/

/

/

/

/

CONSERVATIVE RAND PAUL CAST VOTE IN FAVOR TO CONFIRM CHUCK HAGEL, OFFERS LAME EXCUSE IN DEFENSE………

CONSERVATIVE RAND PAUL CAST VOTE IN FAVOR TO CONFIRM CHUCK HAGEL, OFFERS LAME EXCUSE IN DEFENSE………

By KGS12 years ago1

I simply do not understand his vote. Disgusting

Though Paul held deep reservations of Hagel, voted to filibuster the man, he ends up casting a vote in his favor nonetheless, making one of the lousiest choices for a DOD secretary in modern U.S. history, a done deal. His press secretary offered this lame excuse:

“As he has said before, the president should be entitled to some leeway on his political appointments. That is why Sen. Paul voted in favor of Sen. John Kerry, with whom he largely disagrees on foreign policy, to serve as secretary of state, and that is why he voted for final passage of the nomination of Sen. Hagel this evening, with whom he also disagrees on a number of issues.”

This is pure B.S., no president is allowed by the constitution to use the nomination process of cabinet members as a carte blanche mechanism to rubber stamp all of his appointees, that’s why there’s a nomination process to begin with. It’s called the Senate confirmation hearings, not the ”Presidential Rubber Stamp Committee”.

NOTE: McCain and the rest of the RINOS are not off the hook, though they didn’t vote for Hagel in the final vote, they failed to back the filibuster to block Hagel’s nomination vote from ever happening.

Also read: 20 CRAZY THINGS HAGEL BELIEVES ABOUT ISRAEL

HAGEL CONFIRMED AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; 41 VOTES AGAINST

by JOEL B. POLLAK 26 Feb 2013, 1:51 PM PDT

The Senate voted Tuesday afternoon to confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, replacing Leon Panetta. Hagel overcame a contentious confirmation process to win a 58-41 vote largely along party lines. The 41 “no” votes are the largest vote against a Secretary of Defense nominee since the Senate rejected John Tower’s nomination in 1989 by a 53-47 margin along party lines. Since then, no Pentagon nominee–not even the controversial Donald Rumsfeld–has encountered more than a few “no” votes.

Written by KGS

One Response

By James Boom Feb 27, 2013

They keep doing it like medieval lords accepting concessions in return for betraying their people.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

There’s No Common Cultural Legacy For The Alt-Right

Still, is there something to it? Is there a common heritage that will cover El Greco and Hume and Dostoyevsky? Is there one that can include the Jacobites and the Jacobins? There is, but it is not racial, and white supremacists reject it because it rejects them. The unifying heritage of Europe is religious and philosophical. It is Jerusalem and Athens, in one famous formulation. Christian religion and Greek philosophy, filtered through Roman law and culture, are the foundation of European culture. The tensions, agreements, developments and settlements between these have shaped the Western world, and these roots of Western civilization are not congenial to white supremacy.

Christianity is universal in its message and Jewish in its origins. For centuries after its founding, Christianity’s center was the Mediterranean world, including Asia Minor and North Africa. Christianity has never been defined by race, and locally-grown racist heresies are only sustainable among those ignorant of Christianity’s teachings, origins and history.

Greek philosophy is likewise ill-suited to serve as a basis for white identity. It is either too universal (addressing the human condition in general) or too local—none of us live as citizens of an ancient Greek polis. Later philosophical developments in Europe, such as the philosophies of the Enlightenment, likewise tend to be too universal for white supremacists seeking a tribal identity. As for the scientific revolution that developed within Western culture (albeit with much borrowed from outside Europe), math doesn’t care what color someone is.

War is being waged against Western culture from within which is in essence a war against Christianity and its moral origins in the Hebrew Bible. By attacking these Biblical foundations in the name of reason and human rights, the culture warriors of secularism are sawing off the branch on which they sit. The only way to defend Western civilisation is to reaffirm and restore its Biblical foundations. My argument is a development of ideas I first explored in my 2012 book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

We are living in an era which extols reason, science and human rights. These are said to be essential for progress, a civilised society and the betterment of humanity. Religion is said to be their antithesis, the source instead of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, oppression and backward-thinking.

Some of this hostility is being driven by the perceived threat from Islamic terrorism and the Islamisation of Western culture. However, this animus against religion has far deeper roots and can be traced back to what is considered the birthplace of Western reason, the 18th-century Enlightenment.

Actually, it goes back specifically to the French Enlightenment. In England and Scotland, the Enlightenment developed reason and political liberty within the framework of Biblical belief. In France, by contrast, anti-clericalism morphed into fundamental hostility to Christianity and to religion itself.

“Ecrasez l’infame,” said Voltaire (crush infamy) — the infamy to which he referred being not just the Church but Christianity, which he wanted to replace with the religion of reason, virtue and liberty, “drawn from the bosom of nature”.

Perfecting society

But this Enlightenment did not remove religion so much as pervert it. It took millenarian fantasies, the idea that the perfection of the world was at hand, and it secularised them. Instead of God producing heaven on earth, it would be mankind which would bring that about. Reason would create the perfect society and “progress” was the process by which utopia would be attained.

“I think that we should correct the vocabulary that we use, and call a spade a spade. It is all about Jihad, the Islamic effort to spread Islam globally”:

Terrorist attack – should be called Military Jihad.

Incitement – Media Jihad.

Al-Jazeera – Media Jihad Channel.

Imposing Sharia law – Judicial Jihad or Legislative Jihad.

Boycotting Israel (BDS) – Economic Jihad.

Emigration to EU and US – Emigration Jihad / Hijra Jihad.

Building mosques, Islamic education institutions – Cultural Jihad.

Halal food – Dietary Jihad.

Hijab or Niqab – Clothing Jihad.

Activity of MSA – Academic Jihad.

Activity of CAIR – Political Jihad / Public Jihad.

Collecting money for Islamic “charities” – Financial Jihad.

Political correctness – Submission to Jihad.

J Street, Peace Now, JVP and their likes – Jewish Useful Idiots who Serve Jihad.

Iran deal – Western Support for Nuclear Jihad.