Monday, August 22, 2005

You Think Your Paper's Bad?

I challenge any of you, anywhere, to beat this story for pure Moonbattery in the major newspaper in your region.

We'll fisk the piece from The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal, but I encourage you to read the whole thing to see what we put up with around here.

When we realize that Cindy Sheehan is operating within the confines of global male rule, we see why she is finding it so hard to get an audience with President Bush, though so many people have been rallying at her campsite in Texas.

Translation: I hate men!!!

Women should have been teaching their children not to join the Army from a very young age and should have monitored the effect of the educational system that promotes war as a solution to conflict.

Which educational system is she talking about? It certainly can't be the one my daughter goes to, which defines anything even approaching aggression as "bullying".

How was Sheehan to recognize the evil that lurked as sanity on her doorstep? Patriarchal systems find it very easy to goad our children into their world of mayhem and killing as if it were quite normal. This is what needs to stop.

So apparently a Matriarchal system would goad our children into thinking that, "He'll change, if I just love him enough" until she is beaten to death. Fighting back is not an option.

The military has gargantuan war budgets and doles out free war video games to forge paths into the neuro-patterns of the brains of upcoming generations. Your children.

Hey! I didn't get any free video games! And I'd bet that she's in the crowd that insists that Hollywood movies don't really corrupt children. Only military-produced games/movies do.

There is a huge movement of people devastated into stasis by Bush and his operatives. They are beyond debating our government for justice, as the government has shown us that it will just do whatever it wants.

Huh? People who have been "devastated into stasis" do not form "movements". They are in stasis...right? And our government is doing what the voters, who voted Bush back into office, want. Just because it isn't doing what Jane wants, doesn't mean that it's doing whatever it wants. Another shining example of Lefty arrogance.

I am surprised that there are millions of mothers who let the system steal their children's minds and take them away for purposes that serve only the elitist military agenda of war profiteering.

These "children" of whom she speaks are, legally, adults and can do whatever they want, including joining the military. If Jane has any children, I can just imagine what controlled little pantywaists they must be.

They must not be aware that the policy of recruitment is interwoven into the very fabric of our culture, so that our kids are just one "reasoning" sentence or two away from putting their lives on the line and ready to kill other parents' children at a moment's notice.

I'd be reallly interested in an explanation of how this "policy of recruitment is interwoven into the very fabric of our culture". What kind of Leftist psychobabble is that? And maybe these "kids" are putting their lives on the line to defend this country, which is one of the few countries that would allow Jane to publish this tripe. And these "other parents' children" want to die!

The poor, being the most vulnerable, are too easily persuaded with the candy of possible career benefits.

Somebody needs to tell her, and all of the other Moonbats, that most of the men and women in the military are from middle-class backgrounds. My guess is that Jane has a few bucks and, therefore, looks down on the rest of us as "poor".

Rectifying this won't start with Bush coming out and speaking with Cindy Sheehan; it must start with mothers teaching their children the way of peace and instilling in them a sense of reverence for all life at an early age.

Well, assuming that you can teach these kids a "reverence for all life" as long as they're not aborted. Now that's a very early age! I have a sneaking suspicion that Jane may support Roe v. Wade.

Mothers have the power to do this: We have our children with us 24/7 and can be very powerful advocates for social positive change if we take those early years when our children are of no use to the military and teach them peace!

Again, I'd guess that Jane has a few bucks if she can stay with her kids 24/7. I know that neither my wife nor I could, because we both had to work to support Jane's (I'm sure) beloved social programs with our taxes. Social programs that would be wholly uneccessary if one parent really could stay home with the kids and teach them values.

Remember, our children are being raised at our expense; we are literally getting them prepared for the government to usurp our work at our expense. We have invested our lives in raising our children to be responsible members of society whenever possible.
Cindy Sheehan missed the opportunity to dissuade her son from going into the armed forces. She is suffering deeply for it.

If the government can usurp 18 years of your teaching that easily, either you''re a bad teacher, or your teaching didn't make much sense to the kid. I'm sure that Ms. Sheehan tried to dissuade Casey. Fortunately for this country, there are young men and women who have enough common sense to go against what their mothers want. We owe them everything.

At one time Sheehan had complete control over her son's future when he was growing up. The patriarchal system stole him from her, long before he died.

And that's what it's all about for these Lefties: complete control over another person's life. Patriarchal system? How did this nutjob get out of the "Women's Studies" cage over at the U of M?

Quite possibly Sheehan herself was deluded by the very effective system that purports freedom at every opportunity and may have even been proud that her son went to war for his country, until she found out the facts.

I highly doubt that Ms. Sheehan was deluded by the "system", and I'm sure that she was far from proud that Casey joined the military. In fact, I'm sure she was horrified. Do you think that she just learned all of the Lefty issues and slogans in the past year? No way. Listen to her speak. She ain't that smart. She's been a Lefty for awhile.

(In fact, I'm dying to know what this woman was like before she popped up on the radar. Anyone?)

The point is, we must educate our children away from the war mentality as a way to right wrongs.

Note that she says "as a way". In other words, it's never an option. If she had said, "as anything other than a last resort", she may have some credibility. In her mind, war is never a way to solve anything.

What I am saying here is that by the time you are asking the president for an audience, it is too late. The president does not care, never will, cannot understand.

This dingbat really believes that President Bush doesn't care about the people he sends to war. From the accounts of all of the other grieving parents who've met with the President (no, not just mothers), nothing could be further from the truth. I'd bet that Clinton could have shed one of his famous crocodile tears, and Jane would have forgiven all.

His very position requires that he be able to accept the loss of lives in war. The real solution lies in mothering toward peace. It is way too late in the day to be asking an audience with the president as a solution.

Yes, the President must be able to accept the loss of lives in war. Just as FDR did, just as Truman did, just as JFK did, and just as LBJ did (Democrats all). That doesn't mean that it's not a wrenching decision for the President.

"Mothering toward peace"?!? Back to your ivory tower, Moonbat!

Women must teach peace to their children and educate them about the agenda of global patriarchy and the means by which they achieve it. That is the ultimate solution.

Agenda? Global Patriarchy. Translation: "I hate all men!!!"

Jane Evershed, Minneapolis, is an artist, poet and writer.

There's a shock.

This is from the largest, most "respected" newspaper in the state! They're publishing this stuff from an absolute, extreme Moonbat who's so far Left that she's not even on the map anymore!

New York Times? San Fransisco Chronicle? They've got nothing on the Red Star Tribunal. These people don't even try very hard to deny their prejudice anymore.

(Hat tip to Admin Worm without whom I would have never seen this piece (of ****). I avoid this rag like the plague. Too bad. It's good blogging material, but I refuse to give them a nickel.)

No comments:

Post a Comment