Archive for March, 2009

Obama Spending Will Result In Debt Exceeding 82% Of Economy, CBO Says

March 31, 2009

When you see a car hurtling off a cliff, you can safely say the driver probably went the wrong way.

According to the CBO, we are stomping on the accelerator while headed right off a cliff.

Deficit Projected To Swell Beyond Earlier Estimates
CBO Expects Trillions More in Borrowing

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 21, 2009; A01

President Obama’s ambitious plans to cut middle-class taxes, overhaul health care and expand access to college would require massive borrowing over the next decade, leaving the nation mired far deeper in debt than the White House previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said yesterday.

In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended.

Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade — $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would “not be sustainable.”

The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 — double last year’s level — and threaten the nation’s financial stability.

“This clearly creates a scenario where the country’s going to go bankrupt. It’s almost that simple,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “One would hope these numbers would wake somebody up,” Gregg said.

Click here to read the rest of the article

“Change we can believe in” has now finally been defined: it means nearly $10 trillion in spending – with massive interest to boot – in ten years.

Michael Boskin of The Wall Street Journal pointed out that:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

The United States of America is like a big bus filled with a bunch of chattering children.  Some are laughing and shouting to one another about this or that; some are tuned in to toxic culture (and tuned out to all else) via their iPods; some are arguing over this or that event of the day.  But by and large, nobody is paying attention to the fact that the driver is heading right off a cliff to a big bang and a fiery death far below.

It is getting very important that we take a moment to LOOK at where we are headed.

The Congressional Budget Office says that debt held by the public will rise from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 57 percent in 2009 and then to 82 percent of GDP by 2019.  Keep in mind, that 41% figure was based on a deficit of $459 billion – the largest on record.  Obama has already smashed that tally, and promises to smash it again and again.  That’s how he manages to double the national debt as a percentage of the overall economy to a degree that is so far beyond crazy that it is simply unreal.

There won’t be enough rich people to devour to get us through this kind of debt.  Little people, your taxes are about to go sky high even as your quality of life plummets.

Obama Administration Reveals New US Position On Israel: Cold Indifference

March 30, 2009

The opening words of a World Tribune article should make every American – and every lover of freedom in the face of terror and unrelenting terrorism – shudder to the depths of his or her soul:

Update: Israel’s chief of staff cuts short trip after doors close in Obama’s Washington

Washington after getting an extraordinarily cool reception from the new U.S. administration.

Last year, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi had no problem setting up meetings with top officials in the U.S. government.

On his current trip to Washington, Ashkenazi sought to meet the administration of President Barack Obama, but most officials were unavailable. A statement to WorldTribune.com by the Israel Defense Forces spokesman attempted to downplay the snubs.

Diplomatic sources said Ashkenazi failed to obtain access to any Cabinet member, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The Israeli military chief, who sought to discuss the
Iranian nuclear threat, was also unable meet his counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[On March 19, the Israel Defense Forces spokesman e-mailed the following statement to WorldTribune.com: “The schedule for the United States visit of the IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was preplanned according to requests made by American officials. Any meetings that were canceled were substituted with telephone conference calls.”]

This parallels – even tops – the previous incredibly shabby treatment of America’s other formerly trusted friend and ally – the United Kingdom by way of snubbing and insulting its prime minister.

Obama can get in front of his constant teleprompter – necessary for him to keep his lies straight as much as to allow him to speak coherently and avoid butchering the English language – and say anything. But actions speak far more loudly. And the utter humiliation accorded to a top Israeli official speaks as loudly as a slap in the face over a loudspeaker.

Obama is already a repeat documented liar, who began his very campaign for President by breaking his word. He promised he would serve out his full six-year Senate term and not run for president, but he lied. He promised he would accept public campaign funding – but lied and raised more money with more fraud than any candidate in American history. Obama promised that Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel. And then he showed that he could not be trusted.

Obama’s “word” is only as reliable as whatever current opinion poll his handlers are watching. But when he and the heads of his administration show their utter disdain for first the leader of the United Kingdom and then a top general of Israel – well, that matters. We can count on the ugly side of Barack Obama.

Obama cares only about what the world thinks about him – and he will throw Israel overboard to receive the world’s praise the moment it is in his best interest to do so.

Because the world – measured by world history, measured by virtually every United Nations resolution since the one that created the state of Israel in the first place, and measured by the liberal intellectual elite – finds it fashionable to despise and condemn Israel.

Ethan Bronner, writing for the uber-liberal International Herald Tribune (the soul mate of the New York Times) recently took his opportunity to use the “the bitch deserved to get raped!” mentality to anti-Semitism. One of his paragraphs gets to the gist:

Of course, for Israel’s critics, including those who firmly support the existence of a Jewish state, the problem is not one of image but of policy. They say that four decades of occupation, the settling of half a million Israeli Jews on land captured in 1967, the economic strangling of Gaza for the past few years and the society’s growing indifference toward a Palestinian state are all reasons Israel has lost favor abroad, and that no amount of image buffing will change that.

Hal Lindsey – who cites both Ethan Bronner’s Antisemitism and Obama’s snubbing of General Ashkenazi in his own article “A Fearful Thing, Betraying Israel” – reveals the pile of lies that liberal “thought” on Israel is based upon:

Does anybody remember how Israel ended up “occupying” the land it “captured” in 1967? Israel captured it after beating back the combined forces of the Arab world that had launched a war of annihilation against Israel. And this wasn’t the first pan-Arab war aimed at annihilating the Jews – it was the third.

Israel fought them off in 1948. And again in 1956. And then again in 1967. And once again in 1973. This strip of land, so coveted by the Arab world, amounts to less than one-sixth of one percent of the Muslim Middle East.

While we’re on the subject, does anybody remember what it was that spurred the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland in the first place? It was the Holocaust.

The Holocaust wasn’t personally perpetrated by Adolf Hitler. Hitler never killed a single Jew. It was perpetrated by the Germans – aided by Frenchmen, Italians, Romanians, Ukrainians, Arabs, et al, while the Allies did their best not to notice.

The Palestinian State that the rest of the world insists that Israel owes the Palestinians could have been theirs in 1947. They turned it down in favor of a war of annihilation.

Does anybody recall exactly why Israel went back into Gaza? It was because Palestinian terrorists fired more than six thousand rockets into Israeli cities and towns.

The reason that Israel is a pariah nation has absolutely nothing to do with Israeli policies. Israel was a pariah nation before it even had time to formulate national policies. As already noted, long before there was an Israel, the world tried to exterminate the Jews.

After there was an Israel, the Arabs tried to exterminate the Jews. It isn’t the Israeli state – it is the Jews that the world finds so offensive. But what has really caused this race of people to be so hated? This kind of racial hatred is unprecedented in history.

Lindsey’s article contained an advertisement for a book that was only too-fitting:

United in Hate (Hardcover) by Jamie Glazov

“United in Hate” analyzes the Left’s contemporary romance with militant Islam as a continuation of the Left’s love affair with communist totalitarianism in the 20th Century. Just as the Left was drawn to the communist killing machines of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro, so too it is now attracted to radical Islam. Both the radical Left and radical Islam possess a profound hatred for Western culture, for a capitalist economic structure that recognizes individual achievement, and for the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States. Both seek to establish a new world order, leftists in the form of a classless communist society, and Islamists in the form of a caliphate ruled by Sharia law. To achieve these goals, both are willing to ‘wipe the slate clean’ by means of limitless carnage, with the ultimate goal of erecting their utopia upon the ruins of the system they have destroyed. One of the foundations of the Left’s romance with militant Islam, as with communism, is the lust for death – for others.

Don’t think that Antisemitism isn’t right out of the heart of the political left.

In May 1998 John Miller of ABC News was granted an unprecedented interview with bin Laden, in which he revealed his total hatred of the Jews and the Christians of the West. He claimed that holy war was essential to allow the Islamic nations to defeat the world dominated by Christians and Jewish “heretics.” He said that terrorism against Westerners was completely justified because no Western citizens are innocent. He claimed that the degraded moral standards of Islam’s Christian and Jewish enemies justified any terrorist atrocities.

This obscene justification of blind brutality was delivered by a man who has been responsible for destroying the lives of thousands and thousands of men, women, and children from many different faiths – Islam included – in countries throughout the world. Bin Laden claims that the United States should be held responsible for what he calls acts of world terrorism, including the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII and the Allies bombing of Iraq in 1991. In addition, he has used pejorative and hate-filled anti-Semitic language in his many public attacks on the Jewish people.

In other words, Osama bin Laden sounds very much like Barack Obama’s own pastor and spiritual leader for 23 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Let me state in no uncertain terms that Barack Obama comes out of a tradition which substantially agrees with Osama bin Laden regarding Israel.

To paraphrase Barack Hussein Obama’s reverend, when Obama was elected president, the chickens of hostility toward Israel began to come home to roost.

Rupert Murdoch recently gave an address entitled, “Could Europe and US Survive Without Israel?.” He says:

In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States. Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel.

In this new century, the “West” is no longer a matter of geography. The West is defined by societies committed to freedom and democracy. That at least is how the terrorists see it.

Given the fact that Israel is a democracy surrounded by Arab nations filled with extremists who would murder every Jew if they could, and given the fact that the Arab nations themselves have four times in the past launched self-proclaimed “wars of extermination” to “drive the Jews into the Sea,” it is at least certain that we could only survive as a true nation of moral cowards (to use a term that Obama’s Attorney General has already called Americans).

As Jamie Glazov argues in his book, the left has idolized and supported every murderous totalitarian regime of the 20th century. From Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to Adolf Hitler‘s National Socialist German Workers’ Party (“NAZI”), to Chairman Mao’s People’s Republic of China, to Fidel Castro’s and Che Guevara’s Cuba and Latin American revolutions, to Ho Chi Minh’s Democratic Republic of Vietnam, to Pol Pot’s Cambodia. The American left has sided with them all – at least until doing so became a political liability.

Liberals have called conservatives “fascists” for years, but ask yourself this: if I say, “National Socialist American Workers’ Party,” which does it sound more like: the Republicans, or the Democrats? Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism masterfully demonstrates – using their own words to hang around their necks – the left’s affinity for fascism and fascist policies.

And now, on top of everything else, we’re increasingly seeing more and more similarities between Obama and Hitler. And it isn’t merely in the little things; it’s in his unprecedented and frankly shocking attempt to take over the American economy in the guise of averting a “crisis.”

As Goldberg points out, “Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency” (Liberal Fascism, p. 43).

Please let Barack Hussein Obama and your own elected representatives know how you feel about the Obama Administration’s cold indifference to Israel.

Chris Dodd In AIG Scandal Up To Top Of His Demon Horns

March 30, 2009

First we find out that Christ Dodd – the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee – had received more money from the most slimeball of the big Wall Street players than anyone with the possible exception of now-president Barack Hussein.

Then we find out that Chris Dodd wrote a clause that essentially specifically exempted AIG bonus money in Barack Hussein’s stimulus package – but only at the direct behest of Barack Hussein’s Treasury Department, Dodd hastened to add.

Now we find out that AIG was basically under the distinct impression (and we can only wonder how they got that impression) that they could basically buy their very own Banking committee chairman by funding Dodd’s campaign.

Sen. Chris Dodd, who got more money than anyone from the corrupt and massive failures Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Sen. Chris Dodd, who got more money than anyone from now bankrupt and gone-with-the-dodo-bird Lehman Bros.; Sen. Chris Dodd, who got a sweetheart mortgage from corrupt Countrywide who’s CEO is now in jail (and who sits at the very top of the Time Magazine‘s list of who was most responsible for the collapse of our economy).

So here’s the story of the day via a little snippet from The Washington Times:

As Democrats prepared to take control of Congress after the 2006 elections, a top boss at the insurance giant American International Group Inc. told colleagues that Sen. Christopher J. Dodd was seeking re-election donations and he implored company executives and their spouses to give.

The message in the Nov. 17, 2006, e-mail from Joseph Cassano, AIG Financial Products chief executive, was unmistakable: Mr. Dodd was “next in line” to be chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the insurance industry, and he would “have the opportunity to set the committee’s agenda on issues critical to the financial services industry.

“Given his seniority in the Senate, he will also play a key role in the Democratic Majority’s leadership,” Mr. Cassano wrote in the message, obtained by The Washington Times.

Mr. Dodd’s campaign quickly hit pay dirt, collecting more than $160,000 from employees and their spouses at the AIG Financial Products division (AIG-FP) in Wilton, Conn., in the days before he took over as the committee chairman in January 2007. Months later, the senator transferred the donations to jump-start his 2008 presidential bid, which later failed.

Now, two years later, Mr. Dodd has emerged as a central figure in the government’s decision to let executives at the now-failing AIG collect more than $218 million in bonuses, according to the Connecticut attorney general – even as the company was receiving billions of dollars in assistance from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He acknowledged that he slipped a provision into legislation in February that authorized the bonuses, but said the Treasury Department asked him to do it.

At some point, one would expect the media and the public to start wondering whether Republicans were really the reason that the economy tanked after all, given the fact that so many Democrats – including the man who is now President and the Senate Banking Committee Chairman – were so deeply into the pockets of the biggest players in the financial disaster…

Nah.  That would take brains and honesty, and both are in extremely limited supply these dark days.

Card Check ALREADY Being Used To Harass Workers Into Caving In To Unions

March 28, 2009

Most kids are exposed to images of the union-busting and strike-breaking measures undertaken by auto-manufacturers and other industries during the early 20th century.  You’ve probably been exposed to photographs and video of corporate thugs beating up workers trying to organize to improve their lives.  You’ve probably seen pictures of “company towns.”

Kids don’t get to see the “busting” and “breaking” measures being taken by union thugs.  And the mainstream media is ignoring the stories of union abuses going on right now.

Card Check Process Used by Union Organizers Ignites Fury at Indiana Plant: Union organizers are going to great lengths to get new members — including harassing and intimidating company employees until they vote to join.

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

A bill working its way through Congress that changes how employees can create and join unions is facing tough criticism from workers who say it gives unions the green light to use aggressive tactics to get them to sign up.

The Employee Free Choice Act — known in Congress as the “card check” bill — calls for an easier system to allow employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations. Under the bill, employees can request blank cards from existing unions that employees can sign to express interest in joining the union. If 30 percent of employees sign the cards, companies can hold secret-ballot elections to decide on unionization.

But workers at the Dana Corporation Auto Parts plant in Albion, Ind., say the card check process has nearly torn the 50-person plant apart after harassment and intimidation from the United Auto Workers union forced them to a secret-ballot vote.

A union organizer came to the plant two years ago to ask employees to join the UAW because the company had signed a neutrality agreement with the union.

The meeting, however, did not go well, according to plant employee Larry Guest.

“He was using real rough language — cursing. It didn’t go over well with the women at all. There were a couple that just got up and left,” Guest told FOX News.

Employees said union representatives approached them in the break room, at the plant doors and even followed them to their cars.

“He was just like an itch that you couldn’t scratch. He just wouldn’t go away,” said employee Rita Murphy.

“After a while we realized he was going to be here morning, noon and night until he got his numbers that he needed,” said Betty Pop.

Dana employee Jamie Oliver told FOX News that she was approached at her home.

“We’re here in a little town and we’re a plant of 50 some people — you know the last thing you need is to have the union coming to your door saying I want your name,” Oliver said.

The union’s relentless approach, she said, eventually wore her down.

“When they approach you every day — every day, every day,” she said, “after a while it’s like ‘Okay. Fine. I’ll sign the card.'”

The UAW collected the necessary signatures, but plant employees appealed to the National Labor Relations Board that ruled the employees could hold a secret election.

“When they held the election, there was no more union,” said Guest. “Although it was close.”

Now, employees say, the forced choice has turned friend into foe, causing some employees to be threatened by coworkers who had wanted the union.

One employee said she was threatened for her choice.

“I have my reasons for the way that I voted. That’s nobody else’s business, and had it not been for the card check, nobody would know if I was for or against,” said Beverly Musolf.

The UAW declined to give comment to FOX News on the employees’ complaints.

The latest version of the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced to both chambers of Congress on March 10, 2009.

FOX News’ Brian Wilson contributed to this report.

News and Views from National Right to Work (nrtw.org) also carried the story of the rampant union abuse, and provide Youtube video of the story.  Their first article links to this earlier one (which features additional supporting video).

Card check is an open invitation to union abuses – and the proof is in what they have already done with their card check opportunity.

We have to get the word out.  We have to see to it that as many Americans as possible are aware of what happened in Albion, Indiana at the Dana Corporation Auto Parts plant.  We have to inform the American people so they can resist this terrible measure.  It amounts to a denial of the right to vote one’s conscience, and it will be devastating to the economy.

We have already seen Wal-Mart stock go down as a result of the mere fear that Card check will become law.  If it does pass, a lot of investors will come to the conclusion that profitability is gone and pull their investments out of businesses.

Call your elected representatives and ask them if they want to see workers being harassed and even intimidated and threatened into joining unions, such as what happened in Albion, Indiana at the Dana Corporation.  We’ve got the precedent.  Let’s use it.

The Increasingly Shocking Parallels Between Obama And Hitler Youth

March 28, 2009

I came across a video that left me shaking with fear and outrage:

If this footage doesn’t disturb you to your very core, I don’t even know what to say.  We have here a militarized group of young men being steeped in not only political ideology, but in literal cult worship of Barack Obama.

This was going on before the election.  I still remember the video featuring a glassy-eyed girl singing, “We’re gonna spread happiness! We’re gonna spread freeeeedom! Obama’s gonna change it, Obama’s gonna lead ‘em…”  The cult mindset continued into his inauguration, with a creepy “Kids’ Inaugural.”  That article also contains embedded video of a public school teacher – in a frightening version of any political re-education center in Moscow or Beijing – using public pressure, guilt, and every other tactic she could think of to browbeat a little child into supporting Obama.  It wasn’t enough that most of the children supported Obama; every child had to, with particular emphasis on the “had to” part.

I remember Louis Farrakhan saying:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

And I remember Spike Lee saying:

It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.

And I remember countless other gushing affirmations of Obama as messiah in the media.

The only thing that was missing from all this was that it was not mandatory.  But that is being fixed as we speak.

And now it is picking up momentum and heading into a new stratosphere of weirdness.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE) will massively increase the Americorps program to the tune of $6 billion.  The money quote:

But the bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service.”

Quite a shame that only a few opposed this in Congress, given the fact that the model this new “Obama Youth” program is based upon – Americorps – qualifies as “number one” in Heritage.org’s list of political slush funds.  Heritage describes the Americorps program – then receiving a “paltry” $427 million – as follows:

In 1993-1994, AmeriCorps employed about 20,000 “volunteers”described as “working all over America, helping people ­­ person to person.”2 In reality, a significant number of these paid volunteers work in federal or state bureaucracies, government-funded programs, or political action organizations3. Moreover, ignoring the Corporation’s mission statement to address the nation’s problems through direct community service, several AmeriCorps programs have engaged in advocacy and direct partisan politics at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Heritage article goes on to document several abuses.  Author Charles Griffin concludes by submitting that, “Subsidizing political activism does not qualify as responsible behavior. “

Which is another way of saying that the writer of the Heritage article was not a Democrat.  Because Democrats adore taxpayer-funded vehicles to advance their liberal ideology.

Get ready for ACORN on steroids.

The Gateway Pundit offered this:

The House passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act on Monday. The bill includes language indicating young people will be forced to participate in mandatory national service programs. The bill also states that “service learning” will be a mandatory part of the youth curriculum.
That doesn’t sound much like “volunteerism” does it?

…The mandatory youth plan also forbids members from attending religious services and forbids youth from witnessing their religious beliefs.  The Voice Magazine reported, via Free Republic:

This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in “engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.” That means no church attendance or witnessing.

One of Adolf Hitler’s contributions to the relationship between parents, children, and the state was this: “When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

Which is precisely Obama’s and liberals’ goal as well.

And the element of mandating religion out of the lives of young people is a cherished goal of atheists, as the following conclusively demonstrates:

“How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?  Religion … has always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young…  If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.” – Christopher Hitchens

“If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, then I think it may be the most important contribution we can make.” – Steven Weinberg

How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?  it’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children?  Is there something to be said for society stepping in?  What about bringing up children to beleive manifest falsehoods?  Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought out?” – Richard Dawkins

“[S]ome children are raised in such an ideological prison that they willingly become their own jailers… Parents don’t literally own their children the way slaveowners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.” – Daniel Dennett

Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given license to enculcate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstitition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.” – Nicholas Humphrey

And philosopher Richard Rorty argued that secular professors in the universities ought “to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like their own.”  He noted that students are fortunate to find themselves “under the benevolent Herrschaft of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”  He said to parents who send their children to college, “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than reasonable.”

And I say this: “Spoken just as the true fascist, totalitarian Nazis these people at heart are.”  Parents don’t have a right to teach their children their religious and moral values.  No,  the state alone should have that right, and the values of the state should be Darwinian values.  And in the interest and under the power of the state, parents should have their values undermined, mocked, and discarded by the imposition of the new American religion under the new socialist system.  Nazism and Marxism are both quintessentially socialist, so pick your favorite brand of poison and drink deeply.

Don’t think that this new Brownshirt program would have been embraced any less favorably by Adolf Hitler than it would have been by Joseph Stalin.  A great read on the subject is “The Nazis and Christianity” by Bruce Walker in the American Thinker.

As G.K. Chesterton put it so magnificently, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.”

Kiss your dear children goodbye, parents.  Because very soon they are going to hate you and everything you stand for.  Very soon they are going to be jackbooted little Obama robots marching around and shouting in cadence, “Because of Obama I’m inspired to be the next X, Y, and Z!” and of course, the new American version of “Seig Heil”: “Yes, we can!”

The Outrage Over Oakland Cop Killer In Larger Context

March 28, 2009

One video is worth a thousand words:

I mean, if you’re not going to celebrate a man who murdered four police officers after hauling a 12 year old girl off the street at gunpoint and raping her (reportedly along with several other girls according to law enforcement), who are you going to celebrate?

The San Francisco Chronicle had part of the story:

Dozens march for Mixon, against police
Charles Burress, Chronicle Staff Writer

“OPD you can’t hide – we charge you with genocide,” chanted the demonstrators as they marched along MacArthur Boulevard, near the intersection with 74th Avenue where Mixon, 26, a fugitive parolee, gunned down two motorcycle officers who had pulled him over in a traffic stop. He killed two more officers who tried to capture him where he was hiding in his sister’s apartment nearby.

The protest was organized by the Oakland branch of the Uhuru Movement, whose flyers for the march declared, “Stop Police Terror.” Many marchers wore T-shirts featuring Mixon’s photo, including a woman identified by march organizers as Mixon’s mother. The woman declined to comment and gave her name only as Athena.

Lolo Darnell, one of Mixon’s cousins at the demonstration, said, “He needs sympathy too. If he’s a criminal, everybody’s a criminal.”

Asked about police allegations that Mixon was suspected in several rapes, including that of a 12-year-old girl, marcher Mandingo Hayes said, “He wasn’t a rapist. I don’t believe that.”

Bystanders had mixed reactions. Nicole Brown said that she can’t condone murder but that police don’t respect residents of the area. Daria Belt said she had no sympathy for the protesters but sympathized for Mixon’s family.

Of course, the Chronicle and most of the rest of the media most definitely don’t want to tell you the full story: for example, it’s NOT the “Uhuru Movement” who marched in the street praising a cop murdering rapist career dirtbag; it’s the International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement. Wouldn’t want anyone to in any way be able to connect this “movement” (as in ‘bowel movement’) to Democrats, would we?

We also learn that Mixon’s cousin, Dolores Darnell, 26, called Mixon “a true hero, a soldier.” And DEMOCRATIC Uhuru Movement member Kihad Deen argued, “I don’t condone what he did, but it’s bringing to light the frustrations between the community and the police. This gives people a chance to speak their minds.”

If one person – just one – in that march voted for or in any way supported John McCain, I will eat my underwear. This is a hard-core liberal movement supporting hard-core leftist causes – and the left deserves full “credit” for the DEMOCRATIC Uhuru Movement’s “contributions.”

The Associated Press ran a story that had the following to say:

OAKLAND, Calif.—Relatives of the man suspected of fatally shooting three Oakland police officers said Sunday the 26-year-old parolee was frustrated about not finding work and feared returning to jail…

Mixon’s uncle, 38-year-old Curtis Mixon of Fremont, said his nephew had become depressed because he could not find work as a convicted felon. His nephew expected authorities to issue an arrest warrant for missing parole meetings, even though the he felt he was not to blame, he said.

“I think his frustration was building up, but he was trying to better himself,” Curtis Mixon said.

Mixon was a hero of the common man, a regular Willy Loman character come to life from the pages of Death of a Salesman. Of that story we read:

It is said that [Arthur] Miller is criticizing America and capitalism as a promoter of socialism. It is demonstrated through Willy, the protagonist during the story, who struggles to support his family and even himself. It is the story of a man at the end of his life, who realizes he has wasted his years in pursuit of a goal that is not only unattainable, but was never real to begin with.

And of course, to top Willy Loman, Mixon never had a chance – claim liberals – because he was black.

The fact that he was a 26-year old career criminal who spent six years in prison for armed robbery before spending another 9 months for parole violations before being a serial rapist and then four-time cop killer amount to insignificant details – and I of course must be a hardened racist for even bringing them up to begin with.

We find the classic liberal story line: Lovelle Mixon as victim of racist white societal oppression, finally lashing out as a hero and dying in a blaze of glory in a statement against that oppression.

This is nothing new – which is why I tie this right to the Obama camp which buys this brand of bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

Here’s another murderous rat bastard openly cherished by the left – and specifically by Obama supporters:

KRIV-TV image of Texas Obama volunteers with Che Guevara flag. (KRIV-TV Photo)

KRIV-TV image of Texas Obama volunteers with Che Guevara flag. (KRIV-TV Photo)

Che Guevera was a hard-core communist murderer of anyone with whom he disagreed – which is apparently all one needs to be iconicized as a hero by the political left these days.

Why would anyone NOT want as President of the United States of America a candidate whose campaign offices honor a man who said:

“The U.S. is the great enemy of mankind!” raved Ernesto “Che” Guevara in 1961. “Against those hyenas there is no option but extermination. We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies’ very home, to his places of work and recreation. The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! We must keep our hatred against them (the U.S.) alive and fan it to paroxysms!”

Why not eulogize with a flag the man who wrote to his father:

I’d like to confess, papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.

Why not celebrate the leftist ideologue who proclaimed:

“The solutions to the world’s problems lie behind the Iron Curtain,” stressed Ernesto “Che” Guevara who often signed his correspondence with the moniker “Stalin II.” “If the nuclear missiles had remained we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City,” he boasted. “The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”

Why honor Guevara? Because of course “the victory of socialism” IS well worth millions of victims – atomic or otherwise – to the left. Always has been. And it most certainly still is today, even as it is imposed upon America with a swiftness that even the most ardent critics of Obama are finding stunning.

If a John McCain office had been discovered to have a Yugoslavian flag emblazoned with the image of Slobodan Milošević, I have a feeling the media would have interpreted the implications of such a thing far differently than the nonchalant “ho-hum” response accorded to Obama. And of course the same “ho-hum” response was accorded to him as radical after radical was discovered in his intimate circle of support.

The honoring of figures like Lovelle Mixon by the Democratic Uhuru Movement is part of a time-honored tradition of the American left. Many of the same liberal politicians and bureaucrats in office today once publicly celebrated Che Guevara, the Black Panthers, and/or other violent leftist extremist people and groups in their own “day.” By way of contrast let me assure you; Timothy McVeigh isn’t getting a lot of play in Republican circles. The right doesn’t play this incredibly ugly game; the left does.

We don’t do this crap.  Nor do we provide “useful idiot”  support for movements such as communism which is responsible for more than 100 million murders in the 20th century.  Instead, the very people who supported murderous people and movements decry George Bush as a war criminal for taking out an Iraqi tyrant who was responsible for more than one million lives in war, and who filled mass graves with the bodies of more than 400,000 of his own people.

The American people have never faced up to the idols of the left or the implications of what it means when people with such idols assume power.

‘Don’t Tax Me, Bro!’

March 26, 2009

The phrase iconicized by the “Don’t taze me, bro” protester (who truly deserved his tazing, from my own point of view) has finally found legitimate fruit:

We can add the “Don’t tax me, bro!” movement it to the “Tea party” movement (and see here for a link to an April 15 party in your own area).

Last month New York Mayor Bloomberg said it would be disastrous to raise taxes on the few who were actually producing: he pointed out that in a city of millions, only 40,000 (1% of filers) paid fully half the taxes.  And he provided the obvious truth that if even a fraction of these people bailed out of the city to reduce their tax liabilities, the city would face disaster.

In a recent article I wrote commenting on the nearly $10 trillion in debt that the Obama budget is forecasted to burden us with that lowering taxes actually increases revenues.  It’s just a fact.  Raising taxes on the “wealthy” (as demonized – I mean defined – by liberals), guarantees that people with the means and the need to do so will shelter their money and pull it out of the economy.  And they will suffer far less than the people who depend on the jobs that the wealthy’s investments create.  People will only invest when they are rewarded for doing so.

We also need to regard Barack Obama as the “anti-Reagan.”  Mainstream media talking-heads point out endlessly that Obama is facing the worst economy since the Great Depression.  But that is not true, when one looks at the numbers.  Jimmy Carter left President Reagan with a 21% interest rate, an inflation rate of 12.5%, the Consumer Price Index at 13% and rising, and a near 8% unemployment rate.  the numbers were in fact WORSE than the ones that Barack Obama is seeing.  But Reagan turned it around with a perspective that held that “Government is not the solution to the problem; government IS the problem.”

Revenues “unexpectedly” rose following the Bush tax cuts – “unexpectedly” to liberals who will never allow themselves to understand basically market and human behavior.  If you tax something, you will get less of it.  Taxing profits equals less profit and a smaller economy.

The wide-eyed-with-surprise New York Times noted of the Bush tax cuts:

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

During the Clinton presidency, Democrats imposed a “luxury tax” on the rich on high ticket items such as yachts.  The idea of course was 1) to punish the rich for their success; and 2) to increase tax revenues.  But neither happened.  It wasn’t the “rich” who were punished, but the working class who worked building, selling, and maintaining yachts who were punished as their jobs went the way of the dodo bird.  When the taxes were imposed, the rich changed their behavior and quit buying yachts.  Surprise?  Only to liberals.  Their ideology prevents them from understanding a simple principle that is literally a law of economics.

While liberals will never understand this idea that people being allowed to keep more of their own money is good, the average American does.
That’s why liberals like to promise tax cuts.  But watch out.

President Clinton won election by promising a tax cut that he failed to deliver on.  President Obama similarly won election by promising a tax cut for “95% of Americans” (but taxing the bejeezus out of the other five percent), but there is no way he can deliver on such a promise with his spending.  If Obama confiscated the TOTAL wealth of the wealthiest 5%, we still wouldn’t scratch the surface of his spending.  Obama preached the socialist gospel of “spreading the wealth around”; but he’s going to have to spread the taxes around to pay for his grandiose schemes.

“Don’t tax me, bro!”  And don’t tax the rich guy who deserves to keep his own money, and who’s hard work and investment provides millions of jobs for working stiffs.

Ask yourself, “How many poor people gave me jobs throughout my life?”  If it begins to occur to you that is was wealthy people (defined by Obama as those who make more than $200,ooo a year – with Obama having reduced it from $250,000, and with Vice President Biden then lowering it even further to $150,000 a year), realize that your job – and quite literally your country – may depend on you not buying into Democrats’ and Obama’s frankly Marxist class warfare strategy.

Welcome to the hell Barack Obama is marching us toward

March 25, 2009

On the March 23, 2009 edition of Fox News Special Report, Washington Correspondent ran the following report:

[Video of Barack Obama]: “These investments are not a wish list of priorities that I picked out of thin air – they are a central part of a comprehensive strategy to grow this economy by attacking the very problems that have dragged it down for too long: the high cost of health care and our dependence on foreign oil; our education deficit and our fiscal deficit.” [End video]

Much of the federal budget every year is already committed for the poor and elderly, such as Medicare and Medicaid.  Add soaring interest payments on all this borrowing, and a few years from now, it’s slim pickings for all the other spending.

Says Josh Gordon of the Concord Coalition, “If you look out 10 years at the budget: Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid and net interest takes up about 70% of the budget – just in ten years.”

Leaving only a third of the entire budget for everything else, including defense, education, energy, and all other programs.  That’s the predicament created by all this borrowing now.  And that doesn’t even include all those unfunded promises for all those baby boomers about to retire.

When one counts “all those unfunded promises for all those baby boomers” such as Social Security, the actual federal deficit soars to the hysterically-giggling figure of $65.5 trillion, which is more than the GDP of all the world’s economies combined.

This is no longer about wondering whether you will one day get to enjoy your Social Security benefits in the future.  Of course you won’t!  This is about whether there will even still be a United States of America in the future.

One has to wonder if our nation and our economy is like a headless chicken that is somehow still running around, but you really ought to know it can’t for very much longer.

As the AP reported:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

In the words of The Wall Street Journal:

The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.”

We can’t go on like this.  Any fool ought to see that.

But the man we elected to be our president can’t.  He sees only government spending on top of more government spending – like a Jenga game where you keep pulling money out of our economy and stacking it on top for future spending until the whole thing comes crashing down (I thank Glenn Beck for that illustration).

Barack Obama is compiling $10 trillion of debt (“By CBO’s calculation, Obama’s budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019″) – and he’s still going strong.  As the quote at the top of this article indicates, Obama is determined to go through with yet more massive spending on health care, on education, and on “alternative energy” – all in the name of resolving our economic crisis (see this if you believe Obama’s rhetoric).  Like all the fascist leaders of the past before him, Obama is using the crisis of the day as an opportunity to ram home his radical agenda.

All the while the Russians and the Chinese – who tried their own versions of Obama’s socialism and paid the consequences in the past – literally plead for him to stop.  But there’s no stopping this freight train to hell we’re on.  And this country voted for it.

I tell you what, I now believe more in the literal understanding of the Bible than I ever have before.  The Bible describes a time of economic and international catastrophe such as the world has never before seen.
And into this scenario would come the beast, also known as the antichrist, who would ride in on a white horse and – apparently for a time – solve all of our problems.  He will be such a magnificent figure that the whole world will worship him.

We are on the brink of what the Bible describes as the Apocalypse.  It will end with Armageddon, just as the Bible said it would. In 520 BC, the prophet Zechariah wrote, “And it will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it” (Zechariah 12:13). He didn’t know about oil, or that one day Islam would build its own holy site right on top of the Temple Mount and claim the region for itself, or anything about modern political intrigue. But God did.  Ezekiel also perfectly described the coalition that is in the process of being gathered right now against Israel in chapters 37 and 38 in his book.  Ezekiel didn’t know about modern Russia or about Islam or about any coalition of Islamic states, but God did.

And, of course, God also knew that one day China would attack the Middle East with an army of 200 million men at a time when there weren’t 200 million human beings on the entire planet (see Revelation 9:13-16; 16:12).

China and Russia are significantly increasing their military spending while Obama significantly decreases the United States’ spending.

Today, Iran – under the international protection of Russia – is being allowed to build nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them.  Beginning back in April of last year, I began stating that Obama would be weak on Iran.  I have no doubt that many others arrived at that conclusion far earlier still.  By May, I was categorically predicting that (with explanation why) Iran would be allowed to successfully build its nuclear weapons program if Obama was President.  And now, here we are: after years of liberal pooh-pooing George Bush’s threat assessment of Iran’s growing nuclear capability, we find out that Iran has enough material to build not one but fifty nuclear bombs – and the Obama administration doesn’t even have the moral courage to use the word “terrorist,” much less to boldly confront Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran – especially with a United States weakened by insane spending and further weakened by massive reduction in spending in defense – will become bolder and bolder in carrying out its radical Islamist jihadist agenda.  A nuclear-armed Shiite Iran will stimulate a nuclear arms race among its Sunni rivals.  And a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world is a guarantee of Armageddon.

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

This domestic and foreign agenda is exactly what liberals wanted; and now it will be exactly what sends the U.S. and the world into apocalypse and Armageddon.

I read the news, and all I have to say is that you had better get religion, because the beast is coming.

Why Toxic Asset Plan Is A Terrible Idea

March 24, 2009

The New York Times offers the following on the Obama Administration’s toxic asset relief plan:

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department is expected to unveil early next week its long-delayed plan to buy as much as $1 trillion in troubled mortgages and related assets from financial institutions, according to people close to the talks.

The plan is likely to offer generous subsidies, in the form of low-interest loans, to coax investors to form partnerships with the government to buy toxic assets from banks.

To help protect taxpayers, who would pay for the bulk of the purchases, the plan calls for auctioning assets to the highest bidders.

The uproar over the American International Group’s bonuses has not stopped the Obama administration from plowing ahead. The plan is not expected to impose restrictions on the executive pay of private investors or fund managers who participate.

My “favorite” part of all of this is the way the Obama administration is now relabelling “toxic assets” into “legacy loans and securities.”  Like the Stalinists whose worldview they largely share, liberals love to label people and things, and then change those labels when it becomes convenient for them to do so.  But “toxic assets” by any other name are still “toxic assets.”

Let me give you my objection in a nutshell: who is going to buy up this toxic mortgage debt (I’m sorry, these “legacy loans and securities”)?  Are YOU the gentle reader planning to buy up some of this debt?  I’m sure not.  My point is this: it won’t be a bunch of little people buying up this debt; most analysts agree that it will be big institutional investors who jump into this.

That’s right.  The same institutional investors who have been holding all the toxic debt in the first place.

So, here’s the bottom line: the government is going to buy and basically back the same debt to the same people that the government has already bailed out to begin with.

And just who gave these institutional investors the money to play this game?  You did, you silly taxpayer!  Or more precisely, big government did, with your money.

It’s like a gigantic merry-go-round with the same big players that bought up all these toxic assets now being encouraged to sell them to the government and then immediately buy them back again – only this time the federal government is jumping onto the merry-go-round, too.

And the merry-go-round is spinning on sweetheart deal risks.

The Obama administration is talking up the private investor “sharing” the debt: but the big investors will only end up “sharing” somewhere around 25% (and as little as 10%) of the debt; the rest is “shared” by the taxpayers.  There is an element of, “heads we win, tails the taxpayers lose.”  It smacks of the same mentality of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s “profits are private; losses are public” mentality.

As NPR reports:

The government will also promise to cover a significant portion of the potential losses that investors could face. Should a toxic asset investment prove worthless, the private investor may lose only his cash down payment…

…The federal government promises to guarantee most of the financing for the toxic asset purchases. That stands to be hundreds of billions of dollars if the plan achieves its goal of absorbing up to $1 trillion in bad debt.

As hard as it is to believe, this deal actually puts the American taxpayer on an even bigger hook even higher off the ground than he or she was already on.

And as much of a sweetheart deal as this appears to be, the institutional investors may STILL not be willing to get involved.  Why on earth would they pass up such a deal?  Because many may realize that the same Democrats who just voted to tax 90% of AIG’s bonuses can easily vote to become “outraged” over any “excessive” profits institutional investors eventually receive by buying up these toxic assets, and tax them the way the government voted to tax AIG executives.

You can say, “Well, the government can provide a guarantee that it won’t come after these profits.”  And the obvious retort would be, “You mean, just like AIG had for its bonuses?

How many major investors still want to get in bed with the federal government, given the fact that government has proven that it has a marked tendency to be a major bed hog?

A big problem is that we very likely have not seen the bottom of the housing market.  If home values go down further, we will be going through the same phenomenon we just went through all over again – only this time the taxpayer will be even more on the hook than before.

Another problem is that this plan assumes that the toxic asset debt is only $1 trillion; it is most likely at least $2 trillion, and could very well be as high as $4 trillion.  CBCNews reports, “Right now, American banks and other businesses have as much as $4 trillion US in financial assets that cannot be sold in the current environment.”

The conspiracy theory view (and conspiracy theories are starting to make more and more sense these days) is that Barack Obama actually WANTS the toxic asset relief plan to fail.  Rather than stepping out and backing the plan himself, he put already-under-the-gun “Turbo Tax Tim” Geithner out in front of this plan.  And if it fails, Obama isn’t personally exposed, he fires Tim Geithner, and then he socializes the banks in the name of averting the “crisis.”  As Ayn Rand put it:

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.”

Barack Obama is literally making Atlas Shrugged come alive, as a Wall Street Journal article explains.

Please understand: if this plan fails, it is NOT because “capitalism” failed; it is rather yet another massive government intrusion into the private sector that failed.

Bill Maher and Barney Frank As All-Too-Typical Leftist Haters

March 24, 2009

One hears a liberal rant, and the only thing a reasonable person can do is step back to avoid being struck in the face by the rabid spittle.

Bill Maher – a man who once cheered an assassination attempt on Dick Cheney – had the following things to say about Glenn Beck:

BILL MAHER, HOST: Listening to people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck these days, I cannot figure out whether these right-wingers are more dangerous when they’re in power or when they’re out of power. Because when they’re out of power, their paranoia goes off the charts. This Glenn Beck guy, I wouldn’t even give him the time of day except he’s a big star now on Fox and a lot of people believe him, and he’s talking about FEMA concentration camps. He says, “We are headed towards socialism, totalitarianism beyond your wildest imagination.” But apparently not beyond his wildest imagination.

MAHER: But you know, look, I, I, I would never be the person who says you have to watch what you say because some borderline, no really, I’m not for that. But that’s an argument that’s given a lot: you can’t say this because a borderline person might take it and do this. I’m sorry, that’s the price of living in a free speech country, and I do want to live in one because I make my living at it. Okay, but you know, I must say, Tim McVeigh in 1995 if you recall, this was the same kind of talk that made him blow up that building.

Noel Sheppard, from whose site I obtained the above Maher statements, wrote:

I guess Maher missed the hypocrisy concerning his disturbingly caustic views of the Bush administration while they were in power, in particular his expression of regret that the March 2007 assassination of Vice President Dick Cheney failed.

Possibly even more delicious was that sitting to Maher’s left was MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann who himself has made an almost endless number of personal attacks on members of the Bush administration during his tenure on “Countdown.”

Alas, Maher seemed oblivious to all this seemingly obvious irony.

I remember the unhinged left-wing hatred that drooled out of the left when Tony Snow passed away after a long fight with colon cancer. And I still marvel at the psychotic anger that was directed at Sarah Palin, at her daughter Bristol, and even at her little baby son Trig. We all remember the liberal attack that claimed that Trig was really Bristol’s baby, rather than Sarah Palin’s. David Letterman recently used Bristol to launch yet another attack her mother. How many conservatives have attacked Barack Obama’s two daughters, and what would liberals say if one actually did? I think of all the times when I’ve had discussions with liberals that quickly turned into heated arguments, and then even more quickly turned into my literally backing away from hysterical anger where people whom I had previously believed to be sane were literally bug-eyed and spitting at me as they shouted. It was almost as though the demon that lives inside these people came out.

One time in the gym I got in an argument with a liberal man who was half my size. I benched pressed more than four times as much as him; I most likely literally could have killed him with a single punch – yet he became so hysterical that he literally threatened to attack me with a dumb bell. He was completely out of control with hatred and rage because he couldn’t emotionally handle having his ideology questioned.

And that’s by no means the only time I’ve encountered such out of control hysteria and rage from liberals.

I have to marvel at the awe-inspiring hypocrisy of the left.

Leftist governments have been responsible for the murders of over 100 million people in the 20th century – for the most part during peacetime during ideological purges of their own people – but liberals talk about George Bush. George Bush attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan – after they launched an attack that murdered more than 3,000 innocent people; and he attacked Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which was responsible for more than one million deaths, and had buried at least 400,000 bodies of its own citizens in mass graves. What does a sane person say to the charge that George Bush was a war criminal for overthrowing such a savage tyrant and creating a stable democracy? One enters a zone where reality is irrelevant, and only hatred and the most unhinged forms of demonization are allowed to exist.

Liberal journalist Juan Williams has come to realize that the hatred from the left is actually far more vicious and judgmental than anything coming out of the right. The National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News contributor said (click this link to see it on Youtube):

“I’ve come to understand that when I say something that doesn’t hold to the orthodoxy of the far left, they are far more vicious and personal, you know, ad hominem in their attacks against me, than anything on the right. Historically I always thought, you what know what, it’s the far right that’s close minded. No, Bill, let me tell you, I’ve discovered the far left is extremely harsh and punishing when you don’t say exactly what they want you to say and stick to their orthodoxy.” (O’Reilly Factor, Monday, March 2, 2009)

Liberals tell me that Hitler was right-wing all the time. No, he wasn’t. “NAZI” was an acronym that stood for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” Why not look it up for yourself? If I were to say, “National Socialist American Workers’ Party,” would I be talking about Republicans and conservatives? Get real! Fascism and communism were both forms of socialism; the only difference was that fascism was national socialism and communism was class-based socialism. They were both firmly in the tradition of the political left. And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

So don’t blame Hitler on us; he was one of your guys, lefties.

Which reminds me of one of my early articles about one of Bill Maher’s hateful and unhinged attacks on Pope Benedict. He labeled a man as a Nazi who had personally been a victim of Nazi oppression. Bill Maher, in his attack and the lies that were inherent in that attack, proved that HE was the real Nazi. And his continual attacks on religion are totally compatible with the worst mass murderers in human history.

So now we have the guy who has cheer leaded assassination attempts on Republicans comparing a guy who has never done any such thing to one of the most evil American mass-murderers of all time.

And this hatred and demonization from the left occurs all the time. Only today, Barney Frank personally attacked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalica:

“I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court,” said Frank

How many prominent Republican politicians have gone after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and labeled her as a “God-hating witch” or some other form of ad hominem?

During the campaign, prominent Democrat and “civil-rights” leader John Lewis demonized the McCain-Palin campaign with the following:

“What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” he said.

Of course, it turned out that the events that Democrats such as John Lewis used to justify his attack had been fabricated. Liberal commentators talked about the “Weimar-like rage” of the Republicans; but – just as Noel Sheppard pointed out about Bill Maher’s hypocrisy and the irony of his comments – that liberal commentator failed to realize that the Nazis had set the Reichstag fire that they subsequently used to destroy their opponents. Creating an incident and then using that incident to destroy their opponents – which was what was done to John McCain and Sarah Palin – was the real expression of “Weimar-like rage.”

Shortly after the election, I wrote an article entitled, “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush,” which (obviously, from the title itself) suggested that conservatives begin to use the tactics of the left that brought Bush and Republicans down to bring down Obama and Democrats. The article garnered a great deal of attention from liberals at a site I used to write for called the “American Sentinel.” The site was brought down after being attacked by a liberal hacker (and was recently started again). The incredible thing was that none of the liberal comments questioned my premise that the left had used vicious and hateful tactics: they only attacked the fact that I was daring to suggest that conservatives use the SAME TACTICS THAT LIBERALS USED. The closest someone came was in claiming that I had fabricated the “I hate Bush” scrawling found outside a middle school. But I found it on a liberal’s site who posted it to CHEER the contents. As of today’s date of March 24, 2009, the link is still valid and still contains the note.

The left is vile; they are despicable; they are hateful; they are evil; and quite frankly they are often literally demonic. Hate as tactic has been frequently employed with great success by even prominent representatives of the left. And all the while as they engage in extremes of hatred, they are all the while constantly pointing the finger at conservatives to accuse them of the very thing that the liberals themselves are doing.

Update, December 21, 2o11: I had cause to cite this article again, and discovered that the liberal who posted the “I hate Bush!” note had deleted it (like the lying coward that he is).  But no fear; I was able to find an archive of that image here.  And this time I saved it to my hard drive as well:

For the record, I’ve never purged a single thing after posting more than 1,900 articles. Because unlike liberals, I actually have the courage to stand up for what I said, and either defend it or at least have the decency to admit I was wrong to say it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 537 other followers