Oo, I hear moonbats in the rain
Walking signs in hand with their "F--- Bush!" love
Oo, how they love patchouli oils
And their clothing soiled when they're outside
ollow Jeff and his intrepid team of moonbatologists as they further catalog the various subspecies of homo moonbatus
which had migrated temporarily to the jungles of DC's Lafayette Park. (Link to this INDC Journal
adventure via Robert
at The LLama Butchers
The Iraqi people themselves, more than anyone else, have made this day possible.
raq now is a sovereign nation because her people overwhelmingly chose to make this day possible. Without the support they've shown us after we helped to liberate them from decades of absolute dictatorship, and through all the difficult and trying moments heartlessly instigated by the most desperate but dying rejects of civilization, everything her people and those of her allies did together for the Republic of Iraq would have proved impossible.
Most other peoples would have given up or given out long beforehand in the face of such hardship. Civilization's enemies would have had a chance at succeeding against a people less strong and united in resolve and character. Its friends would have had to face futility. Iraqi is not a name any of them would be worthy of having.
Fifteen months ago, Iraq was entirely in the hands of a madman totally bent on subjugating his own people and threatening the world. The journey to this point has been short, arduous, and always hopeful. It has been unprecedented as well. The dictatorship is gone, Iraqis are free, their country is—really for the first time ever—theirs.
The journey continues to more freedom and more hope; and America will remain, as long as you wish us to be, your steadfast companion on that journey. Helping you are among the finest, most well-trained, most professional, and best equipped defenders of peace and freedom the world has ever seen, whose faithfulness and courage—like your own—stand in the starkest of contrasts to those aberrations of human failing, surprising only in how few there were, which no reasonable person could ever refuse to expect in so large an operation as ours and so large a country as yours.
God bless Iraq and her people and their allies.
Come on, 'fess up. You know We know who you are. Mwhah ha haha hah
We usually wear digital khakishirts after Memorial Day. But the 'Bot probably already knew that. (Thanks to fellow alliance member Walsingham
at Jessica's Well
for the superb official logo.)
Whoever's in charge of the armed-pilots program and the passenger-screening guidelines both need to be sacked now. Or, better yet, yesterday!
nder the new leadership of David Stone
, the Transportation Security Administration should place the highest priority on rooting out all the anti-common sense idiocy that's obviously been running rampant throughout key sections of that agency.
Terrorists are so less capable of hijacking airlines and slamming them into our buildings or exploding them over densely populated areas that they're still reserving this trick as one of their top options. No wonder, with politically correct "don't offend any swarthy men" racial-profilaphobic and "ewe, they're too scary" hoplophobic policies that are only hindering effective airline security measures.
Priority 1: Make it much easier for all pilots to apply, train, and qualify as Federal Flight Deck Officers in accordance with the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. No more psyche tests that not even the shrinks who're giving it could pass themselves. No more sending off applicants into the middle of the desert, at their own expense, for testing and training. No more threatening applicants' careers as pilots if they don't pass the entire battery of tests. And while you're at it, make it even easier for former members of our armed forces to qualify.
Priority 2: Specially screen passengers who are more likely the source of a terrorist threat, regardless their "ethnic persuasion." Blue flag for non-citizens. Yellow flag for non-citizens with Middle Eastern passports. Orange flag for non-citizens with Middle Eastern passports who are male. Red flag for non-citizens with Middle Eastern passports who are male aged 16-49. Green flags for "Norwegian women...and 85-year-old ladies with aluminum walkers."
Even for the nobrains still for some unfathomable reason in charge of these two sections, respectively, the above priorities should be nobrainers.
“You can't see me, my eyes are closed.”
hen JFQ closes his eyes, he doesn't see us. So, using LibLogic® Version -6.0, he concludes that we can't see him either. (That, or he's finally noticed how all his audiences' eyes are closed whenever he opens his to find the source of all that snoring he keeps hearing.) Once he realized that to not see him is to not know him, he considered this a good thing, especially after discovering how his liberal big-taxes, big-government ideas
are now even more unpopular with voters in states like Wisconsin
, and Nebraska
, as well as with their elected representatives
. Like a kid who hopes his mommy will believe him when he says, "I had my report card
but Rover snatched it out of my hand and ate it!"
Not surprisingly, people who've spotted Elvis now outnumber the ones who think they glimpsed al-Qerry last week, with his appearances on the campaign trail getting as rare as his drive-by votes in the Senate. However, nothing to get alarmed about, L'Utopianites. It's all part of the new plan.
Voters weren't buying the Democrums' "Even Hitler's Better Than Bush" campaign strategy, despite its being approval by a foreign leader who'd likely endorse Qerry too (were she still in office). Apparently, someone forgot to tell Doh!macrats that Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and other past and present mass murderers are "anyone but Bush" also.
So their leader Terry McAuliffe crossed the globe again on Hanoi John's behalf looking for a new strategy, which he found only a couple of weeks ago. And it's so crazy—It. Just. Might. Work.
It's the 'ol visibly-challenged ploy. No one would ever think to look into the part-time Junior Senator's record of anti-military, anti-Second Amendment, pro-Viet Nam, pro-NAFTA votes, speeches, and interview answers if they thought the person who made them didn't exist. "Out of sight, out of mind" and all that. For example, someone at a Boston cocktail party would bring up the legend of Long Face, and folks would simply say that it sounds too much like Big Foot. There's no objective evidence he exists other than a few paper mache casts of his footprints and about a yard's length of very grainy film showing him slinking around. Marginally entertaining, but not very enlightening.
Then voters will show up at the polls this November, see Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry's name on the ballot, but won't know who the frUNch he is. Oh, one or two might recall that he's anyone but Bush, or that they heard a drunk guy at a kegger once go on and on about how some scientists in a secret laboratory had created this sqerry Botoxenstein who was lurching through the countryside frightening small children. But no one else will actually make the connection since they never really saw the guy themselves. If they don't like President Bush they'll go "Qerry, Naderry, minerry, moe" and pick someone else. Qerry's bound to get more votes that way than if voters knew that he was the same guy who's been walking around with his eyes closed.
Have no fear. They'll open long enough on November 3rd to see that his name's been added to the growing list of losers who also misunderestimated our president. Even if Dorkorats decide to play tag instead of peek-a-boo after next month.
The only reason the former are smarter is because they think that what they're doing might be helping them defeat us. Liberals have never stopped to think that what they themselves are doing actually is.
o they want to make us angrier? Is that their goal? Because if it is, it's about the dumbest and most useless one they've had so far.
Our resolve, we and our enemy both know, is the key to America's total victory or total surrender in this war they started. Each of them is willing to wait up to a decade or more if they have to to finish the job of destroying and killing more and more Americans in their workplaces or in their beds until our country finally capitulates, withdraws, and feels helpless while they build up—undisturbed—their capacity to defeat us even worse the next time. The terrorists are in this for the long haul. Unfortunately for them, America has (until recently, one could argue) been perfecting the art of The Long Haul since Day 1.
Terrorists want attrition, we'll give it to them. It'll be the same kind we used two centuries ago to drive forever from our shores the mightiest standing army and navy this world had then ever seen, plus the kind we used last century to turn four of the world's worst-ever totalitarian regimes—from Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo and finally to Moscow—into nothing more than bad memories and good lessons for whoever wishes us well or ill. That's what Americans mean by attrition.
Keep reading the New York Times, al-Zarqawi, and believe that what you find in its pages reflects the entire state of my nation's resolve. Take comfort in it. Relish it. Clip out its headlines and use your Made-in-USA GlueStick® to paste each one inside your growing scrapbook of death and destruction.
Soon we'll be sending you another Made-in-USA product. But it won't be any treasonous screed or what's needed to fasten it down.
It'll be almost as loud and as hot as where you'll wind up after it causes you to leave this planet for good. Then the families and friends of Nick Berg, the four Marines in Ar Ramadi, Kim Sun-il, and all the other souls who were only there trying to help Iraqis make their country a better place to live when your Kufr Adh-Dhabih bi Ghairillah band of cowards murdered them, as well as of the much, much larger number of Iraqi Muslim children, women, and men you sacrificed in any of the ninety-nine names of Allah, will cut out that headline for their scrapbooks and know that it means their loved ones didn't die in vain because Iraq took one giant leap closer to true peace and freedom.
The Marines, too, will make good use of your precious Times after it runs that headline. They'll use it to wrap up whatever piece of you that's left which they can find, toss them both in the nearest dumpster, and fling in—right on top of that bundle—moldering, maggot-infested bags of pork grinds.
This should be non-negotiable.
1. You allow American contractors working in your country to carry firearms, grenades, etc.; or, 2. We create a special, heavily-armed division of Merchant Marines and require them to join it before we let them step one foot in your country. It's your call.
If you don't like these conditions, fine. We'll pull out all Americans soldiers and contractors from your country and use them to triple our efforts at getting Iraq's oil-export capabilities up and running. Either way works for us. Whether it works for you (especially the part about those soldiers, which Iran should really like a whole lot) won't be our concern anymore.
"If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're older and still a liberal, you have no brain."
was young and foolish when I started college. I believed that government could solve every problem in our and other peoples' societies—world strife, overpopulation, hunger, disease, declining quality of life, rising health-care costs, you name it. If only it could come up with a good enough program to solve each one. I was also very arrogant, thinking everyone outside of government was either too weak or too ignorant, or both, to get together with others to explore possible solutions and discover and implement ones that would be best for them. I was confident that people in government were way smarter than anyone else and therefore should step in and take over practically everything so everyone's life would be "better." I trusted the seemingly smart candidates who promised to give government such wide-ranging control and power, and voted for them.
I was a Democrat, a progressive. I registered to vote in 1988, right before my state's presidential preference primary. The first candidate for president I ever voted for was Al Gore! I thought he was intelligent and suave and had a lot of good answers. However, he didn't get his party's nomination. So after deciding that Governor Dukakis would only turn our country into a basket case like his Massachusetts, I wound up "switching parties" and voting for Vice President Bush. But I still voted for Democrats in other races.
Nearly four years later there emerged another presidential candidate whom I thought was equally intelligent and suave. He was going to "Put People First." Plus he picked Al Gore as his running mate! After having been mad about how the new "real world" I was seeing around me wasn't all rosebeds and government programs, I cast my vote for Governor Clinton. Now the people were at last going to be put first and were no longer going to "get it on the chin."
Then the alarm clock went off less than a month into the Clinton presidency. He said he tried and tried and tried but couldn't give us the middle-class tax cut he promised. He had to pay for all those glorious programs he wanted to help us with and just couldn't "afford" a cut right now. I tried pushing the snooze button, but the clock kept buzzing. Like when he signed NAFTA or gave North Korea essentially a pass on its nuclear-weapons program or tried to nominate Loni "Quota Queen" Ganier for attorney general or signed the largest tax increase in human history. He wasn't putting our people first. I felt betrayed by him and his party, too. I vowed never to vote for another Republicrat or Democran ever again, seeing how they were now practically two factions of the same party.
Since then I've voted for just third parties and independents, even writing in names in general elections when there was only a choice between a D and an R. I never bought that "lesser of two evils" argument or any of its "hold your nose" or "don't waste your vote" derivatives.
Now, however, I have seen one party grow so excessively evil that I can no longer reasonably view it as half of some national über-party. It has violated the people's trust over and over on such an extreme scale that I consider it to be purely evil, unequaled in that pure evilness by any other major party we've ever had in our nation's history.
Only twice following the Revolutionary War has any of our states been successfully attacked by a foreign enemy determined to destroy our freedoms. The first burnt our nation's Capitol to the ground, the second one tried (stopped only by the self-sacrifice of courageous citizens). Both brought death and tremendous destruction elsewhere in our country. In the case of the first attacks, the Federalists opposed "Mr. Madison's War" (at one point calling for the northeastern states' secession), our economy fell into the crapper, and our military forces initially suffered many defeats. In the case of the second attacks, Democrats opposed "Mr. Bush's War" (with several of its leading members seriously discussing impeachment of our president), our economy fell into the crapper but is now recovering stronger than anyone ever expected, while our military forces are defeating America's enemies on all fronts. In the presidential election following those first attacks, the Federalists were so discredited they never again ran another candidate for that office and died—then and there—as a national party.
President Bush and his party, on the other hand, have kept the faith and delivered on their promises to win this war completely and decisively, cut our taxes, improve our economy, and protect our homeland. He and it have demonstrated a dedication to and love of this country the likes of which I haven't witnessed since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
For all this, the monolithically liberal "news" media have viciously assailed our country's president at every opportunity on the most nonsubstantive bases, in effect siding with his opponents who belong to the most evil major American party ever.
That media did so again Tuesday at the President's joint press conference with Afghanistan's interim president Hamid Karzai. Besides throwing innumerable-part questions at him, each jumbling together as many unrelated subjects as they could, none of which bearing even remotely on the results or purposes of the two leaders' just-concluded meeting, the correspondents—with one or two exceptions—went at our president like any "good" Dhimmicratic opposition-research team would with these kinds of helpful, poignant bons mots: "[Regarding terrorists and thugs we captured in Iraq] by what authority does the United States continue to hold the citizens of a sovereign country?"; "If I could just pick up on that, sir, about pessimism....could the case not be made that over the longer-term of your administration, that you're still operating at an economic deficit?"; "Why is it that you're having trouble pulling ahead of your opponent, John Kerry?"; "after the deadly bombing, car bombing, that Iraqi police, as crowds gathered against the United States, just stood around and didn't do anything. Why is that happening?"; "Mr. President, there are signs that inflation may be on the horizon...do you think this might slow down the recovery that you've been so happy about?"; "Ron Reagan's remarks at the former President's funeral....He said that politicians should not wear religious faith on their sleeve. And a lot of Republicans interpreted those remarks as being critical of you and your position on stem cell...."; "Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat statement?"; etc. Even so, the president's answers were firm, optimistic, comforting and, most important, believable.
For me, this was the last straw. On both any doubts I ever had that the Drippocratic party and its media enablers are totally against any country that isn't completely ruled of, by, and for themselves, and any that our president is, both personally and as a leader, a man of unswerving honor and exceptional integrity. It is now my solid conviction that each one has been proven—beyond any reasonable doubt—true.
Because of President George W. Bush, his party has re-earned my trust. I will be voting for him to serve our country a second term; and will likely go further by voting, for the first time ever, a straight party ticket.
The article below only reinforces my convictions. Because it has the same, standard flavor of inaccuracy as the libstream media's "Tenet Resignation Setback for Bush" smearjob ("Plus for Bush" is more like it), or their "Bush Holds Off on Speedy Saddam Transfer" take on the above news conference (the president actually said we're "working with" Iraq's government to make sure Saddam wouldn't be broken out of jail
before the deposed dictator's trial—despite how much liberals and terrorists want that), I'm asking—in a similar spirit of distortion and fantasy—that arrogant know-it-all "progressive" I once was to do the honors of fisking this moonbattiness.
Heinz Kerry Tells Why She Joined Democrats
[Asshaturated Press/AOL Spews, Sarasota Herald-Tribune]
By EMILY FREDRIX, AP
WASHINGTON (June 14) - Teresa Heinz Kerry says anger, not ideology, prompted her to become a Democrat. The wife of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, says her emotion stemmed from the way the Republican Party, to which she had pledged allegiance, treated Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002.
|Teresa Heinz Kerry was a registered Republican until her husband announced his White House bid.|
She didn't say "under 'god'" when she pledged her allegiance
to that Republican flag, so it's not like anyone could ever hold her to it. Even had she done so, as everyone knows there's a wall of separation between church and state enshrined in our living constitution, so it wouldn't have counted anyway.
Just like Republicans to demand that people pledge things "under 'god'" so they feel they have to keep their pledges. Is changing one's mind some form of "sacrilege" then? Geesh.
Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm as an Army captain during the Vietnam War, lost his re-election bid in a bitter campaign against then-Rep. Saxby Chambliss. The GOP had raised questions about Cleland's patriotism because of his position on legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. Cleland supported the concept behind the department, but insisted that a workers' rights provision be part of the bill.
No president, even in time of national emergency, should ever be allowed to "just fire" anyone who works for our government. There are Civil Service protections and procedures that make sure every employee is treated fairly, such as his or her periodic job-performance ratings. No civil servant may be subject to a termination notice, even for cause, unless they have received at least three consecutive "poor" ratings, and even then they're entitled to appeal those ratings to the Office of Personnel Management, and from there to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and from there to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They even have the right to appeal that last court's rulings to our U.S. Supreme Court. Only then may a dedicated government employee be judged incompetent and subject to any firing.
A civil servant should never lose those rights, regardless what department or agency they work for. Patriotism means making sure they retain these rights no matter how threatened our country is.
Heinz Kerry, in an interview to be broadcast Tuesday on the "CBS Evening News," says Cleland's status as a triple amputee is enough to prove his patriotism.
|Whose Side Are You On?|
|If the election were held today, who would you vote for?|
|George W. Bush||51%|
|I don't know||5%|
|Total Votes: 533,537|
"Three limbs and all I could think was, 'What does the Republican party need, a fourth limb to make a person a hero?' And this coming from people who have not served. I was really offended by that. Unscrupulous and disgusting," she said, her reference being an indirect one to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
That's right. We should wheel out
Saint Senator Cleland on stage every chance we get. Forget whether the Republicans say we're using him as a prop. This is too important. If they're going to question our patriotism, we'll question theirs. That will show them. They'll know better than to do such dastardly questioning of people's patriotism again.
I like that idea of a "fourth limb," however. Maybe he could, you know, like "accidentally" break it in a fall while sitting too close to the edge of the stage. Then we can say, "You satisfied, Republicans! Now he's given his fourth limb for his country, too, and you're still questing his patriotism." I like the photo-op potential of that one. Great idea, there, Ter!
If only those backwards, stupid voters in Georgia hadn't been so retarded as to fall for all that patriotism bashing, he'd still be a senator today. But what do you expect from people who marry their sisters. (Not that I'm not saying they should be discriminated against if they want to marry them, or be denied that fundamental right or anything.)
Neither Republican served in Vietnam. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, and Cheney received five student deferments from service during the war.
I know of a lot of guys who served in Vietnam who had bad tickers. So there's no excuse there either. As far as our
elected selected leader misleader, who cares whether he could've been killed "serving our country" while training in all those fighter combat jets? It's not like he was doing anything worthwhile in them like flying around delivering food to our starving children. Just using them for a bunch of warmongering stuff.
Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts, and Silver and Bronze stars for his efforts commanding a swift boat on the Mekong Delta. Earlier in the campaign, opponents of Kerry had raised questions about his military service and whether he deserved the military honors.
Hey, one Band-Aid® on a wound doesn't mean it didn't require a full bandage or a tourniquet. Maybe that's all the military doctor had at the time and told the future junior senator to wait until he could get some more supplies. After all, there was a war going on, you know. It's not like he could go to the hospital supply room somewhere in downtown Tokyo and grab any when he ran out. Didn't the Republicans ever think of that? Oh, that's right, they wouldn't know. They never "served." (chorkle, chorkle)
Same as they wouldn't know that a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong enemy is much more dangerous than a healthy, fighting one. Republicans probably never heard that old saying about "a wounded animal," either. (Not that any Viet Cong freedom fighter ever was an "animal" or anything. I'm just saying that for illustration purposes.)
Heinz Kerry had been a registered Republican until Kerry, her second husband, announced his bid for the White House. Her first husband, Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania and the Heinz prepared foods heir, was killed in a plane crash in 1991. She inherited a fortune estimated at more than $500 million.
Which she's using to help the needy, and the poor, and The Children, for crying out loud. She's not a Halliburton BushCheneyCo exec, you know.
And her foundations have indirectly (understandable that Republicans don't understand the nuance of such a word) supported 9/11 victims groups that are trying to get the message out that Bush Knew! about the attacks before they happened. Criminy, he and Condi Rice had that memo that said, "Bin Laden hates us and wants to attack us here." How much more proof does anyone need! A fifth limb?
In the interview, John Kerry is asked about criticism of his wife, who has a reputation for being blunt and outspoken.
"When it's silly stuff, and a lot of it is incredibly unfactual, I get angry about it," he said.
Yeah, all we hear all the time is "blunt, blunt" this and "outspoken, outspoken" that. The unfactualness of it all is enough to drive actual thinking people crazy. It's so unfactual, you know, all that stuff. I even saw some stuff on the other day that was real unfactual. You know, like the last stuff everyone saw. That was so incredibly unfactual, too, and silly. Silly Republicans, I suppose you want all your women to be librarians and stuff and not immigrants of mixed Portuguese, Italian, Swiss, German and French decent with a British passport who can marry an upper-class senator and inherit a fortune after he dies and marry another upper-class senator. How narrow-minded.
Asked for three words to describe his 65-year-old wife, who is five years his senior, Kerry said: "Saucy, sexy, brilliant."
She responded: "I'm cheeky, I'm sexy, whatever. You know, I've got a lot of life inside."
That's so cute. Isn't it wonderful that a man is willing to marry a woman who's half a decade older than him. Now that's progressive.
A liberal interest group will begin airing a new television commercial Tuesday in four battleground states that calls President Bush "a failure of leadership"
Oh, yeah. This administration has failed on, on...well, everything. Don't leave that one out.
and criticizes Vice President Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton.
MoveOn.org's political action committee will spend about $1 million over a week, a hefty amount, to run the 30-second ad in Missouri, Nevada, Ohio and Oregon.
The ad accuses Bush's administration of giving Cheney's former company no-bid contracts to work in Iraq "on a silver platter."
"Then," the ad says, "the Pentagon caught Halliburton overcharging $61 million for gasoline. Worse, they billed over $100 million dollars for meals for our troops that they never delivered. And George Bush is still doing business with them."
Wow, I'm speechless. I just knew Dennis Kucinich was right all along about those deals. I don't care that Clinton also awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton (those were just part of the Clinton-Gore reforms), or that it was the only company that could "get the job done" (there were a bunch of French companies just waiting to go back in), or that these allegations are over seven months old, or that there was nowhere near "$100 million dollars" in overcharges, or that another company (Tamimi) has the food contract now, or even that Cheney's former company Halliburton has been "cleared" of any wrongdoing regarding that gasoline. These things still don't make it right. No corporation should be in it just for the profit. They should all get only "below-cost only" contracts.
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign, said: "This is another incredibly misleading ad from an organization completely outside of the mainstream of American politics."
Like that organization's major financier, George Soros, isn't mainstream? Just look at all the good he's done for Europe and the Russian ruble and ask me again if he isn't. He's just trying to help us out like he's helped them, that's all. It's why he's backing ads that show Halliburton is a profit-oriented corporation.
Separately, The Media Fund, another Democratic group, ran new radio and newspaper ads in Kansas City, Mo., criticizing his record on health care and prescription drug costs. Bush visited the state Monday.
Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti contributed to this report.
06/14/04 20:46 EDT
Updated: 09:54 AM EDT
Oh, that reminds me. If the president doesn't have to resign in order to go campaigning around the country, why should his opponent have to resign from the Senate? That's such a double standard. Who cares whether Bob Dole felt he had to do that? It wasn't like a rule or anything.
Back to reality now.
I can't believe how deluded I was back then. While my wanting to help people and empathy for them basically hasn't changed, my belief that those in government could do and have it far better than other citizens has. It was a cop out in a way. I could act as a great helper and empathizer vicariously through my government. The more far-reaching and powerful I let it become by my votes, the better I believed I was being helpful and empathetic myself. I didn't really look to see how, and therefore didn't trust that we the people were even more capable of being so ourselves. Thus I looked down on anyone who wanted less government, thinking they were just being selfish or mean-spirited, or both. Because I assumed that only government could make lives better, my so-called logic told me that advocates for lesser government didn't want people to have better lives. I even considered myself more enlightened and more caring than those advocates since I was for bigger government. I personally had no means and therefore no power to offer everyone the exorbitant amount of help and empathy I wanted them all to have, except through such government. Moreover, I assumed everyone else was as powerless as I, compared to the absolute beneficence of an all-encompassing government.
Fortunately I learned that there was nothing absolute about it. The dispirited stares of persons dependent on government assistance, the inability of businesses to offer more people jobs, hope and a future because of overly complex and counterproductive regulations, the special privileges and exemptions which elected officials afford themselves in the laws they pass, power-hungry tyrants turning to unelected, sympathetic judges to bypass the consent of the governed and impose their own will on everyone. These taught me that government is the last place to look for any real benefits.
Where I consistently found sources of actual help and empathy were among private organizations and individuals. Ten years ago, for example, my brother and I went to help a relative of ours who had lost her home in a devastating flood. She was not alone. Homes in half the city where she lived were damaged, many beyond repair. Arriving on the scene, we came upon a checkpoint set up by National Guardsmen whose duty was to keep out looters and curiosity seekers. After my brother explained about our relative, they let us pass. What we saw as we proceeded farther in was heartbreaking. Debris was everywhere. All the houses had been completely submerged for days and were now completely uninhabitable. One had belonged to an elderly couple who lost their lives after the fast-rising waters caught them in their sleep. When we reached our relative's home, we could tell how high the waterline rose by observing the mud rings—thirty feet up—caked around the trunks of the tallest trees. Despite the nearly overpowering smell, we got to work trying to salvage what we could and piling the rest in heaps up and down the roadside.
There were no soldiers or government social workers or welfare officials helping us out with that difficult task or comforting us when it got too rough. For the most part we had just each other and our families pitching in to clean up the entire mess. Once a day a Red Cross van passed through offering people water, bandages and tetanus shots. But that was about it. Then, during our third day inside this ravaged area, a miracle came.
A group of about twenty members from an out-of-town church—I don't know if it was even in the same state—walked up to us and asked if they could help. Not too long before, one of the nearby houses we had tried cleaning out proved too much for us to handle because it was in even a worse mess. We told this group about it and they immediately descended on that house, removing soaked furniture and limbs, ripping out rugs, pulling off sheetrock, and sweeping out mud until, about three hours later, it was in much better shape than the other houses we were working on. After they were done one of my cousins asked if she could pay them something for all that hard work, but they politely declined. Then she asked if she could at least have an address where she could send a card thanking them. They declined that too before heading down the road to the next houses.
To this day I don't know who they were or where they came from. They could have been angels. Their altruism surely was an unexpected answer to our prayers.
Regular citizens helping each other out in time of need is not an uncommon occurrence in this generous country. They don't require you to fill out forms or wait for approval before they offer you that help. It's just "What do you need done?" and they get right to it. Where it counts, they're much better at helping people and having empathy for them than any government employee who's supposedly paid for it. No amount of laws or funding or special programs are able to solve people's problems or make their lives better than the way we keep doing it ourselves.
To liberals this would be considered radical, a word they often recite but whose true meaning they obviously don't understand.
Radical connotes a driving force that fiercely opposes prevailing ways of thinking so it can break through reluctance and usher in new thoughts roused by necessity. An impenitent intolerance of stilted manners that have been holding back real progress. In this sense the concepts of our Founding Fathers are radical. They brook no blind servitude to the tyrant, circumscribed only by his whims, but require open obedience to the law of the land, properly enacted with the voluntary, competent and knowledgeable consent of the citizens inhabiting that land. Two hundred and twenty-eight years ago, such ideas were extremely radical. Given the state of almost all of the earth's countries, they still are.
Every acolyte of liberalism wants to convey the notion that its ideas are also radical. That they are not only utterly new but urgently necessary. But they're as old and discarded as any Grecian potshard. Even that obsolescent national party to which a vast majority of these acolytes still flock bears the name of liberalism's most pontificated form of government: Democratic. The same one ancient Greece tried to adopt but couldn't maintain longer than two centuries.
The radical notion is that people themselves, not their governments, are in the best position, have the best knowledge, and have access to the best resources for finding and fixing their own problems. Government may try, as liberals want, to be a substitute for that, but it's always a poor one. When someone comes up to you and says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," you can count on not getting any which could actually do you some good. It will either be much more trouble than it's worth or leave you worse off than you were before you heard some N-word Byrd tell you "help is on the way!" Such DemoKKKrats believe government should have all your power so it can always say in every conceivable circumstance, "I'm here to help you." It's really all about power for them—and we don't need that kind of helping.
When I was a "progressive," I believed that the Democratic Party was the real deal, an actual alternative to the Republican party. I then progressed to the belief that they were both essentially the same. After Gore's attempted coup d'état in 2000, I began to realize that for Dodocrats it was all about power—nothing more, nothing less. The straws of that realization kept piling up, especially after seeing Senator Wellstone's
memorial service We Will Win! pep rally, SadTom obstructionists in the Senate, the scratch-n-switch Jeffords power grab, Dean's name-the-states primal power scream, the attempt to delay Gray "Skies" Davis' recall, the Ninth Circuit's outlawing "under God" throughout the western states, al-Qerry's Massachusetts supreme court turning marriage into a meaningless farce, the 9+1 Against Bush Commission, "Bushless-Life or Death" Soros' 527 BCRA end-around, anytime GoreBot's back in the news, the libstream media/al-Qaeda joint propaganda project to put "free Abu Grabass pictures inside!" on every cereal box, "I voted for it before I voted against it," and the uncontrolled salivating at the mouth every time another point on the one-sided "Troops Killed" giant liberal scoreboard is added. Tuesday's "Mr. President, have you stopped beating your wife?" grain of reporters' America's backstabbers' questions was, for me, the one that broke every doubt's back.
Dhimmicrats and their media enablers have systematically marginalized themselves with a steady stream of propaganda that would insult even an amoeba's intelligence. "Anyone But Bush" and "Anything To Win," and now Qlinton's "Because I Could," will be carved in big block letters on that party's headstone.
The party of Ted "Good News Is I Saved $$$ By Switching to GEICO" Kennedy, Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry, Hilldabeast, SadTom Daschle, Goreknob & Gorelick, The Racebaiting Jessie Jackson, al-Sharptongue, Rep. Corrine "They All Look Alike To Me" Brown, Terry GlobalCro$$ing McAuliffe, Bob Byrd (D-KKK), the Not Wortha Dime, BiIsIs Qlinton, James Hurl al-Qarter, Michael Tanked Dukakis, Janet Waconflagration Reno, francophiles, porous borders, If It Feels Good, Do It™, et al., has failed miserably in its duty to offer the American people sensible, viable alternatives. There's no loyalty to America in its opposition at all anymore. Their distortions and grandstanding for power are weakening support for our troops and our troops' mission and emboldening our enemies, inviting more attacks against all of us.
Fortunately, once our nation rids herself once and for all of any further threat from this Diseasocratic petulance, we can work on establishing a second party that's much better for our country.
Then we can let America be America again.
Had they been around in 1944, they wouldn't have seen a link from Pearl Harbor to Germany either.
orest for the trees. The working title of the commission's report. Forget that we were still at war with Iraq on and before the attacks on September 11, 2001. ("Cease fire agreement" apparently means "peace treaty" in libberish.) Forget that Iraq violated that cease-fire agreement on a daily basis by firing at our lawfully-patrolling aircraft (which Iraq also agreed to, by the way) and endangered our pilots and aviators' lives. Forget that Iraq's dictatorship was a proven supporter
of murderous terrorists (as if there's any difference between one species of civilian-targeting suicide-bombing scum and the next). Forget that the commission doesn't have access to Czech intelligence files
(unless you count "we read about it in the New York Times
"). Forget that Iraq sent its security officials to attend the al-Qaeda 9-11 planning session in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
. Forget that the terrorists who attacked us are spread throughout the Middle East, harbored by or hiding out in countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. And after you've forgotten all that, forget too that just liberating Afghanistan from Taliban control was never enough to completely prevent terrorists from attacking us again (unless you enjoy the view from that place underneath the sand where liberals' heads are).
Now that you have practically no memory (or sense) left, you won't have any trouble ignoring how deep in that sand the heads of the 9+1 Against Bush Commission's members are buried.
Iraqis obviously want what we want—a free, stable, independent Iraq. Which is why they're fighting heroically for it, including helping us in general and in courageous acts like these (via Free Thought):
- On the evening of May 30, 2004, [Iraqi Private Imad Abid Zeid] Jassim and his fellow members of 4th Platoon, India Company, Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) were jointly patrolling the streets of Al Karmah, near Fallujah, with leathernecks from 1st Battalion, 5th Marines. All at once, the patrol was ambushed from the rear by enemy insurgents. A U.S. Marine was instantly struck down with a gunshot wound to the leg....
[ICDC] Sergeant Abdullah Sadoon Isa, Corporal Eiub Muhamad Hussane, and Private Ahmad Lazim Garib [rushed forward until they were in between the enemy and the wounded Marine, firing the whole time]. Jassim and another private, Kather Nazar Abbas, stopped shooting long enough to begin dragging the American to a position of relative safety. Bullets and at least one rocket-propelled grenade zinged past their heads as they managed to pull the Marine behind a wall. A U.S. Navy medical corpsman rushed forward to render first aid. The Iraqis and the Americans continued battling the enemy force....
On Friday, Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, and Col. John A. Toolan, commanding officer of Regimental Combat Team 1; decorated the five aforementioned Iraqi soldiers for their "heroic achievement" during an awards ceremony at Camp India in Nassar Wa Salaam. The awards included two Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medals and three Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medals. Each of the medals included combat "V"s for valor.
Brave Iraqi soldiers risk their lives to save a Marine. How long before we read that headline on the front pages of "our side's" newspapers?
Phoenix's East Valley Tribune
has the story and a picture of them. Indeed.
"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life."
hank you, President Reagan's family, Mrs. Reagan, Michael Reagan, Patty Davis, Ron Reagan, Maureen Reagan's family; representatives of other nations, Lady Thatcher, Mr. Mulroney; the men and women of our Armed Forces, its Honor Guard detachments; officials, civil servants, and public safety officers of our national government, the several states' and territories in our Union, California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia; guests and citizens of the United States of America. And thank you, President Reagan.
Your decency, thoughtfulness, and poise will be appreciated and remembered with gratitude long after this day, not just by me but by everyone who—like each of you—is committed to individual freedom and liberty.
- Always Ronald Reagan embodied the heart of the American people. And once he described it as "hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair."
President Reagan's not even in the ground yet and they've already started their Speak Ill of the Dead campaign against him.
hen each of these
socialist propagandists' times comes, demonstrators handing out leaflets to mourners at the funeral home criticizing his or her "career" would be much more respectful than the recycled hatchet jobs these urinalists are publishing right now. The same goes for their editors who assigned or approved such post-mortem take-out pieces.
Critics See a Legacy Tainted by Social Issues [AOL Spews link]
By ROBIN TONER and ROBERT PEAR, The New York Times
Let's make a deal. Unless there's some new criticism about President Reagan you can actually come up with, you liberals promise to wait until his interment before you start pissing on his grave. In return, conservatives will dispense with referring to you slimes and your Slimes
as "all slimes" until then. OK?
WASHINGTON (June 8) - Despite Ronald Reagan's personal popularity,
At least try?
...his domestic agenda was in many ways bitterly polarizing.
Oh, well. Should've known better.
Asking a liberal to make and keep any promise is like asking them to breathe only through their noses. There's simply no point in it—unless you consider how their fashion of headwear for this and every season includes nothing but steeply conical asshats.
Then, as now, conservatives hailed his tax cuts, his stirring defense of traditional values and his commitment to getting government "off the backs" of the American people.
What's not to hail there?
But many liberals and progressives see his domestic legacy very differently,
They would. But what's with your calling them "liberals and progressives" as if the two were distinct and separate entities? Rather redundant, don't you think? Like saying "Nazis and fascists." One is synonymous with the other.
...particularly on AIDS, civil rights, reproductive rights and poverty.
Because he didn't pander to The Interests™ like Dhimmicraps do, these libressives (or progerals) believe he was some homophobic, racist, woman-hating destroyer of the poor. Yeah, that's original.
Though clearly sympathetic to Mr. Reagan's family,
Though clearly you're speaking through your asshat here, as this
fantasy of yours is shared by absolutely no one who has more than two functioning braincells.
...they are still angry over his policies,
Also original. Find anything under the sun that they're not angry over and that would be news.
...which they assert reflected the unbridled influence of social conservatives.
Whereas letting anyone do whatever they want simply because it feels good without any regard for consequences is the kind of unbridled influence liberals want to see reflected in their dream of a
totally socialistic government
dull mudhut village inside a swamp.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, posted an open letter on his organization's Web site this week,
Saying how deeply sorry he was for the loss of our former president; and out of respect for his family, would refrain from making any disparaging remarks about him or his political career until after he was buried.
...addressed to a friend and fellow gay rights advocate who died of AIDS. "I have tremendous empathy and respect for Mrs. Reagan, who lovingly cared" for her husband "through excruciating years of Alzheimer's," he wrote.
You didn't think there wasn't going to be a "but" or a butthead following all that, did you?
...even on this day I'm not able to set aside the shaking anger I feel over Reagan's nonresponse to the AIDS epidemic or for the continuing anti-gay legacy of his administration."
Not having a grave on which to piss yet, he's left doing it all over the public while they're in the process of trying to come together and properly show their respect for the passing of one of our nation's highest office holders.
Must make a note of that so when Qlinton inevitably succumbs to some nasty syphilitic infection from one too many bouts of philandering, I'll know what to post on the Net right after his death certificate is signed.
Advocates for people with AIDS have long asserted that Mr. Reagan's lack of leadership on the disease, which was first reported by the Centers for Disease Control in 1981, significantly hindered research and education efforts to fight it.
He did lead, by example. He always accepted responsibility for the consequences of his own actions and never, as is standard operating procedure among raving moonbat liberals, tried to blame someone else for any of his irresponsible acts. Too bad those in the whoring-around community didn't follow that example more closely and prevent such a disease from spreading until it got into the nation's blood supply and infected unsuspecting, innocent children and older people. That's thoughtless, heartless and cruel, and shows no sign of self-restraint, personal responsibility or leadership.
But let's blame Ronald Reagan—again—for all that. It makes it a lot easier to avoid the inconvenience of having to admit that those in this community could have themselves successfully fought and prevented the spread of AIDS before it reached that proportion. Or are you admitting that the persons who engaged in such irresponsible sex were too stupid to know, even after their doctors told them, that they risk spreading it to others if they continued to engage in it?
What specifically did you want President Reagan to do? Would you have supported his declaring a national public-health emergency that included the undoubtedly effective measure of cracking down on and quarantining people who are known or suspected by health officials to be such public risks? Short of that, what makes you think anything any president could've done would've had any significant effect on altering the behavior of those whose personal choices directly contributed to this disease's progress? Even after its dangers became widely known, that community was slow to clean up its own act, contributing to even more death and heartache which no one deserved. Nonetheless, just keep blaming others if it makes you feel any better. However, don't ever expect that kind of advocating to help your cause.
His surgeon general, Dr. C. Everett Koop, wrote later that "political meddlers in the White House" had complicated his work on the disease, and that "at least a dozen times I pleaded with my critics in the White House to let me have a meeting with President Reagan" on AIDS in the mid 1980's.
Before you try turning yet another former official of an Administration you hate (i.e., Republican) into a Clarke-like bandstander—again—for your revisionist piece of history, you should mention also where you got his quote and what else he said there.
Your source, of course, is cited in a write-up from last year by Jeff Elliott regarding CBS's The Reagans
miniseries hatchet job, which that network didn't even have the guts to show. Although you didn't let that stop you from recycling selected parts of it here, others might want to see what's behind your hit and run:
What the former surgeon general—who "was first viewed as a nut-job by many in the Public Health Service," whose "nomination to the post was also opposed for months by women's groups and medical professionals," and who is now your "unlikely hero of the Reagan years"—actually said three years ago at the Kaiser Family Foundation symposium on AIDS policy in Washington, D.C. (PDF document), was that these so-called political meddlers tried to "bottle up [one] report" until he agreed to remove the words "penis," "vagina," "rectum" and "condom" from it. Asking him to make his report less R-rated so most people wouldn't find it offensive and therefore would be more inclined to actually read it (which he refused to do), does not constitute "complicat[ing] his work on the disease."
The quote about him "plead[ing at least a dozen times] with...critics in the White House" to let him have a meeting with the president, is nowhere to be found either in that symposium's full transcript or anywhere else, but appears to be something you pulled right out of thin air.
What he did say about the matter was this (emphasis supplied):
- Not long after the blood test I mentioned [the 1985 HIV "footprint" test], President Reagan asked me to write a report to the American people about AIDS. And then for the next two years, AIDS took over my life. I had heard it rumored that the President was going to make this request of me. And then a few days after I heard this, the President made an unprecedented visit to the Humphrey Building to the Department of Health and Human Services and thanked people for what they were doing for the health of the nation. And among things, he said I'm also asking the Surgeon General to prepare a special report on AIDS. That was it. There was never any formal request. It's a good thing I went to the meeting. It's a good thing I wasn't sleeping.
As Dr. Koop should know—but was probably sleeping in class that day when it was taught in his civic course way back during his year(s) in the fifth grade—no president has to issue a full-blown executive order to get one of his appointees to write a report. Just read the Constitution: "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." That's your formal request, Doc.
As for assigning blame, there's seems to be plenty of it to go around for everybody:
- There were two reasons why public health authorities took a while to get a handle on AIDS in the beginning. One was that there were relatively few people trained as clinicians and researchers familiar with the rare diseases we were discussing. And the second reason was that the first patients, those with—found in homosexual men, usually patronized physicians and clinics that were more understanding of their gay lifestyle. And in making that choice these men effectively placed themselves outside the mainstream of clinical medicine and, therefore, they were more difficult to know, more difficult to reach and, therefore, more difficult to help.
Not until Rock Hudson's death in 1985 did the disease start gaining real public attention. Again, don't let these uncomfortable facts stop you urinalists from maligning this great president again, particularly after he's dead.
Mr. Reagan did not make extensive public comments on AIDS until 1987.
He only ordered his surgeon general back in 1985 to merely write a full national report about the disease.
Nothing to see here. MoveOn along.
In an interview, Mr. Foreman declared: "That history can't be forgotten. I owe it to the people that I lost not to forget it, not to pretend like it didn't happen."
After all, people are obviously pretending that his ordering that report didn't happen. Let's not forget it.
Gary Bauer, Mr. Reagan's domestic policy adviser for the last two years of his administration, countered that spending on AIDS research rose under Mr. Reagan. Moreover, he said, because of Mr. Reagan's strong belief in cabinet government, the president largely ceded the job of speaking out on AIDS to Dr. Koop and the secretary of health and human services.
Sorry, Mr. Bauer, but you apparently don't understand Rule 1 of the political version of liberal football. You still have 404,800,000 yards to go before they'll ever agree you scored a touchdown.
In general, a hallmark of Mr. Reagan's domestic policy was an effort to slow or reverse the growth of the federal government. He and his first budget director, David A. Stockman, repeatedly tried to trim health, education and social welfare programs that had been expanding for decades, and they achieved much of what they proposed.
No thanks to the late Tip O'Neill (who's buried, by the way) and other Spendocrats in both houses of Congress. They weren't about to give up all of their Tax-n-Spend liberal pie. They needed to keep the spending part up in order to bribe voters who liked the idea of "voting themselves the treasury."
"A big part of Reagan's agenda was the devolution of social policy" from the federal government to the states, said John L. Palmer, a scholar of the Reagan years.
Which actually started under Nixon's presidency with his "revenue-sharing" programs (or even before) and survived mostly intact through both Ford and Carter's. It's not like President Reagan invented the concept.
But many liberals say that Mr. Reagan broke with the New Deal notion that government could - and should - be an instrument of social equity.
Just because Karl Marx (who's been interred), Walter Mondale and Hilldabeast like that notion too doesn't mean it's what the American people themselves believe is right and best for them. President Reagan's 49-state re-election landslide should show that—even to a liberal.
Representative Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, said: "He really did turn away from the notion that there was a positive role for government.
If "erect[ing] a multitude of New [Bureaucratic] Offices, and [sending] hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance" is such a positive role for government, we the people never would have wanted to renounce our status as British subjects
Mr. Reagan also argued that the government better served the poor by assuring strong economic growth than by distributing social welfare benefits. He said he had no objection to financing benefits for the "truly needy" - those who could not work because of age, illness or disability. But he staunchly opposed cash assistance for people who could work.
What! No one's "entitled" to sponge off American taxpayers and contribute nothing meaningful to themselves and our society if they decide doing that makes them feel good? Did I miss the sign saying "you're now leaving the cEUntry"?
Michael J. Horowitz, a neoconservative who worked in the Reagan White House, said that by combining a conservative ideology with an affable personality, Mr. Reagan "shattered the caricature of conservatives as less caring and more mean-spirited than liberals."
Not so fast, there, Mr. Horowitz:
(Feh) Saw that float coming down
5th Avenue 43rd Street.
...Nancy Amidei, who was then director of the Food Research and Action Center, an advocacy group for the poor, said Monday, "President Reagan's policies may not have been intended to be mean-spirited, but in many cases, the effect was to hurt low-income people who couldn't work or who had low-paying jobs."
Evil conservatives want people to have jobs so they can work for a living and keep what they earn. Nice benevolent Liberats want slaves to have a small handout so they can stay on the government plantation and have nothing. Now which do you imagine helps the poor more?
President Reagan infuriated labor unions in 1981 when he dismissed thousands of air-traffic controllers who had gone on strike and then defied an order to return to work.
Defying lawful orders wasn't their original idea. But after one of their Drippocrap advisors said it would make the administration back down, they trusted him and continued their then-illegal strike.
But former administration officials say Mr. Reagan did not regret his action. Indeed, they say, the dismissals showed people in foreign capitals that Mr. Reagan was a person of substance who was not to be trifled with.
"They say." Another paraphrase from a quote no doubt pulled out of thin air again. As far as regretting anything, he would've regretted not enforcing our nation's laws as he was sworn to do. Of course, liberals don't really grasp the concept of "laws" and "rules" all that well, so it's not surprising they still malign President Reagan for having done his duty. Not that they get the word "duty," either.
The ascendancy of the Reaganites also moved the Republican Party to a staunchly anti-abortion stance, including endorsements of a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion, the appointment of anti-abortion judges and new restrictions on family planning programs that involved abortion services.
Trying to save the most voiceless among us, refusing to believe that a tiny life with a head and a heart and an ability to feel and respond to real pain is little more than a mere body part or piece of chattel, and forthrightly and honestly standing by and advocating that work and belief, is wrong?
That anti-abortion movement is today a leading force against embryonic stem cell research, which Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called a "sad irony." Nancy Reagan has become a leading voice urging the expansion of such research, which involves the destruction of human embryos, but is considered promising for treatment of many diseases.
You liberals already got a major compromise for continuing this research, so you can just feed that load of anthropomorphized straw to your dodonkey. He shouldn't have any trouble at all chewing it to bits even with baby teeth.
Similarly, Mr. Reagan's policies on civil rights were bitterly divisive, as reflected by Mr. Reagan's strikingly low share of the black vote, 11 percent in 1980 and 9 percent in 1984.
However, we're making progress helping people escape the Slavemastercrat's government plantation and fully join the ranks of the free. Naturally this will remain a difficult journey along many underground railroads so long as there are liberals offering people free hand-outs if only they'll stay on that plantation.
In 1988, Mr. Reagan vetoed a bill to extend the reach of federal civil rights laws; he asserted it would "unjustifiably expand the power of the federal government" in the affairs of private organizations. Congress overrode his veto.
Ted Kennedy introduced his Civil Rights Restoration Act to "overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Grove City College v. Bell" and require that, "if one entity of an institution receives federal funds, the entire institution must abide by the anti-discrimination laws." President Reagan sided with the liberal Berger court (who decided Roe v. Wade), Congress didn't. If anyone was being divisive here, it was the Supreme Court. Although dodonkeys don't eat fish (red or otherwise), perhaps you brought this up as a dig against Vice President Cheney, who as a Congressman voted to sustain President Reagan's veto. That's the only reason I can think of, because it sure doesn't support your argument that our late president (who hasn't been interred yet) was anti-civil rights—unless you're claiming that the Berger court was too.
The Reagan administration also maintained that it was legally required to grant tax exemptions to racially discriminatory private schools. The Supreme Court rejected that contention in 1983.
Like the last ichthyological argument, this dig is really directed at Carolyn Kuhl, President Bush's judicial nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, because she favored a tax exemption for Bob Jones University while a Reagan Administration official. Until the recent
compromise agreement Pact with the Devil, SadTom obstructionists in the Senate had put a thick glass ceiling over her, denying her even the courtesy of an up and down vote.
Another move that earned Mr. Reagan the enmity of the civil rights movement was his resistance to economic sanctions against the white minority government of South Africa.
Another stark display of The Slimes'
continual bias on this issue is its failure to mention how miserably out of touch
the black leaders here in comfortable America were with those of the Inkatha civil rights movement there in South Africa:
- Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, head of the 1.5 million member Inkatha movement and leader of South Africa's largest tribe, the Zulus, visited President Bush on February 28  to discuss prospects for peace in South Africa. Despite the importance of this visit, the story was ignored not only by ABC, CBS, and NBC, but also by The Washington Post. The New York Times excerpted 71 words from an AP story on the visit.
Buthelezi has long opposed sanctions, an issue he raised with Bush. As Buthelezi told AP, U.S. sanctions policy "minimizes economic growth and maximizes black misery." Instead of covering Buthelezi, ABC, CBS and NBC were busy covering [Nelson] Mandela's visit to Zambia.
Because Mandela is an unabashed communist, he and his support of sanctions got—and still gets—better treatment from the libstream media.
Mr. Bauer asserts that Mr. Reagan's record has been distorted. But Julian Bond, chairman of the N.A.A.C.P., said, "Everyone wants to extend sympathy to his family, but when you remember the actual record, it's a very, very different story."
A story we've all heard many, many, many times before, but one The Slimes'
urinalists couldn't wait to rehash again right in the middle of a state funeral.
This is how liberals show respect for a late president who hasn't even been buried yet. They want to get in that last bit of hate and despising they have of him while he's still above soil.
Inspired by Denny Wilson's USS Jimmy Carter.
uring a Botox-transfusion accident caused by an improperly ionized needle, Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry gets sucked into a parallel universe where he's premiere of the Socialist States of America.
His first order as Vendor in Grief is to decommission all American warships and replace them with the following frUNch-approved "navy":
- SSS William Jefferson Blythe Qlinton (AO #311)
- Built for speed so it can outrun any pursuit and avoid capture by other S.S. ships when ordered to actually join the fleet. Ship's flag: dark blue with small, irregular splotch in one corner.
- SSS Hitlary Rodent Qlinton (AF #666)
- Stealth refrigeration vessel, impervious to normal radar while approaching party conventions. Ship's flag: manila envelope covered with fingerprints.
- SSS Albert B. Arnold Gore (LPD #2000)
- "Manned" entirely by robots and androids, although the remote control system often malfunctions in years evenly divisible by four, causing it to inexplicably belch. Ship's flag: skull and crossbones beneath picture of voting booth.
- SSS Theodore Kennedy (MVT #L78207)
- Runs off pure alcohol but is very slow to react when ordered to steer hard to port. Ship's flag: asszure with picture of overly large hat.
- SSS Charles Schumer (AG #486-4430)
- Has no guns aboard whatsoever, although crew members are allowed to keep and bear lucky rabbit feet. Ship's flag: white with red circle in the center surrounded by two concentric red rings.
- SS Nancy Pelosi (Y #556-4862)
- Inspects the shallows for motes in other ship's portholes while ignoring the beams in its own. Ship's flag: France's.
- SSS New York Times (ATF #2003)
- Hauls around fabricated supplies and worn-out parts that are stale and unusable. Ship's flag: yellow with picture of leaky pen.
- SSS King Louis IX (AK #36-C)
- Qetchup tanker and transporter of see-through gowns for Qerry's female kin. Ship's flag: Red with two hammer-n-suckles.
From adding President Reagan to Mount Rushmore to replacing persons on our present bills and coins with him, which of these would be the most appropriate way to honor the memory of one of our nation's greatest presidents?
fter thorough discussion and debate, I'm sure our nation will be able to reach a decision which both honors President Reagan's memory and respects his family's wishes. Jay D. Dyson's idea
for changing one of our current bills, although I like it a lot, probably couldn't overcome the expected objections against replacing any bill's portrait that citizens are accustomed to seeing. (Perhaps as an alternative, circulate a new bill—like a $200 one.) With regard to Mount Rushmore, if an additional carving is technically feasible I'd definitely support that.
My own idea is to bring back the $20 Gold "Double Eagle" coin that was circulated right after the 1849 California Gold Rush until its redesign in 1907, but with President Reagan's likeness on the front:
His likeness is taken from a photograph of him standing with Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez (whom President Reagan awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor to in 1981), found on the Valor Remembered Foundation's Web site
. Sergent Benavidez, who devoted his life to helping America's youth reach their own highest potential, passed away on November 29, 1998. The non-profit Foundation
established in his name carries on his work.
This is just one of what I'm sure will be many ideas citizens are going to be discussing. (About.com's Basic U.S. Coin Facts and AustinCoins.com's US Mint History have more information about past and current coins.)
‘Anything to win, anyway we can’ means not just ‘anyone but Bush’ but ‘anytime's good for a Big Lie paid for by Big Money’ and—more ominously—‘anyplace is good for a pre-election terrorist attack.’
nemies of our Nation are plotting and planning their next attacks, waiting and watching for any vulnerabilities of hers they can exploit. "Strike hard and strike fast" is their war cry whenever they believe they've found one. And that's just the enemies we have right here among us, in our country's own Democratic Party.
Big Lies and Big Terrorist Attacks, respectively, are what Defectorats are using and hoping for in their sole quest to seize just for themselves as much of our government and all its powers as they possibly can. No other party has ever made that seizure an end unto itself, regarding any and all means completely justified for achieving it. Liberal stooges, writing on behalf of these Desperatecrats, are trying desperately themselves to rationalize such justifications in the hope they'll be generously rewarded high positions of influence or power created specifically for them by a most grateful "changed regime." Countering them are intrepid reporters cutting through the yellow underbelly of Zarathustra's dog to show the twisted insides of its bestial cravings.
The following two articles help further expose not only that extreme desperation for power evident in practically every pronouncement and promise by or on behalf of the Drivelcratic Party, but how their goals and objectives have actually nothing whatsoever to do with promoting the best interests of children, the elderly, AIDS victims, the uninsured, veterans, minorities, Social Security, our budget, or even democracy. Those are just means to the one and only end that matters to Deserterats and their sycophants, hangers-on, and excusers.
Superrich Stand to Profit From Kerry
Posted April 15, 2004
By John Berlau
Soros and other wealthy businessmen stand to gain financially if John Kerry gets elected.
President George W. Bush constantly is criticized and attacked by Democratic partisans and their media surrogates for pursuing policies that benefit "the wealthy." Yet surveying the political landscape an observer can't help but ask why it is that so many of what would be considered America's superrich are his political opponents? In addition to the Hollywood mega-elite, which since the death of Sam Goldwyn have opposed the GOP mainly for cultural reasons, billionaire businessmen have stepped forward calling for the defeat of Bush or his policies.
That's right. You heard it here first: Increasing taxes on the rich helps them gain financially. You never thought it was possible, did you? Especially if you're socialistically bent. But it's true. Trust us.*
Still, how can we punish the rich for being successful, you may ask, if all our tax-raising on them is for naught, and they just wind up getting even more money? A very good question. Just follow us down this shady lane of nuanced bends and curves and soon it'll all become very clear:
Most prominent has been speculator George Soros, who has pledged to raise $75 million to defeat Bush, given millions to Democratic Bush-bashing groups such as MoveOn.org, and told the Washington Post that ousting Bush is "the central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." But investor Warren Buffett also has opposed many of Bush's tax policies, such as estate-tax repeal and dividend tax cuts, calling them "class welfare for my class."
See, the sun's already starting to shine through the thick canopy. Just 527 more steps to go before we move out of the woods and into the light. Also, once you get used to the path's rich ammonia aroma, those steps will become as light as Mr. Buffet's equally yellowish-tinged stuffing. Keep moving onward now, because our shoes tend to get slippery if we tarry too long in one place, and you might fall and cut yourself on those sharp lenses lining our road. Then you'd get blood all over that wicked looking pair of shoes of yours.
Oh, and if you scope an abandoned farmhouse or two between the trees, just take comfort in the fact that the person who once lived there couldn't afford to leave it to his wife and children after the poor devil was accidentally divided in half by one of those lenses. We were only concerned about their welfare when we asked them to move on.
So hurry. We're bound to meet some interesting creatures who'll school us in the ways of getting richer through higher tax payments. None like the bashing and ousting ones we've met thus far.
The mass media never cease to talk about how "the rich" will benefit from policies such as estate-tax repeal, while overlooking what many economists have seen as the positive effects that will benefit the economy as a whole such as job growth, increased savings and preservation of family businesses. Yet when a celebrated would-be plutocrat such as Buffett, Soros or William Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft billionaire and a wealthy lawyer in his own right, comes out against the estate tax or in favor of any other left-wing policy, their motives never are questioned. These economic royalists regularly are described as acting against their interests, even though Insight has found that Buffett, for instance, has businesses that actually profit from the existence of the estate tax.
(Those would be his brokerage houses that deal in baloney futures, under the umbrella of Phone E-group's wireless investment services.)
Give that nice man over there some oil now. That's right, rub it in. Good. See, his limbs are starting to move on around some— No, wait. Stop! His chip-plated suit isn't making that squeaking noise. He is! Bad chip man. Bad.
But, what's this? His jaw's starting to move a lot more. Maybe now he's going to spout out for us a millennium's worth of wood-dwelling knowledge about the efficacy of making billions vis-à-vis higher tax payments. —Oh! How rude. You'd think he'd have the decency to cover his mouth when he does that.
Well, then, put your ear up against his chest and maybe you can listen to the depth of his feelings about it. Nothing? Are you sure? Oh that's right, I forgot. He's a lawyer. Doesn't have a heart. Sorry about that.
All right, let's move on. Maybe the all gorgeous, all estate-tax paying Mumbling Moonbat of 'Oros will deign to offer us some of that royal wisdom and insight of his. Then we can at long last celebrate both the rising of Pluto and the disclosure of that ancient but interesting secret to tax-derived profits. I heard there's going to be a buffet, too. Yum.
Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, notes that Soros regularly is described as a philanthropist, whereas no such term ever is affixed to Richard Mellon Scaife, who gives to conservative causes and is portrayed by the liberal media as an agitator. This was so even though the sums he gave to conservative and anti-Clinton groups were a fraction of his giving. Scaife gave mostly to ballet companies and other cultural institutions in his hometown of Pittsburgh, carefully keeping his economic interests separated from his philanthropy.
(Whereas pledging your entire wealth to matters "of life and death" like "ousting Bush" is the province of billionaire moonbats.)
Oh! No! Flying anthropologists! Filling the sky! Must. Duck. Down. Inform whatliberalmedia? media.
Too late! They've scooped up the cowardly kitten and are taking him off with them. Stop! He didn't get to say his lines yet.
We have to rescue him somehow. He might have the answers we're seeking. Could save us having to make a trip through the Illogic-Embroiled Forrest on our way to Castle 'Oros.
And analysts say economic interests always should be looked at when examining political players on both the right and left. Although both Soros and Buffett may be advocating policies that fit their worldview, it develops that both also stand to gain financially from the policy ideas they're pitching. "These aren't just philanthropists, and these aren't just political ideologues; these are people who stand to profit" says Tim Carney, a Phillips Foundation journalism fellow and author of the forthcoming book Regulatory Robber Barons.
See, higher tax payments do benefit the rich. The answer was right there within you all along. You now have only to click your heels three time— Wait, we aren't there yet. Some of the pages of this script must have stuck together, Chip Man.
"They're making investments and expecting a return on it," Carney notes. Soros, for instance, is a currency trader, with reported vast holdings in unstable financial markets. He has taken a beating in the last few years on his positions in the Russian ruble. Coincidentally or not, Soros advocates global taxes to strengthen institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to bail out unstable governments facing currency crises.
See that in the distance? That's the tallest spire of Castle 'Oros breaking through the fog. Let's run! Hurry now... run... Fast-er.... Zzzzzz.
No, wake up! This field of rubles will make us unstable if we don't get a move on now and pass them quickly. Good thing someone sprinkled around that imfy dust and made it rain down all our backs. (Now why are its drops the same color as the road?) Ah, never mind. We're almost there.
(Ed. Note: Thanks to Chip Man, we couldn't unstick the pages of the script which show us how we rescue the cowardly kitten. So he's still in the clutches of those evil anthropologists whose flight choreographer is apparently someone named Phil.)
In his book George Soros on Globalization, the international speculator criticized an IMF/World Bank reform commission headed by noted conservative economist Allan Meltzer that called for sharply limiting bailouts. Soros wrote that this was too strong a medicine and the proposal for a restructured agency was too restricted: "Contrary to the Meltzer Commission's recommendations, it would be premature to terminate the existing lending operations of the World Bank. So-called middle-income countries like Brazil, and even Chile, have very uneven income distributions and great social needs. ... The World Bank has an important niche to fill."
So, although limiting such bailouts will reduce "class welfare for our class," 'Oros the Irate actually doesn't want that reduced. I think we didn't get enough of that imfy dust back there with the rubles, we're still feeling a little bit unstable.
How Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry's proposed policies fit into all this is anyone's guess. Hence we must move on until we're closer to the Gates of Castle 'Oros.
But critics of these institutions note that their taxpayer-subsidized lending and bailout practices tend to benefit allegedly piratical speculators such as Soros more than the people of the Third World by giving the big boys the opportunity for a huge return with taxpayers holding the risk. "Bailouts are a great way for rich people to make lots of money," Carney says. "They'll put money where no one else wants it, because it's a bad investment, and then get big government to help them out." Carney adds that "bailouts are as likely, if not more so, under Democratic administrations."
Oh, I see— Huh?
This "matter of life and death" business is actually about, well, business. Right? And Dunceocrats like bailouts that help the rich, more than any Republican does. Because— because they believe investments are bad; so when any are made, they believe government should step in and stop all that investing and instead give more money to the rich because no one else wants it— Money no one but the rich want— which the government— Because the government will give it to them. That's how!—?
Hey, you, peeking out of the gate. Yes, you, guardian—or whatever they call you. Let us in because we've got to see the Moonbat. We need answers to how this wiz of a policy works. Answers which we heard that only he can give us—because of the mumbling things he mumbs. So open up. Now!
Much more likely, says former hedge-fund manger Andy Kessler. He points to the Clinton administration's bailout of Mexico during the peso crisis in the mid-1990s, for which Wall Street banks lobbied, and contrasts that to the Bush administration's refusal to bail out an Enron teetering on bankruptcy in 2001. Robert Rubin, the former Clinton administration Treasury secretary who engineered the Mexico bailout, actually called the Bush Treasury Department to ask it to help Enron.
A Clinton cabinet officer was in favor of bailing out Enr[obber-bar]on™, but President Bush adamantly refused to do so. Doesn't "KKKlintonCo" fit better here than "BushCo"?
"What's that you're saying? You'll have to speak up if you want me to hear you from way up here!"
We have to see the Moonbat!
"You what?! No one sees the all gorgeous, all estate-tax paying Mumbling Moonbat of 'Oros without an appointment. Come back November 3rd and I'll try to schedule you in!"
Wait! We can't come back then. We've already traveled a long way through a very sqerry forest filled with flying anthropologists and sharp focusing lenses, and were almost left unstable by a large field of rubles. So you must let us in to see the Moonbat. We have some very important questions that only he can answer.
"I can only take you as far as his mansion. But that's no guarantee you'll get to see him."
"The Bush people are more free market, and [John] Kerry is more likely to appoint a more interventionist Treasury secretary like Rubin," Kessler says. He thinks this is not unimportant to Soros because, Kessler speculates, Soros is "probably long and wrong in [his investments in] the entire Eastern bloc."
"Usually the Moonbat only sees his subjects one at a time. But he's in a hurry to MoveOn with 'matters of life and death,' so he'll see you all at once. Just go in. He's ready to see you now."
Once inside, the Mumbling Moonbat of 'Oros's sqerry visage starts mumbling. Incoherently at first, then louder and even more incoherently as he proceeds with his belching speech.
It's difficult to tell how exactly Soros would benefit, because there is little transparency in his holdings.
"I demand that all political campaigns regularly report who their contributors are and how much they're spending on their campaigns. That's why I spent tons of money lobbying for passage of the McCainFeingold McUmbentProtection Act."
Oh, so you're the one responsible for making sure all of us can't even mention a candidate's name 60 days before an election.
"What's this 'all' business!—buuurp—I'm a liberal. Mere laws don't apply to me or my kind!"
Soros' funds are held privately and do not have to be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In fact Insight got an unusually hostile response from Soros' spokesman for even questioning whether Soros would benefit financially from his huge expenditures on political activity.
"No one questions the all gorgeous, all estate-tax paying Me! Furthermore, I demand that all the accounts of every political campaign be made public for all to see!"
"I have no faith in the ability or desire of Insight magazine to portray George Soros' activities in an unbiased manner," said Michael Vachon, the spokesman for Soros Fund Management in New York City.
At least he's not demanding we go out and fetch him a broom from somewhere.
"Quiet! I'm not through demanding things yet!"
Pressed, he finally said, "There's no relationship between the policy prescriptions George Soros recommends and his own financial holdings. He doesn't make policy recommendations to increase his own personal wealth. That's not what motivates him."
"I'll take it from here, Mickey.
"That's right, my recommendations are: One, higher taxes so everyone will get richer, not just me. Two, oust Bush so we can get those higher taxes so everyone will get richer, not just me. And three, go forth and bring me back—a shrubbery! so I can use it to oust Bush so we can get those higher taxes so everyone will get richer, not just me.
"But make sure it's not too tall, and is in a nice plant holder, preferably one that has a nice design which matches those curtains over there."
Whoa, now. Back up some. Tell us if we've got this strait: So if you're rich and pay higher taxes, you'll wind up making even more money. And if you give lots and lots and lots of money to something that's "the central focus" of you're life, that has no relationship whatsoever to your financial holdings.
"Correct! And when you return with that shrubbery, I'll give you my last recommendation, which involves a herring."
Huh—! You know what, Moonbat? We've got a name back home for people who bark utter nonsense like that, Moonbat. But since it's what everyone around here calls you anyway, there's no point in us calling you that again. Or even in listening anymore to your bat droppings.
You'll notice we had to leave Toto back at the farm because, frankly, he has much better things to do with his time than spending it tromping through some Fibberal Forest looking for a nonexistent proof to your and your cohorts' cockamamie tax theory.
Fortunately, his last-minute replacement was more than happy to quietly tag along, always ready to apply his vast experience tracking down and ripping new ones for über-Idiotarians like yourself if ever we needed to call upon him for it. So we're asking him to remain here as the new Guardian of the Gate, but not for the purpose of keeping anyone out. Quite the opposite. He'll be more than able to make sure all this rabid battiness stays in here, where it belongs, and has no chance spreading anyplace else.
Critics of Soros wonder if his spokesman doth protest too much but concede that liberal or statist billionaires probably aren't motivated by money alone. After all, there's power.
"No, don't pay any attention to that moolah behind the MorOn."
But the critics say it's foolish to think that citizens who have amassed great fortunes suddenly put aside their financial interests and the heady perks of being an insider when it comes to politics and policy influence. "They put up a great moral front, but they're great money managers. That's their legacy, and I suspect there's always some economic underpinning to their policies," says a close observer of this crowd.
The Mumbling Moonbat of 'Oros is exposed for the fraud, cheat, liar, and abuser of power that he is. We're all lifted all the way up to the moon in a balloon filled with all his hot air. Our cowardly kitten is eaten alive by flying anthropologists, while the chip man remains heartless and Mr. Buffet's brain a bundle of straw. And no liberal at all lives happily ever after. The End.
(Roll credits, as sounds of intense growling precede the ruckus of things being loudly ripped to shreds in the background.)
Take Buffett. He,
(. . . . O'Strawbrains)
(. . . . Mumbling Moonbat thereof; Snake Oil Peddler; former Guardian of the Gate; other assorted sqerry characters)
(. . . . Chipman of the Heartlessland)
...and some of the Rockefellers
(. . . . flying monkeys, flying)
...got great press for joining with a group called "Responsible Wealth" that seeks preservation of the estate tax. Buffett was given laudatory press for remarks such as the one to the New York Times about "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."
Keeping the estate tax also means that many of those eldest sons don't get picked at all, so there's less competition for the fortunate few who do. O'Strawbrains doesn't have to worry about his own son Howard not getting picked.
Putting aside his mangled analogy for a second, what well-set Howie's dad really likes about this tax is that the lower tier of wealth—small but successful businessmen and women—will be sending a much higher marginal share of their money to the government after they die, leaving Howie little or no competition from any of their sons and daughters who might threaten his more concentrated wealth. To bring the Olympics back into this again: How about we pick that 2020 team from the offspring of the biggest cheats and steroid users in 2000 who only won their gold medals because they went around bribing all the judges? Same difference.
But one thing the laudatory articles didn't say is that Buffet owns insurance companies that profit mightily from the threat posed by the estate tax.
He profits from finding loopholes in the tax code for estate planners. So, given that al-Qerry wants to raise estate taxes too, strawman Buffett is supporting this silver medal ribbons tosser because he hopes to spin more of his brains into gold. Unfortunately for Buffett's clients, the estate-tax hike is going to be the least of their worries after F-boy gets done with his across-the-board tax hikes.
Moreover, why does Soros give a flip-flop about preserving the estate tax? His investment holdings are mostly preserved in the Netherlands Antilles, where he pays no tax at all on them but gets a lot of his druglord friends' laundry done (when he's not working on expanding their markets or destablizing helpless others'). Yeah, some philanthropist.
Regardless where these so-called Responsible Wealth members stand on so puny an issue (economically speaking), all the profitableness they might eke out in the world for their respective investments in estate-planning companies will be offset in spades by what would amount to the largest tax hike in human history second only to the one Hanoi John voted for back in 1993.
Hilarious as our getting hiked on like that was, funnier still is how al-Qlinton also promised a working-class tax cut (just as Qerry has), but later said, "Afta tryin' as hard as a 'coon dog on crack, I'z be real sorries but I jiz cain'ts gives y'alls one rights now [meaning "never"]. Yhuck-yhuck-yhuck." The thought of this being undoubtedly repeated with a snooty Boston accent is by no means going to make the same promise sound any more palatable—or believable.
Dena Battle, tax-policy analyst for the National Federation for Independent Business (NFIB), says many of that group's members have businesses worth $1 million or more, but have take-home pay around $50,000. Because the estate tax currently hits 55 percent of income over a certain threshold, the only way many small-business owners can pass on their businesses to their children is by buying a life-insurance policy to prepay the tax. The policy, of course, also includes hefty fees for the insurer.
Rich folks would benefit under Qerry but all small-business owners would get it square on the chin? Sounds like a good enough reason to ditch both him and the estate tax forever, wouldn't you think?
And one of those companies is SAFECO Life and Investments, a Redmond, Wash.-based company which advertises on its Website that it provides "effective estate-tax planning" and "business-succession planning." Who owns SAFECO? It was acquired recently by "an investor group led by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway," according to Reuters.
Zee strawman striketh, again.
"This shows his fortune benefits directly from the estate tax on the backs of small businesses," says William Beach, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation who points out that Buffett has other such life-insurance holdings as well. Berkshire Hathaway did not return Insight's phone calls seeking comment.
Because the only comment they could think of was "Oops!" But then they decided that wouldn't be the kind of quote they'd like to see attributed to them in this or any other article, so they declined.
The NFIB's Battle points out that a typical small-business owner pays $27,000 a year for an estate-tax life-insurance policy. "That's [the cost of a new] employee," she says, explaining that there would be no need for this type of policy if there were no death tax and that money could be used to help the economy by hiring more workers. She points out that the superrich such as Buffett, Soros and Gates Sr. can afford to have experts set up trusts and other devices to deal with the estate tax; it's the new entrepreneur who has trouble plowing through the red tape. Minority businessmen such as Black Entertainment Television's Bob Johnson have echoed Battle's view.
So while Mr. Joe Smith doesn't have the wherewithal to move his family-owned hardware store to the Cayman Notaxlands, "philanthropists" like Soros and Buffett do when it comes to their corporate interests. Again, what do the latter care if folks like Mr. Smith—who are creating real jobs in this country—have to pay those higher taxes that Qerry's proposing?
Even that tax shelter of straw, which the latter's saying he wants to build for these Messrs. Smith, won't do any of them much good once the IRS and Congress get wind of it and start huffing and puffing and blowing it all down with new regulations and codes. By the time Mr. Smith, Jr. is ready to inherit anything from this hayloft, he'll find out that all its "insured" protections had expired long ago.
Kessler says that even with the superrich, when it comes to money, "there's always a degree of uncertainty and sleepless nights," and goodly outlays to politicians give them access to protection. In Soros' case, his theory of the "bubble of American supremacy" is something he has been preaching for nearly 20 years, as well as practicing in his investment philosophy, sometimes with disastrous results. During the 1980s, he wrote in The Alchemy of Finance that he lacked confidence in Reaganomics and that Japan would replace the United States as the economic dominator. He sold his stock at the very bottom in 1987. He lost money betting on the strength of the euro in the late 1990s. Also in the late 1990s, his Quantum Fund lost a tremendous amount, shorting U.S. technology stocks. His fund finally got into the tech market just as the Clinton downturn was hitting in 2000 and lost even more.
Alchemy, potions, and smoke and mirrors to pull off his tricks on unsuspecting nations. No wonder people throw water balloons at him in places like the Ukraine. (Perhaps they believed that would melt him—although they should've realized that he's the character that just mumbles, not the one that screams "Fly, monkeys, fly!") With a record like that, it's not difficult to figure out why he's supporting the likes of al-Qerry. He wants to buy a president who'll prove such a miserable failure at making economic plans that Soros will look like a financial wizard in comparison. Too bad there isn't a potion that can make him disappear from our nation as Mama suggests.
Not content with merely badmouthing Presidents Reagan and Bush, King Soros has decided to join the ranks of those America-hating foreign leaders who've endorsed Hanoi John: Jacques ChIraq, Rim Bong Ill, Jose Full-Retreat Zapatero, Mahathir Final-Solution Mohamad, Ramsey Clark, Howie Screamin' Dean, GorOn, Hilldabeast (psyche!), Freddies-Flameloader al-Sharpton, power tool of the terrorists Ye Olde Forked Tongues (All the spews that's spit and spent.), Fritz! WeWillWin! Mondale, and—hold your breath now—Ted Kennedy, as well as a few cave dwelling ones.
Speculation has been rampant that Soros might try to flip the market in the weeks before the 2004 election in an effort to defeat Bush, and there has been much talk about how he could try this.
Can't you just smell the desperation from this oustBush crowd?
Economist Donald Luskin, who heads the firm Trend Macrolytics, says that part of this strategy may just be funding groups that talk down the economy. If Soros has bet against American resurgence, this economy-bashing could benefit his holdings as well, Luskin says, "I think his most effective way is to talk it down by diminishing confidence, by enhancing a sense of risk, by playing up all this outsourcing sh-t, and saying 'Don't be fooled that you have a job now, it's going away in two years, and John Kerry will prevent that.' That's very effective stuff." Of Soros' successes Luskin says, "He makes money when there's a dummy on the other side."
The dummies, of course, being thee and me if we fall for his hocus-pocus. The only ones truly experiencing desperate times in this country are elites in the Demoshatic Party and liberal media. Their desperate measures would no doubt include assisting their parlor magician by distracting and confusing the audience with unrepresentative anecdotes and loud, repetitive bass-drum beats of "more bad economic news" while he prepositions coins that he's going to say, with great exaggeration, are being snatched from your ears.
Not only hoping for bad news but pulling every lever they can behind that curtain of theirs in order to create some. What a wonderfully progressive, positive-thinking, love-your-country bunch of traitors these folks are.
Fortunately for all of us, the news has been good and keeps getting better on both the economic front and the global war on terror. Not even the WhatLiberalMedia are able to successfully ignore or qualify all this good news. The only people who aren't welcoming it are Distorterats and terrorists, because they view such news as a major setback for them.
On the other hand, Kerry supporters Buffett and Soros have about $50 billion worth of liquidity with which to play, and October can be a very volatile month in the markets.
John Berlau is a writer for Insight magazine.
For more on this story, read "Hollywood and Wall Street Backing of Kerry."
Speaking of pulling levers, Osama bin Laden's version of an "October surprise" undoubtedly would be even more satisfyingly volatile to them since they really aren't interested in how many folks would get hurt by a Madrid-like bombing in Washington or New York, either. The more harmed or even killed the better they believe that hurts President Bush and helps their side.
"Bring it on!" they and their haughty French boy keep chanting. Now we know what the Desperatecrats and liberals really mean by that.
* The fact these superrich are supporting Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry and his tax-hiking plans for purely self-interested reasons, is not only well documented in this article but disintegrates their spin they are basing such support on a desire to promote "responsible wealth." While acknowledging there exists no response which could equal in audacity its cynicalness, that spin is the sole object of this fisking.
Shallow Throat to Dems: "Time to Go for the Jugular!"
April 22, 2004
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
When I got the coded call from Shallow Throat, I was worried. The last few times we'd talked*, the highly-placed GOP mole in the Bush Administration was extremely frightened, fearing imminent discovery, so I thought something bad might have gone down.
* For three of these earlier "conversations" with Shallow Throat, see here ["Shallow Throat to Dems: 'One Chance, Don't Blow It,'" February 10, 2004], here ["'Shallow Throat' Tells How Bush Can be Defeated in 2004 -- and Who Can Do it," September 30, 2003] and here ["'Shallow Throat' Advises Democrats to Bring It On Big-Time," July 18, 2003].
Whether they be real Democrats or imagined ones, they're way too shady.
Please bear in mind this isn't some Democratic Undergrounder yahoo churning out such bleak and dark prose. The author holds a Ph.D. and is a 19-year veteran "writer-editor with the San Francisco Chronicle." Count him among "the best and the brightest" of this party's shady characters. Or, just another overeducated idiotard. (It's supposed to be "Democratic mole," Professor Svengali, since you're saying he's one of your own plants.)
We met in a half-deserted, dimly-lit tavern outside the Beltway. The wig and shades were different, but the anger was the same and it was directed at the usual target: timid liberals.
"Weak after weak after weak, we just lie around, lie around, lie around." Ted "Driving Miss Mary Jo" Kennedy said it so it must be true. Yeah, the desperate anger brewing throughout this machination of yours is all too apparent as well.
"I can't believe you guys!" he practically shouted. "Bush is screwing up big time in so many areas - the 9/11 coverup, the Iraq War, Israel and the Palestinians, the Plame case, the environment, health care, education, the economy, tax rates, and on an on - and your Dem friends simply watch in horror, with their mouths wide open, and don't react with any real passion.
Sounds a lot like those immorbid words of John Flipfloppin' Flop al-Qerry: "Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did?" So Bush is to blame for everything, huh? No wonder the reaction time of you knee-jerk reactionary Neanderthal jerks is down. It's all too much for your petrified "brains" to process.
"Bush&Co. are dazed, confused and floored, not knowing what the hell to do, and you let him get up! At times, you even seem to be helping him to his feet! Damn it, this isn't tiddlywinks. Bush&Co. are playing full-contact, crush-your-opponent politics, and too often you seem to be playing to win the good-sportsmanship prize.
In psychological terms, what you just read would be described symptomatically as a classic case of projection: "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
Dazed, confused, floored, and not knowing what the hell to do are Dhimmicrats. Starting in 1994, when voters employed Republicans to liberate our House of Representatives from 40 years of its being run by a Dictocratic regime, the American people have pushed your untrustworthy party farther and farther down its well-deserved slide into political obscurity and permanent oblivion. Their liberation of the Senate has been triumphant too, despite any brief, obstructionist insurgency of SadTom loyalists and disruption by foreign Jeffords.
Of course let's not forget The Chappaqua Hillbillaries pardoning all their favorite drug dealers, rich fugitives from justice, and other assorted crooks—including those in or with close ties to their own family— during the final days of their co-presidency. Or that the Congressional and state elections of 2002 were a watershed for Republican gains and Duncocrudic tears: Not since FDR have voters given a president's party more seats in both houses of Congress during his first term, one of the results being the demotion of SadTom to minority leader. Nor since Reconstruction have Georgia voters elected a Republican governor, on top of their electing a Republican senator. Along with the California recall (which Dippyrats desperately tried to obstruct), voters also gave that state, Massachusetts, and Maryland each a Republican governorship. These are just harbingers of even worse Driedupcrat losses to come.
Oh, yeah. The garish, even ghoulish display Demonrats put on at the "memorial service"/political pep rally for the late Senator Wellstone. That gave voters just one more reason to write another chapter for your party's Dying History.
No, Republicans are the ones playing to win that good-sportsmanship prize, while yours is playing "full-contact, crush-your-opponent," kick-'em-while-he's-down politics in wartime—to the tremendous glee of America's terrorist enemies. Something our enemies are no doubt latching onto to Keep Hope Alive™.
Something that voters are no doubt analyzing as well.
"You want to get rid of Bush and his kind from the White House? Remember where the political jugular is located and go for it!"
Slice Slice Slice! Bleed Bleed Bleed! Die Die Die! Here's the severed head! That's our positive message. So vote for us!
Shallow Throat was red-faced and breathing hard after this tirade, and quickly chugged some beer.
Nice to still have a head with which to breathe and chug beer, isn't it?
"I couldn't agree more," I said. "But what brought this on? What happened that made you call me?"
Doc agrees with all that jugular slicing. How nice.
ST gave me a look of disbelief. "You ask me that after what's happened since we last talked? Dick Clarke and Bob Woodward spill the whole can of beans all over the Bush Administration, Condi Rice lies and bobs and weaves her way through her testimony, nobody even tries to lay a glove on Ashcroft, the FBI and CIA are fingered to take the fall, Iraq is falling apart, Bush pitiably embarrasses himself and our country at his press conference - and your candidate and the rest of the Democrats issue polite criticism.
Good ol' bandstanding Clarke, the one who personally gave Osama bin Laden's family the green light to flee the U.S. right after the attacks on September 11, 2001. The criticism, if any, he's received in the libstream media for that failure would be considered polite, not the vicious attacks our president has received for merely existing. As for Woodward, he can't even see beans spilling over a "bubbling vat." Given too how Dr. Rice made mincemeat of the ranting and raving members of the 9+1 Against Bush Commission, and how Iraq's leaders themselves have already selected a fully functional interim government, from Prime Minister to President and every other minister right down to Minister of Sports, saying that your memes aren't worth a hill of beans would be putting it politely.
"Even parts of the conglomerate-owned media machine are starting to mention and question Bush's scandals and disastrous policies. Why are you Democrats so timid? You should be wiping the floor with these guys, not pretending that all this is politics as usual.
I must have missed those recent stories about
deep- shallow-throating interns right in the Oval Office, or selling highly classified satellite technology to Chinese generals who stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom. Haven't we moved on from them all by now? Also, if three consecutive quarters of strong economic growth and terrorists getting pounded into submission are considered disastrous, it's hard to even imagine the kind of superperfect heaven-on-earth utopia that would have to exist before the DTs of your liberalworld start admitting there's anything positive at all going on. Nonetheless, politics as usual doesn't include purposefully trying to undermine the country's war efforts with fifth-column seditions or helping out dictators whose regimes we're about to topple. Not even that COMM of yours can stick enough smiley faces on those treasonous traitor's treasons to distract voters.
"Bush&Co. don't play politics as usual - you've had nearly four years to notice that! They play for keeps, and if you think you've witnessed unprecedented corruption, mendacity, greed and arrogance up until now, you ain't seen nothin' yet. If they get four more years, it's a forced march to a police-state at home, more looting of the treasury for the fat cats, and more 'benevolent hegemony' wars abroad. And the economy will be in the toilet, flushed away so that social-service programs for the middle-class and poor can be decimated even more, while the wealthy and the corporations make out like bandits."
You're projecting again.
Let's put aside for the moment how your shadow party's financiers King Soros of MorOn.org, Prince Lewis of Pot-hashish Corp, and other liberalty are trying to make out like bandits. There's no evidence whatsoever backing up your Dire Warnings™ about police states, looted treasuries, or tinfoil-plated toilets. What you're actually describing is the socialist dictatorship that your pal and Kim Jong Il's hopes to set up in the unlikely event American voters experience mass amnesia and forget about those sneak attacks on them from terrorists and your party.
THE COURSE OF ACTION
"OK," I replied. "Supposing it's all as drastic as you say, what to do?"
Slice! Slice! Slic— Oh, that was just the outline. Here are the details:
"Your Dem friends may choose to ignore what I say - because if there were a decent, traditional Republican running, I probably would be voting for him - but I hope they will be more open-minded, remembering that I've been risking my job, and maybe my life, revealing the inside workings of this nest of vipers.
A "decent, traditional Republican" in your view would be a Dhimmicrat. In any case, it appears DT is a "GOP mole" after all, being that the only real nest of vipers anyone has ever found in Washington, D.C. is at and directly across the street from 888 16th St.
"Your friends have to realize that I'm voting and secretly working for Kerry because the forces behind Cheney's sock-puppet have hijacked my party and ripped it to the far extreme right-wing, wrecking everything we traditional Republicans, who are suspicious of unbridled federal authority, hold dear: support for small government, budgetary restraint, no wars (and certainly no "preventive" wars) unless our vital national interests are imminently at stake, a firm wall between church and state, and so on.
Interesting you bring up that standard for going to war, just like Qlinton did when he unilaterally bombed Kosovo after declaring "our vital national interests are imminently at stake."
"So, as an outraged, desperate, angry Republican,
...here's my answer to your question, a prescription for action. Take what you find useful:
"First, get your heaviest liberal hitters to bring John Kerry into a closed room and read him the riot act. If he wants to win, if he wants to get Dems and Independents and Libertarians and moderate Republicans like me to vote and work for him and supply him with campaign dollars, he's got to sharpen his attack, got to go for that jugular. Don't fudge around, use the appropriate goddamn words: "lies," "deceit," "manipulation," "quagmire," "permanent war," "imperial foreign policy," "sticking it to the middle class," "ruining the economy." Don't pull punches, just tell the truth.
Telling lies means telling the truth. 'Kay. You can count on GorOn's MorOns to help.
"To be able to fight like that requires him to shed the albatross that was hung around his neck by Kerry himself, and which is being used by the GOP to brand him. Kerry voted for the blank-check that allowed Bush to go to war in Iraq, he voted for the Patriot Act, he supports Sharon's bestial policies in Palestine. Kerry has got to admit he made some mistakes - something Bush is incapable of doing, but Kerry can - about those positions.
Even before this screed, al-Qerry denounced all those things he voted for. What's really hanging are those things on that albatross's feet. They're called flip-flops.
"He has to go to the American people and say he is wiser now than he was then; his votes were based on faulty information; he, we all, got snookered by a lying Bush Administration to convince and manipulate us into a war of choice, not one of necessity. And he was caught up, as were we all, by the immediate fear and desire to get the terrorists after 9/11, and voted in haste for the Patriot Act.
"I'm easily duped. I blame others for my failures. I don't think, but react solely out of fear." The typical definition of liberal. Also, just the kind of leader the American people are looking for in grave times of national peril, right?
"Kerry can at least sketch a way out of Iraq, before we sink up to our eyeballs in that quagmire; if it involves handing over control to the U.N., or kicking Chalabi and Halliburton out of the way, or swallowing hard when Islamic nationalists take control in a democratic election - well, that's part of the road out of this morass. Kerry can promise that he will take a good look at the Patriot Act and remove the worst aspects. Just speaking up like that on those two issues alone would make the distinction between himself and Bush all the more clear, and would indicate a humility and willingness to grow as a candidate.
After all, sketches are usually drawn in shades of gray.
In a warped, alternate universe, where U.S. voters actually elect presidents who promise to rely on such UNreliable control, the whole region would be open to an inescapable escalation of so much chaos that it'd come to be known throughout the world as Qerry's Quagmire. Being that it's specialty is throwing Little Brown People™ to the wolves of this world, terrorists would have no trouble then turning all of Iraq into a base camp—smack dab in the middle of the Middle East—from which to plot and plan their strikes in relative safety; and after the seventh or eighth attack on our shopping malls, bridges, nuclear reactors, and downtown districts, Hanoi John would have to ask France if we could send some troops back in, while spending the rest of his failed administration apologizing to the American people for removing the very measures that had any real hope of keeping the terrorists from entering our country in the first place and committing those mass-murderous deeds. The only thing that can grow out of this sort of humiliation would be our surrender, something we'd definitely find hard to swallow.
"Bush has placed all his chips on Sharon's extremist policies in Palestine (and even is imitating them in Iraq); Kerry can vow to be more even-handed in the Middle East, realizing that only more slaughter will take place - maybe even against the U.S. - unless a candidate is elected that can be the honest broker between the Israelis and Palestinians. Bush no longer can be that broker, but a President Kerry, if he's capable of altering his position, can. And Kerry can sell all this to the Americans and Israels because it's in America's, and Israel's, longterm national interests that the Middle East move toward a just and lasting peace.
JFQ alters his positions at the drop of a hat—there's no "can he" involved. Altering positions, however, is what sends the mixed signals that keep pushing such a just and lasting peace further and further away. Unfortunately, liberals don't think targeting babies on buses and blowing them to bits is an "extremist policy." But when Israel responds anywhere close to how we would if the same thing started happening in downtown Chicago or Los Angeles, they consider that to be extreme. Even-handed, in their view, means appeasing terrorists after they kill babies; and honest brokering means telling Israel to quietly turn around while we securely tie its hands.
KERRY NEEDS MORE SAX APPEAL
"You're not pulling any punches here," I said. "What next?"
Not firing any neurons in that braindead head of yours either.
"Second, he should ask Bill Clinton for some tutoring on campaigning and public-speaking.
Qiss-of-Death Qlinton, sqooling Qerry in prevariqation. Just whose side is this DT on?
Loosen up. Get better writers.
Lurch loosing up? Not even Shakespeare, if he were alive today, could help with that Manhattan Project-size task of speech massage.
Spend lots of time in televised, small town-hall meetings, interacting in an intimate setting (rather than in large rallies) one-on-one with ordinary citizens; I think Kerry could excel in that arena. And, since Bush won't really debate, take some of that money that's coming in and buy 15 minutes or a half-hour on network TV to take on Bush directly on a number of key issues.
Great idea. It was at one such intimate setting where al-Qerry spoke that campaign-defining line: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." The pan shot of the audience's puzzled faces immediately after he said it was priceless. Go, too, for those campaign budget-busting quarter- and half-hour network preemption slots. He could borrow some of Ross Perot's famous charts for them as well.
"Kerry can be a give-'em-hell-Harry kind of candidate, a straight shooter who tells it like it is. Even though currently he gets off a good shot now and then, he doesn't seem relaxed, doesn't smile as much as he should, seems somewhat awkward and dull in delivery too often, as if he's trying to remember what he's supposed to be saying rather than letting it flow from his heart and gut.
Typical of Dems. No trouble criticizing anything. But when it comes to offering solutions and alternatives they're just vague or simplistic. "Gah-aholly, Teresa. I'll just be a 'straight shooter' from now on." "You can't, dear. You'll lose the non-straight vote." "F--k!" "Watch your mouth, dear." "Yes, ma'am."
"Third, he should hold a major press conference, make some major announcements and then, for an hour, demonstrate how at ease he is with answering pointed questions from the reporters, how much knowledge he has at his fingertips, how 'presidential' he looks when measured against Dubya Doofus, how relaxed and self-deprecatingly funny he can be.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I admit. I do inject Botox into my forehead." Major announcement: check. "For the next hour or so I'm going to demonstrate how to properly insert this deadly biotoxin under one's skin, as well as how to safely handle it beforehand." Looking presidential: che—well, at least his forehead will look relaxed.
"Fourth, he needs to address the computer-voting issue head-on. It won't matter if more citizens choose him on November 2nd unless their votes are accurately recorded and tabulated. His victory could be stolen unless the scandal of touch-screen voting problems is dealt with. As Stalin said, what matters is not who votes, but who counts the votes.
Don't forget to give him one of those smaller tin-foil hats so it won't be so conspicuous when he does.
"Right now, the software inside those computer-voting machines - which are owned and controlled by Republican companies - can be manipulated easily, leaving no trace that they've been tampered with. Most of the computer-voting machines have no back-up system that allows for verified recounts. There are alternative machines on the market that print out a paper copy of the votes, require the voter to look at it and okay it, then save it inside a locked box for any recounting that may be necessary.
"You Clinton-haters and your conspiracy theories. Geesh!" How many times were we subjected to that whenever we brought up Mena, Arkansas, or Waco, or his Brady Bill backdoor gun-registration scheme?
No. Trying to steal elections is your side's forte. Just ask the people of Florida how much they appreciate being the gorebutt of election jokes these past four years.
"Kerry needs to acknowledge the vital importance of this issue, start talking it up, become the national advocate for honest tabulation. Especially after the disputed 2000 vote, we don't need another stolen-election controversy. That way lies political civil war."
"If elected, I'll be the Honest Tabulation president." Crowds will get goose bumps just thinking about it. "I'll push for honest tables and tabled honesty. (How's that for nuance, Mary Beth? Oh, by the way, go out and get a tan so at least one of us up here looks darker.)"
MADRID-TYPE BOMBING HERE?
"Stop, stop!" I said. "I can't take notes fast enough. Take a breath, have another beer....What I'm hearing from you is that you think the liberal-centrist Kerry
Centrist? Then that must make Ted Kennedy a paleo-conservative. [Insert side-splitting laughter here.]
...is a strong candidate who can take Bush in a fair election. Assuming the computer-voting scandal can be addressed, can we even have a fair election, with Karl Rove in charge?"
No. Mmwhahaha haha hahaha....
"You've put your finger on the right man," said Shallow Throat. "The Rovemeister has a file full of dirty tricks he's starting to activate, and Kerry and the Dems better be prepared for those - and for various other surprises as we get closer to the election, when undecided voters are more apt to be paying attention to the campaign."
Karl Rove. CEO of Evil, Inc. Yeah, he gets a lot of ribbing for it.
But if you Dhimmwits were expecting or knew about what those sooper seekrit files will be activating, then it wouldn't be much of a surprise, now would it? Don't worry, however. At the last VRWC meeting I attended, he announced from the shadows that "higher-ups" were assigning him to another senator, because the one the Dodocrats are currently running isn't worth the expenditure of even a minimal amount of his dark powers. But since he said not to tell anyone else, I can't confirm or deny that this happened.
"Aside from Rove, what about an outside interference - say, a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the vote," I asked, "similar to the Madrid train bombings?"
"Look, Bin Laden's intentions couldn't be clearer," said Shallow Throat. "He's willing to ease off Europe in order to focus on America. A big one is coming, for sure. And he's almost more eager to demonstrate that he can still pull one off here because a Bush Administration official recently almost dared him to do so, saying Al Qaida is so badly decimated and in our preventive sights that the terrorists can't do much major damage inside the U.S.
When liberals use "for sure" in this context, it means "we hope." As in, we hope bin Laden can "pull one off" because we believe that will help us "take back" the White House. Yeah, Desperacrats are surely on "our side."
"The question is not whether but when, how big it will be, and how the American citizenry will react when it happens. Will they blame Bush for not protecting them, and will they remember how he did nothing prior to 9/11 even when he knew the 'spectacular' Big One was about to happen?
"Bush knew!" Just keep saying that big lie over and over again and just maybe some gullible 3-year-old child might one day start believing it.
Or will Americans, in their fright, rally around the Administration in a time of great travail and anxiety? And, most importantly, if the Al Qaida attack is horrific - say, a suitcase dirty bomb going off at a major port city, killing and radiating tens of thousands - will they stand up and resist the calls for martial law and the 'postponement' of the election?
Yes to both questions. A strong and brave people like ours would never deny themselves the chance to express their immeasurable contempt for and displeasure at terrorist-abetting idiots who care nothing about emboldening our enemy with their irresponsible efforts to spread "dissent" and weaken our Nation's resolve in time of war. The terrorists know that the only defeat they'll ever have any hope of leading us to is a self-inflicted one.
DO DEMOCRATS HAVE THE CAJONES?
Only cajones enough for interns (that is, before they flee off to Kenya), but not much else.
"If the Democrats have any sense, they will start talking now about the terrorism that is likely to happen this Summer or Fall, reminding voters of how incompetent the Bush Administration was before and has been since 9/11, and how their reckless policies in Iraq and the Middle East have made us more vulnerable to terrorism, not less. But I'm not sure your Democrats are smart enough to think along those lines, or have the guts to take on Bush directly on these issues.
Here "is likely to" means "we hope will." Liberals can't wait, in fact, for the chance to scream "He failed! Blame Bush! It's all his fault!" even as rivers of blood are still coursing through America's streets. Not a word about the terrorists being the ones actually responsible for those rivers. But that's not what liberals are concerned about, not when there's any prospect at all of getting away with cynically exploiting the dead for their own selfish purposes. To them it's all about "take back" power, nothing else. Victory of, for, and by themselves. No one else.
"In short, I'm not sure they really know how to win, or maybe even want to win enough to go out and really claw and fight their way to victory. But they simply have to if we're going to have any opportunity to avoid the militarist, neo-fascist society Bush&Co. have in mind for America after November 2, and the permanent war the neo-cons want to continue abroad.
In short, "Bushitler!" Perhaps if your formerly-national party came up with something even marginally more original than that every now and then, a lesser number of Americans would be tuning you all out before turning you all out in droves at the polls.
"This is our moment. There is no other chance to take these guys down. If we don't do it in November, it may be a generation or more before we get another reasonable shot. Kerry and the Dems may understand that on an intellectual level, but they need to translate that into unrelenting, tough, street-smart, go-for-the-jugular campaign-activism from now until Election Day."
"Take these guys down." Put that reaffirming, reassuring, positive message on your party's bumper sticker, right next to the notice "Paid for by ABB, Inc. (formerly known as DNC)."
"I hear you," I said. "I'll pass on what you have to say to those who can hear it - Democrats (who, by the way, are a lot more united and dedicated than you give them credit for), Independents, Libertarians, moderates, disaffected Republicans, veterans and families of soldiers abroad, loved ones of 9/11 victims, and so on. I think a wide swath of the American polity is open now to a lot of your suggestions. The Democrats will be ready."
Ready? No they won't. But we'll be ready to hear all those "stolen election!"s and "not our fault!"s when the American polity closes the book—after completing its final chapter—on what now is hard to even imagine was once a venerable national party.
"They better be," said Shallow Throat, heading for the door. "There is no going back and no-second chance. It's now or never."
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government at various universities, was a writer-editor with the San Francisco Chronicle for 19 years, and currently co-edits the progressive website The Crisis Papers.
Doctor Weiner, political proctologist. Cavorting with his imaginary trench-coat wearing molerat. How special.
LC Local 666, VRWC|
Subscribe to Liberal Utopia by Email
Monday, June 28, 2004
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Friday, June 25, 2004
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Friday, June 18, 2004
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Monday, June 14, 2004
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Friday, June 11, 2004
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Wednesday, June 09, 2004