If some terrorist or undercover operative would have taken out Valerie Plame at a Georgetown cocktail party, her blood would be on that bastard "Scooter" Libby's hands!!! And hers wouldn't be the only one!!!
After years of thinking that Karl Rover was the brain behind Bushitler's administration, it's becoming obvious that Rover is nothing more than a lapdog of "Scooter" Libby's!!! Scooter has been the one pulling the strings all along!!!
I mean, come on, a grown man named "Scooter"? Who could take him seriously? AND THAT"S THE PERFECT COVER!!!
I got an email today that undoubtedly links Scooter with the Mossad. Scooter was the guy who got the remote control equipment from the Israelis and showed Chimpy how to use it to fly the planes into the WTC towers!!!
He's also the asshole who pushed the button to launch the missile that hit the Pentagon (no big loss there, though).
And he's the one who told Bushie to shoot down Flight 93!!!
All of this was just so that we'd have a reason to go to war in Iraq so that we could steal the oil from these peace-loving people, not to mention taking over Afghanistan so we could build an oil pipeline to enrich McChimpy's oil buddies.
The only reason that the oil hasn't started flowing yet is because they know that we're onto their little game, so Scooter called a halt to it all.
I can't tell you who sent me the email because he (or she?) is deep under cover in the Bushite White House and would "disappear" if his (her?) name were to become known. He (she?) has entrusted me to get this story out to the masses.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. I have to sign off now. I can only blog in 5 minute chunks or they can trace my IP address.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
A Liberal Joins the Army
From a Monty Python skit, sketch, or vignette:
Stock film of the army. Tanks rolling, troops moving forward etc. Stirring military music.
Voice Over :
In 1943, a group of British Army Officers working deep behind enemy lines, carried out one of the most dangerous and heroic raids in the history of warfare. But that's as maybe. And now . . .
SUPERIMPOSED CAPTION: 'AND NOW . . . UNOCCUPIED BRITAIN 1970' Cut to colonel's office. Colonel is seated at desk.
Colonel: Come in, what do you want?
Private Watkins enters and salutes.
Watkins: I'd like to leave the army please, sir.
Colonel: Good heavens man, why?
Watkins: It's dangerous.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They've all got 'em. All of 'em, sir. And some of 'em have got tanks.
Colone:l Watkins, they are on our side.
Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I'd like to leave, sir, before I get killed, please.
Colonel: Watkins, you've only been in the army a day.
Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead, sir, no barley cross fingers, sir. A bloke was telling me, if you're in the army and there's a war you have to go and fight.
Colonel: That's true.
Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.
Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?
Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir - no killing.
Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?
Watkins: No sir, I'm not a pacifist, sir. I'm a coward.
Colonel: That's a very silly line. Sit down.
Watkins: Yes sir. Silly, sir. (sits in corner)
Colonel: Awfully bad.
And I must thank The Princess for sending this Monty Python link (above) as an early Birthday present. It's endless fun.
Stock film of the army. Tanks rolling, troops moving forward etc. Stirring military music.
Voice Over :
In 1943, a group of British Army Officers working deep behind enemy lines, carried out one of the most dangerous and heroic raids in the history of warfare. But that's as maybe. And now . . .
SUPERIMPOSED CAPTION: 'AND NOW . . . UNOCCUPIED BRITAIN 1970' Cut to colonel's office. Colonel is seated at desk.
Colonel: Come in, what do you want?
Private Watkins enters and salutes.
Watkins: I'd like to leave the army please, sir.
Colonel: Good heavens man, why?
Watkins: It's dangerous.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They've all got 'em. All of 'em, sir. And some of 'em have got tanks.
Colone:l Watkins, they are on our side.
Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I'd like to leave, sir, before I get killed, please.
Colonel: Watkins, you've only been in the army a day.
Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead, sir, no barley cross fingers, sir. A bloke was telling me, if you're in the army and there's a war you have to go and fight.
Colonel: That's true.
Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.
Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?
Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir - no killing.
Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?
Watkins: No sir, I'm not a pacifist, sir. I'm a coward.
Colonel: That's a very silly line. Sit down.
Watkins: Yes sir. Silly, sir. (sits in corner)
Colonel: Awfully bad.
And I must thank The Princess for sending this Monty Python link (above) as an early Birthday present. It's endless fun.
Blog Like A Liberal
The American Princess had a brilliant idea (like she ever has any other kind):
Blog Like A Liberal Day
Scheduling it for the scariest day of the year was a great idea. And, being a former Lib herself, hers should be hilarious. Tune in.
Blog Like A Liberal Day
Scheduling it for the scariest day of the year was a great idea. And, being a former Lib herself, hers should be hilarious. Tune in.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Can Hillary Win?
Maybe, but it's going to be tricky.
The hard part for her is going to be the fact that she has to move to the center, if not the Right on some issues like immigration and the war. Unfortunately for her, the base of the Democrat Party now considers even the center to be Right-wing.
If she so much as mouths any words that seem to support the war in Iraq, her base is going to start screaming for Howard Dean again. We know that she wouldn't mean a word of it, but the people on the Left may not be able to grasp such a subtle political ploy as lying about her position. After all, they have been conditioned to believe that she is mommy. She wouldn't lie.
Her only alternative is to wear a T-shirt that says, "I don't mean it!", and to wink into the camera every time that she makes any pronouncement that Karl Marx wouldn't approve of. That could be awkward.
Sure, some on the Left would know that she's lying through her teeth, but the whole protestor crowd can't bear to even hear anything to the Right of Joseph Engels. It drives them insane. Or should I say that past pronouncements have already driven them insane? Not to mention the fact that the whole "move to the center" thing to get elected is just too sophisticated for them to understand.
That is one major drawback of the troops on the Left believing everything that their leaders say: they believe everything that their leaders say. If Hillary says that she supports anything even resembling something that is centrist, the troops are going to believe her, and they're going to be pissed.
Add to that the fact that many of those who really are in the center know all about her and see her as the conniving, power-hungry harpie that she is. That's going to be a problem.
Hillary's only hope lies in her genitalia (sorry about that image). I personally know many women who will vote for her based on nothing more than the fact that she's a woman. These women are, of course, the ones whom have had it drilled into their heads since childhood that they are the "victims" of men and will vote for a woman for no other reason than to say, "Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah", to men. Now there's a good reason to vote for someone, huh? To Hell with the country, to Hell with their children's future, they just want a woman in the White House, no matter how screwed up that woman is.
Who cares if she's a Socialist who has supported murderers and Communists? Who cares if she ignored her husbands many, many affairs (for which these same women would have castrated their own husbands) for no other reason to remain in power? She has breasts! She would make a great leader!
It's almost enough to want to take the vote away from them again (the preceding was a joke. Stop your shrieking).
And before anyone starts whining about what a "sexist" I am, I would have no problem with a woman being President. Hell, I supported Condi Rice in one of my very first posts. But to support Hillary Clinton, who is one incredibly screwed up individual, is insane. The woman is a basketcase. If anyone doubts that statement, e-mail me and I'll send you a reading list that lays out nothing but facts about this woman. I'm sure that 90% of those on the Left know nothing about Hillary's real past.
Not that it would matter. After all, she has a uterus!
The hard part for her is going to be the fact that she has to move to the center, if not the Right on some issues like immigration and the war. Unfortunately for her, the base of the Democrat Party now considers even the center to be Right-wing.
If she so much as mouths any words that seem to support the war in Iraq, her base is going to start screaming for Howard Dean again. We know that she wouldn't mean a word of it, but the people on the Left may not be able to grasp such a subtle political ploy as lying about her position. After all, they have been conditioned to believe that she is mommy. She wouldn't lie.
Her only alternative is to wear a T-shirt that says, "I don't mean it!", and to wink into the camera every time that she makes any pronouncement that Karl Marx wouldn't approve of. That could be awkward.
Sure, some on the Left would know that she's lying through her teeth, but the whole protestor crowd can't bear to even hear anything to the Right of Joseph Engels. It drives them insane. Or should I say that past pronouncements have already driven them insane? Not to mention the fact that the whole "move to the center" thing to get elected is just too sophisticated for them to understand.
That is one major drawback of the troops on the Left believing everything that their leaders say: they believe everything that their leaders say. If Hillary says that she supports anything even resembling something that is centrist, the troops are going to believe her, and they're going to be pissed.
Add to that the fact that many of those who really are in the center know all about her and see her as the conniving, power-hungry harpie that she is. That's going to be a problem.
Hillary's only hope lies in her genitalia (sorry about that image). I personally know many women who will vote for her based on nothing more than the fact that she's a woman. These women are, of course, the ones whom have had it drilled into their heads since childhood that they are the "victims" of men and will vote for a woman for no other reason than to say, "Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah", to men. Now there's a good reason to vote for someone, huh? To Hell with the country, to Hell with their children's future, they just want a woman in the White House, no matter how screwed up that woman is.
Who cares if she's a Socialist who has supported murderers and Communists? Who cares if she ignored her husbands many, many affairs (for which these same women would have castrated their own husbands) for no other reason to remain in power? She has breasts! She would make a great leader!
It's almost enough to want to take the vote away from them again (the preceding was a joke. Stop your shrieking).
And before anyone starts whining about what a "sexist" I am, I would have no problem with a woman being President. Hell, I supported Condi Rice in one of my very first posts. But to support Hillary Clinton, who is one incredibly screwed up individual, is insane. The woman is a basketcase. If anyone doubts that statement, e-mail me and I'll send you a reading list that lays out nothing but facts about this woman. I'm sure that 90% of those on the Left know nothing about Hillary's real past.
Not that it would matter. After all, she has a uterus!
Whoops!
Not long ago (October 7th, to be exact) a certain right-wing blogger made the following brilliant comment regarding the Harriet Miers nomination:
I'm already sick to death of this whole Harriet Miers debate going on between Republicans.
Here's the scoop: she's the nominee. She'll continue to be the nominee until she's confirmed to the Supreme Court. And she will be confirmed. End of scoop.
Umm...nevermind.
While I'm certainly not disappointed that we will now probably get a documented Conservative this time, I am surprised. I knew that President Bush wouldn't withdraw her nomination, but I didn't think that she'd quit.
The MSM was awash in the expected crowing of "Republican disunity" after the announcement. You know, I could swear that I've heard about a billion Lefties comment snarkily (as if they ever comment any other way) about how Republicans are "always marching in lockstep".
Well, Lefties, make up your mind: are we or aren't we?
And, speaking of "marching in lockstep", tell me when the last time you've seen anything like this happen on the Left. I'll give you a hint: other than Presidential primaries, never! It simply doesn't happen.
I didn't approve of the Miers nomination, but I figured that she was safe enough to get through the Senate, so we may as well quit fighting amongst ourselves. Boy is my face red. Lesson learned.
We on the Right can change the policies of our leaders.
People on the Left are told what they think, so there is never any dissent among them.
Name for me one policy or nomination put forth by a Democrat leader that has ever been overturned by, or even, for that matter, loudly debated amongst, the Left.
Now that I think of it, though, the only policies ever put forth by Democrats are tax hikes, so I guess that it's not surprising that there isn't much to debate amongst themselves. Oh, and Government-controlled health care, but that was a one-time thing that happened more than ten years ago and there was certainly no debate about it on the Left.
I'm glad that all of you out there pressured Ms. Miers into withdrawing. This such a huge opportunity to stop the Left's rewriting of the Constitution through the courts, that gambling on an unknown is definitely the wrong thing to do.
Hopefully I've learned my lesson, too.
I'm already sick to death of this whole Harriet Miers debate going on between Republicans.
Here's the scoop: she's the nominee. She'll continue to be the nominee until she's confirmed to the Supreme Court. And she will be confirmed. End of scoop.
Umm...nevermind.
While I'm certainly not disappointed that we will now probably get a documented Conservative this time, I am surprised. I knew that President Bush wouldn't withdraw her nomination, but I didn't think that she'd quit.
The MSM was awash in the expected crowing of "Republican disunity" after the announcement. You know, I could swear that I've heard about a billion Lefties comment snarkily (as if they ever comment any other way) about how Republicans are "always marching in lockstep".
Well, Lefties, make up your mind: are we or aren't we?
And, speaking of "marching in lockstep", tell me when the last time you've seen anything like this happen on the Left. I'll give you a hint: other than Presidential primaries, never! It simply doesn't happen.
I didn't approve of the Miers nomination, but I figured that she was safe enough to get through the Senate, so we may as well quit fighting amongst ourselves. Boy is my face red. Lesson learned.
We on the Right can change the policies of our leaders.
People on the Left are told what they think, so there is never any dissent among them.
Name for me one policy or nomination put forth by a Democrat leader that has ever been overturned by, or even, for that matter, loudly debated amongst, the Left.
Now that I think of it, though, the only policies ever put forth by Democrats are tax hikes, so I guess that it's not surprising that there isn't much to debate amongst themselves. Oh, and Government-controlled health care, but that was a one-time thing that happened more than ten years ago and there was certainly no debate about it on the Left.
I'm glad that all of you out there pressured Ms. Miers into withdrawing. This such a huge opportunity to stop the Left's rewriting of the Constitution through the courts, that gambling on an unknown is definitely the wrong thing to do.
Hopefully I've learned my lesson, too.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
What's My Motivation?
The Left thinks that it knows what motivates us but, being illogical, they’ve got it all wrong. They can’t figure out what their own motivation is; what are the odds that they can figure out the motivations of the Right, which are vastly more complex than their own? Remember, theirs can be boiled down to, “I feel bad. I want to feel good”
They think that our main motivation is either “hate” or “greed”, depending on who they’re pandering to at the moment.
They think that we “hate” minorities, gays, women, the poor…name your Democrat lobbying group.
Our disgust at the tactics used by the “leaders” of these groups (the gender-feminists in the case of women), is too complex for them. You’re either with them, or you hate them. If one gay person disgusts you, you hate them all.
The same goes for members of their “protected” groups. If the actions of the gang-bangers disgust you, you must hate all black/asian/hispanic people. They’d never believe that white gang-bangers disgust us, too (i.e. skinheads).
How they reconcile this with the fact that the majority of us on the Right have friends who belong to all of their “protected” groups is purely Orwellian: the ability to ignore what your eyes are telling you.
(Does anyone else see the link between their “protected classes” and their “protected species”? They look upon their minority groups the same way that they look upon the Spotted Owl: just another animal that needs their protection. And yet, we’re called “racists”, “homophobes” and “sexist”. I smell a post.)
The Left also believes that anyone who identifies with the Right is “greedy”. They believe that we want to give everything to “the Rich”, through tax cuts, “corporate welfare” and setting the entire system up to cater to “the Rich”.
The only way that they can do this is to portray us as either ignorant trailer-trash who are dupes of “the Rich”, or ultra-wealthy Capitalist Pigs who sit in mahogany-paneled drawing rooms lighting our icky cigars with $100 bills.
Although the vast majority of Republicans are middle-class, being the good little Marxists that they are, it is absolutely critical for the Left to believe that “the workers” are on their side. Anyone who isn’t has to be either “ignorant” or “the Rich”. That is the reason that they call anyone on the Right “extremists”. There can be no one who opposes them in the middle. If their fantasy is to hold up, they have to believe that they are the center. It fits right in with their self-centeredness. Everything has to be about them, personally.
That belief excuses them from wondering why so many of us in the middle-class would want to give our money to “the Rich”.
Me, I’d be labeled as one of the “ignorant”. Though I don’t actually live in a trailer, and I own my own home, I just got lucky, somehow (they never explain how we all got so lucky or “more fortunate” *). Although I have an IQ that far surpasses the vast majority of those on the Left, I was somehow “duped” into supporting the Right. To believe anything else would cause the beliefs of the Left to crumble and disintegrate.
Again, to understand what motivates the Right is just way too complex for the simpletons who adhere to the Left. There is good, and there is bad. The only thing in between are the people who aren’t smart enough to agree with them.
*Rush Limbaugh once spoke about the concept of the “less fortunate”, as the Left likes to call the poor. “Fortune” speaks of luck, as in “fortune was with him”. That is what the Left means when they speak of the “less fortunate”. Those of us who have made something of our lives have done it because of nothing more than “fortune” or “luck” in their eyes.
They think that our main motivation is either “hate” or “greed”, depending on who they’re pandering to at the moment.
They think that we “hate” minorities, gays, women, the poor…name your Democrat lobbying group.
Our disgust at the tactics used by the “leaders” of these groups (the gender-feminists in the case of women), is too complex for them. You’re either with them, or you hate them. If one gay person disgusts you, you hate them all.
The same goes for members of their “protected” groups. If the actions of the gang-bangers disgust you, you must hate all black/asian/hispanic people. They’d never believe that white gang-bangers disgust us, too (i.e. skinheads).
How they reconcile this with the fact that the majority of us on the Right have friends who belong to all of their “protected” groups is purely Orwellian: the ability to ignore what your eyes are telling you.
(Does anyone else see the link between their “protected classes” and their “protected species”? They look upon their minority groups the same way that they look upon the Spotted Owl: just another animal that needs their protection. And yet, we’re called “racists”, “homophobes” and “sexist”. I smell a post.)
The Left also believes that anyone who identifies with the Right is “greedy”. They believe that we want to give everything to “the Rich”, through tax cuts, “corporate welfare” and setting the entire system up to cater to “the Rich”.
The only way that they can do this is to portray us as either ignorant trailer-trash who are dupes of “the Rich”, or ultra-wealthy Capitalist Pigs who sit in mahogany-paneled drawing rooms lighting our icky cigars with $100 bills.
Although the vast majority of Republicans are middle-class, being the good little Marxists that they are, it is absolutely critical for the Left to believe that “the workers” are on their side. Anyone who isn’t has to be either “ignorant” or “the Rich”. That is the reason that they call anyone on the Right “extremists”. There can be no one who opposes them in the middle. If their fantasy is to hold up, they have to believe that they are the center. It fits right in with their self-centeredness. Everything has to be about them, personally.
That belief excuses them from wondering why so many of us in the middle-class would want to give our money to “the Rich”.
Me, I’d be labeled as one of the “ignorant”. Though I don’t actually live in a trailer, and I own my own home, I just got lucky, somehow (they never explain how we all got so lucky or “more fortunate” *). Although I have an IQ that far surpasses the vast majority of those on the Left, I was somehow “duped” into supporting the Right. To believe anything else would cause the beliefs of the Left to crumble and disintegrate.
Again, to understand what motivates the Right is just way too complex for the simpletons who adhere to the Left. There is good, and there is bad. The only thing in between are the people who aren’t smart enough to agree with them.
*Rush Limbaugh once spoke about the concept of the “less fortunate”, as the Left likes to call the poor. “Fortune” speaks of luck, as in “fortune was with him”. That is what the Left means when they speak of the “less fortunate”. Those of us who have made something of our lives have done it because of nothing more than “fortune” or “luck” in their eyes.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
The Left's Brain Uncovered
It's nice to occasionally get confirmation that you're on the right track. Especially when it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
Frontpagemag.com hosted a symposium of six former members of the Left who finally realized the error of their ways and have become, if not exactly Conservative, at least rational human beings.
I found it fascinating because they echo exactly what I've been saying all along about people on the Left being immature, self-centered, power-hungry misfits who don't really care about any "cause" they espouse, but want only the socialization opportunities that ganging up with other misfits provides.
It also documents their self-serving sense of "superiority" over those whom they supposedly stand up for. In my opinion that sense of superiority over others is born of insecurity, which would expain the self-loathing that they describe amongst those on the Left.
Here are some interesting excerpts, but I recommend reading the whole thing. It gives a great understanding of the motivations of the Left.
(Exiles note: in my very first post ever, I wrote: "I don't intend this blog to be a log of Hillary's actions, but rather a discussion of Democrats and liberals and they're motivations". Quite frankly, even I'm surprised that I came as close as I did.)
John Bradley:
And you are right: it was for us a blind faith, completely black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. We knew all the answers (every single one of them!), as though they had been revealed from a higher being; and everyone else was simply stupid – not least the great mass of workers, who would one day wake up to that fact, of course, and finally recognize the SWP as their saviors.
What I find most odd, looking back, is that I didn't see myself as a victim at all – I mean, not only of the SWP, but even of society. I didn't have the sense that I was fighting on my behalf. No: I saw everyone else as a victim, and myself as savior – one of the chosen few.
Viewing everyone else as a victim gave me a sense of superiority, I suppose. Joining the SWP was a way of rebelling against my parents. I was using the great masses as my excuse to make myself feel good, to give my life a sense of direction and meaning. It took me years to cast off the shackles of that sense of superiority – of a failure to recognize the world's nuances and complexities and differing points of view, not to mention my own limitations and hypocrisies.
There are a few points to be made there, not the least of which is the fact that, at least when it came to them, personally, there was such a thing as "black and white, right and wrong, good and evil." Moral relativism is for everybody else. They were crusaders, anointed by themselves as saviors of "the little people".
Also, his quote about "using the great masses as my excuse to make myself feel good, to give my life a sense of direction and meaning" was spot on. I couldn't have (and probably haven't) said it better.
The part about his rebelling against his parents just shows the adolescence of the whole Left. They're still rebelling against authority, even the ones in their 70's (see Chomsky). Karl Marx was probably still rebelling against his parents when he wrote his schtick.
Tammy Bruce:
Narcissism, while frequently thought of as “self-love,” is in fact the opposite. It is self-obsession based on victimhood and paranoia. Narcissism is actually the belief that everything that happens, happens because of you, or revolves around you. As an example, feminist narcissists see the pro-life movement as being against women, or as a jihad against women, as opposed to an expression of those peoples’ concern for life. The issues for narcissists, whether they be feminist, gay or black, is always about them, surrounding them, or about how the opposition is out to get them. Paranoia is a key factor in narcissism and easy to exploit.
Harold the Troll (if he hasn't run away) might want to apologize. He disagreed with my suggestion that pro-abortion Leftists saw anti-abortion people as wanting to control women. He wanted proof. Ms. Bruce used to be the president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, and she's saying exactly what Harold was trying to argue with me about. I would call that proof enough.
And, of course, the rest of the quote confirms that any "cause" that they stand for is actually about nothing except for themselves.
And does anyone want to disagree with the paranoia of the Left and their conspiracy theories? It never did occur to me to link it to their self-centeredness, though.
This narcissism also explains how they can believe that they can overcome their beloved "theory of evolution" and change the way that humans have behaved for hundreds-of-thousands of years in their tiny little lifetimes, such as their belief that global warming has happened in their lifetime, society-wide acceptance of gay lifestyles will happen in their lifetimes, acceptance of all cultures as equal will happen in their lifetimes, women and men are equal in all ways, etc. These things have been true for hundreds-of-thousands of years, but these arrogant children believe that they can change them.
The Left’s organizing relies on selling the line that everyone who disagrees with the leftist status quo is a hater of some sort; those who disagree with leftist policy are not dealt with as serious people who have a different opinion on the issues. That would then require arguments based on reason. Instead, leftist leadership casts their opposition as haters who live every moment planning to eradicate the gay, woman or black. When your base is primarily narcissistic that’s an easy line to sell, remains emotional devoid of reason, and makes people easy to condition and control. Leftist politics, like a vicious circle, rely on the damaged as footsoldiers, while the most damaged, the “Malignant Narcissist,” as I explain in The Death of Right and Wrong, move into positions of power and leadership, furthering the cultural and political destruction of our culture and of the left in general.
I've always called them 'misfits', because that's what they were when they were damaged, but she's saying the same thing: these people are social losers who are very unhappy with themselves.
John Bradley, again:
Abandoning the straight-jacket of the hard Left has liberated me -- I am now able to see many sides to each issue, and I am willing to meet and discuss politics and religion with a much wider variety of people than would previously have been the case. We don't always agree -- and that's fine. The goal should always be to increase each other's understanding.
In other words, it's not we of the Right that "march in lockstep". But we've always known that, haven't we?
From Michael Lopez-Calderon:
John R. Bradley’s statement “that the Left never offers any kind of practical solution to the world's problems” bears an uncanny resemblance to what I had written nearly four years ago about my earliest doubts of the left: “However, there was one troubling, recurring weakness about the Left that kept reappearing like termites, eating away at my wooden edifice of arguments and premises: The Left offered no solutions. … We hammered and chipped away at America, but unlike Jean-Antoine Houdon, we created detritus instead of magnificent sculptures.” The left has a tendency to embrace failed causes, losers, and the envious. As part of the latter, it reserves a special place of loathing for those that succeed in the corporate world and the market place. That's why Ward Churchill’s "Little Eichmanns" statement was met with indifference in some leftist circles and celebrated in others.
The part about the Left having no solutions is obvious enough, but the part about the Left's "tendency to embrace failed causes, losers and the envious" is just so obviously their empathizing with people who are like themselves, that I almost feel bad pointing it out. My readers are smart enough to get that. Even some of the trolls.
It also explains their hatred for "corporate America" (i.e. successful Capitalists). If you magnify this to a larger scale, it also explains why all Communists/Socialists hate Capitalism.
And this needs no explanation:
Also what I saw happening to those of us on the left was the growth of an unexpected elitist hostility to ordinary folk. Many of my leftist friends and a few colleagues adopted the position that the masses were not only deceived, but had also played a willing role in their deception. Here we were, the harbingers of an ideology that purported to stand with the ordinary folk, and yet we despised practically everything they embraced, e.g. family, faith, consumerism, money-making, patriotism, and so forth. We did not live in a world where most lived, ensconced as we were in universities. Near the end of my university years, I began to notice this strange contradiction of “loving humanity but hating people.” I’ve realized since that it was part of the stock-in-trade of the unrealistic vision of the left, and blaming the failure of that vision not on the flawed assumption of the ideology but rather on the ingratitude of the “great unwashed” that we sought to liberate.
When the hell is your average Democrat going to realize this? The people who are now leading their party despise them. I've been trying to explain this to the "Democrats" that I know for years, but they just can't get past the changes that have happened in the political landscape.
The piece goes on and I could comment on every paragraph, but I doubt that you need me to do that. Not to mention the fact that it would probably be the longest post ever and I'd crash Blogger (hmmm).
I do highly suggest reading the whole thing if you'd like to understand the motivations of the Left better than you do now. Maybe it's just me, but I find their motivations the most fascinating part of the Left. How they can hold the irrational beliefs that they do fascinates me. How they can ignore logic is amazing to me.
It also doesn't hurt to know the enemy's motivations if you hope to defeat them.
Frontpagemag.com hosted a symposium of six former members of the Left who finally realized the error of their ways and have become, if not exactly Conservative, at least rational human beings.
I found it fascinating because they echo exactly what I've been saying all along about people on the Left being immature, self-centered, power-hungry misfits who don't really care about any "cause" they espouse, but want only the socialization opportunities that ganging up with other misfits provides.
It also documents their self-serving sense of "superiority" over those whom they supposedly stand up for. In my opinion that sense of superiority over others is born of insecurity, which would expain the self-loathing that they describe amongst those on the Left.
Here are some interesting excerpts, but I recommend reading the whole thing. It gives a great understanding of the motivations of the Left.
(Exiles note: in my very first post ever, I wrote: "I don't intend this blog to be a log of Hillary's actions, but rather a discussion of Democrats and liberals and they're motivations". Quite frankly, even I'm surprised that I came as close as I did.)
John Bradley:
And you are right: it was for us a blind faith, completely black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. We knew all the answers (every single one of them!), as though they had been revealed from a higher being; and everyone else was simply stupid – not least the great mass of workers, who would one day wake up to that fact, of course, and finally recognize the SWP as their saviors.
What I find most odd, looking back, is that I didn't see myself as a victim at all – I mean, not only of the SWP, but even of society. I didn't have the sense that I was fighting on my behalf. No: I saw everyone else as a victim, and myself as savior – one of the chosen few.
Viewing everyone else as a victim gave me a sense of superiority, I suppose. Joining the SWP was a way of rebelling against my parents. I was using the great masses as my excuse to make myself feel good, to give my life a sense of direction and meaning. It took me years to cast off the shackles of that sense of superiority – of a failure to recognize the world's nuances and complexities and differing points of view, not to mention my own limitations and hypocrisies.
There are a few points to be made there, not the least of which is the fact that, at least when it came to them, personally, there was such a thing as "black and white, right and wrong, good and evil." Moral relativism is for everybody else. They were crusaders, anointed by themselves as saviors of "the little people".
Also, his quote about "using the great masses as my excuse to make myself feel good, to give my life a sense of direction and meaning" was spot on. I couldn't have (and probably haven't) said it better.
The part about his rebelling against his parents just shows the adolescence of the whole Left. They're still rebelling against authority, even the ones in their 70's (see Chomsky). Karl Marx was probably still rebelling against his parents when he wrote his schtick.
Tammy Bruce:
Narcissism, while frequently thought of as “self-love,” is in fact the opposite. It is self-obsession based on victimhood and paranoia. Narcissism is actually the belief that everything that happens, happens because of you, or revolves around you. As an example, feminist narcissists see the pro-life movement as being against women, or as a jihad against women, as opposed to an expression of those peoples’ concern for life. The issues for narcissists, whether they be feminist, gay or black, is always about them, surrounding them, or about how the opposition is out to get them. Paranoia is a key factor in narcissism and easy to exploit.
Harold the Troll (if he hasn't run away) might want to apologize. He disagreed with my suggestion that pro-abortion Leftists saw anti-abortion people as wanting to control women. He wanted proof. Ms. Bruce used to be the president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, and she's saying exactly what Harold was trying to argue with me about. I would call that proof enough.
And, of course, the rest of the quote confirms that any "cause" that they stand for is actually about nothing except for themselves.
And does anyone want to disagree with the paranoia of the Left and their conspiracy theories? It never did occur to me to link it to their self-centeredness, though.
This narcissism also explains how they can believe that they can overcome their beloved "theory of evolution" and change the way that humans have behaved for hundreds-of-thousands of years in their tiny little lifetimes, such as their belief that global warming has happened in their lifetime, society-wide acceptance of gay lifestyles will happen in their lifetimes, acceptance of all cultures as equal will happen in their lifetimes, women and men are equal in all ways, etc. These things have been true for hundreds-of-thousands of years, but these arrogant children believe that they can change them.
The Left’s organizing relies on selling the line that everyone who disagrees with the leftist status quo is a hater of some sort; those who disagree with leftist policy are not dealt with as serious people who have a different opinion on the issues. That would then require arguments based on reason. Instead, leftist leadership casts their opposition as haters who live every moment planning to eradicate the gay, woman or black. When your base is primarily narcissistic that’s an easy line to sell, remains emotional devoid of reason, and makes people easy to condition and control. Leftist politics, like a vicious circle, rely on the damaged as footsoldiers, while the most damaged, the “Malignant Narcissist,” as I explain in The Death of Right and Wrong, move into positions of power and leadership, furthering the cultural and political destruction of our culture and of the left in general.
I've always called them 'misfits', because that's what they were when they were damaged, but she's saying the same thing: these people are social losers who are very unhappy with themselves.
John Bradley, again:
Abandoning the straight-jacket of the hard Left has liberated me -- I am now able to see many sides to each issue, and I am willing to meet and discuss politics and religion with a much wider variety of people than would previously have been the case. We don't always agree -- and that's fine. The goal should always be to increase each other's understanding.
In other words, it's not we of the Right that "march in lockstep". But we've always known that, haven't we?
From Michael Lopez-Calderon:
John R. Bradley’s statement “that the Left never offers any kind of practical solution to the world's problems” bears an uncanny resemblance to what I had written nearly four years ago about my earliest doubts of the left: “However, there was one troubling, recurring weakness about the Left that kept reappearing like termites, eating away at my wooden edifice of arguments and premises: The Left offered no solutions. … We hammered and chipped away at America, but unlike Jean-Antoine Houdon, we created detritus instead of magnificent sculptures.” The left has a tendency to embrace failed causes, losers, and the envious. As part of the latter, it reserves a special place of loathing for those that succeed in the corporate world and the market place. That's why Ward Churchill’s "Little Eichmanns" statement was met with indifference in some leftist circles and celebrated in others.
The part about the Left having no solutions is obvious enough, but the part about the Left's "tendency to embrace failed causes, losers and the envious" is just so obviously their empathizing with people who are like themselves, that I almost feel bad pointing it out. My readers are smart enough to get that. Even some of the trolls.
It also explains their hatred for "corporate America" (i.e. successful Capitalists). If you magnify this to a larger scale, it also explains why all Communists/Socialists hate Capitalism.
And this needs no explanation:
Also what I saw happening to those of us on the left was the growth of an unexpected elitist hostility to ordinary folk. Many of my leftist friends and a few colleagues adopted the position that the masses were not only deceived, but had also played a willing role in their deception. Here we were, the harbingers of an ideology that purported to stand with the ordinary folk, and yet we despised practically everything they embraced, e.g. family, faith, consumerism, money-making, patriotism, and so forth. We did not live in a world where most lived, ensconced as we were in universities. Near the end of my university years, I began to notice this strange contradiction of “loving humanity but hating people.” I’ve realized since that it was part of the stock-in-trade of the unrealistic vision of the left, and blaming the failure of that vision not on the flawed assumption of the ideology but rather on the ingratitude of the “great unwashed” that we sought to liberate.
When the hell is your average Democrat going to realize this? The people who are now leading their party despise them. I've been trying to explain this to the "Democrats" that I know for years, but they just can't get past the changes that have happened in the political landscape.
The piece goes on and I could comment on every paragraph, but I doubt that you need me to do that. Not to mention the fact that it would probably be the longest post ever and I'd crash Blogger (hmmm).
I do highly suggest reading the whole thing if you'd like to understand the motivations of the Left better than you do now. Maybe it's just me, but I find their motivations the most fascinating part of the Left. How they can hold the irrational beliefs that they do fascinates me. How they can ignore logic is amazing to me.
It also doesn't hurt to know the enemy's motivations if you hope to defeat them.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Go Figure
From a World Net Daily story regarding Air America's continuing troubles:
Radio analyst Brian Maloney told O'Reilly, who also hosts a radio talk show, the company clearly had a bad business model, and he's not sure it can survive.
"As things stand now, they may be down to their last couple of months," Maloney said, "but that could change at any moment if [George] Soros or one of the other big guns comes in, steps to the plate and puts up some cash. But otherwise, I think things are looking bleak. They're overpaying the air talent, they're fending off lawsuits, they're overspending. They just put a brand new studio facility in. They didn't need that. That was at Franken's insistence and now he's not even going to use it. He's moving to Minnesota. So they're wasting money, they're not bringing it in. It's a mess."
In other words, they're acting exactly like liberals always act. Their little radio game will crumble because not even anti-American fanatics like Soros will pay their bills forever.
The sad thing is, the situation is a microcosm of what they're doing to America, but we pay the bills for their mismanagement and have no say in the matter. Soros can quit giving them money. We can't.
And if Al Franken is really moving back here to Minnesota, it means that he's getting ready to run for Senator Mark (Run away!) Dayton's seat, which means that Air Unamerican is getting ready to shut the doors and turn out the lights.
I predict that one day very soon, Franken will announce his candidacy for the Senate and his intention to quit his radio show to "devote his time to the campaign". He needs to quit before it all falls apart so that everyone won't refer to him as "failed radio talk-show host, Al Franken" during his whole campaign. Within two weeks of that announcement, Air Unamerican will announce that it's throwing in the towel. Probably because of the "negative media generated by the vast right-wing conspiracy".
It'll be nice to be able to laugh at AU's demise, but the down side is, we here in Minnesota will have to listen to Al Franken campaign here for the next year. Can you imagine that? I may have to truly become an exile, because that will be absolutely unbearable.
Radio analyst Brian Maloney told O'Reilly, who also hosts a radio talk show, the company clearly had a bad business model, and he's not sure it can survive.
"As things stand now, they may be down to their last couple of months," Maloney said, "but that could change at any moment if [George] Soros or one of the other big guns comes in, steps to the plate and puts up some cash. But otherwise, I think things are looking bleak. They're overpaying the air talent, they're fending off lawsuits, they're overspending. They just put a brand new studio facility in. They didn't need that. That was at Franken's insistence and now he's not even going to use it. He's moving to Minnesota. So they're wasting money, they're not bringing it in. It's a mess."
In other words, they're acting exactly like liberals always act. Their little radio game will crumble because not even anti-American fanatics like Soros will pay their bills forever.
The sad thing is, the situation is a microcosm of what they're doing to America, but we pay the bills for their mismanagement and have no say in the matter. Soros can quit giving them money. We can't.
And if Al Franken is really moving back here to Minnesota, it means that he's getting ready to run for Senator Mark (Run away!) Dayton's seat, which means that Air Unamerican is getting ready to shut the doors and turn out the lights.
I predict that one day very soon, Franken will announce his candidacy for the Senate and his intention to quit his radio show to "devote his time to the campaign". He needs to quit before it all falls apart so that everyone won't refer to him as "failed radio talk-show host, Al Franken" during his whole campaign. Within two weeks of that announcement, Air Unamerican will announce that it's throwing in the towel. Probably because of the "negative media generated by the vast right-wing conspiracy".
It'll be nice to be able to laugh at AU's demise, but the down side is, we here in Minnesota will have to listen to Al Franken campaign here for the next year. Can you imagine that? I may have to truly become an exile, because that will be absolutely unbearable.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Take The Red Pill
While watching the movie, "The Matrix", today, it occurred to me that the premise in that movie really fits the Liberal mindset perfectly. I'm sure that the writers didn't mean it that way. In fact, knowing Hollywood, they probably meant it to be a metaphor for us "lockstep" Conservatives.
But when you look at liberals walking through life "knowing" what they "know" and never, ever questioning their beliefs, it fits perfectly. In fact, like the vast majority of the people in that universe, it never even occurs to them to question what they "know" to be reality.
But, occasionally, one of them gets unhooked from the Matrix and finally sees the world as it truly is, not the world that has been created for them to keep them placated. Those are the ones who become Conservatives.
I would wager that the vast majority of Conservatives didn't start out that way.
Many of them started out as liberals on college campuses and believed the Leftist B.S. At least until they got out in the real world and discovered that what they had been taught just didn't apply. They then became Conservatives.
The ones who remained Liberals are the ones who have never had to face the real world. They got out of college and went into government jobs, teaching jobs, management positions...places where the real world never intruded with it's dirty hands and cold logic.
When I was going to school for computer programming I was amazed at the number of teachers who were liberals. These guys were making, literally, hundreds-of-thousands of dollars a year, and yet, they were almost all liberals, or at least Democrats. Weren't rich people supposed to be Republicans?
The only answer that I could come up with is that these guys graduated from high school, went to college for computer science and landed cushy, highly-paid jobs writing computer programs. They had never had to deal with the real world and the "little people" whom they "stood for". They could talk about the "plight of the poor", but there was no way that they could relate to them.
The rest of the Conservatives were probably a lot like I was: paying little or no attention to politics whatsoever. Up until I was 25 or so, what news I got was from the MSM, and I basically agreed with them because I had never heard another point of view. Reagan was an asshole. End of story.
And then I got a new job and the guys in my shop listened to this guy named "Rush Limbaugh". At first I ridiculed him and tried to make these guys "turn some music on, for Chrisakes", but they continued to listen and I was forced to hear what this guy was saying.
To my utter amazement what Rush was saying made sense. He explained things that I had a vague notion were wrong, but could never put into words because I didn't know enough about politics. What he said was just too logical to deny. After listening to him for a few months, I was free. I was unhooked from the Matrix.
And I believe that that is a major difference between the Right and the Left.
The people on the Left started out as liberals, and most of them will stay that way for life. They are truly closed-minded. They will hear no argument, no matter how logical. They "know what they know" and no amount of logic will change that.
The people on the Right, however, came here from a different point of view. They were willing to listen to the arguments and, if it seemed logical, change their minds about issues.
I'd wager that most of my readers could confirm this.
But when you look at liberals walking through life "knowing" what they "know" and never, ever questioning their beliefs, it fits perfectly. In fact, like the vast majority of the people in that universe, it never even occurs to them to question what they "know" to be reality.
But, occasionally, one of them gets unhooked from the Matrix and finally sees the world as it truly is, not the world that has been created for them to keep them placated. Those are the ones who become Conservatives.
I would wager that the vast majority of Conservatives didn't start out that way.
Many of them started out as liberals on college campuses and believed the Leftist B.S. At least until they got out in the real world and discovered that what they had been taught just didn't apply. They then became Conservatives.
The ones who remained Liberals are the ones who have never had to face the real world. They got out of college and went into government jobs, teaching jobs, management positions...places where the real world never intruded with it's dirty hands and cold logic.
When I was going to school for computer programming I was amazed at the number of teachers who were liberals. These guys were making, literally, hundreds-of-thousands of dollars a year, and yet, they were almost all liberals, or at least Democrats. Weren't rich people supposed to be Republicans?
The only answer that I could come up with is that these guys graduated from high school, went to college for computer science and landed cushy, highly-paid jobs writing computer programs. They had never had to deal with the real world and the "little people" whom they "stood for". They could talk about the "plight of the poor", but there was no way that they could relate to them.
The rest of the Conservatives were probably a lot like I was: paying little or no attention to politics whatsoever. Up until I was 25 or so, what news I got was from the MSM, and I basically agreed with them because I had never heard another point of view. Reagan was an asshole. End of story.
And then I got a new job and the guys in my shop listened to this guy named "Rush Limbaugh". At first I ridiculed him and tried to make these guys "turn some music on, for Chrisakes", but they continued to listen and I was forced to hear what this guy was saying.
To my utter amazement what Rush was saying made sense. He explained things that I had a vague notion were wrong, but could never put into words because I didn't know enough about politics. What he said was just too logical to deny. After listening to him for a few months, I was free. I was unhooked from the Matrix.
And I believe that that is a major difference between the Right and the Left.
The people on the Left started out as liberals, and most of them will stay that way for life. They are truly closed-minded. They will hear no argument, no matter how logical. They "know what they know" and no amount of logic will change that.
The people on the Right, however, came here from a different point of view. They were willing to listen to the arguments and, if it seemed logical, change their minds about issues.
I'd wager that most of my readers could confirm this.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
We Don't Talk About That
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangell and all of the other race-pimps on the Left have managed to do something intelligent. What they've done is incredibly immoral and despicable, but it's intlelligent if you only factor in their retention of their power.
When it comes to race in this country, there can never be an actual discussion of the problems because half of the country is forbidden from even mentioning race. And without a real discussion, there can be no solution, which suits them just fine.
Witness the hypothetical situation that Bill Bennet proposed about aborting black children to reduce crime. Anyone who didn't have an agenda would have seen it for what it was: a hypothetical response to explain why social policy couldn't be ruled by economics alone.
But, of course, the race-pimps took it out of context and tried to destroy Mr. Bennett. It would have worked on a lesser man (i.e. Trent Lott), but Bennett stood up to them, and the whole manufactured "controversy" went away. Let that be a lesson to all of the people on the Right who try to mollify the Left for some supposed violation of the politically correct speech-code.
That whole episode highlighted one thing that is now crystal clear: nobody on the Right is allowed to talk about race in any context whatsoever. Never. Ever.
To do so would be to initiate a discussion on what's wrong with race-relations in this country, and the race pimps can't have that. If we were to actually inject some logic into the situation, the Left would lose huge amounts of their most beloved commodity: power.
So when any Conservative says anything about race, no matter what the context, no matter what te content, the race-pimps go into overdrive shouting them down and calling him/her a "racist".
The supposed "racism", that is supposedly "rampant" in this country is almost non-existent. The progress that has been made in the past 40 years is almost miraculous. But if Jesse Jackson were to admit that, he could no longer shake down corporations to pay for his private jet and $3000 suits.
This scumbag, along with all the others, is making millions of dollars by keeping the very people he claims to be helping in the "slavery" of Government dependence.
Why can't the blacks in this country see that? Is it really easier to not even try to better yourself than to live in poverty?
The blacks, and other minorities, in this country who have "made it" are the ones who have adopted the principles of the Right: hard work and self-sufficiency. The ones who wallow in poverty are the ones who are waiting for the government to help them.
But the ones who are wallowing are the ones who believe the line put out by Jesse and Al and Charlie: Don't even bother trying, because "whitey" ain't gonna let you succeed. I can't think of a more racist or self-defeating attitude.
But that's the way that the race-pimps like it, and that's the reason that they don't dare allow a real discussion of race in this country: minorities aren't stupid, but if the race-pimps can get them to ignore one whole side of the argument, they will live in their mansions forever. Uninformed is vastly different than stupid.
So how do we force the discussion? Bill Bennet started the process: unlike most Republicans/Conservatives who have been accused of "racism", he didn't automatically cringe and genuflect at the altar of political correctness. He knew that the charge against him was bullshit, and he defended himself. Like any bullies (smirk), when you stand up to the Left, they back down. His comments regarding Ted Kennedy lecturing him on morality were priceless.
Unfortunately, the whole thing went away. Why? Because the Left will only take these things so far because, if someone stands up for themselves, a discussion will result, and they don't want that.
What they want is another Trent Lott who, once accused kissed Jesse Jackson's ass and then went on Black Entertainment Telivision (BET) and told them that he was willing to let them do anything that they wanted to if only they'd forgive him: "Oh please, please, forgive me! My power means more to me than my dignity or being correct! Affirmitive action? You got it! Welfare reform? We'll kill it!"
And now Bill Bennett is more popular than ever, while Trent Lott hangs around the Senate cloakroom being mistaken for the coat-check girl.
What we need to do is, next time one of these manufactured "controversies" come up, keep it going. Don't run away from it and try to make it go away. Force the Left to discuss it. That's the last thing that they want.
When it comes to race in this country, there can never be an actual discussion of the problems because half of the country is forbidden from even mentioning race. And without a real discussion, there can be no solution, which suits them just fine.
Witness the hypothetical situation that Bill Bennet proposed about aborting black children to reduce crime. Anyone who didn't have an agenda would have seen it for what it was: a hypothetical response to explain why social policy couldn't be ruled by economics alone.
But, of course, the race-pimps took it out of context and tried to destroy Mr. Bennett. It would have worked on a lesser man (i.e. Trent Lott), but Bennett stood up to them, and the whole manufactured "controversy" went away. Let that be a lesson to all of the people on the Right who try to mollify the Left for some supposed violation of the politically correct speech-code.
That whole episode highlighted one thing that is now crystal clear: nobody on the Right is allowed to talk about race in any context whatsoever. Never. Ever.
To do so would be to initiate a discussion on what's wrong with race-relations in this country, and the race pimps can't have that. If we were to actually inject some logic into the situation, the Left would lose huge amounts of their most beloved commodity: power.
So when any Conservative says anything about race, no matter what the context, no matter what te content, the race-pimps go into overdrive shouting them down and calling him/her a "racist".
The supposed "racism", that is supposedly "rampant" in this country is almost non-existent. The progress that has been made in the past 40 years is almost miraculous. But if Jesse Jackson were to admit that, he could no longer shake down corporations to pay for his private jet and $3000 suits.
This scumbag, along with all the others, is making millions of dollars by keeping the very people he claims to be helping in the "slavery" of Government dependence.
Why can't the blacks in this country see that? Is it really easier to not even try to better yourself than to live in poverty?
The blacks, and other minorities, in this country who have "made it" are the ones who have adopted the principles of the Right: hard work and self-sufficiency. The ones who wallow in poverty are the ones who are waiting for the government to help them.
But the ones who are wallowing are the ones who believe the line put out by Jesse and Al and Charlie: Don't even bother trying, because "whitey" ain't gonna let you succeed. I can't think of a more racist or self-defeating attitude.
But that's the way that the race-pimps like it, and that's the reason that they don't dare allow a real discussion of race in this country: minorities aren't stupid, but if the race-pimps can get them to ignore one whole side of the argument, they will live in their mansions forever. Uninformed is vastly different than stupid.
So how do we force the discussion? Bill Bennet started the process: unlike most Republicans/Conservatives who have been accused of "racism", he didn't automatically cringe and genuflect at the altar of political correctness. He knew that the charge against him was bullshit, and he defended himself. Like any bullies (smirk), when you stand up to the Left, they back down. His comments regarding Ted Kennedy lecturing him on morality were priceless.
Unfortunately, the whole thing went away. Why? Because the Left will only take these things so far because, if someone stands up for themselves, a discussion will result, and they don't want that.
What they want is another Trent Lott who, once accused kissed Jesse Jackson's ass and then went on Black Entertainment Telivision (BET) and told them that he was willing to let them do anything that they wanted to if only they'd forgive him: "Oh please, please, forgive me! My power means more to me than my dignity or being correct! Affirmitive action? You got it! Welfare reform? We'll kill it!"
And now Bill Bennett is more popular than ever, while Trent Lott hangs around the Senate cloakroom being mistaken for the coat-check girl.
What we need to do is, next time one of these manufactured "controversies" come up, keep it going. Don't run away from it and try to make it go away. Force the Left to discuss it. That's the last thing that they want.
Trophy Room Excuses
Some of you may have been wondering why my Trophy Room isn't filling up faster. Well, there are a few reasons.
a) Lack of time .
b) When I switched to Haloscan for my comments, it made it difficult to retrieve my old comments where all of the good trolls were. Haloscan was supposed to make a backup of the HTML in my Blogger template but it apparently didn't, so I have to figure out how to get it back. I'll get it, but, see "a)", above.
c) I'm just not getting the quality trolls like I used to. Lately, the only ones I've gotten are Eugene, who wants to discuss nothing but my genitalia, and Harold who is repetitive and tiresome. I'll have to override "a)", above, and wade back into the slime of the Lefty blogs whence came some of the good old trolls.
In the meantime, I'll just keep blogging when I get the chance, and work on the trophy room when I can.
a) Lack of time .
b) When I switched to Haloscan for my comments, it made it difficult to retrieve my old comments where all of the good trolls were. Haloscan was supposed to make a backup of the HTML in my Blogger template but it apparently didn't, so I have to figure out how to get it back. I'll get it, but, see "a)", above.
c) I'm just not getting the quality trolls like I used to. Lately, the only ones I've gotten are Eugene, who wants to discuss nothing but my genitalia, and Harold who is repetitive and tiresome. I'll have to override "a)", above, and wade back into the slime of the Lefty blogs whence came some of the good old trolls.
In the meantime, I'll just keep blogging when I get the chance, and work on the trophy room when I can.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
I Feel Dirty
Because I'm willing to sacrifice for my beliefs, I've been Listening to Fat Ed Schultz' show on Air Unamerican since I got off work a few hours ago. My ears are bleeding and I feel soiled, and I didn't even learn anything. It's one caller after another saying the same thing, but thinking that they're clever for phrasing it in a different way than all the others.
You may or may not remember a couple of weeks ago when "Big Ed" blustered long and loud that he'd debate Dennis Prager anytime, anywhere, after Dennis criticized Fat Eddie for attacking Bill Bennet for his comments, taken out of context as always, about aborting black children.
Mr. Prager's producer called Mr. Schultz' people and they refused, flat out, any debate whatsoever at anytime, or at any place. Dennis even offered to fly to Fargo, ND on his own dime and was refused.
Eddie Schultz is a blowhard and a coward, like the vast majority of the Left. Also like most of the Left, he knows that his arguments can't stand up to the light of logic.
Fat Eddie made his excuses, but it was absolutely obvious that he didn't dare take on Dennis Prager. Dennis is one of the most brilliant and moral minds that I have ever heard speak. He would have absolutely shredded Eddie.
Ed Schultz is a loudmouthed blowhard who thinks that because he, personally, goes fishing and hunting that he lays waste to the stereotype of Lefties as effeminate PETA-members and tree-huggers. Wow, that's brilliant. The exception disproves the rule in his world: "There is one, therefore, there are none".
Tonight's rant was a typical "poor me" victimhood whine because, after negotiating to be broadcast on the Armed Forces Network (AFN), they told him that it wasn't going to happen.
Of course, as the arrogant Lefty he is, he had to turn it into an attack by the Bush Administration. He, and in his mind, he alone, broadcast the rehearsed press conference between President Bush and soldiers in Iraq. That, he believes is the reason that the AFN was ordered by the Administration not to let him be heard by our soldiers in Iraq.
Apparently Mr. Schultz has never heard of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any major newspaper, all of whom also criticized President Bush for that silly manuever. It was him, dammit! He was the one who broke the story! Nobody else would have ever figured it out if it wasn't for him! Me, me, me!!!
What a fool. I would have paid thousands to watch Dennis Prager rip him apart. It would have been like watching the captain of the high-school debate team debate a four-year-old.
But the most amazing part of listening to this whining drivel was the callers.
I always suspected that, when Conservative talk shows put Liberal callers on, they put the idiots on, just to make it easy on the host.
I apologize to all of those Conservative talk shows. Profusely.
Within 15 minutes, asI was driving home from work, I heard three different callers use the word "fascist" when referring to the Bush Administration and/or Conservatives. One of them also added that "we no longer live in a Democracy".
That 15 minutes includes the time that Fat Eddie, who loves to hear himself bloviate, backed up their points. So, to be fair, I'd say that the callers had maybe 7 minutes to make those brilliant statements.
The callers on Air America are, if anything, even more dim than the ones who at least have the guts to call Conservative talk shows. The callers on Air Unamerican are dolts, pure and simple. The most intelligent among them are barely articulate. The worst are just, plain painful and embarassing to listen to.
It's an endless repetition of the Democrat and Moron.org's talking points with nary an original thought to be had. The most original thing that you ever hear is a "new" conspiracy theory that they've obviously read on some website somewhere.
For anyone out there who believes in the "intellectual elitism" of the Left, think about this: mix and match any of these talk-show hosts and tell me who you think would win an intellectual contest.
On the Left we have:
And in the Right corner:
Intellectual Elite, indeed.
You may or may not remember a couple of weeks ago when "Big Ed" blustered long and loud that he'd debate Dennis Prager anytime, anywhere, after Dennis criticized Fat Eddie for attacking Bill Bennet for his comments, taken out of context as always, about aborting black children.
Mr. Prager's producer called Mr. Schultz' people and they refused, flat out, any debate whatsoever at anytime, or at any place. Dennis even offered to fly to Fargo, ND on his own dime and was refused.
Eddie Schultz is a blowhard and a coward, like the vast majority of the Left. Also like most of the Left, he knows that his arguments can't stand up to the light of logic.
Fat Eddie made his excuses, but it was absolutely obvious that he didn't dare take on Dennis Prager. Dennis is one of the most brilliant and moral minds that I have ever heard speak. He would have absolutely shredded Eddie.
Ed Schultz is a loudmouthed blowhard who thinks that because he, personally, goes fishing and hunting that he lays waste to the stereotype of Lefties as effeminate PETA-members and tree-huggers. Wow, that's brilliant. The exception disproves the rule in his world: "There is one, therefore, there are none".
Tonight's rant was a typical "poor me" victimhood whine because, after negotiating to be broadcast on the Armed Forces Network (AFN), they told him that it wasn't going to happen.
Of course, as the arrogant Lefty he is, he had to turn it into an attack by the Bush Administration. He, and in his mind, he alone, broadcast the rehearsed press conference between President Bush and soldiers in Iraq. That, he believes is the reason that the AFN was ordered by the Administration not to let him be heard by our soldiers in Iraq.
Apparently Mr. Schultz has never heard of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any major newspaper, all of whom also criticized President Bush for that silly manuever. It was him, dammit! He was the one who broke the story! Nobody else would have ever figured it out if it wasn't for him! Me, me, me!!!
What a fool. I would have paid thousands to watch Dennis Prager rip him apart. It would have been like watching the captain of the high-school debate team debate a four-year-old.
But the most amazing part of listening to this whining drivel was the callers.
I always suspected that, when Conservative talk shows put Liberal callers on, they put the idiots on, just to make it easy on the host.
I apologize to all of those Conservative talk shows. Profusely.
Within 15 minutes, asI was driving home from work, I heard three different callers use the word "fascist" when referring to the Bush Administration and/or Conservatives. One of them also added that "we no longer live in a Democracy".
That 15 minutes includes the time that Fat Eddie, who loves to hear himself bloviate, backed up their points. So, to be fair, I'd say that the callers had maybe 7 minutes to make those brilliant statements.
The callers on Air America are, if anything, even more dim than the ones who at least have the guts to call Conservative talk shows. The callers on Air Unamerican are dolts, pure and simple. The most intelligent among them are barely articulate. The worst are just, plain painful and embarassing to listen to.
It's an endless repetition of the Democrat and Moron.org's talking points with nary an original thought to be had. The most original thing that you ever hear is a "new" conspiracy theory that they've obviously read on some website somewhere.
For anyone out there who believes in the "intellectual elitism" of the Left, think about this: mix and match any of these talk-show hosts and tell me who you think would win an intellectual contest.
On the Left we have:
And in the Right corner:
Intellectual Elite, indeed.
Friday, October 14, 2005
See What I'm Saying?
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Somebody finally put together everything that I've been saying for years. Definitely check that link out. It's fascinating.
Of course, Harold will want proof. That Hitler actually said that, that I've been saying these things for years, and that it's fascinating.
Big tip o' the hat to The Crank Files
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Mass Murder is Relative
If you were a snarky, immature little moonbat, and you wanted to compare your opponents to an extremely evil group of people, wouldn't you pick the worst, most murderous group in history? So why does the Left compare the Right to Nazis?
Why don't they compare us to the Soviets? After all, the Soviets killed 4 or 5 times more people than did the Nazis ever did.
Does anyone else find that odd? I mean, if you are willing to sacrifice what little credibility you have by comparing the Right in America to a dictatorship that killed 10 million people, why not go all out and compare them to a dictatorship that killed 50 million people?
Ah, but we all know that that is just a rhetorical question. The answer is that the Left sympathizes with the old Soviet Union. Sure, they murdered 50 million people, but their heart was in the right place in trying to build the long dreamt-of Socialist Utopia!
The Nazis just did it because they were a bunch of bullies. Therefore their smaller number of victims is magnified by the horror of bullying, which is the worst thing in the world to the children of the Left.
Besides, it's the Communists (i.e. International ANSWER) who support all of the anti-American protestors in this country. The Left wouldn't want to give the hand that feeds them a bad name by comparing them to...Republicans!
On top of that, few of the foot-soldiers of the Left even know about any Communist atrocities, and they wouldn't believe you if you told them, so why confuse them with the facts? They're not very good at thinking to begin with.
All they know is that Cuba has a great health-care system. Which is fine if you don't mind living in abject poverty created by the government, or if you survive the very real torture (as opposed to touching a book in the wrong way) inflicted by that same government. But that stuff isn't important, so why tell our proles?
They do, however, know what the Nazis did (although not what the Nazis stood for), and what they did was mean. Apparently, one day, some Lefty must have thought, "The Nazis were mean. Hey! Conservatives are mean, too! Conservatives must be Nazis! Moonbeam! Fax this over to the DNC immediately!"
As I've written before, the ironic thing is how close the Left has become to the ideology of the Nazis and, with their newfound (?) hatred of Israel, I keep expecting Howard Dean to start screaming about "Der Juden!" any day now and Michael Moore to come out with a documentary called "Hymie and Me".
So here's a challenge for you Left-wing moonbats: name one dictatorship that has or has had American Conservative principles. Faith in individuals to make what they can of their lives, limiting the role of government, freedom of religion, independence of the populace, control of the people over their government, etc.
You can't do it, because there has never been a dictatorship that adhered to those principles. There couldn't be. It wouldn't work.
However, I can name many dictatorships that held to the principles of the Left in this country.
Why don't they compare us to the Soviets? After all, the Soviets killed 4 or 5 times more people than did the Nazis ever did.
Does anyone else find that odd? I mean, if you are willing to sacrifice what little credibility you have by comparing the Right in America to a dictatorship that killed 10 million people, why not go all out and compare them to a dictatorship that killed 50 million people?
Ah, but we all know that that is just a rhetorical question. The answer is that the Left sympathizes with the old Soviet Union. Sure, they murdered 50 million people, but their heart was in the right place in trying to build the long dreamt-of Socialist Utopia!
The Nazis just did it because they were a bunch of bullies. Therefore their smaller number of victims is magnified by the horror of bullying, which is the worst thing in the world to the children of the Left.
Besides, it's the Communists (i.e. International ANSWER) who support all of the anti-American protestors in this country. The Left wouldn't want to give the hand that feeds them a bad name by comparing them to...Republicans!
On top of that, few of the foot-soldiers of the Left even know about any Communist atrocities, and they wouldn't believe you if you told them, so why confuse them with the facts? They're not very good at thinking to begin with.
All they know is that Cuba has a great health-care system. Which is fine if you don't mind living in abject poverty created by the government, or if you survive the very real torture (as opposed to touching a book in the wrong way) inflicted by that same government. But that stuff isn't important, so why tell our proles?
They do, however, know what the Nazis did (although not what the Nazis stood for), and what they did was mean. Apparently, one day, some Lefty must have thought, "The Nazis were mean. Hey! Conservatives are mean, too! Conservatives must be Nazis! Moonbeam! Fax this over to the DNC immediately!"
As I've written before, the ironic thing is how close the Left has become to the ideology of the Nazis and, with their newfound (?) hatred of Israel, I keep expecting Howard Dean to start screaming about "Der Juden!" any day now and Michael Moore to come out with a documentary called "Hymie and Me".
So here's a challenge for you Left-wing moonbats: name one dictatorship that has or has had American Conservative principles. Faith in individuals to make what they can of their lives, limiting the role of government, freedom of religion, independence of the populace, control of the people over their government, etc.
You can't do it, because there has never been a dictatorship that adhered to those principles. There couldn't be. It wouldn't work.
However, I can name many dictatorships that held to the principles of the Left in this country.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
I Believe It!
We've talked about one aspect of the insanity of the Left with their unending series of conspracy theories. Let's talk about another, namely their childish, comic-book characterization of the Right as evil.
Like the children that they are, they never really look into any possible motivations for the Right being as evil as we suposedly are. To them, it's just who we are because they were told that that's who we are by their mommies...err...leaders and that's that.
The only motivation that they are given by their leaders is that we on the Right are "greedy" and "mean", which is ridiculous no matter how you look at it.
The vast majority of us are far from rich. You can show them statistics from their own beloved government that show the fact that we are not "the rich", but they won't believe those facts because their leaders have told them that we are.
If you want to talk about greed, how about the Left stripping more and more money from my family to finance their wasteful social programs, which never work, just so they can feel good about themselves? Now that's greed!
Other than that, though, they believe that we are just, plain evil for evil's sake. Here are a few of the insane positions of the Left.
The Left believes these ridiculous things about the Right and more.
As much as they eschew the terms "good" and "evil", that is the only way that they can see the world beyond themselves. Anything else is too complex for them. We can try to explain it all we want, but it's futile. They just can't reason like thinking adults.
Like the children that they are, they never really look into any possible motivations for the Right being as evil as we suposedly are. To them, it's just who we are because they were told that that's who we are by their mommies...err...leaders and that's that.
The only motivation that they are given by their leaders is that we on the Right are "greedy" and "mean", which is ridiculous no matter how you look at it.
The vast majority of us are far from rich. You can show them statistics from their own beloved government that show the fact that we are not "the rich", but they won't believe those facts because their leaders have told them that we are.
If you want to talk about greed, how about the Left stripping more and more money from my family to finance their wasteful social programs, which never work, just so they can feel good about themselves? Now that's greed!
Other than that, though, they believe that we are just, plain evil for evil's sake. Here are a few of the insane positions of the Left.
The Left believes these ridiculous things about the Right and more.
As much as they eschew the terms "good" and "evil", that is the only way that they can see the world beyond themselves. Anything else is too complex for them. We can try to explain it all we want, but it's futile. They just can't reason like thinking adults.
The Exile's Trophy Room
My troll-head trophy room is now open to the public. I've only got one up on the wall so far, but that will change as I get time to hang more.
It's not finished yet, and I'm not sure that I like the format: it's going to get long, and difficult to navigate. I have a couple of ideas, but I welcome any suggestions.
The moonbattery is free. Enjoy.
P.S. If you stop by this blog and it looks odd, it's because I have to override Haloscan to retrieve my old Blogger trolls. Have no fear, I'm behind the curtain playing with the controls.
It's not finished yet, and I'm not sure that I like the format: it's going to get long, and difficult to navigate. I have a couple of ideas, but I welcome any suggestions.
The moonbattery is free. Enjoy.
P.S. If you stop by this blog and it looks odd, it's because I have to override Haloscan to retrieve my old Blogger trolls. Have no fear, I'm behind the curtain playing with the controls.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Das ist Genug!
I'm already sick to death of this whole Harriet Miers debate going on between Republicans.
Here's the scoop: she's the nominee. She'll continue to be the nominee until she's confirmed to the Supreme Court. And she will be confirmed. End of scoop.
Maybe she's Conservative enough, maybe she's not. It doesn't matter. See the scoop above. It's a done deal.
So why are we wasting time fighting amongst ourselves when we could be fighting the Left? I'm sure that many of you who oppose Ms. Miers think that you are fighting the Left by screaming for someone more Conservative, but it ain't gonna happen. See the previously referenced scoop.
You who are screaming against her sound like the Left when they're not getting what they want. Quite frankly, I'd rather see someone with a definite Conservative record, too, but I'm not going to rant about it because a) it's counter-productive, b) it will change nothing and c) the Left is having orgasms watching us fight each other instead of them.
Railing against Harriet Miers is purely masturbatory: it may feel good, but it accomplishes nothing.
And if you keep it up, you'll go blind, grow hair on your palms and go to hell! So knock it off!
Here's the scoop: she's the nominee. She'll continue to be the nominee until she's confirmed to the Supreme Court. And she will be confirmed. End of scoop.
Maybe she's Conservative enough, maybe she's not. It doesn't matter. See the scoop above. It's a done deal.
So why are we wasting time fighting amongst ourselves when we could be fighting the Left? I'm sure that many of you who oppose Ms. Miers think that you are fighting the Left by screaming for someone more Conservative, but it ain't gonna happen. See the previously referenced scoop.
You who are screaming against her sound like the Left when they're not getting what they want. Quite frankly, I'd rather see someone with a definite Conservative record, too, but I'm not going to rant about it because a) it's counter-productive, b) it will change nothing and c) the Left is having orgasms watching us fight each other instead of them.
Railing against Harriet Miers is purely masturbatory: it may feel good, but it accomplishes nothing.
And if you keep it up, you'll go blind, grow hair on your palms and go to hell! So knock it off!
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Without Further Ado, More Random Musings
- So the U.N. wants control over the internet. I say we give it to them, but only upon one condition: absolute freedom of speech will be strictly enforced on it in every country where it’s used.
Any country that wants to restrict free speech will not be given access to the internet and all of the monetary gains it provides.
No country would agree to that, so they’d have to allow their citizens the right to criticize the government, which would, eventually end the despotisms of the world.
Oh, and and we'd want about $1 trillion for inventing and developing it to it's present state.
- If I hear one more advertisement that says, “Get the (insert product here) that you deserve”, I’m going to puke. How do they know whether I deserve something? I may be an asshole.
It just seems to fit into the whole “entitlement” mentality so well. “I deserve this. I’m entitled to it”.
- "Bush and Hitler sitting in a tree, k-i-l-l-i-n-g" (From the D.C. protests in Sept.) Anyone remember what I said about the Left’s protest chants sounding like nursery rhymes?
- If the Left got their way and took over the country, would they have a Constitution? If so, why? It would be pointless to have rules (e.g. a Constitution) that you could change on a whim just because things aren’t going your way.
Oddly, this is how my six-year-old daughter plays games, too. At least until I explain to her why it wouldn’t be right to change the rules just because you're losing. The difference is, she’s smart enough to understand that.
- Certain Supreme Court justices look to law in other countries to make policy in this country.
Unless I’m mistaken, we fought the Revolutionary War to get away from that exact thing!
- I don’t have the power to oppress anybody.
- The Left has degenerated into The Lord of the Flies. Once somewhat civilized, they have degenerated into vicious children.
- Before you start shrieking “Homophobe!” (and we’ll get to that word) I know that this doesn’t by any means include all gay men, but why do so many of them lisp?
Even if it’s true that they were born gay, were they born with a lisp? I really doubt it. So why do they do it? It has to be an affectation, but what purpose does it serve?
- The word ‘Homophobe’ implies a “fear” of homosexuals. Well, I’m sorry, but I’ve never met a gay person who frightened me in the least.
Unless they mean the fear that homosexual activists are damaging our society. That one I could buy.
The word homophobe, taken literally, means “fear of man”. Wouldn’t that be a more apt term for feminists?
Any country that wants to restrict free speech will not be given access to the internet and all of the monetary gains it provides.
No country would agree to that, so they’d have to allow their citizens the right to criticize the government, which would, eventually end the despotisms of the world.
Oh, and and we'd want about $1 trillion for inventing and developing it to it's present state.
- If I hear one more advertisement that says, “Get the (insert product here) that you deserve”, I’m going to puke. How do they know whether I deserve something? I may be an asshole.
It just seems to fit into the whole “entitlement” mentality so well. “I deserve this. I’m entitled to it”.
- "Bush and Hitler sitting in a tree, k-i-l-l-i-n-g" (From the D.C. protests in Sept.) Anyone remember what I said about the Left’s protest chants sounding like nursery rhymes?
- If the Left got their way and took over the country, would they have a Constitution? If so, why? It would be pointless to have rules (e.g. a Constitution) that you could change on a whim just because things aren’t going your way.
Oddly, this is how my six-year-old daughter plays games, too. At least until I explain to her why it wouldn’t be right to change the rules just because you're losing. The difference is, she’s smart enough to understand that.
- Certain Supreme Court justices look to law in other countries to make policy in this country.
Unless I’m mistaken, we fought the Revolutionary War to get away from that exact thing!
- I don’t have the power to oppress anybody.
- The Left has degenerated into The Lord of the Flies. Once somewhat civilized, they have degenerated into vicious children.
- Before you start shrieking “Homophobe!” (and we’ll get to that word) I know that this doesn’t by any means include all gay men, but why do so many of them lisp?
Even if it’s true that they were born gay, were they born with a lisp? I really doubt it. So why do they do it? It has to be an affectation, but what purpose does it serve?
- The word ‘Homophobe’ implies a “fear” of homosexuals. Well, I’m sorry, but I’ve never met a gay person who frightened me in the least.
Unless they mean the fear that homosexual activists are damaging our society. That one I could buy.
The word homophobe, taken literally, means “fear of man”. Wouldn’t that be a more apt term for feminists?
Back to the 70's
Either I'm getting really good at this blogging thing, or I'm very lucky. I'd put my money on the latter, but here's a coincidence for you.
In my post of Sept. 28th, I wrote in regard to the Washington D.C. anti-Bush rally:
The ones (protestors) in their twenties are the kids who romanticize the 60’s and are sorry that they missed the protests, the “free sex” and the partying...
These people preached “peace & love”, yet they ushered in some of the most violent, hate-filled episodes to ever occur on American soil. The SLA, The Black Panthers, bombings and the assassination of police officers were just some of the “groovy” things that these “flower children” devolved into. (emphasis added)
The youngsters at these rallies know nothing of this. They don’t realize that what they are doing could, and eventually will, just as easily degrade into the same quagmire (wink) that the 60’s did.
And now we have this:
AUSTIN, Texas - One person died in an explosion about 100 yards from a full football stadium on the University of Oklahoma campus Saturday. Authorities suspect the bombing, which occurred during the second quarter of the Oklahoma-Kansas State University game, was a suicide.
The late 60's and early seventies were marked by bombings on University campuses, usually of buildings where they had some philisophical disagreement with it's curriculum.
Here's something from the same article that I hadn't heard in other news reports:
The bomb detonated in a courtyard near George Lynn Cross Hall, OU's botany-microbiology building, three minutes before halftime, said Johnson.
Could it be that this guy was some moonbat environmentalist who didn't like them screwing with mother nature's "plant friends"? Could it be that the packed football stadium was just to ensure a large audience? Could it be that he decided to take the bombings of the hippie era to the next level by blowing himself up, too, so as to really make a statement?
That would explain the reported "jihadist" materials found in his apartment: where better to learn how to make a bomb and blow yourself up?
As I said before, these youngsters idolize the 60's culture. The same culture that degraded into sheer, screaming hatred and, eventually, violence. Sound familiar?
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. These college kids have nothing but a sugarcoated version of the real hippie culture. Could this be the beginning of their repeating the mistakes of the past?
For anyone who's seen pictures of this guy, it was pretty obvious that he was no fan of The President. He would have fit right in in any left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-America protest.
Add to that the fact that I've heard him repeatedly being called a "social misfit", and it all fits together. While not all misfits are protestors, all protestors are misfits (my earlier post that I referenced above was actually titled "The Misfits").
Is this a stretch? Maybe. But even if this case isn't the beginning of a repeat of the early 70's bombings, I believe that they will come.
These kids aren't just playing at recreating the "flower power" era, they are, in their own minds, living it.
In my post of Sept. 28th, I wrote in regard to the Washington D.C. anti-Bush rally:
The ones (protestors) in their twenties are the kids who romanticize the 60’s and are sorry that they missed the protests, the “free sex” and the partying...
These people preached “peace & love”, yet they ushered in some of the most violent, hate-filled episodes to ever occur on American soil. The SLA, The Black Panthers, bombings and the assassination of police officers were just some of the “groovy” things that these “flower children” devolved into. (emphasis added)
The youngsters at these rallies know nothing of this. They don’t realize that what they are doing could, and eventually will, just as easily degrade into the same quagmire (wink) that the 60’s did.
And now we have this:
AUSTIN, Texas - One person died in an explosion about 100 yards from a full football stadium on the University of Oklahoma campus Saturday. Authorities suspect the bombing, which occurred during the second quarter of the Oklahoma-Kansas State University game, was a suicide.
The late 60's and early seventies were marked by bombings on University campuses, usually of buildings where they had some philisophical disagreement with it's curriculum.
Here's something from the same article that I hadn't heard in other news reports:
The bomb detonated in a courtyard near George Lynn Cross Hall, OU's botany-microbiology building, three minutes before halftime, said Johnson.
Could it be that this guy was some moonbat environmentalist who didn't like them screwing with mother nature's "plant friends"? Could it be that the packed football stadium was just to ensure a large audience? Could it be that he decided to take the bombings of the hippie era to the next level by blowing himself up, too, so as to really make a statement?
That would explain the reported "jihadist" materials found in his apartment: where better to learn how to make a bomb and blow yourself up?
As I said before, these youngsters idolize the 60's culture. The same culture that degraded into sheer, screaming hatred and, eventually, violence. Sound familiar?
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. These college kids have nothing but a sugarcoated version of the real hippie culture. Could this be the beginning of their repeating the mistakes of the past?
For anyone who's seen pictures of this guy, it was pretty obvious that he was no fan of The President. He would have fit right in in any left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-America protest.
Add to that the fact that I've heard him repeatedly being called a "social misfit", and it all fits together. While not all misfits are protestors, all protestors are misfits (my earlier post that I referenced above was actually titled "The Misfits").
Is this a stretch? Maybe. But even if this case isn't the beginning of a repeat of the early 70's bombings, I believe that they will come.
These kids aren't just playing at recreating the "flower power" era, they are, in their own minds, living it.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Endless Hypocrisy
What do you think would happen if a bunch of white state legislators got together and formed a "white caucus" that would only allow white people to be full members? Oh, blacks could become "honorary" members, but they would never be able to equal the status of whites.
The screams of racism would be deafening and endless. The words, "Jim Crow" and "segregationists" would be heard for years.
Yet, down in Tennessee there is a "black caucus" in their legislature that is doing that exact thing. They won't allow a white man to become a full member of their caucus.
Racial tension is alive and well in the state legislature. A white man, and a first term lawmaker, Representative Stacey Campfield, asked about joining the black legislative caucus, and that’s where the problem started.
“I'm going to keep pushing forward on this,” said Campfiled.
But the bylaws say it’s only for black lawmakers to become full and equal members.
Are they really that blind to the hypocrisy? I doubt it. They just don't see it as hypocrisy. They feel that, because their ancestors were victims 150 years ago, today's rules don't apply to them. Nothing that they do can be wrong, because their great-great-great-grandparents were slaves.
That's really sad, because these "leaders of the community" have the same attitude as the lowliest gang-banger. They both use the same excuse to justify their wrongdoing.
I actually heard one of the caucus members say that Rep. Campfield only wanted to become a member so that he had access to their money. What a fool. What a complete moron. If he can't see that Rep. Campfield is only trying to point out the hypocrisy of their rules, then it's pretty obvious that that guy's constituents would vote for a vole, as long as it was black. This guy was just another greedy, paranoid Lefty, who happens to belong to a very racist caucus.
Isn't that kind of the definition of racism? Not allowing people to join your group because of the color of their skin? I'm pretty sure that that's illegal, especially in the government!
If they continue to deny Rep. Campfield membership, he should do exactly what they'd do in the opposite position: sue to gain membership. I'd love to see any judge in this country try to rule against Mr. Campfield. It would be one more nail in the coffin of liberals (I'd bet anything that there isn't a Conservative in the bunch). Nobody but the most vociferous race pimp (i.e. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) coud possibly defend this.
Rep. Campfield should also form a "White Caucus" and not allow blacks to join, other than on an "honorary" basis, of course.
What could they do?
The screams of racism would be deafening and endless. The words, "Jim Crow" and "segregationists" would be heard for years.
Yet, down in Tennessee there is a "black caucus" in their legislature that is doing that exact thing. They won't allow a white man to become a full member of their caucus.
Racial tension is alive and well in the state legislature. A white man, and a first term lawmaker, Representative Stacey Campfield, asked about joining the black legislative caucus, and that’s where the problem started.
“I'm going to keep pushing forward on this,” said Campfiled.
But the bylaws say it’s only for black lawmakers to become full and equal members.
Are they really that blind to the hypocrisy? I doubt it. They just don't see it as hypocrisy. They feel that, because their ancestors were victims 150 years ago, today's rules don't apply to them. Nothing that they do can be wrong, because their great-great-great-grandparents were slaves.
That's really sad, because these "leaders of the community" have the same attitude as the lowliest gang-banger. They both use the same excuse to justify their wrongdoing.
I actually heard one of the caucus members say that Rep. Campfield only wanted to become a member so that he had access to their money. What a fool. What a complete moron. If he can't see that Rep. Campfield is only trying to point out the hypocrisy of their rules, then it's pretty obvious that that guy's constituents would vote for a vole, as long as it was black. This guy was just another greedy, paranoid Lefty, who happens to belong to a very racist caucus.
Isn't that kind of the definition of racism? Not allowing people to join your group because of the color of their skin? I'm pretty sure that that's illegal, especially in the government!
If they continue to deny Rep. Campfield membership, he should do exactly what they'd do in the opposite position: sue to gain membership. I'd love to see any judge in this country try to rule against Mr. Campfield. It would be one more nail in the coffin of liberals (I'd bet anything that there isn't a Conservative in the bunch). Nobody but the most vociferous race pimp (i.e. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) coud possibly defend this.
Rep. Campfield should also form a "White Caucus" and not allow blacks to join, other than on an "honorary" basis, of course.
What could they do?
Monday, October 03, 2005
Integral Integrity
The Left likes to sneer that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. Well, if you want a true oxymoron, how about "journalistic integrity"?
There was very, very little of it left, especially after the last election (see Dan Rather), but with the attempted persecution of Bill Bennett, they have shed the last of it.
Newspaper after newspaper, pundit after pundit, news program after news program, talk show after talk show, they all took his remarks out of context and played them over and over, ad nauseum.
Anyone with an IQ above that of a slug (which leaves out most of the Left, I suppose) who heard or read what Bill Bennet had actually said before and after the "offensive" comment, could not possibly construe what he said as racism.
All of these so-called "journalists" knew that. They didn't care. Let me repeat that: these "guardians of truth" knew exactly what they were doing, and they didn't care!
These arrogant fools, who crow about being the epitome of righteousness, are perfectly willing to trash the truth for no other reason than to help their political cause. I would say that they should be ashamed of themselves, but I know better. The Left, of which most "journalists" are a part, has no shame. They have no morals. They have no pride. They have no honor.
All they have is a political ideology, which trumps, literally, everything in their lives. I'd almost feel sorry for these pathetic creatures if, in their suicidal self-hatred, they weren't threatening to bring us all down with them.
It doesn't take a shrink to link their own self-hatred to the hatred of their country. And make no mistake: no matter how "offended" they get when its suggested otherwise, they hate this country!
Don't believe me? Then riddle me this:
Why do they screech about the "oppression" of women in this country while trying to explain away other countries' cultures where dogs get to ride in the back seats of cars, while women are assigned to the trunk?
Why do they continually whine about the "persecution" of gays in this country, while never saying a word about other countries that execute gays for being gay?
Why have they always railed against America for "destroying" the environment, while ignoring Communist regimes that have dumped radioactive and/or toxic waste directly into rivers and oceans?
Why do they scream about "the poor" in this country, while ignoring the fact that our "poor" would be considered wealthy in many nations, and middle class in their beloved Europe.
Why do they decry racism in this country, while siding with a people who have vowed to eliminate an entire race of people (see Arabs vs. Israel)?
Why? Because they couldn't care less about whatever supposed "cause" that their whining about. They don't care about what's happening in other countries. Deep down, they hate themselves. They are miserable. They hate their country because it is part of themselves.
Just as American society is supposedly responsible for crime and poverty, they also see it as being responsible for their own misery.
Thus, their hatred of America.
To them, society is seen as the kids in elementary school who made their lives miserable. They can't get beyond that! Everyone else is all grown up now but, just as they're stuck in the 60's policy-wise, they're stuck in elementary school, emotionally.
Perhaps that's why they insist on calling themselves "progressive": because they realize that they've never progressed beyond childhood, but they don't want anyone else to know that. So, like a child pretending to be what he's not, they will call themselves what they want others to think they are.
And their brothers who call themselves "journalists" are no different. They hate this country because its society represents the people who teased and bullied them when they were children, and they'll do anything to get back at that society.
It's no wonder that they hate right-wing bloggers: very, very few of us will put anything on the net that we're not sure of, nor will we intentionally twist people's words in order to attack them.
That's called real integrity, and they hate that.
There was very, very little of it left, especially after the last election (see Dan Rather), but with the attempted persecution of Bill Bennett, they have shed the last of it.
Newspaper after newspaper, pundit after pundit, news program after news program, talk show after talk show, they all took his remarks out of context and played them over and over, ad nauseum.
Anyone with an IQ above that of a slug (which leaves out most of the Left, I suppose) who heard or read what Bill Bennet had actually said before and after the "offensive" comment, could not possibly construe what he said as racism.
All of these so-called "journalists" knew that. They didn't care. Let me repeat that: these "guardians of truth" knew exactly what they were doing, and they didn't care!
These arrogant fools, who crow about being the epitome of righteousness, are perfectly willing to trash the truth for no other reason than to help their political cause. I would say that they should be ashamed of themselves, but I know better. The Left, of which most "journalists" are a part, has no shame. They have no morals. They have no pride. They have no honor.
All they have is a political ideology, which trumps, literally, everything in their lives. I'd almost feel sorry for these pathetic creatures if, in their suicidal self-hatred, they weren't threatening to bring us all down with them.
It doesn't take a shrink to link their own self-hatred to the hatred of their country. And make no mistake: no matter how "offended" they get when its suggested otherwise, they hate this country!
Don't believe me? Then riddle me this:
Why do they screech about the "oppression" of women in this country while trying to explain away other countries' cultures where dogs get to ride in the back seats of cars, while women are assigned to the trunk?
Why do they continually whine about the "persecution" of gays in this country, while never saying a word about other countries that execute gays for being gay?
Why have they always railed against America for "destroying" the environment, while ignoring Communist regimes that have dumped radioactive and/or toxic waste directly into rivers and oceans?
Why do they scream about "the poor" in this country, while ignoring the fact that our "poor" would be considered wealthy in many nations, and middle class in their beloved Europe.
Why do they decry racism in this country, while siding with a people who have vowed to eliminate an entire race of people (see Arabs vs. Israel)?
Why? Because they couldn't care less about whatever supposed "cause" that their whining about. They don't care about what's happening in other countries. Deep down, they hate themselves. They are miserable. They hate their country because it is part of themselves.
Just as American society is supposedly responsible for crime and poverty, they also see it as being responsible for their own misery.
Thus, their hatred of America.
To them, society is seen as the kids in elementary school who made their lives miserable. They can't get beyond that! Everyone else is all grown up now but, just as they're stuck in the 60's policy-wise, they're stuck in elementary school, emotionally.
Perhaps that's why they insist on calling themselves "progressive": because they realize that they've never progressed beyond childhood, but they don't want anyone else to know that. So, like a child pretending to be what he's not, they will call themselves what they want others to think they are.
And their brothers who call themselves "journalists" are no different. They hate this country because its society represents the people who teased and bullied them when they were children, and they'll do anything to get back at that society.
It's no wonder that they hate right-wing bloggers: very, very few of us will put anything on the net that we're not sure of, nor will we intentionally twist people's words in order to attack them.
That's called real integrity, and they hate that.
Working My Way Back To You
I'm happy to report that I'm almost done playing lumberjack. In a couple more days I should be able to remove my red and black plaid shirt, my suspenders and my hobnailed boots and tell the line of singing Canadian Mounties to go home. The I can go back to my normal, insane schedule.
I feel like I've been hit by a truck, but at least I can see my daughter's swingset now, though it's totalled. I can also see my neighbor's house again, which isn't quite so good. I can't begin to estimate how many tons of wood I've moved in the last week-and-a-half, but my body tells me that it was a bunch.
So, hopefully, I'll be back to ranting and troll-baiting in a few days. I really don't feel that I've done my blogging justice lately. I don't like it, but you have to have priorities. And when I thought about looking helplessly out my window at these snow-covered trees all winter long, it had to take top priority. That would have driven me insane.
Thanks for your patience, folks.
I feel like I've been hit by a truck, but at least I can see my daughter's swingset now, though it's totalled. I can also see my neighbor's house again, which isn't quite so good. I can't begin to estimate how many tons of wood I've moved in the last week-and-a-half, but my body tells me that it was a bunch.
So, hopefully, I'll be back to ranting and troll-baiting in a few days. I really don't feel that I've done my blogging justice lately. I don't like it, but you have to have priorities. And when I thought about looking helplessly out my window at these snow-covered trees all winter long, it had to take top priority. That would have driven me insane.
Thanks for your patience, folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)