Mark levin is genious, in his annalisis and breakdown of current events his commentary is unequaled, his opinions are strong, and his conviction spirited.. imo he is an invaluable member of the the conservitive landscape. That said, he has an uneviable trait that grabs him at times, it is one thing that really turns me off when i am otherwise enjoying a broadcast. That is that he trashes other conservitives. Ron paul for instance is a conservitive, and although he has a protectionist non interventionalist stance on foreign policy that does not make him not a conservitive. Mark (I say with much respect) paul is right with respect to his constitutional interpretation of foreign policy. I say this not as a (toothless rue paul fanatic) but as a fan of yours. As I recall the constitution declares that the u.s. is to maintain a SMALL regular army. And a much larger portion (all white males aged 17-45 according to the 1791 or? 97 mallitia act) are compeled to serve in the citizen millitia. This small defensive army is designed for defense and is so sized to prevent abuse of power from the cheif commander, while an armed populace provides further deterence both from potential agressors abroad, and a potentioally overreaching government.. that's how the framers saw it, and mark you can't be the great defender of -some of the- constitution. In my opinion you defend the whole thing as envisioned, and please please please stop trashing any of the nominees, it turns me off to see any fellow conservitive mauled publicly, we need to defend the few warriors we have, and rally round the waggons, even if otherwise we have minor diferences, we share core principals.
Good Grief, Jack. What you won't do or say for $50.
@no faith- You ever work for minimum wage? You ever try to pay bills and feed a family off of less than $10 an hour? Would you even get out of bed for that?
You conservative types seem to think that some middle man on wall street who shuffles other folks money around sucking a percentage off the top are more worthy of prosperity than people who actually work for a living. Why is it that you have such disdain for the working class? Next time cut your own grass, take your own garbage to the dump, move your own furniture, flip your own burgers, fix the pot holes on your street. Why don't you carry some lumber? Not once, but everyday. And listen and read the opinion of self important ass wipes like yourself who think that very minimum wage protection is wrong. Most people who work for TWICE minimum wage struggle to get by or work more than one job. I would know, I'm one of them.
The problem with our evil fighting friend is two fold: personal presumption of righteousness--this comes from the sickness of American puritanism, and corrupt means. So many think they are conservatives, pointing to their goals and intentions, but, like the most liberal of liberals, they use the most corrupt and unfitting of means to accomplish their goals and do so without reflection or hesitation.
Social engineering liberals always use religious rhetoric to justify government entitlement programs. The poor should be helped, but the government is the most corrupt and unfitting of institutions to do it--and handing over the job of personal compassion to such a corrupt, self-serving and reptilian institution means three things: the people are fleeced, the politicians are enriched and empowered, and the poor are ill-served. Government meddling into foreign affairs is no different; the people are fleeced, government bloats, elites are enriched, and millions needlessly suffer--all from these self-righteous "good intentions" using corrupt means. What our friend fighting evil needs is largely what America and Americans need and what we have pitiful little of: sincere, earnest, critical self-examination.
Maybe Jack Hunter has converted me after all. Once again I find myself agreeing with him. We need a strong defence, but we need not use it overtly. The endless Mideast wars has destroyed our defence reserves by overuse of the citizen solder and why in God's name are we outing a madman in Libya who is defanged and relatively harmless when the replacement may turn out to be our greatest enemy. All these so called democratic revolts we are cheering in the Mideast look more and more like Iran some years back when the "evil" Shah was deposed. We will probably be confronting trans islamic unity run by non other than Iran.
I think I wrote this same "position paper" in highschool.
What is this I don't even there isn't...
Reagan is at this point used by the GOP the way out of context Bible verses are used by some Christians: Cherry-pick a quote and you've got the ultimate authority supporting your exact viewpoint 100%. That said, it does seem as if the neoconservatives are especially guilty of this practice.
The way political opposition forces for thousands of years operated by prohibiting only CERTAIN drugs and criminalizing them in attempts to rise or stay in power, is the same way Conservatives, Republicans and others are doing today: criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens so that many of their political enemies are neutralized and/or silenced.
The War on Drugs started (really its been about 80 years) with a corrupt Republican politician named Richard Nixon, who spied on his enemies and focused on eliminating them by locking them up over simple drug violations. I, supposedly a “good” Conservative Republican (only vote that way because Democrats are worse) supported the War on Drugs. I changed over the years to only wanting to decriminalize Cannabis, but keeping other already illegal drugs illicit, then to legalizing Cannabis but still keeping other illicit drugs illegal, to now knowing I was WRONG about the entire subject and believe ALL drugs now criminalized should be legal so that government regulates them, instead of the ruthless Drug Cartels.
What all of us need to do is ask the two simple, basic questions that should determine whether or not we should support a law or not. The first basic question is whether the law we support is Constitutional – especially from the standpoint of looking at the law from the viewpoint of Freedom of Religion, Speech and Assembly. The War on Drugs FAILS at protecting all three of these precious rights. Secondly, does the law fulfill the basic premise of Government that it does NOT deprive someone of their pursuit of happiness that all are guaranteed, as long as what they are pursuing doesn’t harm someone else? The War on Drugs FAILS at this very basic question of the very foundation of why Government exists in the first place.
From the start, U.S. Drug Policy was determined along racial lines, with the first law banning opium smoking in the late 1800s because it was the favorite of Chinese laborers who were brought here to build the railroads, even though White folks used opium too, but they sipped it in their drinks, which was considered perfectly acceptable.
Cocaine was also a popular drug in the late 19th Century, with cigarettes treated with it, medicines derived from it and even the Sears catalogue offering it for sale. But when the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial on cocaine use among blacks in the South, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed a racist named Dr. Hamilton Wright to head up his version of the War on Drugs. Wright stirred up anti-black and anti-Latino sentiments.
Nelson Rockefeller, longtime New York governor is widely remembered as the architect of New York’s draconian drug laws enacted in 1973 mandating that possession of even small amounts of cocaine or heroin be punished with minimum sentences of 15 years to life in prison—even for those with no prior record.
As a result of these laws, some 200,000 men, women and children were condemned to spend decades in prison. Today, nearly 90% of those incarcerated in New York on drug charges are black or Latino, and the Rockefeller laws became the model for drug laws all across the country that eventually imprisoned hundreds of thousands more in the racist War on drugs. The number of people incarcerated in the U.S. has grown eightfold since 1970, with 2.3 million behind bars today — 70% of them Black or Latino.
A 2009 report by the New York Civil Liberties Union said that the Rockefeller laws are “New York’s Jim Crow Laws.” In the 1950s, when Jim Crow segregation was still legal in the South, Black Americans made up 30% of the national prison population. But today, as a result of the War on Drugs, Blacks, which account for only 13% of the U.S. population, make up over 50% of prison inmates, eight times the rate of imprisonment for Whites. And according to a 2007 Justice Policy Institute report, Black men are sent to prison on drug charges at ten times the rate of white men, even though their drug use is about the same.
Thanks for listening, 777denny
I think that the question we should ask ourselves is; "How much can the government regulate or attempt to control vice, or sin if you will?" I am a Christian, I'm very traditional and conservative, but I am libertarian on the issue of drugs. Like Ron Paul, I think the federal "war on drugs" is like socialism, it doesn't work and it never will. I think the drug issue should be up to the individual states, if some states want to legalize marijuana or other drugs, then so be it. I also believe their is a big difference between a pot smoker and a "druggie." I have friends who smoke pot, some of whom own businesses, and they function just as normally as people who don't. On the other hand, I've had friends who started using hard drugs like crack and meth, and it was an awful sight to behold, very scary. I definitely think reefer should be legal, as far as hard drugs go, I'm not sure where I stand on that. Like liberals, many so-called "conservatives" do not understand human nature. As a Christian, I believe that man is sinful, it is in the fallen nature of human beings to seek pleasure, even if it's in doing things that are bad for us, whether it's smoking, drinking, eating junkfood, etc. Man has been abusing substances since the beginning of time. The Bible tells of this in Genesis 9:20-21; "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine, and was drunken, and uncovered (naked) in his tent." In other words, Noah got really buzzed by consuming something he grew! So what else is new? I believe the true role of government should be to prevent and punish crime. The government should only intervene if one citizen commits a crime against another. In order for there to be a crime, there has to be (1) a perpetrator, and (2) a victim. So if somebody decides to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home on their own time, how can that be a crime? They're not bothering or doing harm to anyone else, they should be left alone! Is smoking weed a sin? I don't believe it is if it's used for medicinal purposes, but it is if it's recreational use. (That's my personal belief anyway.) That being said, let the church deal with that, let the preachers preach against it, just like they do against drunkenness. Let each person be governed by their own conscience; if you don't see anything wrong with smoking weed, then by all means light up, but if you think it's wrong, then don't do it. It's that simple. God is the author of our liberties, He gave each of us a free will, to choose between right and wrong, and good and evil. No amount of legislation can change the human heart, only the Holy Spirit of God can do that. People who like to smoke weed are going to do it anyway, and no amount of laws, no drug testing (which I completely oppose for anybody) and no punitive measures of any sort will ever stop it. The original prohibition in this country, for alcohol, ran from 1919 to 1933. It did not work! So in 1937, (the year they made marijuana illegal) they bascially replace one form of prohibition with another. And guess what? That doesn't work either! The phony "war on drugs" is a waste of time and a plundering of the taxpayer. It is a fraud. They only thing it does is to make certain people richer (like drug testing labs, drug cartels, and rehab centers) to keep useless government bureaucrats employed (like the DEA, etc.) and oppress the people. It's time to end this foolish madness once and for all.
Obama is not an idiot.
He is a big government progressive, who, by his own words and actions, believes in spreading other peoples wealth around. He does not believe in American exceptionalism, and seeks to reduce America to a "socialist lite" democracy.
He does not believe in following the US Constitutional, and uses executive orders and unelected czars to maneuver around our increasingly irrelevant legislative bodies.
He is a pathological liar.
He promised to close Gitmo - Liar!
He promised to end the Bush tax cuts - Liar!
He promised to get us out of foreign wars - Liar!
He promised to keep unemployment below 8% - Liar!
He promised to build a new green economy - Liar!
He promised to remove influence peddlers from the White House - Liar!
Yet, there are millions of dummies who will continue to believe him when he lies to their face. That is the mark of a truly skilled manipulator, and a master politician. As he told Harry Reid after his 2004 convention speech - "He has a gift".
His gifts are deceit and doublespeak, and he's using them to masterful effect in reducing our country's economy to ashes. The world is on fire, our economy is tanking, and that fucker is playing golf.
OMG - Obama Must Go
"Dreadful" is not a definition, but a description and evaluation by an educated & mature person (i.e., me).
There used to be a "defintion" of "idiot" as last in a hierarchy of intellectual deficiencies--dull normal>moron>imbecile>idiot. That terminology has been long since been scrapped, I believe. If I remember correctly, an "idiot" could maybe learn to tie his shoes and simple useful stuff like that. As you all use the term, it seems just a synonym for "jerk" or "asshole".
Definition of Obama=bitter disappointment, but least dreadful of visible alternatives.
If Reagan was a dreadful president, what's your definition of the idiot that is in office now?
*cough* Grenada *cough*
*cough* Central America *wheeze*
In general, Reagan was a dreadful president, but your points here are quite valid.
Re: “Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative”
I have been a doctor for 40 years and do not know of a single situation in which a person was denied health care because of money. We take care of people. Now I will share this information with you, it is against the law in the US for a doctor to give free care. Also, if you want to know why the cost of medicine is going up, look no further than Medicare and Medicaid. They don't pay their share so the cost of medicine is moved on to private insurance. With Obamacare, the US will go broke. That is plain and simple as we can not afford socialized medical care. Also, you really don't want medical care by doctors paid by the govenment, it is not a pretty sight.
As to Newt, he is a progressive/socialist/ communist just like Obama. If you like Obama, vote for Newt.
GINGRICH IS A VERY SORRY EXCUSE FOR A CONSERVATIVE AND A MAN. HIS LIKE MANY OTHERS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A POLITICAL WHORE/
I agree that Newt Gingrich is no conservative. When he was Speaker, both Newt and then House Ways & Means Chairman Bill Archer (R-Tx) both blocked Congressman Mark Sanford's well researched and prophetic Social Security Reform Act of 1997 bill that he proposed. Chairman Archer bottled Sanford's bill up in his committee and because Sanford had promised his district that he would be subject to a self-imposed term limit of three terms, the GOP leadership kept him from having a seat in Archer's committee.
With Social Security currently in deficit, Sanford's bill of almost 15 years ago would have phased in private ownership of Social Security for those under 35 years old, and given that option to those 35 to 50 years old while all over that age would remain on the existing Ponzi scheme which has currently gone into spending money it doesn't take in... just as Rep Sanford predicted.
Sanford's bill was based on the highly proclaimed Chilean/Galveston paradigm that, just like Federal employee's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) would provide each taxpayer with a menu of privately managed mutual funds and allow the taxpayer to be in control of how his/her assets are invested. Upon retirement, the retiree is entitled to all interest revenue generated by the assets, but cannot 'invade' principal. Upon the retiree's death, that lump sum of a lifetime of savings and compounding would become part of the deceased estate and go to the heirs, beneficiaries and charities as decreed in the will. Such a system could very well wipe out poverty within two generations.
But this plan was blocked by Newt and his gang. It was not in their best interest to actually solve a pending problem, but only to 'kick the can down the road' until now the system is in deficit.
First and foremost, what in the hell does this piece have to do with faith and why did this become an ongoing semantic argument about it? Caring about your fellow man is simply "humanity" and if you need an organized religion to teach you that; then you're shallow. Being "human" you are either going to care about your fellow man; be ambivalent about your fellow man or not care about your fellow man... that's it. That's the problem with you people... always ready to tell other people about your convictions but never ready to listen to the convictions of others.
And Jack, I am personally willing to hand-deliver $5000 if you can manage to produce ONE piece that doesn't mention the word "neoconservative" or that doesn't suck up to the Paul family (Does that technically make you a "two-trick pony?)
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper