Posted on 10/13/2009 2:22:59 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
"Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live."
(See their lead video, aimed squarely at Obama, 'Rhetoric vs. Reality')
Darn speakers aren’t working!!
A late night ping: in case anyone can utilize a ping list, or find someone that would!
Thanks for the ping.
“Its formation marks the end of an unusual partisan truce on America’s central national security challenge, Afghanistan, and after a presidential campaign in which Obama and Republican John McCain agreed on many security issues from Central Asia to Guantanamo Bay.”
Not so unusual when you realize that mcshame sold all of us out. Ever notice how worshipfully mac looks at the bam?
I got to hand it to Pubbie women all the way. They are the only real men we have standing these days.
More opponents of the White House, take note White House Communications Director Anita Dunn
Dunn said the White House would not be a “passive bystander” as opponents try to “tear down the president and his presidency.”
“We will push back,” she said.
The push back has included a blog post on WhiteHouse.gov in which the White House denounced what it called “Fox lies”
^
And what we don’t see, or is that seiu?
Ping!
I liked it better when it was called the Project for a New American Century. Oh wait, no I didn’t.
Thanks for the ping!
Let's see a little more of that "seige mentality" that brought down another President who thought he would be king.
I really like Liz Cheney and think she will play a big role in politics. I’d vote for her in a heart beat for any political position.
Sarah Palin/Liz Cheney or Liz Cheney/Sarah Palin 2010 either way would be a great ticket.
“More opponents of the White House, take note White House Communications Director Anita Dunn
Dunn said the White House would not be a “passive bystander” as opponents try to “tear down the president and his presidency.”
“We will push back,” she said.
The push back has included a blog post on WhiteHouse.gov in which the White House denounced what it called “Fox lies”
Hey Anita, pull my finger.
Signed, D. Cheney
Kristol wants the police the world and spread Wilsonian democracy. “Keeping America Safe” is just a slogan for the sheeple.
How dare they try to keep the American people safe!!
...by keeping the borders open and pending our defense capital on foreign nations. Should’ve been called “Project for a New Iraqi Century.”
I’m a Palin fan, but I think Liz Cheney is a much wiser choice. Liberals hate her because of her name.
Like Palin? ;-) I love her guts, but don’t understand the mccain factor. They seem like opposites. If we wouldn’t have another perot fiasco, I’d vote 3rd party.
It did feel good to know that almost 2/3 of voters did not vote for clinton. And all criticism was a vast right wing conspiracy.. (Smirk) it wasn’t because of the fact that 2/3’s of voters didn’t want him as president. Clinton News Network really stood by its man well. I don’t think they ever explained that it wasn’t a vrwc, and that it was possible that 2/3’s of voters were not satisfied with clinton as a choice!
Now I just want conservatives in repubs. What do we do if there are no conservatives to vote for?
You’re welcome.
Thank God for Americans who see
the dangers and step up!
Liz is intelligent, brilliant, well spoken, knowlegeable and loves her country and wants to do what is right for her country. She has learned at the feet of a genius. She will play a role in the future and thank God for that.
TWO Geniuses! Anyone remember Lynne on Crossfire with Bob Beckel? Every week, she wiped him out!
This is what clenched it for me. When I knew without a doubt that McCain had thrown the fight.
The Alfred E. Smith dinner, October 2008.
McCain "...appeared at ease in a room packed with Democrats."
From "Obama and McCain pal around at Catholic fundraiser"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/obama-mccain-new-york-al-smith-dinner
We need a lefty 3rd party.
“Now I just want conservatives in repubs. What do we do if there are no conservatives to vote for?”
“Thank God for Americans who see
the dangers and step up!”
We (the people) need to keep putting pressure on Senators & Congressmen (our public servants) to vocally express the fact that they have a clue as to what the BHO administration is doing -—
How long are these Repubs going to remain silent and let Beck, Limbaugh, Sowell, etc., and a few Sen & Reps hang out there as if they are the “lunatic fringe”?
It has become too obvious. The facts are out there. It’s like the Townhall Meetings. Sen & Reps came with “talking points” & the citizens came with the BILL and read it to them.
At the very least, it is now obvious that the BHO Adm plots an unConstitutional power grab, and the Repubs in Congress act like their hands are tied. Step up & Speak up! They & we should also be challenging the moderate Dems (who may, by this time, be beginning to squirm a little): “Is THIS what you voted for?”
People like McCain & Specter have already made it clear where they stand & they are a waste of time. They will join the bandwagon at the very last possible minute & they should be made to pay for it with removal from office.
“Dunn said the White House would not be a “passive bystander” as opponents try to “tear down the president and his presidency. “
We will push back,” she said.
The American people will not be passive bystanders while the American-hating White House and the collaborating Democrat Corruptocracy tear down our Constitutional Republic.
BTTT
Oh yes...I know that. Mrs. Cheney is awesome as well. However I wasn’t leaving her out. I was just referring to Vice President, Dick Cheney. I love the whole family. They have more intelligence and common sense than any other idiot politician although they live in Wyoming.
Does this mean more money for Dick Cheney’s tax evading enterprise(s)?
They are NeoCons. Don't you remember Bush replacing the NeoCons with Realists in 2006? Don't you remember the Iraq Study Group, a group of Realists? Don't you remember Bush naming Realist Bob Gates as Sec of Defense?
Does it bother you that Obama has followed the Realist Doctrine?
No.
I don’t miss the president of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke.
No.
You just miss watching Americans jumping from 80 stories to their death.
Yup, better to save the economy than save lives and America.
They don’t make pockets in shrouds.
In a word
NO.
What a Great idea getting the organization “KeepAmericaSafe”
up and a focus point for citizens who believe in Freedom and saving America. Also a wonderful educational and resurce site.
Elizabeth Cheney, Debra Burlingame and William Kristol, all knowledgeable and experienced veterans in the
fight against the IslamOfascists
No, but apparently you weren't watching. Who killed those Americans? It was not Iraqi Arabs or Pashtuns. It was Sunni Arabs from those countries in the Middle East which had the closest ties to the U.S. including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If there was ever an indictment of a Wilsonian foreign policy, it was what happened on 9-11.
So you probably didn’t think we shouuld have fought against Hitler because he wasn’t the one who bombed Pearl Harbor.
No....We had no choice after he declared war. We also would have no choice but to fight if Mao and Stalin (even greater mass murderers than Hitler) had declared war on us as well.
They are all IslamOfascists and delcared war on America.
The IslamOfascists who flew into the Pentagon were living
6 miles from me here in San Diego
Neil Cavuto on FOX just had on Debra Burlingame re KAS
What a great person.
Reality check time...
Tell me, if the borders are "open," how are coyotes (people smugglers working the southern border) managing to charge up to three or four thousand dollars per person per crossing?
Why on earth would poor Mexicans (and even poorer El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, etc) pay such steep prices when -- since the borders are supposedly "open" -- they could easily walk across for free?
The fact is that, even if most sufficiently determined illegals can get across eventually, to do so is more difficult/dangerous/time consuming/expensive than ever. The fact is that since the 1980's (the last time the borders could be reasonably described as "open") border security has become tighter and tighter almost every year. Even during the Clinton years border control resources were substantially increased, and since 9-11 even more so. The fact is our borders have never been more secure, at any time in our history, than they are right now.
Can we increase border security even more? Sure we can. But I suspect we've already passed the point of diminishing returns.
There are also unintended consequences of tight borders which we are already dealing with. During the 80's nearly all Hispanic illegals were working age males, and nearly all left their dependents behind. Since it was easy and cheap to cross the border, this made sense: Do seasonal work in construction or agriculture, leave the family at home to tend the farm, and where the cost of living was less, then spend the winter with them back in Mexico.
Now that crossing the border is difficult, expensive and less certain, this pattern of "circularity" (crossing the border in both directions) has greatly decreased. Those who come are far more likely to stay permanently, year round, far more likely to bring their dependents, and far more likely to compete with legal Americans for nonseasonal jobs, and more likely to turn to crime if jobs are not available.
We could make much better progress by working the demand side (the illegal labor market -- either by getting tougher on those employing illegals and/or developing a more accessible temporary work program) and by devoting more resources to tightening up visa programs -- than by further incremental increases in border security.
Just one FReeper's opinion. But it is certain that we cannot effectively address the issues of borders and illegals if we adopt false facts, and that is exactly what the "open borders" mantra is. It simply isn't true. If you want to deal with the problems, deal with the actual problems, not made up ones.
Um, wait a minute... How is that an indictment of "a [supposed] Wilsonian foreign policy"?
You yourself point out our attackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But those are exactly the places were we did NOT follow the advice of the e-vile and dastardly "neocons," and determinedly promote democracy; but instead followed the dictates of the contrasting foreign policy "realism" which you advocate, and tolerated or supported authoritarian regimes.
I do not advocate the amoral version of realism you lay out. I advocate a policy of national defense and non-interventionism.
Defining American Conservatism
MSMB | October 13, 2009 | Rob W. Case
Posted on 10/13/2009 12:59:38 AM PDT by Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2361140/posts
Fine. You can advocate "non-interventionism." No harm, since as the world's one true conservative, you'll never have to deal with the consequences.
But, certainly, in theory (thank God) you would advocate terminating America's single largest and most costly foreign intervention, and one of the longest lived. Right?
It's not much talked about, but certainly our naval policing of the global sea lanes is our greatest foreign intervention. Heck, we built, and continuously maintain, an entire naval fleet, just for the purpose of patrolling only one of the most crucial regions: the Persian Gulf.
Of course if we ceased this intervention, there is at least a fair chance, if not a strong probability, that some regional squabble gone out control would cut off a significant fraction of global oil supplies, sparking a global depression, and eating up the billions of dollars we had been saving annually on maintenance of the Fifth Fleet in a matter of weeks.
But that's O.K. because we'd be ideologically pure non-interventionists. Right?
Of course the examples could be multiplied endlessly. For instance we intervened early in the Bush presidency when Pakistan and India were on the verge of war. We strongly pressured both to sit down and talk. But it would have been better, apparently, to mind our business and risk nuclear war.
By the same token we should end our interventions in Pakistan on principle, even though they have proven, at least by readily discernible increments, successful in turning the Pakistani government and armed forces against Islamists they were previously sponsoring and arming. Granted the result may be nuclear arms falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, but better that than compromising the non-interventionist principle. Right?
Yep! Big time!
Me, too!
WOW! You are on a roll tonight! Thanks for the great job!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.