Thursday, December 13, 2007
A few years back, my daughter used to do that: "Whoever wants ice cream, raise your hand!"
If the Dhimmocrats want to use their fellow children as moderators, all well and good. But when are Republicans just going to say, "enough!"?
Good for Fred Thompson for finally putting the hostile little girl from The Des Moines Register in her place. When Liberals act like nasty little children, they should be treated like nasty little children.
It's just too bad that they waited until the last debate. They all should have done that from the beginning.
At the very least, Republicans should insist on at least one moderator in each debate who isn't a liberal trying to make Republicans look bad.
That way, we'd at least have some adult supervision.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Al Gore has come under fire for making personal gain from his mission to save the planet – after charging £3,300 a minute to deliver a poorly received speech.
The former American Vice-President was also accused of being "precious" at the London event, demanding his own VIP room and ejecting journalists, despite hopes the star-studded gathering would generate publicity for the fight against global warming....
"Al uses his position for great personal gain. He goes from event to event delivering a similar speech, earning a large fee, and a lot of the time he doesn't actually inform the audience.
"He refused to speak to journalists and security would usher away VIP guests and the Press.
"He was being very precious and demanded his own VIP room before the event, where he held his own exclusive reception.
"The other guests were cut off. It was very clear that many guests were disappointed by this."
The only people who will be surprised by this are his fellow disciples/Liberals who believe that Saint Algore can do no wrong. They are, of course, the same people who were surprised every time that Bill and Hillary were caught lying.
They are, of course, the same people whom Lenin called "useful idiots".
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
But, the intelligence that said that Sadaam Hussein had WMD's was "cooked up" by the Bush Administration as an excuse to attack Iraq and steal all of their oil (which, by the way, we seem to be still waiting for...).
And yet, the Liberals will see no contradiction whatsoever.
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
Friday, November 30, 2007
ROCHESTER, N.H. - A man claiming to have a bomb walked into 's storefront campaign office Friday and took at least two hostages, police and witnesses said.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Marines plan to buy fewer bomb-resistant vehicles than planned despite pressure from lawmakers who are determined to spend billions of dollars on the vehicles.
Nowhere in the story does it even hint that part of the reason is that IED attacks have plummeted, and that we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the Iraq campaign in the War against the Islamist death cult.
And, of course, the sickening part about pork-hungry politicians who are "determined" (!) to spend millions of dollars of our tax money on things that the Marines don't even want, just to keep the campaign contributions flowing in.
I don't know who's more disgusting, the press or the politicians.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Libs, ignoring the reality of the situation as they always do, were up in arms because loan applications from minorities were being rejected more often than those from non-minority applicants (which, as usual, includes Asians, who are a minority in this country). It never occurred to these Leftist morons that the banks were rejecting applications based on income and credit status and not on race.
And so, under threat of legislation and penalty, lenders were forced to give home loans to people who really had no business buying a house, regardless of race.
And now the housing market has gone bad (or, more accurately, back to normal), interest rates have risen, equity has plummeted, and people with Adjustable Rate Mortgages are being foreclosed upon because they can't pay their mortgages. Why? Because many of them are...low income earners!
So who's fault is it that these people took out loans that they couldn't afford? Is it Jesse Jackson and the rest of the left-wing race-industry's fault for strong-arming banks into giving these people loans that they should never have taken out in the first place?
Don't be silly. Nothing is ever the result of bad decisions made by liberals. Their role in the whole matter has been thrown down the memory-hole, never to be seen again.
No, it's all the fault of "predatory lenders" who were "greedily" fooling stupid low-income people into buying houses that they couldn't afford. The borrowers weren't at fault. In the eyes of the Left, poor equals stupid and easily-fooled (they do, after all, vote for Democrats). They just didn't know what they were getting into. There were too many words on the papers that told them what would happen if they didn't pay the loan.
The Liberal/Democrat Party should really rename itself the Wile E. Coyote Party: they get a bright idea, implement it, and it backfires with disastrous results. And, like Wile E. Coyote, the damage is immediately forgotten and it's on to the next foolish idea - which will also blow up in their face and be forgotten. Ad infinitum.
The only difference is that Wile E. Coyote doesn't blame the ACME company for his bad decisions.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Police: Bus stop attack was a hate crime
A woman attacked at a bus stop in St. Paul on Monday was the victim of a hate crime, police said.
Cut in the face with a knife, the woman was taken to Regions Hospital in St. Paul and treated for a laceration. Police said she was not seriously injured.
The suspect, who was arrested on suspicion of felony assault, approached the victim at a bus stop on the 800 block of Payne Avenue in St. Paul near York Avenue, police said.
He started yelling at her for no apparent reason, used racial slurs and told her to "get out of here," police said. Then he left the scene but came back with a knife and said,"I thought I told you to leave." He then attacked her with a knife, police said.
According to court documents, the suspect has an extensive record.
Police said the investigation is ongoing.
First of all, let's note that the neighborhood is in what we would call a "bad part of town". And that's putting it mildly.
Isn't it odd that, other than mentioning "racial slurs", the story never mentions why it's being considered a hate crime? No mention of either person's race at all. Wouldn't any normal person think that that little piece of information might relate to the story?
If you know the StarTribune, it doesn't take much thought to realize exactly who the suspect is: a member of one of their favored minority classes of whom nothing derogatory shall ever be said. If the victim were a white male, I guarantee you that you'd know about it. Mostly because the story would cover half of the front page, rather than a tiny story on page 8 of the "B" section.
On the bright side, the police were allowed to label it a hate crime. That in itself is somewhat amazing when you consider the fact that St. Paul is just slightly to the right of Minneapolis, which is slightly to the Left of Moscow in the heyday of the Soviet Union
Saudi court hands jail term, doubles lashes for victim of gang rape
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Saudi court sentenced a 19-year-old woman victim of gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes — more than double than in her initial sentence for being in the car of a man who was not her relative, a newspaper reported Thursday.
Nothing shocking there.
And here's the link to the story on the National Organization for Women's website:
Oh, wait. There isn't one.
Nothing shocking there, either.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
They'll take it all...
Letter on "extra-hard assignments" for independent farmers from M. Ye. Boncharnikova, Central Black Earth Oblast, 1932
The rural commission gave us the extra-hard assignment of [delivering] 150 poods of grain: a hundred poods of winter wheat and fifty poods of spring-sown wheat. I wasn't able to fulfill such an assignment in view of the fact that there are three in my family and we have three plots of land. . . in all fifteen sazhens. I delivered fifteen poods of grain, and that's the most I can do. . . . My husband is an old man of sixty eight, unfit for work, and my boy is twelve, and I'm forty seven. The commission didn't take our circumstances into consideration. They took our horse with its harness, the new harness we purchased and the young horse, our seven sheep, twenty five poods of flour, two fur coats, two homespun coats, twelve arshins of ordinary cloth for leg wraps, one pair of felt leg wrappings, one curried hide, two pair of warm women's boots, one pair of leather men's boots, nine pieces of sun-bleached linen, four warm shawls, two sarafans, two mugs, four knives, two ropes, and so forth. When they came to take all these things, my husband wasn't home. I didn't want to let them take them. They hit me and tied me up, lay me face down and abused me. . . . They left me with nothing to my soul and they also took the seven solid boards that we had ready for our coffins, and one saddle and thirteen hens. I petition . . . to restore my house to me, that is, my hut, and return the property of mine indicated above.
- Stalinism as a Way of Life co-edited by Lewis Siegelbaum and Andrei Sokolov
If you want to see where the Democrat/Leftists are taking us, you need to read this book of letters and reports from Soviet archives. The Hell that these people went through, with the help of the useful idiots in this country, is astounding.
Friday, October 26, 2007
CAIRO, Egypt - sympathizers have unleashed a torrent of anger against Al-Jazeera television, accusing it of misrepresenting 's latest audiotape by airing excerpts in which he criticizes mistakes by insurgents in Iraq.
Users of a leading Islamic militant Web forum posted thousands of insults against the pan-Arab station for focusing on excerpts in which bin Laden criticizes insurgents, including his followers.
No matter how loyal you've been in the past, if you step out of line and criticize any part of the agenda, you are attacked (see Larry Summers).
It's just incredible how closely the two resemble each other. Or maybe it's not so incredible when you really think about it.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The surprise was in the degree of voter disenchantment. The poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal showed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfavorable rating had moved past the 50 percent mark -- 51 percent, to be precise. His favorable rating was 32 percent, 2 points lower than embattled, lame duck President George W. Bush.
Now that he's looking at losing the most precious thing in his life - power - I'd almost bet that we don't hear much more out of Harry Reid from now on.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
9. She points out their faults - they hate that.
8. She looks better in a dress than they do - both their "men" and their women.
7. She's smarter and more clever than they are - and not afraid to rub it in.
6. She has fun poking them with sticks through the bars of their cages.
5. She's not the least bit intimidated by them.
4. She sneers at them.
3. She makes fun of them.
2. She ridicules them.
1. She right about them.
Ann Coulter embodies the people that tormented those who have become Liberals all through their lives. She brings back the unbearable memories of having their self-esteem devastated all through their formative years (why do you think that they're so obsessed with self-esteem in the government schools today?).
Ann Coulter is like an unquiet ghost from their past that endlessly haunts them.
Pretty racist & sexist, huh?
But millions of black people will vote for Barack Obama for no other reason than he's black.
And millions of women will vote for Hillary Clinton for no other reason than she's female.
So why wouldn't I vote only for a person whose skin-color and genitalia match my own?
Because I'm not an idiot, that's why.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
They think that she can win.
Think about exactly when the Democrats went completely off the rails. It was the second that President Bush won the Presidential election in November of 2000. Even while the recount was going on, most of them knew that Bush had won, whether they wanted to admit it or not.
It was bad enough for them when Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, but when we took the White House too, it propelled them back in time to their miserable childhoods, when they always lost at everything - physically, socially, academically - you name it. Living life as perpetual losers and misfits is, in fact, what made them into the Leftists that they are today. Just look at any anti-Bush - err, anti-war - protest and you'll recognize the same losers that you went to school with.
They can't bear to lose again. If they're not actually psychotic at this point, they would certainly be so after another loss. It would bring back just too many bad memories and, of course, make them feel bad.
And they figure that they've had enough of that for one lifetime.
And so, they're willing to ignore what an absolute scumbag they would be putting back into the White House. Not to mention Hillary's felonious husband. They don''t care. To them, the end always justifies the means.
Especially when it keeps them from reliving the Hell of their depressing childhoods.
Friday, October 05, 2007
There has never been a Leftist organization that didn't feature a good, old-fashioned purge. In fact, they are usually a recurring thing, happening whenever someone new takes (or is trying to take) power. Real elections and the orderly transfer of power doesn't work in a Leftist society. You have to murder (sometimes figuratively but, more often, literally) your rival political enemies. If they thought they could get away with it, those on the Left would have already put all of those mentioned above up against the wall and shot them.
Leftist "revolutions" always start with the purging of those who are not on the Left (they eventually begin infighting and killing other Leftists with differing viewpoints, but that's another post). The lucky ones are sent to "re-education camps" where they are tortured and brutalized. The not-so-lucky ones are murdered outright because their ideas and their stature threaten the Leftists. Truth and ideas are just as threatening to the Left as guns and soldiers.
Make no mistake: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Noam Chomsky, and the rest of the cold, dead-eyed, hate-filled Leftists in positions of power are exactly the kind of people who have ordered such purges* in the past. And the mindless, shrieking, hysterical dolts who follow them (you can see them at any anti-war protest) are exactly the kind of people who carried out those orders.
What would be frightening if I thought that it were true, is that many of these people apparently believe that we are on the verge of a new "revolution". They mistake the volume of their howling for actual numbers. They make so much noise that they seem to honestly believe that the entire country (other than the Conservatives, of course - you can't have a revolution without a demon to blame all troubles on) is howling along with them. Another thing about Leftists is that they never learn from history. Eventually, as in the 1960's and 70's, they will go too far and they will find that the American people are anything but on their side. We will run out of tolerance and patience and marginalize them into even more complete irrelevance just as we did 30 years ago.
But a large portion of them do believe that their lust for power over others is about to be satisfied. They have control of Congress and believe that the White House is theirs for the taking. And that is why they are attacking their enemies with even more visciousness and lying than usual (and you didn't think that it was possible!). They're gleefully warming up for the inevitable purge.
*That link is from The National Review, April 1977 - 2 years after we had left Vietnam. If you need a refresher on what happened after we surrendered (or "redeployed" as the Democrats like to sweeten it up), it's a great article, as is the website it comes from.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Suddenly, one day, he decides to insult them?
Only a Liberal could be stupid enough to find any logic in that.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Luckily, they missed.
God, please help us.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Excuse the vulgarity, but what a pussy!
In the beginning of the video you get the loudmouthed, self-righteous arrogance that only the ill-informed Leftist can seem to muster. You get the conspiracy theories of "rigged" elections and "Skull and Bones" and, of course the "impeach Bush" comments. I'd say that he's almost a stereotypical useful idiot but, when they all act the same, is it really a stereotype?
Then you get the "Don't tase me, bro!" comment. What a moron! If you're down on the ground being held by a bunch of cops and you can't finish a sentence without using the word 'bro', your extremely low I.Q. is painfully obvious to all. These are the people who actually believe that they're the "intellectual elite".
If I was a cop, I would have tased him just because of that stupid comment. If you look at the video, I'm not so sure that wasn't the case.
And then you get a minute of him squealing like a little girl: "Ohhh! Ohhhhh! Oh God! Ohhhhhhhh! Oh God!" Come to think of it, that's probably what his cell-mate heard from him in jail, too.
But he is one of the "men" of the Left. Most of their women are tougher than they are. Hell, my eight-year-old daughter is tougher than he is.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Yes, I have finally reached the point where I agree with the Left: it’s time to pull out.
Time to pull out of the U.N.
They're worse than useless: they actually harm the very people whom they profess to protect. It's nothing more than a corrupt men's club for tyrants, dictators and/or genocidal terrorist nations.
We're wasting our time and money there. It's time to start a new organization that's dedicated to upholding real human rights, freedom and Democracy.
Time to pull out of the Geneva Convention.
Why not? America and its allies are the only countries that pay anything more than lip-service to it anyway.
China holds our pilots in direct contradiction to the Geneva Convention, Iran takes British sailors hostage in direct contradiction to the Geneva Convention, Palestinians, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah hide amongst civilians to escape retribution for intentionally killing other civilians - and I'm pretty sure that beheading your hostages isn't approved anywhere in the articles of the Convention.
The Geneva Convention only works when fighting civilized people. The U.N. only works when it's being run by civilized people. Neither are true today. Both institutions are being used against us by a bunch of savages (and that includes Communist countries such as China).
We don't need (or want) to turn into mirror images of those savages, but there's no reason that we should enable - or dignify - these reprobates by attending their meetings or adhering to archaic rules that force us to let known enemy combatants go free.
Once upon a time there was an organization called The League of Nations. It was the predecessor of the United Nations. It failed and was disbanded. The U.N. has obviously failed, but too many people make too much money from it for it to ever be disbanded.
But that doesn't mean that those of us who believe in truth and freedom can't secede.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
He didn't have the rifle next to him like he usually does in these videos.
He'll probably start lecturing us on gun-control next. He loves those Democrats!
Monday, September 10, 2007
I would sell my soul to, just once, see someone being interrogated by the likes of Loretta Sanchez, Teddy Kennedy or Barbara Boxer say, "That's a stupid question. Why don't you quit playing to the Kos Kids so that we can get on with this serious business at hand?".
The shrieks of self-righteous, arrogant outrage would be music to the ears of Conservatives, Republicans and, I'm sure, a huge portion of middle America. I guarantee you that the general reaction would be, "It's about time!" The reason that the approval ratings of Congress are so low is that they are seen as arrogant rulers who are not to be questioned by anyone whom they deem to be "beneath" them.
The beauty of it would be that it would be just too juicy for the 24/7 news networks not to play over and over again, showing these people for exactly who they are.
Of course, that person would never be confirmed to anything by the ruling party, but so what? Some day the administration should put somebody up for some confirmation (Attorney General?) who doesn't care whether they get the job or not, just to make that statement.
It'll never happen, of course. It doesn't matter how vicious, insulting and nasty the Democrats get, the Republicans just refuse to play hardball - or even to point out their nastiness. They just sit there and pretend that their honor hasn't just been insulted. They just answer the question.
The Democrats in Congress are no different than the Democrats in the "real world": they are children. And, when they aren't called on their childish behavior, they smirkingly feel like they just got away with something. If, some day, Republicans had the nerve to point out their childishness, the resulting ugly tantrum that they'd throw would be invaluable for showing people just whom they are voting for.
And, more often or not, they were on rusty, old pieces of junk belching out blue smoke into our fragile atmosphere. Maybe not as much as Al Gore's Lear jet trips, but the stupidity and/or blindness to their own hypocrisy is the same.
For lack of anything better to do, and simple curiosity, I did an image search on Yahoo! for "bumper sticker". It was really no surprise when I found that almost every one that had anything to do with politics was from the Leftist point of view:
It's no surprise. As I've always said, for all of their talk of being the "intellectual elite", the vast majority of those on the Left are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. Any argument much beyond "Cheney is Satan" immediately confuses them.
It's the reason that they have no ideas. It's the reason that any "debate" with them shortly turns into sneering false-condescension (born of their insecurity) and personal insults on their part.
It's possible that some of them are actually somewhat intelligent...but they don't know how to think. And the two things are not the same.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Steve Sack's Aug. 31 cartoon of Fred Thompson "testing the waters" makes me wonder how the ex-senator would govern if he became president. Although it became obvious to everyone that Thompson has been running for president, he refused for months to declare his candidacy so he could maintain secrecy about contributions and not have to abide by the rules that govern declared candidates. Secrecy and disregard for the rule of law have been hallmarks of the Bush administration. The last thing this country needs is more of the same.
- MARY VRABEL, MINNEAPOLIS
How much do you want to bet that this dolt voted for Bill Clinton - twice! - in the 1990's? And how much do you want to bet that, if Hillary is nominated by the Democrat Party, Mary will vote for her, too?
It can't be conscious hypocrisy. It has to be just plain stupidity.
Welcome to the world of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Letters to the Editor page. If you're ever out of material for your blog, it's a goldmine.
UPDATE: After a brief search, Mary Vrabel's name just happens to turn up on Peacemakersite.org's list of grant recipients. She's apparently (surprise!) a public school teacher in Minneapolis. It's no wonder that she's blinded by ideology when she's getting financial help from a group who gives out money for things like "Restorative Circles", "Bullying prevention", "Respect", "Anger management" and every other left-wing, feel-good fad out there.
Is it any wonder that inner-city schools are crap?
"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations..."
"the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes..."
Is it just me, or is everything that Osama bin Laden said the exact same things that Democrat voters read and hear - and believe - in the MSM every day?
Could it be that bin Laden has been closely following the problems with "real estate mortgages" in America?
Osama, like the Democrat voters in this country, apparently has no idea that the media from which they get their "news" is completely biased towards the Democrats. His belief that the MSM in this country actually represents what most people think proves that they absolutely dominate the "news" that comes from America.Its no wonder that he endorses the Democrat Party.
Friday, September 07, 2007
When Steve Cohen, a white man, was elected last year to represent mostly black Memphis in Congress, it was seen as a sign that racial divisions were fading in this Southern city.
But less than a year later, Cohen is facing a movement led by black pastors and political activists to defeat him in 2008 and send a black representative to Washington instead.
"He's not black, and he can't represent me. That's the bottom line," the Rev. Robert Poindexter told a local newspaper after a meeting last week of the Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association at which Cohen was jeered and booed.
The black preachers have other grudges against Cohen: He was the primary force behind the creation of the lottery in Tennessee; he spoke out against a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; and he complained about a reference to Jesus in a prayer before a state Senate session.
Hard to pick sides on that one. The ideological stupidity kind of cancels each side out.
We on the Right are the train passing in the night, the airplane flying overhead, the barking dog, the thunderstorm that threatens to wake them from their dream and bring them back to hated reality.
That is why they hate us.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
To make a long story short, if she is elected President, the first Clinton Presidency is probably going to look tame compared to hers. Hillary's arrogance, paranoia, greed and hatred will drive her to do things that will result in an unending series of scandals that the Right will be only too happy to go after her for.
I should have known that it wouldn't take that long for a Clinton to be caught breaking the law:
DALY CITY, Calif. -- One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.
A word of warning to the Democrat Party: If you elect a woman who believes that her "vision" for America trumps the law (i.e. the end justifies the means), she will be impeached, and she will be convicted. She truly believes that she is above the law. Anyone who is that arrogant will inevitably leave evidence of their wrongdoing, because they will be incapable of seeing it as wrong. The Constitution is meaningless to someone like her, because she knows what is best.
It's pathological narcissism.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
That was stupid.
To those of a religious persuasion, it was an insult that he should have a sudden "death row conversion" when his career was on the line. It was about as believable as the huge 50 pound mega-Bible that Bill Clinton used to carry around so that the cameras didn't think that he was carrying a copy of Hustler out of church.
And for the atheistic Left, the mere mention of the "G-word" was enough to doom him in the Liberal MSM. He'll never get another word of sympathy from them. I'm sure that they didn't believe him either, but he brought religion up on national TV, where some hick might actually believe him and look into that whole "God thing" for themselves. After all, if these people are stupid enough to watch football instead of bad off-Broadway plays, they can be easily duped into anything!
No, Michael, the correct play would have been to make a huge donation to PETA as penance for harming an animal, and then buy a Prius and profess your devotion to "the savior" Al Gore.
They still wouldn't believe you, but that doesn't matter. They don't really believe in any of it themselves. The important thing would be the money and the publicity for the "cause" of Global Warming, which is how they get otherwise semi-rational adults to pay attention to them.
If Vick had done that, he would have been an instant hero. All of his cruelties to those poor dogs would have been thrown down the memory hole never to be seen in the MSM again. The next time you saw a newspaper story about this episode would be a small paragraph on page 28 of the classified section.
And, if his football career went down the tubes, I'm sure that Pope Al would appoint him as Archbishop of Georgia. After all, Al Gore made $100 million with his new church. An NFL quarterback's salary looks like chump-change next to that.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Number of convictions related to the “most corrupt ever” Bush Administration: 1 (Scooter Libby).
Number of convictions related to “the most ethical administration ever” Clinton Administration: 47
And that number doesn't even begin to tell the tale. Here are some amazing and, apparently, memory-holed facts from that Progressive (i.e. Liberal) website:
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign (odd, how Pope Al's record of scumbaggery has been completely forgotten - even by most Conservatives - The Exile).
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
(I seem to remember about a million Liberals complaining about the cost of the Starr investigations - even to this day. - The Exile)
That website (The Progressive Review) is an absolute goldmine of information about the Clinton scandals. It is really interesting because it was put together by a bunch of Left-wing Liberals. If that's any indication of how the Left really feels about the Clintons, Hillary is toast.
Here's a nice little list that they put together:
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
And, the next time they whine about Alberto Gonzales (or anyone else) not remembering something during an investigation, there's a really great list of Clinton and Co.'s sudden memory lapses there, too.
It just amazes (but doesn't surprise) me how those on the Left can so brazenly assert that the Bush administration is so corrupt, while completely ignoring the fact that the current front runner for their party's Presidential nomination was neck-deep in an administration that had a record that looked like something from a Mafia criminal indictment.
I've got some serious problems with the Bush administration, but corruption isn't one of them. The Left can howl at the moon all they want, but if you present the facts to them, this administration probably is the "most ethical" in a long time, if not ever. Ronald Reagan's administration had an even worse track-record than Bush does.
But none of that matters. It's propaganda. The Left knows that if they repeat it often enough, the fools who will follow them will believe it. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to fit their neuroses.
For 150 years the Democrats did everything that they could to keep blacks in this country down. They were pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow, pro-segregation…and then, suddenly, they turned on a dime and decided that blacks were “victims” that needed their help. And it was incredibly sudden as far as political trends go. Within about 5 years in the mid-sixties , the Left suddenly became the black man’s best friend and savior. Why?
In the 1960’s the Left decided that they could use the blacks in this country to help in their “revolution”. The way that they recruited blacks was to tell them that they were victims of racism and were being cheated by “whitey”.
Oddly, most of this planting of resentments actually came after the Civil Rights Act was passed. immediately after. Why, at the moment when the future of blacks in America looked so bright, would the Left discourage and alienate them? You see, the Left couldn’t risk giving the CRA time to work because it may actually pacify the blacks that they so desperately wanted as troops for the “revolution”. If the Left would have left blacks alone to become mainstream Americans, they would have lost millions of potential soldiers.
Does that sound cynical or, perhaps, conspiratorial? Perhaps. But consider the fact that radical Tom Hayden was calling the Black Panthers “America’s Vietcong”. Or that the Students for a Democratic Society called them the “vanguard of the revolution”. In other words, the blacks were going to be the ones in the streets being shot at when the “Revolution” finally started. The leaders of the Left, like the so-called “armchair generals” and “chickenhawks” whom they constantly mock, would manage the whole thing from a safe distance.
It’s also important to remember that the whole Leftist agenda was being stage-managed by the Soviet Union, where the treatment of blacks would make the so-called “repression” in America look like a day in Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood. The Soviet Union, in the form of their willing pawns who were the leaders of the Left and their uninformed, misfit followers, were willing to do anything to destroy America; and if that included using blacks as cannon-fodder, so much the better.
In they eyes of the Soviet/Leftist leaders, blacks were savage, uneducated and, most importantly, expendable. Any who survived the battles to bring about the “revolution” could be dealt with later. The Left has never had any use for blacks for anything other than political pawns.
It sounds almost silly talking about an armed revolution in America now, but forty years ago these people were dead serious. They glorified the slaughter that was the Russian Revolution which ushered in the Communists of the Soviet Union. They weren’t against the Vietnam war because so many people were being killed. They were against it because we were beating the Hell out of their Communist Comrades. Killing people wasn’t against their credo. 100 million dead victims of Communist regimes could tell you that…if they could still speak.
What most people don’t realize – and it’s not surprising when you consider that it’s never mentioned by the MSM – is that the Black Panthers, Rosa Parks, even Martin Luther King Jr. were all advocates of Communism. The Left conned them into believing that, under their glorious Socialist Utopia, all people would be equal.
They just forgot to mention that some people would be more equal than others.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Senator Harry Reid (D - Panderland) commented on General Petraeus' upcoming presentation to the Senate today, saying, "While I support the troops, General Petraeus is a baby-killing liar who is nothing more than a minor demon in the Satanic Bush regime. I hope that we can have a civil conversation in the interest of civility and bipartisanship."
Later in the day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi weighed in on the upcoming briefing by the General:
"David Petraeus is a man and, as such, can't be trusted to speak the truth about his vicious, illegal warmongering on behalf of the Nazis in the Bush Administration.
Granted, I'm more of a man than any of the "men" in my party. Come to think of it, so is our current frontrunner in the Presidential campaign. But you can trust what we say because we have different genitalia than the General does."
Hillary Clinton also gave her take on the situation, saying:
"I've always said that we can, and should, do whatever it takes to win in Iraq. I've never doubted for a moment that the Iraq war was a good thing. And I was the first to vote for the surge. There are records of that vote, although my incompetent staff seems to have misplaced them at the moment.
Umm...has anyone seen Bill? Goddamn him! Somebody check the coat closet!"
In a stump speech in New Hampshire John Edwards was quoted as saying:
"Do I look alright? How's my hair?"
Barack Obama had this to say about the present situation in Iraq:
"We should invade Britain, show them pictures of our nuclear bombs, promise that we'll never use them on anyone and then sit down with Bin Laden and Zawahiri and tell them that we're sorry for whatever it is that we did to piss them off.
If that doesn't work, I'll have my beautiful wife, Michelle, give them a verbal lashing."
We attempted to contact Al Gore for a comment, but an aide said that he was taking confession from carbon-sinners at that time and couldn't be interrupted.
Dennis Kucinich was overheard during an appearance at a Star Trek convention saying, "Gandalf? When might I return to the Shire?"
The Demobratz are ready. I don't think that the format has been finalized yet, but I pray to God that the Bush administration has the intelligence to insist that Petraeus' testimony is televised. Nothing could be better than watching the man answer these grandstanding fools who will be questioning him.
Coincidentally, I know where they can get 12 million Mexicans who will work cheap.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Well, Patsy, pamphlets at abortion clinics and protest signs don't count as books.
I'm not sure that I'd believe any poll put out by the Associated (Liberal) Press, but I think that there's a more fundamental flaw: Liberals have an overwhelming need to feel superior to everyone else. And Liberals lie constantly about everything. Put those two together, and how honest do you think they're going to be when speaking to a pollster?
"It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."
No, that would be an easy book to write. To give Liberal writers their due, it is difficult to write a book that says "Conservatives are Nazis" in new and creative ways. Especially when its been said a million times already by a thousand other Liberal authors.
That quote also shows that Patsy hasn't actually read any Conservative books. She's no different than the people who declare Rush Limbaugh evil and "hate-filled"... but have never actually listened to his show. Like all liberals, she just believes what she's told (or has read...hmmm). The Conservative books that I've read focus on taxes for maybe 10% of their content. Most of the books are more focused on how the Left is doing everything in their power to destroy America with their push for Socialism.
OK, I admit that this is an ad hominem attack, but Patsy Schroeder is the girl who cried when she had to drop out of the Presidential race. And the reason that she had to drop out is because she is about as sharp as a marble. I don't know what she's been reading, but it hasn't increased her intelligence by any notable amount.
"Who are ya gonna believe...me or your lyin' eyes?" The Liberals that I know are certainly not big readers. They definitely don't read any more than Conservatives that I know. Quite a bit less, if anything. Personally, I have four different books going at the moment. That may be unusual, but I don't know one Conservative who doesn't have a book or two going at any given time.
And, unlike Patsy Schroeder, I actually listen to people on the other side. I regularly tune in to Air Unamerican radio. Some people think that it's masochistic of me to do so, but I've always found mental disorders fascinating - and it's like a mental institution broadcast to the world on that channel.
Most of the Liberals who call in to the Air Unamerican shows give the impression that they have to move their lips and follow along with their finger when they're reading Curious George. That is, if they're not too stoned to remember where they put the book. These are the people who think that Cindy Sheehan is, like, totally brilliant, you know?
A large part of the mental disorder of Liberalism is their obsessive need to feel more intelligent than other people. It's because somewhere deep inside they suspect that they're really not as smart as their counterparts on the Right. It's the insecurity that you can see in any child and, as we all know, Liberals from Marx to Clinton are nothing more than emotionally stunted children in adult bodies.
And so, a biased poll comes out, Patsy Schroeder reads what she wants to into it, and waves it about like a bloody flag because, in her eyes and the eyes of her political/mental equals, it "proves" that they're smarter than their hated adversaries.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Granted, she may be marginally more articulate than Cindy Sheehan but they both sound like old Valley Girls.
A couple of weeks back, Amanda Carpenter had a column over at Townhall.com that transcribed the speech that Hillary gave to one of the "breakout sessions" at YearlyKos. By my count, she used the phrase, "you know" 43 times in what may have been a half-hour speech.
Here's a sampling:
So, therefore, you know, having people who share our overall goals even if we disagree on tactics or strategy, but understanding where we are trying to take our country is really helpful because then it’s not just one voice or a couple of voices, it’s millions of voices -- and you know I doubt you know that we can’t go back and rewrite history certainly, you know (ouch! -ed.), -- but I think about what if we had the blogosphere in ‘93, ‘94 when I was working on healthcare and you know being hammered and they were raising $300 million dollars and distorting everything we were trying to do and we made our own mistakes but a lot of it was you know, trying to do something that was worth doing which we will get done when I am President finally.
Did I mention the flawless grammar?
Yeah. She's, like, totally brilliant. And so, you know, well-spoken.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
A 1990 survey* by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference found that one-third of black American churchgoers believed that AIDS was a form of genocide. One-third also believed that HIV was produced in a germ-warfare lab, and 40 percent of black college students in Washington, D.C., agreed.
Bush details increased AID package for Africa.
Apparently, after 40 years of listening to Democrats tell them how "victimized" they are, the blacks in this country have gotten a bit confused. Could it be that they believe that Bush is detailing his genocidal plans for Africa in major policy speeches?
Yes, it's just a joke. But if they believe some of the things that are detailed in that article, it wouldn't surprise me much if they did believe that (I particularly like the part about how the first President of the United States was a black man).
You really need to read that article. The people who wrote it, who are black, were actually fired from their talk-radio jobs for pointing out the fact that those conspiracy-theories were ridiculous. The black "community" is even more screwed up than is apparent from the MSM's softball treatment of the subject.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Havana, August 6, 2007 -- There is no doubt that the Cuban authorities will not allow the Cuban people the possibility of watching this documentary by Michael Moore, a leading movie producer and ideological ally of the Cuban regime.
Although it might look contradictory, the propaganda used in the film to discredit the USA health system while trying to highlight the excellence of the Cuban health system, turned out to be considered “subversive” by the Cuban regime. It so happens that he based his arguments on gross lies that do not represent at all the Cuban health drama.
(Tip o' the hat to Josue's Townhall Blog)
Thursday, August 09, 2007
What I want to know is, who thought that this was a good idea...and why?
The current Presidential campaign started, literally, the day after the last election in November '06. Why?
The campaigns used to start about 18 months before the election, giving us 6 months to nominate a candidate in the primaries and a full year for them to get their message out to the "undecided" voter...who didn't pay attention to the campaign until about the last month of the campaign anyway!
Is this really necessary? In today's political climate especially, most people know who they're going to end up voting for. If the rest of them need 2 years to decide whether they're for or against higher taxes, abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues that separate the parties, maybe they shouldn't be voting. If they're that completely ignorant of the issues, do we really want them to be deciding who's running this country?
There was a minor brouhaha last week because somebody suggested that we have a very basic test regarding the issues before letting somebody vote. Many people were horrified at the thought. I, for one, would be all for it. Especially when you consider the Demobratz' tactics of scaring people into voting for them.
Demobratz never have any ideas...they don't need to have any. They just tell the "undecided voters" that Republicans want to take everything away from them and kill them and their families. And the genius in the "undecided voter" category, who pays absolutely no attention to what's going on in this country other than the "American Idol" standings, and who pays no attention to politics until the last month of the campaign, when Demobratz turn into Conservatives, believe every word of what they hear in the MSM and vote Democrat.
I've never seen a poll on the subject, but I'd bet that the vast majority of "Independent" voters vote for Demobratz. You have one part of that category who are too embarrassed to associate themselves with the "liberal" label of the Democrat Party, and the rest are people whose TV's don't often stray from the broadcast TV (i.e. MSM) channels and who believe what they read in the newspapers.
The only thing that a two-year campaign does is to give the Demobratz more time to spin their lies into something that your typical uninformed "Independent" voter will find palatable. It just gives them more time to find a way to demonize the Conservative message (such as it is) being put out by the Republican Party.
The first rule of propaganda is that endless repetition will make your point into the truth in the eyes of those who don't know what's really going on. This endless campaign works right into the hands of the spin-monsters of the Left who need to convince those who don't know better into believing that Socialism will solve all of their problems.
We need to reform the campaign process. I have no hope of eliminating the uninformed from the process. That would just be too easy for the Demobratz to get those very same uninformed voters up-in-arms. "You have a right to be ignorant and vote for us! In fact, we count on it!" If we were to eliminate the uninformed voter, the Demobratz could never win again, and they know it.
However, we need to convince some courageous person in Congress to bring a bill that will limit campaigning to a 1-year period. That would give the candidates a few months to get their message out to the primary voters, and 9 months for them to state their positions to the general public.
If the candidates can't get their message out in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be running.
And, if the "undecideds" can't figure out what they stand for in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be voting.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
Let's hope that this doesn't make me regret coming back to Blogger.
Will that be a disaster for this country? Most assuredly. But think about what will happen when this woman, who once assured us that her husband's administration would be the "most ethical administration in history" obtains the ultimate power.
Bill Clinton wanted power for power's sake. Once he got it, he really didn't care to do much with it. He just wanted the jet-setting lifestyle, the hobnobbing with rich, important people, the money and, of course, to get laid. I always got the sense that Hillary was more angry at him for not instituting a bloodless, Leftist "revolution" than she was about him screwing every woman who got within groping distance.
Bill Clinton was a slacker party-boy. Hillary is a true believer in the Socialist dream.
Hillary has all of the marks of your Leftist dictator: the unquenchable thirst for more and more power, the paranoia, the greed, the narcissism, the naked hatred of her opponents, the unflinching willingness to go to any length to destroy people who stand in her way, the arrogance to believe that her way is the only way and that she can completely change 40,000 years of human nature in a few, short years.
If you look at the years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, other than the sexual escapades, you can see Hillary's fingerprints on all of the scandals. From the Rose Law Firm billing records, to the gathering of FBI files relating to their opponents, to the firing of the White House travel office staff, to Whitewater, to the illegal fundraising, to the last-minute pardons, to the theft of White House belongings...she seems to be the one who was pushing all of this stuff while Bill seemed to be pliant and willing to just go along with it as long as nobody interfered with his fun. In fact, I've often wondered whether that was one of the things that Hillary liked about Bill: his willingness to let her play politics while he just played.
Yes, Hillary caught a lot of flack for all of the above, and more. But it was all filtered through Bill because he was the one who had been elected. She could have been indicted in a criminal court for a lot of that stuff, but going after the First Lady of the United States would have been political suicide for the Republican Party.
Now flash forward to 2009. Hillary is now the elected President of the United States. The Republicans...no...the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is now doing all that they can to stop her from implementing her Socialist dream on this country. They are criticizing her relentlessly. They are questioning her motives and catching her in her lies. They are threatening to take away her power base. What does she do?
She does what she's always done.
She first tries to destroy her enemies. And, as we've seen before, there's a very good chance that not all of her methods will be legal.
She will be desperate to get her policies pushed through. Even more than Bill, I think, she is the one obsessed with the Clinton legacy. In addition, she actually believes that her policies are what's best for the future of the Democrat Party...err... America. And she has already shown that she's willing to use unethical and/or "extra-legal" means to do that.
While she'll tell herself that she's doing it for the good of her party...nay, the good of the country, she will be in a never-ending fundraising mode just as she was in the 1990's. It will be nothing more than greed and lust for power, but she will justify it to herself. And, again, we've seen what lengths she and her cronies are willing to go to for a few dollars more.
To make a long story short, if she is elected President, the first Clinton Presidency is probably going to look tame compared to hers. Hillary's arrogance, paranoia, greed and hatred will drive her to do things that will result in an unending series of scandals that the Right will be only too happy to go after her for.
As opposed to the Left's caterwauling about President Bush's supposed "illegal" activities, Hillary Clinton's activities truly will be illegal. You can bet on it. It's who she is. To her and her Communist cronies, "the end justifies the means", which is nothing more than a different way of saying that "we are above the law".
Thursday, August 02, 2007
What I haven't heard is the comparison between the two for joining the military for nothing more than their own self-aggrandizement.
Beauchamp joined the military so that he could "write a book".
Kerry joined the military to polish his credentials for his planned run for political office.
It's obvious that they were both your typical military-hating Leftists. There is no reason that either of them would have joined the military other than to gain credibility and stave off any criticism in their planned careers. And a huge part of that plan included sucking up to the Left by attacking their former brethren in the armed forces. They both knew that the Liberals were (and are today) desperately in need of military figures who would criticize the current war. And they both knew that the Liberals would ignore their obvious lies (Christmas in Cambodia, anyone?) and embrace them if they did that.
We know all about John Kerry and his lies. He has been completely discredited in everyone's mind except the Kool-aid drinkers, which includes a majority of Massachusetts voters.
But Mr. Beauchamp is another story. And that story is already being swept under the rug by the MSM.
Read this guy's Blogger blog, and you'll see that this guy had absolutely no reason to join the military. None. He's your typical, arrogant faux-intellectual Liberal who seems to like culture for no other reason than to say, "Look how cultured I am!".
In fact, if I didn't know that he married a gal from The New Republic (the very magazine in which his bogus "reports" from Iraq were published), I'd say that he was a beneficiary of Bill Clinton's "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy.
Here's a sample of his writing:
Sliced writsts recovering from barbwire night mission in a furnished 1600's bedroom window open to the stars strained notes The Magic Flute from further down the hall when I'm off work early she brings me coffee and a fresh stack of freshly pressed laundry while struggling through The World According to Garp auf Deutsch...warum?...now you are a citizen of the world, son, so she rents a car to take me to Bamberg this weekend and maybe plane tickets to London the next because through a month of silence and guilt and regret, reciting the Zarathustra quote over and over in your head, "I've always carried a disdain for creatures who considered themselves kind merely because they were clawless"..and you "get it" and you "understand" and you see yourself maybe not for the first time and finally a perfect rearrival of yourself, doch, ja, meine mereshweinkin ist sehr schon...die Welt ist deins...do you come to terms with the past or accept it or apologize and bow or cut free and run...
Yeah. There's a guy who was just aching to join the military and kick some Al Qaeda ass.
And, speaking of his wife, I wonder how she feels now that she's found out that this lying fool claimed that Conservative German blogger Claudia Heym was his girlfriend. Note that the pictures on both blogs are the same ones. This guy copied and pasted himself a beautiful German girlfriend!
Like the Liberal child that he is, even though he planned to be rich and famous, he thought that nobody would dig his lies up. Just like the Liberal child John Kerry thought that nobody would dig his lies up.
They're liars, they're fools and, despite their pretensions of intellectualism, they are stupid. They are no different than the vast, vast majority of Liberals.
It’s so cute when the girls in the Democrat Party try to act tough. It's like watching four-year-olds make pancakes: they always make a mess and screw it up, but it's funny to watch.
It's odd, but I have yet to hear a single Liberal call Obama a “warmonger”, a “chickenhawk” or even an “imperialist”.
I guess declaring war on our allies is OK…if you’re a Democrat; but declaring war on our enemies is not OK if you’re a Republican.
But they don’t have double standards. Nor are they hypocrites. If you doubt it, just accuse them of being hypocrites and watch how (hysterically) indignant they get.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
All of this and more is what we can expect from the loony-Left. It's coming. They can't help themselves anymore. Coming up with "unique" conspiracy theories is a badge of honor for these people now. It's what passes for deep thinking on the Left. It doesn't have to be fact-based, it just has to be complicated enough to make them actually use a tiny bit of what passes for logic amongst the Lefties. Remember: these are the people who can't grasp the concept of paying people not to work and then wondering why we have poor people who don't want to work.
When I was a younger man, we used to have parties on the riverbank under this bridge. It's a big bridge. Here are a few pertinent facts.
It would be nice if the Left in this state didn't try to use this disaster to their political advantage. But they will. It's who they are and what they do. They are power-hungry little Socialist toadies for whom the end justifies the means. And, if using tragedy to advance their political agenda is what it takes, they'll have no qualms about that.
You can watch for the finger-pointing in the most Socialist newspaper in the country, bar none (including the New York Times): The Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Watch a video of one of this fool's speeches sometimes if you have only seen clips and interviews on TV or snippets of his movies.
The impression that I always get is that he's not terribly bright, but he's at least marginally more intelligent than the vast majority of his audience. And those who do out-watt him in the intelligence department want to believe everything that he says anyway.
I've heard him described as "brilliant" many, many times. His supposed brilliance, like the vast majority of those on the Left, really has nothing to do with intelligence. It is more of a low, cunning, animal cleverness that is reminiscent of the brutes who used to run the Soviet Union (and apparently are, once again).
It's not intelligence in the 'thinking' sense. It's a completely calculated position taken by Leftists for no other reason than getting people to pay attention to them. Moore, like all of the misfits on the Left, figured out early in life how to get people to pay attention to him, if not actually like him.
After all, in their self-hating minds, nobody was ever going to like them, so just getting somebody to acknowledge their existence was the best that they could hope for.
It's so easy to see what drives these people: just think about the half-dozen or so kids in your school who seemed to do everything that they could to piss off the "normal" kids in school. They were usually sullen, depressed slobs who had absolutely no social skills whatsoever. They were sneering, arrogant, nasty little creatures who hated everyone and everything associated with "normal" kids.
Because of their personalities, they had no friends...and couldn't figure out why. They just resented everyone for not accepting them as they were. It never occurred to them to ask why anyone would ever want to hang around with somebody like themselves. It also never occurred to them to clean themselves up, try to be decent human-beings and be social. In their eyes, they were "the underdog", and everyone else was just stupid and didn't understand their brilliant, singular outlook on life. The rest of the kids were "sheep".
Fast-forward 10, 20...50 years, and you have Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnel, Noam Chomsky and many thousands of lesser-known Leftists. They are nothing more than the traumatized, resentful children that they were back in school. They never grew up, and the vast majority of them never will.
The only difference is that, after they got out of high school, they found other misfits who were just as hate-filled and resentful as they were.
Throughout their childhoods, they told themselves that they really had no desire to belong to any "clique". They didn't need other people. They were the "lone-wolves". In other words, they lied to themselves (just as they're able to lie to themselves today).
But, once they found a bunch of people whose personalties exactly matched theirs, they discarded every little bit of that thinking and grabbed on to that group of fellow misfits with a death-grip.
"I HAVE FRIENDS!!!" Not knowing what true friendship (or the loyalty that it brings) really is, they figured that the people who had suffered through the same humiliations of life that they had were...friends. And, if not, at least they weren't alone any more.
And so, they were self-inducted into the philosophy that fit them so well: all-encompassing fairness, equality, lack of prejudice and oppression...all enforced with the power of the government.
And, in addition to that, bringing down the system of the "normal kids" (i.e. America) couldn't be more suited to their mindset. They would destroy the normal, age-old sense of community for no other reason than they, personally, couldn't figure out how to operate in that community.
It's been said that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" (I have the T-shirt), but it usually seems to be said in a half-joking way. I assure you that it's not a joke.
Liberalism/Progressivism/Leftism/Socialism/Communism...whatever the mainstream Democrats want to call themselves nowadays, they are nothing more than seriously disturbed children who have gained power in our system.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America .
- President Franklin Roosevelt, 1935 State of the Union speech, predicting the future of his Socialist welfare programs.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Left wants to destroy the healthcare system in this country. As with all Leftist movements, they want everyone to be equally miserable…except for themselves, of course.
The Kool-aid mixers (as opposed to the Kool-aid drinkers) have to look around the world and see what government-run healthcare does to the system. They have to know that it dooms many, many people to long waits, thus prolonging the pain that they must endure. From waiting for hours to get treatment for a broken bone, to waiting month after painful month for more complex procedures such as heart surgery or joint replacement, the patient is forced, by the very people who claim to care about them, to suffer needlessly. And many of them suffer for all of those months only to die before they can get help.
And those on the Left, those who claim to be the “compassionate” among us, couldn’t care less about all of the pain that millions of people will needlessly endure, because socialized healthcare serves as a means to many of their ends.
First of all, it gives them what every Leftist/Democrat craves most: Power over vast numbers of other people. And this wouldn’t be just any power…this would be the power of life-and-death over 300 million people. No drug, no sexual experience, nothing could possibly ever equal the experience of wielding that kind of power if you’re a Lefty. If the pharmaceutical industry could synthesize that feeling into drug form, every Left-winger on this earth would be an instant addict.
But, of course, under the Socialist healthcare system that drug could never be made, because the pharmaceutical companies would have no incentive to invent it.
Personally, I think that the market for prescription drugs is grossly distorted due to the insurance companies’ willingness to pay whatever cost the drug makers demand and pass the cost (and then some) on to the employer/employee’s health plan, but that’s another discussion.
But if the Lefties have their way, they will strip all profit motive from the pharmaceutical companies, because they know that even their beloved Church of the Federal Government couldn’t afford to give away free drugs…even if those companies made only modest profits. Drugs, like healthcare itself, will have to be rationed.
And you can forget about any new drugs. How many helpful drugs did the Soviet Union or China come up with? Why would the drug companies bother pouring billions into developing new drugs if they’re not going to make any profit from it?
And so, the Left will force millions more to suffer and die because of lack of what are now common drugs and because few, if any, new drugs will be created.
But the Democrats, the Leftists, don’t care about anyone else’s pain and suffering. They just want to control. They want to “screw the corporations”. Only they should have that kind of power! Because, of course, only they know how to use that power. Hey, look at how well welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. have turned out!
One more way that a Communist medical system advances the agenda of the Left, who worship death in every form (abortion, euthanasia, etc.), is the fact that many more people would die early and/or unnecessarily.
To those on the Left, every death is to be celebrated (unless it’s Matthew Shepard or an AIDS “victim” or a murderer on death-row) because the world is overpopulated. Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb dressed up a Leftist fantasy as a prediction when he “predicted” that hundreds of millions would die because of overpopulation.
And it’s really no wonder why the Left wants so many people to die: If you can reduce the population by n%, that’s just that many fewer people that their Church of the Federal Government has to take care of. Of course, it never occurs to them that they’d have n% fewer people producing things for their economy. That would require one thing that the Children of the Left have always lacked: The ability to make logical conclusions.
The Left is obsessed with Government-ru(i)n(ed) healthcare. Anyone who thought that it had gone away with Hillary’s “humiliating” defeat in 1993 has forgotten one thing: to be humiliated, one has to have a sense of humility. And to have humility, you have to believe that there is a power greater than yourself.