By The Right Scoop


The whole clip is great here, but it really escalates right at the end. John Bolton is on with Stossel to discuss the morality of the drone process and he defends it. But the red meat of the clip comes right at the end when Bolton is booed for saying that killing thousands of Americans in the Civil War without due process was the thing to do.

Watch the clip to the end:

(h/t: Mediaite)

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • c4pfan

    Good luck with that arguement.

  • Amjean

    I wish it had gone on a little longer. Bolton mostly always handles himself
    very well. These students ask questions they
    should already know the answer to; if only they did a little research and had
    common sense.

    • OneThinDime

      I think these 2 asked great questions. Americans are entitled to due process under the Constitution and no potus has the power to circumvent the Constitution. Congress did not declare war in Libya or Mali, Obama did that on his own. Congress is not holding Obama in check and the lack of impeachment proves that.

      • Amjean

        The video was about drones, not Libya or Mali.

        • OneThinDime

          It is about killing Americans with the use of drones during a war. Obama declared war in both Libya and now Mali which means he can murder Americans with the use of a drone if he thinks they are part of these two wars. Anyone else wonder why there was a drone overhead in Benghazi and 4 Americans were murdered? Did Obama sentence them to death?

          • Conniption Fitz

            Re: the drones in Pakistan – how the Heck do we know who Obama is targeting?

            It might not be AlQueda, but Christians and US friendly moderates for all we know.

            This POTUS’s word, our congress and media are as reliable as a third-hand condom.

            • OneThinDime

              I’m right there with you. No potus should EVER be authorized to murder Americans with the use of a drone. The authorization, to the best of my knowledge from the memo released, it to kill Americans without arrest and without due process. We know Obama has a kill list, what we don’t know is what Americans are on that list.

              • Susanna958

                I think we know that at this point in time conservatives are on the list. Certainly tea partiers.

                • mikeinidaho

                  You are absolutely correct! That’s why it is imperative for We the People to stock up on food, water, GUNS and AMMO. We must be prepared for the coming strife to be inflicted on us by our own governement. American Revolution II may be here sooner than most think.

            • Sober_Thinking

              Interesting point.

          • Amjean

            You are talking about two separate issues. The drone overhead in Benghazi
            did nothing to save the lives of Americans or kill anyone.

            A drone killing a terrorist is little different than a missile being
            launched at that same terrorist. Or an automatic rifle. It is just
            another means of killing.

            Americans on American soil are subject to due process: questioning, arrest,
            trial, etc. prior to punishment if convicted. Obama cannot legally use a
            drone to kill an American on American soil unless they are in the process
            of an act of terrorism. Now you and I and everyone know that Obama breaks
            the law all the time. That, again, is another issue.

            Obama also should not willy nilly kill Americans on foreign soil with a
            drone strike if they are shopping in Paris, having a beer in Ireland or
            sunbathing on the French Riviera. If an American is standing next to a
            person committing a terrorist act and the drone accidentally kills them as
            well as the terrorist, it is called “a casualty of war” I believe. Happens
            all the time.

            • OneThinDime

              I am not talking about 2 different things. If you know what the drone in Benghazi did or didn’t do, perhaps you should testify before the House and Senate Committees. I simply asked a question.

              We are not talking about an American standing next to a terrorist and that American being a casualty of war. You might want to read the memo. He can choose who he determines is a “terrorist” and murder them with no arrest, no trial, no conviction, no sentence. And once that person is dead, there will be no prosecution for his murder.

              • Amjean

                Lets just agree to disagree. You obviously don’t understand my point of
                view and as far as your point of view, I obviously don’t get it either!

            • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

              American Citizens remain citizens everywhere, unless they denounce that citizenship. The premeditated killing of American Citizens (especially 16 year old kids) anywhere except in the midst of an actual battle (when it wouldn’t be premeditated) w/o due process is First Degree Murder.

              • Idahoser

                “in the midst of battle” is what they’re claiming the drones are doing.

          • NPC

            I don’t recall any declaration of war on Libya and Mali? Can you fill me in?

            • OneThinDime

              Congress did not declare war in either, that’s the point. Obama did in Libya and just ordered ground troops to Mali as well. He must receive authorization from Congress.

              • NPC

                Thanks for confirming my suspicions. The reason I questioned it in the first place is that there are some people totally unaware if the truth, and I see that in some of the comments that people post. I suppose this will all work out huh? just like guns of Navarone, uh’ I mean Fast and Furious, and, many, many more to numerous to mention.
                Yup I’ll hold my breath.

                • OneThinDime

                  I think Laurel mentioned some other countries too.

                  Have you seen this? Columbine victim tells Obama to reject gun control and he mentions Fast & Furious! http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/

                • NPC

                  Yes I went to the site and read his letter, very impressive and articulately written.
                  I saw him on TV earlier this week also. He’s be a great example for our younger generation. I hope he gets a lot of exposure and will have opportunity to speak to volumes of his peers. God knows they need it.

                • OneThinDime

                  I’m glad he is getting visibility. He needs to be before Congress along with Amanda Collins.

              • Idahoser

                war has not been declared since 1941, and that’s why no military action since that war ended has been successful. And none ever will be successful until the War Powers Act is repealed.

      • Sober_Thinking

        You are right. Obama has repeatedly circumvented Congress illegally. And only Congress can declare war. At the very least, they should defund Obama when he pulls this. If they had a backbone, they should impeach his lying criminal butt.

        But I respectfully disagree with your due process comment – even though technically, you are right. In my opinion, if an American is involved with traitorous activities against this country that hurts the country or Americans (Benedict Arnold, Ft. Hood murderer), then they become enemies and should be dealt with. I’m cool with them being killed if they can’t be captured and tried properly.

        • OneThinDime

          I certainly understand your perspective but it is a slippery slope and a Constitutional right to due process. One could then make the argument that the 2nd amendment and 1st amendment should be subjected to the same.

        • notsofastthere

          I don’t trust Obama at all, and I never trusted Clinton, but we talk about killing Americans overseas as if they were a group of Americans on the Love Boat. The particular case is Muslim Americans or converts to Jihad who are overseas and plotting to kill us.
          I do believe Obama would take authority too far and like any dictator turn weapons on his own people in his own country. (assuming we believe his country is America).
          So far, congress hasn’t stopped him from doing anything – so I’m very skeptical.

          • Sober_Thinking

            I’m skeptical too.

            I don’t trust Obama’s motives or propensity for evil one little bit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1396855720 Brian Jones

    Libertarians have already discredited themselves long ago by teaming up with Ron Paul…and then their own actions further alienated themselves from the rest of America…

    • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

      Not all Libertarians are Ron Paul fans. I think he’s a very mixed bag, kinda nutty, plus unpredictable and inconsistent. I definitely ascribe to the Milton Freedman branch of Libertarianism.

  • marketcomp

    Wow, libertarians are just as crazy as I thought they were.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

    Amb. Bolton is just what this Country needs

    He tells it like it is and IT is the TRUTH!

    Don’t like it ? – “tuff stuff”

    **************************

    Obama is out of control – but knows how to stay out of trouble
    just like a gang banger does!

    • bbitter

      I know you are passionate, but please please please, no hero-worship. We’ve already got one serious problem with a cult-of-personality in this nation.

      …I have serious problems with the murky morals behind drone strikes on American citizens, much of which have been outside declared war zones, yet are ‘justified’ by a ‘state of war’, which Obama has unilaterally declared in many cases. I have a serious problem with anyone defending the unquestioned execution of american citizens without their due process rights, mandated by the president and kept on a secret list simply due to, in their own words, ‘belief’ that they are connected to an organization.

      I’ve got problems with that because the moral waters there are VERY murky. Our system is designed to let 10 guilty go free instead of condemning 1 innocent… yet we dispense with all of that and simply execute on command. That takes some SERIOUS justification in my book. I don’t know about you.

      • clockwindingdown

        While I agree with what you say, John did say it is congress’ duty to hold the POTUS actions accountable and defund if felt necessary, obviously Beohner and CO are supportive of the POTUS’ actions. That is where our real concern should be addressed, our check and balance system is not functioning, somebody has hot-wired and bypassed the circuit breaker…

        • OneThinDime

          I agree with you and have concerns with both. If the potus does not have “authority” to murder Americans without due process, then Congress does not need to hold that in check. Just look at Fast and Furious (wait, is Issa supposed to still be working on that, crickets) and Benghazi (guess since those “hearings” occurred, that’s over too?)

          • clockwindingdown

            Congress needs to hold check over illegal or questionable actions, just as we need to hold congress and potus up for inspection when they fail to represent us. I know it’s not working now, that just means we have our work cut out for us!

        • bbitter

          yes, but the fact that the checks and balances have failed doesn’t mean that the action is justified, nor that John should defend it to the people. make the case, yes, state his opinion and interpretation, yes, rest authority where it lies, yes…

          …however, he IS saying that he is alright with it. I’m not. That’s my point.

          • clockwindingdown

            Agreed, it does mean we have a runaway train on our hands! Our system has failed, seems that everyone that has any political office of importance has sold us out. Apparently they have forgotten whom they work for…

            It is very interesting that the same person the argued before elections in 2008 that POW’s should be tried in US courts under our legal system is now disregarding our legal system and going straight for the kill without proof, just suspicion. Judging by the way this person “evolves” we should all be more then worried.

            I believe, and I could be wrong its been hours since watching the video, that John was saying under our laws it has been deemed legal under certain guidelines.

            I would have like to hear John speak to his/the reasoning before passing judgement. Unfortunately the time was cut short and the issue was not expanded upon. I find John very intelligent and well versed in our laws, therefore I will give him some slack until I am more informed. However on the face of it and with the abuse this regime commits it is very, very disturbing…

            • NPC

              Personally I have a lot more faith in John Bolton than the potus when it comes to being more correct,or whom I’d trust, however, and I’m a strong believer when I say, if we weren’t fighting a couple of Political Correct “wars”, there would not be any need for this drone warfare. When you go to war you go to win, or lose which ever the case may be, and the loser will think twice to stir up any new trouble in the future, because he knows what he can expect. WWII is a good example, under today’s philosophy of warfare, we’d still be there. Does anyone really want to believe when a foreign formidable force ever wants to attack the U.S., that the foremost on their mind will be Political Correctness?
              I think we can discuss the subject of drones all we want, they’re here, he’s got them, and he’ll use them as he sees fit. Is it correct? hell no, know of anybody that’s going to stop him? 49% of the country wasn’t able to stop him, at least not now.
              So that means we have our work cut out for us. First we need to awake the sleeping heads, and that’s going to take a HUGE MEDIA, bigger than lame street media, and in
              plain English, straight up, and leave PC at home he would just confuse everything.
              It would be a start.

              • bbitter

                ” I have a lot more faith in John Bolton than the potus…”

                Agreed. Unfortunately, POTUS is the one calling the drone strikes.

                You are right that we are never going to put that genie back into the bottle, drones are here and they are being used, and the rational is being pushed on us because they want to use them, not because they are ‘right’ to use.

                I am really quite pleased that this time around a story about the drones and Bolton has resulted in a discussion, instead of a hero-defending scrum when I question this, IMHO, insane policy.

                Regardless of what we all individually think of the policy, I think this is already a win on the non-PC information junk. Our work is cut out for us, true, but we may just be cut out for our work.

                • clockwindingdown

                  I would really like to see a debate on this subject between John Bolton and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Both mens views and opinions I respect. I believe such an event would be extremely informative an enlightening.

                  Drones should be only a last resort aggressive weapon IMHO. One that shouldn’t even be considered with our current ROE restricting our ground forces. Drones strikes seem to be the complete opposite in application unless, of course the zone is in active engagement.

              • clockwindingdown

                “Does anyone really want to believe when a foreign formidable force ever wants to attack the U.S., that the foremost on their mind will be Political Correctness?”

                I believe, YES, that is why clinton, the worst potus ever put it into place. PC is censorship, it silences people, makes them think twice about speaking, changes the subject, controls the narrative, it is COMMUNISM in language. By installing PC it has affected the way America operates, in our military it has upset the efficiency, the cohesion, an I believe the ROE.

                Our enemy is working within and outside our government breaking down the efficiency in which we are able to fight.

                • NPC

                  “PC is censorship”, it silences people, makes them think twice about speaking, changes the subject, controls the narrative”,
                  Well said clockwindingdown, you are correct that PC is Censorship, it crossed my mind on occasion, but it hit me even more since I saw it written by you. Just that short sentence needs to go viral, because I like to think that many people have no use for the PC talk, but are sort of taking it for granted. I will be more aware to spread the real meaning of PC. Although my call letters are NPC (Not Politically Correct) I personally was never PC but never gave it a second thought. I live in a world of common sense, and anybody that can’t handle that, is not my problem.
                  Thanks,for making me more aware.

          • Idahoser

            checks and balances have NOT failed, they have been removed. States were given representation in the Constitution for a very good reason- the original “body of NO” would refuse to surrender the states’ authority to the federal government. Their representatives would not confirm clowns for cabinet positions.
            Then the Senate was perverted into a second House, competing with the legitimate representatives of “the People” to bribe us with our own money for votes, and here you are.
            It is the key to it all. Repeal 17 or quit complaining that this perverted government doesn’t work.

            • bbitter

              Not my point, but I’ll respond anyway. (Please to tell me or anyone to ‘quit complaining’ if we don’t immediately spout your ideal. We need more complaining about this government – on all levels about everything we don’t like.)

              If you had looked into the arguments used to promote amendment 17, you’d understand that the amendment was passed largely to get rid of massive corruption in state governments – controlling the senate appointments. Yes, the argument to get rid of corruption was not the real reason behind 17, but that was the reason most people voted in favor of it in the first place.

              That being said, Yes, I would love to repeal amendment 17. 16 and 17 actually, but that doesn’t really mean that removing it would ‘fix’ our problem, especially with the amount of corruption we have on the state levels as well. Removing 17 would put the states back to the table with government, however, it does remove the amount of people who need to be ‘bribed’ with “Obama phones” to get control of the senate. That’s what they did before 17.

              The root problem, the ‘key’, to the whole thing is not one amendment or another; we’ll not find a quick-fix to this situation or hobble it with any one or even five moves or changes.

              The root problem is ‘us’, the people, who accept this kind of obvious corruption. We must change the people if we are to change our government.

              • Idahoser

                what makes the 17th “key” is that the Senate was the only force that had both the ability and the motivation to oppose runaway federal government. Perverting it was key to all you see around you today, and putting it back is key to allowing the restoration. No, it won’t fix anything by itself, but nothing else is ever going to work if you don’t first do this.

                • bbitter

                  :-)

    • Aworldinchaos

      Gang bangers you say, what about when it heats up AND the supreme court needs to be droned because he says so??

      • OneThinDime

        Maybe he’s already threatened the conservative one John Roberts with the drone, who knows.

        • Aworldinchaos

          I think conservative is a little generos

          • OneThinDime

            You are correct, should have had in “conservative”

  • c4pfan

    I’m no Libertarian, but to say the Government can just go off and kill people? That makes NO sense.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      c4, did ypu watch the video? Ambassador Bolton answered that very question. The simple answer to your question is no. Watch the video for Bolton’s uncut answer.

    • NPC

      c4pfan, when have you heard anything sensible coming out of D C?

  • Conniption Fitz

    Haven’t forgiven Bolton for dissing Newt and kissing Romney’s rear in the primaries. Bolton’s a Bush/Romney/Boehner establishment Republican.

    Libertarians are anti-big Government and are States’ Rights folks all the way.

    • nibblesyble

      Sigh…I have had to forgive so many people like Beck, and Rush, and Bolton,(although with Bolton I don’t remember anything he said…just hated that he supported Romney) and others that dissed my Newt. I still am having a hard time with Coulter I must say.

      • bbitter

        I don’t really like Coulter, Bolton, Newt, Romney, Christy, Rand, Ron, Rubio, Rush, Cain, Hannity, etc…

        …but we’re not supposed to be followers of men, now are we? America, freedom, is an ideal, not a privileged class of leadership, line of kings, or heroes. As soon as we stop trying to push ‘heroes’ and ‘kings’ and people on each other, as soon as we focus on the ideal of America, of freedom, we’ll win. Otherwise, we’ll get what we had during the election: candidates tearing into each others’ good traits while downplaying their bad traits and then, surprise, low turnout for the general.

        No hero worship; no kings, no lords or masters except Christ. All men and women have good traits and bad. We must be able to select and talk about good and bad as we see it without vilifying our own people.
        Don’t hold a grudge over someone seeing a bad trait you may have dismissed in favor of something good, or dismissing a bad trait you see in favor of a good they do.

        …cuz holding grudges only makes you bitter. No one wants that. ;-)

        btw, I have a hard time with Coulter too.

    • cabensg

      Couldn’t agree more with the first paragraph. I think he did a good job at the United Nations but that’s where what he thinks ends for me.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Drones are only as dependable as the operators and their instructions. We do not know who this regime is really targeting anywhere. From the top down, they are not truthful, reliable or trustworthy.

    • StrangernFiction

      But we have a pretty good idea who they’d like to target.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    Bolton would have made an awesome president!

    • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

      I don’t believe he would. While I do believe he might make a good Secretary of State because of his grasp of international politics and his forthright speech, he is unprincipled on ‘social issues’ and, to the best of my knowledge, has no commitment to limited government.

      • Conservative_Hippie

        If what you say is true than I would agree. I haven’t looked that deeply into his policy on other issues.

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

    It seems a lot of folks are having a hard time making a very simple conceptual distinction. The question, as asked really has nothing to do with drones.

    Should the government kill American citizens without due process? But the question is based on a false premise. When an individual, regardless of citizenship, is engaged in war against the United States, then no process is due. It is a disservice and an injustice to equate such an individual to an American citizen who is not engaged in war against the United States.

    The difficulty in practically making that distinction under the circumstances of the strategies in use against the U.S. cannot be ignored. It would be entirely appropriate to develop and implement processes to address that difficulty, which I believe can be done without compromising our combat effectiveness. But, the overall policy is not at all difficult.

    • c4pfan

      Then answer it that way.

    • bbitter

      I understand your ‘simple conceptual distinction’. I think the people you are referencing probably understand your point very clearly. Bolton DOES make that point, however, that point is NOT the point being made in the memo offering the legal justification. The legal justification has no boundaries on where these people are found or operating, opening this action for literally, anywhere. It also justifies this for anyone ‘believed’ to be part of an organization, yet this has been used to justify strikes against non-leaders. What constitutes ‘belief’ of a connection is never explained.

      Essentially, the memo clears all legal barriers to summary execution of any person, citizen or not, anywhere in the world, if the administration ‘believes’ them to be part of a threatening organization. The legal memo did not justify the actions due to any active fighting against the US, in fact, it went out of its way to state that actual involvement in any plot was completely unnecessary. That’s the ‘simple conceptual distinction’ that I see, which still covers your circumstance because it opens not just a door, but takes the roof completely off when granting powers to the government.

      I have no problem with the drone strikes against military targets. None. I also have no problem, zero, zilch, nada, with blowing off the head of any bastard who fights against our troops; soak your ammo in bacon grease and turn them to swiss cheese.

      …my problem is that the government said they have the legal right to summarily execute American citizens, anywhere in the world, without trial, without evidence, and even without knowledge they are even involved in any planning or threats to the US, nothing beyond a “belief” that they are part of an organization deemed a problem to the US.

      Yes, no problem with what they have done with terrorists. Yes, a big problem with how much power they have given themselves and no one seems to care. It’s a simple conceptual distinction; granting the federal government power to suspend rights of anyone they like is a bad idea, but yes, it allows them to get ‘bad guys’ too.

      I’m not worried about the terrorist bad guys at this point. I’m worried about our Fed government ‘bad guys’.

  • 57thunderbird

    The problem is,who do we believe when they tell us who they are killing?This administration is allergic to the truth and you will not hear the truth from the MSM.Would it not be better to capture some of these guys for the sake of gathering intelligence?

    • Sober_Thinking

      Spot on.

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

    I have no issues killing someone who publicly, and on multiple times, renounced his US citizenship then tried to help kill us.
    actions have consequences.
    so does renouncing citizenship.

    • OneThinDime

      With this I agree. If the person, without the threat of beheading, renounced their US citizenship, I do not consider then an American with rights under the Constitution, thus no entitlement to due process.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        Nope because the courts have upheld dissent as being the cornerstone of free speech in every fashion. If they hadn’t every Vietnam protester would of been put in jail and executed already.

        Code Pink for that matter too.

        • OneThinDime

          The difference is that I included renouncing of citizenship in my post. If that is done, they are not an American citizen any longer.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            But in the eyes of the law that isn’t enough to take away due process. The courts have even ruled that non citizens get due process. Many people have renounced their citizenship in anger or seriousness. There is actually a bona fide legal process one has to go through to renounce all legal citizenship and the rights that go with it.

            Doing the wrong thing in the name of the right thing is just plain wrong. It is building a house without a foundation.

            Obama isn’t even using all of these drone strikes strictly in country’s we are at war with. Last time I checked we never ever declared war with Pakistan…and if you want to get picky we didn’t with Afghanistan or Iraq either. If congress wants to confer war powers on a president then they best declare war and then and only then will I change my position…maybe. As I said even Benedict Arnold would of gotten a trial before he was hung.

            • OneThinDime

              I think we are talking the same thing. I mean truly renouncing their citizenship, in all ways required so they are no longer citizens. I’m not defending the use of drones in the US and in no way will I defend the killing of innocents by drone even if the gov’t is going after a terrorist. If the Code Pinkettes have renounced their respective citizenships, they needs to be drop kicked right on out of here.

              • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                Thanks for the clarification. I just get queasiness when a politician has unbridled power.

  • nibblesyble

    Frickin disrespectful little teeny-bops! How dare they boo anyone who is as honorable as John Bolton! He killed it at the end…maybe one of those ‘think they know everything’ students actually learned something! I doubt it though…growing up and facing reality is the only solution.

    • poljunkie

      Im with you.

      Even if they didnt agree with what he was saying they should have shown respect and not booed.

    • StrangernFiction

      Like John Bolton is facing reality? Please.

      Pssssst. Speaking vewwwwwy softly. There’s a communist in the White House.

    • PhillyCon

      Hey nibble:
      You know I am not a fan of Coulter … but I think she was also at this forum. She was really good. It’s on Hot Air if you are interested.

      • nibblesyble

        I already watched it Philly….it was fabulous. Thanks for thinking of me!

        • PhillyCon

          You are welcome … it was good. That’s the “good” Coulter or the one we “used to know.”

          • nibblesyble

            I know…hope she keeps it up and forgets her love affair with Christie and any other RINO!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        She was okay.

      • OneThinDime

        Did I read somewhere she was also booed? Yeah, manners were not taught by their parents.

        • PhillyCon

          I think so. Her retort was good too. The video is at Hot Air.

          • OneThinDime

            Thanks, gave it a watch.

    • mike3e4r7

      Sigh.. I long for the days when I was in college and knew everything about anything, just like these clever but not very wise punks. Maybe about half of them will continue through life with their superficial certainties (we’ll call them liberals) and the other half will begin to realize how much more there is to learn, once they have to face the real world (we’ll call them conservatives).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    I think the worry is that the government can deem anyone to be an enemy of the state.
    We all heard the “You might be a Redneck If” but “You might be a Domestic Terrorist If”:

    If you believe in civil liberties.
    if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights.
    if you are pro-Second Amendment-oriented
    –(NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
    if you are Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
    if you fear of economic collapse
    if you believe in the book of Revelation
    if you expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
    Well maybe the DHS will think “you might be a domestic terrorist” if any of these apply.

    Yes we want our government to go after the bad guys, kill them if necessary if they are trying to attack us, but what if the government changes it’s policy one day and goes after us.. I think it is something to be concerned about..

    • c4pfan

      I agree.

  • Sober_Thinking

    I strongly disagree with the general foreign policy stance I’m hearing from many Libertarians.

    Regarding drone attacks, I’d rather capture these bad guys, interogate them, and then kill them.

    If an American is assisting the enemy, that person becomes the enemy. In the USAF, the death penalty was allowed under certain circumstances when an airman was caught assisting the enemy. I support that. Think of Benedict Arnold. Think of the Ft. Hood shooter. Think of the Muslim American killed in Qatar. I support the extermination of these traitors.

    This is scary… I don’t feel good about these students and their booing. I’d like more context… but I find this a bit alarming.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001951614348 Rogue Rose

      Wow… what does “assisting the enemy” mean? One American was making youtube videos and sending emails, and the other was publishing a magazine. We have no info on what the 16 year old was doing. Now, I agree in this instance they were recruiting terrorists.. but do we really want that type of activity to be considered the basis for govt assassination without any judicial oversight? I have no problem with someone being killed on the battlefield, but anything else there should be a requirement to produce evidence and get an order from a court. Keep a Federal Judge on speed dial. And the DOJ should immediately clarify this tactic can’t be used on American soil.. something they have refused to do.

      • Sober_Thinking

        I don’t necessarily disagree with you… that’s a valid point.

        In the case of that Muslim American who was killed by a drone in Qatar… to me, that was justifiable based on the evidence they claim to have had on him. If true, he was a threat and our enemy and it was unlikely they could have captured him alive without a fight. So, that’s an example of “assisting the enemy” that I’m trying to make.

        Regarding the Ft. Hood murderer, they wounded him and will take him to trial (hopefully in my lifetime)… but the fact that justice is far from swift in this case in unbelievable.

        Things get gray for me when people bring up the black helicopter stuff (I’m not refering to you – just trying to make a point). Others have said that we don’t know what the government knows or how/why they choose to kill someone (via drone attack or whatever)… and that’s true. The problem here is that we rightly can no longer blindly trust the government – especially this corrupt regime… especially when Obama has no problems with bypassing the Constitution. I find it highly suspicious and too expeditious for Obama to just kill the bad guys without gaining any intel in the process.

        I am completely against using drones on American citizens on American soil… they are right here and we can handle it better than if they were in Pakistan or somewhere like that.

        Interesting conversation overall… a new kind of warfare. Later on, we may have lazers in space to eliminate anyone anywhere with the push of a button. Imagine the moral arguments over that. :)

        • NPC

          By then we’ll all be making little rocks out of big ones, at some distant planet.

      • StrangernFiction

        Forget assisting the enemy. In Hussein’s eyes, most of those commenting here ARE the enemy.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

          That is my point precisely.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        Well said!

    • OneThinDime

      I would love to see our allies interrogate them, limb by limb if necessary

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      Yes but Benedict Arnold would have been given a trial before he was executed. We are a nation based on the rule of law. We must support that so get the law change and the due process changed.

      How do you know they are enemies of the state? What definitive proof do you have other than what this administration tells you? Anything under these circumstances can be construed as ‘traitorous’. Ask anyone that has ever survived a communist gulag. Speaking out against the government was considered traitorous.

      There absolutely has to be some oversight on this.

      • Sober_Thinking

        I hear you.

        That’s the gray area. The law is the law and we should all abide by it… but the government isn’t… and there’s the rub. We (the peasants of America) have no way of knowing who or why they are going to kill. There’s no way for us to know. So I support oversight by competent, conservative personnel.

        But cut to the recent clip of the blond Muslim guy in the jeep, crowing about “smoking” 10 or 20 guys in what appears to be shot down helicopter. If he’s American, I’d have no problem with the SEALS capturing him, interrogating him, and then killing him. If he can’t be reached for comment, then “smoke” him with a Predator strike. With some oversight.

        I want our laws upheld and followed to the letter. But in these cases, I’m currently okay with reducing a traitor to a red smear if he’s on foreign soil and is working with the enemy or behaving like the enemy and killing our people or our allies’ people… if they can’t capture them. The problem right now, is that the government doesn’t seem interested in capturing them.

        One other point that may add more credibility to what you are saying (I think). Why doesn’t Egypt let us talk to the only known, captured Benghazi conspirator? Someone pointed out that he may know too much about Egypt’s involvement or that he might release “classified” info about what our government is really doing. This guy should be turned over to us and interrogated. But the WH doesn’t seem to want to make a deal… which is VERY curious.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

          If he gets snuffed on a battlefield that he shouldn’t be on by our military then so be it. But being directly target by a civilian agency and the president just smacks of the SS to me.

          I would love for the military to just capture his A**, interrogate him, try him for treason, and then execute according to the law. Or heck lock him up in Gitmo. Unremitting drone attacks with no oversight bother me deeply. I see how they can be abused in so many ways especially considering an administration that has West Point Center of Studies for Terrorism label right wingers as the biggest and worst threats ever…WITHOUT ANY CITATION. Mind you policy is made off of these studies. Then you have Homeland Security also continuing to label right wingers as terrorists and the biggest threats. You have Democrat legislators trying to force through no anonymous posting on internet on top of FCC still working to regulate the internet. This path has been well trodden before in the rest of the world…perhaps just for once can we learn from their mistakes instead of repeating them?

          • Sober_Thinking

            Well said. Amen.

  • Sunnny1

    The end is living proof that no individual is without his faults. My ancestors fought in the Civil War and lost everything. They did not own a single slave; they were fighting for the founding principle of individual freedom. Sorry Ambassador. I have to say you got this one quite wrong.

    • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

      Bolton discredited his own movement with that comment for a couple of reasons. First, the Unites States was the criminal aggressor in the Second American Revolution often mistakenly and laughably referred to as the “Civil War”. Second, the defenders of their own union who were killed by the United States were not U.S. citizens, so the reference is entirely irrelevant anyway.

      • Sunnny1

        Excellent points, Mark.

    • Evil Otto

      Your ancestors were certainly not fighting for individual freedom. It doesn’t matter whether they owned a slave or not… the side they were fighting for held that it was good and proper to own other human beings, to sell them like cattle, to separate children from mothers, to keep them illiterate by law, to deny them THEIR individual freedoms. Slavery was and is an abomination.

      Claiming that Southerners were fighting for “individual freedom” is Orwellian. Your ancestors were not fighting *for* slavery… but they certainly weren’t fighting against it.

      • Sunnny1

        Evil, wake up, it’s time to go to school.

        • Evil Otto

          That’s the best you can come up with as a reply? Really? I’ve been insulted by the best, and you’re going to have to do better than that.

          I’m sorry I don’t buy into this revisionist bullsh*t you’ve constructed that your ancestors were somehow fighting for individual freedom. They weren’t.

          • famouswolf

            You are the one slinging ‘revisionist bullsh*t’.

            Just…don’t.

            • Evil Otto

              “Just … don’t?” Why not? It makes you uncomfortable to bring up slavery, doesn’t it?

              Not only did the Sountherners not give a damn about “individual freedom,” they made sure that blacks were kept under their thumbs for a hundred years after the war ended and slavery was over.

              • famouswolf

                deleted

                This individual is not worth responding to.

                • neko_dachi

                  I disagree. Evil Otto makes a valid argument:

                  You cannot rationally claim that the South was fighting for individual freedom when they were keeping people chained as slaves.

                  You cannot say you are fighting for freedom when you are denying freedom.

                • famouswolf

                  Wrong.

                  Are you accusing me and my people of defending slavery, then?

                  F you. And Otto the ignorant.

                  You have no bloody idea what you are talking about. My people were farmers, doctors, teachers.

                  Heres a bulletin for you, ignoramus…THEY WERE DEFENDING THEIR HOMES. Period.

                  They had no use for slavery or slaver. Or fools like you. Neither do I.

                  As for the white guilt you two wear with great superiority….it marks you for cowards and fools.

                  If I had you handy, I’d knock your damn head off for that.

                • neko_dachi

                  Sorry, but the only guilt I see around here is not coming from Otto nor myself. Why else would you guys be twisting yourself and history into such terrible knots trying to deny the reasons for the Civil War?

                  No matter how hard you try to deny it, the southern states seceded because they feared that the United States would eventually outlaw slavery. You can try to argue that it was all about state’s rights or property rights, but at the end of the day, the property that they were really fighting to keep was another human being.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  It doesn’t matter if that property were a chair, a horse, a house, or a field. It was still viewed as property even under the eyes of the law whether correctly or incorrectly. The trouble is the South took a righteous stand with states rights, individuality, and property rights with the very non righteous issue of slavery. That is what in turn lead Lincoln to make the North take a righteous stand against slavery and turn the tide of the war.

                  And the North hands were hardly clean. they had wage slaves. where in the heck do you think Ernie Ford got the line “I owe my soul to the company store”?

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  Sure you can. Here again you suffer from present-ism. Southerners often viewed Blacks as property and fought for their individual right to their property.

              • cabensg

                You could add the KKK was run by Democrats in the South and the majority of Democrat governors wanted segregation in schools and elsewhere. Democrats in Congress also opposed voting rights for blacks.

              • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                ” they made sure that blacks were kept under their thumbs for a hundred years after the war ended and slavery was over. ”

                That is a separate issue.

          • demographicallychallenged

            Evil, work on this for a while. President James Madison(home state VA.) kept the New England fishing fleet in port because of the British raids on U S ships and forcing U S sailors in British service. Slavery? The New England States(the ship owners)threatened with secession from the Union. Madison relented and the war of 1812 commenced, shortly after. Does any of this sound like history repeating itself?

          • Sunnny1

            You have yet to produce an ounce of evidence, only foul-mouthed ignorance.
            I argue for a living and won’t waste my valuable time on your uneducated, close-minded drivel. When you come up with some first source facts (which I have a library full of) respond. Until then, quit wasting everyone’s time.

            • Evil Otto

              Stop whining. It’s unpleasant.

              • Sunnny1

                No one on this side of the note is whining. I have proof and no need to whine in order to try to change the subject. That is a liberal tactic, and I am no liberal.
                It’s past your nap time. Get some rest.

                • Evil Otto

                  That’s nice.

                  You say you have proof… except you refuse to post it, because I’m not worth your time, which doesn’t stop you from replying.

                  The South was a slave state, its economy relied on slavery in order to continue to exist, and your ancestors fought to keep that system in place. Your ancestors cared NOTHING for individual freedom, and neither do you.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            They were fighting for states rights and the freedom to make their own choices up to and including whether to have slaves or not. That is an argument for individualism. that argument often comes up today in modern politics. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how the states viewed themselves because your POV is the direct result of the North winning. States viewed themselves as a country within a loose conglomeration of countries. The Federal Government became centralized when the North won the Civil War and the South was not allowed to secede. To the victors went the spoils and history is written by the victors but no historian I know of liberal, conservative, or otherwise would agree with your interpretation.

      • OneThinDime

        Here’s a history lesson, women were property long before and long after blacks.

        • demographicallychallenged

          Women didn’t get the right to vote until the start of the 20th century. Black men had the right to vote in 1868 if I remember correctly.

          • OneThinDime

            15th Amendment in 1870 Race No Bar to Vote
            19th Amendment in 1920 Women’s Suffrage

            See my other post on other too.

        • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

          Please, tell us the stories of women that were kidnapped from different countries. Tell us about all the thousands of them dying in cramped ships, moving across the sea. Tell us about women put up on auction blocks, like livestock. Tell us about how they were taken away from their families, and how many, today, can’t trace their lines back, beyond a few generations.

          Garbage.

      • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

        DAMNED SKIPPY.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        BS! Many did fight for states rights not slavery. States Rights was the issue in which the continuance of slavery was argued under. Slavery itself was a secondary point. And for the record the General known as Robert E. Lee the head of the confederate army thought slavery was an abomination.

        Get your facts straight before you re-fight the Civil War since you suffer from a severe case of present-ism.

        And before you run down that road that so many do I come directly from abolitionist stock. If you are Midwesterner the name “Reno” might ring a bell or two.

  • magi52

    What is sad about Bolton’s comment is that the Civil war was a much more complex issue than he is admitting. Only a very small fraction of Southerns actually owned slaves. It was more about being taxed to death and lack of representative when compared to the very industrious and populous Northern States.

    How many people know that the underground railroad went into Florida as well as Northern into Canada?

    Bolton was out of line in my opinion on his last comments.

    • famouswolf

      I agree. It was, actually, a very ignorant statement.

      Of course, everyone who wants to keep the Union together at all costs, right or wrong, should at this point go right ahead and support the present government.

      Gentlemen, the time is just about here to fish or cut bait. Be free men, or not.

      The government is abusing one more power, and I find Bolton’s support of it revolting.

    • notsofastthere

      I agree, I didn’t appreciate his last comment either. It shocked me because I have the greatest respect for Bolton.
      I’m sick of hearing about America’s dark past, as if the Dutch had nothing to do with slavery or any other country. Africans sold their own into slavery. That was life back then and White people changed it.

    • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

      Bolton wasn’t there to give a history lesson in 5 minutes. Further, there are many generations of black families that would say you’re full of crap, or worse. Your so called small fraction of southerner were responsible for the purchase of GENERATIONS of black slaves from African Muslims. And to say that it was a “small fraction” with all the years of slavery lasting, is just plain foolish. This what’s a debate about libertarianism vs Conservatism, not about southern bigots, slavers and murderers.

    • d00mie

      Here’s what the Civil War was about: South Carolina didn’t like how an election went, so it decided to be a “p_$$_” and quit. We didn’t try to work in the system, we just said screw it and quit. The man wasn’t even sworn in yet. It’s the most shameful display of sour grapes in the history of American politics.

  • bjohnson55

    Slam, 10 points Bolton.

  • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

    Most libertarians I’ve ever met are scum. People that worship Ron Paul, believe narcotics should be legalized, and, for the most part, are degenerate social liberals, should be booing THEMSELVES. Let the bastards have their dream of an island nation, of their own. They’ll be overrun by liberals, in 6 months, and dead, in 6 more.

    They claim to respect the military, as well as the Intelligence Community (IC), and yet, talking out of the other side of their mouths, they don’t trust them to do their jobs. They don’t trust them to make sound decisions. Unless it comes down through their pointless committees, and unless you subscribe to their twisted morality, I guess you’re wrong. Foreign (or American) terrorists do not deserve due process rights when overseas. If there is reliable intelligence on them, and then intelligent shows that they are, or have been, involved in terrorist actions against the United States, they SHOULD be captured, or killed. Only an idiot would leave them alone, just because they’re afraid to make more enemies. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Commander in Chief from preemptively striking against this country’s enemies. The United States would have a lot of you were dead people, had we operated that way, as opposed to playing wait and see. Most libertarians I’ve ever met don’t believe in military service. That makes me have even less respect for them. If you’re too gutless to wear the uniform, yourself, don’t tell me how to run the show, when I’m wearing it. They want to talk crap about Obama not receiving Congressional oversight; listening to them, they sound like they’re full of the same crap, as all the other liberals.

    • c4pfan

      I agree that there isn’t any difference between a Libertarian and Liberal.

      • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

        Absolute BALONEY!

        • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

          Such erudite, well met responses. You are an elder statesman, and a scholar.

    • 57thunderbird

      I agree that there is not two cents worth of difference between liberals and libertarians.The mere fact that most of them are atheists doesn’t impress me much either.

      • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

        Baloney!

    • PhillyCon

      Check out Hot Air where Ann Coulter is featured. There were a room full of libertarians and all they cared about was legalizing drugs and gay marriage. Those were the only questions they asked Coulter.

      • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

        And, yet, they would all scream that they’re nothing like liberals, and have such undying respect for the Constitution.

        • PhillyCon

          Seriously, you would find the interactions very interesting on the Coulter vs. Stossel video. One of her key lines (paraphrasing), “For people who call themselves individualists, you sure act like a mob.”

  • http://twitter.com/WaiGuoGuizi 学中文的美国男人

    Are libertarians anti-liberty? Would they really trade all of their freedoms away for the right to be slaves in the Confederacy or the right to be killed in Nazi concentration camps? They attacked Bolton for saying that the United States should do what is necessary to protect freedom when freedom is under attack. They think we shouldn’t have suspended habeous corpus in the Civil War or during World War II or any other war. But if we didn’t fight against evil, evil would win and there would be less freedom, which really leads me to question whether libertarians actually support freedom. According to the libertarian point of view, people shouldn’t have the right to bear arms, because they might use their arms to shoot a criminal in self-defense, and people shouldn’t have the right to defend themselves. They are against the United States defending ourselves against terrorists, Confederate slave owners, and Nazis, so I don’t see why they would support us defending ourselves against lesser threats like burglars or individual murders (as opposed to mass murdering terrorists).

    • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

      1. No Libertarians are not Anti-Liberty. 2. No. 3. Outside of an active battlefield, No President should have the right to unilaterally decide to take the life of a US citizen.
      4. You can’t honestly be a Libertarian and not be pro 2nd Amendment. INO: We should have the right to keep and bare any weapons we choose. NOTE: Like several above you may misunderstand and/or have been mislead as to what Libertarians actually believe. http://www.libertarianism.com/content/libertarianism-101/lib_101

      • http://twitter.com/WaiGuoGuizi 学中文的美国男人

        1.) Yes, libertarians are anti-liberty. They will never defend it, as they stated, and they will actually oppose those who want to defend it.
        2.) Anwar al-Awlaki was in the battlefield of terrorism! We were perfectly right for killing him!
        3.) If libertarians are against the United States defending ourselves, why do they think that it is right for United States citizens to defend ourselves? I am basing my opinion of libertarians only on what they said in this clip and in other clips wherein they have attacked Americans’ rights to defend ourselves.

  • StrangernFiction

    The problem here is what Bolton doesn’t say. If he understands that Barry is a Marxist, he has a funny way of showing it.

  • http://twitter.com/WaiGuoGuizi 学中文的美国男人

    “If you were identified as a threat, would you want due process?” … I don’t think John Bolton would be identified as a terrorist… because he’s not a terrorist. The United States wants to kill terrorists precisely because terrorists kill us–self-defense. They don’t pick random people to kill. That would be pointless and a waste of resources. If someone is approaching you with a gun aimed at you ready, would you be in the right to shoot them, or would you wait until he had due process?

  • NJK

    What is Bolton’s position if the enemy is in the White House? Does he even contemplate that?

  • xjesterx

    Stossel: “Don’t you think that makes us new enemies” when civilians are killed?

    This is libertarianism meets liberalism, and he doesn’t even see it. That is EXACTLY what liberals say (unless they’re in power). It’s the Ron Paul…”if we didn’t do X in 1952, they wouldn’t have attacked us on 9/11″ stuff. The same argument made by none other than Rev. Wright…”chickensssssss coming homeeeeee…to roost”.

    Maybe the terrorists make new enemies when they choose to use children as their shield? Maybe we are fighting people who will HATE America no matter how many rules we give ourselves to not kill innocents?
    Maybe we are fighting against generations of oppression and most of their population is extremely uneducated? (So much so that when we teach them to vote….they vote back in the dictators who are going to kill women for adultery and homosexuals?)
    Maybe we are letting liberals and those who think diversity is great take over the argument when the enemy is basing their hatred on what they see as a RELIGIOUS war? That means they will NEVER, EVER stop hating the “West”.

    Ever.

  • odin147

    Libertarians tend to be young that is enough evidence to discredit this ‘ism. I don’t think young people should be allowed to vote, the minimum voting age should be 30.

    • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

      I’m 55 and a Libertarian. Oh and BTW: I don’t support Ron Paul.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      Nonsense. My 22 year old is more conservative than anyone here. She would school you in conservatism and the issues. She works at Heritage Foundation. Don’t expect the young to fight wars, be productive, pay taxes, get married, have kids, and not have any say in it at all. That is a lack of representation and we fought a revolution over that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

    As a Libertarian, If a person is supporting and a know Terrorist sympathizer, then arrest him. If he flees and we know where he/she is, then get him…dead or alive. As far as drones are concerned…let me put it this way. I don’t trust anyone in the current administration controlling the things. Beck actually went into this very subject earlier today and explains if far better than I can. Libertarianism is maximum freedom, minimal government. It sure as hell isn’t “Worship Ron Paul or be gone knave!” like some Libertarians think.

    http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25608397&topic_id=23419450

  • http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    I still don’t understand why we can’t come up with some sort of FISA court system that would allow the president to target dangerous individuals with drone strikes. Are you trying to tell me that the president needs a warrant to get a wire tap, but he doesn’t need a warrant to kill somebody? You could make a legal case against a terrorist in absentia and convict them in absentia as well. If time is an issue, you can always do what they do in the FISA courts and that is get a warrant after the fact. Either way, there should be a legal justification for killing American citizens without due process, even if they are terrorists. If we can do this for wire taps, we certainly can do it for murder.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      Agreed. Bolton is totally misguided if he doesn’t see the ways this can be abused. And I hate to tell Bolton but there are a lot of us conservatives who disagree with him on this. Our so call conservative leaders are not leading and it is evidenced by the state of the Republican Party currently. I am not surprised because they didn’t see the formation and Department of Homeland Security and it’s abuses coming down the pike and being used against them, nor the Patriot Act as well.

      Confederates used were a false analogy since we did give the Nazi’s trials as well as a few Japanese. They weren’t citizens. Many a confederate was tried and hung for being a traitor but it was Lincoln himself that put a stop to that.

      Also the law is crystal clear on what to do with traitors but I think none of these guys have the nerve to do it. George Washington they are not.

      And let’s face facts…then left has no problem with drone strikes but baptize a Muslim or nasally irrigate him for allergies and the screaming begins. ;)

  • d00mie

    If a citizen are in a war zone with the enemies of the US, giving them aid and comfort, or levying war against the United States, then that citizen is a traitor and by all means , kill him. I don’t weep for dead confederates and certainly not for dead terrorists. If that same citizen is not in a war zone, then arrest him, try him, and kill him. You don’t get due process on a literal battlefield.

  • Go2Blazes

    More outrages!

    http://www.infowars.com/dhs-contractor-apologizes-for-selling-shooting-targets-of-children/comment-page-5/#comment-3878771

    TWO MILLION of America’s TAX DOLLARS for paperboard targets of children, pregnant women, old people in their own homes, so D. H- S- and other Federal agencies can practice shooting at them!!!!????
    Droning of Americans… Target practice by shooting at children, seniors and pregnant women? WHO is dreaming this evil stuff up?

    WHEN will America wake up and demand a STOP to the INSANITY?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZSKETECBAFDEAUOUML4ICTKLAA Alex

    Another big government, ruling class Bush-era RINO who agrees with Obama.
    Dump him just like Karl Rove.
    The Bush years were not conservative. That should be obvious. That’s why his top advisor is openly trying to destroy conservatives. It’s why his officials are fine with what Obama’s doing now. The ruling class in both parties don’t care about the Constitution, they care about their power, and the New World Order Bush’s dad talked about.

  • http://twitter.com/Powerfactor1 Mark Adam

    The Civil War wasn’t necessary; the institution of slavery would’ve failed economically as all socialist-dictatorships do. This notion that the Fed’s know what’s best is bull. We have a government that is hands down 100% corrupt; if our government is untrustworthy domestically, then how can it be trustworthy in foreign policy? It can’t.

  • Idahoser

    whichever side you might happen to identify with in the War of Northern Aggression, there is one big lie that came out of it – Lincoln did not “preserve” the union. If states are forced to be members, it is not a union.