Group items tagged

Perhaps the clearest and most direct explanation yet concerning the Benghazi Massacre and the once strapping young Muslim-Socialist in the White House.   excerpt: "I have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he was a socialist. But Obama's behavior over the last four years regarding Islam has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered worldview -- a combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world. Having been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the seventies, I have witnessed socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism, and even communism, have managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to full-fledged Sharia. The two ideologies have blended together in cases including the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies, such as the United States, are alien to Islam and socialism both because they regard government as a servant of the people and hold that human rights are granted by God and not by government or the code of Sharia. Both Sharia and socialism are united in their envy of Western society and need to change it. That is why Obama has become the savior of both Islam and socialism. He embodies both ideologies. The claim that Obama is a Christian was a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to fit the goals of both creeds. Obama became the One, the savior of both Islam and socialists. To do that, Obama had to deny who he really was, which explains why his actions and words have never added up. At the recent Alfred E. Smith Catholic Charity dinner speech, Obama did not seem to be just kidding when he said that Romney uses his middle name Mitt and "I wish I c

I can't see Obama as a Muslim, a Christian, or a Socialist. He is simply too corrupt to honestly subscribe to any ideology other than Corruption.

Very interesting post from Douglas French concerning the repubican primaries and F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfom" comments on modern politics. Fascinating stuff. Hayek argues that, in politics, "the worst rise to the top", and he outlines three reasons why: .... Choosing is the problem. Informed people are more "nuanced" - they have many divergent opinions and views. Uniformity however drives the group dynamics behind a democratic process. Uniformity of opinion rules, and the less informed a person is, the more uniform and drawn to larger groups they will be. The "lowest common denominator" rule rules the democratic process. Mobocracy at work. .... Those on top, pursuing the political leadership positions, must appeal to the masses and weave together the groups driven by the "lowest common denominator" rule. The docile and gullible "are ready to accept whatever values and ideology drummed into them". Advantage to big media, the socialist assemblage ruling public education, and public workers unions. ..... Third, political leaders "don't promote a positive agenda, but a negative one of hating an enemy and envy of the wealthy. To appeal to the masses, leaders preach an "us" against "them" program." The great unwashed and uninformed being guided and driven "by emotion and passion rather than critical thinking." Not sure i agree with any of this, much as i admire and recognize the importance of Hayek and his seminal, game changing "Road to Serfdom". One reason is that some of the most informed people i know are goose stepping socialist hell bent on ending individual liberty - as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", in exchange for Marxist social equality. Another reason i would disagree is that the salt of the earth "bitter clingers" Reagan Conservatives that rock the Tea Party movement are exactly what the establishment elites call the "uninformed masses". Not sure if that's what Hayek meant, but his viewpoint does look a

".....There's a lot of talk about how the bailouts are creating moral hazard and rewarding bad behavior. But those are pretty abstract ideas, the kind of things people wonder whether or not we can afford to worry about while the economy is tanking. Sure we'll pay a long run price  for screwing up the market's discipline but in the long run we're all dead. So forget "moral hazard" and just look at Warren Buffett's description of what is happening to his home construction business, Clayton Homes. Clayton, which makes pre-fab homes, also has a lending business. Surprisingly, Clayton hasn't been crushed by the markets because it maintained high lending standards and doesn't have a balance sheet overflowing with defaulting loans..." And the solution is? Buffett is/was a successful capitalist. Yet he fully supported a socialist takeover of the government. Obama's campaign rhetoric was that of a hard core socialist declaring war on constitutional capitalism. And there was Buffett, standing at Obama's side, arguing that all capitalist should be supporting the systemic change Obama socialism promised to deliver. And now Buffett's complaining? What is it about socialism that attracted Buffett in the first place? Did he really think the socialists he worked to elect would pour tax payer debt money into the capitalists hands, and let the markets go their merry way? The socialist seeks to control the means of production, limit the rights of property ownership, and redistribute the wealth created by capitalist. Socialism does not have a wealth creation model. Redistribution of wealth and control over the means of production is something Buffett supported with both his money and his personal assurances to constitutional capitalist everywhere. Yet here we are. Exactly where Buffetts advice and pleas intended us to be. And now he's complaining? Buffett didn't like the belief in big government programs, big government spending and crisis interventionism of Bush's compasionat

Shortly after Barack Obama swept into the White House while giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a coattail Marxist Congress, Newsweek Magazine ran the cover "We're all Socialists now," based on Jon Meacham's lead article with the same headline.  Without a doubt, the election of that president and that Congress moved reality closer to Meacham's point.  It was astonishing that liberal apologist Meacham admitted as much. Yet it took until last night before it was literally true, as New Hampshire gave a full-throated socialist a rout over semi-socialist Hillary Clinton on the Democrat side and the once and now apparently again socialist Donald Trump won the GOP primary after going left of Bernie Sanders in his final rallies in the state.  To translate, Obama's hope and change and fundamental transformation of the nation are right on track - barreling warp-speed to the left in both presidential primary contests.

Of course he's a socialist. The real question is, how does he feel about America? His favorite Sunday preacher for the last twenty years is simply obsessed with a frothing hatred for this country. His good buddies Bill and Bernardine have been expressing their rage loud and proud since the Sixties. As president, O is trying to put Chas Freeman in charge of the National Intelligence Estimates, a man who is neither competent, nor temperamentally suited, nor emotionally able to restrain his animosity against American Jews who love Israel just as they love America (... because, for one thing, they love democracy, and can recognize fascists even in drag.)  Newsweek tells us we're all socialists now. That's an obvious lie, because the Newsweek socialists like Evan Thomas suffer from regular nightmares that American conservatives will find another Ronald Reagan. But that raised the question of socialism. Obama danced away from it, of course, when a NYT reporter actually asked him. Whoooo me? Socialism is internationalist, and that means a genuine dual loyalty for a president of the United States. Marxists are convinced there is an inevitable contradiction between love of country and love of humanity. That's why it's called the Socialist International, and why the anthem is the Internationale. They haven't made a secret of it. Internationalist fervor controls their actions, including very successful efforts to whip up black feelings against whites, women against men, and everybody against capitalism, no matter how many billions of people it has raised out of poverty. The whole point about the global warming scam is to empower the internationalist Ruling Class.

A useful comparison of Ron Paul's stunning economic conservative record.  RP is easily the most conservative candidate in the repubican primary.  Where RP differs from his comparatively liberal-socialist challengers (Santorum, Gingrich and Romney), is on social conservative values.  Simply put, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from forcing into law the both social conservative "values" and socialist -liberal democrat "values".  Easy enough. At the State level, and with the blessing of the 9th and 10th Amendments, conservatives and socialist can have at it; as long as they don't cross the Bill of Rights barriers.  Federally, i'm a strict constitutionalist - which means libertarian. Good read, but the author does not go into foreign policy, where the strict Constitutionalist Libertarian clashes with both the militant social conservatives, and the nation building - human rights happy socialists. Sure would like to see a civil discussion of how those waging civil war in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and the Congo (among other places :( ) are a direct threat to USA citizens.  If they are, then Congress needs to stand by the Constitution and declare WAR.  And do so before committing funds for these militarist - corporatist - bankster ventures.

I listened to the Coast to Coast interview with Foster & Kimberly Gamble, who researched and produced the film "Thrive".  Fascinating stuff, but if you're a Coast to Coast regular, you've heard this all before.  The Gamble's are different however in that they really have produced a top notch, highly visual and engaging film documenting their research and interviews.  The energy and bankster discussions are really well done.  Let's hope this wake up call finds some traction. The one disappointing aspect of the Gamble's presentation is their hopefulness with the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Sure, of course, we we're all hopeful in the early days of the movement.  Until it became obvious that this was being driven by Saul Alinsky radical watermelons and Obammunists. After listening to the Gamble's for an hour, there's no doubt in my mind that they true Patriots, fully embracing the founders value for "individual liberty" and the system of ordered liberty embedded in the Constitution and Declaration.  But i don't think they have thought things out to the full extent of realizing that "individual liberty" and "socialism" are at odds.   A socialist believes the welfare of the society (the group) is more important than the liberty of the individual.  Socialist are at odds with the Constitution.  While libertarians welcome any help they can get overthrowing the heavy yoke of psychopathic banksters and crony corporatists, help from the socialists is very dangerous.  It's an established fact that Marx and Engels were hired and paid by global banksters to create a new system that would counter the economic, social and cultural forces of individual liberty.  Banksters and corporatists are quite willing to lend money and collect interest for vast and unsustainable socialist programs and military interventions racking up debt that spans and enslaves generations.  Socialism is the new indentured servitude.  And it will last as long as the banksters control the fia

University of Chicago publication on the Web of all Federalist Papers.  The question i was researching had to do with Michael Hickens comparison of Hamilton to FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt).  I was looking for some are where there might be some measure of "agreement" between Hamilton and FDR. Hamilton of course is known as a great defender of personal liberty, LIMITED government, and the importance of ENUMERATED powers in the Constitution.  In this paper he argues that the call for a Bill of Rights added to the proposed Constitution is uneccessary exactly because the people did not grant to the government the powers to infringe or take away any freedoms/rights to begin with.  He further argues that enumerating these "rights" would suggest that somehow the federal government would have this power!  Even though it's enumerated in the Constitution.  So why write an enumerated Constitution if you have to further enumerate the rights of the people beyond the limits of government? FDR of course is the great statist/socialist who believed that the Constitution doesn't go far enough in it's obligations to CARE for the people's needs.  So FDR proposed a second Bill of Rights that expanded the governments responsibilities and POWER to provide for damn near every physical and material need a person might ever have.   Two interesting "value statements" to consider.  Guess which one would be supported by that great Federalist, Hamilton.  And which by that great statist/socialist, FDR? Karl Marx: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, " And then there's t

The Williams article does no more than to sing to the choir and certainly is no scholarly work. First he stuffs the Nazis into his own "socialist" bag, ignoring the fact that the "socialist" label in the party name was only window dressing for what was in reality a mix of fascism and capitalism, not socialism. Then he declares that "communists" in the Soviet Union were responsible for mass murders, blinking past the fact that the Soviet Union was communist in name only. It was a fascist state during the entire period when the mass murders there took place and wound up an oligarchy before it died. "Communist China" likewise was never a communist state. It began as a socialist state ruled by an oligarchy, became near-fascist under Chairman Mao, and returned to being an oligarchy after his death, but this time sprouting capitalist wings. (Nixon removing the U.S. trade barriers with China had a lot to do with this.) Having stuffed everything in sight into his "socialist" bag, deserving or not, and labeling *all* socialists as government mass murders, Williams takes the insurmountable mental leap to paint groups like the "NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund" as mass murderers, apparently should their views ever become dominant in the U.S. (Williams provides no connective tissue for his illogic there.) Then to top it all off, the web site's editor slaps a title on the essay lumping liberals and progressives in with the socialists, so apparently liberals and progressives are potential mass murderers too, which is unmistakably his innuendo. Williams seems to have a problem with organizations working *through our legal system* to expand civil liberties and to raise ethnic minorities out of poverty. Love 'em or hate 'em, those are not groups of mass murderers. Williams has the right to dislike those organizations. He also has the right to make absurd arguments, which he has fully exercised. But he wa

Like most concerned citizens, my inbox is overflowing with Tea Party - Libertarian - Conservative news and articles.  Lots of shrill tones and emotional angst, and there is no doubt in my mind that the socialists are trying to push this country into open rebellion and civil war.  It's the only way they get to totally discard the Constitution and Bill of Rights.   Sanity for me has become the study of our history, and the long hard march toward freedom and individual liberty our forefathers made.  The Patriot Post is one of the few publications I've found that can consistently link the socialist civil war and globalist events of the day to the cultural and historical legacy of that great march towards individual liberty and freedom.  This most recent article hit me between the eyes.  Maybe someday I'll understand why this kind of discussion shakes me to the core.  For now though, I hope you'll give it some consideration.  And like me try to stay calm in the midst of Benghazigate, Fast and Furious, ObamaCare and the incredible avalanche of daily assaults on our Constitution and the individual liberties that great document was designed to protect and defend. excerpt: "From the days of Woodrow Wilson to those of Barack Obama, and encompassing all the "progressives" in between, taxpayer-funded academic institutions have been the breeding ground for generations of socialists. For most leftists, the crucial years that cemented their worldview were the ones they spent in our nation's colleges and universities. Given that some substantial number of the adoring, bright-eyed beneficiaries of Obama's rhetoric have no concept of Essential Liberty and its antithesis, tyranny, let me take apart the selected excerpt of Obama's oration and provide those graduates with an introductory lesson in Liberty. After all, most of the class of 2013 will have plenty of time to contemplate this lesson, as more than half of college and university graduates entering the "Obamanomic

"Doug Casey on American Socialism"  .  Awesome interview, especially the discussion on Liberalism and how the socialist Norman Thomas decided to co-opt the term as an effective replacement for the disreputable socialism.  Links to the Thomas 1932 socialist platform that Casey points out has pretty much been put into place.   Good discussion.  Focus on an article published by socialist apologist and idiot, Allan Colmes.

I agree that Colmes is far from the sharpest knife in the drawer. In my opinion, he was largely a Fox News invention to give Shawn Hannity a far weaker opponent to argue against that Hannity's idiocy could still overcome. There are in reality liberals that Hannity could never have gone toe-to-toe with. (That's not an endorsement of liberalism; it's commentary on the quality of Hannity's arguments.) The show was mostly a variant of the straw man logical fallacy; the fact that Colmes lacked the ability to think critically or communicate effectively made Hannity "win" the pseudo-debate in the eyes of those unable to think critically themselves. I have some criticism of Casey's remarks that apply more generally to my experience of strict Libertarians and perhaps even farther to strict adherents to any "ism." My criticism boils down to a couple of examples of hard issues usually avoided by strict Libertarians. -- The Disabled: When discussing Social Security disability benefits, Casey changes the subject from the genuinely disabled to a short rant about those whose disability claims are bogus and the "ambulance chasing" lawyers who pursue their claims. But if pressed to the wall and forced to answer, I strongly suspect that Casey would admit that there are people, likely the majority of Social Security disability benefits, whose claims are genuine. The net effect of his relevant argument: an impression that he has a Darwinian view that he would leave the disabled dying in the streets without sustenance or medical care. That kind of society is unacceptable to me. Perhaps it is to Casey too, but if so I think it was incumbent on him to offer a solution for the genuinely disabled. (In fairness, I'll note that at one point Casey hinted but did not forthrightly say that he would favor financial assistance for single mothers in Harlem.) -- Medical Care: I agree that our health care system is badly broken. But again Casey is long on criticism but short on realistic idea

Not a big Peter Beinhart fan, but this article explains a large part of the Ron Paul phenom. After a life time as a big C Goldwater-Reagan Constitutional Conservative, this summer i made a full transition to big C Constitutional Libertarian. The tipping point for me was the GAO audit of the Federal Reserve, where they discovered $16.1 Trillion of taxpayer dollars missing from the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel management books. It went to a who's who of international Bankster Cartel members. None of the taxpayer funded "financial collapse of 2008" bailout dollars went to the purposes chartered by their legislation. That includees the TARP $850 Billion, the Obama Stimulous $1 Trillion, and the mega FRBC $16.1 Trillion. No bad debts were purchased and retired. No rotting mortgage securities were swept up and restructured. No shovel ready jobs either. And no one in government or banksterism having caused the financial collapse went to jail. Instead, the perps feasted on the bailout dollars. The debt remains on the books of international Banksters, collecting interest, thirsting for foreclosure. The Bankster Cartel members are flush with cash, but not lending. By law (The Federal Reserve Act of December 23rd, 1913), FRBC members must keep a significant amount of their assets on "reserve" at the Federal Reserve, at 6% interest. In exchange for managing this process and the exploding money supply, the taxpayers of the USA are obligated by law to pay the FRBC 1% per year of (assets under management" (the money supply). Take note: the FRBC takes the 1% per year payment for their services in the form of GOLD!! They will not take payment in the form of paper notes labeled legal tender "Federal Reserve Notes". They only take GOLD. My transition to Constitutional Libertarian begins with a strct reading of the Constitution (the How), the Declaration of Independence, (the Why), and belief in the Rule of Law, not man. The concept of achievi

Throw the socialist out!  The full video of Col. Allan West's speech at the Lincoln Day Dinner in West Palm Beach Florida.  Incredible and well worth your time.  You will want to stand up and cheer.   Left lengthy note in the new Diigo Quick Note.  Wish i could do the same with EverNote!!!  Quick note is okay.  Very convenient, but no tags, groups or lists.  And the only HTML-Rich Text editing is at Diigo where you can edit a QuickNote.  No bookmarking either with QuickNote either.  Hopefully Diigo users will persuade QucikNote to improve this useful product.  And hopefully EverNote will come to see the advantages of Diigo. Need to edit the QuickNote with some quick definitions of the isms: Conservatism, the ,any Socialisms, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Obammunism and libertarianism. My QuickNote discusses three corners: Libertarianism, Socialism and Fascism. Some quick comments:  Libertarianism differs from Conservatism in that conservatives champion conservative-judeo-christian social values.  The kind you think of when you hear God, Country, Community and Family.  The Libertarian champions the founding documents; the Declaration and the Constitution.  Here the only "value" the founding fathers desired to be embedded in the governing structure was that of "individual liberty".  Making the governing structure a Republic focused entirely on the objective of "ordered liberty". socialist are also focused on social values, but their primary objective is the welfare of the group.  More often than not, the individual's liberty is sacrificed to the welfare of the group.  In fact, in knee jerk socialism, the individual only exist to benefit the greater society.  When the individual becomes a drag, euthanasia is the tool of choice for a socialist.  Not though that as long as the individual is a voting and consuming member of the group that is overturning the Constitutional Republic, and clamoring to replace the Republic with mobocracy democracy, the

Whoa! Great read!   I think i've met my doppleganger. And he can write.  Funny but earlier today Marbux and i had a lengthy eMail exchange about this exact same topic.  Clearly we are not alone in wondering what has happened to the Tea Party?   I have been trying to get my thoughts together about the rope-a-dope of Rush Limbaugh, which predictably resulted in the fragmentation and total route of the Tea Party Patriot movement. Thirty three days into the election primary cycle and the hands down winner is, The Big Government Establishment".  How did the establishment of trough feeding repubicans, democrats and corporatist/banksters do this? And do it so quickly and efficiently? This article attempts to describe the gradual push towards big government socialism.  No doubt the democratic party is the party of socialism, running the gamut from liberals, to progressives, to Euro socialist, to Marxist, communists and hard core Stalinist. Obammunism itself is a rather unique blend of Marxist enviro socialism driven and funded by fascist crony corporatism/banksterism.    The article further describes what used to be moderates as big government social progressives with a strong dose of military merchatilist interventionism.  The artile also calls these types "neo conservatives"  I guess because the neo moderates are describing themselves as new conservatives. Which is an insult to any Goldwater - Reagan conservative.  Like me.  Or at least i was until this past summer when a kind group of libertarians educated me on the Constitution.  I was Federalist  style, social/militarist conservative.  Now i'm a Jefferson-Madison libertarian strict Constitutionalist. So i've been there.  And "neo conservative" is not conservative in any sense other than that of militarist-merchantilist make the world safe for democracy through big, really big, government social and military programs.  And oh yeah, the neo moderate is a Federal Reserve big corporatist/bankster ty

Tea Party Precinct Workers Needed: http://goo.gl/8u9wAI Republican Community Organizers? Or are they really libertarian infiltrators posturing as repubicans :) Interesting discussion at The Tea Party.org. Here is my comment concerning "fragmentation" and third party participation. And yes, I have registered to become a precinct worker on behalf of the Republican Party Libertarian Caucus movement. I've also listed myself in a number of local County Sheriff activities. It's getting real that matters :) ................... Fragmentation is an issue. Which is exactly why the core set of principles must be very limited. IMHO, restoring the founding documents and principles; the American Republic, the Constitution and the principles so famously described in the Declaration of Independence are the single point of agreement that defines "America". The founding documents created a Republic based on "individual liberty". So it would seem that the concept and value of "individual liberty" would be the single "lowest common denominator" that all Americans can rally around. Stray from the Constitution and Declaration, and you will have arguments that divide and defeat. Stay on point, arguing the value and importance of "individual liberty" and it becomes very hard to wander from the importance of limiting government, and protecting individual rights to privacy, property and prosperity. I've been very successful at arguing that a socialist can not honestly take the oath of office, oath of citizenship, or pledge of allegiance. The socialist believes that the rights and liberty of the individual is subordinate to the needs of society. For the socialist, there is no such thing as individual liberty or inalienable rights. They are un-Constitutional and un-American to the core of their being. For the libertarian, an ordered society based on limited government and the Rule of Law, is the best guarantor of effective and meaningful "individual liberty". The ess

Good summary of where we're at in the ObamaCare - Massive Debt debate. excerpt: "The DemoDebt showdown on September 30 and the implementation deadline for the next major phase of Obama's UNaffordable Care Act on October 1 are combining to create the "perfect storm," a formula for extended economic stagnation and, consequently, the greatest domestic threat to American Liberty and free enterprise since Franklin Roosevelt's despotic administration. To summarize, in 2010, under Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, Barack Hussein Obama obtained one of the Left's most coveted political prizes - a plan to nationalize health care. This had long been the "crown jewel" of socialist governments, having also been proposed by Hillary Clinton during her husband's regime. The stated rationale for the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," now ubiquitously called "ObamaCare" (but perhaps more aptly called ObamaCareless"), was to "control health care costs" and "provide insurance coverage for the uninsured," approximately 15% of Americans with no medical coverage - which is not to say no medical care. Of course, the real rationale for ObamaCare is the implementation of a scheme that will ultimately give the central government authoritarian regulatory control over more than 20% of the U.S. economy. Obama and his NeoCom cadres of statists on the Left have effectively hijacked the once-noble Democrat Party and converted it into their own socialist party tool in their ongoing effort to pull the plug on our Constitution. Ultimately, the objective of ObamaCare is to implement a massive single-payer system, in effect, placing the management and rationing of health care services under the thumb of a bloated and inefficient central government, with the objective of using that "achievement" as a major political stepping stone to implement a much broader socialist agenda in the coming years. Our nation is about to take a great

Good article on Newt; covers the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Personally i don't trust Newt.  As former repubican senator Jim Talent of Missouri says, "He's not a reliable and trusted conservative leader".  Strangely, Talent supports Romney. And there is nothing conservative about Romney.   The one thing i do like about Newt is that he is a bomb thrower extraordinaire.  There isn't a Libertarian (moi), conservative, or Constitutional conservative anywhere that wouldn't love to see Newt in the ring with Obama, hammering his Marxist ass without mercy.  But i'm not so sure that that desire is enough to overcome the serious character flaws and self centered egotistical baggage Newt hauls around.  He proves time and again that he lacks the core values of a true conservative, including dedication to the upholding the Constitution and Rule of Law. Funny though that a valueless establishment repubican "we can manage big government more efficiently and make it work" guy like Romney is attacking Newt as not being a true conservative?  What does that make Romney?  At least Newt can point to the awesome Contract with America repubican take over of Congress - after 40 years in the wilderness. Even though Ron Paul has lost it on foreign policy, i continue to send money.  My switch from Reagan Constitutional Conservative to Libertarian has "nearly" everything to do with the 2008 financial collapse, and the years of research and study that followed.   I say "nearly" because i just couldn't pull the trigger until unexpectedly i found myself in a Bloomberg discussion questioning my support for Herman Cain.  Sadly, Herman supports the Federal Reserve, including full approval of both Greenspan and Bernacke policies that have destroyed the US dollar and enabled the Banksters to run off with over $29 Trillion of our money.  Of course, this is an indefensible and inexcusable position.  The Libertarian's in the discussion pointed out that the problems this country faces cann

disclosure: I met Cokie and Steve Roberts at an intimate house party in NH. Probably in 1991. Very nice people but they are full blown unionist-socialist-progressives iron bent on the European Socialism model. Not Constitutionalist in any way shape of form. Certainly not Constitutional Capitalist or free market types either.