Tag Archives: political

Palin Counsels Christine O’Donnell: ‘Speak Through Fox News’

Sarah Palin appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show last night to discuss the internal GOP debate over how to welcome Christine O'Donnell to the party stage. Palin had previously appeared on the network and spoken out against Karl Rove's dour comments about O'Donnell's election prospects (which he's since walked back). O'Reilly tried to smooth things over with a can't-all-us-paid-Fox-employees-just-get-along tone, and Palin ended by offering O'Donnell some branding advice. “Well it wouldn't be prudent of me either to get into a tussle with Karl Rove, as you say,” Palin told O'Reilly. “But what the heck, lets go ahead and do it.” “Some of these good ol' boys — and I have nothing against Karl Rove personally, you know, he's the expert — some of these folks, they are saying that people like Christine O'Donnell and other tea party Americans can't win because they don't want them to win,” Palin said. “I think that some of those in the hierarchy of the political machine — on both sides of the aisle — they are very much into control and titles and egos in everything else.” She couched these comments by saying that she didn't believe any of these things about Karl Rove, of course. “You and she and Rove are sympatico in your positions,” O'Reilly offered, as Palin nodded in agreement. O'Reilly asked if she didn't agree with Rove on O'Donnell's electability. Palin wouldn't bite. “I grant you that she's going to have to learn very quickly to dismiss what some of her handlers want,” Palin said. “Go with her gut, get out there, speak to the American people, speak through Fox News, and let the independents who are tuning into you let them know what it is that she stands for.” Ah, finally, something we can all agree on. added by: TimALoftis

Atlantic Editor: Bush, Gingrich Among Worst Political Baby-Boomers

Appearing on MSNBC to present his magazine’s feature piece critical of the “Baby Boomer” generation, James Bennet of The Atlantic named George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Clinton as the three worst “baby boomers” who did the most harm to the country’s political culture and its economy. “It’d be hard not to point to George W. Bush as having done a lot of damage,” Bennet asserted.  Bush, he added, “created a lot of programs that costed us a huge amount of money, without a lot of regard for what the effects are going to be on the folks that are going to have to pay for those for many years.” Bennet also blamed President Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for failed policies. However, Bennet was quick to reference the “surpluses as far as the eye could see” at the end of the Clinton administration, as a counterweight to Clinton’s damage while in office. He bafflingly lauded President George H.W. Bush’s tax hike as “politically brave” and which helped create the prosperity of the Clinton years. The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief made these arguments on the September 14 “Morning Joe” during the 8 a.m. hour. Bennet asserted that his piece focuses on the fiscal irresponsibility of the Boomer generation. “The ultimate point it makes is… that these guys are about to pass on a legacy of debt to their own children and grandchildren that, I mean, that they basically bankrupted the country.” Bennet labeled the Baby-Boomers as “self-absorbed” and “self-loathing.” Bennet also praised the Boomers for their liberal social achievements, namely helping end the Vietnam War, and introducing environmentalism, gay rights, and feminism to the national debate. “They really changed the ethos, the political ethos, for the country in a good way, in addition to doing all the harm you were talking about,” Bennet told show co-host Joe Scarborough. “Something that needs to be said for the Boomers… is that the other generational labels really haven’t stuck,” Bennet argued. “You know, the Boomers, it should be said for them, at least have a kind of definition as a generation.”

Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

CNN offered a sneak preview of their upcoming Parker-Spitzer program on Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper 360 with the new hosts, pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker and “Client Number Nine” Eliot Spitzer agreeing that the “well-spoken” Imam Feisal Rauf changed few minds with his recent interview. The two also forwarded their network’s charge that “Islamophobia” is growing in the U.S . Anchor Anderson Cooper began the segment by asking the two about Soledad O’Brien interview of Rauf, which took place the previous hour. Parker, the ” Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator ,” as Cooper called her, endorsed his appearance and went on to characterize the two sides of the debate over the planned Ground Zero mosque. In her view, those who oppose it “were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was…trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist .” On the other hand, the supporters of the mosque ” understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say .” The former New York governor agreed with his future co-host: SPITZER: I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in…Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. Later, the CNN anchor brought up some of the wider controversies involving Islam in the United States and raised the “Islamophobia” charge: “We’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that?” Spitzer went further than just accusing people of “Islamophobia.” He all but said that the country has always had a streak of bigotry: SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said …..I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do . The Democrat actually erred with his history, as the U.S. wasn’t three years old in 1790, but fourteen years old, if you date it from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. His future co-host raised another common liberal argument, that many were just ignorant of Islam and Muslims: “We keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? …I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.'” One might surmise from this appearance, given the former governor’s liberal credentials, and Parker’s swipes at conservatives, as she did earlier in September against Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin , that CNN’s upcoming program is going to be less like Crossfire and more like an Amen corner. The full transcript of the segment from Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper, which began 38 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour: COOPER: Joining me now are Elliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, and Kathleen Parker, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator. In October, their new program begins right here on CNN at 8 pm. Welcome, thanks very much for being with us- good to have you here. KATHLEEN PARKER: Thanks, Anderson. Thanks for having us. COOPER: What did you think of the imam tonight? PARKER: You know, I thought it was very good that he came out and spoke and that people could see him in person and hear his voice. I think he probably changed very few minds. I think people are going to see exactly what they were already prepared to see. If you’re against it, you were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was playing some role- you know, in trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist. And then, if you were for it already, then you understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say. I doubt that he really changed many hearts and minds, but maybe, it’s a start, as he says, toward a conversation that needs to take place. COOPER: Elliott, do you think he changed minds? ELLIOT SPITZER: No, I don’t think. I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in, and you saw that on your panel earlier in the show. Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. And I think he was well-spoken, but- COOPER: The lines are so clearly drawn, right? SPITZER: The lines are so rigid, and the views about this are so deeply ingrained and the passion- when you’ve lost somebody on 9/11, and the pain is so real, it’s very hard to change minds. COOPER: So, are we beyond a place where there is dialogue or possibility of coming together to- you know, David Gergen talked about some sort of solution of having- you know, a multi-faith center, is it- or are we beyond that? PARKER: I think that’s a great idea. I think that’s a great idea. I don’t think we’re beyond that. But I do think we have to be so careful as we give attention to these people who are, essentially, crackpots, okay? Let’s talk about this fellow- COOPER: You’re talking about- not the people who oppose the mosque? PARKER: No, no, no. Not, not- certainly not. I mean, look- COOPER: The Koran burners? PARKER: There is some crackpot-ism involved in this. I mean, there was a time when the headlines were fairly rational and straightforward and news-oriented, and you can see that was last December, as he said. And then, if you look at the headlines beginning last May, then they get increasingly inflammatory. And so- you know, I think that the rhetoric has been highly exaggerated in many cases. The media- you know, we all have a role in that and we have to be so careful, because when we do give attention to people like- for example, this fellow in Gainesville who’s threatening to burn the Koran. I was talking to a friend of mine earlier tonight who lives in Gainesville. And I said, ‘Do you know this character?’ And she said, ‘Yeah, my church is about a quarter mile down the road from his.’ His church is a metal building. He’s got approximately 50 followers. COOPER: And sells used furniture on eBay. PARKER: Yeah, and I would like for the Muslim world to understand that this is just one individual who doesn’t represent anyone but- you know, a handful of folks. That’s just- and that feeds, though, and builds this sort of- the sense that this is an awful thing going on. SPITZER: We need for time to pass. When emotions are this raw, you cannot address the issues rationally, because emotion overwhelms rationality. Andy [Sullivan], in your prior panel, said something very interesting and very important. He said this was the last straw for a middle class that is disenfranchised. Now, this issue is one of many that has led to an outbreak of anxiety, anger, venom- in many cases, legitimate because of emotions that derive from 9/11. In other instances, it is just a focal point for an upset with the way our economy and our national politics is playing out. And so, we need to understand this in that context, and I think when you view it that way, you understand how hard it is to bridge this chasm right now. COOPER: There’s- you know, we’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that? SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said. COOPER: This is just the newest group? SPITZER: This is (unintelligible)- COOPER: From Catholics to Jews to the- SPITZER: Precisely, the newest incarnation- and, in fact, before I came on the show, I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do and what David Gergen spoke to, which is to get people together and say, ‘wait a minute, let us not’- COOPER: But that’s not what our political life is about now. PARKER: But we keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ COOPER: Pat Robertson saying that (unintelligble)- PARKER: You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? You know, there seems to be- I just feel like this has become a misunderstanding on a broad scale. And while- absolutely, when you talk to people whose families died in this and- you know, on 9/11, you can’t not take that seriously. I mean, that emotion is real, and it’s still raw. But I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.’ COOPER: We’ve got to take a quick break. Elliot Spitzer, Kathleen Parker, appreciate you being with us. Thanks very much.

See the original post here:
Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

David Letterman Again Bashes Obama’s Vacations

David Letterman for at least the second time in eight days mocked Barack Obama for spending so much time on R&R During his “Late Show” opening monologue, the host quipped, “The President’s been busy, he redecorated the Oval Office and then he took another two week vacation.”  Moments later, Letterman talked about Obama’s address to the nation the previous day before presenting a video of the speech.  As you’ll see from this doctored clip, the President wasn’t wearing attire at all suitable for the occasion (video follows with commentary): Readers are reminded that Letterman joked about Obama’s vacations just last Tuesday. Remember shortly after his inauguration Hollywood comedians and writers felt Obama was off-limits. Not anymore!

Visit link:
David Letterman Again Bashes Obama’s Vacations

Aspiring Talk Show Host Martha Stewart Wants Interview With ‘Phenomenal,’ ‘Beautiful’ Nancy Pelosi

What two words come to mind when you think of Speaker Nancy Pelosi? If you said “phenomenal” and “beautiful,” you will probably be a fan of Martha Stewart’s new talk show. That’s how Stewart described the speaker, who she told reporters she’d like to have as her first guest. The comments indicate that Stewart’s new show will be yet another addition to daytime TV’s liberal talk lineup. “She’s a phenomenal woman – look at what she’s done,” Stewart said on a conference call, referring to Pelosi. “And she’s absolutely beautiful.” Stewart went on to state, “I’m an American. I’m involved as much as anyone in the political fabric of the country.” That may be true, but her Pelosi statement suggests she doesn’t share the general sentiments of the nation (hardly surprising, given she’s worth almost a billion dollars ) – only 11 percent of the nation has a favorable view of the Speaker. And though she aspires to replace retiring talkers Barbara Walters and Larry King as the nation’s premiere political and cultural interview, Stewart doesn’t exactly emote political proficiency. She referred to President Barack Obama’s Tuesday Oval Office address as “his State of the Union Speech.” As for the “beautiful” claim…well, it’s in the eye of the beholder I suppose. Stewart also expressed her desire to interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But she did not heap the praise on Clinton that she did on Pelosi. She obviously has a deep affinity with the Speaker. Which, again, raises the question of how in tune with the political attitudes of the nation she really is. All signs point to her show being yet another politically liberal addition to daytime television.

Follow this link:
Aspiring Talk Show Host Martha Stewart Wants Interview With ‘Phenomenal,’ ‘Beautiful’ Nancy Pelosi

A Personal Tribute to Sean Hannity

A popular phrase among the political left these days is “I support the troops… but.” But what? You either support the troops or you don’t support the troops. If you really support the troops you want to see them pursue a winning strategy in whatever war they’re fighting and come home to a grateful country. That’s whether you agree with the politics involved or not. The military does not start wars and are rarely left to their own devices when it comes to the fighting of one, but some in the media always want to paint our military with the blackest paint available, magnifying the smallest negative and ignoring the most positive. There are however a few highly influential anomalies in that equation and none more dedicated to the sincere and unconditional support of our men and women in uniform than Sean Hannity. Sean’s support for the military is born from a deep and abiding love for America, he is a straight ahead patriot who chops the logs of contention and lets the chips fly, making no apology for where they land. There is no wavering in approach, no wandering off the path to curry favor from one side or the other, no breath of political correctness here, just a man with a common sense approach to the problems that confront America and a willingness to stand alone for his beliefs if it’s necessary. Each week Sean does five three-hour radio shows and five one-hour television shows, each one requiring research and preparation, not to mention the numerous speeches and other public appearances he makes. Yet with all this hectic schedule, Sean Hannity devotes his summer family vacation time to do the Freedom Concert Tour, a coast-to-coast concert series to support the Freedom Alliance, an organization founded by Ollie North, which insures that the children of those who gave their lives or became 100% disabled in the military service of this nation, will be able to get a college education. In addition to devoting several weeks of his and his family’s lives to raising money for this tremendously worthy cause, he has personally given in excess of a million dollars to it. Our troops and their families love Sean Hannity, and with good reason. He is and always has been in their corner; no matter what the political climate or the mood of the country. He realizes that without our military there would be no America. Politicians and pundits sway with the winds of change, but Sean Hannity stands tall for what he believes in and America is a better place for it. Sean Hannity, I love you. May God bless and keep you. Charlie Daniels

Continue reading here:
A Personal Tribute to Sean Hannity

Open Thread: Democrats Moving Away from Nancy Pelosi

Today’s starter topic : Does this represent a policy shift or just a campaign tactic? Some of the Democratic Party’s most endangered lawmakers are taking steps to distance themselves from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an attempt to inoculate themselves from charges that they are beholden to the unpopular House leader and supportive of the ambitious national Democratic agenda. Three vulnerable Democrats from conservative-oriented districts are already running TV ads spotlighting their defiance of Pelosi. One freshman incumbent recently joked about the possibility of Pelosi not being able to take up the gavel next year because she might pass away. Another member from a tough district suggested he might run for speaker himself. The roster of Democrats currently playing six degrees of separation from Pelosi spans the map, from the Northeast to the South and across the Midwest to South Dakota. Pelosi aides and allies said they understand that embattled members sometimes need to distance themselves from the speaker and note that she doesn’t take it personally, although they caution that how it is done is just as important as why it’s done.

Liberal HuffPo Political Writer Validates ‘Little Alaska’ GOP Senate Primary Challenger in Delaware

Delaware might soon be referred to as “Little Alaska” not only because of its relatively small size in area but, more importantly, because the September 14 Republican senate primary in that state threatens to become a possible repeat of what recently happened in Alaska when little known Tea Party backed candidate, Joe Miller, apparently defeated the establishment incumbent, Senator Lisa Murkowski (absentee ballots still being counted). In the “Little Alaska” state of Delaware, Joe Miller comes in the form of little known Christine O’Donnell who is challenging “moderate” Congressman Mike Castle who has, until now, been considered as the sure victor in that state’s primary. However, after what happened in Alaska, the O’Donnell challenge has to be taken more seriously. Michelle Malkin is now focusing on that election in which anything, after Alaska, now seems possible: Well, 70-year-old, nine-term House cap-and-taxer GOP Rep. Mike Castle has a challenger. She’s Christine O’Donnell — a young, energetic, fresh-faced conservative activist with a real shot at dislodging the entrenched liberal Republican. She’s been traveling the state of Delaware non-stop and reaching out to conservatives across the country for support. I met her on Saturday at a grass-roots gathering of Moms 4 America in Washington, D.C. Castle refuses to debate her and has resorted to sneaking in and out of local GOP meetings to avoid her. He has bagged out on four scheduled GOP primary debates, most recently one sponsored by the League of Women Voters. The establishment Republican fund-raising organizations are sticking by their big government brother. Perhaps the greatest validation of the Christine O’Donnell challenge to Castle comes not from conservatives, who can be expected to support her, but from liberal Huffington Post political blogger Sam Stein who, although obviously disagreeing with her politics, has given her credibility with his coverage of that “Little Alaska” election: The results have not even been finalized in the quirky Alaska Republican Senate primary and already the political world is bracing itself for another instance in which an out-of-nowhere Tea Party candidate derails the highly-favored establishment contender. On Monday, Democratic and Republican operatives alike expressed interest and consternation (respectively) over the possibility that Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) could be the next victim of the purity purge inside the GOP tent. Christine O’Donnell has, by and large, campaigned outside the media and political spotlight so far this election. But on Monday her efforts to take out Castle in the mid-September primary got a major boost when the Tea Party Express, which spent roughly $600,000 on Alaska Republican Joe Miller’s challenge to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, pledged to do the same on her behalf. One question is whether the Republican establishment hasn’t learned its lesson and is trying to take out O’Donnell in favor of Castle. Stein offers this intriguing tidbit: Perhaps the strongest indication that O’Donnell has people wary if not worried was an e-mail late on Monday sent by a Republican operative to the Huffington Post with a quizzical bit of background research on the Tea Party candidate. O’Donnell, it appears, has no discernible steady form of income. The eyes of the political world are sure to be focused on Delaware aka “Little Alaska” on September 14. Even liberals are taking note of the power of the Tea Party movement in this election season. Note: Any writers, pundits, or blogosphere writers out there using the term “Little Alaska” when referring to the Delaware primary election, please be sure to send royalty payments to your humble correspondent who originated the term in reference to this election. Failing that, at least a story credit with link would be appreciated. 

More:
Liberal HuffPo Political Writer Validates ‘Little Alaska’ GOP Senate Primary Challenger in Delaware

Pro-War Conservatives Are A Walking Contradiction

It is a testament to the power of government propaganda that several generations of self-described conservatives have held as their core belief that war and militarism are consistent with limited, constitutional government. These conservatives think they are “defending freedom” by supporting every military adventure that the state concocts. They are not. Even just, defensive wars inevitably empower the state far beyond anything any strict constructionist would approve of. Prowar conservatives, in other words, are walking contradictions. They may pay lip service to limited constitutional government, but their prowar positions belie their rhetoric. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne said in his famous essay of that title. Statism, moreover, means central planning, heavy taxation, fascist or socialist economics, attacks on free speech and other civil liberties, and the suffocation and destruction of private enterprise. Classical liberals have always understood this, but conservatives never have. (Neoconservatives either don't understand it or don't care.) Thus, you have the celebrated neoconservative writer Victor Davis Hanson writing in the December 2, 2009, issue of Imprimis that antiwar activism and other “factors” that make people “reluctant” to resort to war are “lethal combinations” that supposedly threaten the existence of society. Hanson was merely repeating the conservative party line first enunciated by the self-proclaimed founder of the modern conservative (really neoconservative) movement, William F. Buckley Jr. Murray Rothbard quoted Buckley as saying in the January 25, 1952 issue of Commonweal magazine that the Cold War required that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. … [We must support] large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington. “We” must advocate the destruction of the free society in the name of defending the free society, said “Mr. Conservative,” a former CIA employee. In reality, antiwar “factors” are a threat only to the military/industrial/congressional complex, which profits from war; they are not a threat to society as a whole. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Seeing through the dense murk of such war propaganda is one of the purposes of my ten-week, online Mises Academy course on “The Political Economy of War,” which begins on September 21. Students will learn about the economics and politics of war from some of the giants of classical liberalism, such as Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, Lionell Robbins, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Robert Higgs, and others. Among the topics to be discussed are * Why capitalism is the very opposite of war * The economic causes of war * Why nationalism is always a threat to peace and prosperity * Why Marx was wrong about war and imperialism, but the Austrian economists got it right * Why and how war is the health of the state, always ratcheting up governmental power at the expense of individual liberty and prosperity * The role of free trade in deterring war * The evils of military conscription * How war cripples a nation's economy, benefiting only a small group of war profiteers in the process * How the state employs the Fed to hide and disguise the costs of war * The role of statist intellectuals in promoting war precisely because they, too, understand that war is the health of the state * Why conservatives love war and the state * The dangerous myth that democracy promotes peace * Private alternatives to a massive “national-defense” establishment * What is a just war? Each class will consist of a 45–50 minute lecture followed by 45 minutes of Q&A with students. My lectures will cover the topics listed on the syllabus for the course, but will be more than rehashes of the readings that are listed — I will concentrate on both my understanding of the readings (and other literature) and my own research and writings. The importance of understanding the political economy of war is perhaps illustrated by this passage from Randolph Bourne's famous essay: War is a vast complex of life-destroying and life-crippling forces. If the State's chief function is war, then it is chiefly concerned with coordinating and developing the powers and techniques which make for destruction. And this means not only the actual and potential destruction of the enemy, but of the nation at home as well. For the very existence of a State in a system of States means that the nation lies always under a risk of war and invasion, and the calling away of energy into military pursuits means a crippling of the productive and life-enhancing processes of the national life. Ludwig von Mises expressed a similar sentiment in Human Action, when he wrote, Mises Academy: Tom DiLorenzo teaches The Political Economy of War What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor. Man curbs his innate instinct of aggression in order to cooperate with other human beings. The more he wants to improve his material well-being, the more he must expand the system of the division of labor. Concomitantly he must more and more restrict the sphere in which he resorts to military action. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war. … This philosophy is, of course, incompatible with statolatry.[1] These two quotes give one an indication of why those individuals who help the public to become reluctant to support war are more likely to be heroes of society as opposed to the “lethal combinations” of neoconservative folklore. http://mises.org/daily/4659 added by: shanklinmike

Stop Focusing on Oil Barons as ‘Greedy Bastards’ – Lisa Margonelli Talks About the Political Chemistry of Oil

See the original post here:
Stop Focusing on Oil Barons as ‘Greedy Bastards’ – Lisa Margonelli Talks About the Political Chemistry of Oil