Nursery Rhyme Dems

While listening to coverage of the liberals' Social Security "Anti-Privatisation Rally" on the radio just now, I heard them chanting the following:

"Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

Does anyone, anyone want to dispute the fact that these people have, emotionally, never progressed beyond childhood?

The problem is, nobody seems to realize what we are dealing with and how to correct the situation. Everyone keeps trying to work with these people as if they are rational adults. These people are children who are running rampant with no consequences; no punishment for their actions.

What we need is to figure out a way to punish these children and make them realize that their actions will have consequences.

- The Exile

Tolerate This

Is it just me, or was this country better off when intolerance wasn’t a bad word?

We’re supposed to be ‘tolerant’ of people who don’t want to work, criminals who destroy our quality of life, single motherhood, homosexuality thrown in our faces, illegal aliens invading our country, the government running programs that the vast majority of Americans don’t agree with and on and on.

What this country needs is more intolerance. Political correctness needs to be banished from the land.

The frightening thing about so-called ‘tolerance’ movement of the Left, is that it is, in itself, extremely intolerant.

It tolerates no dissention, it tolerates no viewpoint that disagrees with it’s own views, it will destroy your life if you disagree with it.

How many of you hedge your words or don’t speak your mind because you fear the consequences of saying what you really think? I’d bet that 99% of you do it every day. But it’s the liberals that are always screaming about freedom of speech. Doesn’t that bother you?

Here’s a liberal joke for you: Three persons walk into a bar and nothing bad happens to any of them.

Stop it man, you’re killing me.

If you say that homosexuality is wrong or that single-motherhood may not be good for this country, you are made to feel like a pariah. If you point out that 12% of the population is committing the majority of violent crimes you are branded a ‘racist’. In fact, in many companies, you can be fired for it! At the very least you will be sent to ‘sensitivity training’. The companies that do this are infringing on your first amendment freedom of speech rights, and somebody should really turn the tables and sue them for it.

The problem is that it has slowly become such a part of life that nobody thinks about it anymore.

The funny thing about political correctness is that it destroys the ability to speak the truth.

The first case that I remember is when sports commentator Jimmy the Greek said in the mid-eighties that blacks are sometimes better athletes because, during the slavery era of this country, plantation owners bred slaves to be as big and healthy as possible.

Yes, that is distasteful, but it is also true!

Jimmy the Greek was fired for saying that. In other words, for speaking the truth!

Yes, it was a terrible time in America, yes it was despicable to breed humans like animals, but that’s the way it happened. Should somebody have their life ruined for talking about it 150 years later?

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It guarantees that you can say stupid things. It guarantees that you can say things that aren’t true. What Jimmy the Greek said was neither stupid nor untruthful and he was still fired.

What he said made some people feel uncomfortable. They said so and his career was ruined.

And it's even worse today. If anyone belonging to a Democrat-protected monority group, for any reason, feels uncomfortable about anything, their lives will be ruined.

When are we going to start suing over free-speech rights? If they want to use the courts to promote their agenda, so should we. It's obvious that the judicial system is never going to be fixed, so we may as well use it.

- The Exile

Charge a Criminal for a Crime? Eureka!

Here's something from The American Spectator. It's about local police arresting illegal aliens on trespassing charges since the Federal government doesn't seem to want to do it.

Chamberlain charged Ramirez with criminal trespass. Under New Hampshire law, a "person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place."

"Mr. Ramirez entered the United States illegally," Chamberlain told the Union Leader. "He was not licensed or privileged to be here."

On Tuesday Ramirez goes to court, where a judge will decide if Chamberlain's application of the trespass statute is legally sound. If it holds up, it would mean any police officer in New Hampshire could arrest any illegal alien simply for being an illegal alien. That is a power only federal authorities have now (emphasis mine).

Imagine that: arresting a person who has entered the country illegally for illegally entering the country! How screwed up has this country become that that would seem to be a strange concept? That should be obvious to anyone who's capeable of thought. These liberals have corrupted a lot of peoples's thought-processes so much that we'll be lucky if we can ever get them thinking straight again.

God help us.

- The Exile

Liberal Garbage

Ahh. Finally back at my overly large plot of land in the suburbs.

I drove into downtown Minneapolis (I live about 20 miles north) tonight to see Garbage at First Avenue. That's the bar that Prince put on the map in "Purple Rain". I'm not a big Prince fan, but an interesting sidenote. I guess.

It was rather odd being in a packed bar that wasn't full of smoke since the Socialist government of Minneapolis implemented it's city-wide smoking ban last month. It didn't make it any more or less enjoyable, it was just odd.

If I would have been thinking ahead, I would have worn my "Right-Wing Extremist" T-shirt. In that crowd I probably would have spent more time arguing than watching the show, but that could have been fun too.

However, as my friend and I were driving home, we noticed that many of the parking lots in our old hangouts were only half full. We both thought that this was odd, it being 10:00 on a Friday night. It used to be that the parking lots were full and cars were parked for blocks in each direction on the streets.

Then it struck me: the smoking ban. Everybody had fled to the suburbs where they could still smoke if they wanted to.

Over and over during the whole debate, the liberal anti-smoking Nazis assured business owners that they had done studies of other cities and that smoking bans hadn't hurt their business climate.

Well, I'll believe my own eyes before I believe one of their skewed studies. Once again a liberal program doesn't live up to its billing and also hurts business owners.

Anyone out there shocked?

- The Exile

And They Say That Republicans Are Stupid

I recently received a questionnaire from our local State Representative that would insult the intelligence of anyone who paid any attention to politics.

This is the same woman who's NARAL supporters called me right before the last election asking me if I knew who I was going to vote for "for the legislature". When I asked the girl (yes, she was a girl) if she meant the House or the Senate, she had no idea what I was talking about. She had no idea that the legislature was made up of the House and the Senate. But she was a Democrat political activist! I posted this a couple of months ago.

Here are a couple of questions from that questionnaire:

1.)The State of Minnesota is projecting a large deficit for the third year in a row. Previously, the Legislature made many cuts in government to remedy the deficit, as opposed to raising revenues. Do you support cutting government again to resolve the budget deficit? (emphasis mine)

- Yes...
- No...
- I prefer a combination...

Since anyone reading this blog probably knows a thing or two about politics, I'm sure that you noticed the same thing that I did. She will not say "raising taxes"! How stupid would you have to be to not catch that? I guess you'd have to be about as stupid as her NARAL supporter was.

2.) If you prefer the Legislature enact cuts only or enact a combination of cuts and revenue raisers, which areas would you prefer the Legislature cut first? Please rank the following...

And here she lists all of the popular programs and none of the useless, wasteful ones.

She obviously counts on the fact that people who will vote for her are uninformed and will stay that way.

It's out mission, fellow bloggers, to inform as many people as possible of their deceit, such as the euphemism of "raising revenues" which means raising taxes and/or fees.

Keep up the good work!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a letter to write to Rep. Hortman

- The Exile

Allah (not so) Akhbar

Jury Returns Death Sentence in GI Killings

FORT BRAGG, N.C. - A military jury sentenced a soldier to death Thursday for a grenade and rifle attack on his own comrades during the opening days of the Iraq invasion, a barrage that killed two officers and that prosecutors said was driven by religious extremism.

Good deal. They should chain this murdering Isalmofascist to the wall of a bunker and roll a grenade in.

- The Exile

Minister of What???

From Girl on the Right's blog:

Did the Layton (our new Minister of Recycling) /Martin deal get
Conservative supporters down? Maybe tax time made you realize you didn't have as
much laying around as you thought - though wouldn't that be a reason to help the
Tories?

Minister of Recycling? You gotta be kidding!

That reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch in which the news announcer was speaking of "The Minister In Charge of Running Up the Stairs Two-At-A-Time, Flinging Open the Door and Shouting, "Aha, Caught You Margaret!" It's really not much more silly than "Minister of Recycling".

Any of you Canucks who read this had better get over to Right Girl's blog and donate some money to the cause of getting rid of people who would even consider something as stupid as a "Minister of Recycling".

- The Exile

War? What War?

Headline from AFP:

Terrorist acts, deaths more than tripled in 2004: US

Wow. Imagine that.

Do you think that there was a headline in 1939 that said, "Nazi attacks, deaths up 1000% in 1938"?

These idiots in the media really don't believe that this is a war. The fact that there are no specific countries involved makes it too complicated for these children to understand. To them, there has to be a well-defined enemy with an army, constricted by specific borders, for it to be a "real" war.

To them terrorist acts are still just random events happening because America has its jackboot on the necks of the poor.

Unfortunately, a large part of the American population believes the same thing.

- The Exile

Anti-ACLU

If you have an extra nickel, please donate it to The Thomas More Law Center.

This organization is dedicated to defending Christian and Conservative causes against the likes of the ACLU.

You know, the ACLU, which was founded by a Communist and now attacks anything even remotely associated with traditional American values.

The people who bring millions of dollars and free lawyers attacking small communities because they have a cross in their school or a nativity scene on their City Hall lawn and very little money to fight with. These chickenshits wouldn't think of attacking a large city with the resources to fight them.

Not that they'd have to. All large cities seem to be controlled by the very people who make up the ACLU. These cities also happen to have the highest taxes, highest crime-rates, highest illegitimacy rates...you name it. What a coincidence!

Donate to Thomas More. I can't think of a better organization to fight against than the ACLU.

- The Exile

LRT - 2, Guns - 0

A man was hit and killed by a train on our new light-rail transit (LRT) system in Minneapolis on Monday.

This follows another man's death when his car was struck by the train back in September.

The whole LRT program was shoved down taxpayer's throats so that the usual bunch of liberals around here could get that warm, fuzzy feeling from helping the environment and aiding poor people.

The LRT system, of course, ended up going over budget by about 1 billion dollars and opened a year late. In other words, your typical liberal program.

LRT was supposed to ease traffic congestion (it hasn't) and help the poor (it hasn't) by giving them a way to get around. Apparently the buses weren't good enough.

The only "poor" people who seem to be riding it would appear to be gang-bangers going out to the Mall of America.

And, of course, the liberals who jammed this down our throats are saying that it's a failure because we need more lines which, of course, will cost more money.

A bunch of liberals saying that one of their programs isn't working because it isn't big enough and needs more money? I'm shocked. I gotta go lie down.

And these very same liberals are the ones who got rid of Minnesota's short-lived "shall issue" concealed carry gun law which, in the year or so that it was in effect, recorded absolutely zero incidents of a permit-carrying gun owner misusing it. None. Nada. Nichts. Certainly, there were no deaths because of the law.

They were screaming about how the bodies would be piling up in the streets. They were howling about there being 20,000 more guns on the streets (the actual number was about 5,000 permits). I couldn't count the number of times that I heard the words "O.K. Corral". In other words, all of their sound and fury, as usual, signified nothing.

But in the 10 months that LRT has been running there have been multiple accidents and two men have been killed because of it.

Guns don't kill people, Liberal programs kill people.

UPDATE: I've been meaning to post this for a couple of days now, but Blogger ate it once and my work computer ate it once ::mutter:: I had links to the Red Star Tribunal's story on those posts, but it now seems that they've chucked the story down the memory-hole. They had to report it, but the sooner that it goes away the better in their eyes.

- The Exile

Baby Murders Just "Tip of Iceberg"

From Reuters:

The New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Wednesday the abuses at
Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison were just the "tip of the iceberg" of U.S. mistreatment
of Muslim prisoners.

According to the rights watchdog, the abuses at Abu Ghraib are part of
a larger pattern of U.S. rights violations of detainees in Afghanistan,
Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

The whole article just blathers on and on about how evil the US is without citing a single piece of evidence.

So, in that spirit:

The Minnesota based Exile From Hillary's Village said that
the people at Human Rights Watch are
known sacrificers of babies during their daily Satanic rituals.

"It's now clear that abuse of children has happened all over --
from New York to France to a lot of third-country dungeons where
HRW has chapters. And probably quite a few other places we don't even know
about."

The blog said it was concerned HRW had not stopped the use of what it
called Satanic baby murder.

There. I presented as much evidence of my allegations as they did of theirs.

How long do you think it'll be before Reuters calls me for a quote?

- The Exile

Isolationism Sounding Good

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is playing down the crisis in Sudan and should take the lead in global efforts to resolve the conflict, said a leading international advocacy group Tuesday. (International Crisis Group)

So we should play "the world's policeman" only where and when they want us to? Why aren't they criticizing France? France is supposedly still a bigshot in the world. Or Germany, or Canada or anyone else who whines about us going into any country without their approval. Like John Kerry said, we need a permission slip from these people to go anywhere.

But this mission wouldn't be an elimination of a threat to the US, so it's OK. They like us to feel threatened. They want us to feel as scared and as worthless as they do.

Donors pledged $4.5 billion at an international conference in Oslo this month to help Sudan recover from Africa's longest civil war. The United States, with a pledge of $1.7 billion, is the largest donor.

They're glad to take our money. I notice that the story didn't mention how many donors were at the above conference, but I'd bet that nobody else came close to donating 38% of the total raised. And what do we get for it? As always, more criticism.

And now they want us to rattle our sword for them, too.

Voting on Allegations

From Stephen F. Hayes at The Weekly Standard. This pretty much sums up the Democrats, don’t you think?

Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee spent much of last Tuesday afternoon shouting down their opponents, gesticulating wildly, interrupting speakers, and making unsubstantiated claims--all of this in an effort to delay a vote on the Bolton nomination. He is unfit for the job, they claim, because over the course of his career Bolton is alleged to have shouted down his opponents, gesticulated wildly, interrupted speakers, and made unsubstantiated claims. Washington at its finest.

And later in the column:

Biden finished reading and addressed his colleagues. "That's what she alleges. I don't know if they're all true or not. . . . As I've said in recent days, my staff and other staffs have received numbers of allegations about the nominee and his behavior. They are not substantiated. I emphasize, again, they're only allegations."

And yet he's prepared to vote against Mr. Bolton on nothing more than allegations!

From Joe Biden or any other Democrat, that doesn't surprise me, but the fact that there are a couple of Republicans willing to do the same thing really pisses me off.

These allegations he's speaking of come from a known anti-Bush operative and yet, they're prepared to vote against Mr. Bolton based on these biased allegations.

The delay could be a problem. Not because Melody Townsel's allegations are compelling. They're not. In the days since she first aired her grievances, more information has come to light. Townsel is a Democratic activist who founded the Dallas, Texas, chapter of Mothers Opposing Bush. Her allegations were immediately challenged and convincingly refuted by four of her colleagues, including Jayant Kolatra, owner of the firm that employed Townsel and a longtime contributor to Democrats.

I think that it's time to thin the herd and get rid of the weaklings.

If Voinovich is willing to even consider voting against Bolton on nothing more than allegations, do we really want him? Or any of the other turncoats who have showed up lately (Hagel, Chafee, McCain, etc.)? Yes, they theoretically give us a majority, but when anything of any import comes up, they always seem to side with the Democrats, so what's the difference?

Republicans have a majority in name only. In practice, it's about 50/50.

Unfortunately, we would lose our majority status. But if I'm this disgusted by their behavior and the reluctance of the party leadership to beat these guys into shape, there are probably another million people who aren't as dedicated to the Republican Party who will walk away and put us in the minority again anyway.

So what really needs to be done is to write Majority Leader Frist, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and your Senators and tell them that, unless they crack down on these people, you see no reason to continue to support them. If they won't act like they're the majority and use the power that we gave them, why should we bother? The Democrats will run the show either way unless they do something.

- The Exile

What, Me Biased?

In the StarTribune's "Op/Ex" section of yesterday's (Sunday) paper, they had a column by the "Reader's Representative" attempting to show whether the paper has a left-wing bias by publishing letters from the readers.

By my count there were 3 from people who thought it was too far left, one from a guy who thinks that it's too far right, one that attacks right-wingers for attacking the media and one that really has nothing to do with the subject.

However, the more important point was made in a little feature called "By the Numbers" that was directly below that column. This feature attempts to describe what's going on around the world by using numbers (percentages, ratios, etc.).

Out of 11 little snippets, at least 9 of them were far to the left, mostly attacking the Bush administration for environmental policies, religious people and the Pope, etc.

Kind of ironic that they'd have that directly below a column about media bias.

And then you turn the page to the 'letters to the editor' section and 5 of the 10 are attacking Governor Pawlenty's former Commisioner of Education, Cheri Yecke, who was thoroughly Borked out of her job by (who else) the StarTribune and the Left of this state.

She's been out of government for over a year, and these people still so despise her that they can't stop attacking her! The paper will publish any letter written to them no matter how stupid, as long as it attacks her.

Of the other 5 letters, maybe 2 could be considered anything close to the Right.

Then, on the same page, you look at the editorial cartoons: every one of them is anti-Bush. Every one!

You doubt me? Take a look at these cartoons. Out of fifteen, 9 of them are anti-Bush and one is anti-Pawlenty (our republican Governor). Of the other 5, one is making fun of Jesse jackson (but not of Democrats), and the other 4 have nothing to do with politics. In other words, not one cartoon in the past 15 weeks has had anything negative to say about Democrats. But 2/3 of them are anti-Conservative.

But that's really not surprising. Although I rarely read the rag anymore, I can't remember any cartoons and very, very few columns saying anything negative about Democrats.

But they're not biased! Heck, they just ran a column saying that they're not biased! They couldn't do that if it weren't true (I actually had one moron try that line on me. The sad thing is, he believed it).

And I'm sure that this rag is no different than the vast majority of them in this country. The fact that they can deny it is just incredible to me. But then, it's no different than a kid standing next to a broken window with a bat in his hand and denying that he broke it.

-The Exile

Das Pope

I published a post a few days ago in which I, jokingly, submitted that MoveOn.org would compare the new Pope to a Nazi.

Well, it turns out that it wasn't a joke and it didn't take a moonbat organization like MoveOn to make the accusation. It was actually the New York Times which did it:

"His experience under the Nazis--he was 18 when the war ended--was formative in
his view of the function of the church, [John L. Allen Jr.] said. 'Having seen fascism in action, Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesiastical totalitarianism,' he wrote. 'In other words, he believes the Catholic Church serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes.' Totalitarianism, indeed, critics might say."

--Daniel J. Wakin, New York Times

You can't even jokingly try to be more outrageous than these people. They'll go beyond what you think is possible every time.

- The Exile

I Know Nothing! Nothing!

I heard Rush speak of this during the few minutes that I was able to listen to him today, and he may have made my point already, but great minds think alike, right (how's that for arrogance)?

From the New York Sun regarding Teddy Kennedy's brother-in-law, Raymond Reggie, being sentenced for stealing and also becoming an informant for the FBI:

The New York Sun reported yesterday that an unnamed witness with ties to a prominent political figure has been involved in recent federal investigations of campaign fund-raising violations, including a probe into alleged financial misreporting in Mrs. Clinton's bid for the Senate in 2000. The informant, described in court papers only as a "confidential witness," was part of an FBI plan to secretly audiotape conversations with political operatives, including a well-known person who prosecutors said was seeking to funnel donations from foreigners to federal campaigns.

Now, who do we know that has tried to use foreign donations for their campaigns in the past?

Reggie was a regular presence at Mr. Clinton's side when he visited New Orleans during his presidency and thereafter. Just last September, Mr. Clinton had lunch in that city with Reggie, as the former president swung through town to sign his autobiography and attend a $10,000-a-head Democratic Party fund-raiser, the Times-Picayune newspaper reported. A former congresswoman and ambassador to the Vatican, Lindy Boggs, joined Reggie and Mr. Clinton at the lunch, as did two federal judges whom Mr. Clinton appointed.

When Mrs. Clinton traveled to New Orleans in May 2000 to raise $100,000 for her Senate campaign, Reggie was on the host committee.

An attorney for the Clintons, David Kendall, had no immediate response yesterday to questions about Reggie's role in Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign or about the possibility that Reggie might have taped one or both of the Clintons.

Even if it turns out that Hillary really didn't know anything (funny how the Clintons never know anything, huh?) about his actions on her behalf, doesn't it seem odd that these criminals and low-lifes keep turning up around the Clintons?

The Left likes to call President Bush corrupt, but I have yet to see a couple-of-dozen felons pop up with close ties to him.

Yet "the most ethical administration in history" was overflowing with criminals throwing money at the Clintons to advance their pet causes. But when you call them corrupt, liberals put their hands over their ears and begin screaming, "La-la-la-la-la!!!" at the top of their lungs.

But they're not hypocrites! Just ask them.

- The Exile

I'm Kinda Positive

Some lefty e-mailed me the other day calling me arrogant (can ya believe that? ::smirk::) and telling me how annoying we Conservatives are because we just KNOW that we're right.

Don't ya love it when they lob softballs like that?

Apparently this guy doesn't know whether he's right or not. He's arguing for issues that he's unsure of. That takes an amazing amount of stupidity.

It's not surprising, though. It's hard to know that you're right when your positions are based, not on facts, but on feelings.

- The Exile

We Hate Everyone, Because We Can.

Again and again I hear Democrats and Lefties saying that Republicans are “attacking” Social Security.

Why would we “attack” it? The word attack implies that we want to intentionally damage it for some reason, but they never have any plausible explanation of what that reason is. Yes, we want to change it because it’s not going to work for long the way that it is now, but attack it?

The only reason that I can possibly think of for them to accuse Republicans of "attacking" Social Security is that they think that we really do hate the people who are using it. Why would we hate them? Ya got me. Think about that. Why would we hate them? Have you ever heard a liberal give any reason that made any sense regarding why we hate all these people? Me either.

A change in any one of their precious programs is always considered an attack on it. It was the same with welfare reform. When we proposed changes to make the system work better, they constantly called it an “attack on the welfare system”.

Medicare, Medicaid, public schools…take your pick. Even when it’s obvious to everyone with anything even approaching an open mind that one of these programs isn’t working, to the Democrats it doesn’t matter; we still can’t change it. If anyone proposes any changes, we are attacking it because we "hate" the people who are using and/or running those programs.

Sure, sometimes we disapprove of them or are even disgusted by their behavior. But hate? Not that I''m aware of. Any negative judgement of anyone by a Conservative is considered "hate". They judge Conservatives all the time but, with their typical hypocrisy, that's OK.

I believe that the whole left-wing, conspiracy-theory insanity that we've seen lately began with the first leftist uttering the words "hate-filled Republican". They had nothing to back it up and no reason to think that we actually hated anyone but, just like today's left-wing nuts, they don't need no stinkin' facts or reasons. They believe it to be true; therefore it is.

Those are the people who are part of the "reality-based community". Yeah. Right.

- The Exile

RINO's take heed

"The nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are keeping their ears to the ground. "
- Winston Churchill

Start typing!

Not much time to blog again tonight. After an evening of de-thatching, raking, mowing, composting and playing, it's time to write a few e-mails to some Senators asking them if they really want to be in the minority party again. Assuming that they ever get elected again after their shameful behavior.

These Senators are threatening to vote against putting an end to the Democrats' filibustering of judicial nominees for the first time in US history.

John Warner (R - VA)
Chuck Hagel (R - NE)
Susan Collins (R - ME)
Olympia Snowe (R - ME)
Lincoln Chafee (R - RI)
Gordan Smith (R - OR)
Arlen Specter (R - PA)

All you have to do is look at everything from Roe vs. Wade to "God in the Pledge" to Terri Shiavo and all of the rest of these goofy liberal judicial rulings lately to understand how important it is that we put an end to this new obstructionism by the Democrat party.

May I suggest that you also take some time to write these Senators, and your own, to tell them that this needs to be stopped?

- The Exile

Pant

Well, between yard-work, spring cleaning and chasing my little Monkey-Girl around, I haven't had time to post much lately. Hopefully that will change soon once I get it all done.

I hope that I haven't alienated my loyal fan base. All 5 of you.

- The Exile

It Wouldn't Surprise Me

At the Vatican today a new Pope was elected.

Immediately thereafter, Al Gore demanded a recount, Jesse Jackson claimed that all of the Cardinals from Africa had been disenfranchised, MoveOn.org compared the new Pope to Hitler and 10 million liberals put bumper stickers on their cars proclaiming "He's not MY Pope!" Another 10 million claimed that, with the help of Fox News, he had stolen the election.

- The Exile

Pissing Contest

I don't usually respond to these fanatics, but I just happened to poke my head back in to his blog and see his complete misrepresentation of everything that I said. It also bolsters my "libs as Kids" theory.

So without further ado:

***

I’ve noticed that you keep poking your head into my blog either hoping for a response or some fodder. Well, here ya go, E. (how pretentious) David!

Way back in February, I posted a cute story about Ella voluntarily sharing her piece of cake with Chloe, and some neanderthal blogger named "Exile from Hilary's Village" felt the need to leave a very nasty comment calling me names and giving me parenting advice: "Be a man" and beat my two year old daughter because she's crying. He followed that up by pointing out, "I'm sure that your wife is thrilled with you. You're as much of a woman as she is. In trying to please women, you have become one." A month later, he was still so upset at my post, so horrified that a girl would share with her sister--doesn't she know, the Republican won the election, we live in an "ownership society" now and if you have nothing, no one is supposed to lift a finger to help you in any way?

I prefer to be called a ‘Neandertal-American’. Neanderthal is so 20th century.

The fact that you’re whining about somebody “calling me names” validates my entire theory that liberals are nothing more than children who have, emotionally, never grown up. Not to mention the fact that you also, later, call me a “bully”. Those are the two worst things that can happen to a kid, aren’t they? Being “called names” by a “bully”.

As far as giving you “parenting advice”, I never advised you to beat your daughter, and you know it. In fact, what I told you was, “(And) I'm sure that you assume that, being a Republican, I regularly beat my child. The fact is, I swatted her butt once and felt so bad about it that I could never do it again.” And that is a direct quote. You, sir, are a liar. I have the dated e-mail to prove it. But I expect no less from a liberal. Wasn’t it Marx who said, “The end justifies the means”? Which means that principles go out the window when you’re trying to achieve your objective. In this case, showing what a “Neanderthal” (sic) I am.

Yes, it did take me a month to get to your post but, being a single-daddy, I post when I have time. It just so happens that it took a month because, while interesting in a philosophical way, it wasn’t really all that important. It’s called “bookmarking” something so you can come back to it. I wasn’t upset about it, just amused that it made my point so well.

As far as the “ownership society” goes, it’s obvious that you think it’s wrong for able-bodied adults to take care of themselves instead of letting the government (i.e. mommy) take care of them. I wasn’t speaking of two-year-olds and, again, you know it.

You also seem to leave out the fact that I wasn’t exactly “horrified” by kids sharing with each other. In fact, it had nothing to do with your kids, in particular, at all. What I said was:

“I have no problem with people sharing within a family. In fact it was very nice of your daughter to do that. Being one of the intellectual left, I'm surprised that you missed my whole point. It wasn't that someone was sharing with someone else. It was the comparison between a small child whining, screaming and crying because they didn't get all that they wanted and the Left constantly doing the same thing.”

But, just like everyone on the Left, you can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it. Any perceived criticism is taken personally. I wasn’t commenting on your kids or your parenting skills. I was commenting on the fact that liberals are, emotionally, children. The fact that you continually fail to see that just proves my point.

I find it amazing (well, not really) that you and all of your liberal friends have managed to completely miss the point and blow this all out of proportion. If I would have found the post on the blog of a Conservative (unlikely), I would have come to the same conclusion. It’s about liberals acting like children. When they don’t have what they want, they expect other people to just give it to them.

as I say, he was still so angry over my post, that a month later he put up a post on his own blog continuing the attack on me, and also ridiculing my children and calling my wife names (because he's a member of the party that believes in "moral values" and traditional conservative lifestyles, where when you come upon someone you disagree with you froth at the mouth and scream angry epithets at them). In that post he said, "Just the fact that his kids are named Chloe & Ella tells me all I need to know about him." An anonymous commenter who came upon this post before I did asked him what my childrens' names told him. His answer: "the kid [is going to] have to spell [it] for people every time she's asked her name FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE." Because Ella and Chloe are such terribly complicated names, though not too complicated for Exile to spell, just for "a whole lot of people out there with public-school educations who won't be able to" (though, according to Exile, the real problem is that Democrats and academics look down at others. Heh).

Again, you give yourself way too much credit to think that I was “angry” over your post. It just summed up the two-year-old mindset of liberals wanting “more, more more!!!” so well that I found it amusing. Amusement and anger are very far apart on the emotional scale. In fact, what you libs always see as “hate-filled Republican thinking” is usually either amusement, bemusement or outright disgust with your thinking. That also speaks volumes about your mindset. You automatically go to “hate” when you disagree with us, so you assume that we feel the same. In your childish mindset, there are only opposites: love or hate, nothing in between. You only reserve shades of gray for good and evil.

And, yes, I do believe that it is cruel for parents to give these goofy Junior-high-school-girl-doodle names to their kids. Like I told you (and you neglected to mention), I was married to a woman who had to spell her name every time that she did anything. As I also told you, my name is pretty common but even I have to spell it for people.

Yes, Democrats (at least the liberal ones) do look down upon people in the same way that insecure children try to make themselves look like they know more than the rest of the class.

When I first saw his post, I ignored it for a couple of days. And then I got another of those anonymous troll comments. And the two of them together bothered me, more than they should have. I don't like conflict with people, really. I certainly want people to like me, more than I should. It's probably my great character flaw: I really, really want people to like and respect me. But you know this guy is simply an asshole who enjoys going around saying stupid offensive shit and then patting himself on the back for being so smart--the kind of guy who thought Dubya won that third debate "cause he said 'you can run but you can't hide,' huh-huh-huh-huh."

Wouldn’t “troll” be considered as “calling someone a name”? The hypocrisy is endless here. It’s OK for you to call people names, but you whine like a three-year-old when someone does it to you.

I’m sure that you don’t like conflict and I’m sure that you want people to like you. But my six-year-old-daughter has the same “character flaw”. She came home crying a couple of weeks ago because a little girl up the block said that she didn’t want to be her friend any more. Thank you for making my point.

You can call me an asshole if you like. I won’t even whine about you “calling me names”. What I say may be offensive to you, but it isn’t stupid. My IQ puts me in the 95th percentile of the population. I’m not patting myself on the back about it; while I am proud of it, it’s just a fact. But liberals and children always call people thay disagree with (what else?) “stupid”.

And your point that Dubya (that moniker really doesn’t offend us) may not have won the debate is kind of moot since he won the debate on November 2nd 2004, isn’t it? Wait, let me guess, you think he stole the election just like he did in 2000, right?

So after I got pissed off at the second troll, I went back to this Exile's blog and left him a comment. He responded, calling me some more names and pointing out that he's "at least as intelligent" as me, and claiming that, unlike me, he "live[s] in the real world every day" so he's better than me because I "never get out of the world of 'academia'." [sic]

Aww, I’m sowwy, which other names did I call you that time? Quotes would be nice.

The fact is, I am at least as intelligent as you are. That’s not bragging, that’s a fact. Just in case you think you’re dealing with one of those “knuckle-dragging, gap-toothed, mouth-breathing red-staters”.

And I stand by that statement completely. I do live in a world that you never see. Your wife’s a lawyer (I guess you consider that calling her names, and I do agree that “lawyer” is derogatory these days) and you’re enmeshed in the world of the University. When’s the last time that either of you have been on a factory floor? You know, talking to the “little guy” or, as Marx liked to call him, “the Worker”?

I never claimed to be “better” than you (your insecurity is showing), just that I live in a world that you think you’re trying to help, but of which you know nothing.

Seems that Exile has also been listening to way too much David Horowitz, and it got him into trouble, because he went off on this little diatribe about how much money I earn as a professor and announced, "I'd bet everything that I own that you make more money than I do." Well, there's a bet that I simply couldn't pass up, though because I am in fact a kind soul, even to benighted individuals like this guy, so I made a counter-offer in one of the three long comments I left on his post: "I'll respond to your email and tell you my salary. If it's less than you make, you can leave a comment here apologizing for assuming you know everything about me based on reading one post on my blog." I sent him my yearly salary in an email on Sunday afternoon. He's posted to his blog at least a few times since then, so I know he's seen my emails and my comments, but still no reply from him--no crowing post exulting because he was right and he earns less than I do (which, just from looking at his main page of posts, would certainly have been forthcoming if it had been the case), but also, imagine this, no apology. Despite all of his chest-puffing proclamations of his Real Manhood and his denunciations of me as a girly man, he refuses to "be a real man" and live up to his bets. He's not only a pretension (sic), small-minded bully but also a welcher.

Quite frankly, while I have heard of David Horowitz, I’m not very familiar with his work.

If your family makes more than 35K/year, you’re doing better than I am. The fact that your wife is a lawyer (again with the derogatory ad hominem attacks!) leads me to believe that you’re living better than I am.

Not all Republicans are rich. From my experience the vast majority of them aren’t. It’s just a Democrat stereotype. And here I thought that only Republicans stereotyped people.

I’m sure that you wished to portray me as some redneck, lowbrow idiot who could barely get his words to fit together in a proper sentence, but this will show anyone who wastes his time on your blog that I am perfectly capable of speech.

The fact is, you’ve lied and misrepresented many things on this post. If you care to dispute that, I really do have the dated posts to prove that you are a lying scumbag (ad hominem! ad hominem!). Go ahead and whine. Anyone who lies like you do deserves to be “outed”.

I’ll post this on my blog. Do you have the guts to do the same?

-The Exile

More Succinct, But Less (Manic) Passion

From Philip Terzian at The Weekly Standard. He makes the point that I made below much better than I do; but hey, he's a real journalist and here I sit in my PJ's (well, sweats and a Rolling Stones T-shirt, anyway).

***

That is why Frist needs to concentrate his energies, organize the majority, and face down the challenge posed by Harry Reid and his troops. But let's call this "nuclear option" by its proper name: the fairness option. Senate Democrats are the ones who have, in effect, gone nuclear--requiring a supermajority of 60 senators to approve judges. Listening to Democrats, and reading editorial commentary, Mr. and Mrs. America might have gained the impression that the three-fifths Senate vote required to end debate was dictated by James Madison on his deathbed. Hardly. Cloture is a Senate rule, not a constitutional requirement. It was President Woodrow Wilson, frustrated by the Senate's indulgence of endless talk, who promoted the adoption of Rule XXII, mandating a two-thirds vote for cloture. Sixty years later, Senate Democrats, led by Robert Byrd, reduced the two-thirds requirement to three-fifths. The sacred principle of requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster is neither an ideal of the Founders nor a historic precedent: It is a procedural rule less than 30 years old. And, in the long history of the United States, filibusters have never been used by a minority systematically to block a president's judicial nominees (all emphasis mine, mine, all mine!).

- The Exile

Speak Up!

One of our local lib talk shows was talking about Republicans “getting rid of the filibuster”. The host kept neglecting to mention that we’d be getting rid of it for judicial nominations only.

Two callers in a row had basically the same (incorrect) point: they were worried that if we “got rid of the filibuster” that Republicans could pass any law that they wanted to pass.

The host never once corrected either of them by telling them that it would be done away with in the case of judicial nominees only. It has nothing to do with passing laws or legislation. He knew this, I’m sure. But he was perfectly happy to let the notion get out that we’d be getting rid of the filibuster, period.

There you have the essence of the liberal media. This guy claims over and over that he’s “objective”. But he’s willing to let half-informed people put forth outright lies and/or ignorance and not bother correcting them. He knew perfectly well that what they were saying was wrong.

The one old guy, when asked whether he was “left or right” in his political leanings said, “I don’t know nothin’ 'bout dat left or right stuff, but my party starts with a ‘D’ “. In other words, this guy knows very little about politics, but he agrees with everything he’s being told by the Star-Tribune and WCCO (a.k.a .The Old Neighbor).

There you have the Democrats in this state, if not this whole country: If you asked them, they’d tell you that they know a lot about politics; but if you ask them some of the most basic questions about the process, they haven’t a clue. They are, maybe, half-informed about any given political issue.

It’s obvious that the more informed a person is, the more likely they are to be a Republican.

They also had a political science professor on from Gustavus Adolphus college here in Minnesota which, religious or not, is very liberal. This guy actually said that “the Senate takes it’s traditions very seriously” in recommending that the Republicans don’t take “The Nuclear Option”. He, along with every other liberal and/or Democrat I’ve heard, neglected to mention that it was the Democrats who broke tradition in the first place by beginning to filibuster judicial nominees for the first time ever in the history of this country! Apparently that tradition wasn’t worthy of seriousness.

That point needs to be repeated again and again to counter the intentional neglect of the facts being perpetrated by the MSM. I'm sick of screaming at my TV and radio every time one of our Conservative bretheren miss the opportunity to point that fact out.

We're losing this battle because the Left has managed to frame it as Republicans changing the rules in the middle of the game. Nobody on our side is pointing out that we are just responding to the Democrats who changed the rules first and that we're not getting rid of the filibuster completely.

What the hell is wrong with our side? This is another prime opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party and we just let it slide. Again.

- The Exile

We Care...If You Vote For Us.

Once again the “party of the little guy”, the party that “cares about people” has shown that it’s leaving something out of their party description. It would be more accurate to describe them as the “party of the little guy who can vote for us” and the party that “cares about people who can vote for us”.

By criticizing and attempting to defeat John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee for Ambassador to the U.N. , they are, in effect, saying that they don’t have a problem with business as usual at the U.N. The status quo is just fine, and they certainly don’t want anyone going in there and shaking things up.

U.N. workers and troops are raping women and children? Well, yes, that’s tragic, but they can’t vote for us, so no big deal.

U.N. officials stole billions of dollars from Iraqi citizens? Money that was supposed to be spent on food and medicine and, when it wasn’t, caused an untold number of deaths amongst the “little guys”? Well, while we “care about people”, what we mean is that “we care about people who can keep us in power”.

Hundreds of thousands of "little guys" being murdered in Africa? Well, helping people who can't vote for us would be risky, so we'll just endlessly debate what to do in the U.N.

I’ve always had a problem with the label “compassionate conservative” just because the adjective should be unnecessary; we are, and always will be more compassionate than the Left because we see people as individuals rather than as voting blocks (gay, black, feminist, etc.). We give more to charity (except for Bill Clinton who even donated his old underwear…ewww), and we would rather teach people to make their own way in life than give them some measly handout that’ll keep them in poverty.

And, of course, they are now trying to assassinate Bolton’s character by calling him (what else?) a bully! Children, every last one of them.

- The Exile

Precision Tune Thieves

Time to step away from politics for a bit here, but if you bear with me, you may save yourself a lot of time, money and frustration.

Last week I brought my SUV into Precision Tune to have them fix a few minor problems that I never seemed to get to. During the course of their inspection, they found that I had a bad axle-shaft seal, so I told them to replace it.

After I picked the vehicle up, I noticed that there was a whine coming from the rear-end. At first I thought that they may have accidentally installed a liberal, but it was a different kind of whine.

I brought the truck back and left it with them so that they could check it out. When I called later in the day to see if it was ready to pick up the guy told me that he was just preparing an estimate. “An estimate?” I asked, “but the noise is from something that you did. It didn’t make that noise when I drove it on to your lot; it did make that noise when I drove it off of your lot.”

He hemmed and hawed for awhile about wheel-bearings and other stuff, so I rudely interrupted him and told him that I’d be there in half-an-hour and we’d discuss it.

Well, to make a long story short, he refused to fix his mistake and I’m pretty sure that I shocked every one of his employees and a few people in the waiting area.

After talking to a few people, I figured out what the whine was: when they changed the shaft seal, they had to drain the differential. When they refilled it, they used lightweight synthetic oil instead of the 90-weight gear oil that was in there. It will work that way, but nobody in their right mind would accept the loud whine that it makes.

What this tells me is that he didn’t even bother trying to find out what was wrong with it; he was just going to charge me for more stuff that I didn’t need! Wheel bearings have nothing to do with the differential, but there they were on the estimate. That is just, plain stealing.

And a few days ago I noticed that I have a new puddle on my garage floor that never used to be there. I hunted down the leak and it turns out that one of the nuts that hold my valve cover in place was missing. By the look of it, it had been there fairly recently. And, coincidentally, the manager had told me that I had a bad valve cover gasket when it was originally in there.

I had also originally asked them to find the rattle in my exhaust system. They told me that my exhaust manifold was cracked. I traced it to the cage that surrounds the catalytic converter, which isn’t even close to the exhaust manifold.

These people are lying, thieving hacks.

I wrote to their company headquarters, who put me in touch with a local rep here in town. He suggested that I take it to a mechanic that I trusted and if he found anything wrong with it, we’d all get together and talk about it. I told him that if I knew a mechanic that I trusted, do you think I would’ve taken it to Precision Tune? I also told him that I didn’t have the time to piss away running all over hell trying to get their mistakes fixed. I wasn’t happy with their work, their ethics or their attitude, and any reputable company would be very concerned about that and try to make the customer happy. I told him that I’d just fix it myself, but would miss no opportunity to warn everyone that I can away from Precision Tune.

And this is part of that process. Be warned: these people have no scruples. Their only principle is more money at any cost. They will not hesitate to screw you. Stay as far away from them as you can and warn anyone that you know who has car issues to do the same.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Just Plain Funny

Michael Moore might be old news but this gem from the archives of Frank J. <http://www.imao.us/archives/000583.html> deserves to be dusted off:

And what's with your statement about how the country is actually all liberal and that the people booing you were actually booing the booers? Do you actually believe that? What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Are there elves and leprechauns there? If there are, and I caught one of those hippy leprechauns and he told me, "If you don't harm me and let me go, I'll give you three wishes," (that would be in Irish brogue; I don't know how to represent that typing) I wouldn't let him go, because the only thing I would want would be to give that stupid pinko leprechaun a beating. To be clear, I wouldn't beat him as much as a regular size hippy, because that would be like a huge beating to him because of his small size, which isn't his fault. But I assure you it would be a sound beating, and, when he went back to his leprechaun home, he'd tell the other leprechauns, "Aye, what a sound beating I received; quite proportionate to my size."

Bloody Leftist Leprechauns!

Update: I scarfed this whole from Fraters Libertas' website and forgot to credit them. My apologies. I'm not worthy to lick the floor you walk on at Keegan's Irish Pub.

Way too

Blogger's server was apparently down yesterday, so I'll have to make up for it by spewing twice the amount of hate-filled conservative rhetoric today. Long live the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

ReTed

(This man)'s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is - and often is the only - protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our Democracy.

In the preceding paragraph, Ted Kennedy is speaking of:

1) John Ashcroft (2001)
2) George Bush (1999)
3) Newt Gingrich (1994)
4) Robert Bork (1987)
5) What does it matter? His rhetoric is the same no matter who he's attacking.

If you answered #4 , you really know your stuff; but if you answered #5, you would also be correct. Ted Kennedy has made that speech hundreds of times. His notes just say "insert name here".

However, while looking up examples of similar, if not exact copies, of the above speech, I noticed something that made my point that he's a lazy, regurgitating hack even better. To wit:

George Washington University 9/27/04
“Thank you Steve, for that generous introduction.”

DNC address 7/27/04
“Thank you, Bob Caro, for that generous introduction.”

Brookings Institution 4/5/04
“Thank you, Tom for that generous introduction.”

Council on Foreign Relations, 3/5/04
“Thank you, Glenn Kessler, for that generous introduction.”

Center for American Progress 1/14/04
”Thank you General Nash for that generous introduction.”

Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 9/27/2002
“Thank you, Dr. Fukuyama for that generous introduction.”

Liberty Baptist College, October 3 1983 (!!!)
“Thank you very much Professor Kombay for that generous introduction”

This guy has been coasting on Scotch and his family name for 35 years. He doesn't even need to come up with anything original, including his opening line. But the Left (and much of America) reveres him because of his family name.

I've always wondered: if JFK hadn't been assassinated would he have gone as far Left as Teddy has? Would Teddy himself have gone that far? Would the whole Democrat party have gone so far to the Left so as to make JFK's policies look like the present-day Republican agenda?

Regardless, Sweaty Teddy has been spewing the same hate-filled scare tactics for the past 35 years. He's too fat and lazy to come up with anything original because he knows that he doesn't have to.

But the people of Massachusetts don't seem to care. They have a celebrity with nothing more than his last name to recommend him. Apparently that's enough.

- The Exile

Mike, where are you?

Has anyone heard from Michael Moore lately? I haven't heard his jowls flapping for a couple of months now.

Maybe somebody should run up to this "man of the people's" mansion and make sure that he didn't get a cheeseburger lodged in his throat or something.

Or could it be that the Democrat party (including the MSM) realized that he's a liability and aren't returning his phone calls?

I certainly hope not. He was one of our best anti-lib advertisements.

- The Exile

MSM - Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the DNC

As an addendum to my earlier post on how the MSM is trying to make all Conservatives out to be "religious fanatics" I offer the following.

As I said in my profile, I'm not particularly religious. I don't even go to church on Holidays unless my daughter is in some pageant or other. If I own a Bible, I couldn't tell you where it is. Yes, I believe in God, but I'm about as far from fanatical about Him as you can get.

The more I started thinking about it, the more I realized that the vast majority of the Conservatives I know are about the same as I am when it comes to religion. I'm talking about 80-90% of them.

What the MSM is trying to do is frighten people like me into believing that we're aligning ourselves with religious people who want to destroy the world to bring on the Rapture.

You don't believe that that's what these liberals think? These nutcase, conspiracy-theorist lefties believe exactly that. Read this if you don't believe it. It's by Bill Moyers who spent many years and many of my tax dollars preaching liberal hatred of Conservatism on PBS. Not usually considered a far-left extremist TV station. But that's relative.

So don't let them fool you into believing that Religious = Conservative. Although some religious people are Conservative, not all Conservatives are religious people.

I know plenty of very religious people, too. They can be as religious as they want to be wherever they want to. I don't have a problem with it. That's one difference between me and a liberal.

- The Exile

Mentally Handicapped MSM

The coverage of the Pope’s funeral brought out the idiocy in the MSM. Again.

The blatherers on CNN actually pointed out the fact that some of the world leaders were seated in alphabetical order…if you used the French names of their countries.

What the hell did that have to do with anything? I’m pretty sure that the French weren’t running the seating arrangements for the Vatican. And even if they were, so what? They could have seated them according to shoe-size or height, I guess. This woman was just trying to show off her “sophistication”. “I even THINK in French (sniff)”. More likely somebody else pointed it out to her.

And somewhere else, possibly CNN again, I heard one of them say something to the effect of, “for the size of this crowd, it’s remarkably nonviolent”.

What the hell did they expect at a funeral for a Christian religious leader? I’ll tell you what they expected: running street-battles among all of these warmongering “religious conservatives”.

And I’d bet you that it never crossed their minds that, whenever you get any sizeable crowd of their liberal friends together, you almost automatically have riots.

Or maybe they were thinking that it would turn out like your typical mid-east religious leader’s funeral. Anybody watch Yasser Arafat’s funeral? Yeah, I know, he wasn’t a religious leader, but they worshipped him nevertheless. Or how about when they dropped the Ayatollah Khomeini’s body during his funeral because of the rampant crowds? Now THAT was funny!

Remember: the morons spouting this idiocy are the ones from whom the majority of Americans get their news. That explains why half of them vote Democrat.

- The Exile

We Need Less Talk, More Action

U.N. Proposes Human Rights Council

As part of a package of reforms unveiled last month, the secretary-general proposed a human rights council to replace the present commission. The new council would be a permanent body, possibly on a par with the Security Council.

As a standing organ of the United Nations, the body would meet when necessary, addressing human rights violations as they arise. At present, the commission can only address issues during its annual six-week session.

I think Kofi Annan is himself a “standing organ”. And the fact that hundreds of thousands of people being murdered merits no more than six weeks out of their year shows exactly where the U.N. stands. Any more time devoted to it, and it may start to interfere with their oil-for-food-for-U.N-bribes work.

Council members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority and fulfill specific human rights criteria, according to the proposed reforms.

And I’m sure that the members would consist of Libya, Sudan, Cuba and China. Noted human rights abusers such as the USA, the U.K. or Australia would not even be able to apply (I was going to include Canada there, but the psychological abuse of their citizens by the Canadian government would put them in the former group).

Last year, the commission voted 50-1, with 2 abstentions, to express concern about the situation in Darfur, but stopped short of formal condemnation of Sudan. Even formal censure by the commission involves no penalties but draws attention to a country's record.

Well, at least they voted to “express concern”. Now if they’d just vote to give them a “stern look”, the situation would be resolved! But that would probably be taking it too far.

Tell me again: why are we paying for this joke?

Vive Le Pussie

From The Weekly Standard:

FREDERIC ENCEL, PROFESSOR OF international relations at the prestigious
Ecole Nationale d'Administration in Paris and a man not known for crying wolf,
recently stated that France is becoming a new Lebanon. The implication,
far-fetched though it may seem, was that civil upheaval might be no more than a
few years off, sparked by growing ethnic and religious polarization. In recent
weeks, a series of events has underlined this ominous trend.

On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through
central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government.
Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab
youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness
accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves
gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.

Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French
people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was
proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people
up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a
satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student,
already defenseless on the ground.

Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites"
don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an
Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he
"has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire to "take revenge on
whites."

Where do you start with something like this?

My first thought was that, if these protestors were anything like the ones we have in America, the same thing would happen. "Tens of thousands" of protestors versus "about 1000" thugs, and not one word of any of these Frenchmen fighting back. Shocking, huh?

(The other day my daughter asked me if I knew how to speak French. I told her to "repeat after me: 'I surrender' ". I told her that she now knew all she needed to know of the French language).

Could something like this happen in America? Possibly. At least until Conservatives' patriotism overcame their disgust with the protestors and we went out and took care of the situation. But only if the police didn't take care of the problem first, which I'm sure they would have. Not many liberals on the police force. Where were the Frenchie gendarmes anyway?

My next thought was, "Why haven't we heard about this in the MSM?". I had the answer before I had fully formed the thought: there's no way that they're going to report this because, not only does it put the French in a bad light, but it also points out that even non-white people behave like savages. That may undermine their multicultural mantra: non-white good, white bad (unless gay).

They like to tell us how all people are the same, but they'll latch on to a story about a couple of white morons beating a gay guy to death (i.e. Matthew Shepard, even though they did it to rob him, not because he was gay) and ignore a thousand non-whites attacking a bunch of kids.

After that, I thought about whether these cowards would have attacked an NRA rally. What do you think? I'd bet that they'd look at their shoes and shuffle away when they saw what they were up against in that case.

These people are cowards. They pick on high-school kids. People like this don't screw with anyone who looks like they may defend themselves. These are the same people whom we know as terrorists. They attack civilians, but would never think of attacking anyone who may kick their ass.

Unless, of course, they're going to blow themselves up; and then nobody can retaliate. I call that cowardice, too.

They did have one thing right, though: "little Frenchmen who look like victims." I'm pretty sure that Germany once looked upon them the same way. Looks like we'll have to bail them out again only to have them tell us what a bunch of idiots we are. Again.

- The Exile

You're a Looney

As I was driving home from work tonight, I was listening to a radio show on which the host put forth the fact that it was illogical that most Jewish Americans, of all people, opposed private gun ownership.

A woman caller began by saying that, as a liberal, her idealism trumped everything else. While she agreed that the host's point was logical and obviously correct, her idealism wouldn't allow her to agree with him!

Think about that statement; but not for too long or you'll get a headache.

What she's basically saying is that she knows that what she believes is male bovine excrement, but in striving to "make mankind better" (how arrogant is that?), she'll disregard all logic for no other reason than it doesn't fit her "idealism", which she knows is wrong (pass the aspirin, please).

Isn't that the definition of Orwell's "doublethink"? To be able to hold two contradictory beliefs at once? These people could have stepped right out of 1984.

It's no wonder that these people seem insane to us.

- The Exile

You're too Smart for That.

I keep hearing of this supposed pressure from the "Religous Right" since the last election, but I don't believe a word of it.

It's just another way for the MSM and the Left to make everyone believe that the Republican Party has been taken over by "religous fanatics".

What evidence is there? Bush hasn't done much but Social Security since the election. Not a very religous issue there.

The Congress stood up for Terri Schiavo but, religion aside, that was the right thing to do. Not to mention trying to put the Judicial Branch on notice.

Unfortunately the Left managed to spin Congress' stand against the Judiciary into "Congress poking it's nose into family matters" (and what, exactly, do they think that the Judicial Branch was doing that was any different??). Yeah, I know: States' rights and Federalism and all that. But it is perfectly right to bring things to the Federal level if you can't get anyone at the State level to take your side seriously.

Now that the Left has managed to shame the Congress, the Judicial Branch has free reign to do what they want. Congress will never have the guts to try again.

If you think that the courts have been bad in the past, hold on to your proverbial hats.

The charges that the "Religous Right" is taking over the Republican Party are a sham, put out there to scare the usual suspects who are barely paying attention to politics. Usually the ones who call themselves "Independents" and, almost always, vote Democrat. And it's working.

- The Exile

Clintons & China

I've been reading "Rewriting History" by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris. The book only intesified my disgust with the absolute sleaze in that administration, but one thing jumped out at me that sums up their character completely.

When the Clinton's were stealing everything that wasn't nailed down on their way out of the White House, they also took 137 five-piece sets of china. China that belonged, legally, to you and me.

Think about that: who needs 137 sets of china!?

I don't care how big their house is or how rich these people (you know, the ones who are "for the poor") are, they cannot seat 137 at their dining room table! So why did they take it?

Because they could. Because they wanted it. Because they thought they could get away with it.

And I doubt that it was even "they". Hell, Bill Clinton is happy eating McDonald's french fries right out of the bag. Do you think that he wanted 137 sets of fine china?

In other words, there really was no good reason to take it and, unless Bill wanted to hawk it at the Chappaqua pawn shop, it was most probably Hillary who took it.

Because she wanted it and would have thrown a tantrum if she couldn't have it.

I despise this woman and some of the details of what she's done are starting to slip my mind. Can you imagine how fast these details are fading in people who don't pay as much attention to politics as I do? Especially now that she's keeping a low profile for that very reason?

We need to keep this woman's sleaziness out there so people will remember it all when 2008 rolls around.

And remember, Condi for President kills Hillary's chances.

- The Exile

How Romantic

Romanticism can be a very good thing. Without it we'd live in a completely logical world and that would be pretty dull.

But when "romance" takes over your thought-processes to the exclusion of any logic or reality, well, then you have become a liberal.

I know that it has been posited a million times that Liberals "think" with their feelings, but I think romanticism comes closer to describing their real thought-process. Maybe they're one and the same and/or inextricably linked, but I'm no philosopher and live closer to the logical side of the equation. Or maybe I just ain't too bright.

At the place I work, Wal-Mart is probably our largest customer, so we pay very close attention to what they're doing. Today somebody e-mailed me an article about Wal-Mart's "Neighborhood Markets".

You may not know about Neighborhood Markets because they're only in 10 or 15 cities around the country, but they're smaller versions of the Wal-Mart Superstore. They're usually about the size of your local Walgreen's drug store. They're not nearly as profit-driven as their Superstores are.

But, of course, the Left is protesting even them, accusing them of (what else?) destroying the "Mom & Pop" stores of "small-town" America.

When the Left envisions "Mom & Pop" stores on "Main Street", what they see is a little storefront with a wood & glass door that has a bell mounted on it so that Mom and/or Pop can give you a big smile when you walk in the door and ask you if you'd like to sit by the woodstove and "warm yer bones for a bit".

In other words, a completely romanticized vision that hasn't existed since at least the 1960's. We have plenty of small towns in Minnesota, but in my 40 years I remember maybe one or two places that could have been considered even close to that vision.

They don't care that you have to pay more at M&P's General Store, they just want that warm, fuzzy feeling. The poor people that they constantly say that they're standing up for save money at Wal-Mart, but that never occurs to them, nor do they care. That warm, fuzzy feeling they get is all that matters.

Or how about Communism (I know, kind of a big leap there)?

When the Liberals envision Communism, they don't see the Gulags of the Soviet Union. They don't see the hundred million people that have been killed by Communist regimes. They don't see the poverty and shortages of goods that always result from Communist systems.

What they see is a system where everyone gives everything to the government, and this benevolent government splits it up into absolutely equal amounts and distributes it to "the workers". Kind of like a kindergartener bringing in a bag of candy and having the teacher distribute it to the students.

They never realize that in the real world, some people are corrupt, some people hunger for power over others and some percentage of "the workers" don't want to work and never will. It's really rather ironic that they never realize those things, because it's usually their side who are most guilty of those very things. If only they were running things, everything would be perfect!

But with romanticism comes blindness to reality.

- The Exile