Monday, February 28, 2005
They call us Nazis not because we have any of the beliefs or practice any of the Nazi ideology, but because, in their usual childish way, they equate Nazis with being mean and Republicans with being mean. That's it. Period. They have no idea what the Nazis stood for, either. They just know that they killed a bunch of people and that was pretty mean.
(I'm sure that they'd call us Stalinists too, but there's too much evidence of them supporting "Uncle Joe", who slaughtered 50 million people)
It's very lucky for them that Americans don't really know what the Nazis stood for because, if they did, they would realize that, quite to the contrary, the Left is frighteningly close to what Naziism was all about.
Well, let's let the people know.
First, and foremost, the actual word "Nazi" Stands for National Socialist Party. If there's one thing that the Right could never, ever be accused of, it's embracing Socialism in any way, shape or form.
Socialism is a form of government wherein the State takes care of all of your needs from "cradle to grave" and all that it asks in return is that you give it almost all of your money, labor and productivity. Usually it takes the form of a Dictatorship, but in a few cases (i.e. Canada, Great Britain, France) it gives the people a small bit of input into the process so as to feel that they're living in a "Deomocracy".
Does that sound like the Right in this country? No, the Right in this country is (or should be) trying to take as much power as possible away from the Federal government and giving it back to the States and/or the People just as The Constitution envisioned. They don't want the Federal government running health care, they're at this very moment trying to wrest FDR's screwed up Social Security program from it's grip, they almost fixed the Welfare system, they put stem-cell research into the hands of the States where it belongs (no, Bush didn't ban it, he just said that the Federal government wouldn't get involved).
OK, that's the major, overlying ideology of Nazis: Socialism. And if there's anything that the Left is for, it's a massive Federal government to take care of them just like mommy did, so that they can go play. But let's get into the details of what they stood for.
Hitler, being a failed artist himself, was a huge lover of the arts. He funded massive architectural projects, films and other forms of art with government money, just as the Democrats insist we fund NPR, PBS and Robert Mapplethorpe today (I tried to find a link to Mapplethorpe that was in the least bit critical of his work using the Yahoo search engine; after 14 pages (280 hits) I gave up. Kinda shows where we're at, huh?).
Hitler loved animals. He doted on his German Sheperd (what else?) "Blondie" (what else?). 6 million Jews and another 6-8 million other people murdered, but Hitler couldn't stand to see an animal in pain. PETA anyone?
Hitler was virulently anti-smoking. No matter what the old Hollywood movies may have shown, very few of the Nazi regime smoked, because they knew that it would displease Hitler. Today the Left (and some on the Right, sadly to say) is sponsoring smoking bans from sea to shining sea.
The Nazis were all for euthanasia, especially for the retarded, elderly and handicapped people. In other words, anyone who couldn't contribute to their system. Jack Kevorkian, abortion, Terry Schiavo, anyone?
The Nazis actively encouraged single women to have children and married men to have mistresses so as to further the Aryan bloodline. Do you need to ask yourself who in America today is encouraging this same thing? Hint: it ain't the Right.
And, as everyone knows from watching the old newsreels of Nazi rallies, they motivated their followers with sheer, screaming hatred. Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Terry McAuliffe, Barbara Streisand, Al Franken, MoveOn.org...the list could go on forever. These people aren't inviting debate, they're shreiking their pure hatred for the Right, who are opposing them.
Seeing Hillary Clinton in front of a bunch of people whom she knows believes as she does, is really not that much different than watching Hitler in the old newsreels. If you can find the tapes of her, watch them and compare.
Although, if she's in front of a more "moderate" audience, she doesn't go into her "extreme" mode. She's just another hypocrite. The end justifies the means.
But what she really believes comes out in the rallies where she knows that the audience is ready to march, goose-stepping towards her vision of utopia. She is a screaming fanatic when she knows that the crowd is on her side. Just as Hitler was during his rallies.
And then we have the whole "mysticism" part of the Nazis.
Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, was enthralled by mysticism. He set the Nazis to actively searching for The Holy Grail, The Ark of the Covenant and many more ancient artifacts. He actually modeled the Nazi SS on the Teutonic Knights who, supposedly, had protected the Holy Grail for many years.
Somehow, Goebbels managed to overcome the contradiction of his fascination with the Teutonic Knights and the fact that they were very much Christian in their beliefs. They actually had large crosses on their shields, but hypocrisy never stands in the way of one seeking power.
The Nazi's hated religion in any form and tried to do away with it. Religion, other than fealty to the State, was verboten (forbidden). They saw it as being in competition with the government. I doubt that I'm the only one who sees the Left's attacks on the major religion in this country as their trying to make Government into their own religion. The Soviet Union did the same thing.
There's a reason that people who want power at all costs always shut down religion first. They know that they can't compete with faith. And so, today, you have the ACLU keeping those destructive "Christmas Mangers" and "Ten Commandments" away from the public view because they know that their own ideas can't compete with religion, whether it's right or wrong.
As with all children, they don't want to debate whether anything is right or wrong. they just want to be right.
- The Exile
Friday, February 25, 2005
Just as the children of the old Soviet Union were inculcated from day one with propaganda, so are our children in this country having these leftist messages drilled into their heads.
A couple of years ago I went to my ten-year-old step-daughter’s school to have lunch with her.
As I walked through the front doors I almost went into shock.
Covering almost every inch of the walls were posters that the kids had made featuring “diversity” and environmentalism.
Why, I wondered, was promoting the left-wing agenda more important than reading, writing and arithmetic? When the hell did this happen?
I’ve had it with Republicans who are terrified of blaming the teachers. Over and over I hear them say things like, “I’m not attacking the teachers, but the education system is out of control”.
Well, here’s a little heads-up on teachers.
The following isn’t an original thought, but it’s one that makes a whole lot of sense when you look at our colleges and Universities.
In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s a lot of people got out of going to Vietnam by going to college. If you were in college and maintained a decent grade-point-average, you didn’t get drafted, which means that a lot of students weren’t there to gain an education, but to avoid the war.
Now, if you were in college, but weren’t necessarily there to get an education, what would you do? Why, take the easiest courses available, of course. And what were the easiest courses? Why, Liberal Arts, of course. And what did a degree in Liberal Arts qualify you for? Why, not much, other than teaching.
And so, you had a large number of people who got out of college and went into teaching by default. Now, that’s bad enough when applied to the public education system, but a very large number of those people weren’t just afraid of being killed in the war but were actively against it. In other words, they were liberals.
So now we have a bunch of liberals who are suddenly flooded into our public education system and also teaching at the colleges.
At some point (I don’t think that it was planned) they realized that they had the whole next generation of America sitting in front of them. They realized that these kids’ heads were empty. They realized that they had the perfect opportunity to stuff these empty heads with their own views and, therefore, shape the thinking of an entire generation, who would go on to teach the next generation, and so on until critical mass was achieved and communism was realized in America without the use of one evil, icky gun.
And there you have the American Public Education System
And now you have more people graduating from college with a Liberal Arts degree and finding out that they are qualified to do nothing but join the Teachers’ union and get a job teaching. I actually saw one recent college graduate who said that she had a Liberal Arts degree on the news say something to the effect of, “I guess (like) if I can’t find a job soon I’ll have to (like) go into teaching or something (ya know?)”.
Picture the teachers in your school (if you can remember back that far). How many of them were really into it? How many of them were just gung-ho about teaching kids to think and how many were just there doing what they had to so they could get paid?
Of the teacher’s that I had, I can think of maybe three who were truly excited about what they were doing. Out of probably fifty or so that I had from Kindergarten to 12th grade.
Even most of the teachers in the post-secondary schools that I’ve went to obviously didn’t really want to be there.
Most of my teachers had the attitude that God (if they believed in Him), was punishing them by forcing them to sit in a room with all of these worthless children. I always got the impression that they’d rather be substituting for crash-test-dummies than pursuing their current occupation.
Yeah there were plenty of kids who were complete idiots and those of us who liked to see what we could get away with and I’m sure it’s no different today, if not worse. Teaching kids like that wouldn’t be any fun, but these people either A) chose this career or, B) graduated from college qualified to do nothing else.
In other words, they made their own bed. Now, if they’d just lie down in it and quit whining.
If you have ever watched the network news or read a newspaper you KNOW that teacher’s are vastly underpaid and hugely overworked for the heroic service that they provide.
But, hey, wait a minute. Let’s think about this.
They say that the average teacher’s starting salary is about $40,000 per year.
They work 9 months out of the year, officially. And how many “Holidays” and “Vacation” days do they get every year?
I drive by our local High School every day and, as often as not, on Mondays and/or Fridays the parking lots are deserted except for the occasional tumbleweed.
So let’s make that nine months eight. I guarantee you that they get at least a month off when you count all of the days off that they get. Anyone with a kid in school will verify this for you.
If you extrapolate that into the 12 months that the rest of us actually work, it comes out to about $55,000 per year. That would be a lot more than what I make working 12 months out of every year. And I have almost 20 years of experience in my trade. That’s their starting salary.
"But”, they will whine, “I went to college for four years!”
“So what?” I ask. I have six years of post-secondary education. And I did the vast majority of that while holding down a full time job. In other words, working all day and going to school at night. Don’t whine to me.
And every year they say that they need more money. Well, we’ve been giving them more money every year for the past 30 years. What’s changed? Nothing. Class sizes haven’t diminished even though the student population hasn’t increased, test scores are actually going down and, from what I see around here, brand new schools that look like they were designed by futuristic architects gone mad, are being built all over the place, laying waste to their claim that students are being taught in ramshackle hovels.
We’ve been giving them exactly what they told us they needed to change things, but nothing has changed.
In other words, the money is going to the unions, administrators and beauracracy instead of to the classrooms where it belongs. We have given them, literally, hundreds of billions of dollars and they haven’t fixed one thing. Not one thing!
But that’s typical of the Democrat party. If they were to actually fix a problem, they couldn’t get any more money from you to fix it, could they?
Of course, you’ll hear them whine, “But we are teaching your children! America’s future! Surely that’s worth more!” That may be true if you were teaching them to get along in the real world instead of teaching them that SUV’s are destroying the earth; guns are evil and will sneak out of daddy’s gun case to kill people by themselves; gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and trans-specieists are no different than anyone else; “homeless people” are homeless because they’re either A) abused women, B) hopeless alcoholics whom “society” has forgotten, C) poor immigrants or, the liberals’ favorite, D) the entire family who, through no fault of their own, is living in a station wagon.
We’ll get to the homeless soon, too.
In other words, teach the kids what they need to know to secure a good job when they graduate from school. Teaching them that gays are no different than you or I will help them in no way when they’re writing a resume. Teaching them that SUV’s are destroying the earth can’t possibly help them when they’re asked if they have any PC skills.
In fact, it’s not hard to imagine one, when asked whether they have any PC skills, popping up and saying, “Sure! I know all about Political Correctness!!”
I actually have a scheme (Al Gore would have called it a “risky scheme”) to pay teachers outrageous amounts of money, thereby making them rich. Then the Democrat party would turn on them for being rich. Once the Democrats abandoned them, we could finally have schools that taught what matters.
Yeah, I know it sounds good at first glance, but it would never work. They haven’t turned on Barbara Streisand or Alex Baldwin or the rest of Hollywood for having more money than God, have they? Or Bill and Hillary for that matter.
In Minnesota we spend 40% of the entire state budget on education. That’s almost half of every dollar that I give to my state government!!!
30 years ago the “educators” were whining about class size. There were too many kids in their classrooms. They couldn’t give them the personal one-on-one attention that the kids needed, so they said.
Sound familiar? Of course it does. Every year we hear from the same people that class sizes are too big. And every year we give them more money. And, as with all liberal programs, the problem never goes away because too many people are making too much money off of it. Not to mention the votes that they buy from the uninformed for standing up for our “poor, put-upon teachers” in the teacher’s unions.
The NEA is one of the largest lobbying groups in the country. They are also one of the largest contributors to the Democrat party
The money just keeps rolling in, and it will never stop because the National Education Association, not to mention all of the local unions, gain power for every person in their union. Which means that they’ll never actually cut back. That would be cutting their own power and, if you look at the Democrat party’s history, you know that will never happen.
In normal unions, the labor is in the union, and management is not. In a government union everybody is in the union. Think about that. In all other unions, things are negotiated between Management and Labor and they come up with a “fair” settlement. In a government union they’re all in the union. Not much negotiation there, is there? Both sides just say, “We want more”.
Here’s a little tidbit for you: the only people who get excited about unions are union people. Everybody else thinks that they’re a joke. I know, because I refuse to work for any union, and all of my co-workers agree. When we see three people standing there watching one guy do a job, invariably someone will say, “When did you guys join a union?”
So, why haven’t class sizes gotten any smaller? After all, they kept telling us that all they needed was more money. We’ve given them more money every year for 30 years and nothing has changed! If anything, it’s gotten worse.
This may be one reason: there’s a local school district here that spends 40% of its budget on administrators. That’s almost one administrator per teacher. What do administrators do? Ya got me. I remember a couple of ladies in the office at the High School that I went to. I assumed that they were the administrators.
But there’s apparently this huge beauracracy behind the scenes sitting in meetings for 6 hours (in addition to the two-hour union mandated lunch) every day deciding on whether they should change the football team’s name to “The Diversityville Nice People” so they don’t offend any of Mother Earth’s forest creatures by calling them The Panthers.
Add to that the fact that the high school that I went to now has six vice-principals instead of the two who managed to control the place while I was there, and you have liberalism run rampant. There aren’t any more students, why do they need more vice-principals? Ya gotta figure that these people are making at least $75,000 apiece. Multiply that times the 4 extras and you come up with an extra $300,000!!!
Class sizes haven’t went down and they never will because school districts don’t hire additional teachers. You’ve only got so many rooms to put teachers in! If you hire 10 additional teachers, then you need 10 additional classrooms to put them in, right? Does that mean that because of evil, Republican “cuts” (we’ll get to the Democrat/liberal definition of “cuts” later) that we’re demolishing classrooms and making the physical size of schools smaller?
I drove by my old high school last spring and, on the school’s message sign it said, “Congradulations” to the seniors. I shit you not. It should be “Congratulations” to those of you who have been in the public school system lately.
In other words, the education system in this country has become just another arm of the government bureaucracy. You’ve got millions of people on the union payroll shuffling papers and sitting in endless meetings just so the union can claim huge membership numbers and, therefore, influence the agenda of the legislatures, not to mention all of the money that they bring in which invariably goes to the Democrat party once the union bosses have taken their cut. In other words, the education of our children has become big business, liberal-style. Teachers are just more government workers who expect to be taken care of from cradle to grave no matter what their performance.
The only difference is that “Big Business” works to become more efficient, even if that means laying off some workers and, while that is unfortunate, it makes the company more profitable and/or efficient.
For the Public School System, inefficiency is what helps them bring in more money. If they have any money left over at the end of the year, their budget isn’t increased. So they have every incentive to spend every penny they have. Which means that educational costs will never go down, or even stabilize.
The education system (or any other government bureaucracy, for that matter) tries to keep itself as inefficient as possible, therefore always needing more employees and, therefore, more money from you, the taxpayer.
Believe it or not, I'm not done with this subject. My daughter started Kindergarten last fall and, if anything, it's even worse than I thought.
- The Exile
Thursday, February 24, 2005
What we need is for someone to introduce a bill to form a commision that will systematically go through every law and repeal every one of them is not specifically mandated by The Constitution.
Not "interpreted" to mean, but explicitly, in plain language mandated to the Federal government. As The Constitution says, all other laws are mandated to the States.
When you actually read The Constitution, you'll notice that the Federal government isn't really supposed to be doing very much other than national defense, foreign policy and some other things. The Federal government is certainly not supposed to be doing enough to justify the literally millions of pages of laws that have been written.
There are so many laws on the books that I guarantee that you are breaking at least one of them at this very moment. Think about that. No matter what you do, you are breaking a law. Statistical probability says that you have to be!
Somehow it became imperative that Legislators get their names on Bills and/or "bring home the bacon" to their home states to be considered succesful. This necessarily meant that they would have to expand the power of the Federal government to get the money to do so. Instead of keeping and regulating the law, they felt that they had to add more and more laws just to get their names out in the public eye.
This has been going on for at least 150 years, which means untold thousands and thousands of Congressmen & Senators, which explains the millions of pages of Federal laws.
Think of the income tax code. It originally stated that a percentage point or two be taken from individuals' incomes that exceeded a certain amount (the original "tax the rich" scheme). You could have written it down on one piece of paper.
Now, it takes a forklift to bring all of the books that regulate taxes to the usual Republican press conference.
And every one of those additions had to be made by someone in Congress!!!
The Federal government has no business giving money to artists, good or (mostly) bad. They have no business funding PBS, whether you like it or not. They have no business taking money out of your paycheck for Social Security, Medicare or anything else. They have their fingers into every aspect of your life and, if you read The Constitution, they have no business doing 90% of it.
What we need is fewer Federal laws, not more. And any politician who actually advocated doing just that would be greeted as a hero by a large majority of the people.
And when the Democrat party started shrieking about the "starving children" that would result (as they always do), that would be just one more nail in their coffin.
(Stay tuned. I'm thinking that tomorrow night, when I have a few hours to devote to it, we'll get into the whole Education thing. Not that a whole lot of people read this blog o' mine, but it's sure to ruffle a lot of feathers because not many people dare to pick on the teachers themselves. And now that I've committed to doing it, I guess I'll have to. Kinda sad when you have to blackmail yourself to get around to something
- The Exile
Just more proof for my theory that libs are really just children: what does a kid say when you don't let them do what they want? "You're ruining my life!". Sound familiar?
Sometimes it's just too easy.
- The Exile
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
According to the Democrats he's been undermining the Constitution and breaking the law since before he took office in 2001.
One question: why have there been no investigations of him or his administration?
Do you think that it's because the Democrats are just such nice people that they don't want to cause a fuss? Yeah, right. These are the same people who reguarly call him a Nazi (even though they have no idea what the Nazis stood for, which we'll get to).
By Bill Clinton's 5th year in office, his Presidency had been mired in scandal after scandal for years.
Don't you think that if the Democrats had one shred of evidence that anything they accuse him of was actually true that they'd pounce on it?
We Republicans may have been disgusted by the Clintons, but the Democrats hate George Bush.
(Have you noticed that the formerly common phrase "hate-filled Republicans" seems to have disappeared? Could it be because the Dems have given us way too much ammunition to fire back at them?)
The Democrat party has nothing to formally accuse Bush of because, unlike the Clinton era, Bush's is the "most ethical administration this country has ever seen".
If they had something, they'd use it. But, just like their policies, they have nothing other than accusations that they can't back up.
- The Exile
- Governor Pawlenty is a meanie!!!
- President Bush is a dummy!!!
Not only could you save the cost of a subscription, but just think of all of the time you'd save paging through that rag looking for real news!
That's all you get out of it anyway, so why bother paying for it?
And think of all the trees they would save. They could print one page per day in really big headlines and say the same thing that they're saying now.
Who says Republicans aren't environmentalists?
- The Exile
Monday, February 21, 2005
Now I've known for a very long time that the Democrats in Washington have no principles, honor or core beliefs other than winning power at all costs, but it really never hit me how low they had sunken.
After the Revolution, George Washington wanted nothing more than to go back to his farm and live out a low-profile life. In other words, this man, who had just won independence and could have been crowned King of America gave up power. That had never happened before. Ever. He didn't want power and he knew that by giving it up, he would set a precedent for future generations to follow in electing their leaders. Thankfully, he was persuaded that being the first President of the United States of America was what was needed to show this country the way forward.
Fast forward to the Democrat party of today. From Social Security reform to what Dick Cheney wore to Europe, everything that Republicans do is wrong. Period.
You'd think that, statistically, Republicans would accidentally take a position that the Democrat party would agree with, but it never happens. Ever.
George Bush could declare that kittens were cute, and the Democrats would declare that, not only were puppies cuter, but that it was discrminatory for Bush to say such a thing. In fact, there ought to be a Congressional investigation into the whole matter.
In other words, these people will disagree with him on, literally, everything just so they can regain their power.
Their only principle is: we need to be in power so that we can tell the American people what is right for them. And if that takes sacrificing what's good for the country to get that power, so be it. In other words, "the end justifies the means". Karl Marx, anybody?
Hillary Clinton framed every issue that she ever stood for as "for the children" because she knew that the vast majority of people would put their logic away and agree with her because they loved their kids so much.
A "National Health Care Program" would be devastating to this country's economy and to it's quality of health care. Hillary didn't care because it would have given her more power had it passed. You can bet that the new "Health Care System" would be another government union which would vote Democrat 90% of the time.
The perennial cry for more money for education is another one of her pet goals. Year after year it's shown that money has nothing to do with the quality of education a child receives, but Hillary will go with it because she knows that most of that money goes to increase union rolls, which increases her votes. But she'll always tell you that it's "for the children".
(We'll be getting into the whole Education thing shortly. It will even include killing some sacred cows that Republicans are usually afraid of)
If you look into Hillary's past her motives have always been clear: power, power, power. And if using children to further that goal is what is necessary, so be it. The end justifies the means.
Because she knows what's right for you and I, even if you're too stupid to realize it. She has a vision. Religious visons are to be scoffed at, but political ones are to be embraced, as long as they lead to Socialism or Communism.
Whenever I hear a politician framing an argument as being "for the children", I get an image of a cowardly criminal in a movie holding a child in front of him as a shield so that the police don't gun him down.
So much for Honor.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Well, here's one difference: when a Republican loses an election, he goes away. When a Democrat loses an election, he keeps yapping like a Pomeranian.
Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace. He went away.
Jimmy Carter's Presidency ended in disgrace. We still hear him yapping. In fact, he promised North Korea the world if they wouldn't go after nuclear weapons.
Where are we today? He now blames President Bush for the very problems that he created! He went to North Korea as an unofficial representative of America and negotiated a treaty wherein we gave NK food, fuel-oil and nuclear technology in return for their promise not to seek nuclear weapons.
Gee, we'll help you develop nuclear technology as long as you promise not to develop nuclear technology. You're the most totalitarian, anti-western state in the world, but we'll trust you to keep your word.
What a fucking moron. I don't swear often, but Jimmy Carter needs that adjective. He has done more to screw up this country than, well, his Democrat predecessor Lyndon Johnson.
Where are we now? North Korea has nukes and Jimmy Carter has the Nobel Peace Prize. What a joke.
Ronald Reagan could have been publicly against Bill Clinton, but he kept his mouth shut. Even before his Alzheimer's Disease kicked in, he had enough respect and class for the Presidency to stay out of it.
Bill Clinton beat George Bush I in 1992. When's the last time that you've heard GB I say anything about policy, domestic or foreign?
George Bush I managed to go through 8 years of Bill Clinton's presidency without saying a word about his disgraceful conduct in the oval office.
In contrast, Jimmy Carter keeps popping his head up and yapping about what he would have done about Iraq. We've seen how well his policies work, but that doesn't deter him.
Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, these guys just never go away.
They are all, in their arrogance, convinced that the American people made a dreadful mistake. It was only a fluke that they weren't voted into office. America didn't really reject them!
Besides, they need the attention. Just like any child needs attention.
In other words, Republicans have "class", whereas Democrats couldn't care less as long as they win.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Now Hillary is trying to restore the right of convicted felons to vote. Who do you think that they're going to vote for if she succeeds?
Bush is a scumbag, yet Hillary is using her position as a United States Senator to manipulate the election system to her own advantage. And the left adores her.
Granted, if she could get felons their voting rights back, a lot of her friends and business associates could vote for her again, but that doesn't justify what she's doing.
Does anyone believe that she's doing this to "restore dignity" to convicted felons who have "paid their debt to society"? I think it's much more likely that she sees a few million votes sitting there and she knows that 99.9% of them won't be voting for Republicans.
The Democrats have no shame and no sense of embarrassment. Wouldn't you be kind of embarrassed to have the world know that convicted criminals are some of your biggest fans? But to hell with dignity, as long as they have power.
How they can attack Bush as immoral is astonishing.
Hillary is known to have defended murderous Black Panthers, gladly worked for known communists, covered up for her philandering husband for years just to keep power, tried to institute a socialist system of health care which would have made the Canadian system look good, she had her fingers deep into a financial fiasco called Whitewater which also led to Filegate and the investigation into the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan which we taxpayers had to bail out, she moved into New York and months later ran for the Senate (didn't Democrats castigate Alan Keyes for doing the same thing in Illinois?) which all sounds bad enough but, when you dig into the details of it all, is even more sickening than it sounds.
But they call Bush corrupt and, as usual, don't see any hypocrisy.
When you try to point this stuff out to them, they just talk louder so you can't make your point. It's no different than a child putting his hands over his ears and going, "LALALALAL!" because he doesn't want to hear what you're saying.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
I know that, as a Republican, I'm supposed to be a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, blowing-up- abortion-clinics fanatic but, quite frankly, I'm ambivalent about the whole subject. Luckily for me, it's far from the top of my list of political issues.
On the one hand, I don't think that it's a good idea to be sucking babies (especially ones who would otherwise live normal lives) out of wombs because a woman forgot to take her birth-control pill or a guy wouldn't wear a condom. That's irresponsibility, and destroying a human life because of it is condoning the lazy, irresponsible, "whatever" attitude of the Left.
On the other hand, from what I can see, most of the women who are having these abortions are people who couldn't properly raise a child if there were detailed instructions given on Jerry Springer every day. And, if they know who the father is, they're usually no better. Stupid people raising stupid kids. We have enough of that already.
Do we really want millions more kids, who are raised by people like that, growing into adults and reproducing, thus worsening the problem exponentially?
Sure, some of these kids would be adopted, but millions more wouldn't be, leaving them in homes where the parents didn't want them anyway and, therefore, consider them an intrusion in their lives and ignore them, leaving them to grow up stupid and perpetuating the problem.
I am pro-life for one reason: I can't stand the people who are pro-abortion.
Now, I've heard the "pro-choice" people say over and over that "we're not pro-abortion; nobody is pro-abortion. But we think that there should be a choice". These are the same people who regularly call Republicans "pro-war". Well, obviously, nobody is pro-war, but they never see the link there. Nor the hypocrisy. Nor the stupidity.
Here's a reconstruction of a telephone conversation that I had with a "woman" (who was probably all of 19 years old) from NARAL about a month before the 2004 election.
Her (reading from a script): Hello, I was wondering whether you had decided who you were going to vote for for the Minnesota Legislature?
Me: You mean the Senate or the House?
Her: (10 seconds of silence followed by) I mean the Legislature.
Me: Which branch?
Her: (10 seconds of silence followed by) Melissa Hortman is totally for a woman's right to choose, while her opponent, Stephanie Olson, is completely anti-abortion.
Me: Oh, so you mean the House of Representatives. I have decided and I'm voting for Stephanie Olson.
Her: (10 seconds of silence followed by) So you're 100% anti-choice, then?
Me: No, I'm 100% anti-sucking-babies-brains-out.
Her: (shaken) Well, um, thank you for your time (click).
This "woman", this "political activist", didn't know the most basic thing about how the political process works. Somebody had told her that there was a legislature, but had neglected to tell her that there were two parts to that legislature, The House and The Senate. But she thought that she knew enough about politics to be a political activist.
Somebody had probably mentioned these facts in high school in between "diversity-training" classes, but she was probably too busy doodling names for her future baby (Saandi, Marey) on her folder.
And there you have The Left. Whether it's from their college cohorts, the local left-wing newspaper, CBS, CNN or the rest, they know only what they've been told and they think that they know everything when, the fact is, they know half of the story... maybe.
These people may be intelligent, but they are lazy. It's just easier to accept the propaganda than to actually look into it and find the other side of the story.
That would also explain the mainstream media. It's easier to take what The New York Times or the AP writes, throw in a couple of your own comments and forward it to your editor, than it is to actually research this stuff. Besides, what the NYT & AP has written makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Abortion is bad. I have no doubt of that. But when abortion was illegal in most places, there were also social sanctions against it. Single-motherhood wasn't celebrated as it is today. What would it be like if abortion were suddenly made illegal and unmarried preganancy had nothing to stop it? I don't know that the fear of pregnancy with no abortion available would be enough to stop these completely undisciplined people from making babies. It could be a disaster.
- The Exile
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Well, first of all, if Hillary runs, which I believe is about a 90% probability, then running Condoleezza Rice is going to make a female President a non-issue. One of them is going to win.
I'd bet every one of my meager possesions that the American people will vote for the calm, reserved, respectful woman over the shrieking, eyes-rolled-back-in-the-head harpy who will be claiming that it's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that is trying to keep her (and her husband) out of the White House.
From what I have seen, Condi's record is spotless.
Let's compare that to Hillary's record. Whitewater, Travelgate, Rose Law Firm records "lost" for months and suddenly appearing on the dining room table, her complicity in Monicagate just to keep power and her Senate voting record, aquiring thousands of FBI files on her political opponents (didn't the Democrats accuse Nixon of this?), the list is never-ending.
John Kerry's record wasn't half this bad and he was shredded in the non-mainstream media. Dan Rather couldn't save her even with fake documents.
My friends and I are the very people that the left likes to disparage as blue collar, racist, sexist slobs. My friends and I believe that Condi would be the perfect candidate.
We're the ones who are supposed to be afraid of strong women. Ann Coulter, anyone? We're the ones who are supposed to be racist. Alberto Gonzalez, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, anyone?
What we need is an image makeover. Electing a brilliant black woman as the first black, female President of the United States would put that nosensical view of the Right away forever.
In addition to gaining the Presidency, we could shut down the race-baiters forever. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have nothing to talk about, unless they wanted to call Condi "Aunt Jemima" or something. How do you think that that would go over?
And it's not because she's female and/or she's black. She is an amazing person. She lifted herself out of poverty to become Secretary of State. This woman is the American dream!
And she called the New England Patriots by 3 in the Super Bowl! 24-21. I rest my case.
There would be no competition!
Democrats have nobody, other than Joe Lieberman, who is even close to the mainstream. And "Honest Joe" showed that he was willing to give up his principles to join AlGore's machine. He may agree with Republicans occasionally, but only for political expediency.
Hillary's working her rather wide ass off to move to the middle, but the blogosphere will destroy that attempt. From now on, you run on your actions, not your words. Politicians haven't grasped that fact yet. Communication is now instantaneous. You can't count on CBS to cover for you anymore, because we're not watching CBS.
And, in that atmosphere, Condi is a shoo-in.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Let’s think back to 1999, if you can. Everybody, and I do mean everybody, was saying that Social Security was a crisis that needed to be fixed. If you're a liberal and can't remember what you thought yesterday, let me remind you.
I saw a tape of everybody’s favorite lib, Bill Clinton, yesterday in which he proclaimed that Social Security was a crisis and that it would be "immoral" to leave the problem to "our children and our children’s children". Now, I’m not usually one to look to Bill Clinton for moral advice, but I agree with him in this instance.
(And, of course, his moral character comes shining through when you notice that he spoke about it constantly but, of course, never actually lifted a finger to fix the problem. His followers chanted "Save Social Security First" like religous fanatics for months. And I thought that only...um, religous fanatics...did stuff like that. If Bill ever serves Kool-Aid at any of his Chinese fundraising dinners, DON'T DRINK IT!!!)
But now every Democrat in Washington, and all of the libs in the country, are saying that there is no crisis. There’s actually a lefty web site called, what else, "There is no Crisis" that uses the usual convoluted liberal game of statistical "Twister" to say that the crisis never was.
Again, they've completely forgotten what they were all saying yesterday! It is classic "1984" doublespeak.
So what the hell were they howling about all through the late 90’s? Could it be that they were just trying to get the newly Republican dominated Congress to raise taxes to fix the problem so the Left could say, " See? You guys raise taxes, too! Nyeah, nyeah, told ya so! ". Because their solution to everything is to raise taxes, it never occurred to them that the Right would come up with a different plan, ala "private accounts". In their childish, limited world-view and with their usual lack of linking ability and foresight, it blew up in their faces.
So now there is no longer a crisis because we won’t do it their way and because their hated enemy, George Bush, would get credit for fixing it. Who cares whether it will help "our children and our children’s children", "I wanna do it my way and I won’t let that big dummy Bush win even if I have to take my ball, go home and ruin the whole game for everybody"!
Tell me they’re not children.
Friday, February 04, 2005
I say intermittent, because he goes away for awhile once I shut him down and then, apparently, works himself up to try again. I think that he convinces himself that he was having a bad day last time, or that I really didn't blow him out of the water. After all, he's a college-educated engineer and I'm just a "grease-monkey". I couldn't possibly outhink him, could I? Not to mention the fact that I belong in one of those red states where everyone is a dummy.
The first part he apparently cut & pasted from the web. The 2nd part is my reply.
* * *
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the North East.
Also, we spoke to God, and she agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California.
In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then.
So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the "Governator," stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzler. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.) We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get 'Old Miss.' We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama. We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that. Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs, anyway. Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you.
Ouch, bet that hurts.
Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war. Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of their kids' caskets coming home.
Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Seriously. Soon. Feel free to call if you do.......Collect........we'll take it.
We'd like to say that we're sorry to see you children "take your ball and go home", but we won't miss you. In fact it'll cut the whining level around here by about 90%.
We'll gladly take Texas and all of the former slave states because they're Republican states now, not like they were when Democrats controlled them and blacks were being kept out of schools and lynched by people like Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.
You may think that you're getting Intel and Microsoft, but my guess is that they'll defect to our side within a month if they can get over the wall that you'll be building to keep people in your country. They've seen how you treat "big business". Same with the venture capitalists and entrepeneurs. They know what you do to capitalism.
You will get 2/3 of the tax revenue only because taxes in those states are so high. And, since we won't have your big "mommy-state" programs to deal with, we'll get by just fine. You know, like LBJ's War on Poverty that's been going on for 40 years and hasn't changed the poverty rate one bit. Quite frankly, his war in Vietnam went better. And the war in Iraq is a downright miracle compared to that (Thanks again, Ann).
I doubt that your families are any happier than ours. It's just that a large portion of your people "shack-up" and never get married or, being gay, can't get married (at least to each other). Also, a larger percentage of your people are in their late teens and early twenties and, therefore, less likely to be married. And who do you think all of those single moms are voting for? Certainly not the right. Hard to get divorced if you don't get married. I'd say that that percentage is probably higher than 22%. (The preceding is called "thinking" about something, as opposed to regurgitating statistics)
And we're not really wine drinkers anyway. We're more Scotch and beer people. You and the French can keep your wine (and your whine) and the insecure pretensions that usually go with it.
That whole pro-abortion thing is working out so well in China, I hope that it works out for you too.
I have absolutely no doubt that you'll be anti-war. I just wonder how you're going to protect yourselves with no military. Your people are so anti-military I can't imagine that they would do anything hypocritical like have their own army.
The military that we have now absolutely hates you people, so we'll be getting them along with all of the guns and stuff that you hate so much. And when some little two-bit country comes to invade you, don't come running to us because you can't defend yourselves.
In fact, we'd even consider taking a weekend and invading your country, but it would mean that we'd get all of you people back, and that just wouldn't be worth the trouble.
We'll try calling collect, but I doubt you'll be able to pay for the call. All of the chronically unemployed people will be defecting to your side to take advantage of your massive social programs. Unless of course you mandate that they have to work. You know, like they did in the Soviet union. That worked out pretty well, huh?
And with the tax rate that you're going to have to have to pay for it all, anyone with a trace of ambition will be scaling that wall to get over here. Unless of course you shoot them if they try to do that. You know, like they did in the Soviet Union.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that all of your ideas have been tried before...and failed.
Well, anyway, good luck with all that.
And yes, we'll keep looking for those WMD's. After all, Bill Clinton, Ralph Nader, the Democrats, the UN, Europe and the rest of the world were just as sure (ya gotta read that link) as we were that Saddam Hussein had them, even after the war started. It was only after we didn't find any that they convieniently forgot what they had believed the day before. "1984" anyone? Even Orwell would be shocked by that bit of doublethink. In fact, I'm pretty sure that your country will turn out just like "Animal Farm".
(Yes, we'll be keeping that name, too. Unlike you, we feel pride when we hear it. We can even say it in front of French people without embarrasment. You can call yourself The Democratic Republic of Leftistan or something. You know, kind of like how East Germany called itself the ' "Democratic" Republic of Deutscheland'. Odd how any country with the word "Democrat" in it is usually a tyrannical, socialist dictatorship.)
* * *
To give the Devil his due, he did write back and say that it was pretty damned funny. Maybe there's hope...
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Democrats want to let illegal immigrants in and keep them poor, because poor people vote more often for Democrats who give them my tax money.
Republicans want to let illegal immigrants in because they work cheap and lower business costs.
For the Democrats, buying votes with taxpayer money is normal.
For Republicans, to do so is shameful, to say the least.
Every poll says that 70 - 80% of the American people want something done about all of the illegal immigrants who are here and that they want to stop the flow. That is the vast majority.
And for Republicans to ignore what the vast majority wants is no better than the Democrats telling us that they know what's best for us. And, like Democrats, they are telling us that they believe that rules and laws are only valid when it's convenient for them.
President Bush speaks of an "immigrant worker" program to let the 20 million illegals who are already here work legally, but he never mentions how he's going to keep the other million who will sneak across the border every year out. That means that we'll have 20 million, legalized workers and, in 20 years, we'll have another 20 million illegal aliens here.
That sickens me.
* * *
Now let's talk about how illegal immigration affects you and me.
I should be making about $5000 per year more than I am making now. There aren't many illegals who could do what I do, but the wages at the low end of the scale reflect what's being made at the top end, at least in the blue-collar world that I live in. The people who are doing basic production are making an artificially low wage, so those of us who have years of learning, schooling and experience are also kept at a lower wage than would be normal.
With all of my knowledge and experience, there's no reason that I should have to struggle to support my daughter. Yet I do, every day.
* * *
Yesterday, as I was driving home from work, I came up on a person doing 50 MPH in the left hand lane on a 65 MPH highway. When I finally squeezed into the right lane and got around her, it was very obvious that this woman wasn't from around here.
And this happens every day. Whenever I get around the car that is backing things up, it's almost always someone who has obviously never driven anything more complex than a water buffalo.
They don't know the rules of the road, because those rules are written in English and they're not required to know English to drive on highways where every sign is written in English.
The time that I spend behind these people is time that I don't spend with my daughter.
* * *
I live in Minnesota.
Ten or fifteen years ago violent crime and gangs were almost unknown in the small communities outside of Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Now, a day doesn't go by that you don't hear of a murder, assault, kidnapping, drug lab or other gang-related crimes in rural areas. And the people who are arrested always have names that are suspiciously Spanish. Always.
Last year, the story of Dru Sjodin made national news. She was kidnapped and murdered by Alfonso Rodriguez.
Last week a guy named Juan Manuel Alvarez left his SUV on the train tracks and killed 11 people.
I could cite hundreds of examples here in Minnesota alone.
* * *
What we need to do is seal our border with Mexico. No more nod-and-wink chicken wire across our Southern border. No more token arrests of illegals, whom we send back to Mexico to try again.
We need a large, steel wall built across the entire Southern border. Yes, that may sound expensive, but we could cut the ineffective INS by about 90% to make up for it. They're not doing much anyway.
And, for the few who would sneak in anyway, a good 10 year sentence in a Federal penitentiary, and deportation when they get out, would put an end to that.
We could put an end to this any time that we wanted to. The vast majority of the American people want to put this to an end. If we truly have a representative government, we should make these politicians represent our wishes.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
All Wet. In a rare episode where common sense prevailed, the board rejected a $100,000 aid package for tsunami victims--after an initial proposal of $1 million in city aid. These gestures of charity came at a time when San Francisco faces a budget shortfall just shy of $100 million. All of which prompted a comical exchange between two supervisors sitting two chairs apart--Chris Daly (author of the relief proposal) and Jake McGoldrick (who voted against it, prompting Daly to claim he was double-crossed)--whose juvenile tone sounded more like Beevis and Butthead than two city leaders butting heads.
McGoldrick: How come you gotta act like a baby?
Daly: How come you're two-faced? I'm a baby because you're two-faced!
McGoldrick: You know where you can kiss, don't you, Chris?
Daly: Yeah, I'll kiss your ass. Right after I kick it.
There's no word as to whether the supervisors settled their differences at recess, or agreed to a pay-per-view bout to help whittle down the city's deficit.
Anyone care to challenge my theory that liberals are children? Class ... anyone?
_ The Exile