Alone" by Mark Steyn
maybe "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagain
and "Return of History, End of Dreams" by Kagan
annie said: "Is that anything like listening to Yngwie Malmsteen? Because if it is, count me IN."
Yngwie wasn't exactly what I had in mind, Annie, but if you appreciate "finger fatigue" inducing, neo-classsical guitarists, take a moment to check out Sean Mercer. Sean is the husband of Classical Liberal columnist, Ilana Mercer. http://www.seanmercer.com/
Charles Koch founded the Cato Institute, not Rothbard
Jonathan: aha you at long last again. Where have you been? it seems you are still in desperate need of meds
Man, associating Austrian-libertarian theory with communism!! Wow, that is not only a long shot, you are dead WRONG. It is as far from communism as can be. Monetarism and Keynesiasm are much closer to communism.
Rothbard criticized Reagan as he did not fulfill his promises, and instead increased the deficit and spending, increased govt, instead of limiting it etc. He lowered taxes but then toook some of that away later. Of course he had some successes, with foreign policy etc. and one can argue that Bush sr had a bad influence as VP and he had to deal with a D senate/congress. Oh, Reagan did write in his memoirs that his decision to go into Lebanon - something that Paul and McCain criticized then - was a mistake. He pulled the troops back after realizing the mistake...he did not "stay the course". Also with Russia he did not follow the ultimate neocon hawkish policy and it beared fruit.
Did Reagan abolish the Federal Department of Education, as he promised and ran on???? BTW: The public education system had a lot to do with teaching a more socialist theory, which we know can ultimately lead to communism. Also, he did not abolish the Fed or connecte the USD to any commodity standard, but continued with keynesiasm, albeit a rightwing Keynesiasm. The drug war flourished. Bill Bennett was the drug czar, you know the same one that criticize Palin now.
Speaking of dumbing down, have you studied and read and listened to this site?
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/author.htm
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/articles/letter_reagan.html
Tell me, are you going to admit that the books you refer to are written by necons? Robert Kaganw as with PNAC, McCain's adviser and has now together with Bill Kristol started with a new think tank. So my middle finger to him....
BTW: I think Paul's idol is more Mises and Von Hayek than Rothbard. (Paul differ from Rothbard on the issue of abortion). You equate classical liberalism (also of the Austrian school) with conservatism today.... well here is Hayek on conservatism for you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hayek1.html
http://www.economictheories.org/2008/08/friedrich-hayek-conservatism.html
You can also read Walter Williams, much better than Kagan. Listen to Brian Wilson's podcasts....
Lastly: please stop embarrassing yourself with your foolish aggressive rants.
Charles Koch - a Rothbard student, funded the Cato Institute, not founded. Ed Crane founded it, with Rothbard being a founding member till 1981 when he broke with them.
I mean the anarcho capitalist purist are the useful idiots of Communist political operatives, have been for years. the ACLU was founded exactly for this reason by a Communist/Soviet operative for example.
that and having a Political IQ of a gnat fly, makes for a perfect marriage. witnessed at LRC and antiwar.com everyday, the KGB is smiling.
Mark Levin, an actual Constitutional Scholar and Lawyer, is also a must read and cure from the Lies and half-truths of the paultards in smearing the founding fathers legacy and what they actually did and beleived in.
back to Eric's point
the Rothbardian influenced lunatics MO is simple:
Bash GOP, no matter what, lie about its history and that of the founding fathers, claim they are the true conservatives(i.e. the good guys), then bash some more.
their allies on the Far-left on the Kooky stuff, for that they'll not bash any Democrat hardly ever. Its all met with Yawns, even now as they have power.
history trivia for the Purist loonies:
What US President engaged in a catostrophic Trade Embargo which barred all Trade with Europe?
answer: Thomas Jefferson, libertarian idol. Why how could the god, Jeffersn ever deviate from his words???
Perhaps because they were not UTOPIAN FOOLS.
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
-Thomas Jefferson
Oh really now Paul is bashing the founding fathers by citing them, and advising a return, an intellectual revolution back to the constitution and bill of rights?
I don't know what you are smoking,, but you must be very high on it already.
Check out Mike Church. What do you think of him?
http://www.mikechurch.com/joomla/index.php
http://www.mikechurch.com/zenshop/index.php?main_page=product_music_info&cPath=11&products_id=154
"You know it just utterly amazes me, that I put up three! 3!!! great articles about extreme Democrat corruption in a row, and not a single comment in the comments section by the likes of Tom Knapp, Stefan, Bint, or any of the naysayers here at LR."
My general tendency is to comment when I disagree with one of your articles on matters of fact or theme.
I suppose if it really means that much to you, I can weigh in on "corrupt Democrat" articles with a "Democrats corrupt? DUH!" or something.
I've written two articles criticizing Obama in the last three days. Notice you've only weighed in on one of them, and that was in support of Obama. Whodathunk?
I heard a youtube of Mark levin saying the founding fathers were not libertarians, they were conservatives.
Well, do I need to repeat Reagan's line about his true conservatism ending in a libertarian attitude? BTW: There are different "sorts" of libertarianism. The beltway libertarianism is close to the ACLU perhaps. I do not believe in their libertarianism so much, but more in regional sovereignty. I believe in communitarianism, in distinction to the social contract theory. I believe in a rugged but not absolute individualism. This is where conservatism comes in, the individual is also part of a family etc. and the group constitute his/her identity to a large extent, but not totally. Liberty goes with positive values and responsibilities.
I also do not agree with Wayne Root's statement that the founding fathers were "gamblers", that is not correct. They were more risk takers and had to flee Europe for what they believe in and had to take risk in the process and enjoyed a lot of individual freedom with minimum regulation.
Jonathan: the ACLU is usually very Democratic Party leaning and according to one Jewish Christian, actually the anti-Christ. Guess who he supports?
http://www.realzionistnews.com
People like Alan Derchowitz of the ACLU supports the Dems and AIPAC, Dr. Phillies and quite a few Libertarians are ACLU members. People like Paul, Barr and David Keene of the ACU work with the ACLU only on common issues where it involves the Constitution.
he's lying about their stances, let me repeat LYING
that or extremely ignorant.
anyone that ever quotes Washington's "entangling alliances" as a basis for being limp wristed doesn't know a thing about their history. Of that statement, of what Washington did and the rest of the early years of the republic.
Levin actually knows that they meant by the Constitution, Paul is a lying crackpot on many of the stances he takes.
the 4th Amenmendment, specifically used the word, "Unreasonable"
the Paul idiots ally with the Commie founded ACLU on this issue(which it helps our enemies, such as the Soviets of old).
Nevermind what the Founders actually did in the name of National Security, whether we are talking washington, or Jefferson, which makes things like the Patriot Act look like Childs Play.
saying there are only 3 Federal Laws that are Constittuional = Lie
Saying the founders were isolationist(non-interventionist) HUGE LIE
I could go on and on...someone needs to since he goes unoppossed and is ignored basically on this.
Old Russian saying, You can tell say lie 1000 times, but not change truth.
Difference between USSR Communist media and USA "mainstream media"
In Russia government make media say what they want - even if lie.
In USA "mainstream media" try make government what they want - even if lie..
.....eventually they become same thing?!
I Igor produce "Obama birth certificate" at www.igormarxo.org
Anynomous:Equating non-interventionalism with isolationism = BS and totally IGNORANT
No entangling alliances means a neutral foreign policy, kind of like Switzerland.
Now do you want to say Switzerland is an isolationist country, trading with so many countries and positively accepted? Go ahead, make my day...
Switzerland only exists due to the benevolent intervention of the United States.
Try again, son.
"Switzerland only exists due to the benevolent intervention of the United States."
In some alternate universe, perhaps. In this universe, it's never needed or wanted US intervention to preserve its existence.
I rather suspect that the "benevolent intervention" you speak of is the US intervention in the European theatre of WWII, which actually endangered Switzerland by leaving the Red Army strong enough after defeating Hitler to dominate eastern Europe for 45 years. Had it not been for that intervention, the Soviets would likely have exhausted themselves defeating Germany (which they were already beginning to do before they received their first Lend-Lease shipment, and long before US troops landed in North Africa).
Even you aren't stupid enough to believe what you just wrote.
Its truly pathetic to see a grown man grant me the power to dictate his positions simply by way of having stated my own.
Your boner for me is clouding your judgment.
Borg Baptist,
"Your boner for me is clouding your judgment."
You really are obsessed with Knapp's cock. For someone so homophobic, it makes a lot of sense.
"it makes a lot of sense."...
Only to a demented dumbass.
You have no ability to reason. You're simply a grimy bag of worn out cliches. You've never had an original thought.
Post a Comment