Real Heroes

ScreenHunter_329 Jun. 07 12.53

The current Republican leadership would rather accept dictatorship than suffer through an unpleasant discussion with Barack Obama.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Real Heroes

  1. au1corsair says:

    Don’t forget that during 6 June 1944 the Democratic Party was large, in charge, and “the American Party.” Be careful what you wish for. Even then, FDR blamed it all on the GOP–and anybody else not on FDR’s team.

    The DNC refers to these as the “good old days.”

    • _Jim says:

      … FDR blamed it all on the GOP …

      Don’t know what you mean by this; looks to be ambiguous, too non-specific, what is this “all” you cite?


      • au1corsair says:

        Let’s start with Charles Lindbergh, declared a “defeatist and appeaser” even after Pearl Harbor. FDR had a personal axe to grind beginning with Lindbergh criticizing FDR’s handling of air mail contracts. Lindbergh was barred from contributing to the war effort–which helped kill 26,000 Eighth Army Air Force airmen (out of 47,000 total casualties) because FDR’s little crusade delayed the introduction of long range fighter aviation by nearly two years. When Lindbergh snuck into the PTO, he managed to extend the range of both the Marine Corps F4U and the Army’s P-38 fighter planes through flying techniques.

  2. _Jim says:

    The current Republican leadership would rather accept dictatorship than suffer through an unpleasant discussion with Barack Obama.

    Only one word for that: Cowards.

    Cowards die many times before their deaths.
    The valiant never taste of death but once.
    Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
    It seems to me most strange that men should fear,
    Seeing that death, a necessary end,
    Will come when it will come.

    -Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Only one word for that: Cowards.”

      You may be right, and “cowards” is certainly a possibility — but there may be other explanations. Look at what the Republican leadership did (and also at what they failed to do) during the years when the Republican party controlled both houses of Congress, the Executive branch, and a compliant Supreme Court (Jan 2001 – Jan 2005). Maybe the Republican leadership is composed of cowards, afraid of what the Democrats may say or think. Or maybe the Republican leadership has more in common with the Democratic leadership than they do with Republican voters.

      • squid2112 says:

        maybe the Republican leadership has more in common with the Democratic leadership than they do with Republican voters.

        I believe this is correct. Both parties want ultimate government control, just in slightly different ways. The result however, is just the same.

        • Gail Combs says:

          SEE: America’s Ruling Class The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary.

          Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust….

          Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

          The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners

          The important part

          our political divisions are the iceberg’s tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences “undecided,” “none of the above,” or “tea party,” these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate — most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics….

          This is the reason the UK saw the rise of UKIP, how ever the UK has multiple parties while the USA only has two and the republicans are not interested in what the Tea Party is telling them.

          New American: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Rails Against Tea Party

          Bloomberg: GOP’s Business Wing Sends Tea Party a Chilling Message

          U.S. Chamber of Commerce beating Tea Party in Republican races

  3. dbstealey says:

    I would give just about anything for one Republican who talks like Nigel Farage.

    • _Jim says:

      Did you see Ted Cruz speaking out against the Udall amendment?


      About 1/8 the way down is a Powerlineblog embeded video with Ted speaking before what I presume is the Senate Judiciary Commitee against this measure. The ‘highlights’ on the proposed Udall 28th Amendment follow below.

      – – – – – – – – – – –
      To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is the 28th Amendment:

      • Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office;

      • Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change denier”;

      • Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party;

      • A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;

      • A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors;

      • A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions; and

      • Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats).
      – – – – – – –

      Riiiiiight ….

  4. Mike D says:

    Yeah, as long as they have some high enough role, they’ll go along to get along. Happens with corrupt governments all around the world. Some, like Arlen spector literally show their colors by making it offical. Others just pretend.

  5. norilsk says:

    And who made it the farthest inland on D-Day? The Canadian Army of course. The little country that could. They got the bulk of their tanks ashore plus a thousand of them spoke French, which is a huge advantage when invading France.

  6. Anto says:

    When a leftist president loses even Noam Chomsky, you know he’s a danger to us all:

    • Gail Combs says:


      Some of Willi Muenzenberg’s Useful Idiots are finally waking up and seeing the monster hiding under the sheepskin of socialism.

  7. Thanks to Petraeus’s softening the ranks with PC garbage, we couldn’t win a war against the Visigoths. All our military are capable of now is socializing education and healthcare of vets and active duty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s