When The Blues Brothers said, "We’re on a mission from God", everybody thought it was funny.
When a Conservative Christian says, "We’re on a mission from God", they are treated to a large helping of derision and called fanatics by the Left.
When someone from any other religion says "We’re on a mission from God", we must respect their beliefs and their culture and not deride them or call them fanatics, says the Left.
When a murderous Muslim says, "We’re on a mission from God", while sawing somebody’s head off, we’re supposed to understand that, "We made him that way".
When a Democrat suddenly says, "We’re on a mission from God" after learning that they probably lost the last election because of "moral values", we’re supposed to believe them, even though they’ve studiously avoided using the "G" word in the past unless they were hunting votes in religious environs.
When a Lefty says, "We’re on a mission from God", oh…wait. Like that would ever happen.
Here's an interesting little dilemma for the Left.
The United States Federal Government is one of the world's largest (if not the largest) single consumers of "Our Mother the Earth's" resources.
Cut back the government, cut back the bearaucratic paperwork that the government lives on, cut back the vehicles, cut back the buildings (lighting, heating, electricity, etc.) cut back the office supplies...we could cut our consumption of resources by at least 10%, which should please the Left immensely.
Not to mention the pollution reductions from all of the above.
Then add the State and local governments into the equation.
Do ya think the Left would agree? Me either. They don't even want their Church of Governmentalism to be more efficient, let alone cut back; no matter what the reason!
Somebody should really do a study on how much of the world's resources the American Federal Government consumes.
I had a couple of people e-mail me asking if I thought that I might not be going a bit overboard yesterday in suggesting that the Left in this country might be willing to kill people for power.
My reply was that the very people that got us to pull out of Vietnam and then refused even financial help to the South Vietnamese, are the same ones who are calling for us to pull out of Iraq now.
When the Democrats in Congress refused to help the South Vietnamese financially after we left, after we had promised that we would still help them stave off the North, they condemned about 1 million people to death.
And they did it for no other reason than political power. It was what their moonbats wanted and it's what they got.
And now they want us to leave Iraq. Why? For no other reason than to show that they still have some power and to strike a blow against Bush. In other words, for political power.
What do you think would happen in Iraq if we pulled out now? I'd say easily another million people dead over there.
Don't tell me that these people aren't willing to kill for power. They're just too chickenshit to get their hands dirty and try it over here because they know they'd get their asses handed to them.
They say that the war has killed over 100 thousand Iraqis. Well, even if that were true, it would be nothing compared to the slaughter that would result were we to leave now. They're so concerned about the supposed 100,000, but they can't look far enough ahead to see the additional 900,000 that would die. They can't link! They cannot see logical progressions!
That figure of 100,000 dead Iraqis was put out by some moron Lefty doctor in a medical journal and, as always happens with the Left, they took it and ran with it. He may as well said that 1 million Iraqis had died. The Left would have parrotted that, too. Because any fact that supports their side is automatically taken as gospel.
As has been pointed out so many times that even I'm getting sick of it, these people have no logic and never actually think about the talking points that are handed to them. Propaganda works on these people. If it sounds good, do it.
These people are idiots. Many of them are well-educated idiots, but they are idiots nonetheless.
The prospect of these people ever forming our policies is absolutely terrifying. The childishness of the Clinton years was bad enough. If these people ever regain power, it's going to be the Clinton years with a vendetta against half of the people in this country.
And these people are willing to kill to get their way if they think they can get away with it. I stand by that statement now and forever.
Have you ever wondered why the Left absolutely hates Wal-Mart but says nary a bad word about Target stores?
They both have huge discount stores. They both pay low wages with so-so benefits. They both employ a lot of part-timers.
Here's a clue.
Wal-Mart was founded by the very Conservative and very religious Sam Walton.
Target is part of the same chain that owns Marshall Field's. Marshall Field's, at least here in Minnesota, used to be called "Dayton's". Yes, as in DemocratSenator Mark Dayton, who's family has been royalty here in Minnesota for ages, and who bought him a Senate seat that he wasn't smart enough to even attempt to keep.
I honestly don't think that there are a whole lot of people out there that know that little fact.
Does anyone think that it's a coincidence that the name was changed at the same time Dayton won his Senate seat? Me either.
Target may be a local company, but do you care to guess where I shop (when I have to)? And ladies, no more buying shoes at Marshall Field's.
This post is inspired by a rant that I unforunately went on in the American Princess' comments section regarding her post on the Left trying to wipe out Christianity. I ain't done so I'll continue it here.
In it she lists many wonderful reasons and examples of why the Left is so intent on ridding this country of Christianity. The one bit that I think was missed (or maybe all of what she said comes down to the same thing) is more fundamental than that. As in "fundamentalism".
You hear that word used quite a bit when referring to the Right, as in "fundamentalist Christian". You even hear it being used to describe Islam, as in "Islamic fundamentalists". But you never hear it said about the Left.
I believe that the Left is even more fundamenatlist than the 8th century Muslims we are fighting.
At least the Muslims have a big, thick book listing the fundamentals of their religion, just as Christians do.
The Left doesn't need a book. The fundamental principle of their religion can be summed up in one stupefyingly grotesque, unthinking sentence: "All that is good flows from the all-powerful Government".
And make no mistake, their goal is exactly the same as that of the Islamofascists: to wipe the competing religion of Christianity from the face of the Earth. Why do you think that they're so sympathetic to them? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
The Muslims are attacking America for one reason. We are the largest Christian nation on Earth.
It's not because we are oppressing them, it's not because we're not sharing our wealth with them, it's because we are Christians. Although everyone likes to tiptoe around the fact, this is a continuation of the Muslim invasion of the west that has been going on for hundreds of years. It was only the Crusades that pushed them back and saved any chance of enlightenment (notEnlightenment) for the world.
If France were the biggest Christian nation, they would be the ones under attack. Same with Germany, Spain or any other country.
In the same vein, the Left attacks Christianity in this country for one reason: It is the largest, most powerful religion in this country. If Buddhism were the largest religion in the country, the Left would be attacking them. And for the same reason.
Allah/Government shall be the only God. All others are false Gods and their followers shall either be converted or killed.
Isalm is trying to kill us, but I have no doubt that the Left would be attempting the same thing if they thought that they could get away with it. I firmly believe that we could be in the same place that Russia was in 1917. The only reason that we're not is because the leaders of the Left in this country made two fatal flaws:
1) They have so turned their people against guns that they have no means of starting a Revolution. They have demonized firearms for so long, that even their unthinking masses would probably notice if they suddenly told them to pick up a gun and join the fight. And most of their people are actually deathly afraid of guns thanks to the Left's backfired propaganda.
Why do you think they're trying so hard to disarm the rest of us?
2) They severely miscalculated when they turned against the military to gain political power. Now they have some political power (though they seem to be losing that, too) but no military power. Back in 1917 it may have been possible for a bunch of peasants to overthrow an army armed with the same weapons that they had, but now they're looking at a high-tech army that can't be defeated with handguns and deer rifles.
And that army despises the Left.
I know that the preceding sounds like moonbat conspiracy theory, but do you have any doubt that the tone of the Left in Russia in 1917 was any worse than the screaming, infantile hatred that we see today? I don't. I don't see how it possibly could be. It has surpassed even the worst political disagreement and become fanatical, murderous hatred.
No different than that of the Islamic terrorists. The only difference is that many of Allah's followers are willing to die for their God. In this country, the Left's God is secular and the followers of Governmentalism are too enamored of themselves and their lives to take much risk without some re-propagandizing.
Therefore, they use the courts.
Gird your loins, folks. The upcoming battle for Supreme Court Justices could very well be the one that tips the balance one way or the other. If we allow the Left to block Bush's nominees or force him to appoint anyone less than a Conservative, we could be done for.
We will have decision after decision like the "10 commandments" or the "Eminent Domain" decisions that completely go agains what The Constitution clearly says, and the only way to undo them will be to try to pass Amendment after Amendment, and that will never happen.
We need to do everything possible to get the message of the Right out there and stop the Left from Borking Bush's nominees. It's not a question of "if" it happens, but "when".
OK. I finally got around to putting a photo of myself up on this blog. Probably not quite what most people would expect of a right-wing extremist.
Which leads me to a funny story.
A few months back, some little wannabe hippie in a tiny little car was aggresively tailgating me, probably because I have Bush/Cheney, NRA and a couple of other stickers on the Jeep.
It wasn't because I was going too slow or anything. When he finally got in front of me, his car was covered in anti-Bush stickers.
When we both hit a stoplight, he looked over at me like he wanted to say something, but very quickly found a new fascination with the roadway in front of him.
He was probably expecting some fat, balding businessman ala Karl Rove, but when he saw the guy with spiked hair, leather jacket and wrap-around shades smirking at him, he apparently decided that getting his ass kicked for 'the cause' wasn't worth it.
Yeah, it's macho bullshit, but it made my day.
Anyway, for those of you with any computer skills, this picture will lead you deeper into my life. Those of you who like me are more than welcome. Those of you who don't should understand that I have a small arsenal.
The top 12 things that I'd do if I were truly a rich Republican.
(Bad British accent required):
Most blokes' top tens will be at 10. Some even go to 11 because they think they're clever dicks. Well, 12 is one better, isn't it? You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your blog. Where can you go from there? Where? Eleven. Exactly. One better. But 12 is even better, then, isn't it?
And without further ado:
1) Entangle the ACLU in an unending series of meaningless lawsuits designed to do nothing more than entangle the ACLU in an unending series of meaningless lawsuits.
2) Enroll in a left-wing moonbat college course such as "Women's Studies" and do nothing but argue with the "professor" until I'm booted out. Repeat.
3) Join "exclusive" left-wing associations (i.e. women's colleges). If they won't admit me, sue their asses off. If they do admit me, do nothing but argue with them until I'm kicked out. Then sue their asses off.
4) Follow Michael Moore around the country dressed as a giant cheeseburger.
5) Hire a Monica Lewinsky look-alike to follow Hillary around and heckle her.
6) Follow ted Kennedy around while pushing a portable bar.
7) Join protestors while holding an "I'm with stupid" sign. Spell it wrong.
8) Burn "Gay Pride" rainbow flags. Call it freedom of speech.
9) Start a campaign to make Bill Clinton the "first gay President". That's alright, he wasn't black, either.
10) Take out a full-page add calling Louis Farrakhan a "black devil". Wait for the hypocrisy to begin.
11) Claim to be Jesse Jackson's "Love Child".
12) Talk one of Dick Durbin's aide's into claiming that his office is run like a gulag and that they are treated like Auschwitz inmates.
Just a quick one tonight. Lawns to mow, children to beat, minorities to oppress...just another busy day in the life of a right-wing extremist. I've been so busy that I haven't had a chance to pour arsenic into our local water supply in days!
But this website shows what a bunch of hypocritical lunatics the PETA people really are.
And don't forget to sign the petitionto have PETA's tax-free status revoked. This really needs to be spread around.
I ran a cross this short biography of Eleanor Holmes Norton today. I'm sure that most of you know that she's the delgate to the House of Representatives from our nation's capital, but there are a few things I didn't know, such as :
- As an ACLU attorney she represented anti-Vietnam War protestors and Ku Klux Klan members - In 1968 Norton won the first case she argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the right of the National States Rights Party, a white supremacist and anti-Semitic group - She also went to court on behalf of Alabama's longtime segregationist Governor George Wallace - Republican President Gerald Ford appointed Norton to a panel examining America's welfare system. Among the ideas this panel endorsed was a "limit on the length of time that those who can work are entitled to welfare benefits." (sound familiar?) - Contrary to the wishes of a large majority of African-American parents in the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton has been an outspoken opponent of school vouchers
The black leaders call Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell and any other black Conservative a "sell-out", an "Uncle Tom, a "race traitor" for nothing more than being a Conservative.
Look at what this black woman has done and ask yourself why the "African-American Community" has never called Norton any of those things?
This woman has gone against the black leadership's positions more than all of the Conservative blacks combined.
She has defended real racists, as opposed to those that the Left creates out of whole cloth.
But the Left loves her because she mouths all of the correct slogans and supports all of the big issues, including tax hikes for social programs. With one exception:
- During her 1990 campaign it came to light that Norton and her husband had paid no D.C. income taxes between 1982 and 1989.
- Without statehood, as Norton has argued since becoming D.C.'s non-voting Delegate and proposed in a 2001 bill, the people of the District of Columbia have no representation and therefore should pay no taxes.
Surprise, surprise: she lives in Washington D.C.
In other words, she's a typical Liberal who thinks that these social programs should be paid for not by taxing her, but by "The Government". This woman, this delegate to the House, this tax-and-spend Liberal, is apparently too stupid to realize that it's not The Government that pays for things, it's individuals like you and me. She's just another Lefty who thinks that The Government is an endless source of money that should pay for whatever she, in her infinite wisdom, wants. But she, personally, shouldn't have to pay for any of it.
After all, she is of the Elite. She's not of the lowly Proletariat who were bred for no other reason than to pay taxes so that she could create Utopia! She shouldn't have to pay taxes! She's doing the 'hard' work of envisioning what this country should be!
It's no wonder that she can get away with defending the KKK. Just as Robert Byrd can get away with being an actual member of the KKK.
It doesn't matter whether you're black or white, unless you're black and Conservative. The whole race controversy in this country is nothing more than the Left making sure that there's always a lower class that they can rule. The whole "ism" (i.e. racism, sexism) thing that is propagated by the Left serves only that purpose (we'll get to "ism's" very soon). Communism needs a slave class.
All that matters to these Elitist liberals, the ones who constantly decry "class" in this society just as any good Marxist does, is whether you've clawed your way into the upper class of the Elite Liberal. As in the Soviet Union, Cuba, China or any other Leftist country, once you're there, the rules no longer apply to you.
If this administration was everything that Dick Durbin, Charles Rangel, Amnesty International and the rest say that it is, where do you think that those guys would be right now?
If it what they said were true, they'd either be sitting in a real gulag right now, or they'd be making up a small part of a mass grave.
How can these idiots on the Left not realize that if even half of what they accuse the Bush administration of were true, they would have been executed long ago? You know, kind of like the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Hitler and every other Leftist government has done over the years (and don't bother trying to tell me that the Nazis were "right-wing" because their ideas and their practices were far closer to those on the Left).
For the vast majority of you out there who have no idea who Eleanor Mondale is, she's the daughter of former VP Walter Mondale (aka the guy who lost 49 states to Ronald reagan).
This guy was washed up 20 years ago. His last claim to fame was running against our esteemed Senator Norm Coleman when Paul Wellfare...err...Wellstone's plane crashed and they actually figured that Mondale had a chance.
(I have a theory about what caused Wellstone's plane to crash: everyone was sitting on the left side, causing it to flip. Either that or it had no right wing.)
The only reason that they thought that Mondale would have a chance against Coleman is because, unlike the mainstream Minnesotan, the Left in this state worships this loser. Hence, the Red Star Tribunal running it's lead story on Eleanor.
If this were some Republican politician who was washed up 20 years ago, do you think that they'd be running a story about his daughter on page 1? To give them the benefit of the doubt, they mayhave run a couple of paragraphs on the back page of the Metro section, but even that is highly doubtful.
And to show you what we have in this city for a newspaper, here's part of the sub-head on an op/ed piece that took up about 85% of the second page of the op/ed section:
"From the loud denunciations he provoked, you'd think that Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, had called President Bush a Nazi."
Well, didn't he?
They then go on to print the entire text of Durbin's speech, which they think somehow proves their point that Durbin did nothing wrong.
And, of course, their lead editorial was about (what else?) Dick Durbin and how he shouldn't have apologized because he was right...err...correct.
So, all in all, about 3/4 of todays op/ed section was spent defending the indefensible Dick Durbin.
For all of you out there who think that the New York Times is the epitome of Leftist thinking, try reading this rag sometime.
An avid atheist, he studied the bible and religion with more fervor than most Christians. He had strong political opinions and followed Amy Goodman's radio broadcast "Democracy Now." Alas the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans finally brought him to his early demise. Stress from living in this unjust country brought about several heart attacks rendering him disabled.
These so-called "tolerant" people of the Left are obsessed and consumed with grotesque, writhing hatred towards anything that isn't to the left of Karl Marx!
I was pouring myself a glass of cool, refreshing milk this morning when, who’s picture do I see on the side of the carton but…Michael Moore’s!
Needless to say, it was a gallon carton, and the picture still wrapped around 3 sides of it.
It seems that he hasn’t been seen since early November of 2005, after the Democrat Party used him like a $10 hooker and then wouldn’t return his calls. Can you imagine the awkwardness if they ever bump into each other?
Moore: You said you’d call me
Democrat Party: Hey, I really meant to, but I’ve been so busy lately.
Moore: Oh yeah, right. So all those nice things you said about me were bullshit just to get me in bed with you?
Democrat Party: No! Not at all! But hey, listen, I have a really important meeting I have to get to. I’ll call you, OK?
I thought that I saw him on TV last night, but it turns out that it was only Cartman on South Park. I only thought that it was Moore because Cartman was throwing a tantrum and screaming, "Respect my authoritah!" like the 8-year-old that he is.
That, and the other kids were calling him "fatass".
Remember back in the 90's, during the whole Monica Lewinsky fiasco when Congressman Dan Burton called Bill Clinton a "scumbag"?
The Left and the media went absolutely insane, calling for punishments that would be considered barbarous torture if he were in Gitmo.
Remember when Trent Lott made an innocent comment to make an old man feel good on his 100th birthday and the Left and the media twisted Lott's comments all out of proportion and did everything that they could to ruin his life?
And now the Democrats in Congress, and everyone on the Left, daily call President Bush a war criminal and compare him to the worst mass-murderers in history with no sense of hypocrisy whatsoever.
And, though the MSM is covering this story (as little as possible, I may add), they aren't calling for any punishment or sanctions at all. In fact they're defending him more often than not. In fact, they keep saying that Dick Durbin has apologized when he's done nothing but offer the typical Clinton "non-apology apology":
On Friday, Durbin tried to clarify the issue. "My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this administration, which add to the risk our soldiers face," he said in a statement. "I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support."
Yes, his statement certainly was critical of the policies of this administration, but it seems to me that a United States Senator, by making it easy for the terrorists to justify their behavior by comparing this administration to the mass murderer hall-of-fame, will cause more risk to our soliders than turning off the air-conditioning in a prisoner's cell.
Notice that he says "can be misused and misunderstood". In other words, he doesn't believe that he misused historical parallels. He's also making the implication that Republicans are blowing this all out of proportion by saying that we "misunderstood" his words. We didn't misunderstand. We do understand that he's saying exactly what he wants people to believe. We understand his true feelings perfectly well: he's willing to say anything to score points on this administration.
Respect for our soldiers? Who exactly does he think are carrying out these supposed acts of torture and brutality if not the soldiers who are fighting these people day to day and also dealing with the prisoners at Gitmo? Nobody else is doing that except for the troops, whom he embraces with a dagger up his sleeve.
What he's really doing is putting out the implied talking points for the Dems: Imply that it's the administration and the hated CIA who are perpetrating these brutal acts and not the soldier, because that would be a dead give away to our true feelings and the American people would politically lynch us.
It's not what he believes, but that's no surprise when dealing with a Democrat. They all hate the military, including the troops. They think that the troops are a bunch of dumb, murdering clods, but they can't very well say that about the sons (and daughters) of the voting public, can they? Not if they ever care to be re-elected.
You know, I used to at least try to make a distinction between the extreme Left and the Democrats in Washington, but now I can't see any reason to bother. Dick Turban...err...Durbin is the #2 Democrat in the Senate and I have yet to hear any of his colleagues condemn his words. Not even from the "Conscience of the Senate" (Pthhht!), Joe Lieberman, have we heard a discouraging word!
All of the Democrats in Congress have bought into the hysteria. All of them. They have accepted the mark of the Left for no other reason than they believe that they can't win without the hysterics in their party. They're probably right. They've been playing the demographics of one small part of America against another for so long that they've finally painted themselves into a corner.
They have a painful choice to make: choose to alienate the part of the Democrat party that revels in these charges of "Republican Naziism", thereby condemning themselves to years and years of rebuilding their base of centrists, or face the death of their party while watching the center abandon them.
To you and me, the choice would be obvious. While painful, rebuilding would be preferable to death. But they have no sense of the future just as my daughter doesn't. She has no idea what death means, either.
They want power now! But they're certainly not willing to do anything painful to make that happen in the long run. Remember, these are the same people who want us out of Iraq now! They have all of the patience of a five-year-old, and I'm sure that that's what the terrorists are banking on.
I'd bet that if you added the number of Democrats who voted for John (the Frog) Kerry and the number of "independents" who voted for him, you'd come up with almost exactly the same number of people who want us out of Iraq.
The Democrats are who they are, but the "independents" who voted for him are the people who couldn't be bothered to look any deeper than the nightly news soundbites before making up their minds on who to vote for. They have the attention span of a two-year-old.
Some of the people whom we are fighting have been at war for decades, but these people lose interest in the war after a year or two.
Osama thought that America was "soft", and he was right about almost half of us. He probably watched "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Will & Grace" and the self-hating network news and decided that we wouldn't fight back. The Clinton administration certainly gave him no reason to think otherwise.
And now we have United States Senators who, if not self-hating, are self-aggrandizing and willing to sell this country down the river for their own power. That, too, has to encourage Osama.
To paraphrase the old Turtles song, "Sha-la-la-la-la live for (your power) today/ and don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey, hey".
That pretty much sums up the hippie/Democrat attitude, doesn't it?
I was reading a bunch of articles about "Air UnAmerican" today in which the commentators were trying to figure out why it's ratings are below that of the Carribean music station that it replaced in New York.
They all cited the boring hosts, the Left's excuse that their ideas are "too complicated for radio" (although, apparently, not for TV, where thinking is optional), the lack of a need for Lefty radio with all of the other left-wing media outlets out there, but they never hit the real reason why Lefty talk-radio always fails. I got the impression that some of them may have wanted to make this point, but they were too polite.
The Left always accuses the Right of being "mind-numbed robots" who get their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Why do they say that? It's because that's how it works in their world!
As I've said very recently, the DNC faxes out copies of their talking points to the NY Times and all of the other liberal media outlets and everyone on the Left just repeats them.
They figure that that's how we operate, too.
When I listen to talk radio, I don't need Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Dennis Praeger or anyone else to tell me what I think about an issue. I already know what I think because I have beliefs and principles that go beyond the Left's "Power At All Costs". Some (but not all) of them are even based on (gasp!) religion.
I suspect that most, if not all, of the Lefties out there know (or strongly suspect) that what they're being told and what they're saying is nothing more than a Marxist "means to an end". They need marching orders because they know that they can't come right out and say that they want America to be a Communist country. Not Socialist...Communist. Whether they admit it or not... hell, whether they know it or not, that is what they're aiming for. And I strongly suspect that many of them don't even know it. But they need to be told how they should spin their lies.
Talk radio for me serves as a springboard to form my own thoughts about an issue. Instead of parroting what Rush says, it gets me thinking about issues and going beyond what he says. Alot of my posts here on this blog are extensions of what I've heard on talk-radio. Not parroting, but extensions. Things that I wish the host would have said. In other words, they make me think about issues.
And there you have the reason that liberal radio talk shows always fail. These people can't be bothered to think. Most of them are college people who have learned that it's easier to just believe what you're told than to actually think for yourself.
The insecure children of the Left don't really think that they're smart enough to form their own opinions on issues. Deep down, they think that the "grown-ups" of their movement need to tell them what they think so that they don't say a "bad word".
Unfortunately for them, even their "grown-ups" are children.
To Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, Joe Biden, Charles Rangel, Amnesty International Al Gore, Michael Moore, the MSM and all the rest, there can be but one reply:
"Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type make me puke. You vacuous, toffee nosed, malodorous pervert!" (Thanks, Graham)
All of these traitors want Gitmo shut down? Great. Let's shut it down and fly all of the prisoners back to Afghanistan where we'll drop them off in the middle of the country. Then we'll have a few options:
a) This time take no prisoners for the Left to whine about. b) Take them prisoner, but hand them over to the Afghanis. c) Just let the Afghan forces deal with them as they see fit.
Either way the official U.S. policy (call it the Democrat Appeasement Policy) should, from now on, be: "prisoners taken will no longer be the responsibility of any U.S. official, civilian or military". Which means we hand them over to whichever country we happen to catch them in or the nearest allied country.
When the Democrats start whining about that, just say, "Hey, we closed Gitmo like you wanted us to".
Our unofficial policy should just be: "take no prisoners". Hell, these guys are just itching to see Allah and get their 72 virgin camels anyway, aren't they?
Torture, my ass. I was sitting at a stoplight this afternoon, hotter than hell, when a car pulled up next to me blaring rap music. Not 1/2 hour earlier I had been listening to the charges of the "detainees" having to sit in the heat and being forced to listen to rap music! I wasn't being tortured; this was just my daily commute! And I wasn't even offered glazed chicken for dinner!
When's the last time that you heard any of these Democrat morons say anything bad about any of these Muqtars who were trying to kill our troops? Me either.
All of the Republicans in Washington and most of them in the (new) media seem to be afraid to call these people un-American. Well, I have no qualms about it. Not only are they un-American, but they're traitors in a time of war, and should be stuck in Gitmo as soon as we empty it out.
These people are United States Senators; one of the most esteemed positions that can be obtained in this country. You would think that they would at least like this country.
It doesn't matter if Moonbeam Schwartz down at the coffeshop goes on a ranting screed, but these guys are United States Senators. They should at least have some class, some tact and some diplomacy.
But that's where the entire Left is today, including the Democrat base. They have no class, no tact, and the only diplomacy that they like is at the U.N. They're a bunch of shrieking children whose favorite toy (i.e. power) has been taken away from them; only instead of calming down after awhile like most children, these guys just keep cranking up the volume and go on for years.
I've said it before, but I think that it's worth repeating: have you noticed that the phrase "hate-filled Republican" is rarely heard anymore? Using that phrase in today's political climate would be hypocrisy that's too obvious for even the Left to ignore. They know that everyone would laugh at them, and these children, like all children, hate to be laughed at.
Some of you may have noticed that the link to Vox Popoli's blog has disappeared from the Right Wing Extremist blogroll.
Well, it appears that he has bought into the whole tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory which says that it was actually our government that blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Considering that the architect of the buildings was recorded on tape as saying "pull it down", that no plane hit Building No. 7 and that the government has been proven to lie about nearly everything from Pat Tillman's death to Private Jessica's heroics, it should hardly come as a surprise to learn that even the administration's officials don't believe the administration's official story.
This is no different from the Left-wing conspiracy theorists who came out of the woodwork after Bush was elected.
I realize that he'll never miss my contribution or traffic to his blog, but I can't in good conscience continue to link to someone who would believe that George Bush would slaughter 3,000 Americans and give the Islamofascists a pass.
It's too bad, really. He made some really good points on other topics in the past, but this discredits all of them.
France performed a historic about-turn yesterday and abandoned the European Union constitution to its fate, dropping demands that other nations ratify the treaty.
Is it any wonder that the entire world sees these losers as arrogant? They couldn't pass the Socialist Constitution, but they demand that other countries do so.
Who the hell are they to demand anything from anybody? They seem to think that they are the natural rulers of the EU, which is supposed to be a Democratic body.
You'd think that they'd be a little more humble after having their bacon saved countless times since the country was founded. To paraphrase a very intelligent lady that I know, they only won the French Revolution because they were fighting themselves. It's a wonder both sides didn't surrender.
I taught my daughter French this weekend while we were at the cabin.
I said, "Repeat after me: I surrender!"
She said, "I surrender".
I told her that that was all the French that anyone needed to know. She didn't get the joke, but it got under my Democrat mother's skin, so that was OK. I love mom dearly, but she just doesn't get it.
If I'm not mistaken, the very word 'arrogance' comes from the French.
Anyone who ever suggests that the French are our allies in my presence should be prepared to be smirked at.
If there's one thing about the Left and the Democrats that really drives me nuts, it's their absolute insistence that they are the party of the thinking man (er...person), while the Right are just "mind-numbed" robots marching in lockstep to whatever Rush Limbaugh says.
You don't even have to look closely at the issue to see the lie in their stance:
Amnesty International compares Guantanomo to the Soviet Gulags.
Charlie Rangel compares the Iraq war to the Holocaust.
Teddy Kennedy claims that Abu Ghraib is "open under new management".
It takes any rational, thinking, informed person approximately 1/2 second to see the utter ridiculousness of such statements. How intellectually lazy would you have to be not to immediately see what a load of male bovine excrement those statements are?
I don't even believe that the leaders of the Left who put out statements like that believe them but, with their usual contempt for the sheep who follow them, they say these things knowing that their flock will run with them and believe every word of it.
1/2 second of thought would show these people that they're being fed a load of garbage. If they thought at all. But they don't.
The Democratic National Committee faxes their talking points to the New York Times, The LA Times, all of the Networks, Air UnAmerica and the rest who give out the buzzwords and spin to the sheep who propagate it amongst themselves.
It's like in the 2000 campaign when, all of the sudden, the obscure word "gravitas" was everywhere! Does anyone think that that was a coincidence?
(I'd like to tap into the DNC's fax line and send out the word, "Baaa!" sometime. Then we could watch them all run around screaming, "Baaa! Baaa! Baaa!" like the sheep they are.)
I don't even think that most of these people are stupid (I could be wrong). I think that they are just so incredibly lazy that they can't be bothered to think about these things.
Everyone (everyone!) thought that Sadaam Hussein had WMD's. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, France, Germany, The UN...you name it. There are documented quotes from hundreds of people on the Left saying that they, too, believed that Hussein had WMD's. These quotes go right up to the time when we actually got in there and didn't find any.
Then, suddenly, all of these people turned 180 degrees and said that Bush lied. He was the only one that believed that Hussein had the WMD's. Worse: unlike all of these people on the left, he didn't really believe that the WMD's were there but just used them as an excuse to attack Iraq.
How much thinking can you really be doing when your leaders are all repeatedly telling you one thing for 11 years and then one day they tell you the opposite? And you believe them. Especially when there are thousands of undeniable quotes from these same leaders? How "1984" is that?
I was doing some more couch research last night (i.e. watching TV) and came across something that I'm really not sure what to make of.
The Discovery Channel has a series that is attempting to discover who we, the people, think are the greatest American who have ever lived. From what I understand they had over 500,000 responses which resulted in 37,000 nominees. Last night's episode listed the top 100.
Now, as I said above, this whole thing has got me rather confused, so I'll just put down some of the points that immediately came to me. Kind of like a Larry King stream-of-conciousness thing. Quite frankly, I don't know how to put it all together.
The first thing that struck me was that it was hosted by Matt Lauer of NBC's Today show. My first thought was, "Nothing good can come of this", which seems to have been a good first impresssion.
The next thing, and the thing that probably got me hooked, was that number 100 was John Edwards! John Edwards? One of the 100 greatest Americans who have ever lived? I don't care what your political persuasion may be, you would have to be completely ignorant of history to believe that he would make even the top 1 million!
At that point it became obvious that the stupidity of this thing was going to be fascinating.
I also noticed that his "superior" in last year's campaign, John F. Kerry, was completely missing from the poll.
And after that came Martha Stewart. Martha Stewart! One of the top 100 Americans ever?
But I really started catching the drift after the next one: Barak Obama! Noboby even knew who this guy was a year or so ago! What has he done to earn the title of one of the 100 Greatest Americans? Apparently getting elected to the Senate against Allan Keyes (who hadn't a Frigidaire's chance in hell) was enough.
I started having real reservations about the intelligence of the American people at that point, until I noticed that the entire thing had a decided left-wing slant, which I'll get back to in a minute. For the moment I want to list some of the others who were nominated. The fact that they're even there points out that this, somehow, turned into a poll of the Left.
You'll notice that Hollywood (and the rest of the Left) is hugely overrepresented in this whole thing. But these were the ones who made me say, "Huh?"
- Lyndon Johnson - Dr. Phil - Brett Favre (OK, so they were drunk) - Ellen DeGeneres - Tom Hanks - Tom Cruise - Michael Moore - Christopher Reeve - Maya Angelou - Madonna - Lance Armstrong - Oprah Winfrey
Is it just that most people with a brain have better things to do? How could anyone who is capable of anything even remotely approaching the hint of rational thought vote for these people? I don't think that it's a coincidence that these nominations are laughably stupid and that they all have Leftist ties. Except maybe Favre, but then, drunk Packers fans with access to telephones are always trouble.
You look at that list and it's "The Heroes of the Left". The fact that people would vote for any of them as one of the 100 Greatest Americans" shows me that the Left are idiots. At least the nominees who could be considered right-wing (I'll list them later) could be argued for.
And as the show went on, it quickly became even more obvious where this show was coming from.
During each short segment they had a "celebrity" commentator give their thoughts on the nominee. Here's a partial list.
- Tom Brokaw - Al Franken (Whiner extraordinaire) - Moby (Washed up) - Tom Arnold - Bob Costas - Gloria Steinem - James Carville - Wendy Williams (Air America hostette) - Star Jones (The View harpy) - John Meacham (Newsweek editor)
And in the Right corner, wearing the Red, White and Blue trunks, we have:
- Sean Hannity - Norman Schwartzkopf
Sean Hannity was on for about 10 seconds talking about Rush Limbaugh (we'll get to the more political niminees).
Norman Schwartzkopf spoke only of military-related nominees (i.e. Eisenhower).
On the other hand, Moby, and the rest of the Lefties, were apparently asked their opinions on all of the subjects. I think Gloria Steinam had an orgasm every time Hillary was mentioned.
Moby called any Christian who supported the war in Iraq a hypocrite. In other words, it was the Left's usual attack mode. He's a moron who writes really bad music, but the Left will use him for his opinion any time they can.
John Meacham, Newsweek's Managing Editor, had to toss in the whole "blacks as 3/5 of a person" thing. Do you really think that this guy is really so ignorant as to not know that this actually helped the anti-slavery movement?
On the one hand, it wouldn't surprise me that a person in his position on the Left wouldn't know the real reason behind the 3/5 thing (The number of Congressmen in the House is based on population in states. If all of the blacks were counted as 1 person, the slaveholding South would have had a huge advantage).
On the other hand, feigning ignorance to advance their cause is just a normal day's work for these people.
Now here's a list of people on the Left who you could actually make an argument for being one of the 100 Greatest Americans, however twisted that argument would be.
- Malcolm X - Bill Clinton - Hillary Clinton - Jimmy Carter
Add them to the list above (minus Favre) and then compare it to this list:
- George H. W. Bush - Barbara Bush - George W. Bush - Laura Bush - Rush Limbaugh - Richard Nixon - Rudy Giuliani - Ike Eisenhower - Condi Rice - Arnold Schwartzenegger - Ronald Reagan
Those are the Conservatives nominated.
And, of course, George W. Bush had to be denigrated for "mangling" the English language.
All in all, it was an attempt to get rid of the poll a year or two ago that listed Ronald Reagan as the Greatest President. The media was shocked by that and couldn't let it stand. I'm just kind of surprised that the Discovery Channel let something this blatantly political be put on the air.
I doubt that I've captured the whole of how slanted toward the Left that it was, but all you have to do is watch it to see what I mean. It's fascinating because it's a perfect example of the propaganda of the Left.
Me? I voted for Reagan. Although it was a hard decision between him and the selfless George Washington, Reagan defeated the greatest threat that there ever was to our country by nothing more than outspending the Soviet Union on defense.
The next time you hear some smug liberal smirking about the deficit in the 80's, tell him that not only did the Democrat Congress spend all of the money that came in from tax cuts, but that part of it went to destroying a regime that had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at our country.
Then call him a pussy just for that ad hominem effect.
It seems that the Democrat party has painted itself into a corner.
On the one hand, the ones who are somewhat rational (i.e. the ones who are just a bit left of Karl Marx), have to know that Howard Dean's vicious attacks on religious people (people of religion?) and Conservatives aren't going to attract any new voters.
On the other hand, the Democrat party's really big donors (i.e. George Soros, Hollywood, etc.) aren't going to contribute a dime to anyone who might possibly mouth the words, "while the Republicans may have a point...".
Howard the Duck's job as DNC Chairnut is to raise money. Unlike President Bush, most of the Democrat party's money came in large chunks from a few very rich people. People who viewed Bush as...well, I was going to say the "anti-Christ" but they'd have to believe in Christ for that to be true. So let's say that Bush was the epitome of evil to these people.
Huh. That doesn't work either. Moral relativism says that nobody is evil except America. Sawing off heads isn't nearly as bad as an infidel touching a Koran without gloves.
So the Democrat party is now stuck between kissing the asses of their small donors, who have been conditioned to believe that they should never have to write out a check in the name of the government (or party), or kissing the asses of the utter left-wing radicals who have tons of money and want to hear nothing other than "Bush is Evil".
They've obviously gone for the latter. Good for them. Good for us.
The Red Star Tribunal reported this story with absolutely no sense of irony. I honestly don't think that they even noticed the irony or, knowing them as I do, they never would have reported it.
It's about two enviropussies trying to call attention to global warming. They were forced to quit because the conditions became too winter-like!
Amid a stretch of extraordinarily heavy snowfall, strong winds and broken and shifting ice, the two men from Grand Marais, Minn., who had hoped to become the first adventurers to cross the Arctic Ocean in summer, abandoned their expedition Thursday after advancing only 45 miles in 24 days.
Conditions were so treacherous, in fact, that the men, who had hoped to make the crossing to call attention to global warming and the receding polar ice cap, couldn't be picked up and airlifted out by helicopter until Friday.
"The weather conditions deteriorated so significantly that it was putting them at risk," said Jane Kochersperger, a spokeswoman for the environmental group Greenpeace, which cosponsored the expedition.
Dupre, 44, and Larsen, 34, were en route to Moscow and not available for interviews, Kochersperger said.
Is anyone surprised that they're on their way to Moscow? Russia is obviously on it's way back to Communism. Maybe they figure that they can defect before the fact.
This reminds me of a few years ago when we had 20 below zero wind chills in Minnesota in May and the local envirowimps blamed it on...global warming! Apparently, one of their more intelligent members came up with the theory that because the weather down south was warmer, it somehow created colder weather up here (I say more intelligent because even coming up with a theory is beyond most of them).
They never explained exactly how that could happen. They couldn't. None of them know anything about how the ecosystem actually works. I'd bet huge amounts of money that I know more about the science of environmental dynamics than any of them do.
But that doesn't matter. That's what they feel.
These people are idiots. They are just, plain stupid. The scary thing is, the people who believe them are even more stupid. And they can vote!
I can see about 100 from where I sit. There are another 50 or so on a shelf above my bed (if it collapses I’ll be an ex-Exile) and probably five hundred more in the attic. If we include my daughter’s books, we’re easily pushing 1,000.
Last Book I Bought:
The Dark Tower by Stephen King: The final book of the “Dark Tower” series. I’ve been waiting for 23 years for this! The first book came out in 1982. It is truly an epic and makes “War & Peace” look like a novella.
5 books that mean(t) a lot to me:
Jaws by Peter Benchley. Sounds silly I know, but I read it when I was about 8 years old. Although I didn’t quite understand the “sex stuff”, it beat the hell out of Dr. Seuss, which is what my contemporaries were reading.
Salem’s Lot by Stephen King. I read this when I was about 12, before anyone had ever heard of Stephen King. The black cover and silver lettering just happened to catch my eye. The way that he portrayed real people and their petty lives hooked me into reading forever.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy: I could wimp out and cite this as 3 books, but I won’t. Again, I was about 12 or 13 when I first read it. This was well after the hippies thought it was cool and well before any of the movies. I just kind of stumbled across it.
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams: This is the only book that I have ever read that, literally, made me laugh out loud. The way that Douglas Adams phrased things was perfect. These books are the only things that have ever rivaled Monty Python for my fanaticism.
Slander by Ann Coulter: Although I was very well versed in politics, it somehow never occurred to me that reading “right-wing fanatic” books would be in any way interesting. Ann was my first (sigh), and who better? Now I have a shelf above my bed that is full of political books that may kill me.
Yeah, I know that the list doesn't sound very "literary". I've read Shakespeare, Melville, Nietzsche and a lot of the books that are supposed to make you "well read", but they really didn't "mean a lot to me". In fact they were so boring that it was a constant battle just to get through them. How exciting can a guy looking for a fish (yeah, I know: whales are mammals) or some 19th century nutjob trying to whip us into a frenzy over the "obermann" really be?
Yes, the "classics" have their uses and their place, but the reason most people read them is the sheer pretension of having been told that they need to read them if they care to be seen as intelligent.
Quite frankly, Stephen King taught me more about the human condition than Nietzsche ever did.
Nietzche was a fantasist, preaching about how people could be if only they'd march to his tune.
King is a realist who takes thousands of years of human nature into account and lets them march to their own tune. As even he's said, he has no control over his characters.
The only differences between Stephen King and Friederich Nietzsche are the fact that Nietzsche wanted to be a "serious" writer and King just wanted to be a writer.
It's kind of like Bill Clinton working his ass off to make a legacy for himself and George W. Bush doing it by default. Trying to make yourself a hero never works. John Kerry learned that the hard way.
Due to the fact that most of the blogs I visit seem to be group collaborations, any, all or none are welcome to respond.
This has to be the perfect storm of the blindness of the Left to their own hypocrisy. It's from my friend, bob, at either orr's comment section and can be found here. Unfortunately my reply turned into a post. May bob forgive me.
Not long ago I heard some Lefty on TV or the radio whining, "When are these people going to take those Bush/Cheney '04 stickers off their cars?"
My answer to that: as soon as I see the last of the Kerry/Edwards '04 stickers. They're still out there and they lost. Yes, they lost. No, it wasn't stolen in some grand conspiracy (which we'll get to very, very shortly... again).
Besides, I think it offsets my NRA sticker rather nicely. It gives a sense of balance to the back windshield of the Jeep.
For that matter, I'll take my Bush/Cheney sticker off when I see the last of the Wellstone stickers! He died over 5 years ago and you still see them here! In fact, there was a big stink when someone designed a bumper-sticker that looked just like the Wellstone sticker that said something to the effect of, "He's dead. get over it!" The Left in this state went absolutely insane with rage (not that these people ever feel rage! ::smirk::).
Which brings me back to one of my favorite topics. I don't know why I find it so fascinating, but I do. I found this in my old bookmarks:
Wellstone’s death comes almost two years to the day after a similar plane crash killed another Democratic Senate hopeful locked in a tight election contest, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, on October 16, 2000. The American media duly noted the “eerie coincidence,” as though it was a statistical oddity, rather than suggesting a pattern.
Wellstone was in a hotly contested reelection campaign, but polls showed he was beginning to pull ahead of Republican nominee Norm Coleman, the former mayor of St. Paul, in the wake of the vote in the Senate to authorize President Bush to wage war against Iraq. The liberal Democrat was a well-publicized opponent of the war resolution, the only Senator in a tight race to vote against it.
No matter what or where I read about Paul Wellstone, he was either "pulling ahead" or "on his way to a win" against Norm Coleman (who's sticker also graces the back of the Jeep). It just ain't true. If anyone was gaining momentum, it was Coleman; and at the time of Wellstone's death the race was a statistical dead-heat.
My theory is that the shadowy people running the Left saw that Wellstone was going to lose, so they downed his plane with an electro-magnetic pulse generator given to them by George Soros. What? It's no sillier than what they're suggesting.
But the part that fascinates me, as I've probably said before, isn't the possibility that their conspiracy theories may be true, but the minds behind the people who believe them.
What would motivate someone to believe this stuff? Even sheer hatred of Conservatives in general and Bush in particular doesn't really explain it.
Now, I know that the Left has no logic, but their theories aren't even a lack of logic. This is illogic. The opposite of logic. It's like they're trying so hard to make sense of something with brains that can't really think rationally to begin with, that they end up spinning out of control and end up in La-la land.
These are the same people who believe that there is no such thing as an accident and somebody must be responsible (and sued for it). Maybe that explains part of it. Nothing bad ever just happens. Somebody must have caused it.
For example, global warming isn't just happening because of a naturally occurring warming cycle. Somebody must be blamed. And that somebody is inevitably Capitalism (code for Conservatives) and/or America.
Another weird part of the Conspiracy Theory Left, is how fast it came on. Ten years ago, the Left was certainly attacking the Right, but it seemed more calculating; as if even they didn't really believe their own bullshit. And, to be sure, there's still a lot of that out there, but now they also seem to believe anything that's put out there as fact.
It''s seems like the minute Hillary came out with her "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", it opened the floodgates and all of these people who had been holding back for fear of being called nutjobs, were given permission to start circullating their wildest fantasies. It started relatively slowly, but after the 2000 elections, it absolutely exploded!
I could almost see it if it were just about them losing elections. It's no different than a child making excuses for losing a game. But their theories cover everything!
Although, now that I put it down in writing where I can see it, when power is everything to them, I guess it's makes sense that their conspiracy theories would cover everything imaginable.
It's like propaganda for 5-year-olds. It allows them to justify their hatred for the Right by making us seem scheming and evil.
They can't just come right out and say that they hate us because we legally took their power away from them, can they?
The kids who are on the front lines of the protest movement believe that they are following in the footsteps of something noble. They believe that the people who were protesting the war in Vietnam were noble, principled people.
While listening to Michael Medved's annual Memorial Day "3 lies about Vietnam" broadcast, he pointed something out that had also caught my attention last year. Namely that as soon as the draft was ended, all of the protests against the war disappeared too.
The protestors weren't protesting the war. They were trying to end the war only because that would mean that they no longer had to fear being drafted. However, if they had come right out and said that, they would have shown themselves for the cowards that they were.
Since that time of the late '60's and early '70's, the anti-Vietnam protestors have been so romanticized by the MSM and the college professors who are encouraging today's budding Leftists (many of whom were these very same cowards), that these kids think that they are upholding a noble tradition instead of the cowardly act that the protests were.
So today's college kids think that they are doing work along the lines of the Civil Rights movement instead of following in the footsteps of frightened cowards who were willing to let other people go to war in their stead.
They think that it's so cool that these war protestors sat around smoking dope and drinking dandelion wine while discussing the big issues of the war and politics. Anyone who has ever smoked a lot of dope and poured a bunch of alcohol on top of it knows that, even if they attempted to have those conversations, what came out was gibberish. It may have sounded good, but once you sobered up it usually turned out that you were babbling bullshit.
(If that sounds like the voice of experience, so be it. The Exile wasn't always the hard-nosed Conservative that he is today. Once upon a time he had long hair, a biker jacket and a taste for chemicals that would have made Keith Richards flinch. I get many of my insights of the Left from having traveled among them, though even then I knew that what they were saying was bullshit.)
These kids have bought into the lie of the "noble protestor". The anti-war protests of the 1960's were an attempt to regain that feeling that the Left had when it was doing something which was actually good, namely the Civil Rights protests.
The Civil Rights movement is the "crack" of the Left. They felt so good when they actually did change the world, that they wanted to get to that high again. But, as any addict will tell you, you never get back to that first high. From then on you're just trying to get back to that point, but you never do. As we see in the Left today, that craving eventually becomes self-destructive, but by that time, it's almost impossible to stop.
It's no coincidence that these people who are so enamored with drugs are also the ones who are trying to get that "high" of feeling good about themselves that the Civil Rights movement brought.
It's a well-documented condition called the "addictive personality".