Yes I view the GOP as domestic terrorists - Why don't you? On Reagan - this is a quick cheat sheet:
Here's what I remember...
- Tax cuts to the top 6%, the largest next to W's ....
- The largest peace time tax increase for the middle class the very next year.
- Our Marines get bombed in Lebanon
- Reagan paying Hezbollah for a plane that they blew up regardless.
- Using Oliver North to sabotage Operation Eagle Claw killing US soldiers.
- Weapons shipped to Iran because they held our hostages till after the elections AKA the October Surprise engineered by George H. W. Bush.
- Savings and Loan failure and bailout
- An illegal war in Central America
- CIA Planes with arms go to Central America.
- Followed by the same CIA Planes coming back fill with coke to fund their illegal war flooding our streets with crack.
- Reagan's lack of reaction to AIDS and missing the chance to contain it.
- 2.6 trillion dollars of debt, spending more money then all the past Presidents combined.
- Reagan saying over 500 times "I don't remember at the Iran/Contra hearings" lying to Congress.
- Reagan telling the hearing that it was his idea for the Contra war and going around the Congressional ban saying "my heart says no, but my head says yes."
- Reagan is conservative wet dream that never happened.
- Reagan increased taxes for most people but not the rich.
- He increased Big Government, and thus increased the size of government.
- Reagan took our national debt from 838 billion to 2.6 trillion.
- Reagan ran illegal wars.
- He started the war on the middle class and unions that has left our country a wreck today.
- Sold Hollywood to the Chicago Mob.
- Named rivals as "names" to the HUAC.
- Sold California to Big Energy.
- Sold the country to Big Business.
There is very little that is really conservative about Reagan; Then, again there is very little truly conservative about today's so called conservative.
Here's the view of one of famous Chickenhawk Newt Gingrich's saddest minions — who had to pretend Ronald Reagan was a thinking caring person of character and principal (when everyone with a brain and memory saw him as a little pumped up toady who sold us out again and again) as the 40th president's scriptwriter :
Tony Blankley: A House Divided, Again
We are beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of the socialist crisis of the republic. At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery had been crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was enacted, prohibiting the abomination north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes (about the middle of Missouri.)
But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the "popular sovereignty" of each territory should decide whether it would be a slave or free state. But then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle -- with their bodily presence -- for their respective causes. First there was politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then real violence ensued. Kansas became known as "Bleeding Kansas." John Brown, most famously, applied unjustified, murderous violence for his righteous cause of ending slavery and was hanged, but the Civil War ensued because, as Abraham Lincoln sagely explained:
"A House divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
"I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
"It will become all one thing or all the other.
"Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South."
Now we enter our history's second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly. And even those programs -- Medicare and Social Security -- rested on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will get later. Only the poor under Medicaid received benefit without premium payment.
But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 broke through the slave-state limitation to the South, the Democratic Party's 2010 health care law has broken socialism's boundary of being so limited. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped onto the able-bodied middle class -- not merely the already-presumed-helpless poor and old who have paid their insurance premiums.
Even the New York Times -- after the vote -- admitted what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday's edition, "In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality," David Leonhardt, pointed out: "Beyond the health reform's effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would 'mark a new season in America.' ... Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer -- what is the proper balance between the market and the government? -- remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum."
I thank the New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.
For example, the new law takes away from insurance companies the right to charge for insurance based on actuarial risk, which is the essence of insurance. Now they will charge what the politicians tell them to charge -- and pay such benefits as the politicians order them to pay. They may for a while make money, but that will be at the sufferance of the politicians. One may call this mere regulation, but it is regulation to such a degree that it constitutes effective ownership of the insurance company. The former equity holders in such companies are now merely nominal owners. Also, the new law provides for taxes on investment income to pay for socialized health care: Sucking out the lifeblood of our economy to fund the deathbeds of the destitute.
These intrusions are combined with: (1) The nationalization of GM and Chrysler and the partial nationalization of the banks; (2) the establishment of trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded slush funds such as the stimulus package and the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP); and (3) the creation over 10 years of $10 trillion in new government debt, which steals from our children and grandchildren dollars yet unmade to pay foreign debt-holders. The result: The center of gravity of our economy moves from the private sector to the public sector.
And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so too, free, middle-class America -- if it still has its historic character -- will not tolerate the yoke of socialism put upon our necks.
First, the unambiguous will of the majority was defied by the vote of Congress on Sunday.
Come November, we will see whether the system can still turn the popular will into the constitutionally permissible legislative will of the majority. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period, when people migrated to Kansas to support their convictions.
But come November, if the majority still opposes the socialization of health care delivery and the other central-government intrusions and yet the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington deny the majority's will its just expression, then, for the second time in our history, we will enter that dangerous period in which America's house resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray -- and commit ourselves to the proposition -- that this time, freedom shall be reacquired -- peaceably.
See - Tony thinks the GOP are a 'silent majority' when they are a manipulated vocal minority. Split into quasi-rational wannabe rich people who see Mitt as their Great White Hope and angry teabagging "Pebbles" Palin Pioneers who aspire to be the next Star Wars obsessed zombie headed Tim McVeigh or Asshat Andrew Joseph Stack.
I don't think anyone is buying it. Wonder where he was when Newt was banging his intern on the desk?
... Considering that most of the Republicans in these sex scandals are going after males, one can only imagine what their argument will be then. ...
During the Bush years, members of the far-right would often suggest that liberals were "with the terrorists" if we merely opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or if we opposed the policies of the Republican leadership at the time. In fact, any negative criticism of the president whatsoever was considered unpatriotic "while troops were in harm's way." That was the line we heard almost daily throughout the previous decade: don't undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were deployed in battle. Just don't. Or Sean Hannity will crush you with his mighty hairline!
But in general, there was this idea among Republicans that liberals were somehow emboldening the terrorists anytime we suggested that it might be a bad idea to eavesdrop on American telecommunications, or that it might be a bad idea to torture detainees, or that it might be a bad idea to invade Iran after having already invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to varying degrees of failure. Either we were with the administration, or we were with the terrorists.
We can debate at another time whether or not anyone is currently "emboldening" Islamic terrorists or putting the troops in jeopardy by constantly accusing their commander-in-chief of hating America, of hating white people, of hating freedom or of hating you personally.
The more important discussion during this groundbreaking week in American history is whether or not legitimate Republican and conservative leaders are instigating and inciting violence against the president, against Democrats, against liberals and, in some cases, against children.
And they are.
It's inexcusable and it's unforgivably irresponsible how top-shelf conservative players like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and even some members of the congressional leadership are using coded and not-so-coded language that speaks directly to a small, but trigger-happy right-wing. Unlike the policy-driven arguments made by mostly pacifistic liberals during the Bush years, this language is a direct and precise emboldening of right-wing extremism -- and terrorism. And the behavior from certain elements of the far-right can be defined as such. It's terrorism. No gray area here. Right-wing terrorism.
Are we waiting for another brave Veteran to die before we call them Terrorists?
Obviously, the far-right fringe is out of its mind about health care reform. And throughout the week, its behavior has gone from irresponsible, to racist, to unapologetically dangerous.
Earlier in the month, the far-right was up to its usual irresponsible behavior -- attacking a child. Immediately upon the president mentioning 11-year-old Marcelas Owens, whose mother died due to a lack of adequate health insurance, the usual suspects kneejerked into their predictable roundelay demonizing a little boy as yet another public enemy. In previous years, wingnut bloggers like Michelle Malkin have gone so far as to stalk children who somehow associated themselves with the Democrats. Glenn Beck once targeted and outed a Muslim parochial school in Northern Virginia and noted its specific location. World Net Daily printed the name of a school that performed a musical with gay themes last Thanksgiving. Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh have targeted principals and members of a kindergarten class for singing a song about the president (you know, the commander-in-chief who we're supposed to support no matter what, especially while troops are in harm's way).
And now they're questioning the veracity and patriotism of Marcelas Owens and figuratively jotting him down on their enemies lists -- knowing full well the kinds of gun-toting, reactionary freaks who take their words as gospel.
Elsewhere, Rep. Louise Slaughter received an assassination threat against the children of lawmakers who supported health care reform. I don't mind reporting that, mixed in with the usual array of angry far-right blasts, I've received several death threats via email. One email ended with a warning that I should "check on the kids."
Stay classy, wingnuts.
In the eyes of way too many far-right Republicans, this is a war. They believe the Obama administration, progressives, liberals and Democrats are destroying America and replacing it with some sort of weird Brundlefly composed of communism, socialism, Maoism, Nazism and -- shock horror! -- social justice.
On Capitol Hill last weekend, teabaggers were showing how not-racist they are by shouting racial epithets at African American members of Congress and spitting on them. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck seemed to believe that somehow Congressman John Lewis had no right to lock arms and march in the style of a civil rights activist, even though Lewis is, you know, one of the most well-known civil rights activists in the history of civil rights activism. "How dare he!" Beck screamed at his audience.
Mix this behavior into the same psychobomb of outrage that included printed signs held up by tea party activists calling for gun violence as a means of stopping health care reform. "Warning: If Brown Can't Stop It, A Browning Can." (For what it's worth, "a Browning" includes any number of types of firearms manufactured by the same company.)
Once reform passed through the House, and amidst an atmosphere of violent rhetoric, House minority leader John Boehner described the passage of health care reform as "Armageddon." The end of the world. In the parlance of the Bruce Willis movie of the same name: a global killer.
At around the same time, Tucker Carlson's cheap knock-off of The Huffington Post, the Daily Caller, published a front page banner headline implying that armed IRS agents in riot gear would be fanning out across the nation and into your neighborhood in order to force you at gunpoint to buy health insurance. Literally, war.
Sarah Palin reacted by urging her Twitter followers to "RELOAD" (her caps) and to target specific politicians. She included a link to a map of the U.S. pinpointing specific districts using actual graphics of rifle crosshairs.
Elsewhere, reports of vandalism against various Democratic offices were reported across several states in the east and Midwest. In a rare display of honesty, a far-right militia operative named Mike Vanderboegh claimed responsibility. Tell me if this doesn't sound like the maniacal threats of a terrorist:
"We can break their windows," he said. "Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary."
Violence and intimidation as a means of achieving a political end. And they haven't even ruled out the "muzzle of a rifle." How is this not terrorism?
And conservative leaders were outraged when Homeland Security released a report about right-wing extremism last year. Who us?! was the general reaction. At the very least, Secretary Napolitano deserves an apology.
The far-right is out of its mind with talk of violence and armed insurrection. There's no way to shove it all back into its crazy bottle. But what can and should be done at this point is for conservative leaders to stop inciting the extremism and, instead, to help marginalize the crazies. The only way to slow down this tide of right-wing terrorism is to strip it of its legitimacy -- legitimacy it's deriving from leaders like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and John Boehner.
Instead, let's debate policy. Let's argue about the politics. Let's vigorously disagree about the future of America. But let's agree, however, that violence, racism, vandalism and, yes, terrorism should never be part of the equation. As leaders of the Republican Party, as leaders of the conservative movement in America, these men and women have a responsibility to verbally disarm the right-wing radicals and extremists who are well-known for their love of guns and of their predilection for violent intimidation. Terrorism. Yet so far, conservative leaders have only made matters worse.
UPDATE: And then there's this:
Law enforcement authorities are investigating the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother, whose address was targeted by tea party activists angry at the congressman's vote for the health care bill.
We can only hope this turns out to be a prank, and not a deliberate attack against a lawmaker's family.
Aren't you so happy the GOP kept you all safe?