“There is a difference between tolerance and surrender”

Oh, how I wish I could vote in Alabama.  First Dale Peterson, and now Rick Barber, whose campaign video you must watch.  And then watch again.  And then send to your friends:

It will not surprise you, I think, to learn that Barber is a Marine Corps veteran.

Hat tip:  American Thinker

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. bizcor says

    Tell me people aren’t ticked off! And a shout out to Jan Brewer too!  Perhaps it is just wishful thinking, but it sure feels like a lot of people are waking up. Not since 9/11 have I felt this kind of passion. By the way where did that passion go? I though we were never going to forget.

  2. garyp says

    Can we write in (in 2112) his name for President?
    Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think calling people who have murdered thousands of our countrymen, enemies, should be beyond the ability of our government.  Being a member of a nationality (or religion) doesn’t automatically make you an enemy supporter but it would be wise not to try to antagonize the victim’s countrymen by building a mosque on the site of the murders and open it 10 years to the day after the crime.
    We need, and I think, will find people to represent us who actually represent us.  Good luck to the young Marine in his campaign.
    We do need to learn the difference between tolerance and surrender, and come down well on the side of NOT surrendering.

  3. Gringo says

    That is a fine campaign video. Those who believes that being friendly to our enemies is a solution to their enmity are deluding themselves

  4. Mike Devx says

    I would love to see this fellow, Rick Barber, give us a series of foreign policy campaign videos.
     
    There hasn’t been much here from Book on North Korea’s attack on South Korea,  As an article stated: The March 26 torpedo attack on South Korea’s warship, the Cheonan, killed 46 soldiers.

    I haven’t heard conservatives shout a question that I believe they should be shouting:  *WHY* did North Korea believe it could get away with this attack?

    The answer: Because the United States under Obama is a toothless paper tiger – a physical and moral coward – and our alliances are therefore useless.  This is perhaps the first direct evidence that his weakness imposes a terrible cost, and you’d better believe every enemy and wanna-be enemy of the United States is watching very carefully.

    I have heard that Secretary of State Clinton issued a statement that declares that the U.S. officially condemns the attack.  I can’t find the exact text – media sources merely talk about it, not providing exact quotes.  What I’ve read does *not* support this statement.  Rather, she seems to have said that the attack is WORTHY of condemnation, which is not the same thing at all.

    And we have this about Obama: President Barack Obama has ordered U.S. military commanders “to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression”.

    Dear Chosen One: You are an hour late and a dollar short.    What would your statement be after an Iranian nuclear attack on Tel Aviv?  President Barack Obama has ordered U.S. military commanders “to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression”. How  worthless.

    The ramifications of this cowardice and weakness is troublesome at best for ALL of our allies. But for Israel in particular it should be terrifying.

    So, Rick Barber, give us MORE of these national security videos, please!  Come at Obama from every angle, because he, and the weak, feckless Democrats in his Administration and in Congress, deserve it.  They’re vulnerable because they are so weak and spineless.  How long are we going to have to wait before more ELECTED conservatives point this out?

  5. says

    You’re right, Mike, that I have been silent about the Nork attack.  I knew that, in the short term it would mean nothing because Obama would do nothing.  In the long term, well, who knows?  A friend of mine who has a much better grasp of these things than I do says that the attack was for internal Nork purposes.  Kim Jong Il is planning on retiring and handing the country over to his son.  He needs a crisis to ensure that the generals are behind his son and not planning to take power over on their own behalves.  The ship attack is that manufactured crisis.

    Obama may well be part of this plan, which explains his slightly muscular language on the subject.  He knows this is a tempest in a tea pot, despite the many dead men, intended to maintain stability in a place that, though different from, is just as horrible as the Congo, Sudan or Somalia.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Twenty-seven South Korean military seamen murdered for North Korean internal political purposes.  And our response is a bunch of talk that will signify nothing.
     
    I’m glad *I* haven’t yet been murdered for anyone’s “internal political purposes”.  I think these gentlemen require a stronger response than just talk.   I don’t feel outrage, because they weren’t Americans, but I still believe that a complete lack of a response (beyond mere talk) indicates severe weakness.  These men are DEAD.  MURDERED.
     

Leave a Reply