Jillian sort of takes a shot at Palin like so many other so-called conservative Republicans are doing lately. They are stupid to think that their negative comments don't have a bolstering effect on the progressive idiots like those that frequent this website, or on the further alienation of those true conservatives (Non-Rhinos) in the Tea Party who support people like Palin. The Bush's who I used to respect fall into this old-school group who seem to be upset with SP. I'm beginning to think Glenn Beck is right and that the Republican Party is just as infested with big-government progressives as the Dems, they just have a slightly different agenda (defense vs. entitlements). Since SP supported so many anti-establishment elephants, she...

I normally don't agree with or like anything Mr. Buchanan has to say, but I have to admit that we need to take a step back and look at everything in government, including Foreign Aid through direct monetary subsidies, tangible supplies or Military presence. Nothing should be off the table with our current federal financial situation. However, we have to be smart and put down all biases to be able to rightly judge what should be cut and what should not, and that includes the hardline Libertarian views, such as isolationism.

The Constitution calls for the "common defence" of our nation, but it does not call for protecting the "health" or the entitlement-nanny-state rights or obligations. It does call for the government to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..," but that is all. And to me, the "general Welfare" means a government doing all it can to secure a level garden that is rich in potential for all who want to plant there. The question about "defence" then becomes, what is the true definition of "defence?" Is it defending the homeland only like a fort, or should it include a little offense when necessary? Was WWII necessary? Was the first Gulf War necessary? These are truly debatable...

“The principles of faith, hope, charity, love, honor – we are taught to honor God, to honor our families – and love our neighbors… and I believe the message that Glenn delivered helped us do that.” Dr. Alveda King As Dr. King alludes to in the above quote from Jillian's article, Glenn Beck is not promoting any one religion or denomination of a specific religion, but certain values that form the foundation of good character. What amazes me is that these so-called men of God, like Al Sharpton, totally miss the whole point of the 8/28 movement, because they are blinded by their own racism. Dr. King was a man of peace and love, and the only thing he wanted out of government was protection from inequality in opportunity. The quote below...

After reading what he let his campaign staff do to Sarah, and his countless liberal compromises over the years, I have no respect for the man. I don't always agree with Pat, but in this case I do.

I have two points to make about this article and the planned public event mentioned in it. First, not knowing what Michael Gerson's faith is or isn't, I will give him the benefit doubt about his ignorance of "true" Christianity. Mr. Gerson's assertions that Christiantity is an "Abrahamic Faith" is fundmentally, correct. However, he goes off base is when he attempts to equate "Abrahamic Faith" with Christianity, Judisim and Islam. It is true that all three faiths have their origins in the life of Abraham, but true Christianity and the teachings of Jesus our Savior are as different as night and day from either Judisim or Islam, which are both based on laws with do's and don'ts. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on a close personal...

A great retort to Lon's normally misguided and error filled reasoning! It's hard to argue with someone who has actually experienced the other side of freedom. Thank you for coming to America! We are all blessed to have you!

Damn, I thought Newsmax had a decent shot at getting that leftist rag. It just proves that ideology is more important to a lefty than financial survival. If that is not the definition of insanity, then I don't know what is. Adios Newsweek!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1553 I'm confused! Either Pat has the wrong H.R.#, or he just full of it as usual. This bill has absolutely no verbiage in it dealing with Israel and is not even dealing with a national security or world military issue. It's a financial related resolution. See the above link! Maybe the Republicans read something into record by offering an amendment, but it certainly is not an official part of this resolution. And, it's quite obvious to me it was done as a simple show of support for Israel's right as a soverign nation to defend its citizens any way their democratically elected government see fit. It's quite understandable given that there certainly hasn't been a lot of official...

I agree that Ms Chavez has a point, but she also needs to do a little bit of homework herself. I reiterate what others have pointed out before me, and that is that Breitbart actually told O'Reily the night of the video release that he did not run the video to hurt Ms Sherrod, but to show the NAACP laughing at Ms Sherrod's story when she joked how much of a racist she was 20 something years ago. He was trying to show their inherent racism in response to their false attacks on the Tea Party for being racist. Those were the only clips that were mailed to him and they did prove his point. The NAACP had the rest of the video and did not release that until after the White House/USDA had already fired Ms Sherrod. The key point here is that...