loading...

 

Liberal Utopia

What your world would be if everything liberals wanted, they got. Open the door at the bottom of its Elysium façade and take a glimpse of hell.

Serpents slithering through the gates

 

The ads you see above help keep us bloggers on blogspot blogging away freely. This equitable exchange is the genius and hallmark of our vigorous free-market society. Owing to this blog's title, however, sometimes those ads can be incongruous to its content. Such is the case with George Soros' front-group "National Committee for an Effective Congress."

The billionaire - who emigrated here 50 years ago from Hungary (via England) - has pledged to spend all the money he's amassed in our country on fronting groups like NCEC to "take back the country" for himself and his radical liberal minions. Soros is staking his entire fortune on helping an AnyoneButBush Demonrat "reclaim" the White House, which to him is "a matter of life and death." He also used that money to lobby for passage of campaign finance reform measures, the most recent being McCain-Feingold which effectively silences all free speech by grass-roots organizations during the final two months of the presidential election. The only folks after August who'll be able to actually talk about any of the candidates are the candidates themselves, "objective" (sneer quotes required) reporters at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, etc., and of course King George the Soros and the groups he funds under his regime. That's because Soros believes all his front groups are exempt from these speech bans by virtue of being "527s" - or, as David Tell of The Weekly Standrad explains (Hat tip: Lane Core), "organization[s] 'operated primarily for the purpose' of exercising 'influence' over elections and appointments to 'Federal, State, or local public office,'" not all of which "need be FEC-registered political committees" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Other organizations that commit any acts of free speech during September and October will have its officers fined tens of thousands of dollars and imprisoned (that's right, imprisoned) for up to five years, comrade. In typical liberal fashion, Soros has used his money and the power it's bought him to try to fix the rules so that they apply only to you and me and the organizations we support, not at all to him or any of his groups.

If you believe the highly touted Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 has done away with so-called soft money, just look at what Washington Post staff writers Dan Balz and Thomas B. Edsall uncovered in their report printed on March 10:

Democrats Forming Parallel Campaign
Interest Groups Draw GOP Fire

Led by veterans of presidential and congressional campaigns, a coalition of Democratic Party interest groups, armed with millions of dollars in soft money, is rapidly constructing an unprecedented political operation designed to supplement the activities of Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign in the effort to defeat President Bush.


Nothing to see here. Move along...MoveOn.org along.

   The newest visible sign of the coalition's activities will be seen beginning today, when a $5 million advertising campaign begins in 17 battleground states. But behind the scenes, Democratic operatives are moving to set up coordinated national and state-by-state operations that amount to the equivalent of a full presidential campaign, minus the candidate.


Telling people to vote for AnyoneButBush™ is the same as saying vote against President Bush. But let's not confuse that with "express advocacy" - nosiree.

   The Democratic groups have created five organizations to oversee facets of the campaign: paid advertising; voter identification and turnout; communications, polling, research and rapid response; fundraising; and the coordination of the operations of more than two dozen liberal organizations.


Paid ads
"Censure Bush", "polygraphing" Bush about Iraq, "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?"
voter identification and turnout
Are you voting against Bush? If you are, we can give you a ride to the polls?
polling, research
Q: How much is Bush like Hitler? X-same -very -somewhat -only a little.
communications and rapid response
*ring* *ring* Hello? - Did you know that Bush is speaking in your hometown today? - Really? - Yes, and if you want to protest him when he speaks, we're handing out signs on the lot next door. - OK, bye. *click*
fundraising
Dear potential AnyoneButBush contributor: As you may have heard, our recent polling shows that 20% of folks we talk to Americans believe that Bush is Hitler. If you don't want someone like Hitler to get elected, please send your generous contribution of $50 or more to us today. Thank you. Sincerely, No-Connection-To-The-Qerry-Campaign-Whatsoever Campaign.
coordination of operations
Did someone say conspiracy with intent to violate campaign finance laws? Nah, must be a "loophole."


   This parallel Democratic campaign, already under legal challenge, grows out of changes in campaign finance laws. Those changes prohibit the national party committees from raising and spending soft money -- large, unregulated contributions -- on behalf of their presidential candidates. The Democrats have taken the expertise they developed in past campaigns and applied it to the new, separate operation. By law, coalition members cannot coordinate with the campaign of Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic candidate.


Ok, sure. We'll not coordinate. That means "talking on the phone to him a lot and/or sending checks made out to his HjQ," right?

   "Our sense was we needed to have a message up on the air that tells the truth about the Bush record and defends the Democratic position on the issues," said Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily's List and a driving force behind the coordinated effort.


Against Bush. For Democrat. Where's the "express advocacy" in that? After all, we're just telling "the truth."

"There is no question that Bush has $100 million and Kerry is down to zero. It's very important that there are alternative voices out there talking about the Bush record."


Against Bush. For AlternativeToBush™. See?

   Most of these new organizations have been established as "527s," shorthand for the provision of the tax law that covers their activities. The 527s are controversial because they accept soft money from corporations and unions, which critics say represents an evasion of the ban on large, unregulated contributions in the new campaign finance law known as the McCain-Feingold Act, and because they operate under less stringent disclosure regulations.


Yeah, but ours is good soft money. Theirs is bad, very bad - even BushIsHitler-like.

   A new ad to be launched today was produced by the Media Fund, the principal vehicle for pro-Democratic television commercials by the coalition. But the coalition's advertising effort will be shared by MoveOn.org, the Internet-based liberal advocacy group that has become part of the umbrella operation established by the Democratic organizations.


Part of that VLWC coordinating stuff they're doing. Move along.

   The new ad -- one of three tested in focus groups in Tampa and Pittsburgh -- states that "George Bush's priorities are eroding the American Dream."


Very neutral ad. Just talking about "The Truth"®.

   Ben Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney campaign, called the Media Fund ads "a blatant circumvention of the new campaign finance law." He said the president's campaign plans to immediately file a complaint that seeks to have the Federal Election Commission determine whether groups "knowingly and willfully" solicited donors "to contribute in excess of federal law and to determine whether they [the donors] knew that the money was to defeat a federal candidate."
   Harold Ickes, president of the Media Fund, said: "We would expect nothing less than scorched-earth harassment by the Republicans."


Them mean ol' repukes just want us to not have money so we can break the law and stuff. That's harassment, I say, harassment! Plus they want to scorch our earth as well as strip-mine the land and kill every spotted green turtle. They're environment harassers, too!

   But in addition to the Bush-Cheney complaint, Democratic 527 groups face legal scrutiny by the FEC, which plans to issue new rules governing the organizations' activities. Republicans said the complaint is likely to take at least six months to process, and the new 527 rules will not be effective until late July at the earliest.


Plenty of time to conspire in coordinate their AnyoneButBush Campaign, Inc., and run Vote Against Bush! "Truth"AboutTheBushRecord Ads.

   Republicans say that if the Democratic 527 activity is ruled legal, GOP groups will be quickly formed to match the opposition.


That's not fair. Only Democrats are allowed to break laws find loopholes around here!

Republicans have been under less pressure to raise non-party money because of the success of the Bush campaign, which has already raised about $150 million [Soros' groups are raising $300 million], and the Republican National Committee. In addition, past corporate soft-money donors to the RNC are reluctant to risk legal repercussions while the status of 527s remains in limbo ["Keep Hope Alive" © 2004, Washington Post].
   The Democratic groups have created an operation that combines close coordination with a division of labor designed to avoid duplication of effort and maximize resources.


"Close coordination" intended to "avoid duplication of effort" while pooling maximizing resources. Just Really Innocently Coordinated Organizations we are, that's all.

Beyond the Media Fund, the entities include Americans Coming Together (ACT), which is responsible for get-out-the-vote efforts; America Votes, the umbrella organization that will stitch together the activities of various progressive organizations; the Thunder Road Group, which will concentrate on research and rapid response; and the Joint Victory Campaign 2004, a combined fundraising committee.


Naming co-conspiratorscoordinators.

   Malcolm, of Emily's List, said the groups have raised about $75 million, although other Democrats questioned whether all that money is in hand ["Nothin' To See Here MoveAlong" © 2004, Washington Post].
   The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros and his wife, Susan Weber Soros, who gave $5 million to ACT and $1.46 million to MoveOn.org; Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $3 million to ACT and $500,000 to MoveOn; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee.
   The Democratic coalition includes many of the party's most experienced strategists, spokesmen and fundraisers, as well former staffers for Kerry's campaign and the campaigns of several of his rivals. They include Ickes, who was deputy White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, Steve Rosenthal, a former political director for the AFL-CIO who is executive director of ACT, and Jim Jordan, formerly Kerry's campaign manager, who heads the Thunder Road Group.


Just because we were all contributors and officers for solely the Democratic Party and its candidates doesn't mean we have any connection with them. Move along.

   Bill Knapp, who did ads for the Gore and Clinton presidential campaigns the past three elections, oversees the advertising operation for the Media Fund. Five pollsters, several with presidential experience, are sharing the coalition's survey research work.


I said move along.

   MoveOn.org already has spent millions of dollars on anti-Bush ads.


Er, that's "TheTruth"AboutBush ads.

Much of the group's work, according to several Democrats involved in the coalition, will be concentrated in five states that Democrats hope to pick up in November: Florida, Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia and Nevada.


*ring* *ring* Hello? - Hi, Mr. Floridian. Voting against Bush? Need a ride to the polls?....

   The group ran ads for 10 weeks in those states, including a prescription drug ad that ran for four weeks. [Just poisoning the ground getting TheTruth out there. Move along.] Polling conducted by Stan Greenberg, Bill Clinton's 1992 pollster [Move. A. Long.], showed the ad was particularly effective in enlarging the Democrats' advantage on that issue, according to sources familiar with the research. That has convinced Democrats they can move the battlefield in Kerry's direction.
   The New Democrat Network, a coalition member, plans a separate $5 million television campaign aimed at [just anti-Bush] Latino voters in four states.


AnyoneButBush, Inc.

   On the organizing front, Rosenthal said he has hired state directors in 10 battleground states modeled on techniques successfully used by organized labor. Labor will be responsible for contacting union members. That will leave ACT free to concentrate on motivating other members of the Democrats' core constituencies, as well as some swing voters, using research from the National Committee for an Effective Congress to build sophisticated precinct vote goals.
   Cecile Richards, executive director of America Votes, said her umbrella organization has hired eight state directors, with coordinating efforts beginning in 15 states. Individual organizations, from the Sierra Club to NARAL Pro-Choice America, will conduct their own activities.


See, no soft money at all. Just lots of coordinatin'.

   But the Democrats hope to avoid a problem of past elections, when groups sent similar direct-mail messages to voters at the same time or concentrated on one area of a state to the exclusion of other areas. "We don't all need to be in Tampa," Richards said.


That's all right. King George the Soros is calling the team's plays from his imperial sky booth.
Bookmark and Share    

28 Queries for Qerry finally answered

 

These are the questions Washington Post columnist George F. Will posed to Hanoi "Secret-Service Agents R SOBs" John last month, but through some glaring oversights on the candidate's part have sat at the bottom of the Campaign HjQ's f-ing parakeet cage all this time. While cleaning out said bottom of said cage this evening, the questions were found and, after brushing off several mounds of dried droppings, may at long last be "answered":


In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2 [now 217 days], John [Q]erry can answer questions that linger despite, or because of, all he has said so far.

Why thank you, George. That is very kind of you to say.


Such as:

[1.] Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"?

Well, George, this is a very common phrase. If you're in Washington, D.C., it means one thing. But to hard-working Americans just trying to make a living in an economy that this Administration has failed miserably to do anything about, it means something else entirely. It means Haliburton and Wall Street insiders. It means having no voice and, likely, no job. It means making another appointment to see the Senator down the hall, or filling out another application to see if you can get a job interview. But most of all, it means watching the rich get away with buying votes while you just try to get by buying groceries.


[2.] Is the National Education Association a special interest?

The short answer is no. They are a long-established and important member of the educational community. They understand the issues thoroughly, and are not shy about telling their representatives in Washington that their members aren't too happy with their plans to cut No Child Left Behind or to force them to make artificial choices between their children having a good, solid public school education or an uncertain, expensive private one. The NEA has free-speech rights and the right to petition its government just like every other group. I for one am not going to stand in the way of their exercise of those rights.


[3.] The AFL-CIO?

Again, when you have a long-established group like the AFL-CIO or the NEA, George, they know certain things and have ideas that we in Washington should hear to be better lawmakers. They themselves represent a large number of our own constituents, who are members of those organizations. So, no, they are an invaluable resource of information and ideas for lawmakers in the Congress. Not a special interest.


[4.] You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Our farm families are hurting, George. All because this Administration has ignored them far too long. They needed help at a time when government assistance was being slashed all to pay for ill-conceived tax cuts for the very, very rich. Iowa, especially, has been hard hit and in need of help. So I supported doing what I could to make sure that they got that help, and so we could concentrate our efforts on helping introduce a renewable fuel like ethanol into the market in order to help reduce our dependency on foreign oil.


[5.] Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"?

Yes, they are, George. And I'll tell you why. I see guns being the cause of so much tragedy in our country, of children getting hold of them and either shooting themselves accidentally or shooting a playmate. I have seen how guns can rip apart whole families and communities and hold them hostages to fear and despair. That's why I supported extending the assault-weapons ban, as well as expanding it so that all communities could be rendered more safe from these lethal instruments that cause so much suffering. But I was opposed by a very strong lobbying group, an interest group whose lobbyists worked hard and spent lots of money to get its way. And I was asking, why do they oppose what's best for the children? Why do they want to see more tragedies when we can do something now to help? But they were too short-sighted to focus on anything more than their special interest. And they are strong. Too strong, some have said. So I don't think too many would disagree with me when I term them a "special interest."


[6.] Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?

I don't have a dictionary handy right now, George. But I'm pretty certain that that's not one of its synonyms, especially when you're referring to a special interest group like the NRA that opposes helping communities and children, and helping them stay safe.


[7.] When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club?

Now this is not an entirely fair comparison, when you compare what they do with the lobbying efforts of, say, the largest oil companies like Vice President Cheney's Haliburton or some of the others, or even the NRA. I have never had the phone in my senate office ringing off the hook with a bunch of angry Sierra Club members calling and demanding that I vote a certain way or another on an alternative-fuels bill, or seen four or five lobbyists from Planned Parenthood crowd my office, hat in hand, looking for a special subsidy or tax giveaway. But I've seen it happen with other Senators whenever there was a big fight brewing in the Senate for expanding drilling rights in the ANWR preserve, or just this last month when we tried to add gun-safety measures to an extension of the assault-weapons ban. I would not include the two organizations you named with that kind of intense lobbying.


[8.] Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?

[Laughs.] [Laughs some more.] [Wipes drool off side of mouth.] You know, that reminds me a joke I once heard that tries to link criminal and lawyer the same way. There was very little truth in that one, just like there's little truth in saying you can't be both a liberal and a lobbyist because that can be true. But not as much, I would say, as I've seen coming from the other side.


[9.] All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?

I've answered that before - and I am always on the side of standing up for the rights of those who have no voice in Washington, who don't get a chance to sit in on meetings with their Congressmen or go to dinners with them and discuss this bill or that and try to influence how they vote. All they can do is write letters and hope they can get in touch with a staffer who might want to talk to them. That's why it's important that we hear from organizations that have hundreds or even thousands of members so we can learn from what they bring to the table with their perspectives. It allows us to write better laws that take into account any grievances they might have and hopefully redress them in a manner that best serves the common good. That's why petitioning the government - especially the federal government - is not limited to just individuals or them signing actual petitions. People also have a right to assemble in organizations. And having such organizations allows their voices to have a better chance of being heard in Washington.


[10.] You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

I'm not sure about the first figure. All I know is that today we have the wealthiest of Americans receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts from this Administration, creating huge budget deficits and burdening our children for generations to come with a crushing amount of debt. Do I think the top 1 percent pay their fair share? No. Not at a time when we need to fund No Child Left Behind and make sure that there are more jobs and better caretaking of our environment so that all children have a better chance for a brighter future. But as you know, I have proposed to lower the top rate some because I realize that we need stimulus if we're going to get this economy moving again and create more jobs, which this Administration has failed to do over the last three years. In return, I expect the wealthiest to do their part in that recovery by bringing more businesses and jobs back so more Americans can find work. That will determine whether the tax cut remains permanent or goes back up to pay for needed stimulus and a true recovery.


[11.] You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?

Well, the amount this Administration has proposed is by no means enough when you consider how woefully lacking our schools are in terms of teacher's salaries and school infrastructure, like repairing leaky roofs on buildings and building more classrooms to reduce overcrowding. Some districts have a ratio of one teacher for every forty or fifty students and that's just way too high. Schools need more money, and this Administration has failed miserably at making sure they receive the block grants and other funds they need for improvements, while focusing instead on things like unproven standardized testing of teachers and school vouchers that will wreck what's left of our public schools.


[12.] In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?

Well, you know, George, we were making progress in getting Saddam Hussein to really sit down at the negotiation table and start to talk about withdrawing from Kuwait. I stand by my vote because the first Bush Administration was in too big of a hurry to rush to war just like we did in Iraq. We had a real chance of resolving this conflict peacefully and according to international law. So I say, in that regard, sanctions were working but the first Bush Administration wasn't willing to really give them a chance, so we'll never know how it would've turned out otherwise.


[13.] On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?

That's not the real issue. Deterrence is stopping aggression before it happens - by standing firm against it before it reaches such a critical juncture. The first Bush Administration failed miserably at keeping Saddam from invading Kuwait. Had Saddam not invaded, there never would've been any need in the first place to rush to war like we did. But because that Bush Administration failed to deter an Iraqi invasion, we were left in far less of a position to put real pressure on Saddam Hussein. Once you go to war, there's no chance for you to offer a reasonable deterrence to keep aggression from escalating. You risk losing allies who might otherwise have stood with you. It's more than just a theory, as we have seen with the actions of this Administration in Iraq. You abandon the hope of using a deterrent to keep aggressive acts from happening when you commit yourself to war.


[14.] The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?

It is not a matter of how the conflict turned out once we rushed in to attack Saddam Hussein. It was a matter of how we stood, at the time, in terms of assuring the American people that we were ready to actually fight the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi forces who were determined to defend themselves. I don't believe the first Bush Administration did enough to assure the American people that we were ready. It risked losing their support, which you need to be successful. That's why I believe we were not as prepared as we should have been before committing to an all-out war.


[15.] On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

[Scowls.] We were in a war, George. And whether for good or for ill you have to stand behind the commander-in-chief once war breaks out - if only for the sake of the men and women who have been committed by an Administration that was so bent on rushing them into that fight. I would have given the sanctions more time, yes, because I believe they would've eventually worked towards putting sufficient pressure on Saddam Hussein to finally make him leave Kuwait. But we all had to strongly stand behind our military and support the troops because they were the ones now standing in the middle of that crisis. I believe I communicated that support when I responded to my constituent's letter.


[16.] You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?

Being attacked because you have heartfelt differences with an Administration that has failed to explore every possible option before committing our nation to war is quite different from, say, pointing out that same Administration's lack of understanding about job losses because of outsourcing due to its mismanagement of the nation's trade policies, and then offering to appoint a trade representative who will do nothing to stem the loss of jobs or get tough with companies who take advantage of loopholes to move their factories overseas. That, in my mind, is a real betrayal of the workers of this country. Which position would you consider to be the less patriotic?


[17.] You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?

I did not change my mind about No Child Left Behind or that resolution or the Patriot Act, because this Administration was the one that failed to live up to its promises with regard to all three. First, it failed to fully fund No Child Left Behind, just as it failed to come clean with the American people and the Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or about the abuses of civil rights and ensuring adequate protections against racial profiling under the Homeland Security Department. As far as former Secretary Rubin's support of NAFTA, I believed he was sincere in his belief that expanding free trade opportunities with Mexico would create more jobs and boost both our nations' economies. And all the studies we had done in the Congress and those coming out of the president's Office of Management and Budget showed that opening up trade in both countries would be much more beneficial than it turned out to be, had we not suffered a recession just a few years later. It was an honest assessment and effort to do what was right for our country as well as the people of Mexico. So I do not fault the former secretary for not knowing in advance that we would be hit by that unexpected recession.


[18.] You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?

It's really very simple, George. I voted to give our troops the body armor and pay increases they needed which this Administration failed to provide before coming to the Congress with a bill loaded down with all manner of extraneous funding that I still believe today was not wise. We should have had more hearings on those provisions before we took it up for a vote. But this Administration failed to convince its friends in both houses to do that, and so we were left with a flawed bill that I thought did not do enough to support our troops. That's why I couldn't vote for that bill, but had voted earlier for the same things that were in it.


[19.] In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?

No. And I'll tell you why. First off, like the bills before the $87 billion Iraq funding bill - which I voted for - each one was intended to offer improvements in the way we did counterterrorism and intelligence by cutting out unnecessary functions and replacing those with less expensive methods of doing the same things. I could give you some examples but I don't have the bills before me right now and I think it would take too much time right now to look them all up. Let me just say that I am a strong supporter of our counterterrorism and intelligence agencies and will always make sure that they have the level of funding needed to not repeat the mistakes that this Administration failed to keep them from making over the last three years. I would also note that by eliminating wasteful funding, we're better able to pay down the debt and keep our children from having to be straddled with it when they reach voting age.


[20.] You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference?

There's a big one, George. Marriage is something that's always been between a man and a woman, and civil unions are something that we have tried to use to make sure that no one is discriminated against when they and their partners want to be together in a loving relationship.


[21.] What consequences of gay marriage worry you?

I don't believe there are any consequences that could not be adequately addressed by promoting a system of civil unions while keeping marriage just between a man and a woman.


[22.] Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree?

I cannot address the legal aspects of their decision because it has not come up before the Congress and is not likely to come up, at least in this year. It is something that those in the Congress would have to study thoroughly if and when it does, and hear from all sides and give them a chance to express their viewpoints before reaching a decision that is best for the country and those involved. As you know, the president would not be called to express an opinion in the case of a constitutional amendment because that is something he has no power to approve or veto. And the separation of powers would disincline a president from trying to exert such influence in any case. So that's probably not an issue that I would have any influence over unless I remained in the Senate.


[23.] You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right?

Because I believe that it's unconstitutional. States can have their rights to make such domestic decisions for themselves. But if one state is prevented from having its decisions recognized by all the others, then it has less rights. So the Congress should have looked into this constitutional aspect of it more before passing the law that it did. I think we could've done a better job with protecting decisions of those states that reached a conclusion that's different from the other states.


[24.] Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?

I am unable to answer that until I see exactly what form the amendment finally takes when it's presented to the voters. I'm not trying to intentionally evade your question, George. [Laughs.] It's just that I can't say one way or the other if I would vote for something before I know what it is I'm voting on. [Giggles.]


[25.] You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?

I believe the courts have already settled this, saying that they do have to disclose. But I'm not absolutely certain about that so I would have to look it up.


[26.] Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?

Because of what I'm facing, George. I had to take that option if I wanted to stay in the race. I was not only facing stiff challenges from my fellow Democrats in the primary campaigns, but was already looking ahead at the well-funded one that I'd be facing afterwards from an Administration that was being supported by big oil and other huge special interests and had built up an unprecedented amount of funds in its campaign chest to get re-elected. This Administration has failed to live up to the standards set by our new rules; and I was not about to let myself get tied down by those that would keep me from competing in the campaign on the same, level playing field.


[27.] You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- in the form of broadcast messages?

I don't necessarily deny that it does. If every candidate were required to abide by the same rules, then yes, there would be no restriction because everyone would be under the same limits. As for the ads I took out during the primaries, I believe those are now a matter of public record.


[28.] Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat President Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?

From what I understand of the ruling by the Supreme Court and the recent one by the FEC [Federal Election Commission], he is allowed to raise funds for efforts to just get out the vote and get more people registered so long as he doesn't cross the line of advocating one candidate over another. I'm not sure whether his recent ads [produced by MoveOn.org and Americans Coming Together (ACT)] can be considered to fall into the latter category.


There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.

[Waits until George Will leaves the room.] That sonofabitch!

Hey, is this mike still on?

Bookmark and Share    

Liberal Utopia Endorses al-Qerry

 

We know the parties' conventions are months away, and Hildabeast hasn't had a chance yet to hijack the Dems' nomination process. However, the L'utopians are getting restless, and are extremely anxious to know how we stand. Not that we care. But, still, it's best to avoid the rush, especially when all the world's tyrants, terrorists and back-stabbers are trying to flood the media with their endorsements. (If anything, it's our patriotic duty to make sure they're not the only ones making al-Qerry endorsements this early.) So we've decided to issue our site's official endorsement now.

What can one say about Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry - defender of The Children™ (those who aren't being aborted, at any rate), protector of The Mothers (provided, of course, they're single and receiving government checks), advocate of Clear Skies (but not foreheads) and 57 Sauces everywhere, slayer of Tax Cuts, sharpener of Pointy Heads, voter for Things before voting against them, knower of Biggest Bunches of Liarses and Crookses Known To Liberalkindesses (as in, it takes one to...), and netter of the Nimbled Nuance (the flipping and flopping variety) - which hasn't been said 10 million job-promises before?

We were going to link to every substantive plan and proposal he's ever made and published on his web site. That would've taken up only an incomplete phrase or two, leaving plenty of room for an overly long and glowing endorsement. But you all probably already know about his ideas, like on outsourcing jobs (imposing what amounts to higher import tariffs which will invite sanctions from the World Trade Organization - whose establishment he voted for - and retaliation from our trading partners; but just ignore that nuance about Qerry accepting campaign contributions from "Benedict Arnold" companies while he voted for the trade deals that benefited those companies, or about his wife's multinational corporation placing over 70% of its factories overseas), on homeland security (making sure there are enough firefighters, firemedics, police officers, and morticians to take care of us - or whatever's left of us that can be scraped off the pavement - after we've been attacked), on health care (stuff about cutting "loopholes," creating "premium rebate pools," strengthening the "employer-based market," and costing "an average of $72 billion annually" - all incredibly detailed inside his whopping whopper 10-page "plan"), on energy policy and the environment (warnising wind wower wand wother wewewable wources, injecting "cellulosic ethanol" into his face our cars, floating along on a "hydrogen-based economy," adopting biofuel diversity, legitimizing the Kyoto Protocol, cutting more "loopholes," protecting "all of God's creatures"...aww, phasing-out snowmobile trails in national parks, and entering into a "Conservation Covenant" with the American People militant environmental groups), and on veterans (like full accounting underrug-sweeping of missing MIA/POWs and giving compacts to soldiers and not calling them village-burners anymore and stuff - that sound all right?). So we won't add any more to his pendulous spiel. Suffice it to say that here at Liberal Utopia we have never seen a bigger bunch of horse hockey well thought-out proposals than the ones he's offering for all little l'utopians everywhere.

For all these reasons - and more - it is a real honor and a great deal for us to keep ourselves from blowing chunks at the mere sight of his Lurch-like mug bestow upon the niliancy of Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry, this first-ever official endorsement from Liberal Utopia:


Qerry - a real nil

A Realer Wheeler-n-Dealer Niler There Never Was


Congratulations to all lovers of democracy and Hunt's Tomato Ketchup (no botox or other sqerry preservatives added) throughout our great land.
Bookmark and Share    

Long-haired exposition

 

Stacey Meeker offers a clue to unlocking some of the mysteries of cluelessness in her article "Utopia Limited: An Anthropological Response to Richard Rorty," Anthropoetics IV, no. 2 (Fall 1998/Winter 1999). Rorty is the author of Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America (Cambridge and London: Harvard UP, 1998). Meeker's conclusion (footnote omitted; link added):

Rorty's utopian vision is so close to garden-variety left-liberalism that one is tempted to ask: "Why all this talk about utopia? The society you are calling for is pretty much the one we have already, one that includes political mechanisms for solving the problems you remain upset about. Why insist on unworkable utopias when your program is essentially that of the dominant wing of the Democratic party?" But Rorty is not speaking to an audience of politicians, or even of political scientists. His base in the academic world is in the Humanities, and professors of the Humanities remain largely on the far Left, hostile to capitalism and American democracy. Rorty's influence comes from his ability to speak the language of this group. In Achieving Our Country, he makes what despite its philosophical vagueness is ultimately a useful attempt to sell to his audience as utopia the dystopia that is American democracy-the "worst form of government imaginable, except for all the others that have been tried so far." At the end of the twentieth century, dystopia is the only structure of hope.


Just posting it here for future reference.
Bookmark and Share    

The Four Anti-C's of Liberal Education

 

Remarks of State School Superintendent B'Raindea D'Lib, before the California Board of Education's Committee on Curriculum, Resources, and Underscoring Diversity (CRUD Committee):


Thank you, Madam Chair and members, for inviting me to address your committee regarding my office's proposals for updating the California Local Universal Education Language-Assisted Curriculum for K-12 - or CLUELACK, as it is usually cited - so that it better reflects the Board's established policy of creating a more inclusive, multicultural, and nondiscriminatory learning environment for all the children in our state's school systems.

As you know, since its original implementation in 1998, CLUELACK has served to help bridge the gap between the mere teaching of each required subject and the actual learning of it within the context of nontreatening, gender-neutral life exercises that impart to children important hands-on lessons about the real world and the society in which they live, as well as those with which they might interact.

Long past in our state is that outmoded formal catechism of "the Four R's" - Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, and Art - under which students mindlessly labored and were subjected to intimidating hardships and the constant fear of personal failure. In our enlightened modes and methodologies, children are taught the value of their own self-worth and the esteem that comes from expressing their respective and unique talents. Cooperation has replaced competition as the main emphasis for every learning objective; and the archaic forms of comparative or arbitrary grading assessments have given way to just one universally accepted norm that each student must be empowered with a feeling that she or he is truly special and that her or his recognized needs are always socially valid. I am happy to report, and indeed take great pride in the fact that our state continues to lead all others in the Nation with respect to student self-assessment scoring as well as cultural-awareness and learning destandardization initiatives. The progress we have made thus far has been possible only because your committee and the State Board of Education were courageous in both formulating and standing behind CLUELACK's provisions, subsequently ensuring its adoption by every local school system.

Under current California law, my office is charged with the task of informing your committee every two years about the successes achieved through the CLUELACK. Those successes were thoroughly detailed in my one-page written submission to the committee last month. The law also requires that I make or examine any and all necessary and proper proposals for improving the administration of CLUELACK's various programs, and report those proposals to the Curriculum, Resources, and Underscoring Diversity Committee.

Madam Chair and members, over the last two years my office has looked into a number of ways the objectives of CLUELACK may be expanded so as to increase every local system's compliance with the State Board's 2003 policy known as Inclusive, Multicultural, and Destandardized Utilization of More Bilingualism - or IMDUMB for short - in their curriculums. I have been impressed with how much IMDUMB has transformed our thinking about what works best not only inside but outside the classroom when it comes to assessing what professional educators refer to as a student's "cultural IQ." Before schools realized the depths to which IMDUMB could invigorate the scholastic experiences of our state's school children, each local system was trying - without much success - to prepare students for the nuanced lifestyle choices they would be expected to continually make while living in our modern cultures. Now with the benefit of knowing IMDUMB's guidelines, with the focus being on showing that IMDUMB can help each school achieve its scholastic goals, our classrooms are fast becoming places where the children are getting in touch with their respective cultural heritages and are learning to take on the responsibilities of multicultural acceptance.

My office has explored many possible proposals for reconfiguring CLUELACK so that the administration of its programs are in full keeping with the Board's IMDUMB policy. However, none has shown more promise than the proposal I am reporting to you today.

I alluded earlier to the old catechism of the Four R's. To emphasize the importance of increasing diversity across every aspect of the learning experience, my office has developed a new catechism that both replaces the old one and embraces the reality of IMDUMB's mandates and curricular integration. This new catechism demotes the negative aspects of America's historical promotion of various non-inclusive attitudes with regard to its socioeconomic, religious and geopolitical potentials.

The official title of my proposal is the "Four Anti-C's Teaching Instructions To Instill Our Universal Socialization." Referred to by its acronym, FACTITIOUS, this proposal encompasses the broader goals set down by IMDUMB and CLUELACK. Specifically, it eliminates the remaining non-diverse elements still present in our instructional methods by requiring all teachers to fully adopt tolerance-based pedagogical practices.

The supporting pillars of this FACTITIOUS proposal are the Four Anti-C's themselves - namely, Anti-Conservative, Anti-Christian, Anti-Capitalism, and Anti-Caucasian. To eliminate the oppressive tendencies inherent in promoting any of those C's inside our classrooms, FACTITIOUS would supply all K-12 educators with even greater amounts of bilingual teaching materials and guidelines. It would make available to them a number of counseling options that give the students themselves a chance, both individually and collectively, to examine any thoughts or ideas presented in the classroom, and to either accept those that conform to their diverse cultural perceptions or reject ones that they believe intentionally or inadvertently devalue any of their respective ethnic-minority heritages. Finally, FACTITIOUS would bring all children forward in a progressive program of liberalization, secularization, socialization, and globalization that enhances their understanding of themselves and others and enriches their appreciation of diverse cultures and communities.

The 387-page summary of my office's proposal is included with the full report. I would like to note that all the heads of our state's 97 bureaus, commissions, and agencies which fall under the California Department of Education have each signed it, altogether indicating their unanimous approval of the FACTITIOUS proposal. My office has also received official endorsements from all three of California's teachers associations that are represented on the State Board.

I would especially like to thank my staff for their hard work in preparing the text of this report. Their professionalism and support have been invaluable to me and to my office in the process of examining each possible proposal.

I look forward to working with your committee and will be happy to answer any and all questions you may have regarding the FACTITIOUS recommendations for incorporating CLUELACK with IMDUMB.

Thank you.
Bookmark and Share    

'Apology' not accepted

 

Dear Richard Clarke, author presently on a promotional book tour, former Federal official responsible for counter-terrorism all during the eight years of Clinton's administration, coiner of the phrase "electronic Pearl Harbor," campaign contributor to only Democrats throughout the last ten years, and "best friend" of al-Qerry Campaign official Rand Beers,

Two days ago on national television you said to the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks:

I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened, and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence.

I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.

Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.


After considering your words carefully, including factually supported observations regarding how, why and when they were made, I - speaking for myself - do not accept your apology.

It was offered on behalf of others. You have no right or authority to apologize to anyone with respect to our government's actions beyond the mistakes that you and those you were responsible for made. No one but our president may issue any apologies on behalf of his Administration. No one but our chief justice and associate justices may issue them for our Supreme Court. Most important, only our Congress may issue an apology - in the form of a duly passed resolution - on behalf of the entire government of the United States. It was presumptuous of you to include within your remarks those persons and things for which you were never entrusted with any proper authority to apologize. That made your remarks appear more an indictment against others than a sincere apology for what you alone did and were responsible for doing.

It was inappropriate in its timing. A year has passed since you resigned from our government, yet you have not attempted to offer any apology publicly at all like you are doing now. Only in the midst of promoting your book on the subject in hopes of increasing its sales, do you attempt to offer it. That made your remarks at the commission's hearing appear cynical and self-serving, as you should have surely known they would.

It was not directed solely at the persons you claimed you specifically harmed. The commission's hearing was not "finally a forum" for that apology. You could have written the various organizations representing the families directly. You could have visited their meetings and apologized there. You could have telephoned each and every family personally if you felt strongly enough about your mistakes. But you never did. That made your remarks at the hearing appear insincere with respect to these families. Beyond them, all Americans receive no benefit by a former subordinate advisor's apology. If there is any true basis for such apology, to have real meaning and effect it must come from those officers and members we have elected to representative us, including state officials who steadfastly refused to adequately enforce our Nation's immigration laws in the months before those families' loved ones and our homeland were attacked. Whenever we the people demand an apology from our government for anything, we will except it from those we put in the highest positions of responsibility for its actions.

It was followed by your blaming others for failures that directly contradict what you said just two years ago:

In addition, [Richard Clarke] said that in the spring of 2001 Bush committed to a "five-fold" increase in CIA resources dedicated to going after the al Qaeda leader.

"What we ended up with was a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda," Clarke told reporters in August 2002. "So the president recognizes very early on that you don't want to roll back al Qaeda over this long period of time, you want to eliminate al Qaeda on a much more accelerated timetable."

In a new book, Clarke accuses the Bush administration of neglecting the threat from bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network before the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the difference between the 2002 remarks and those in his recent book "goes directly to Mr. Clarke's credibility."

Clarke in his book and in interviews promoting it [e.g., 60 Minutes] has suggested there was little urgency in the early days of the Bush administration about al Qaeda. But in the August 2002 briefing [transcript] he credits the Bush administration with trying to resolve the policy disputes that were not settled in the Clinton days, and credited the Bush team with moving in the spring of 2001 to open a dialogue with Pakistan designed to get Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban."


Most of all, it was not accompanied by your agreement to accept any appropriate punishment. You will sell your book and make much money off all the publicity you have generated for it. That is not fitting punishment for the failures you have admitted to on your part. You will keep your government pay and pension despite having admittedly failed to earn it. That is no punishment either. Donate all the proceeds from your book's sales - as well as the pay you received while anti-terrorism czar - to the families you say you harmed. Absent such meaningful atonement, you do not appear to truly accept responsibility also for the consequences of your failues.

These reasons dissuade me from accepting your apology.

Searching the past for someone to blame for failing to prevent a horrible sneak attack may be fun and games for some. In everyone else's view, it is not going to help us much in our fight to win this war when our enemies are at this moment planning even more attacks against us.

The only thing I see our president letting us down on in this matter is holding you over from the Clinton administration. That has proven to be the sole mistake for which he should, if you persist in your apparently vengeful and partisan efforts to cast aspersions - to the glee of our enemies - on an administration that is trying its best to successfully prosecute a world war, apologize to all of us.
Bookmark and Share  

Qerry to Qlinton - Dems' bait & switch contingency

 

It's August. The polls are looking none too good for al-Qerry. Best he can hope for is 30% of the popular vote and winning just his state, if that, in the upcoming election. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe is scrambling right before the convention to whip up support among the party's "super" uncommitted delegates for a "more viable" replacement. Enter Hitlary al-Qlinton, stage left....

But that'll never happen, you say. That'd probably be illegal, too, so the Dems won't even try it.

Try telling that to Doug Forrester. (story - PDF of court decision)

Besides, since when has the law ever stopped Dippycrats from getting what they want? And what they want more than anything else is the White House.

Democrats don't need to rely on no stinkin' democratic process to maneuver the Liberals' Beloved Hijackery into the cockpit of the party's presidential nomination. All they need is for their so-called superdelegates - who aren't committed to any candidate until the party's convention starts - to split enough of their votes among al-Qerry et al. to force a brokered convention. After a few rounds of balloting with no winner, all the other delegates are released from their commitments as well. It could then be a unanimous vote for whoever the Dems believe can win in their Anyone But Bush campaign.

There's a precedent for this switcheroo from the 2002 New Jersery senatorial race. During its final month, incumbent Robert G. Torricelli was so far down in the polls after he was severely admonished by the Senate for accepting improper gifts from David Chang, that the Democrats made a smoked-filled backroom deal to replace him with a "more viable" candidate. Enter Frank R. Lautenberg and his full campaign warchest of money against Republican challenger Doug Forrester's depleted one; and the rest, as they say, is history.

The scum are desperate to win. Hicklary doesn't have another 4-year shelf life to wait until 2008, when she'd likely be out of office with no Senate-floor spotlight. Seize the day and seize the White House in a surprise sneak attack. Just the way Donkeynuts like doing things. They have an entire left-wing media establishment to rationalize and spin their bait-n-switch scheme all through September and October. Plenty of time to "mobilize the base behind their woman" after al-Qerry is out of the picture and our president has to use his remaining campaign funds to fend off a new attack poodle who's soaking in money.

This isn't conspiracy stuff, just contingency. It's better to be prepared than to be caught off-guard.

In other words, better safe than sorry, especially when our country's facing enemies both foreign and Democratic who want to destroy it and rule atop whatever's left.
Bookmark and Share    

Qerry - the best politician Chinese military money can buy

 

From the current issue of Judicial Watch's Verdict (April 2004, p. 1):

Locked in a tight battle for the Senate in 1996 with former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, John Kerry was desperately in need of funds, Newsweek magazine recently reported [Michael Isikoff, with Holly Bailey, "Cash and Kerry," February 9, 2004]. Fortunately for Senator Kerry, the Communist Chinese were equally desperate to purchase influence from U.S. government officials.

According to Newsweek, in 1996 Senator Kerry met with Liu Chaoying, a Hong Kong business woman who wished to have her company listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Kerry lobbied on her behalf by helping to organize a meeting between Chaoying and a senior Securities and Exchange Commission official. In return, Kerry accepted a $10,000 contribution in the form of a Beverly Hills Fundraiser on September 9, 1996, less than a month before Election Day.

It would later be established that Liu Chaoying was not simply a profit-motivated business woman, but rather a lieutenant colonel in China's People's Liberation Army. Newsweek reports that more than $28,000 in illegal contributions was funneled into the campaigns of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, and that "the contributions came out of $300,000 in overseas wire transfers sent on orders from the chief of Chinese military intelligence - and routed through a Hong Kong bank account controlled by Liu."


That's al-Qerry, fightin' them special interests he knows and evidently loves (their money) so well. Especially when his campaign bills are footed by Red China's Military Intelligence. There's more:

In a somewhat related story, The Los Angeles Times reports that Senator Kerry sent 28 letters on behalf of San Diego defense contractor Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder between 1996 and 1999 in order to "free up federal funds" for a guided missile system designed by Majumder [Lisa Getter and Tony Perry, "Kerry Lobbied for Contractor Who Made Illegal Contributions," February 19, 2004]. In return, court documents show, Majumder induced his employees to contribute approximately $25,000 to Senator Kerry's campaign, while paying them proceeds from the government contracts in return.

Parthasarathi pleaded guilty in early February to illegally funneling campaign contributions to the Massachusetts senator and four other congressmen.


Did Hanoi John keep that convicted criminal's contributions also?

Now it's looking more and more like Mr. Heinz Ketchuppy's campaign mortgage-loan on "his half" (har-har) of his rich wife's mansion (what, a "$12.8 million home" ain't a mansion?) is illegal too:

Boston Herald

Watchdog bites Kerry over `sweetheart' loan
By David R. Guarino
Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] will have to defend the loan that helped salvage his presidential bid to the Federal Election Commission after a watchdog group yesterday challenged it as a ``sweetheart deal.''

Judicial Watch Inc. filed a complaint with the FEC claiming the Bay State senator may have violated campaign finance rules by relying on his millionaire wife to help secure a better mortgage on their swank Beacon Hill townhouse.

``The issue is whether or not the loan he was able to receive was an improper contribution from his wife . . . or was it a sweetheart deal,'' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The conservative watchdog group said it filed the FEC complaint after the Herald reported the $12.8 million appraisal used to secure the loan was twice the city assessment of his home.

Fitton said the appraisal was either inflated or Kerry borrowed on more than his half of the house - meaning his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is improperly funneling cash into the campaign.

``We're very confident the loan was completely legal,'' Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said. ``The world is filled with frivolous lawsuits, and this sounds like another one.''


Like Klintoon like Qerry, too, when it comes to illegal campaign contributions.
Bookmark and Share    

mo' Democrud unitin'

 

Not even a galaxy-sized Particle Fountain of Clue could faze the idiotarianism of this person holding up the following sign at a San Francisco so-called peace rally:
I [heart]
N Y
EVEN MORE
WITHOUT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER

(Hat tip: Emperor Darth Misha I)

You can bet your house and first-born that if this "human being" votes her/his/its ballot will not be for President Bush.
Bookmark and Share    

Bush is a uniter, Democrats are dividers

 

After the terrorists' sneak attacks on New York and Washington, our president - when it counted most - really united our country in one strong, solid front of commitment to help the survivors as well as of patriotic fervor to best prepare us for the battles that lay ahead.
    Were the Democrats choosing to unite with us? Or were many of them questioning why Air Force One didn't immediately make a bee-line right into the middle of a city that, for all we knew, would be attacked again - as if his wisely waiting to return during the early evening somehow made him, in their view, less brave? (Didn't take long for the Democrats' high-sounding words of support and unity to turn out to be just that - words.)

In the face of the Taliban's defiance - a regime harboring the head of the attackers, Osama bin Laden, and his fellow murderers of Americans - our president united our Nation and its brave defenders first in demanding that the Taliban hand over the terrorists, and when it refused, going into Afghanistan and decimating al Qaeda's forces there and killing or capturing most of its leaders and members.
    Were the Democrats choosing to unite with us? Or were they questioning why our president was issuing an ultimatum to a third world country and not going through the United Nations, and even questioning whether the war there was all about oil?

More examples of Democrats trying to divide the Nation (in addition to the War Between the States) are: undermining the effectiveness of the USA PATRIOT Act, Senator Rockefeller's treasonous memo, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and AWOL-Gate. (Apparently Demobrats don't know the meaning of the word "honorable" - as in honorable discharge. If a fighter pilot goes AWOL he or she simply doesn't get that kind of discharge. Duh. Yeah, some real unitin' there by the Dorkorats.)

In the many, many cases where our president did try to reach out his hand to the Demojerks - including Teddy Kennedy's No Child Left Behind, Bill Klintoon's "Assault Weapons" Ban extension, and Medicare reform - they turned around each time and bit him. Invariably looking out for themselves, their motivation and goal is not what's best for the American people but whatever can give them the most partisan advantage. (When was the last time you heard of a Demorat (sic) reaching out its hand to our president?) There's just no dealing with untrustworthy people like that.

You cannot play fair with someone who steadfastly refuses to follow any rules. Especially when that person is desperate to win at any cost, and has nothing to lose by breaking all the rules. That person will do and say anything and everything he believes might help him to win. By no means can you afford to let any such a person win, because once he does he will continue to break every rule just so he can stay in that position.

To make it a fair fight you, too, must throw away the rulebook, take off the gloves, and pound that honorless scum into the ground with everything you've got until he can't get back up. Then you must pound him some more just to make sure he never will be able to get up again. Finally, when you believe he's down for the count, you must pound him once more so that his dirtnap is permanent. No mercy. No prisoners. That's still much more than he deserves. His unruly rule-breaking has earned him this treatment.

Our president fortunately gained experience handily beating one of the dirtiest-poolers around, Ann "Silver Foot" Richards, after he successfully campaigned for governor of Texas. This time his opponent looks to be just as much in need of similar chlorination, with about the same amount of factual scrupulousness used by the lamestream media:

Bush is a state-of-the-art fighter-jet pilot.
Kerry is a swifty-wifty boat driver.

Bush served his country in uniform throughout the full hitch he signed up for.
Kerry ditched his country as soon as he could by using a loophole in the service rules which allowed him to turn those three scrapes he received into a fast-n-easy early chicken-out ticket to the States so he could, the very minute he got back home, lie about and badmouth our truly brave servicemen and women.

Bush never killed any civilians during his service in our armed forces.
Kerry killed many civilians and admitted to committing war atrocities (e.g., hunting down and killing a wounded North Vietnamese soldier instead of taking him prisoner - even after he tried to surrender to Kerry) during his "glorious" military career (which lasted only long enough for him to find some easy way to weasel his way out of serving his country).

Bush is never called bad names (lame liberal labels like Shrub, Dubya, Bushy, Cowboy, and Bush Jr. are little more than cute).
Kerry is called Hanoi John F'ing Al-Qerry, Botox Breath, Haughty French-looking Liberal, BTW Isiv (By The Way I Served In Vietnam), Flip-Flopping Fraud, Lurch, Longface Loser, Mr. Heinz Ketchup King, Rich-Widow Gold Digger, Kennedy Flunky, The Real Stiff, The Boring Bostonian, The Pompous Prettyboy Panderer, Huge Head Hypocrite, No JFK!, Whiny Wimp, Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, et al.

Bush will act (preemptively, if necessary) to protect America.
Kerry says the president should act even more preemptively: "This president always makes decisions late, after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier."

Bush never took part in any plot to kill U.S. Government officials.
Kerry did.

Bush is, looks, and sounds young and fresh, ready to fight the terrorists.
Kerry is, looks, and sounds old and worn out, wanting someone else (like the United Nation) to give us permission first before we can fight the terrorists.

Bush speaks with a tough Texas accent.
Kerry speaks with a snooty-sounding Boston accent, and speaks fluent French - just like his back-stabbing French pal president Jacques René Chirac (who by the way adores Kerry).

Bush married a nice librarian lady.
Kerry married a dead Republican's wife.

Bush has been endorsed by every God-fearing American and true ally of the United States across the planet.
Kerry has been endorsed by all the two-bit dictators, thugs, tyrants, terrorists, weasels, and other assorted enemies of America on the planet (e.g., France, al Qaeda, North Korea, New York Times), as well as Teddy "Girldrowner" Kennedy and Al Sharpton.

Bush is not a Duhmocrat.
Kerry is.

Bush doesn't cuss at the brave Secret Service agents who are protecting him.
Kerry does and then lies about it.

Bush has never been accused of having affairs with interns then sending them off to Africa where they'll be silenced.
Kerry has.

Bush says war is never good, not even when it's necessary.
Kerry says war is good unless it makes W. looks good.

Bush called terrorist leader Yasser Arafat "irrelevant."
Kerry called Yasser Arafat "a statesman and role model."

Bush is not a liberal and will tell you he isn't.
Kerry's a liberal but won't tell you he is.


The overriding fact of the matter is the same one that convincingly supported Roosevelt's reelection during World War II: You don't change horses in midstream. The total destruction of all bloodthirsty terrorists is a stream we must cross to keep ourselves from drowning in a raging undertow of relentless attacks which they plan against our cities. Bush is the horse we've been riding successfully toward that other bank where the threat of terrorist attacks is significantly diminished. Terrorists would love to see us switch in midstream and take our chances on an unproven horse - a horse they already like better than the tried-and-true one we're riding now.

We can't turn around and go back to that far more dangerous bank. We can't change horses now and risk falling off and drowning. We must push forward on the horse we have. It's really the best chance we have of ever making it to the other side safely and united.
Bookmark and Share    

al-Qerry's 1971 testimony on C-Span tonight

 

From Not Fonda Kerry:

"On Sunday Night 3/21/04, 6:30 and 9:30 PM EST. CSPAN will broadcast John Kerry's 1971 Anti-war testimony to the Senator William Fulbright’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
Bookmark and Share    

California moves closer to secession

 

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's announcement Tuesday that his office will work with California democrats to craft legislation that will allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses was greeted with cheers, celebratory fireworks, and ringing of bells in Mexico City.

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was on hand for the celebration, saying that it marked a "glorious day" for the people of Mexico. "Our state is one step closer to uniting with our sisters and brothers south of what we hope will soon no longer be the border," she yelled in English at the assembled crowd.

The state's Democratic Party passed a resolution making Governor Schwarzenegger both an honorary citizen of Mexico and the vice-chair of the party's recently inaugurated "I'm A Mexican, Too" voter-registration campaign. Asked by phone what the governor's duties would be, California Democratic Party chairman Art Torres explained that Schwarzenegger will "pump up the undocumented-worker community and get them registered to vote."

"(Illegal aliens) are under-represented in our state legislature, and indeed in most of our city and country governments," Torres said. "They should have a voice. And the governor and our party will fight to give them that voice. Together we will unite people in both California and Mexico in an effort to finally rid ourselves of that racist-inspired border which artificially separates us."

Part of this "borderless society" effort, explained Torres, is making sure illegal aliens obtain the right the vote in California's elections. "Just because someone happens to live on the 'wrong' side of a line drawn by white men in Washington (D.C.) doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to vote. That's racist and discriminatory. And we will fight it," said the party's chairman. He noted that having a California drivers license is the same as registering to vote in that state because of the federal voting-rights law known as the Motor Voter Act.

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom welcomed the governor's announcement. "I stand for the law if I personally believe it's right. And this new proposal will be enforced by me whether the politicians in Sacramento actually pass it or not," Newsom declared, referring to the state's elected lawmakers. "The distinction between Mexican citizen and California citizen - like the discriminatory distinction between husband/wife and husband/husband or wife/wife marriages - will, starting right now, be no more in this town."

John al-Qerry, senator of the state from which the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center boarded the two planes that were used to kill nearly 3,000 people in those attacks, called Schwarzenegger to congratulate him on his appointment as IAMT's vice-chair. "He really deserves it," the part-time senator and full-time walking Botox ad told reporters outside his Boston campaign headquarters. "This should mean a lot to all those people who have been unfairly disenfranchised all these years by the biggest bunch of liars and crooks I've ever seen." When asked why he thinks non-citizens should have the right to vote in American elections, al-Qerry responded that "I am, you are, we all are Mexicans, too, if you think about it. So how would you like it if someone didn't let you vote just because you're Mexican? That's not right."

Workers' unions generally praised Schwarzenegger for his f-ing Qerry-like flip-flop. At least one, however, called for the governor to reconsider his decision as well as his newfound affiliation with IAMT.

At the headquarters of the VRWC of California, the union was flooded with emails demanding that it call upon its vast resources to stop the state's "de facto secession" to Mexico. "As much as I would like to see most of California actually secede from the union and take most of our country's raving moonbats with it," one emailer said, "they're trying to burden the United States with another flood of illegal-alien voters just so they can get the state's 55 electoral votes for that haughty French-speaking candidate."

After that email was forwarded to the French consulate in Los Angeles, white flags were flown from every window of its main building, marking the first time the French have ever surrendered to an email.
Bookmark and Share    

Cowards Maiming and Killing Their Brothers' Wives, Mothers, Sisters and Children

 

No Iraqi could be behind these deeds. Knowing your friend's grandmother will be in that square or your neighbor's daughter works at that hotel would make it impossible for you to even think about attacking those sites. Training your rocket launchers at your country's women and children and setting off your bombs where they are would gain you nothing. You would be lower than the filthiest maggots that could consume what's left of your body after your country's brethren get their hands on you.

A Syrian or Iranian terrorist, on the other hand, doesn't know any of them. It's not his home, family, friends or neighbors he's shredding into pieces with his explosives. It does serve his interests to have Iraqis subjugated by fear so that they lose heart and quit trying to make their country much better than it ever could've been under Saddam Hussein. He would like to see Iraq ruled by another dictatorial regime, perhaps one more friendly to his own country's government. He would gain prestige in the eyes of that government if he succeeds. He would be rewarded for killing and maiming other men's wives, mothers, sisters and children.

That terrorist from Syria or Iran doesn't know about the strength of the Iraqi people, either. They've already lived through decades of heartless brutality. They know what suffering a vile dictatorship brings. They're much tougher and more courageous than any foreign terrorist can imagine. They know who lives in their neighborhoods and who doesn't belong there. Iraqis love their home and families; and they are far better able to protect and improve their lives, this time for themselves.

The men of Iraq are now tasting freedom. Their working to earn and keep more of it will not be stopped by any coward who, even at home, would not be seen as a real man.
Bookmark and Share    

EUthanasia

 

Next time some socialist statist says the United States should be more like Europe, tell him to digest this (but from the opposite direction one usually digests things so he can have a real chance of actually getting it):

Government Budget Deficits
and Public Debt

(Percentage of Gross Domestic Product)
Nation20022003
DeficitDebtDeficitDebt
15 EU nations2.062.52.664.0
12 eurozone nations2.369.22.770.4
Austria0.266.61.165.0
Belgium-0.1105.8-0.2100.5
Denmark-1.747.2-1.545.0
Finland-4.342.6-2.345.3
France3.258.64.163.0
Germany3.560.83.964.2
Greece1.4104.71.7102.4
Ireland0.232.3-0.232.0
Italy2.3108.02.4106.2
Luxembourg-2.75.70.14.9
Netherlands1.952.63.054.8
Portugal2.758.12.859.4
Spain0.054.6-0.350.8
Sweden-0.052.6-0.751.8
United Kingdom1.638.53.239.8
United States1.534.13.536.1
Note: Percentages in red indiciate violation of the terms of the 1997 Stability and Growth Pact, which require that each European Union (EU) member maintain deficits of no more than 3% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as well as move its public spending accounts into surplus during times of growth. Each member must further keep debt below 60% GDP or be reducing it steadily to less than this figure.
    France and Germany have both repeatedly breached the deficit ceiling. Britain is bound by the targets in the pact although it is not at risk from a penalties procedure laid down for eurozone countries.
    EU finance ministers have suspended application of the procedure against France and Germany. [How convenient.]
Sources: Eurostat, eubusiness.com, Congressional Budget Office.

First communism - Russian style - went bankrupt and collapsed because of no real ability to sustain itself. In light of those debt numbers coming out of socialist Eutopia, won't be too many decades before we see the same thing happen there.
Bookmark and Share    

A debate a day

 

Would keep Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry away.

President Bush could more than call Chairman "I've Ruled There Ain't No Mo' POWs in Vietnam" Qerry's bluff by demanding that Hanoi John debate him every single day through Election Eve:

"The guy wants debates. I'll give him debates," the president told reporters. "Starting tomorrow, I'm going to fly Air Force One to wherever he is that day. I'll take a fully-equipped camera crew along and have our on-board alternate conference room converted into a television studio. We can debate there if he can't find a local TV station to do it in."

Asked what topics he would cover in those debates, President Bush answered, "Anything and everything." Including al-Qerry's protests of America's liberation of South Vietnam during the early 1970s. "The guy accused our soldiers in uniform of just being baby killers over there. Well, I'm going hit him with hard evidence that shows just how wrong he is."

Referring to a book that the Demagogic Party's apparent presidential nominee wrote at the time, the president asked, "Why did he use an upside-down American flag on his book's cover? With a bunch of his hippie buddies yelling in front of it? That's a signal of distress, used only in time of grave emergency - like when your nation's under direct attack from bloodthirsty terrorists. Not when you don't like our government's national security policies."


photo: www.wintersoldier.com
President Bush said additional topics would include the senator's f'ing tax-increase and spending-increase plans, as well as his abuse of power while chairman of the select Senate committee charged with investigating the American-POW issue. "Threatening the committee's witnesses with contempt of Congress if they continued to claim there were still G.I.s being held prisoner in Vietnam, is extreme and unconscionable. And he should apologize to our brave servicemen and women for the haughty and arrogant way he used his chairman's gavel to dismiss their heart-wrenching pleas."

Al-Qerry's campaign headquarters refused to return phone calls asking for a response to the president's demand for daily debates. Speaking on the Senate floor, Ted "Carboat" Kennedy (D-MJK), a key al-Qerry backer, ranted, "That's too many debates. Will (President Bush) debate my colleague while he's going to church, like he always does, every Sunday? Will he debate John if he attends a Red Sox game? Will he debate my friend each time he goes to the doctor's office for Botox shots? This is plain ludicrous. And it sounds like to me that it's yet another plan designed for political gain hatched at that ranch in Crawford (Texas)."

The president later told reporters on Air Force One, "I can't understand why the guy wants to back out now after taunting me for days about not wanting to debate him. Well, I'm on my way to Los Angeles to meet the senator right after he finishes his regime-change conference with Susan Sarandon. I want to know why he didn't act on a report the Massachusetts senator personally got which showed Boston's airport had security problems. Apparently, he knew. I want to know what he knew and when he knew it. Now the question is, did he lie about knowing it?"

President Bush has ordered the United States Air Force to outfit the presidential jumbo jet with a completely functional mobile oval office so he won't lose any time fighting the world war while debating the French-looking candidate.


eBay ad

"Hey, don't let my turban fool ya."
- Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry

Bookmark and Share    

Liberal Utopia

LC Local 666, VRWC
Solidarity!
V A
Victory
Blog
Never Submit

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

ObaMeinFuhrer

Miserable Failures Obama bin Biden& more failures
& even more failures

Olympic Fail


LUmail

Liberal Utopia
WWW


Site Feed

Subscribe to Liberal Utopia by Email

Posts

  Wednesday, March 31, 2004
  Monday, March 29, 2004
  Sunday, March 28, 2004
  Saturday, March 27, 2004
  Thursday, March 25, 2004
  Tuesday, March 23, 2004
  Monday, March 22, 2004
  Sunday, March 21, 2004
  Friday, March 19, 2004
  Thursday, March 18, 2004
  Wednesday, March 17, 2004
  Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Archives

March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014




Listed on BlogShares


G o o g l e
b o m b s
miserable failure
culture of corruption
sus barbatus
unelectable
wicked witch of the east
liberals
peckerwood
jew
great president