During the Republican duh-bate yesterday, Representatives Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo showed testicular fortitude in publically stating that they wouldn't support the GOP nominee if they didn't agree with him philosophically. In doing so, both set themselves apart from the other contenders by basically stating what so many of us believe- principles must trump party loyalty.
Giuliani is a social progressive; Romney may as well change his name to Eggo; Thompson has all the charisma of Admiral Stockdale, and we're still not sure where he stands on anything; and McCain, Huckabee and Brownback apparently don't think that having 20% of the Mexican population living in the United States is enough. Paul and Tacredo are right about those guys- I couldn't in good conscience support any of them, either.
To paraphrase Chuck Baldwin, having to choose between Rudy and Romney, or Thompson and McCain, or any combination of those would be roughly akin to having to choose between Nero and Caligula.
Tancredo has been the attack dog against illegal immigration, while Paul has spoken long and loud against the Neocon war in Iraq. They've shown guts in the past, and showed them again yesterday. Good job, guys.
_____________________________________________
From The Hill:
Paul and Tancredo hint at not supporting GOP nominee
By Klaus Marre
October 09, 2007
Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) made it clear Tuesday that they are not inclined to support the GOP nominee for president if that candidate is not in line with their views.
Asked about it during the debate of Republican presidential candidates in Michigan, Paul said right now he would not commit to support the party’s nominee.
“Not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home,” Paul said, to which Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) answered “You don’t want me then, pal.”
Paul also said he would not support a GOP candidate who is unwilling to curb spending in Washington.
“I’m not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes,” Paul said. “I mean, we’ve lost credibility because of all our spending, because we have violated the civil liberties of all the American people, and we have adopted the Democrats’ foreign policy.”
Tancredo, a staunch supporter of tight border security, also did not commit to supporting the GOP candidate.
“I am absolutely tired and sick and tired of being forced to go to the polls and say I’m going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils,” he said. “I really don’t intend to do that again.
I am hoping, of course, that whoever we nominate will be the principled flag carrier for the Republican Party. But if that is not the case, no, then I will not support them.”
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
So This is Supporting the Troops?
National Guard Unit serves 22 months in the Neocon war in Iraq- and won't receive their education benefits. In order to qualify for the education benefit, their original "Go" order had to be for written for 730 days- but the Pentagon only wrote them for 729.
Glad Bush and his neocon cronies are so concerned with taking care of the troops. We can line the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater, but we can't afford to give to give the troops who have been over there the longest their education benefit.
This wasn't a mere oversight on the part of the Brass in Washington, nor was it a case of ineptness- this was intentionally done so as not to have to pay out benefits.
___________________________________________
From: WCSH^.com
National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War
Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Created: 10/3/2007 2:39:29 PM
Updated: 10/3/2007 5:32:02 PM
MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."
Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.
That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.
"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.
Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota's members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it -- So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.
Klobuchar said the GI money "shouldn't be tied up in red tape," and Coleman said it's "simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq."
Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.
"I had 23 guys under my command," Anderson said. "I promised to take care of them. And I'm not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it's not over until this is solved."
The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.
Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.
Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are "victims of a significant injustice."
Glad Bush and his neocon cronies are so concerned with taking care of the troops. We can line the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater, but we can't afford to give to give the troops who have been over there the longest their education benefit.
This wasn't a mere oversight on the part of the Brass in Washington, nor was it a case of ineptness- this was intentionally done so as not to have to pay out benefits.
___________________________________________
From: WCSH^.com
National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War
Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Created: 10/3/2007 2:39:29 PM
Updated: 10/3/2007 5:32:02 PM
MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."
Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.
That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.
"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.
Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota's members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it -- So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.
Klobuchar said the GI money "shouldn't be tied up in red tape," and Coleman said it's "simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq."
Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.
"I had 23 guys under my command," Anderson said. "I promised to take care of them. And I'm not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it's not over until this is solved."
The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.
Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.
Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are "victims of a significant injustice."
Monday, October 1, 2007
US Neocons Prepare Britian for Attack on Iran
I am no fan of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, nor of Iran, nor of radical Islam. It would bother me one bit if I woke up one morning, and they were all gone off the face of the planet. But that isn't my decision to make- nor is it the decision of the neocons in Washington, nor their lackeys in Great Britian. John Bolton, Bush's attack dog on Iran, told Tory delegates in Britain that there's no alternative to a military strike against Iran.
Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University was just what the doctor ordered for the Neocons. They've been able to portray him as a complete megalomaniacal dictator, bent on the destruction of the West and a radical islamic conquest of the world.
Bush is beating the war drums louder and louder against Iran, and an attack will almost certainly be launched before he leaves office. The next President will have to deal not only with the quagmire in Iraq, but the mess Bush and his Neocon cadre will leave in Iran- and who knows where else. But then, that's exactly what I think Bush wants. The American people will want to get out of the messes he puts us in, and in order to do so, will fall in line with his daddy's New World Order, austensibly under Bush's hoped-for successor- Hillary Clinton.
We better put an end to the Bush/Clinton dynasty before it puts an end to us.
______________________________________________________
From: The Jerusalem Post
Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.
Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West.
"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.
"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."
He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Ahmadinejad.
"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said.
Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity existed should not be used as an excuse not to act.
"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction... Responding after they (nuclear devices) are used is unacceptable."
Bolton also said the UN was "fundamentally irrelevant".
The former envoy criticized Britain's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors in April.
They were released after Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"
Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University was just what the doctor ordered for the Neocons. They've been able to portray him as a complete megalomaniacal dictator, bent on the destruction of the West and a radical islamic conquest of the world.
Bush is beating the war drums louder and louder against Iran, and an attack will almost certainly be launched before he leaves office. The next President will have to deal not only with the quagmire in Iraq, but the mess Bush and his Neocon cadre will leave in Iran- and who knows where else. But then, that's exactly what I think Bush wants. The American people will want to get out of the messes he puts us in, and in order to do so, will fall in line with his daddy's New World Order, austensibly under Bush's hoped-for successor- Hillary Clinton.
We better put an end to the Bush/Clinton dynasty before it puts an end to us.
______________________________________________________
From: The Jerusalem Post
Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.
Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West.
"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.
"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."
He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Ahmadinejad.
"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said.
Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity existed should not be used as an excuse not to act.
"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction... Responding after they (nuclear devices) are used is unacceptable."
Bolton also said the UN was "fundamentally irrelevant".
The former envoy criticized Britain's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors in April.
They were released after Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"
Friday, September 28, 2007
Chuck Baldwin: The "Fix" is in
Exposing once again the Bush/Clinton dynasty, and the Neocon/Progressive cabal....
___________________________________________________
THE "FIX" IS IN
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
September 28, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying, "President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."
The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."
The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush] wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."
Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue "[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."
The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."
The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.
"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."
The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper and the lead story on every television and radio network news show. But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in. George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and now you know it.
I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have been "best buds" for years. My initial source for this report was someone who was among the Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show. Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It is all political theater.
For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a globalist New World Order agenda.
Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably longer.
However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties, and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.
Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's "enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.
Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President. They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do after she becomes President.
I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see article). I thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will put Hillary in the White House.
It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans. Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.
Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.
The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties' prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket--would put the elitists in retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington and the boys either.)
So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on. Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
___________________________________________________
THE "FIX" IS IN
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
September 28, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying, "President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."
The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."
The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush] wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."
Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue "[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."
The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."
The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.
"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."
The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper and the lead story on every television and radio network news show. But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in. George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and now you know it.
I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have been "best buds" for years. My initial source for this report was someone who was among the Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show. Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It is all political theater.
For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a globalist New World Order agenda.
Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably longer.
However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties, and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.
Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's "enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.
Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President. They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do after she becomes President.
I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see article). I thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will put Hillary in the White House.
It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans. Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.
Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.
The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties' prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket--would put the elitists in retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington and the boys either.)
So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on. Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
