This site will remain as an Archive Site, for the foreseeable future, of
all postings made before 23 December 2009. Because of this fact, my domain [thecampofthesaints.com] will still direct
you here for the time being. I have issues to work out with the transference of my archives to the new site that will
take some time.
Thank you for your indulgence and I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion. —Bob Belvedere
It's Time To ROC 'N' ROLL: Restore Our
Constitution & Restore Our Lost Liberties
Dispatches from The Camp Of The
Saints... by Robert Belvedere [DHS-Certified Rightwing Extremist / White House Certified
'Fishy' / Carter-Certified Raaaaacist!]
With this entry, The TCOTS Rule 5 Compliance Committee, upon
a motion by a member ex officio, has decided to throw the spotlight this weekend on a lady who is often judged
only by her most famous role. The Committee feels that she should be honored because she was so much
more than the sum of just one part. This lovely and sensual gal had talents that were appreciated in her day, but,
sadly, have too often been forgotten in our time. The Committee would like to thank the honorary member
[who shall remain anonymous and be called for the purposes of this posting: 'The Bishop'] for his suggestion. If there
is any praise to be awarded for today's selection, it must by rights be given to The Bishop. The Committee offers
him a hearty 'Yea'. Now, without further adieu, The TCOTS Rule 5 Compliance Committee, with stout hearts
and raised glasses, presents....
TINA LOUISE...
Since this is my first time swingin' this kind of thing, Miss Louise, I only ask one thing...
Well...this is my first affair, please be kind Handle my heart with care, please be kind This is all so grand, my dreams are on parade If you'll just understand, they'll never, never fade
So tell me your love's sincere, please be kind Tell me I needn't fear, please
be kind 'Cause if you leave me, dear I know my heart will lose its mind If you love me...please be kind
This is my first affair, so a-please be kind Handle my heart
with care, oh a-please be kind
So tell me your love's sincere, yes,
please be kind Tell me I needn't fear, please be kind 'Cause if you leave me, dear I know my heart will lose
its mind If you love me, baby.....please...be kind
UPDATED 28SEP09at1639: In the Master Rule 5 Posting,
over at The Other McCain, Smitty has been his usual generous self and linked to four TCOTS postings from last week. In addition
to the above lovely, Tina Louise, he linked to our Hump Day Goldie Hawn, our Hannah Giles & Chainsaw, and our vision of the Ideal Girl [who he calls a 'Chick with a rifle'; sir, in this part of The Beloved City, we call 'em 'Gals with guns', I'll have
you know] . Thank you, my friend. A little bird tells me our intrepid playwright may be at work on another
sure-fire meisterwerk. We cannot wait.
-The Classic Liberal was his usual kind self and
gave us the same four links as Smitty. The man obviously appreciates beauty, and that is made even clearer is his choice of a Rule 5 Gal this week. No matter what you think of her as a mother and entertainer, Britney Spears is a pleasure to behold [in fact, one's
pleasure is enhanced greatly if she keeps her mouth shut], and TheCL has his hands full with some great shots
of her. And, thankfully, per usual, he accompanies the pics with more rewarding ruminations on freedom. Thanks,
Mike. Also, TheCL thinks he 'sooooo cool' because Stacy McCain handed him a FMJRAA.
Sorry to burst you bubble my fellow Son Of Liberty, but, the reason you're so cool is because of the picture of the gal you included.
-Over at the great American Power, Donald Douglas gives us a single, great shot of Miss Spears that makes me long for the days, not too long ago, of the International Rule 5 BikiniFest. The Professor, as you might expect, also links to our celebration of Tina 'Ginger' Louise. Thanks,
Prof.
-Nation Of Cowards makes the same mistake as Smitty and describes The Ideal Gal in the vulgar, but we forgive him because he is soooo patriotic in his celebration of Good Neighbor Day. In fact, whatever neighborhood these gals come, must be named 'The Best Place To Live In America'. Now to convince
Mrs. Belvedere to move there....
-Intrepid reporter Chris, over at WyBlog, has the full story
on the Grab-N-Go Bikini Barista controversy in Everett, Washington. Being the good reporter he is, of course he provides illustrative pictures so we fully understand this whole 'Barista' phenomenon. This is Pulitzer material, folks.
-Three Beers Later
presented us with some great Beauty Queens Through The Years that were quite enjoyable, but then had to go put a damper on everything by giving equal time to Progressive Beauty Queens [bring along the Brain Bleach if you're courageous enough to click that link]. Richard, my friend, 'fair and
balanced' works for Fox News, not for Rule 5. He embarks on the road to recovery with
some tasty frauleins, but then takes a step backward as he pushes the limit with provocative shots of Miley Cyrus [and, anyway, you can tell she's not going to age well (weak chin, etc)]. This is what happens when you choose beer
over bourbon: bad judgement ensues.
-The Vodkapundit offers up some very nice Bo Derek, so nice, in fact, that it must be labeled: NSFW.
-At the House Of Eratosthenes, Morgan Freeberg pits Gemma Atkinson against Holly Weber, and the winner is Miss Atkinson hands-down. Like his commentators, I too am tired of the skinny look [actually, I
never liked it]. Look at Miss Louise above: now there's a well-built creation. Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord.
-Time to head on over to Theo Spark's joint for a little Bedtime Totty.
They say that music hath charms to sooth the savage TEA Partier. Well then,
let's get soothin' Daddy-O...
Before you check out my selection, please click here and check out Paco's. He's got Teddy Powell And His Orchestra doing a jumpin' version of Sans Culottes.
There's some great drum and trumpeter work to be heard.
As good as that fellow over at Paco's is with a
horn, he ain't got nothin' on the greatest Young Man With A Horn, Bunny Berigan, here with The Freddie Rich Band
in 1936...
...I, of course, do not have pictures
of Hannah Giles in a bikini. Coincidentally, I do not have real, undoctored sex videotapes of Hannah
Giles. Nor do I have pictures of Hannah Giles nude, or Hannah Giles in hot lingerie,
or Hannah Giles topless. As a matter of fact, my hard drive contains no sexy Hannah Giles pictures
at all.....
Sorry for the vulgar post title, but I wanted to get your attention.
Yesterday, I posted about Kevin Jennings, the President's appointed Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools
[the Safe Schools Czar], and his unfitness for his position [please take the time to click here for the details]. The man is a radical advocate for the Leftist homosexual agenda [to be clear, I am only speaking here of that species
of the homosexual agenda that is based in Marxism] and, perhaps [mere speculation based on circumstantial evidence, at
this point], an advocate of perverse* and illegal practices [fisting, sex between adult men and underage boys...].
Jennings has been outspoken about his agenda to make homosexuality
mainstream and acceptable to school children. As an adult, one gets to make up one's own mind; children are the responsibility
of the parent and the parent's moral or religious beliefs should not be challenged in schools. It's not the job of public
schools to override the parent. In October 1997, Jennings said this: I'd like five years from now for most Americans when they hear the word GLSEN
to think, "Ooh, that's good for kids." … Sane people keep the world the same [sh---y] old way it is now.
It's the [crazy] people who think, "No, I can envision a day when straight people say, 'So what if you're promoting homosexuality?'
or [when] straight kids say, 'Hey, why don't you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try your tuxes
on at my house?'" … [I]f we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is
our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward.
Indoctrination
of this kind is straight from the Marxist handbook. Wether you're homosexual or heterosexual, you should not want children
to be subjected to any political or ideological indoctrination by the government at any level.
Pat has some more
in another posting herethat I would recommend [tip of the fedora to GatorDoug].
Three cheers for Pam Geller who warned us about this twisted creep back on 07 June [I apologize for not picking up on this at the time—I was over at Atlas Shrugs many times a day during
that period]. Pam's comments from back then are spot-on:
You can't
make this stuff up. Obama has appointed this radical to head up our "safe schools"? But who is going to keep kids
safe from him? I have said this before: I don't care what you do in the bedroom - whatever rocks your boat, as long as it's
two consenting adults, but don't bring it into the classroom. The left will twist this into some homophobic charge. I am not,
and that is a fallacious argument. This is another terrible Obama choice. Do not traumatize children. Why can't the schools
just teach reading, writing, arithmetic and civics? There is radical in every Obama appointee.
Noooooooo!
*I believe that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of a bedroom is none of the government's
business, but, at the same time, I believe that, when you make the choice to engage in a practice that the majority of society
finds perverse, you, by deciding to engage in such a practice, willingly exempt yourself from participation in socially
sanctioned activities, such as, to give but one example, holding down positions in that society's government.
Considering that there is so much going-on in Washington and so so much we
do not know about our Fearless Leader, any aids would be very useful in trying to understand what the Divine Tiberius
Obamacus is up to. Most of us just don't have the time to put together such compendiums of information, but fortunately
for us, Bob Maistros did. He has created and posted, over at The North Star National, an Obama
Glossary of terms used by The One and what they mean in normal English [you know, the language that will soon be
replaced by Newspeak]. Here are a few examples: Competition – we choose who wins. Compromise – accepting my position after I give a big speech. Honest debate – agreeing with me. Nobody (as in “nobody disputes [these facts]”) – no
liberals or members of the mainstream media. Nothing (as in “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the
doctor you have”) – everything.
A Death Panel by any other name would still stink of death...
From the Editors of The Washington Times[tip of the fedora to Quin Hillyer], we learn that:
Yes, there are death panels. Its members won't even know whose deaths they are
causing. But under the health care bill sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, death
panels will indeed exist - oh so cleverly disguised as accountants.
The offending
provision is on Pages 80-81 of the unamended Baucus bill, hidden amid a lot of similar legislative mumbo-jumbo about Medicare
payments to doctors. The key sentence: "Beginning in 2015, payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation
of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization." Translated into plain English,
it means that in any year in which a particular doctor's average per-patient Medicare costs are in the top 10 percent in the
nation, the feds will cut the doctor's payments by 5 percent.
Forget results. This provision makes no account for
the results of care, its quality or even its efficiency. It just says that if a doctor authorizes expensive care, no matter
how successfully, the government will punish him by scrimping on what already is a low reimbursement rate for treating Medicare
patients. The incentive, therefore, is for the doctor always to provide less care for his patients for fear of having his
payments docked. And because no doctor will know who falls in the top 10 percent until year's end, or what total average costs
will break the 10 percent threshold, the pressure will be intense to withhold care, and withhold care again, and then withhold
it some more. Or at least to prescribe cheaper care, no matter how much less effective, in order to avoid the penalties.
The decisions will be based on money and not the needs of the patients—on the bottom line and not on the life
line. So while there will be no board deciding the medical fates of patients, which at least we could keep an eye on,
there will be unseen bean counters making indirect decisions that will directly effect the lives of patients. It is,
indeed, as the editors say 'death by proxy'. The Culture Of Death grows stronger.
The cynic in me wonders if provisions like this might be the reason that Baucus is fighting the full release of the bill prior to it being voted on. Baucus claims that it would delay the bill but when spending a trillion dollars a two
week delay is not only reasonable but full disclosure is necessary. The only logical reason for not putting the bill online
is to prevent the public from knowing what is in it until it is too late.
Presenting Hannah Giles carving up a giant #ACORN by David Bugnon
As Rocketman, over at Piece Of Work In Progress, comments:
...It's topical, centered around an attractive subject, and pleasant to look
at; it speaks troooooof! to pow-ah alright. But somehow, I doubt that the artist will be receiving any NEA grants money for
this work...
I haven't been surprised in the least that Barack Hussein Obama, a committed radical
Leftist, has appointed people who believe in communism, believe terrorism is justified, believe all whites are racist,
believe all non-whites are oppressed, believe in euthanasia, believe that the value of a human life is to be determined
by the state, believe the Founding of the United States was bad thing, believe America and The West are the source
of all unjustified strife in the world, and believe that freedom is slavery. I have studied Leftism intensely for twenty
years, so the fact that he would surround himself with people who believe as he does does not surprise me. However,
I must admit to being a little shocked by the beliefs of the person he has appointed as Director of the Office of Safe and
Drug Free Schools [the Safe Schools Czar] Kevin Jennings.
From Fox News, Maxim Lott reporting,
we learn:
President Obama's "safe schools czar" is a former schoolteacher
who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion
and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.
...
Jennings was appointed
to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990,
as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters
at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences
as a closeted gay student.
...
The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in
2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that
it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.
A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:
"Fisting (forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap....[It's] an
experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an
exploratory mode."
At the time, Jennings said he had concerns about
events at the conference, but he also criticized attendees who filmed it.
"From
what I've heard, I have concerns as well," Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000. "GLSEN believes that children
do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner."
Manson Girl Susan Atkins is dead of brain cancer at the age of sixty-one.
She died in prison. 'Which one of the Manson Girls was she?', you ask? I'll let Stogie provide the answer:
Sharon Tate, an actress who starred in "The Valley of the Dolls" was eight and a half months
pregnant when she was murdered. She pleaded for her life and that of her unborn son, but Susan Atkins stabbed her to death
with a butcher knife anyway, telling her "Look bitch, I have no mercy for you."
Sharon's life was ended by five stab wounds in her
chest and back, which penetrated her heart, lungs and liver and caused massive internal hemorrhaging. The remaining eleven
wounds simply added insult to her savaged body.
Her little boy, Paul Richard Polanski, died with her.
She pleaded
to be released earlier in the month, but was denied. Good, but not great because she never should have lived this long
in the first place. She had been sentenced to die but the highest court in California commuted all of the sentence of
death in 1970, so she lived a taxpayer financed life for the next thirty-nine years. Bleeding hearts allowed the heart
bleeder to live on the public dole.
We must distinguish between “bourgeois truth,” which is concerned
with sterile facts, and “revolutionary truth,” which is concerned with what will promote the revolution. Hot
Air is a trafficker in mere bourgeois truth, while Media Matters understands the importance of revolutionary truth.
Truth is mere Silly Putty that must be put in the service of the ends of the revolution [Lenin 101].
2) Stacy McCain concentrates on a particular type of control: the kind the alive accuser of the dead man holds. Specifically, he is commenting on the incest allegations McKenzie
Phillips has made against her dead father John; generally, this can be applied to all such memorializers:
"Consensual"? Eeeesshhhh! If you're reading this at breakfast, I apologize for
the vomit on your keyboard. To borrow a punchline from Lewis Grizzard, "I don't believe I'd have told that." Or,
to quote a fellow blogger, "And you couldn’t go to the grave with this secret?"
Adding insult to injury incest, McKenzie waited to write her tell-too-much
book until after her father was dead. Why? Because dead men don't file libel suits.
When the news broke on Wednesday that Census gatherer William Sparkman had been
found dead, possibly hanging from a tree, in Kentucky and the AP reported that an unnamed source
told them he had the word 'fed' written on his chest, Stacy McCain cautioned:
My immediate curiosity is whether this had something to do with a moonshine or
drug operation, rather than "anti-government sentiment." Drug dealers and 'shiners are notoriously hostile toward
anyone snooping around, and Sparkman may well have stumbled onto some sort of criminal situation.
...Let's wait
to see what law enforcement discovers before jumping to any kind of politicized Let's-Blame-Glenn-Beck speculation.
Of course, that did not happen. Leftist sites, such as the crazed Little Green Footballs, rushed to accuse the Right of inciting a lynching.
The Census Bureau employee who was found dead and tied to a tree in Kentucky
this month died of asphyxiation, according to a preliminary medical report.
State and federal law enforcement officials
on Thursday dismissed the suggestion from a news service report that the man, William Sparkman, 51, may have been targeted
because he worked for the federal government, calling that speculative.
The body of Sparkman, a part-time field
worker for the agency, was found Sept. 12 in the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeastern Kentucky. A rope was wrapped
around his neck and tied to a tree; his feet were in contact with the ground, according to the Kentucky state police and the
FBI.
The cause of Sparkman's death is under investigation, and authorities have not ruled out suicide, an accident
or homicide, said Kentucky state police spokesman Don Trosper. A full medical report on Sparkman's death is not complete.
State and federal officials would not say whether Sparkman was found with the word "fed" scrawled on his
chest, as the Associated Press reported Wednesday, citing a law enforcement source. They would also not discuss whether he
was working on census matters before or at the time of his death.
"I think to give this impression that he
was strung up because he was a federal employee is giving a bad impression to the nation," said David Beyer, spokesman
for the FBI field office in Louisville, which is working with state officials on the investigation.
As Stacy
reminds us, there is a time-honored rule of reporting: 'If your mother says she loves you, check it out.'
What’s uniquely disgusting about stories like this is the eagerness,
to borrow Ace’s perfectly apt description, to find an ideological motive with which to bludgeon one’s opponents. The human life
involved is reduced to the crudest sort of political prop. It reminds of when that nut walked into Hillary’s campaign
headquarters in New Hampshire during the Democratic primary and took everyone hostage, and for hours no one knew anything
about the motive. I remember the palpable sense of anticipation in the blogosphere as people waited to find out if it was
a crazed right-wing Clinton-hater whodunnit or a crazed left-wing Obama supporter. (The punchline: He ended up having no political
motive.) If you think “eager” is the wrong adjective here, feast your eyes on the graphic being featured at Brad Blog, churned out with such amazing speed that
it seems to have come from some sort of template. Skim the post while you’re there, too. Turns out that even if this
isn’t the fault of conservative America in toto, it kind of is.
With the Left, you have to
remember, the personal is political. In their own view of the world, everything has a political angle to it, therefore,
they apply it to all of life, to all people. There is nothing that is not permeated by politics as far as they are concerned.
That this belief is not well-reasoned and patently false never occurs to them. They have concocted a theory of how the
world works and nothing—not a blessed thing—not even the truth, is going to be allowed to disturb the concoction
they have mixed together and tested in their lab, away from the conditions of the real world—even if that mixture goes
toxic once released into the real world.
Yesterday, I commented on the part of the Dali Bama's UN speech that dealt with
Israel [here], but provided a link to a transcript of the whole wondrous speech [if you dare, click here]. All sarcasm aside, I would recommend you read the whole awful bit of pablum to get a good understanding of how
our naive narcissist-in-chief views the world and America's role in it. After you have survived that puke-boarding,
and in order to restore your body humours to their proper balance, I would strongly suggest you read the transcript of Benjamin
Netanyahu's speech of yesterday before the same body. Having done so, I think you'll agree with me that, right about
now, considering the state we're in here, we should, for once, violate The Constitution and elect the man
our President right away—he gets it. The full speech may be found here at Atlas Shrugs. A few highlights:
The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World
War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.
Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.
Yesterday the President
of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed
that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on
January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The
detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.
Here is a copy of those
minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is
this a lie?
A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau
concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy
of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?
This June,
President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the
Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?
And... But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf
of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?
A
mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place
and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!
Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown
us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.
And... This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene
three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.
In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe
with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered
Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents
of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented
society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.
The struggle
against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization
against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The
primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the
power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.
And... ...if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for
a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after
a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.
That is why the greatest threat facing the
world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge
facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Are the member states of the
United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people
as they bravely stand up for freedom?
Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad
daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?
Will the international
community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?
Above all, will the international
community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?
The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with
them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?
Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.
Finally... We want peace.
I believe such a peace can be achieved.
But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the
world order.
The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces
or accommodate them.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability
of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.
Churchill
bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the
lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once
proven wrong.
I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage.
Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.
Bravo Mr. Netanyahu. You have the strength and courage of your brother and the support of all of those who reside in The Camp Of The Saints and The Beloved City.
The above is a time-honored bit of advice. As America has seen repeatedly,
our Fearless Leader seems to have learned none of the wisdom of history—in fact, one almost gets the feeling that he
revels in his ignorance of it. He has certainly chosen for his friends some rather, to put it very mildly, disreputable
people: Ayers, Wright, Chavez, and on and on and on, endlessly, it seems.
As any person with half-a-brain
knows, who you choose to associate with determines the reputation you are labeled with.
Stubbornly, and without
any coherently expressed reason, Tiberius Obamacus has sided with Manuel Zelaya in his efforts to destroy the constitution
of Honduras. Well, as I said, who you ally yourself with reflects back on you. From The Miami Herald,
Frances Robles reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to the Drudge Report]:
It's been 89 days since
Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and "Israeli
mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.
"We are being threatened with death,'' he said
in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up
since Monday and assassinate him.
Your under-the-bus Grandmother, I'm sure, would tell you 'Choose your friends wisely, Barry' [oh
wait....I forgot...she was a typical white person, ie: a raaaaacist! ].
As you know, I've been keeping a very close eye on the OBAMA YOUTH LEAGUE and the goings-on over at their website.
Well, they've just published another set of instructions for
our kids, this time it involves learning a song you may have seen on You Tube or on Glenn Beck's show tonight.
As I'm sure you're aware, yesterday the Dali Bama addressed the United Nations. I will leave commentary and analysis of most of the speech to others. I did not listen to or watch it—life
is too damn short and mine gets a bit shorter every time I hear that condescending egotist's voice. However,
I will risk my blood pressure on one passage [emphasis mine]:
I will also continue
to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. (Applause.) We will continue to work on that
issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress.
Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians.
As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We
continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept
the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.)
The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch
negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders,
refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state
of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that
ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)
As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between
Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation,
alongside bilateral negotiations.
Now, I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us -- not
just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us -- must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we will
only lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly
what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering
commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.
(Applause.) And -- and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel
over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)
We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It's not paid by politicians.
It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the
night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all God's
children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live
with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy
Land. And that is why, even though there will be setbacks and false starts and tough days, I will not waver in my pursuit
of peace. (Applause.)
In an interview with Robert Costa of NRO, John Bolton commented: The most significant point of the speech was how
the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank
illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going
back to 1967 borders.
Over at The Sundries Shack, Jimmie Bise picked up on the moral equivalence in the example of the Israeli girl and Palestinian boy in the last paragraph
quoted above:
Did you see what
he did there? He equated the girl and the boy as if their plight had the same basic cause – hostility by the other side.
That is not the case. The Israeli girl lives in fear because Palestinian killers, with the blessing of he Palestinian government
elected by the Palestinian people, are trying to kill her and everyone she knows and loves. The Palestinian boy doesn’t
have clean water or a country because the government officials his mother and father chose prefer to spend the tens (or hundreds)
of millions of dollars they get from the United States, Israel, and dozens of other nations on killing Israelis and padding
their own pockets.
And that the boy is being brainwashed by his elders to think of Jews as sub-human.
With these five paragraphs, our Fearless Leader has proclaimed to all of the world that he no longer considers Israel
to be an ally. As Clifton implies: he has thrown them under the bus. Being a very smart man, I would suspect that
Prime Minister Netanyahu understands that all too clearly and, what was confirmed in front of the whole world yesterday, he
had already strongly suspected. Let us hope he is already taking the actions necessary to protect his country as best
as is possible and that he's a praying man.
Tiberius Obamacus has decreed that the United States will no longer
protect the one and only free nation in the Middle East from the savagery of its enemies. He has abandoned one
of our closest allies in the War Against Islam. Of course, The Tall Cool Anointed One does
not believe there is a war going on in the first place. What we've been experiencing these last few years is merely
some radical Islamicists acting out a little too strongly in the face of their justified grievances against The West in general
and The United States in particular. And I have no doubt our Fearless Leader thinks of the Jews as loud irritants
at best.
Having watched what he has said and done since 20 January very closely, and having read many of his statements
from over the years, I feel compelled nowto wonder out loud if Barack Hussein Obama is an anti-Semite. I do
not make this charge lightly. In fact, I think it has been thrown around too loosely over the years, and I have said
so many times in the past and questioned those who have made such statements.
His brand of Leftism is infused
with anti-Semites, as David Horowitz and his relentless crew have shown. That starts one wondering. And then to
watch his actions and hear his public utterances since he became President, one develops a sour feeling in one's gut.
It is the beginning of a feeling that this man harbors a hatred of the Jews. Please tell me if I'm crazy [but please
don't bring up the fact that Rahm Emanuel is so close to the center of power: so was a smart fellow named Trotsky who thought
he could control a Jew-hating Stalin, and the result wasn't too good for Leon's health].
I intend to display this
flag on this home page from now on:
Time for all good men to pour a drink, relax in an easy chair, and enjoy a little righteous Fisking.
We have two on the agenda for this evening...
1) Captain Smitty of the U.S.S.
Federalist lands some direct hits on the S.S. STFU Michael Lind, author of the recent Salon article Intellectual
conservatism, RIP. A highlight:
Is it anti-intellectual of me to offer a 'STFU' in reply?
Oh, we're bemoaning the loss of Irving Kristol
and William F. Buckley Jr. in the last couple of years.
A neoconservative
of the older, Democratic school, I broke with the right in the early 1990s and warned about where right-wing radicals were
taking the country in my book "Up From Conservatism." The train wreck I predicted occurred during the Bush years,
and the postmortems have begun.
Your article nowhere mentions the
Federal Constitution of 1787, or the growing sense that the last century of US history has been about creating
a neo-aristocracy. Populated by the likes of Lind, no doubt.
2)
Mom and wife extraordinarie, Pundette takes on The First Nag. A highlight:
Good heavens -- what next? Picking up his socks? I didn't know till now that
healthcare reform was all about the wimmens:
Women also are more disproportionately
affected by the lack of insurance options because they are more likely to work part-time or at small businesses that don’t
provide coverage.
“It’s not surprising that so many millions of women are simply going without insurance
at all,” Obama said.
Aren't
women also more likely to be covered by their husbands' insurance plans? Just askin'. My children and I are and I'm grateful
for it. I mean crushed by it.
After following the links and enjoying the Fiskings, I would highly recommend
that you head on over to Theo Spark's joint for a Bedtime Totty.
...is awarded to the always passionately insightful, Quin Hillyer:
...This president's self-regard is boundless. It also is profoundly dangerous.
When he realizes that he won't get his way, there is no telling how he will respond. He seems to be able to justify, in his
own mind, any of his own actions. It's even worse than when Nixon said "if the president does it, that means it's legal."
I think Obama thinks that "if I, Obama, do it, that means it's moral and justifiable no matter what." That's scary.
As regular readers of this site know, I often describe myself as a Cynical SOB.
As with any human being, I developed this attitude through just living life surrounded by mankind, reading a great deal
of history, and being influenced by certain thinkers. One of those in the last category is John Derbyshire, a man whom
I've often described in these Dispatches as the ultimate Cranky Conservative. On my part, this is a
term of great affection. While I was a C-SOB long before I ever heard of him, I am indebted to him for helping me to
finely hone my distrustful view of my fellow human beings and their motives and actions.
On 29 September, Mr. Derbyshire
has a new book coming out and the title pretty much tells you all you need to know: We Are Doomed:
Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism. To quote from the publisher's blurb:
To his fellow conservatives, John Derbyshire makes a plea: Don’t be seduced by this nonsense about "the
politics of hope." Skepticism, pessimism, and suspicion of happy talk are the true characteristics of an authentically
conservative temperament. And from Hobbes and Burke through Lord Salisbury and Calvin Coolidge, up to Pat Buchanan and Mark
Steyn in our own time, these beliefs have kept the human race from blindly chasing its utopian dreams right off a cliff.
Recently, though, various comforting yet fundamentally idiotic notions of political correctness and wishful thinking
have taken root beyond the "Kumbaya"-singing, we’re-all-one crowd. These ideas have now infected conservatives,
the very people who really should know better. The Republican Party has been derailed by legions of fools and poseurs wearing
smiley-face masks.
Think rescuing the economy by condemning our descendents to lives of spirit-crushing debt. Think
nation-building abroad while we slowly disintegrate at home. Think education and No Child Left Behind. . . . But don’t
think about it too much, because if you do, you’ll quickly come to the logical conclusion: We are doomed.
Need
more convincing? Dwell on the cheerful promises of the diversity cult and the undeniable reality of the oncoming demographic
disaster. Contemplate the feminization of everything, or take a good look at what passes for art these days. Witness the rise
of culturism and the death of religion. Bow down before your new master, the federal apparatchik. Finally, ask yourself: How
certain am I that the United States of America will survive, in any recognizable form, until, say, 2022?
A scathing,
mordantly funny romp through today’s dismal and dismaler political and cultural scene, We Are Doomed provides
a long-overdue dose of reality, revealing just how the GOP has been led astray in recent years–and showing that had
conservatives held on to their fittingly pessimistic outlook, America’s future would be far brighter.
Ladies
and gentlemen, it’s time to embrace the Audacity of Hopelessness.
This is right up my alley.
And if you consider yourself a real conservative, it will be up your's too.
Recently, Mr. D. was interviewed by Bernard Chapin for Pajamas Media. A highlight: BC: Congratulations on
the release of your new book, Mr. Derbyshire. Your central theme seems to be: “If we expect too much of people, we’ll
be disappointed and our schemes will fail. Heady optimism about human nature leads directly to disaster.” If politicians
operationalized your advice, what would our government then look like? Would it mark the beginning of real hope and change? John Derbyshire: It
would be the restoration of self-government and self-support. It would be the end of the nanny state. It would be the end
of humongous programs of government expenditure directed mainly to providing indoor relief for otherwise-unemployable graduates
in subjects named “[something] studies.” It would be the re-beginning of the American experiment, as the Founders
envisaged it — a republic of free citizens. BC: Is mindless optimism to blame for the triumph of big government over liberty? I ask you this because
every time we increase its size we conveniently overlook the Leviathan’s long and inglorious history of incompetence
and inefficiency. John Derbyshire: I wouldn’t place all the blame on mindless optimism. Nothing in history is that simple. Without the
cheery optimism of infinite possibility and infinite malleability (i.e., of human nature), however, ever-expanding government
would have been a very much more difficult proposition. Optimism was an enabler.
Hear, hear.
SIDENOTE:
If you are curious as to understand what kind of conservative I am, I offer the following from a posting by Peter Robinson at NRO on 12 April 2006...
...
[ENOCH] POWELL explained that he could never join the Reform Club.... The exchange that followed went like this:
INTERVIEWER:
Never join the Reform Club? But why ever not?
POWELL: All members of the Reform Club must assent to the Reform
Act of 1867 [which extended the vote]. That I cannot do.
INTERVIEWER: (Astonished) Do you mean to say that you
object to the Reform Act of 1867?
POWELL: That is precisely what I mean to say.
INTERVIEWER:
My goodness, Mr. Powell, what is the most recent reform of which you do approve?
POWELL: (Long pause)
With some reservations, Magna Carta.
I feel compelled to weigh-in on the whole matter raised by Glenn Beck in his
interview with Katie Couric of whether it was a good or bad thing that John McCain didn't get elected. Mr. Beck thinks it
was a good thing. It has caused a lot of intense chatter in the ether. Mary, over at Freedom Eden, has transcribed a bit of the controversial statements Mr. Beck made: KATIE COURIC: Let me
do a quick name game thing for you. Can I just, quick responses... Hillary Clinton. GLENN BECK: I can't believe I'm saying this. I think I would have
much preferred her as president, and may have voted for her against John McCain. COURIC: Why? BECK: Because I think John McCain is weird, progressive, like Theodore
Roosevelt was.
I think John McCain would have been worse... How about this? I think John McCain would have been
worse for the country than Barack Obama. How's that?
The Great One, Mark Levin, took on Mr. Beck over this
here and it twern't pretty.
Carol, over at Carol's Closet, thinks GB is wrong, but: ...where Beck got the idea that in any way a McCain presidency would have been worse
than what we have now boggles the mind. I believe that was also the gist of what Levin was trying to say though he may have
articulated it a bit more strongly than I.
The point is, anyone who fires up the Conservative base is
to be congratulated. Anyone who day in and day out brings to the forefront the assault against our country is to be congratulated.
Both Beck and Levin fit that bill. This too shall pass.
There are some, unfortunately, who will not let
it pass. Luckily, they are a small group who's relevance to where the Right is going is shrinking every day, but, sadly,
who do make up a good chunk of the face of the Right in the media. [More on the latest diatribe from one of them
Peter Wehner, in another posting.]
Over at American Power, Donald Douglas also disagrees with Glenn Beck: ...As bad as John McCain was for many conservatives during the campaign, I can guarantee
you he wouldn't have been near as bad as Obama - and remember, we'd have Sarah Palin in the vice-president's mansion right
now!
When Beck gets criticized for slamming Maverick as a "weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was," it's hard for honest men
to disagree....
He does not comment on the whole 'are we better off Cranky John was not elected' part.
I find myself disagreeing with both side's reasonings.
For the long-term domestic future of this country,
I think it was a good thing that Barack Hussein Obama got elected because, instead of the creeping, leisurely, and stealthy
drift to less freedom we have been living with, like a slow-growing cancer, for one hundred years, BHO and his fellow
radicals are now fully out in the open and giving it to us good and hard [which we deserve]. Sometimes you need to be
hit upside the head with a 2x4 before you realize how badly things are screwed-up. And the openly radical Leftists are
pure virgin fir.
John McCain made no secret of his deep admiration for Teddy Roosevelt. TR was a progressive,
but he was also of his time and not as radical as later Leftists would be. I think Cranky John is cut from the same
cloth. He has a conservative instinct like Teddy did, but he also sees government, domestically, as a helper.
If he had been elected, he would have continued the slow and remorseless walk to more government intervention in our lives.
The unknown and unnamed Leftist bureaucrats who have been regulating us towards fascism would have been allowed to carry on
with out interference by any of the 'moderates' or squishy conservatives he appointed.
By his radical actions
and schemes, BHO has awoken a slumbering and mentally obese American public to the insidious cancer that's been poisoning
the Republic since TR and Woodrow Wilson. The Leftists have wielded the 2x4. Many of us have gotten the message
and are now engaged deeply in a civil rebellion whose aim is to restore The Constitution and repair the damage
inflicted by the engineers of the Left. Domestically, therefore, I'm glad John McCain did not win.*
When
it comes to matters outside of the boundaries of the United States, the reverse is true. Barack Hussein Obama, through
his arrogance and appalling ignorance of history, has placed this country in a great deal of danger. While John McCain
would not have been as tough as Ronald Reagan, he would not have consorted with murderous dictators, apologized for his country,
or have betrayed our long-standing allies. Like TR, he would have shown a strong and determined face to the world.
Conservatives would have still been disappointed as he basically continued the foreign policy of Geroge W. Bush, but that's
a lot better than being terrified as we are now because we have an immature narcissist who has made us more vulnerable than
we've been since before Pearl Harbor.
Glenn Beck is quite wrong to think that Hillary would have been any better.
Unleashed on us, like Obama she would have pushed for just as radical an agenda. She is, after all, an Alinskyite too.
We're stuck with what we've got. All we can do is fight back to save our country and reverse the damage
inflicted and restore her glory. This war is not going to be easy, and there's a good chance that we will lose.
But, we have to keep fighting these evil forces. If not for any other reason than it is the right thing to do.
*Sarah Palin should be glad too because she would have been muzzled very tightly in a 'centrist' McCain Administration.
She would have had to endure defending the decrepit actions of a decrepit old fool.
Well...it seems as if the Congress is getting serious about investigating the
goings-on over at ACORN. From the Detroit Free Press, Todd Spangler reporting, we learn:
[House Judiciary Chairman John] Conyers and House Financial Services Chairman
Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on Tuesday to provide an analysis on several
aspects of ACORN. Among them:
• Any current or previous
criminal investigations into the group.
• A breakdown
of any funding received by the group and any violations of the terms of that funding.
• A report on alleged improprieties in collecting voter-registration forms and "the extent ... that resulted
in people being improperly placed on voting roles and actually attempting to vote."
• The group's programs to provide housing opportunities.
That's a start. Maybe, just maybe, they'll seriously look into the widespread corruptions that are part of ACORN'S
standard operating procedures. Hold on....there's more in the report:
It
also asked for a report on private sting activities “in which individuals have reportedly visited ACORN offices, misrepresented
their identities and proposed activities, surreptitiously videotaped resulting conversations with ACORN workers, and widely
distributed them.”
The letter went onto say, “Conflicting allegations have been made about the propriety
of these activities. Please research and report on the federal and state laws that could apply to such videotaping and distribution
of conversations without the consent of all parties.”
Of course...too good to be true. Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey is spot-on when he comments:
Yes, because the big issue here is
a journalistic strategy that has been in place for the last several decades, used by all of broadcast networks and most local
stations, and never before questioned by Congress. Let’s put undercover jounalistic sting operations at the same
law-enforcement priority as tax evasion, child prostitution, and human trafficking, by all means.
All I
can say Ed is: look at who's doing the asking. Rep. Conyers is the husband of a felon and Barney Frank is the former
owner of a gay bordello.
Because, you know, Breitbart
really, reallydoesn't want to be on CSPAN in front of a government panel blasting them about media bias and liberal
mendacity.
I mean -- really. He doesn't want that. So seriously, subpoena him. Make him cry.
And O'Keefe I'm sure is quaking in his boots, and Giles won't look like totally
adorable on camera, either.
So definitely investigate the people who brought ACORN's lawlessness to the public's
attention. People just love seeing whistleblowers hectored and vilified by party apparatchiks.
I
would pay to see Saint Andrew, the clean-cut O'Keefe, and the charming Miss Giles in front of the Congress.
There's a very good article up at The American Spectator today
by Stacy McCain on the multiplying attacks on Glenn Beck. In case you don't know, Mr. Beck is the subject of the main
article in the latest edition of Time magazine and is pictured on the cover sticking his tongue out.
With his trained reporter's eye, Stacy sees through the lame attempts of the writer to seem to be treating Mr. Beck fairly
when, in fact, he is slamming not only Fox's biggest star, but also those of us who are protesting the President's attempt
to effect a 'fundamental transformation' of America.
From the final part of the TAS article: Having never met Beck, I am not qualified to speak of whether he
is representative of the "paranoid style." However, my friend and fellow American Spectatorcontributor Matthew Vadumhas been a studio guest on Beck's Fox News program and did not mention any "roiling mix
of fear, resentment, and anger." If Beck rants off-camera about black helicopters and Masons, it eluded Vadum's notice. While my acquaintance with Beck is limited to occasionally catching
a few moments of his TV or radio shows, I did have the opportunity to speak to many of the people at the Sept. 12 Capitol
rally. My Arizona blogger friend Barbara Espinosa was there, and I spent many hours before, during and after the event talking to the organizers,
attendees and speakers, including Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and author Mason Weaver.
None of these people seemed to
think that Glenn Beck represented a menace to public safety or the conservative movement. Given the evident threat that [Time
writer David] Von Drehle and [Commentary's Peter] Wehner perceive, why this remarkable silence from so many? They're all in on it together -- the grandmother and teenagers, Pence and Vadum and
Weaver! It's all a clandestine conspiracyto conceal the hidden agenda for global domination by the Secret Legion of Beck! And if you don't believe it, then you're obviously a paranoid kook.
Jeez Louise! Not only am I a DHS-Certified Rightwing Extremist and White House Certified
'Fishy' and a Carter-Certified Raaaaacist! [emphasis on the !] and
a teabagger, now I'm a paranoid kook. How the Hell am I supposed to fit this
on my business card? You tell me.
Things are starting to pick up again in the collective set of scandals known as
IG-GATE. Over at my subsidiary site devoted to the scandals, I added four new postings from yesterday
and today.
Also, if you want to get back up to speed on the Scandals or you haven't followed it all up until now, Stacy McCain
has a lengthy and eminently readable essay that explains it all over at The American Spectator [here].
...is awarded to Monique Stuart for her comments on our Fearless Leader's TV blitz:
So, he’s lectured us a million times.
I have a father, that’s not what I’m looking for in a president. I’m done listening. I’m sick of being
scolded and told what is my responsibility and what I have to do right now. The sky is falling routine is getting pretty old.
Let me reiterate one more time, people do not have a right to health care. Politicians do not have the constitutional
authority to take from me and penalize me in order to give health care to you. It is not my responsibility to provide health
care for the children, the elderly, or anybody in between. Period. Stop telling me that it is. There isn’t enough talking
in the world that could convince me of this.
Look, for all of you liberals who want to give health care to people
who can’t afford it, or simply choose not to carry it, then feel free to create a charity or give your money to a charity
that will allow you to do this. If you feel that is your responsibility, then have at it. But, don’t steal from me in
order to make yourselves feel better. Because, in the end, that’s what this is really about. It’s not about a
plan that will save money and improve health care in America. It’s a plan that makes liberals feel good about themselves
and gives them a sense of moral superiority. Get over yourselves!
They never will, but, I think its more
important enough of us get over them and assign them and their ideas to the ash heap of history.
I was going to write several paragraphs of commentary on our Fearless Leader's
recent TV blitz, but this bumper sticker succinctly sums it up very nicely:
[Click on the image to order. Tip of the fedora to Instapundit.]
On second thought, I will add one more comment: some have called his many appearances a joke,
but I prefer to think of them as an old cartoon that's been rerun too many times...
Maybe I just dreamt this, but, with the election of the first black President,
wasn't the issue of race supposed to quiet down? Not go away—that will never happen. But, be less a part
of the discussion in the public square. Of course, it has to a certain extent: the Right has not brought up the issue
on its own. Rather, its been the Left that has recklessly hurled charges around like a monkey with its feces.
They've accused those who are opposed to the radical policies proposed by the President and the Democrats in the Congress
of doing so because they don't like the idea that a black man is in The White House. The Attorney General
has called America 'a nation of cowards'. ACORN has charged Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe with playing the race card
[wasn't the self-confessed 'escort' woman/husband murderer white?]. The examples go on and on.
Any damage
to race relations in this country since the late 1960's has been done by race hustlers [like Al Sharpton and Van Jones] and
self-hating white Leftists safely ensconed in their pricey security-laden co-ops [remember busing]. Left on their
own, the races have been getting along quite well thank you, but only when these two groups have not interfered with
them. The Left knows this and it does not suit their ends. Therefore, they are, I believe, trying to create strife
between the races and ethnic groups.
It is part of the standard Leftist playbook: pit groups against each other
in order to create a situation where they, the Leftist Elite, can ride in to save the day with their totalitarian schemes.
This, of course, stands against everything this country stands for, but, then again, the Left hates everything this country
stands for, except for the fact that its rather easy to enter the System like a cancer and eat away at it from within.
The Alinskyites on the Left have sought to metastasize within the institutions of America and they've enjoyed
an overwhelming success. They've unleashed unnatural growths in the agencies of all levels of government, in the Judeo-Christian
religions, in the arts, etc., but no more insidiously then in the school systems, where they corrupt and damage young minds.
One of the latest and—considering that I am the capi di tutti capi of cynical SOB's—I think, in all my years,
the worst examples of this is occurring in Arizona's Tucson Unified School District [TUSD]. From Doug MacEachern, over at The Arizona Republic, we learn:
The board's plan also calls for changes intended (however counterproductive those
plans may be) to improving the lot of minority students.
It wants to see more minority students enrolled in advanced-placement
programs, for example - a laudable goal, certainly. But consider one significant part of the plan for "improving"
the academic status of TUSD's Black and Hispanic students:
The board is calling for a two-tiered form of student
discipline. One for Black and Hispanic students; one for everyone else.
With the goal of creating a "restorative
school culture and climate" that conveys a "sense of belonging to all students,"
the board is insisting that its schools reduce its suspensions and/or expulsions of minority students to the point that the
data reflect "no ethnic/racial disparities."
From the section of the 52-page plan titled "Restorative
School Culture and Climate," subhead, "Discipline": "School data that show disparities in suspension/expulsion
rates will be examined in detail for root causes. Special attention will be dedicated to data regarding African-American and
Hispanic students."
The board approved creating an "Equity Team" that will oversee the plan to ensure
"a commitment to social justice for all students."
The happy-face edu-speak notwithstanding, what the
Tucson Unified School District board of governors has approved this summer is a race-based system of discipline.
Offenses by students will be judged, and penalties meted out, depending on the student's hue.
Certainly, from the point of view of a public-school administrator, such a policy is beyond insane.
TUSD
principals and disciplinarians (assuming such creatures still exist) are being asked to set two standards of behavior for
their students.
Some behavior will be met with strict penalties; some will not. It all depends on the color of
the student's skin.
If they really care about social justice for minority kids so much, then why
are they giving them a free pass? All it will do is make it harder for these minority kids to make it in the real world. When
these minority kids get out of school and into a job, if they keep messing up over and over again they aren’t going
to get a free pass from their bosses just because they are black or hispanic. And they’ll just end up failing in the
career world as well.
Finally, we need to just call this exactly what it is: racism. So many liberals are racists
in the name of eradicating racism and giving minorites a “fair chance”. But discriminating against someone on
the basis of their skin color is still racism, even if you’re discriminating against white people. These white kids
don’t deserve harsher punishments for the same offenses just because they’re right, and it’s despicable
that it’s happening here. The parents of these children should be outraged, and this policy should be repealed
immediately.
It is one of Hayek's famous essays which I would like to call to Ron Rosenbaum's
attention. In The Mirage of Social Justice, Hayek dismantled this commonplace concept, demonstrating how the pursuit
of "social justice" leads to harmful outcomes contrary to the benevolent intentions of those who subscribe to such
doctrines. . . .
What Hayek is saying is that "social justice" requires treating people as groups,
rather than as individuals -- an error similar to the Jim Crow laws that the civil rights crusade sought to overturn.
Indeed, with no intention to invoke Godwin's Law, we might say that "social justice" shares with Hitler's categorical
antagonism to the Jews this conception of people in terms of groups and not individuals.
The pursuit of "social
justice" -- accompanied by a rhetoric of "rights" misappropriated to describe what would be more accurately
term entitlements— inexorably leads down that same path that Hayek described as The Road to Serfdom.
Only an extremely powerful government can apportion outcomes in the egalitarian manner intended by the phrase "social
justice," superintending the welfare of specially protected groups. As government power expands, individual liberty is
eroded. . . .
On the one hand, the Left believes that no laws or rules govern their own effort
on behalf of "social justice" -- the end justifies the means. But when the Left gains power, they rigorously enforce
laws against their enemies.
Remember Lenin's famous question: "Who, whom?" The Left recognizes no absolute
standard of morality. That which the Left does to advance its cause is always moral -- nothing that the radical "who"
inflicts on the enemy "whom" can be condemned as immoral.
What every American should want is equal
justice under a nation of laws, not of men and/or ideologies.
One of the things that irritates me most about the Left is the way they talk down
to everyone who is not a member of their enlightened circle. Whether they are talking to the poor, the uneducated, the
Right, etc, they view us as like semi-feral children in need of some strict discipline and assigned more rigorous homework.
This attitude makes it near-impossible for someone like myself to try to engage them in a serious discussion. It reminds
me of being a wet-behind-the-ears fourteen year old spouting off to some WWII veterans about the problems with FDR's wartime
leadership—at best, the adults are amused; at worst they dismiss everything you say as being irrelevant. And the
Left is very rarely amused [that's one of their main problems: they fail to recognize that life is absurd].
Fifty-two
percent of the people elected a radicalized Leftist to the Presidency last year. He was not the moderate fellow his
well-crafted image pportrayed, as many of us on the Right warned. During the last months of the campaign,
I often referred to him and his crew as 'Bolshes' because ALL evidence pointed to the fact that they were radical Leftists
who meant what they said when they declared that they would engineera 'fundamental transformation' of America*. In the
months since 20 January, the Leftists in power have tried to do just as they promised.
If you have any doubt of
this, I direct you to the recent words of Secretary Of Energy Steven Chu [tip of the fedora to Mark Tapscott]:
When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees
Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.
Speaking
on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how
or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
“The American public…just
like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public
has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”....
That kind of attitude is
extrememly irritating. It is also dangerous to our freedoms.
There is no reasonable way to deal with such
people [short of using a 2x4]. The best you can do is see that they never hold positions of power at any level, in any
form.
*I also used the term because the Bolsheviks deceived Russians into supporting their
cause through sunshiny promises of heaven-on-earth in a worker's Paradise, deceptions, and rousing inspirational slogans
[see Richard Pipes's The Russian Revolution] and all Russia got was hardship, misery, and death.
In a posting yesterday [here], I wrote about one of the members of the delusional Left [I like to call them The Insane Clown Posse], Eric Boehlert who
postulated the theory that the rhetoric coming from the townhall protesters, TEA Party folks, and the Glenn Beck's of this
world reminded him of the people who lived in Dallas in 1963:
But I've been thinking
about Dallas in 1963 because I've been recalling the history and how that city stood as an outpost for the radical right,
which never tried to hide its contempt for the New England Democrat.
And we know what that led to, eh: The
Death Of THE DREAM, of Camelot.
In my posting, I commented:
I
don't know how old this Eric Boehlert is. I haven't been able to find his DOB in any of the online bios. His picture
makes him out to be around forty to fifty. What is known, however, from his posting is that he, like our Fearless Leader,
is woefully ignorant of American History.
...
As for you Mr. Boehlert: read a Goddamn history book.
But at the risk of challenging the mighty intellect of Eric Boehlert, let me
suggest that his novel theory strains the bounds of credulity. It does seem improbable that an entire city of alleged right-wing
hatemongers would get beaten to the punch by a man who joined so closely to communism that he actually attempted to live in
the Soviet Union and spent much of his time handing out leaflets excoriating Kennedy for the way he opposed Fidel Castro,
doesn’t it?
However, let me congratulate Boehlert on his journalistic
scoop. He has invented a Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theory that I have certainly never heard before, and I have watched,
quite literally, dozens of television shows on the subject. They have blamed organized crime, international bankers, a communist
conspiracy, the CIA, Lyndon Johnson, Fidel Castro, J. Edgar Hoover, E. Howard Hunt, Clay Shaw, or some combination thereof,
but I have never heard, even from the most deranged conspiracy theorist the wild tale that Eric “Captain History”
Boehlert is trying to sell.
So, points for originality there.
On the other hand, let me suggest that
Eric Boehlert is not blazing a brave new trail through history but is just another Soros-paid hack who, desperate for a smear
that hasn’t been employed a hundred times against the normal Americans who oppose the President’s radical policies,
pulled this one out of his ass, confident that the sort of folks who normally read Media Matters would just buy in to his
ridiculously insane recollection of history.
The great folks over at Red State have been slipped the contact
list of Bertha Lewis, President of ACORN. Erick Erickson and his crew have begun to analyze the list. From the
introduction of their posting:
On Sunday, Barack Obama played ignorant on the situation with ACORN. Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “Frankly, it’s not really
something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.”
Never mind that Barack Obama used to work for ACORN.
Based on information obtained by RedState, we think Barack
Obama may live to regret those words.
With everybody focused on ACORN these days, what if we could dig around and
see who in the Obama administration shows up in Bertha Lewis’s rolodex? Bertha Lewis is the CEO of ACORN.
It’s not that hard to look into
her contacts. RedState has seen a list of Bertha Lewis’s contacts. We did not seek it out. It just showed up one day
unsolicited. We did not ask for it. We did not expect to get it. But now that we have it, we should see who is in there.
The contacts came from a credible source who is no fan of ACORN. An ACORN employee gave it to him. Having examined
the file for a week and after consulting with others, we believe the list is legitimate. It fits a recent pattern of leaks
out of ACORN as the rats scramble from the sinking ship.
The list contains the private email addresses and cell
phones of scores of powerful and influential people from Al Sharpton to Charlie Rangel. It contains several people inside
the Barack Obama administration including one of the closestties to Barack Obama other than his wife.
The White House doesn't buy the notion
that President Obama, who appeared on five talk shows Sunday and is heading next for David Letterman's couch, could be wearing
out his welcome on the tube.
Barack Obama and his aides don't think he's over exposing himself....hmmm.
Of course not: the Leftist playbook enjoins its leaders to create a cult of personality around the Fearless Leader, to 'create an idealized and heroic public image'. It has worked in Soviet Russia, South
America, Red China, behind The Iron Curtain, Cuba, Nazi [National Socialist] Germany, etc.
However, this is a rather unique group of people the Leftists are dealing with in this case: AMERICANS.
I think the radicals in power here seriously misjudge the American people if they think they're like the other peoples of
the world. They're not. Americans, in the main, have always been wary of government power, and they still
are despite a century of progressive propaganda. Scratch an American deep enough with the blade of government power
and he will strike back. This is what Obama and his radical minions have done and continue to do. And his ubiquitous
presence in our faces only reminds true Americans of the radical transformation the Leftists are trying to perform on the
body of the country. So, I say, let him keep on keepin' on like he's been—it only serves to help those of us who
want to see The United States of the Founders restored.
One of The Insane Clown Posse, over at Media Matters, last week wrote that we on the Right are creating a dangerous mood in this country:
Today, conservatives
are expressing outrage that Rep. Nancy Pelosi had the nerve to raise concerns about the onrush of violent political rhetoric.
The Noise Machine claims it has no idea what Pelosi's talking about. But the truth is, America's most famous bouts of political
violence (i.e. JFK, Oklahoma City, etc.) have always been accompanied by waves of radical, right-wing rhetoric. Given that
history, the GOP's insistence that the hate now filling the streets couldn't possibly inspire violence seems woefully naive.
I don't know how old this Eric Boehlert is. I haven't been able to find his DOB in any of the online bios.
His picture makes him out to be around forty to fifty. What is known, however, from his posting is that he, like our
Fearless Leader, is woefully ignorant of American History.
As Richard, over at Three Beers Later,
points out, the would-be and successful assassins of Presidents, have either been crazed or Leftists. He provides a very useful chart [Lefties in red by me]:
Leftist Puerto Rican nationalists
(Truman) Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK): Communist Sirhan Sirhan (RFK): Arab PLO supporter Arthur Bremer (Wallace): schizo who stalked Wallace and Nixon Squeaky Fromme (Ford): Manson Hippie chick Sarah Jane Moore (Ford): Manson Hippie chick Carter: um, nobody? John Hinckley, Jr. (Reagan): Saw Taxi Driver 15 times, developed obsession with Jodie Foster and determined to shoot Reagan
to make an impression, as Bremer, the inspiration for Taxi Driver, had. Bush 41: Nobody Clinton: Nobody. Francisco
Martin Duran fired on the White House, claiming to be destroying an 'alien mist'. Bush 43: Nobody. Obama: Nobody.
We on the Right, I guess, have to get with the program, or as Richard puts it:
Frankly,
rightwing crazies are way behind the curve. Leftists and lunatics, though, or as we like to call them, Obama's base, are pretty
clearly a hazard to the public weal...
As for you Mr. Boehlert: read a Goddamn history book.
From his most recent syndicated column entitled The Long Retreat:
Vladimir Putin is no longer president but he is de facto tsar. And he thinks it’s
past time to reconstitute the old empire — not formally (yet), but certainly as a sphere of influence from which the
Yanks keep their distance. President Obama has just handed the Russians their biggest win since the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
Indeed, in some ways it marks the restitching of the Iron Curtain. When the Czechs signed their end of the missile-defense
deal in July, they found themselves afflicted by a sudden “technical difficulty” that halved their gas supply
from Russia. The Europe Putin foresees will be one not only ever more energy-dependent on Moscow but security-dependent, too
— in which every city is within range of missiles from Tehran and other crazies, and is in effect under the security
umbrella of the new tsar. As to whether such a Continent will be amicable to American interests, well, good luck with that,
hopeychangers.
Russia has traditionally feared encirclement. At times, it has worked
itself up into quite a state of paranoia over this. However, she has also always had the ambition to expand. One
of her main goals still, I believe, is one that she has had for centuries: a warm water port.
The Russian
bear awakened last year and is hungry again.
I was so saddened to hear that President Barack Hussein Obama has Alzheimer's.
He's so young [my age] and he had such a bright future in front of him, so bright, he had to wear shades. If you haven't
heard about this, let me fill you in...
Yesterday, President O said:
I
didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.
Over at Townhall, Doug Giles, father of Hannah, addresses some of the lies the Left has been spreading about him,his daughter, and James O'Keefe. A highlight:
4. Giles' radical, ultra-conservative Christian dad put her up to it. I believe that's how
someone on one of those unwatched news shows has been bending it. Well, I can tell you as her dad that I did not. As much
as me no likey the nefarious underpinnings and corrupt acts of ACORN, having my kid dress like a hooker and infiltrate such
a place is not in my repertoire. That was Hannah's baby from start to finish. I simply told her to be careful because we all
know how dangerous sweet community organizers can be. Oh, FYI . . . if confessing I'm a sinner, believing orthodox Christian
doctrine, saluting our flag and that for which it stands, loving the Constitution, hating terrorists, being fond of guns,
hunting, country and rock music while adoring freedom makes me a crazy ultra-conservative Christian lunatic then I guess I
am one of those. I will put that name right next to the other name Obama's former green czar called such a person back in
March (I believe he called us "a**holes").
...He does not specifically address the "Hannah Giles bikini" Google-bombs which conservative bloggers have deployed in defending his girl from the
Left's predictable Photoshop smears.
I had a long phone conversation Friday with Jason "Big Sexy" Mattera, trying to get him to explain to our mutual (muscular and very well-armed) friend, Mr. Giles,
exactly what the strategy was, and why the strategy could not be explained online, but had to be joked about. IYKWIMAITYD.
Mr. Giles will probably not hunt me down and shoot me like a dog....
...
Six kids, Doug. You
wouldn't kill a father of six, would you?
As my regular readers are aware, I've been posting a
lot on Hannah for over a week now as part of the Google-bomb effort. So, Mr. Giles, this is addressed directly to you:
I have a wife and six cats and two elderly parents that I watch over. You wouldn't do any harm to such a humane man,
would you? And by the way, FYI: Stacy made me do it.
THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS BY ST. ANDREW OF BREITBART
In his latest column for The Washington Times, Hero Of The
Right Andrew Breitbart signals that there is more good stuff to come to warm the cockles of our hearts. A highlight
[emphasis mine]:
No wonder Jon Stewart delivered a stinging and hilarious rebuke
of the real newspeople on his "Daily Show" parodies every night: "Where were the real reporters on this story?
... Where the hell were you?"
High praise to you, Mr. Stewart. It's nice to see there's someone out there
in liberal media-land who would recognize there's something terribly wrong on these videos. And yes, there are more to come.
At the very least, filmmaker James O'Keefe and actress
Hannah Giles deserve a Pulitzer Prize for their expose of deep corruption and unspeakable immorality at the ACORN housing
division. But more important, I won't rest until they receive a grant
to continue their partisan artistry from the National Endowment for the Arts. That's this week's mission.
More ACORN videos and, I suspect, revelations on the NEA.
Mr. Breitbart is doing America a real service and we must support him any way we can.
'This one was worth
the fight. And it's only one fight in the battle, and we have to keep fighting.' —Doug
Hoffman
The Restoration will not be televised; it will be blogged. —Robert Belvedere
Click The Picture Above For The Latest Updates/Linkage
'Bob Belvedere may have the best compilationof IG-Gate information.' —Robert Stacy McCain
'Robert Belvedere at The Camp
of the Saints appears to be maintaining the definitive index of all things PIG-gate...at TCOTS. ...This is an excellent resource.
We thank you, sir.' —Smitty
'More great commentary and juicy
links on l'affaire IG from Camp of the Saints..' —Paco
Click here and here to find out why I think Robert Stacy McCain is THE CONSERVATIVE
SHAFT
MY KENYAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Please Click on the Image to View Full Size
Please click on the image above to learn more from Michelle Malkin.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
T E R M S
Let us make precise and clear-cut the terms we should be using.
Aristotle wrote that A is A; you may also call it B, but
it always remains A. A thing is what it is and, to say it is something else, is to deny reality. There is a lot of denial
of reality going around these days.
As John Adams wrote: 'Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence'.
POINT 1:There is no "War in Iraq"
or "War in Afghanistan".Like the Pacific and Europe in World War II, Iraq and Afghanistan are
just parts of a larger war.Unlike them, they are not separate from each other.Therefore,
they are part of the Middle East Theatre of Operations [METO] as the Pacific was the PTO and Europe the ETO.
POINT 2: Many on the Left and some on the Right want to "end
the War".There are only two ways to end a war: (1) by achieving Victory or (2) by being Defeated.A pullout, before Victory is achieved, is Defeat.They want Defeat.Pullout may
be the best policy―I am not arguing that here―but, leaving without achieving our objective is Defeat.
POINT 3: We are engaged in a War Against Islam.
The term is more correct than "War against Islamo-Fascism" or "War On Terror".
Islam has been at war with all non-Muslims since the
time of its founder, Muhammad [his name be cursed].Like the Hundred Years' War, there have been periods
of peace in this long conflict, but the Muslim has never stopped believing that he is at war with all non-Muslims.He can't: Allah commands that all of the world be conquered in his name and he must submit, in all things, to the
will of Allah [the word Islam means "submission", sometimes rendered as "surrender"].Any
periods of peace we in the West have enjoyed have only occurred after we have dealt them such a devastating blow that they
have not been able to wage their jihad and then have pursued polices that have kept them subjugated.This
began to fade in the latter half of the 20th Century as we forgot the dangers posed by this militant religion and
as they regrouped under new and committed leaders.
If you
doubt that Islam is at war with all non-Muslims, keep in mind this: Islamic apologists
often point out that Islam is not a monolith and that there are differences of opinion among the different Islamic schools
of thought. That is true, but, while there are differences, there are also common elements. Just as Orthodox, Roman Catholic,
and Protestant Christians differ on many aspects of Christianity, still they accept important common elements. So it is with
Islam. One of the common elements to all Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to
conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law. The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic
religious jurisprudence]) -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- all agree that there is a collective obligation on
Muslims to make war on the rest of the world. Furthermore, even the schools of thought outside Sunni orthodoxy, including
Sufism and the Jafari (Shia) school, agree on the necessity of jihad. When it comes to matters of jihad, the different schools
disagree on such questions as whether infidels must first be asked to convert to Islam before hostilities may begin (Osama
bin Laden asked America to convert before Al-Qaeda’s attacks); how plunder should be distributed among victorious jihadists;
whether a long-term Fabian strategy against dar al-harb is preferable to an all-out frontal attack; etc.
They have been at war with us for
centuries and we, therefore, have been at war with them.We are engaged in a War Against Islam whether
we want to say so or not.In an interview with a Pakistani TV network on 23 July 2008, Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid,
Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man and top commander in Afghanistan, has this to say: “Islam does not distinguish between the
American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam”.
POINT 4: The term "Islamo-Fascism" seems
to have been created by Leftists.Since (1) they wrongly place fascism on the Right, (2) they believe [rightly]
Muslims want to establish a theocratic regime on Earth, and (3) anything political that has any connection with religion is
bad and emanates out of rightwing thinking, the term makes sense to them.Therefore, the term is nothing
but a way to associate Islam with the right-wing.Muslims believe in a totalitarian way of governing; in
submission [that word] to an all-powerful Islamic leader or leaders.
POINT 5: As to the term "War On Terror",
it is just plain silly: how can you wage war on a thing?
POINT 6: What is fascism? It is when a government
allows private property to exist, but controls and manages the use and disposal of property in all its forms. Citizens
retain all of the burdens and responsibilities associated with property ownership, but are not allowed to control and shape
its use.
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied
bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone
liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism
and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through
direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally
private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their
property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a
few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance
of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled
the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. [Source: Sheldon Richman, The Concise Encylcopedia Of Economics,
Liberty Fund, found at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html]
On the political spectrum, therefore, it is located between modern liberalism
and socialism.
POINT 7: What is socialism? It is when a government
allows no private property to exist, and controls and manages the use and disposal of property in all its forms.
Citizens are not allowed to control their lives and are subject to the whims of bureaucrats and officials. If they
retain freedoms and liberties, they do so at the discretion of them. On the political spectrum, therefore, it
is the next logical stage after fascism; some would argue that it lies between fascism and communism.
POINT 8: What is pragmatism? It is a tool used by Leftists,
or those operating under the influence of Leftist logic, to achieve Utopian ends—heaven on earth through social, political,
cultural, and spiritual engineering. It is merely a tool of ideology, part of the means to an end.
POINT 9:The Big Lie - When confronted with truths that reflect
unpleasantly on them, the Leftists deflect it buy claiming over-an-over ad nauseum that these truths apply to and are products
of the Right. This practice is known as The Big Lie. It has been successfully practiced by the
Left since, at the very least, the French Revolution. Thus, we have the now-widespread belief that the Nazis and the
Black Shirts of Italy were right-wingers when the reality-the truth-is they were both people of the Left. I suspect
the violent objections from the Left to conservatives use of the term 'fascist' arise from the fact that they have spent well
over seventy years trying to convince the world of The Big Lie that it is not and never has been a Leftist
ideology.
How does one practice this distortion truth and why is it effective? In a report issued during
World War II by the OSS, the author provided an explanation for all practitioners by describing how Hitler practiced it:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault
or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame;
concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than
a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
By repeating
their lies over and over, the Left creates a false reality that supplements the real world. In this false reality, the
lie is the truth, the truth is the lie. A is not A. [But we know that A must always be A.]
The Left
also practices a variation of The Big Lie that I like to call The Big Deception which involves
a Big Deflection away from the reality of the situation. None of their policies or actions can survive
direct questioning, so the Leftists must turn the tables on the questioners and make it seem as though the inquisitors have
bad or evil intentions. Overtime and after constant and unrelenting hectoring, the Left's way of thinking triumphs.
They successfully infect enough people so that this diseased mode of thinking becomes chronic, deep-rooted, instinctual. If
the Devil's greatest triumph was that he convinced people he did not exist, the Left's greatest triumph has been to convince
people that the Leftist way of thinking is normal. It is not. It is a perversion of reason and a horribly mutant
form of logic. It is antithetical to human life. Nothing but decay and destruction are left [pun intended] in it's wake.
What They're Saying
About BOB BELVEDERE & The Camp Of The Saints...
'You are contributing to a noble yet futile cause -- the butchification of metrosexuals. TCOTS
roolz!' —Red—
'[H]e takes retro dame blogging to a new, narrative noir level.' —Smitty—
'Staunch Rule 5 aficionado Bob Belvedere, is shameless indeed (I have so much respect for this man)!' —The Classic Liberal—
'Who knew he was such a fan of the undead?' —Smitty—
'We need fighters, and I suspect Beck will fight 'til ev'ry foe is vanquished. Bob Belvedere gets it. Phyllis Chesler gets it. We defend truth and
liberty against lies and tyranny. Every eye is upon us and we are surrounded by enemies as numerous as the grains of sand
on the shore. Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer. WOLVERINES!' —Stacy McCain—
'Bob Belvedere, you're a nasty piece of work.' —Anonymous—
'Lord Fatheringay von Whoopsie of the Dung Heap Hooter' —Anon. —
"...Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go out
to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth...to gather them together to battle: the number of whom
is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the Camp
of the Saints...and the Beloved City: and the fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them...."
Over at Another Black Conservative, Clifton B. offers us 
Time for all good men
