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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Al Franken

Wendy Wilde

Ed Schultz

And in the Right corner:

Rush Limbaugh

Ron Reagan

Dennis Prager

Intellectual Elite, indeed.

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

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.

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 Right wants to pollute the environment. They want to destroy the earth. Apparently to enrich their friends at the expense of their own children. That's right: the Left thinks that money is more important to us than our children.

That's because they also see us as abusive, controlling parents who have children for no other reason than to have someone to control and abuse. Or because we forced our wives to bear our horrible children instead of aborting them. We couldn't possibly love our children, because we are not members of the "love and peace" gang.

They believe that we are against abortion because we (and by we I mean white males, because they also don't believe that there are more than a handful of female conservatives) want to control women and keep them oppressed by "the Patriarchy".

They honestly believe that when people say that they are against abortion because it may be destroying a human life, that those people are lying. The "pro-lifers" are so evil that they look people right in the eye and lie to them about their motivations. At least the males. Any female that espouses this point is just a "brainwashed, weak-willed victim" of the males, who are probably abusing them, anyway.

They have completely bought into the assertion that any tax cut is designed to further enrich "the rich" and harm "the poor". They really think that we're so evil that we want to kill poor people by giving all of the tax cuts to the rich and letting the poor starve.

Don't any of these people work? If they do, they got a tax cut! Hell, even people who don't pay taxes got a tax cut! Think about that! That's insane! "The Rich" got the smallest tax cut of all, percentage-wise, but that means nothing to the Lefties, because the math is beyond what most third-graders are capable of.

They think that we like war. They actually believe that we bloodthirsty Right-wing extremists love to slaughter our enemies and cause misery throughout the world.

To people who can't grasp consequences and outcomes (just look at the welfare program), and who have been told by their mommies...err...leaders that war is always wrong. it's not surprising that they have that childish view of us. After all, if war is always wrong, why else would you do wage it unless you liked to kill people?

It's too complicated for them to understand that going to war to stop evil, or to stop the killing of even more people, can be the absolutely correct thing to do.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

My Feelings are Offended!

People on the Left are always offended by something or other. They spend their lives parsing people's words and actions, just looking for a reason to be offended. Anything that a Conservative says or does can be twisted into a reason for offense. Hell, Conservatives don't even have to actually say or do anything to offend the Left. They make up conspiracies just so that they can feel offended!

Why? Well, my theory is that they are so used to feeling miserable, so attached to all of their mental baggage, that they're deathly afraid of actually feeling good, especially about themselves. They've felt this way since they really were children, and they know that if they were to let go of their baggage-train, they could no longer make themselves out to be the "underdog" or the "victim". After all, underdogs and victims can't be happy, can they? Not to mention the fact that you'd have to change your entire outlook on life, and to these "progressives", change is bad. Witness their inability to acknowledge any progress that's been made since the 60's.

In fact, this is a little more than a theory. Someone who was very close to me had this problem: she always had to be a victim. She was terrified of being happy so, anytime her life got too close to being normal, she'd do something to throw it into chaos. She had grown so comfortable with her baggage, that the scariest thing in the world for her would be to leave it behind. I'm sure that most of you know someone like this.

This woman had learned, over many years, to use her victimhood to manipulate people. If she didn't have that she would, in her eyes, be powerless. And the power to make people do what she wanted was paramount.

Sound familiar? She knew nothing about politics, but she would have been a perfect liberal.

When she finally straightened her life out, she told me that everything that I had said to her on the subject was exactly true. I, of course, had already known that because of the fact that she would go into an absolute rage whenever I mentioned it. I may not be a genius (well, technically, I guess I am), but reading people's motivations has always been extremely easy for me for some reason. I've been told that I would have made a good psychologist; but every psychologist I ever knew was nuts. Hmmm.

Well, that part got longer and a bit more personal than I had intended, so let's move on, shall we?

How about the whole feeling of being "offended". Being offended is, actually, very, very close to having your feelings hurt, isn't it? Especially if you can't think in a manner that allows you to see the nuances between the two concepts. In other words, if you think like a child.

I believe that when liberals feel "offended" by something, what they really mean is contained in that phrase that every three-year-old has uttered at one time or other, right before bursting into tears of self-pity: "You hurt my feelings!"

Sure, Conservatives are offended by a lot of things, but usually these things are outrageous insults to the norms of society. Trying to get rid of "God" in the public square, crosses in jars of urine, flying airplanes into buildings...in other words, things that are truly offensive and meant to be that way, usually for no other reason than to gain attention.

Liberals, on the other hand, are offended by everything that is a norm. They don't like religion, they don't like the Founding Fathers, they don't like anything that was established before 1963 other than the "Great Society" welfare state. And, other than Roe v. Wade and the parties of the 60's, nothing that came after 1963 was any good, either. Everything else is offensive to them.

As with other liberal phrases, "That's offensive" is just an acceptable adult way for them to say that their feelings have been hurt.

What's Your Point?

Once again, political correctness raises it's ugly head to stifle debate and persecute people for speaking any truth that doesn't agree with the Left.

WASHINGTON – Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats on Thursday demanded that former Education Secretary William Bennett apologize for remarks on his radio program linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.

Mr. Bennett responded that the comments, made Wednesday on his Morning in America show, had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was "morally reprehensible."

The author of The Book of Virtues, answering a caller's question, took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," Mr. Bennett said.

He went on to call that "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

On his show Thursday, Mr. Bennett, who opposes abortion rights, said he was "pointing out that abortion should not be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism ... should be supported or opposed for economic reasons.

"Immoral policies are wrong because they are wrong, not because of an economic calculation."

The Left seems to have a problem, not with the point that Mr. Bennett was trying to make, but with his suggestion that a minority in this country might be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

Well, here's a newsflash for you on the Left: young, black men are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of the violent crimes in this country.

That's the truth. Any of you Lefties want to argue the point? I mean argue the facts, not just call me a racist for pointing out the truth.

You know, I used to think that these moonbats on the Left just twisted the words of people on the Right until they could find a reason to get outraged.

However, since I've been blogging, I think that the truth may be very different: the reading comprehension scores of the Left are very low. They never get the point!

It seems that whenever I have to educate a troll it's not my main point that I have to explain, but one word or phrase in my post.

There seem to be specific words (i.e. black) that, when read by a Lefty, stops them in their tracks and obliterates their memory of anything that they've read before or after. They hit that word and it becomes an obsession that blocks out everything else.

Their subsequent comments focus on that word or phrase whether it has anything to do with the post or not. I'm almost convinced that I could write, "The black cat attacked the mouse", and some troll or other would call me a racist because I used the words "black" and "attacked" in the same sentence. They wouldn't even see the words "cat" or "mouse". That example may be a little extreme, but not very.

And now they've done the same thing to Bill Bennett, a classy, extremely intelligent guy who seems to be naive enough to be bewildered by the Left's reaction to his speaking the truth in trying to make his larger point. This guy believes so deeply in the truth that he can't seem to understand that some people hate it and others are willing to twist it to their own needs.

Go to the Salem Radio Network's website and show your support for Bill. He deserves it.

The Misfits

Forgive me if this is a bit late, but I’ve been busy being…a lumberjack! Leaping from tree to tree, with my girlie by my side! Oh, I’m a lumberjack and I’m OK…Sorry. Got carried away there.

I’m sure that many of you caught the dueling rallies in Washington D.C. on C-SPAN this past weekend.

The contrast between the Left-wing and the Right-wing rallies was incredibly pronounced.

Let’s take a look at the differences, starting with the Left’s rally.

The anti-war, anti-Bush Leftist rally was today’s liberals in microcosm. It was sheer ugliness and hysteria. It was like watching a train wreck: horrifying, yet fascinating.

One thing that struck me when the camera panned across the crowd, was that there were very, very few, if any, people in their 30’s there. They all seemed to be in their early twenties or late 40’s and older.

The ones 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. When I was their age, I romanticized the 60’s, too. I knew nothing about politics, but the music was (and still is) so cool, the freedom that the young people seemed to have back then, the defying of the “authorities” and yes, the free sex and partying were very appealing when I was that age.

The fact is, yes the music was cool, bit it’s message was naïve. The so-called free sex came at the cost of disease, jealousy and unwanted pregnancies. All that partying led to addiction, legal troubles and the fun of watching your friends O.D.

And as far as “freedom” went, these people were, as they are today, locked into a rigid social system that far outdoes anything that the so-called “establishment” ever created. Any dissent with the Leftist party line was crushed mercilessly.

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.

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.

The older ones at the rally were the real ex-hippies who were trying to relive their heyday. They remember it as a time of “meaningfulness”, but it was mostly about the free sex and the partying. They may have convinced themselves otherwise over the years, but they didn’t really care about whatever “cause” they were shrieking about back then, and they really don’t care about it now. Which leads to my next point.

The speakers at the anti-war rally, such as Ralph Nader and Jessica Lange, just seemed like they were acting all worked up. Ralph Nader seemed like he was giving a campaign speech for the ten-thousandth time (which is, basically, true) and couldn’t really get into it. Jessica Lange whom, I must say, looked about 20 pounds overweight and 20 years older, spewed the usual Leftist talking points in the usual hysterical way. She read every word as if reading from a script, which is, after all, exactly what she was doing. Watching this woman it occurred to me that she, like so many on the Left, is a complete idiot who would be speechless if she didn’t have a script in front of her.

In fact, almost all of the speakers at the Left’s rally did nothing but read prepared statements to the crowd of backpack-wearing, shorts and combat boots crowd. They all say the exact same thing, yet they have to read it from a sheet of paper. If you care so much about a subject, don’t you think that you could get by with a few notes instead of reading something verbatim?

One girl grabbed the microphone in a death-grip and screamed for 5 minutes straight about the American “occupation” of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Philippines (?).

When she was done with her shrill rant, she and some friends held up some poorly-made banner and started some odd, stomping “dance” while chanting some stupid rhyme set to the tune of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall”. When they screwed it all up, they all started giggling! It doesn’t seem to be terribly sincere when you can go from a hate-filled, shrieking, hysterical rant, to giggling only 30 seconds later.

Like the rest, she couldn’t care less about her so-called “cause”. The real point of her rant was, “Pay attention to me!!!”

And the people in the crowd, these “freedom-loving individualists”, were all dressed the same. Most of them had backpacks on, sandals or combat boots seemed to be the only choices of footwear (The Princess will be horrified by that), shorts & t-shirt or sundresses were all that covered any torso, bad haircuts and cheesy facial hair (mostly on the “men”) were the order of the day. So much for individuality.

Who are these people? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: these are the misfits, the powerless kids back in school. The ones who had no friends either because they had no personality or, more often, because the personality that they did have was so grating, so adversarial, that no one wanted to hang around with them. And now they’ve all banded together. They’ve finally found a place where they fit in amongst the other misfits.

And they look upon Conservatives as the normal kids who made their lives miserable and whom they so hated.

Which leads us right on in to looking at the “support our troops”, pro-Bush rally.

The people at this rally looked normal. They looked like the people down the block who you wave to as you drive by while they work in their yard.

There were suits and ties, dresses, polo shirts and khakis, jeans and t-shirts…any manner of dress that you can name. These were the real people of America, not the brainwashed, lockstep masses of the Left dressed in their “unique” uniforms that all look alike.

They were all ages, from teenagers, to people who were, obviously, in their 80’s, not just the ex-hippies and the wannabe hippies.

There were no childish chants or any other displays. Just the facts, ma’am.

There was no screaming and ranting. There was plenty of emotion, but no feigned, shrieking “outrage”.

The patriotism and the support for the troops were obviously genuine. These people weren’t just mouthing the words. The people involved in the Leftist rally were, obviously, “supporting” the troops only because they knew that to do otherwise would make pariahs out of them. That’s why they always say, “We support the troops, but…”

Just as 5% of your school consisted of misfits who hated everybody, so today the Left consists of 5% of the population who hate everybody. They’re the same people. They never went through the socializing process that most people went through that taught them how to get along with other people. They had no friends. They lived in their own little world. Their view of the world was whatever their bitter, little minds made it out to be while they sat, alone, in their bedrooms. They wanted to be part of a group, but they were never accepted.

And then, one day, they found “The Left”: a group of fellow misfits who would accept anybody, as long as they “believed” the correct things or, at least, mouthed the words and were willing to be used for political purposes.

And willing they were. They had finally found a group that they could belong to. After spending their entire lives on the outside, craving the personal contact that is so important to children and teenagers, they would “believe” whatever they had to, as long as it meant that they could have “friends”.

As I’ve said before: they don’t care about whatever “cause” they’re currently going into hysterics about. They just want attention and companionship. The alternative, in their minds, is to go back to sitting in their bedrooms by themselves, alone and lonely.

I’d almost feel sorry for them, but they can’t understand that this is no longer high school and all of the “cliques” are gone. We on the Right would gladly welcome them to our side, if they’d just grow up and think for themselves.

I Am Outraged. No, Really!

Can you believe that those jackbooted fascist representatives of the Bush regime have arrested Cindy Sheehan and imprisoned her in their gulag?

I shudder to think what she must have went through in their torture chamber. Based on their standard operating procedure, they must have made her sit in a holding cell for a few minutes until she paid the $50 fine. Oh, the horror of it all! What a courageous sacrifice this woman has made!

What the hell is wrong with these morons? While Cindy was being arrested, they sat and chanted, "The whole world is watching." I'm pretty sure that the rest of the chant got drowned out in the hysteria: "The whole world is watching us make fools of ourselves."

How could any thinking person actually take these people seriously? Their craving for attention is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about human nature.

They are idiots, every last one of them. I don't mean idiots in the "dummy" sense that they use it. I mean that they are truly and honestly stupid. If you can't make the connection between America fighting wars and your right to speak against your government, you are a fool.

Just as in most of the major wars that America has fought, what we are fighting for in Iraq is the ability to remain free to call President Bush a "fascist", if we so desire.

If we don't fight this war in Iraq or Afghanistan, where should we fight it? "Nowhere!", says the Leftist fool. And, eventually, these people would have the same right to protest that they do in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic country. In other words, none.

That is such an easy concept. Why can't they understand it? What do they think would happen if we quit fighting? Like the children that they are, they can't think that far ahead. They just want what they want, and the consequences are too complicated for them to comprehend. They are mindless, frightened sheep who say whatever their leaders tell them to say.

They don't love America, but I don't think that they hate it, either. Both concepts are just too complex for them. The concepts of love and hate in these people are no more complex than a small child's love of mommy or hatred of a bully. It's purely emotional, with no logic involved.

To love America is to love a concept. An idea. Yes, it's emotional, but that emotion is based on a knowledge of the almost(?) miraculous coming together of people, events and ideas that resulted in the outrageous idea that a people could be the masters of their leaders. It's not based on the childish concept of love, which is whether something makes you feel "good" or "bad". To love America, you have to be able to appreciate a very complicated concept, and that's way beyond these people.

America isn't perfect. Nothing is. But America is light-years closer to perfection than their beloved Communism, which is itself a very childish and unrealistic idea (i.e. everybody has to share everything with me).

I'd bet that 98% of those on the Left have never given any real thought as to what would happen if we were to quit fighting.

The other 2% are the more intelligent (but no less childlike) of them, and they really do hate America. They are the ones who would like to see America fail, so that their infantile form of government could be implemented. They think that everything should be shared equally, although they would be more equal than the rest because they would be the ones running things and, therefore, would get a larger share of the "equal" sharing (got that?).

Like anyone else on the Left, they can't see the link between their own greed and hunger for power, and the fact that Communism always fails because of those very corruptions. They cannot see the logic. Like a kid crying for a candy bar before dinner, no thought is given to whether it would be a good thing or not.

It's what they want, so it has to be right.

MIA

I was, and still am, concerned about the whereabouts of Michael Moore. Nobody has heard from him since last year's election. What happened to him? I have a few theories:

a) He's committed suicide and is rotting away in his "man-of-the-people"'s mansion.

b) He's suffered an "accident" at the hands of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

c) He's holed up in his mansion, depressed and drowning his sorrows in Hostess and McDonald's products.

d) The Democrats want nothing to do with him having realized, too late, that having this propagandist sitting with Jimmy Carter at the DNC was a bad idea.

But he's not the only one that seems to have disappeared. Where has Howard Dean been lately? His rants used to be so entertaining, but I haven't heard a word out of him for months.

The Democrats have apparently figured out, again too late, that he's a nutcase and that elevating him to the position of DNC chairman was a mistake.

This guy was such an egomaniac, what must the Democrats have done to shut him up? The only thing that I can think of is to threaten to take away the thing that every Lefty loves most: power.

"Listen, mate. That's a nice bit of power you got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it, eh? Now, if you were to just piss off and shut yer syrup-hole, maybe you could hang on to it for a bit longer, capiche?"

Anyway, somebody should really call these guys and make sure that they're OK. It would be a shame to lose laughingstocks such as these.

The Fun Never Ends

Just when you think that you're getting ahead of the game, something like this happens:



We had some major storms rumble through here on Wednesday night. I no longer have any trees in my back yard. Let me correct that: I have four trees in my back yard, but they're all horizontal.

On the bright side, I'll never have to rake my back yard again. That and they fell away from the house.

On the negative side, I have to figure out what to do with about 5 tons of wood. Not to mention the weeks that it's going to take me to cut these things up.

Any of you environmentalists out there who would care to take these 100 foot trees away and give them a decent burial, feel free to get ahold of me. Or you could make thousands of picket signs out of these trees.

There's an odd thought: do tree-huggers use wood products for their picket signs? That would seem to be a bit hypocritical to me. Unless they only use naturally fallen birch bark and sticks. I'll have to look more closely the next time I see those misfits making fools of themselves on TV.

The alternative would be for them to use plastic, which would be a petroleum-based product. But they wouldn't do that, either, would they? Hmmm.

And if the downed "tree-friends" weren't enough, my good computer is screwed. I apparently clicked on the wrong link and something downloaded itself onto my hard drive. Luckily, I have 3 more computers in the house to play with.

If it were just a virus, I could deal with that. This was just some wannabe programmer out to make a buck. Somebody wrote some shitty code in C++ and put it out there on the internet for some ad-search program. Back when I was a "Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer" (snort), it was Holy Writ that you didn't put a piece of shit like this in anybody's hands, let alone allow it to be downloaded surreptitiously onto other peoples' computers.

So, what it comes down to, is that I am one busy hombre. I hate to disappoint my regular readers. I assume that there's a reason that you keep coming back. But for the next week or two I'm going to be posting between running my chainsaw and trying to fix my computer.

Stay tuned.

Like, You are so Totally Ignorant (Update)

While picking up my daughter from school for the last week or so, I've noticed a car in the parking lot with its rear-end smashed in.

Written in purple magic marker on the damaged part of the car was this brilliant statement: "Some ignorant drunk driver ran into me!"

Out of curiosity, I was tempted to figure out who's car this was, but I decided that it was obvious who this person was, at least in the broad sense.

The use of the word "ignorant" told me everything that I needed to know."

Ignorant" is the new word of the Left. It is their substitute for calling somebody a "big dummy" like most children would.

Every comment that I've ever left on a Lefty blog has, eventually, called me "ignorant". It just sounds more sophisticated than calling someone a "dumb-dumb", I guess. Or it would if they didn't all suddenly start using it at once.

Add to the equation that they are so insecure that they don't want anyone to believe that they backed into something (i.e. it's not my fault!) and we have everything we need to know.

I'd bet that whomever owns this car is a) female, b) a college attendee, c) a true-believer in Left-wing causes and d) clueless about how the real world works.

I'll eventually figure it out and let you know if I'm right.

UPDATE: I found out who owns this car. She's actually one of my daughter's daycare providers.

As I guessed above, she's a female college attendee from California who is, maybe, 20 years old. I haven't discussed politics with her but, judging by her clothes and piercings, I'd bet that she isn't a Conservative.

Thank you. It's a gift.

We Need More Power, Scotty!

It's odd that the Left is still displaying their usual unbridled, childish rage. After all, they, at least, are apparently living their "one-world" dream.

Michael Medved interviewed British MP George Galloway on his radio show today. Mr. Galloway had nothing more to say than the usual Leftist talking points, in addition to the usual lying and distortion of his past record and quotes.

The only difference is that Mr. Galloway is stupid in a Scottish accent.

Like, You Are So Totally Ignorant!

While picking up my daughter from school for the last week or so, I've noticed a car in the parking lot with its rear-end smashed in.

Written in purple magic marker on the damaged part of the car was this brilliant statement: "Some ignorant drunk driver ran into me!"

Out of curiosity, I was tempted to figure out who's car this was, but I decided that it was obvious who this person was, at least in the broad sense.

The use of the word "ignorant" told me everything that I needed to know.

"Ignorant" is the new word of the Left. It is their substitute for calling somebody a "big dummy" like most children would.

Every comment that I've ever left on a Lefty blog has, eventually, called me "ignorant". It just sounds more sophisticated than calling someone a "dumb-dumb", I guess. Or it would if they didn't all suddenly start using it at once.

Add to the equation that they are so insecure that they don't want anyone to believe that they backed into something (i.e. it's not my fault!) and we have everything we need to know.

I'd bet that whomever owns this car is a) female, b) a college attendee, c) a true-believer in Left-wing causes and d) clueless about how the real world works.

I'll eventually figure it out and let you know if I'm right.

I'm Back...

OK, I'm back from my hiatus. I've been so busy lately that I haven't even checked my e-mail in a week. However, I have gotten a lot of things that needed doing, done. I'm never ready for winter, but at least this year, I'll be close.

That said, what shall we talk about tonight? How about a point made in one of the comments on the post immediately below. It also happens to be a subject which I find endlessly fascinating: paranoid conspiracy theories.

One of the trolls who followed me over from Pandagon (and, like all the rest, none of them leave a link) made a point that I have heard many times before when speaking of the Left and their unending conspiracy theories. They always say, "Yeah, but what about the Right's embrace of the theories of Vince Foster and Ron Brown being murdered?" He (?) even threw in one I haven't heard before about some kids being beaten to death because they "saw too much".

The fact is, none of those theories was taken seriously by more than a relative handful of people on the Right. If there were more than a few thousand across the country who really believed those stories, I'd be shocked. I certainly never heard anyone with any real credibility who believed them.

However, you can't swing your proverbial dead cat (sorry, PETA) without hitting someone on the Left who believes the most incredible stories, and not just the nutcases. O.K. they may be nutcases, but they are also in positions of power on the Left.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid. Those are a small fraction of "leaders" on the Left who have bought in to these conspiracies.

And all they can ever come up with are, really, two cases that some nutcases on the really extreme Right believed: Ron Brown and Vince Foster.

So let's see what the Left has come up with, shall we?

- George Bush "stole" the election in 2000. Somehow "the Chimp" managed to be smarter than all of his adversaries, because not once has the count ever gone against him.

- George Bush "stole" the election in 2004. And John Kerry conceded only because he really isn't a power-hungry, rich white guy; which we're led to believe doesn't exist in the Democrat party. He didn't really want the job anyway. Or maybe George Bush threatened his life if he didn't concede!

- George Bush "allowed" his "friends" in the oil business to break whatever laws they wanted to after he was elected (e.g. Enron). Apparently these people became criminals in January 2001 when Bush was inaugurated and were found out immediately. They were apparently doing no wrong during the Clinton administration.

- Microsoft was "let off the hook" from it's anti-trust lawsuits for no other reason than Bill Gates was a rich, white guy. It's odd that Bill Gates stands for some of the most leftist causes imaginable.

- Anthrax was unleashed upon the publisher of The National Enquirer because they dared to publish "drunken" pictures of Bush's daughters. Yes, he's that evil!

- The anthrax scare was created by the Bush administration so that they had an excuse to roll back the civil liberties of Americans everywhere, thus expanding their fascist hold over these people. I notice, however, that, for some reason, these poor people haven't lost their right to accuse Bush of the most horrific things imaginable. Any othe fascist dictatorship would have had them killed long ago.

- Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden could have been assasinated but weren't, because that gave Bush an excuse to feed the "military-corporate partnership". Apparently the old term, "Military-Industrial Complex" has become too attached to conspiracy theories, so they renamed it (smirk).

- Flight 93, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, was shot down by the military, and the story of the passengers rushing the cockpit was fabricated to cover Bush for giving the order. On the other hand, if it wasn't shot down, it should have been; and Bush was negligible for not giving the order.

- Flight 587, which crashed on November 12, 2001, was really brought down by terrorists and not an onboard explosion as the administration has said. So, on the one hand, Bush wants to use terrorism to fuel his war on our rights, but on the other hand, he doesn't want to admit that terrorists are blowing up planes. Hmmm.

- The Bush family is in league with the Bin Laden family through the Carlyle Group. Streeeeeetttch....

- Bush is a puppet of Israel. For some reason the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is bowing to "the Jooos!"

- Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq so that he could go in there and control the oil. Even I'm sick of responding to this one. OK, kiddies, let's rehash this for the completely retarded out there:

a) everyone who mattered believed the very same thing until a month after we invaded Iraq and didn't find WMD's. The U.N., France, Russia, Germany, Bill Clinton...everybody!

b) if Bush is so corrupt, why didn't he just plant some WMD's and say, "Aha!" One of my former trolls, who has apparently run away forever, kept making the point that they knew that they'd find some, so they didn't bother. He never would answer my point that Bush could plant them even now if he wanted to and say, "Well, look what we found buried out in the desert!"

- Bush personally flew the planes, by remote control, into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. He was, after all, a pilot!

- Osama Bin Laden was actually in US custody and would be "captured" right before the Presidential election in November, 2004 to give Bush an edge. Apparently he escaped, huh?

- George Bush helped members of the Saudi royal family "escape" right after 9/11. Apparently we were supposed to send members of a country's royal family to a "gulag" where they could await Amnesty International and Dick Durbin to free them from the torture of having to eat lemon-chicken and asparagus tips.

- George Bush was a member of "Skull and Bones", which proved that he was a member of the "New World Order" crowd. Or was that the Trilateral Comission? Or the Illuminati? I can't keep them all straight even though I, too, am a member! Muahahah!

- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was a member of the "Federalist Society", which proves that he's...what? A Republican? Someone who believes that the Constitution says what it says? Either one is evil to the Left.

- Countless comparisons by Democrat leaders to Bush being a Nazi, a fascist, a mass-murderer...you name it. Many of these were made on the floors of Congress. One accusation by the lead Senator of the Democrats!

Kind of pales in comparison to "right-wing" extremists saying the Clinton's had Vince Foster offed, doesn't it?

- Bush slowed federal relief to the hurricane victims in New Orleans so that more "niggers" would die and/or abandon their property so that New Orleans could be made into a "lily-white" Republican stronghold.

- Levees were destroyed in New Orleans so that poor, black neighborhoods were flooded instead of the more affluent parts of the city (which seem to have been flooded anyway).

That is a very, very, partial list of the conspiracy theories that the Left has come up with. There are, literally, hundreds more. Everything that Bush does is nothing more than his conspiring to advance his agenda by any means possible and, usually, by the most evil means at his disposal for no other reason than he hates minorities enough to want to commit mass-murder.

The fact that these things are ridiculous, and able to be picked apart as easily as any childish fantasy, deters these people not in the least.

I've said it before, but I think that it bears repeating: this is now what passes for deep thinking among those on the Left. Whoever can come up with the most dastardly, evil, convoluted theory on why President Bush does anything, gets a high-five, and that most coveted feeling amongst the Left, AFFIRMATION! The feeling that they really do matter! That their life really isn't meaningless!

To give the devil his due, this is how those on the Left "think outside the box". It doesn't matter how ridiculous or stupid their theories may be, because they know that if they can come up with their own theory they will be, for once, not parroting the Democrat talking points. This is what passes for originality of thought for those on the Left.

Deep down, they know that, when we on the Right laugh at them for not having any original ideas, we are, well, right.

They are unable to harness enough logic to make it from one logical proposition to the next and come up with an original thought. The next best thing is to indulge their childish fantasies and come up with a fantasy that nobody has thought of before.

Once again, their entire motivation, as it always is, comes down to, "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!" No different than any child.

So, Ron Brown and Vince Foster. You guys need about 500 more conspiracy theories to even come close.

And Now, Yet Even More Random Musings

I'm sure that my regular readers have noticed that I haven't posted much this week. It's that time of year in Minnesota when it suddenly dawns on you that there'll be snow on the ground in a couple of months and you have to get moving on all of your projects before they're, literally, buried.

Add to that the fact that it's been Monkey Girl's first week back in school, and I've been busier than a Lefty trying to pin a scandal on George Bush (and, if I may brag a little, Monkey Girl is reading at a 5th grade level. Not bad for a 1st grader, eh?).

I haven't had time to listen to the radio much, or read all of the stuff that I usually read or, for that matter, think a whole lot about politics.

So, instead of anything long, deep and substantial (watch it!), I give you this:

- The German people were held responsible for not stopping Hitler. After the death camps were liberated, the people in the communities surrounding the camps were made to bury the dead inmates and witness the atrocities that they pretended weren’t happening.

Why can’t the Muslims be held responsible for not policing their community? There is no unified, clear, unabashed denouncement of the terrorists in their midst. They know who the terrorists are. Not turning them in is no different than the people living around the death camps pretending that they didn’t know what was happening.

- Yes, it would be nice if “mainstream” Muslims were to denounce the terrorists, but it would also be nice if they’d denounce the holy war to take over the Christian West. It would be nice if they denounced the stoning of women who have been raped. It would be nice if they’d denounce intentionally blowing up innocent women and children. I don't expect them to jump right to the 21st century, but it would be nice if they could at least make it to the 19th.

- The “progressive” Left has aligned itself with a 14th century religion.

- After watching NARAL and NOW’s reactions to John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court, I’m a bit bewildered. Don’t you think that these two groups, more than any others, would want to stay away from the “hysterical female” stereotype?

- 90% of Democrats hate being called “Liberals”. 90% Republicans have no problem being called “Conservatives”. Why? Because Democrats don’t want to be associated, at least in public, with Liberal stances on the issues. They're embarassed.

Republicans, on the other hand, are perfectly comfortable with the Conservative stance on issues. We believe in what we stand for because we're not doing it just to feel good about ourselves or to get attention.

- The Left loves to scare people with the “religious extremists who are taking over our country”. But, they exclude all religions other than Christianity from that statement, be they Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Moonie. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say the “Christians who are taking over our country"? That is, after all, what they mean.

- The Left's politics dictate their values.
The Right's values dictate their politics.
Think about that.

What I Did This Summer

Check this thing out. I hung and wired 3 of these in our shop in June:


That's a 24-foot-diameter ceiling fan. To give you some perspective, your typical house is about 30 feet wide. They're 20 feet in the air. You can feel the air moving from these things 75 feet away.

If you're a guy and you don't say, "wow", I'd check your testosterone level.

Is it any wonder that I love my job? I get to spend large amounts of other people's money to do stuff like this.

Enough!

I'm sure that the hurricane relief efforts will never miss any piddling contribution that I could make, but the fact is, the second that the usual (and some not-so-usual) suspects came out and called me a "racist", I decided that New Orleans could sink or swim without me. You can fence New Orleans off and let it rot for all I care.

Oprah, Mayor Ray Nagin, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, MSNBC/Newsweek, The AP, and countless others, including many, many normal residents of New Orleans, have all come out and, directly or indirectly, said that the white majority of this country had no problem letting black people die.

That's me and, most likely, you they're talking about!

I'm sick of being called a racist every time anything negative, great or small, happens to a Left-sanctioned minority group. These idiots insult me, and then expect me to help them.

That's like a bum coming up to you and saying, "Hey, asshole, you're the reason I'm poor! Give me some money!" Not a very good fund-raising technique.

That may work on your typical bleeding-heart liberal, but it doesn't work on me. I can't be guilted into doing what they want me to do.

It never ceases to amaze me that more people, especially Conservatives, aren't offended by this. Do you think that, like wealthy Democrats who want to raise taxes on anyone who is "really" rich (i.e. has one more dollar than they do), they're talking about somebody who is "really" a racist? No! They are talking about you. Yes, you! They don't care if your a Conservative or a Liberal, if you're white, they think that you are a racist!

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of being insulted and accused of something that I've never done.

From now on, no matter how noble the cause may be, the second that the word "racist", "sexist", "homophobe" or any other of the Left's "victimhood" phrases pops out of some ignorant fool's mouth, you can count me out. My support ends right there.

If their leaders would tell them to sit down and shut up, I might reconsider, but that'll never happen, because these so-called "leaders" are the ones inciting it.

That also goes for them using a cause to jump on the "Bush-bashing-bandwagon", or twist it for their political gain. If they can't help people for the sake of helping people, without gaining anything or trying to further their political agenda, then they can count me out.

Their criticism of FEMA is usually accompanied by a reference to "the Bush administration", but even when it isn't, it's not hard to read between the lines. As some idiot rapper said recently, "Bush doesn't care about black people".

The really sick thing is that these people believe that they are the "selfless" people in our society when they will do absolutely nothing if there's no gain for themselves.

If it were just the "usual suspects" it would be one thing, but this is the mayor of the city and the residents of that city, whom millions upon millions of white people are trying to help. And Oprah doesn't need to advance a political agenda. Do you think that they all suddenly decided that "whitey's out to get me" the day after Katrina hit? No, I guarantee you that they've thought that I'm a racist for a long, long time.

Piss on 'em. They preach "unity" but all they do is divide. They can get by just fine without me.

Ah, the Good Old Days.

Remember the good old days? The days when we lived in utopia and nothing ever went wrong that a few well-spoken words couldn't handle?

Remember the good old days when there were no such things as real terrorists, only criminals who had a bad habit of killing alot of people by blowing things up? These criminals were handled by our incredibly efficient justice system one at a time, and it was only a matter of time before we had prosecuted them all to the full extent of the law. There was certainly never any reason to go to war over these miscreants.

Remember when North Korea had no nukes because our most dignified statesman, Jimmy Carter, went over there and got them to promise to stop their nuclear weapons programs by promising them everything that they wanted? And North Korea complied immediately and gave Jimmy a big hug. Bill Clinton was a trifle miffed because he hadn't actually authorized the trip, but that was water under the bridge after that spectacular foreign policy success.

Or how about when the U.N. used to be a dignified, earnest, efficient protector of human rights? They had no truck with dictators, or human rights abusers of any sort, and their proclamations were always obeyed immediately because of their moral certitude and their willingness to back up their threats with massive military might. Corruption? Perish the thought.

And do you remember when Europe was always on our side, and also willing to stand up for themselves like the noble people they were? There was never any disagreement. They stood with us through thick and thin. The thought of us having to take care of a war in their own backyard was unthinkable! But when that war did, eventually, somehow come along, we certainly didn't need permission from the U.N. to go in there and bomb the hell out of the people who were prosecuting Muslims. And again: corruption in Europe? I should say not!

The presidential administration in Washington was the most ethical in history. Nobody in that administration ever told a lie or, for that matter, twisted their words around to try to get out of some silly little politically-motivated scandal. They were straightforward people who would look you in the eye, and whom you knew you could believe. Because they had no history of lying. They were looking out for the interests of the American People (especially "the children"), and their own political careers be damned! Once again: corruption? How dare you even suggest it? There were certainly never any criminal investigations or legal proceedings that could sully the fine names of these people.

Sure, we had the occasional natural disaster, but there was Bill Clinton in his leotard and cape, wind and rain lashing his hair, standing atop a mountain of bottled water and lobster thermidore, with 500,000 national guardsmen ready to distribute it to whomever happened to want it, within minutes.

Taxes were low, the rich paid their fair share, there were no homeless people, Social Security was nothing to worry about, health care was dirt-cheap (although 43,000,000 people still, apparently, couldn't afford it), the economy wasn't headed toward recession, although global warming was, butterflies were free and everybody loved us.

But then, the "dunce", George W. Bush somehow rigged the election in Florida in a way that made it impossible for Al Gore to come up with a number of votes higher than his, no matter how many different ways, or no matter how long, they tried.

And now, everything is doom and gloom. There is no hope. The fascists (not those lighthearted, whacky communists, though) have taken over and it's only a matter of time before the world is covered by a toxic cloud and the ovens are stoked up to get rid of Bush's political enemies.

People are being silenced (apparently all it takes is to say, "shut up, moron") by the fascist Right and homes are being raided in the middle of the night.

Abortionists are being lined up and shot, falling into graves that they themselves were forced to dig.

Women are being forced back into the kitchen where they must take care of their slavemasters' horrible children and receive only a sound beating as payment.

Homosexuals are being rounded up and sent to labor camps, where they are forced to live in co-ed barracks, slaving away in the rusty-coathanger-factory, and not allowed to marry.

Anyone not carrying a Christian Bible at all times, and who isn't able to recite chapter and verse on demand, will be sent to the Gulag on a Carribean island where they will be forced to eat lemon-chicken and asparagus tips.

All chemical plants are being run three-shifts-a-day, and their product is being piped directly into the rivers, lakes, oceans and even the groundwater itself.

Animals are being tortured for fun, before being made into meat for the holocaust on our dinner plates and in our milk glasses.

Sound ridiculous? Apparently you haven't read any of the Lefty blogs lately. For them, this wouldn't even be considered outrageous.

Bureaucracies Fail

The Democrats have finally acknowledged that a massive Federal Bureaucracy (FEMA) can fail.

So why can’t they see that the Education bureaucracy has failed, or that the Welfare bureaucracy has never worked, or the Social Security bureaucracy was doomed from the start?

Is it just because this one failed so quickly and obviously, for all to see on the nightly news?

Democrats live in the here and now. They can’t see the logical progression of things. The bureaucracies mentioned above (and others) failed slowly over the course of many years, or never really worked at all. It wasn't a sudden kick in the teeth, so they never had to acknowledge it. With FEMA and New Orleans, they have no choice. It's too obvious. They can't pretend that it's not happening.

If the Social Security system suddenly collapsed and 10,000 people starved, then they’d take notice. They still wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but it would give them an excuse to blame one more thing on George Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, neocons, religious extremists (excluding all faiths other than Christians), Karl Rove, Israel, the Trilateral Commission and Pat Robertson.

Bureaucracies, by their very nature, are huge, lumbering things that take forever to get up to speed, and are almost impossible to turn from their "by the book" mentality. They have procedures for implementing their procedures, starting at the top and working down to the bottom. Every step must be taken in the proper order, just as in a religious ritual. All of that takes time.

Also in the nature of the bureaucracy is the mindless will to grow, grow, grow. Shortly after they are developed, that growth always becomes their #1 mission. They are like tumors. The purpose for which they were set up is relegated to the back burner in their desire to grow and consume more and more resources.

Bureaucracies have no conscience. While the individual cells may actually care about the suffering of the people they are paid to protect, the overall mass can't care. The wiring between the cells is intentionally complicated and confusing, because inefficiency allows it to take up even more resources, with the promise that it could fix itself if only there were more resources available to it.

But at least Fema did, finally, get going. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it got going as quickly as it did. Has it ever moved faster during any other major disaster? I seem to remember a lot of the same bitching about FEMA being slow to react after Hurricane Hugo and the flooding on the Mississippi about 10 or 15 years ago.

Did anyone ever think to do a study to see how long it usually took FEMA to respond to a disaster, and then tell state and local governments that they're probably going to be on their own for that long, so they'd better prepare for it? My guess is that most localities figured this out for themselves and are, for the most part, as prepared as they can be.

The Bureaucracies in New Orleans and Louisiana were even more useless than the ones at the Federal level. They didn't even put their disaster plans on the back burner. They just never made any! Can you believe that this city, which is built below sea level, on the ocean, and between a huge lake and the largest, most flood-prone river in the country, had no plans in place in case of a major levee break and/or flood???

Everyone on earth knew that this was going to happen eventually. The incompetence of not dealing with the issue is beyond incredible!

And then they have the gall to try to blame it all on FEMA (and, not very well hidden in the subtext, President Bush)! What a buch of useless baggage those people are. Anyone who has held elected office in New Orleans and/or Louisiana should never be allowed to hold another public position. Ever.

They planned for a few hours of wind and rain, but totally mismanaged the aftermath. It is tempting to analogise this with the Left's (whom that city is controlled by) whining that Bush "won the war, but mismanaged the aftermath" in Iraq.

But Bush, so far, has lost "only" 1800 soldiers whose job it was to die for this country, if necessary. The incompetence of the bureacracies of Louisiana, and New Orleans in particular is going to cost at least 10,000 American civilian lives, and probably more.

The Left needs to understand that every bureaucracy has design flaws that will cause it to fail. Some quickly, but most over time. The nature of bureaucracies is self-centeredness and lust for power.

No wonder the Left thinks there's nothing wrong with bureaucracies.