Some of you, at least those who aren't blind, may have noticed the change to my header.
Hillary Clinton is trying to become a "centrist" before the 2008 Presidential election. Her "move to the center" is nothing more than the usual phony appeal from a dedicated Leftist for no other reason than to gather votes. In other words, she's lying. She's using the same tactic that her husband did to gain political power: he lied.
To the Left, lying to gain political power is quite alright. Witness the current lies put forth by the left that "Bush lied!".
Not that the "Bush lied" lie has any basis in fact but, to play the Devil's advocate, which would be worse: to lie about the reason for going to war to rid the world of a torturing, murdering dictator, or to lie for no other reason than to regain power?
Even if President Bush had lied about the reason for attacking Iraq, which he didn't, getting rid of one of the worst murderous dictators in history was well justified.
The Left is lying when they say "Bush Lied!", and they're doing it for no other reason than to regain power.
So, who's lie would be worse?
But the fact is, President Bush didn't lie, anymore than did John LeKerry or anyone else who voted for the Iraq war. They were all going off of the same intelligence reports.
Another fact is, the Democrats who are now attacking President Bush are lying. And they know it. But that doesn't matter. To a Lefty, the end always justifies the means. Just ask Karl Marx.
It's no coincidence that Hillary's remarks mirror those of the former Soviet Premier. As much as the Left may deny it (e.g. they're lying) they have the same goals for our country.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Democrat Traitors
Back in 2000, when Al Gore was throwing his childish temper tantrum over losing the election, one of his lawyers was asked how many times they were going to recount the votes. His answer? "Until we win!"
That pretty much sums up the Democrat Party of today. His answer wasn't, "Until we're sure that the vote is correct", which is what any fair-mided person would say. It was an almost Freudian slip that revealed their win-at-all-costs mentality. Right or wrong never entered into the equation. They just wanted to win any way they could. My daughter used to have that same mentality before I taught her why that was wrong. These people were in their 40's, 50's and 60's and they hadn't learned that yet.
And now there is another drive on to investigate whether President Bush "manipulated" pre-war intelligence. There have already been two Congressional investigations, not to mention armies of Lefties looking into it for the past two-and-a-half years, but they want to keep investigating "until they win".
The Democrat Party has become filled with absolute, amoral, childish, shameless, lying hypocrites. They are absolute scumbags. Their addiction to power has turned them into unprincipled cretins who would assasinate their own grandmothers' characters if it would help them to regain Congress or the White House.
Rhetoric, you say? Remember: Al Gore was using his sister's death from lung cancer to try to blackmail money from "big tobacco". Meanwhile, he was talking to tobacco farmers about how he, personally, used to harvest tobacco when he was trying to raise campaign money from them.
These people have no principles. None. To put it another way, they have no "moral values". Like any addict who can't see past their addiction, these people will never be able to figure out what the voters meant after the last election when they said that the Democrats were weak on "moral values".
The Democrats, lacking any traces of logic as usual, deemed this to mean "religious values" and immediately went about trying to show how "religious" they were. Of course, nobody bought it for a second because, at the same time, they were doing everything in their power to cut religion down.
The phoniness and hypocrisy of this is exactly what the "moral values" voters were talking about. But, being completely unable to link actions to effects, the Democrats couldn't see it.
"Bush lied!", they say. That is a lie.
In the past week, starting with Norman Podhoretz' column throwing the Democrat's lies back in their face, and President Bush throwing John LeKerry's lies back in his face, the Republicans and the Right have finally gone on the offensive.
President Bush did it again today, quoting Democrats on their stances before the war, but not naming them by name. Anyone with half a brain could find out who these people were, however.
We've all been individually pointing these hypocrisies out for years now. We're finally on the same page and, between blogs, talk radio, FOX news and the rest of the New Media, the message is getting out.
"Bush lied!" is a lie.
And what do the Democrats say to all of this? Their response is, "we didn't have the same intelligence that the President did!" That is a lie.
All of the responses to Mr. Podhoretz' article have been, basically, the same: "Yeah, but there were plenty of other people who didn't believe that Sadaam had WMD's!" Unlike Mr. Podohretz, they never seem to come up with any actual quotes to bolster their argument. In other words, they're lying.
Mr. Valerie Plame (aka, Joe Wilson) has lied on numerous occasions, and should be investigated immediately.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, John LeKerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Terry McCauliffe. Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangell...the list is endless. They have all lied.
Most of these people have been entrusted by the voters with our National Security, and they're playing games with it for nothing more than short-term political gains. Even the ones who aren't in elected office are responsible, to some extent, for shaping the way people think, and they are extremely irresponsible to be lying for no other reason than to regain power.
The war against the Islamofascists who are trying to kill us, to them, is secondary to holding the reigns of government. After all, the government is theirs! They love it and the power that it brings them. Republicans just want to cripple their "precious" by cutting it back.
The Democrats are despicable liars. The chutzpah that it takes to base your entire political platform on accusing President Bush of lying, which is itself a lie, is unspeakable.
I have a vocabulary that is larger than most, and even I can't put into words how disgustingly low these people are. The Democrats of today are the worst possible people that we could have in the government at this point in our country's history. Power is at the top of their list. The good of the country is lucky to come in fourth or fifth.
Their putting their own well-being ahead of the good of the country is not only disgusting, it has crossed the border into treason.
That pretty much sums up the Democrat Party of today. His answer wasn't, "Until we're sure that the vote is correct", which is what any fair-mided person would say. It was an almost Freudian slip that revealed their win-at-all-costs mentality. Right or wrong never entered into the equation. They just wanted to win any way they could. My daughter used to have that same mentality before I taught her why that was wrong. These people were in their 40's, 50's and 60's and they hadn't learned that yet.
And now there is another drive on to investigate whether President Bush "manipulated" pre-war intelligence. There have already been two Congressional investigations, not to mention armies of Lefties looking into it for the past two-and-a-half years, but they want to keep investigating "until they win".
The Democrat Party has become filled with absolute, amoral, childish, shameless, lying hypocrites. They are absolute scumbags. Their addiction to power has turned them into unprincipled cretins who would assasinate their own grandmothers' characters if it would help them to regain Congress or the White House.
Rhetoric, you say? Remember: Al Gore was using his sister's death from lung cancer to try to blackmail money from "big tobacco". Meanwhile, he was talking to tobacco farmers about how he, personally, used to harvest tobacco when he was trying to raise campaign money from them.
These people have no principles. None. To put it another way, they have no "moral values". Like any addict who can't see past their addiction, these people will never be able to figure out what the voters meant after the last election when they said that the Democrats were weak on "moral values".
The Democrats, lacking any traces of logic as usual, deemed this to mean "religious values" and immediately went about trying to show how "religious" they were. Of course, nobody bought it for a second because, at the same time, they were doing everything in their power to cut religion down.
The phoniness and hypocrisy of this is exactly what the "moral values" voters were talking about. But, being completely unable to link actions to effects, the Democrats couldn't see it.
"Bush lied!", they say. That is a lie.
In the past week, starting with Norman Podhoretz' column throwing the Democrat's lies back in their face, and President Bush throwing John LeKerry's lies back in his face, the Republicans and the Right have finally gone on the offensive.
President Bush did it again today, quoting Democrats on their stances before the war, but not naming them by name. Anyone with half a brain could find out who these people were, however.
Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion."
— Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.
We've all been individually pointing these hypocrisies out for years now. We're finally on the same page and, between blogs, talk radio, FOX news and the rest of the New Media, the message is getting out.
"Bush lied!" is a lie.
And what do the Democrats say to all of this? Their response is, "we didn't have the same intelligence that the President did!" That is a lie.
All of the responses to Mr. Podhoretz' article have been, basically, the same: "Yeah, but there were plenty of other people who didn't believe that Sadaam had WMD's!" Unlike Mr. Podohretz, they never seem to come up with any actual quotes to bolster their argument. In other words, they're lying.
Mr. Valerie Plame (aka, Joe Wilson) has lied on numerous occasions, and should be investigated immediately.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, John LeKerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Terry McCauliffe. Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangell...the list is endless. They have all lied.
Most of these people have been entrusted by the voters with our National Security, and they're playing games with it for nothing more than short-term political gains. Even the ones who aren't in elected office are responsible, to some extent, for shaping the way people think, and they are extremely irresponsible to be lying for no other reason than to regain power.
The war against the Islamofascists who are trying to kill us, to them, is secondary to holding the reigns of government. After all, the government is theirs! They love it and the power that it brings them. Republicans just want to cripple their "precious" by cutting it back.
The Democrats are despicable liars. The chutzpah that it takes to base your entire political platform on accusing President Bush of lying, which is itself a lie, is unspeakable.
I have a vocabulary that is larger than most, and even I can't put into words how disgustingly low these people are. The Democrats of today are the worst possible people that we could have in the government at this point in our country's history. Power is at the top of their list. The good of the country is lucky to come in fourth or fifth.
Their putting their own well-being ahead of the good of the country is not only disgusting, it has crossed the border into treason.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
No Time Toulouse!
OK, so I'm not quite done with laundry yet, but I've been itching to use that headline since I saw that the terrorists in France attacked the city of Toulouse. I can't claim credit for it. It's actually from a Monty Python sketch that, ironically, was about suicide bombers. Scottish suicide bombers, mind you, but it's still a coincidence that bears looking into.
So how long before the real suicide bombers appear in France? The media seems to be keeping track by how many cars are torched, but they seem to be ignoring the fact that power stations, subway stations, and schools, among other things, are now being attacked.
The French spin is that the situation is improving, but they don't acknowledge that the attacks have switched to more important targets than automobiles.
But perhaps they're right. Maybe there aren't as many incidents since they've instituted curfews and deployed a massive police response. But how long can they keep that up? The country is economically strapped, and can't sustain massive deployments of police forces for months or, quite possibly, years.
And President of Frogs, Jaques ChIraq has been missing in action. Some speculate that it's because of a stroke that he suffered a few months ago, but I think that it's much more likely that he just has no idea how to deal with the situation. Like any Leftist, he has no ideas, and certainly can't think on his feet.
Putting the terrorists down forcefully is not an option to a government built on political correctness. At least not until it actually threatens their hold on power, and then it could turn into a bloodbath. There is nobody on this earth more willing to slaughter people than a Leftist in danger of losing power. The only people that come close are Muslim extremists.
Ironic, huh?
Captain: Sergeant major, what's this man's name?
RSM: This one sir? This one is MacDonald, sir.
Captain: No, no, no, no. (the captain stops MacDonald who is straining quite hard to get away) Hang on to MacDonald, sergeant major, hang on to him.
RSM: I don't know whether I can, sir... (MacDonald's eyes are staring in a strange way) he's in a state of Itsubishi Kyoko McSayonara.
Captain: What's that?
They am both struggling to restrain MacDonald.
RSM: It's the fifth state that a Scotsman can achieve, sir. He's got to finish himself off by lunchtime or he thinks he's let down the Emperor, sir.
So how long before the real suicide bombers appear in France? The media seems to be keeping track by how many cars are torched, but they seem to be ignoring the fact that power stations, subway stations, and schools, among other things, are now being attacked.
The French spin is that the situation is improving, but they don't acknowledge that the attacks have switched to more important targets than automobiles.
But perhaps they're right. Maybe there aren't as many incidents since they've instituted curfews and deployed a massive police response. But how long can they keep that up? The country is economically strapped, and can't sustain massive deployments of police forces for months or, quite possibly, years.
And President of Frogs, Jaques ChIraq has been missing in action. Some speculate that it's because of a stroke that he suffered a few months ago, but I think that it's much more likely that he just has no idea how to deal with the situation. Like any Leftist, he has no ideas, and certainly can't think on his feet.
Putting the terrorists down forcefully is not an option to a government built on political correctness. At least not until it actually threatens their hold on power, and then it could turn into a bloodbath. There is nobody on this earth more willing to slaughter people than a Leftist in danger of losing power. The only people that come close are Muslim extremists.
Ironic, huh?
Canadian Critter
I've got laundry to fold, lunches to make and dishes to do before I go to bed. Yes, I'll make somebody a good wife someday.
So, in lieu of a post of my own, I point you to my friend, Justthinkin at Crittermusings. His post about why he's leaving Canada shows that he understands the uniqueness of America's system of government better than most of the people who live here. Especially the liberals, who would absolutely love Canada's system, but don't have the guts to actually move there, even though they threaten to do it every four years, just like a six-year-old threatens to run away from home when they don't get their way.
We don't need a wall on our northern border, we need to put up a massive playpen across it.
So, in lieu of a post of my own, I point you to my friend, Justthinkin at Crittermusings. His post about why he's leaving Canada shows that he understands the uniqueness of America's system of government better than most of the people who live here. Especially the liberals, who would absolutely love Canada's system, but don't have the guts to actually move there, even though they threaten to do it every four years, just like a six-year-old threatens to run away from home when they don't get their way.
We don't need a wall on our northern border, we need to put up a massive playpen across it.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
LADD
Liberal Attention Deficit Disorder
Symptoms:
Remedies:
Currently there is no known cure for LADD.
From a pharmaceutical standpoint, there are indications that anti-depressants may be of some help but, overall, drugs seem to have no effect on the disease. In fact, there are indications that "self-medication" with illicit drugs may actually cause parts of the disease to manifest (i.e. paranoia, inability to think clearly) in some people.
Mental therapy also seems to have no effect on the disease. Therapy sessions always seem to degrade into "whining sessions" and may actually worsen symptoms by giving them a captive (though expensive) audience who will pay attention to them. It probably also doesn't help that a large majority of their "counselors" suffer from the same disease and have no incentive to cure anyone.
There are reports of people being spontaneously cured, but they are very rare. The cause would seem to be some kind of chemical change in the brain that suddenly causes their eyes to open and sudden feelings of disgust with themselves and their associates. Again, these cases are very rare, and the condition appears to be chronic.
Case Studies
Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore
Symptoms:
Remedies:
Currently there is no known cure for LADD.
From a pharmaceutical standpoint, there are indications that anti-depressants may be of some help but, overall, drugs seem to have no effect on the disease. In fact, there are indications that "self-medication" with illicit drugs may actually cause parts of the disease to manifest (i.e. paranoia, inability to think clearly) in some people.
Mental therapy also seems to have no effect on the disease. Therapy sessions always seem to degrade into "whining sessions" and may actually worsen symptoms by giving them a captive (though expensive) audience who will pay attention to them. It probably also doesn't help that a large majority of their "counselors" suffer from the same disease and have no incentive to cure anyone.
There are reports of people being spontaneously cured, but they are very rare. The cause would seem to be some kind of chemical change in the brain that suddenly causes their eyes to open and sudden feelings of disgust with themselves and their associates. Again, these cases are very rare, and the condition appears to be chronic.
Case Studies
Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore
Friday, November 11, 2005
What Do We Do Now?
NEW YORK - U.S. troops could begin leaving Iraq in significant numbers sometime next year, so long as Iraqi forces are properly armed and trained by then, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi told a U.S. audience on Friday.
Can you imagine if this were to actually happen? What would the Democrats run their campaigns on? They would be absolutely speechless. "Bush lied!" is their entire political platform! I'm sure that they'd continue using it, but it would lose a lot of it's punch with the uninformed if we were actually leaving Iraq.
The Democrats are all so pathetic. They've got nothing! Why? Because, unlike in years past, all of them have become far Left-wingers. And the people of the far Left cannot think logically. Hard to come up with ideas when you can't think.
I always knew that Lefties "thought with their feelings", but I assumed that there was at least some logic there. After all, you couldn't get through life without having at least a little bit of logic, could you? Apparently, you can.
There is absolutely no logic among these people. They are incapable of seeing cause and effect. They can't see beyond their next step.
If you give people money...they're not going to work
If you tell the terrorists when we're going to pull out of Iraq...they're going to sit back and wait for us to leave.
If you raise taxes...people will have less money to spread around and put into the economy.
Things that are ridiculously obvious to you and I, are utterly beyond their comprehension. That's why we have such a hard time understanding them: their thought process is utterly beyond our comprehension. Most of us quit thinking like they do when we were about 10-years-old, if not earlier.
You'd think that they'd do everything in their power to keep the war in Iraq going. Without it, they have nothing.
But that's too complicated for them to understand.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Argue This!
Norman Podhoretz has written a masterpiece refuting the "Bush lied!" mantra put forth by the Left. It can't be argued and exposes their lies for the rewriting of history that they are.
Here are just a few quotes from Democrats who now claim that "Bush lied!":
And those are just a few. There are, literally, dozens of quotes like this from people who now don't even hesitate to say that "Bush lied!", because they know that the MSM will never call them on it.
Anyone who utters the phrase, "Bush lied!" should be forced to read this and answer for their own lies. This article is absolutely irrefutable.
Why are you still reading this? Get over there now!
UPDATE: Might I suggest that you copy and paste these quotes and send them to their respective quoters (i.e. Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, et al)? The links to the Senate and the House are on my sidebar to your right.
Here are just a few quotes from Democrats who now claim that "Bush lied!":
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
-Bill Clinton 1998
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
- Madeline Albright, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy (Bundles in his Undies) Berger, 1998
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Ted Kennedy, 2002
And those are just a few. There are, literally, dozens of quotes like this from people who now don't even hesitate to say that "Bush lied!", because they know that the MSM will never call them on it.
Anyone who utters the phrase, "Bush lied!" should be forced to read this and answer for their own lies. This article is absolutely irrefutable.
Why are you still reading this? Get over there now!
UPDATE: Might I suggest that you copy and paste these quotes and send them to their respective quoters (i.e. Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, et al)? The links to the Senate and the House are on my sidebar to your right.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
They're On a Roll!
Alright! Let's hear it for the Democrats! They won a bunch of elections and maintained the status quo!
Compared to their usual losses at the polls lately, not losing is considered a victory.
Compared to their usual losses at the polls lately, not losing is considered a victory.
Inconceivable!
The Left believes that once the terrorists defeat "The Great Satan" and our Jewish "vassals", the Muslims will be so grateful for their help and support, and so awestruck by the Left's brilliance, that they will beg them to lead the new Islamic world order.
For all of their phony panic about George Bush being a politician with religious beliefs, they can’t conceive of an ideology (i.e. Islamic Fascism) that cannot distinguish between religion and politics.
I mean it. Their minds can’t comprehend the concept. For them, it’s like trying to think about what a fourth dimension would look like. We humans, who have lived our entire lives in three dimensions, wouldn't even know where to start thinking about what a fourth dimension would be like.
(Yes, I know that some have posited that time is the fourth dimension, or that, according to string theory, gravity may be a force that flows through many dimensions, which would explain why it is so weak in our dimension compared to the other forces. This is politics, not quantum mechanics!)
Other than "support the underdog at all costs", that is the only explanation that makes any sense. And, given the arrogance of the Left, it wouldn't surprise me that they would think that the Muslim extremists would worship them and give them their undying support for their help. It's pretty much the same thing that they've believed in every Leftist revolution that's ever occured: "The people will thank us for freeing them from the bondage of Capitalism!"
And, when it turns out that "the people" can't stand them, they start executing, torturing and imprisoning them.
Which would fit right in with the Muslims.
For all of their phony panic about George Bush being a politician with religious beliefs, they can’t conceive of an ideology (i.e. Islamic Fascism) that cannot distinguish between religion and politics.
I mean it. Their minds can’t comprehend the concept. For them, it’s like trying to think about what a fourth dimension would look like. We humans, who have lived our entire lives in three dimensions, wouldn't even know where to start thinking about what a fourth dimension would be like.
(Yes, I know that some have posited that time is the fourth dimension, or that, according to string theory, gravity may be a force that flows through many dimensions, which would explain why it is so weak in our dimension compared to the other forces. This is politics, not quantum mechanics!)
Other than "support the underdog at all costs", that is the only explanation that makes any sense. And, given the arrogance of the Left, it wouldn't surprise me that they would think that the Muslim extremists would worship them and give them their undying support for their help. It's pretty much the same thing that they've believed in every Leftist revolution that's ever occured: "The people will thank us for freeing them from the bondage of Capitalism!"
And, when it turns out that "the people" can't stand them, they start executing, torturing and imprisoning them.
Which would fit right in with the Muslims.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Unbelievable?
How long before the Muslims demand that their oppressors withdraw from the West Bank...of the Seine River? Hell, it worked in Israel!
OK, that was a joke. Kind of. But here's something that doesn't seem farfetched at all.
Is it possible that Al Qaeda and the rest of the usual Islamofascist suspects are trying to start an all out war in Europe so that the United States will have to save their asses again? Thereby moving the war from the mideast, where our continued involvement could reshape the entire system there? After all, if the war is in Europe instead of the mideast, we can't be starting new Democracies in the mideast, can we?
Farfetched? Not at all. It's no different than our preferring to fight the terrorists in Iraq, rather than on the streets of Minneapolis.
I'm sure that the terrorists would rather fight on the streets of Minneapolis, but they know that it's a fight that they'd lose. Even if our military didn't crush them, the 3 million or so armed Minnesotans certainly would. I myself have 5 guns and a bow, and that's not considered alot in this state. The citizens of this state alone could arm 20 million people, easily. Multiply that by 50 states and we have 100 million "citizen soldiers".
So they pick the easy target: the unarmed Europeans and their weak military. They know that, eventually, we'd have to respond, just as we did in WWI & WWII.
If I remember correctly, it was only this past spring or summer that Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, told his followers to spread the war from Iraq. I have little doubt that this is part of that plan.
OK, that was a joke. Kind of. But here's something that doesn't seem farfetched at all.
Is it possible that Al Qaeda and the rest of the usual Islamofascist suspects are trying to start an all out war in Europe so that the United States will have to save their asses again? Thereby moving the war from the mideast, where our continued involvement could reshape the entire system there? After all, if the war is in Europe instead of the mideast, we can't be starting new Democracies in the mideast, can we?
Farfetched? Not at all. It's no different than our preferring to fight the terrorists in Iraq, rather than on the streets of Minneapolis.
I'm sure that the terrorists would rather fight on the streets of Minneapolis, but they know that it's a fight that they'd lose. Even if our military didn't crush them, the 3 million or so armed Minnesotans certainly would. I myself have 5 guns and a bow, and that's not considered alot in this state. The citizens of this state alone could arm 20 million people, easily. Multiply that by 50 states and we have 100 million "citizen soldiers".
So they pick the easy target: the unarmed Europeans and their weak military. They know that, eventually, we'd have to respond, just as we did in WWI & WWII.
If I remember correctly, it was only this past spring or summer that Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, told his followers to spread the war from Iraq. I have little doubt that this is part of that plan.
History Repeats Itself
For the past few years the ever-appeasing Left has ridiculed the notion, put forth by the Right, that "we can fight the terrorists in Iraq, or we can fight them in our streets".
And now the greatest appeasers of all time, the French, are fighting Muslim terrorists in their streets, while we who (no thanks to the Left) went on the offensive have yet to be attacked again. I hate to say, "We told ya so", but...
In fact, the whole situation in France is a perfect microcosm of Leftist policies.
France has your usual European unarmed citizenry, so they are unable to defend themselves against these Muslim terrorists, and yet Chirac won't do more than send small squads of local police to deal with the situation for fear of offending...Muslims! God forbid you offend the people who are attacking you. Instead he wants to have a "dialogue" with them. You can almost hear the sneers of derision from the Muslims, just as the Vikings of 1200 years ago (see yesterday's post) must have sneered at their cowardice.
And what is the "root cause" (to use a phrase from the Left) of these problems? It comes down to nothing more than that idotic idea from the Left, "respecting diversity". By "respecting" these people's "right" to maintain their own culture, they have created ghettoes where the law of Islam trumps the laws of France.
These people are insisting that the "occupying" police forces of France stay out of "their" territory! Can you believe that? And the police have largely complied! The French, as usual, have given up and let these people do whatever they want. The Muslims have taken over large parts of the country and kicked the French out.
Unforunately, we're not far from doing the same thing in this country. Will this be a lesson for us? I doubt it. No politician has the spine to do what is necessary to force these people to assimilate, or leave.
So what happens next? Need you ask? France, as always, will capitulate to their demands which, in turn, will only cause them to demand more or the violence will escalate (which it will whether they give in or not; Israel vs. the Palestinians, anyone?), and quite possibly spread to the neighboring European appeasers.
We could very well be witnessing the beginning of another European war. And it will be caused by the same thing as the last two: appeasement of a fascist ideology.
And, once again, who do you think they're going to call to bail them out?
And now the greatest appeasers of all time, the French, are fighting Muslim terrorists in their streets, while we who (no thanks to the Left) went on the offensive have yet to be attacked again. I hate to say, "We told ya so", but...
In fact, the whole situation in France is a perfect microcosm of Leftist policies.
France has your usual European unarmed citizenry, so they are unable to defend themselves against these Muslim terrorists, and yet Chirac won't do more than send small squads of local police to deal with the situation for fear of offending...Muslims! God forbid you offend the people who are attacking you. Instead he wants to have a "dialogue" with them. You can almost hear the sneers of derision from the Muslims, just as the Vikings of 1200 years ago (see yesterday's post) must have sneered at their cowardice.
And what is the "root cause" (to use a phrase from the Left) of these problems? It comes down to nothing more than that idotic idea from the Left, "respecting diversity". By "respecting" these people's "right" to maintain their own culture, they have created ghettoes where the law of Islam trumps the laws of France.
These people are insisting that the "occupying" police forces of France stay out of "their" territory! Can you believe that? And the police have largely complied! The French, as usual, have given up and let these people do whatever they want. The Muslims have taken over large parts of the country and kicked the French out.
Unforunately, we're not far from doing the same thing in this country. Will this be a lesson for us? I doubt it. No politician has the spine to do what is necessary to force these people to assimilate, or leave.
So what happens next? Need you ask? France, as always, will capitulate to their demands which, in turn, will only cause them to demand more or the violence will escalate (which it will whether they give in or not; Israel vs. the Palestinians, anyone?), and quite possibly spread to the neighboring European appeasers.
We could very well be witnessing the beginning of another European war. And it will be caused by the same thing as the last two: appeasement of a fascist ideology.
And, once again, who do you think they're going to call to bail them out?
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Give Thanks
Today marks the day that Ronald Reagan won his landslide victory over my fellow Minnesotan Walter Mondull, sending Reagan on to a second term as President.
I don't know which is more embarrasing: that Walter Mondale only won his home state, or that Al Gore didn't win his.
Give thanks for Ronald Reagan. He's the one that made it OK to love America again. It's no wonder that the Left hates him so much.
I don't know which is more embarrasing: that Walter Mondale only won his home state, or that Al Gore didn't win his.
Give thanks for Ronald Reagan. He's the one that made it OK to love America again. It's no wonder that the Left hates him so much.
I'm a Loser Baby...
It looks like, once again, the French are going to surrender to invaders on their own soil. No fighting back, let alone the massive show of force that would stop the rioters in their tracks.
But it’s not surprising that they just surrender to these Muslim dirtbags; they’ve been doing it for longer than most people know:
In 841, just one year after the breakup of the Empire, the Vikings sacked Rouen and destroyed the Abbey of Jumieges. In 845, the Danish king Ragnar sailed up the river with 120 ships, passing through Rouen and heading for Paris. (French ruler)Charles the Bald decided to challenge the enemy...On Easter Sunday, Ragnar attacked the French capital and laid it to ruins. Charles the Bald, unable to resist, paid Ragnar 7,000 pounds of silver for him to leave with his loot. Thus was born the tradition of the Danegeld, the ransom the Vikings exacted from their enemies in exchange for a period of peace.
And thus they gave the Viking marauders every incentive to keep plundering Europe, eventually making their way all the way to Russia.
The arrogance of the French is almost incomprehensible when you consider how long they’ve been losers.
Almost, but not quite, incomprehensible, because as I’ve said before, the arrogance of the Left is a mask for their insecurity, whether that be the Left in America or the Left in France. It’s no wonder that the Left in this country builds France up to be some sort of Utopia: they are the same misfits and losers.
The Left in America constantly tell us that if we had cradle-to-grave Socialism like they do in France, all of the problems of poverty, crime, racism, unemployment and anything else caused by “social injustice” would disappear forever.
Well, let’s look at France and her current problems, shall we? They have ghettoes where crime, racism, poverty and unemployment run rampant which, combined with the other perennial loser ideology of this earth, hardcore Islam, has exploded into these riots.
Aren’t we told by the Left that universal healthcare, a huge welfare state, massive government regulation, “worker’s rights” and all of the other mommy-state programs would solve these problems?
France has all of these programs, but they seem to have the same problems that we do. Odd, isn’t it?
Why is it that the Left is completely blind to the fact that their ideas never work? The Soviet Union, Cuba, France, China, wherever their policies are implemented, they fail. Always. No exceptions. Not one. Ever.
But in their arrogance, they blindly cling to the belief that “true” Marxism has never been tried, and if only they were the ones implementing it, it wouldn’t fail.
The perfect irony of that belief is that it’s those very people who have screwed it up every time! The power-addicted, Leftist control-freaks are the ones who bring down Socialist countries every time because of one simple fact: they never factor their own human nature into the equation.
Sure, Marxism sounds great if you know nothing about human nature. Who wouldn’t like everyone to be equal? But the fact of human nature is that some people crave power and control over people more than other people do. Again, ironically, it’s those on the Left who fit the description of wanting power and control more than anything.
France is no different, and they are well on their way to becoming just another third-world nation ruined by the Left.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Well, Duh!
Once again, for the 10,000th time, I heard some whiny liberal (is there any other kind?) asking why "Bush didn't send his daughters to fight the war".
What an incredibly stupid "argument".
For all of you idiotic Lefties out there, let me explain something to you: by the time that you're able to join the military, you are an adult. Your parents can't 'send' you anywhere.
George Bush is the most powerful man on earth (and all of that power that isn't yours is what really pisses you Lefties off, isn't it?), but even he can't send his daughters anywhere. They're adults. They can do whatever they want to.
And I don't remember Bill & Hillary "sending" Chelsea off to fight in Bosnia. Nor do I remember any of you on the Left whining because they didn't.
You know, if something that obvious has to be explained to the Left, I'm not even sure why we bother "debating" these dolts.
What an incredibly stupid "argument".
For all of you idiotic Lefties out there, let me explain something to you: by the time that you're able to join the military, you are an adult. Your parents can't 'send' you anywhere.
George Bush is the most powerful man on earth (and all of that power that isn't yours is what really pisses you Lefties off, isn't it?), but even he can't send his daughters anywhere. They're adults. They can do whatever they want to.
And I don't remember Bill & Hillary "sending" Chelsea off to fight in Bosnia. Nor do I remember any of you on the Left whining because they didn't.
You know, if something that obvious has to be explained to the Left, I'm not even sure why we bother "debating" these dolts.
Testing...
Just playing with the HTML folks...
UPDATE: I think I'll leave this up and play "Name That Tune". Anyone? Bob?
Whattya think of the blockquoting? Too much? Ugly? Too cool, earthman?
Beneath a Mambo Sun
I've got to be the one
For you
Beneath a peat bog moon
I wanna croon
With you
UPDATE: I think I'll leave this up and play "Name That Tune". Anyone? Bob?
Whattya think of the blockquoting? Too much? Ugly? Too cool, earthman?
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Well, That's Odd
It looks like we'll be drilling for oil in ANWR after all.
After 5 years of Democrats railing against it, BAM! It's pretty much a done deal. I pay attention to politics, and even I didn't know that this was even on the radar.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Democrats tell us that the entire country was against this? I have yet to hear one yelp of outrage from anyone other than your usual Lefty suspects.
The biggest arguement that I've heard from the Left, so far, is that it's not "economically feasible" to drill for oil in ANWR.
Does anyone want to listen to what the Left says about what's "economically feasible"? Think about it: the economic policies of the Left brought down a huge empire that is now known as "the former Soviet Union".
And what was that about Republicans and the Bush administration being on the retreat? Libby (NOT Rove), Scalia and now ANWR. Not bad for a week's work.
Now we just need to get President Bush off his ass and start proposing some new things. Immigration reform, tax reform, school vouchers.
Let's do it.
After 5 years of Democrats railing against it, BAM! It's pretty much a done deal. I pay attention to politics, and even I didn't know that this was even on the radar.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Democrats tell us that the entire country was against this? I have yet to hear one yelp of outrage from anyone other than your usual Lefty suspects.
The biggest arguement that I've heard from the Left, so far, is that it's not "economically feasible" to drill for oil in ANWR.
Does anyone want to listen to what the Left says about what's "economically feasible"? Think about it: the economic policies of the Left brought down a huge empire that is now known as "the former Soviet Union".
And what was that about Republicans and the Bush administration being on the retreat? Libby (NOT Rove), Scalia and now ANWR. Not bad for a week's work.
Now we just need to get President Bush off his ass and start proposing some new things. Immigration reform, tax reform, school vouchers.
Let's do it.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
A Must Read
I insist that you check this post from The Lone Ranger out.
It details the Republican party's fight against racism from the earliest days of the party until today.
The Left whines continuously about the Right "hijacking" this and "hijacking" that, but they have hijacked 150 years of our legacy.
I knew a lot of this stuff, but there's a whole hell of a lot that I never knew in that post.
Any Lefty who spouts the word "racist" should be forced to read this and respond to every bit of it.
It details the Republican party's fight against racism from the earliest days of the party until today.
The Left whines continuously about the Right "hijacking" this and "hijacking" that, but they have hijacked 150 years of our legacy.
I knew a lot of this stuff, but there's a whole hell of a lot that I never knew in that post.
Any Lefty who spouts the word "racist" should be forced to read this and respond to every bit of it.
Shut It Down!
Here's a shock: some judicial activists are attempting to shut down our free speech by mandating that blogs come under FEC election rules.
Luckily, somebody's trying to stop it.
The House was set to vote on the bill that would exclude blogs, e-mail and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission.
The bill, if passed by the House and Senate, would stop the FEC from moving ahead with court-mandated rulemaking to govern political speech and campaign-related spending on the Internet.
Anyone care to guess which side is supporting our free-speech rights and which side is opposing them? Silly question.
"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling ), R-Texas, sponsor of the legislation. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."
Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan , D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays , R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.
For all of the whining from the Left about the Bush administration "shutting down freedom of speech" in front of 300 million people, they sure don't seem to like it very well when it's not to their advantage.
The ironic thing is that during the last election, it was to their advantage. Mooreon.org and the rest raised ungodly amounts of money for John LeKerry. So what are they afraid of?
Simple. They're afraid that we on the Right, being adults, are even better at organizing than the Children of the Left are, and we're not about to let them beat us in online fundraising again. So now they want to shut it down before their own tactics can be used against them. Freedom of speech be damned.
Luckily, somebody's trying to stop it.
The House was set to vote on the bill that would exclude blogs, e-mail and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission.
The bill, if passed by the House and Senate, would stop the FEC from moving ahead with court-mandated rulemaking to govern political speech and campaign-related spending on the Internet.
Anyone care to guess which side is supporting our free-speech rights and which side is opposing them? Silly question.
"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling ), R-Texas, sponsor of the legislation. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."
Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan , D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays , R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.
For all of the whining from the Left about the Bush administration "shutting down freedom of speech" in front of 300 million people, they sure don't seem to like it very well when it's not to their advantage.
The ironic thing is that during the last election, it was to their advantage. Mooreon.org and the rest raised ungodly amounts of money for John LeKerry. So what are they afraid of?
Simple. They're afraid that we on the Right, being adults, are even better at organizing than the Children of the Left are, and we're not about to let them beat us in online fundraising again. So now they want to shut it down before their own tactics can be used against them. Freedom of speech be damned.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Victim? Yeah, Right
The big Democrat talking point concerning Michael Alito's Supreme Court nomination is his upholding a law stating that a woman had to consult with her husband before having an abortion.
I actually saw one "horrified" female talking head say that the law stated that the woman had to get permission from her husband! Oh, the horror! If it were true, which it's not.
You know, something that I never hear debated in the whole "abortion rights" issue is, why doesn't the man have any say in the matter? After all, that child is as much his as it is hers, isn't it?
I realize that it's an incredibly thorny issue with no good solution, but should that 'little' fact be ignored? It is never brought up in any discussion.
The second that the sperm cell penetrates that egg, all of his rights are gone. Period. End of discussion.
If he wants the baby and she doesn't, tough bounce, pal. We're sucking it out whether you like it or not.
If she wants the baby and he doesn't, tough bounce, pal. You're going to pay for it for the next eighteen years (maybe longer), no matter what. Maybe we'll even let you see the kid sometime.
The Feminists have managed to portray a majority of people in this country (e.g. females) as a minority deserving of "victimhood" status and protection from the Left. Yeah, right.
I don't know what its like where you live, but here in Minnesota, once a man impregnates a woman he's the one who gets screwed. And if he gets married, doubly so.
If she decides that she wants a divorce, for any reason, 90% of the time the guy ends up moving out of his house and giving up his kids. 90%!!! Can you possibly imagine the outcry if those figures were reversed and she was the one who lost the house and kids 90% of the time? But that will never happen, because men will never be able to overcome the stereotype as abusive brutes who give the woman no choice but to kick him out.
The sad part is that, from looking at hundreds of divorces among friends and aquaintances, it usually seems to be the woman who files for divorce. She either gets bored because she's not living a "soap-opera" life full of drama and romance, or because she starts to see the big four-oh (40) looming on the horizon and files for divorce so that she can remain 18 forever.
Contrary to the Feminist talking points, abuse is seldom the reason that a woman files for divorce.
The only chance that men have, and ironically I was "lucky" in this regard, is "extreme" circumstances of addiction and/or abuse. That's it. Period. A woman can say, "I want a divorce" with no explanation and she will almost always get the house and the kids.
If you're a guy, you'd better have documentation and witnesses aplenty before you even think about applying for a divorce.
In my case, I had to put my daughter through two years of absolute chaos before I even dared to file for divorce.
In that time, I had documented 5 trips to detox, countless lost jobs, 2 or 3 failed rehabs and multiple police visits to our house (including the time she broke her hand on my head and then asked me for a ride to the hospital. Now that was funny!).
I had witnesses to witness my witnesses, including her own mother.
I asked my lawyer what the odds were that I'd get custody of my daughter. His answer? Oh, about 80%. 80 pardon-my-language-fucking-percent!
If she had wanted a divorce, all she would have had to do is go find a lawyer and file the case. That's it. No documentation, no witnesses, nothing. And she would have gotten the house and the kid.
Remember that next time you hear some Feminazi whining about the "Patriarchy".
Equal protection under the law, my ass.
I actually saw one "horrified" female talking head say that the law stated that the woman had to get permission from her husband! Oh, the horror! If it were true, which it's not.
You know, something that I never hear debated in the whole "abortion rights" issue is, why doesn't the man have any say in the matter? After all, that child is as much his as it is hers, isn't it?
I realize that it's an incredibly thorny issue with no good solution, but should that 'little' fact be ignored? It is never brought up in any discussion.
The second that the sperm cell penetrates that egg, all of his rights are gone. Period. End of discussion.
If he wants the baby and she doesn't, tough bounce, pal. We're sucking it out whether you like it or not.
If she wants the baby and he doesn't, tough bounce, pal. You're going to pay for it for the next eighteen years (maybe longer), no matter what. Maybe we'll even let you see the kid sometime.
The Feminists have managed to portray a majority of people in this country (e.g. females) as a minority deserving of "victimhood" status and protection from the Left. Yeah, right.
I don't know what its like where you live, but here in Minnesota, once a man impregnates a woman he's the one who gets screwed. And if he gets married, doubly so.
If she decides that she wants a divorce, for any reason, 90% of the time the guy ends up moving out of his house and giving up his kids. 90%!!! Can you possibly imagine the outcry if those figures were reversed and she was the one who lost the house and kids 90% of the time? But that will never happen, because men will never be able to overcome the stereotype as abusive brutes who give the woman no choice but to kick him out.
The sad part is that, from looking at hundreds of divorces among friends and aquaintances, it usually seems to be the woman who files for divorce. She either gets bored because she's not living a "soap-opera" life full of drama and romance, or because she starts to see the big four-oh (40) looming on the horizon and files for divorce so that she can remain 18 forever.
Contrary to the Feminist talking points, abuse is seldom the reason that a woman files for divorce.
The only chance that men have, and ironically I was "lucky" in this regard, is "extreme" circumstances of addiction and/or abuse. That's it. Period. A woman can say, "I want a divorce" with no explanation and she will almost always get the house and the kids.
If you're a guy, you'd better have documentation and witnesses aplenty before you even think about applying for a divorce.
In my case, I had to put my daughter through two years of absolute chaos before I even dared to file for divorce.
In that time, I had documented 5 trips to detox, countless lost jobs, 2 or 3 failed rehabs and multiple police visits to our house (including the time she broke her hand on my head and then asked me for a ride to the hospital. Now that was funny!).
I had witnesses to witness my witnesses, including her own mother.
I asked my lawyer what the odds were that I'd get custody of my daughter. His answer? Oh, about 80%. 80 pardon-my-language-fucking-percent!
If she had wanted a divorce, all she would have had to do is go find a lawyer and file the case. That's it. No documentation, no witnesses, nothing. And she would have gotten the house and the kid.
Remember that next time you hear some Feminazi whining about the "Patriarchy".
Equal protection under the law, my ass.
A Little Too Familiar?
The Democrats behind the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby case have taken a page right out of the old Clinton playbook. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one were to scratch the surface and find all of the old Clinton advisors from the 90's running the show, if not the Clintons themselves.
How many times have we seen this pattern?
1) Get caught in questionable and/or unethical (if not downright illegal) activities.
2) Attack those who had the temerity to call you on those activities.
3) Use your cronies in the MSM to spin everything away from you and toward your opponents by endless repetition of half-truths and outright lies.
That is exactly what happened here: Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and their backers got caught lying and playing embarassing political games, so they attacked those who dared to question them.
No matter how complicated anyone wants to make it, that is the story. It's simple, and we've seen it time and time again.
Ms. Plame, who called the British report of Sadaam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake from Niger "crazy", sent her husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger to confirm her preordained conclusion.
Joe Wilson then lied and said that the Vice President sent him. Whether he meant Dick Cheney himself or the Office of the Vice President is immaterial. Valerie Plame had no business sending her husband. If a Republican had pulled a stunt like that, the cries of "conflict of interest!" from the Left would make your ears bleed.
And do you believe that this "CIA operative" could find no one more qualified?
Hell, she could have just asked someone at one of her Georgetown cocktail parties. Everyone knew that she was a CIA agent anyway, so she wouldn't have had to worry about blowing her cover.
How many times have we seen this pattern?
1) Get caught in questionable and/or unethical (if not downright illegal) activities.
2) Attack those who had the temerity to call you on those activities.
3) Use your cronies in the MSM to spin everything away from you and toward your opponents by endless repetition of half-truths and outright lies.
That is exactly what happened here: Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and their backers got caught lying and playing embarassing political games, so they attacked those who dared to question them.
No matter how complicated anyone wants to make it, that is the story. It's simple, and we've seen it time and time again.
Ms. Plame, who called the British report of Sadaam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake from Niger "crazy", sent her husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger to confirm her preordained conclusion.
Joe Wilson then lied and said that the Vice President sent him. Whether he meant Dick Cheney himself or the Office of the Vice President is immaterial. Valerie Plame had no business sending her husband. If a Republican had pulled a stunt like that, the cries of "conflict of interest!" from the Left would make your ears bleed.
And do you believe that this "CIA operative" could find no one more qualified?
Hell, she could have just asked someone at one of her Georgetown cocktail parties. Everyone knew that she was a CIA agent anyway, so she wouldn't have had to worry about blowing her cover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)