And this is what those contemptible, soulless, murder endorsing, liberal scum “progressives” who, outspokenly so, do not support Judge Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, do support.

For every 100 babies born in New York City, women had 74 abortions in 2004, according to newly released figures that reaffirm the city as the abortion capital of the country.
And abortions for out-of-town women performed in the city increased from 57 to 70 out of every 1,000 between 1996 and 2004, a subtle yet noticeable trend that experts say may reflect growing hurdles against the procedure in more conservative parts of the country.

The new Vital Statistics report released by the city Department of Health this month shows there were 124,100 live births, 11,700 spontaneous abortions and 91,700 induced abortions in the city in 2004.

Hat Tip; James Taranto

Now this is a bunch of B.S.

If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you’d probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union.

Whas, as they say, sup with that?

Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members’ dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA’s recent filings–the first under the new rules–helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.

This does indeed bring up an interesting question. The question? WTF!?

Last time I looked, a union’s reason for existing was to make sure its members were compensated and otherwise treated fairly. Isn’t that what they tell us? Isn’t that what their members pay dues for?

We already knew that the NEA’s top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union’s president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you’re better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.

Hmmmmmmm….

The new disclosure rules mark the first revisions since 1959 and took effect this year. “What wasn’t clear before is how much of a part the teachers unions play in the wider liberal movement and the Democratic Party,” says Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a California-based watchdog group. “They’re like some philanthropic organization that passes out grant money to interest groups.”

Indeed.

There’s something really, really seedy and corrupt about this.

Remember, our country is a capitalist republic, the primary reason we are the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, and these political organizations to which the National Education Association donates so much of its members’ dues to are socialist organizations.

Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism. One of its tenets is that no matter how hard you work and how successful you become as a result, you are entitled to no more than a nonachiever and therefore, rather than enjoying the fruits of your labors, you must share it with said nonachiever through merciless taxation.

That’s not what the United States of America is about, never has been and hopefully never will be, though these internal enemies continue to eat away at the foundations of our way of life and our form of government, using the very freedoms they want to destroy against us.

The fact that the NEA helps to top off their warchests can be construed as a kind of unpunishable treason.

They are backing organizations that threaten our nation from within, yet they cannot be prosecuted because what these organizations do is completely legal according to our supremely benevolent Constitution. Yeah, that’s the one, the document that authorizes them to speak freely, lobby freely, spit on or burn the American flag and wipe their backsides with it if they so desire. What they promote would be a country devoid of most of its rights, an Orwellian government that micromanages its citizens, as I said in my early blogging days, establishing a politically correct, assinine excuse for existence akin to that in the Stallone/Snipes film Demolition Man, only run more along the lines of the failed and long-since-gone-Chapter-Eleven Soviet Union.

And that’s what the mother ship of U.S. teachers’ unions contributes its members’ dues to.

It’s well understood that the NEA is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. (Or is it the other way around?) But we wonder if the union’s rank-and-file stand in unity behind this laundry list of left-to-liberal recipients of money that comes out of their pockets.

Newsmax has a list posted of the 22 congressman who believe Christmas should be banned as an official U.S. holiday.

On December 15 the House of Representatives passed a resolution “protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas” by an overwhelming 401-22 vote.

Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution’s sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter “political correctness run amok.”

“No one,” she said, “should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas.”

Twenty-two Democrats played Scrooge and disagreed.

Perusing the list at the end of the article, one can’t help notice that all the anti-Christmas voters were Democrats. Amazing!

Davis lodged a preemptive response to critics who might question the constitutionality of her resolution.

“Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state,” she said. “The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue.”

The text of the resolution read as follows:

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –

(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.

If you ask any of them what they think about American Muslims observing Ramadan to the fullest, however, I’m sure the anti-God, PC, scum sucking, piece of shit leftists they would highly endorse it in order to demonstrate their solidarity with members of “The Religion of Peace.”

You know, I’ve commented on the tendency of many liberals, in the past, to not only deny that the Mainstream Media leans so far to the left that it’s amazing they don’t fall down, but to even venture that the MSM is biased toward the right. I’ve recently reached the point of simply shaking my head — it has been said that trying to argue with a liberal is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick yourself up by the handle, and in most cases I couldn’t agree more.

Those who try to tell me that the MSM leans to the right are either not paying very close attention, if any at all, to news “reports,” are lying through their teeth fabricating as to their perceptions of what they read in the papers and see on television news shows or, as the only other alternative I can figure, they are hopeless cretins.

It is truly shameful that newspapers like the New York Times are not honest with their readership, filtering the news they print to meet their leftward bias and anti-Bush agenda, thereby giving that readership only the fraction of current events they deem safe(for their political goals) to let the people know. This is highly reminiscent of another publication, called Pravda, during the years of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The NYT has become, over the years, little more than a giant propaganda mill for the left.

As alternative media sources and conservative blogs have begun to fight back against the disinformation put out by the New York Times and other MSM “news” venues and more and more people have begun to acknowledge the profound bias of the MSM, subscriptions have reportedly begun falling off rather noticeably. In their on-line venue, the NYT has recently begun charging a subscription rate for access to their Op-Ed columns, possibly to offset the decline in hard copy revenues.

They crowed loudly at the height of the Valerie Plame affair, hoping to see an indictment for “outing” her come directly out of the White House, claiming that national security was compromised by some traitor or other within, yet they themselves did exponentially worse when they recently “exposed” a Bush/NSA program that has prevented post 9/11 U.S. terrorist attacks they labelled as domestic spying, and inferring that George Bush illegally exceeded his authority as President.

National Security authority and columnist Max Boot has the treasonous and reckless hypocrisy displayed by the New York Times defined perfectly here.

…I eagerly await the righteous indignation from the Plame Platoon about the spilling of secrets in wartime and its impassioned calls for an independent counsel to prosecute the leakers. And wait … And wait …

I suspect it’ll be a long wait because the rule of thumb seems to be that although it’s treasonous for pro-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass an administration critic, it’s a public service for anti-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass the administration. The determination of which secrets are OK to reveal is, of course, to be made not by officials charged with protecting our nation but by journalists charged with selling newspapers.

Good column, read it all.

In another column at JWR, David Limbaugh has a rather inclusive list of issues upon which the Mainstream Media lies or distorts as a matter of policy.

These people are not only outrageous, they may as well be propagandists for the enemy.

Jonathan Turley gives his take on parents’ rights in the issue of their minor childrens’ abortions here.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, a case concerning the right of parents to be notified on abortions given to minor children. The case is seen as a bellwether on the court’s shifting majority on abortion as well as the future of parental notice and consent laws in 43 states.

and continuing later in the Op-Ed,

Pro-choice advocates would make abortion the only absolute right in our Constitution, even though it was not fully recognized by the Supreme Court until 1973. Conversely, parental rights have been recognized since the founding of our Republic but are routinely dismissed when they collide with the almighty right to an abortion.

The pro-choice crowd is represented almost exclusively by liberal socialist leftist anti-American scum progressives.

Moving along, there are two sides to this debate, one here,

GENEVA - Efforts so far by the food and drink industry to improve the nutritional value of their products to fight childhood obesity are simply not good enough, the World Health Organization said Wednesday.

“The industry’s efforts are commendable, but inadequate. They are only a drop in the ocean,” Colin Tukuitonga, who oversees the WHO’s global strategy on diet and physical activity, said before a meeting with representatives of the food and soft drink industry.

Some industry giants such as Kraft, Nestle and Unilever have recently reviewed their recipes and reduced the salt, sugar and fat content of some of their products. They have also pledged to change some of their advertising and marketing practices.

and the other here.

There’s no correlation between ad exposure and childhood obesity. George Mason University’s Todd Zywicki noted at a forum last summer that the average American child actually watches less TV than he did 15 years ago. What’s more, children face less exposure to food ads now than they did then, for a variety of reasons. The remote control has made ad-watching optional over the last 20 years, and more recent technology like TiVo may make traditional commercials completely obsolete.

Broadcast television is also losing younger viewers to cable, where ads in general are 40 percent less prevalent and where food ads comprise about half the percentage of overall ad time that they do in broadcast. Cable also offers more options for channel-flipping during commercials, and premium cable stations like HBO, which have no commercials at all, have become popular. All told, the average American child viewed 900 fewer food commercials in 2003 than he did in 1994. That this same average child gained weight amounts to a pretty solid rebuttal to the theory that food marketing is a significant contributor to childhood obesity.

You’d need to ban ads in adult programming. The fact is, you simply can’t limit a kid’s exposure to food ads, unless you’re prepared to ban all food advertising. Most children’s television viewing isn’t limited to children’s television programming. Kids watch shows intended for adults, too.

In fact, the kids most prone to obesity – those with minimal parental supervision – are also very likely those most likely to watch adult programming. Former Federal Trade Commission administrator Timothy Muris pointed out in a conference last June that if Congress had caved and banned food ads aimed at kids the first time the idea was proposed in the 1970s, the only television show that would have been affected would have been Captain Kangaroo.

Today, such a ban would probably hit a few other programs as well, which brings us to the next point…

The ban would cripple children’s television. The FCC already mandates that broadcasters devote a portion of the broadcast day to children’s programming. Food ads make up a huge portion of the ad revenue for those programs. Cut off that ad revenue, and the broadcasters subject to FCC regulation lose any incentive to invest in high-quality children’s television. Why put money into a sure loser?

Furthermore, television not subject to FCC regulations — cable, for example — would likely drastically cut back on the amount of television time it carves out for children, or just disregard children’s programming entirely.

The cause of childhood obesity lies elsewhere. Several recent studies have suggested that the single best indicator of a child’s health, diet, weight, and activity level is the health, diet, weight, and activity level of that child’s parents. Children of active parents tend to be active. Kids tend to eat what their moms and dads eat.

That said, there’s also some evidence that the caloric intake among kids hasn’t changed much over the last quarter century. What has changed is the amount of time kids are active, outside, and exercising. Kids today may watch less television, but they more than make up for it with video games, Internet activity, DVDs, or some combination of the three.

On the latter side of the debate, the Cato Institute rightly points out that the true status of childrens’ respective states of fitness result from their emulation of their parents’ dietary and exercise habits and their own sedentary passtimes.

The former, based on the World Health Organization statistics, places the blame for childhood obesity on food producers and their marketing programs.

The WHO conclusions, as can be expected, are those championed by the left, who, bless their litigious little hearts, have of course been doing everything in their power to place all burdens for preventing childhood obesity on the evil food producers.

So, they seek to take away the rights of parents to have any knowledge of or involvement in decision making where their adolescent children’s having abortions are concerned while absolving parents of any blame for their children’s obesity, in all cases via the courts so as to place the law between parents and their responsibilities as parents.

In public schools, the left, again using the courts, this time the far left 9th Circus Circuit Court Of Appeals, has obtained a ruling that

“We … hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children ….”
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

In the same schools, where the right to prayer or any sort of religious reference was some time ago outlawed{except in the case of schools where the only religion permitted to be represented is Islam, via required Koran studies by Judeo-Christian children}, teachers and faculties are permitted to preach liberal doctrine to students or to revise history to meet the standards of the left.

In short, by small step after small step, each processed through the courts, the left is slowly but surely usurping the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, excluding them gradually ever more from any kind of parental rights and indoctrinating their children into a leftist school of thought not unlike the methods used in Chinese, North Korean and former Soviet schools.

This is an occurrance that should be of some concern not only to parents, but to all right-thinking Americans and something that needs to be addressed as the tenacious left, headed up by organizations like the ACLU, are yet again applying methods of gaining their ends that are slowly termiting the America we know and love out from under us.

I absolutely love it when liberals I meet tell me they believe — no, strike that, when a liberal expresses his or her beliefs, he or she states them as indisputable fact and will consider no suggestion that there is any possibility to the contrary — that the Mainstream Media favors conservative politics.

Face it, he or she is either brainwashed, lying or simply obtuse.

If the media is pro Republican, news reports should minimize any mistakes made by the Bush Administration in, say, Iraq while playing up the positive news, such as infrastructure improvements, good Samaritan activities by American troops, new schools in Iraqi cities and good fellowship on the part of the rank and file Iraqi citizen. Their editorials would emphasize the enthusiastic response of the Iraqi people to the opportunity to embrace democracy.

If, on the other hand, the media is pro Democrat, the opposite will certainly be true. Bush Administration errors or perceived errors will be brayed forth for all they’re worth and positives would be blatantly ignored. MSM journalists will play “see no positive, hear no positive, speak no positive,” just like the three little monkeys, where all things Iraq are concerned.

If the media is actually doing its job, which is fair, accurate and balanced reporting, the reports we read, watch or listen to will include, in their entirety, both the negatives and the positives.

Hmmm, pick up the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Las Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle on any given day and take a gander at the headsheet, or tune into the CNN, NPR, CBS, ABC or NBC news. Then compare what you see and hear with the above three paragraphs and decide which best fits the news reporting before you.

If you cannot acknowledge that you find that the middle paragraph best fits, well…

Mona Charen’s offering up, once again, a spot-on column.

One Marine, Sgt. Todd Bowers, who did two tours in Iraq, described the attitude of many press types. “They didn’t want to talk to us.” Why? I asked. “Because we were gung-ho for the mission.” Bowers, who was saved from grievous injury when a bullet lodged in the sight of his rifle (a sight his father had purchased for him), is chary about the press.

In his first tour, he noticed that members of the press were reluctant to photograph Iraqis laughing, giving the thumbs up sign, or cheering. Yet Bowers saw plenty that would have made fine snapshots. In Baghdad, Al Kut and Al-Nasiriyah, Bowers reported no signs of anti-American feeling at all among Iraqis.

You would think the press might be interested in the observations of this Marine, seeing as Sgt. Bowers is a two-tour veteran of the war they are covering in Iraq, for the purpose of informing the American public. Does this make sense? I mean, if a soldier or an Iraqi civilian makes a statement disparaging or otherwise casting anything other than a positive light on our involvement in Iraq, it always, somehow, seems to rate a prime piece of real estate right there on the front page or as the top story in the evening news.

There was plenty of progress to report, if the press had been interested. When the battle of Fallujah was over, the Marines set up a humanitarian relief station in an abandoned amusement park. Together with Iraqis locally hired and trained for the purpose and with an assist from the Iraqi ministry of the interior, they distributed rice, flour, medical supplies, baby formula, and other necessities to thousands of Iraqis. For six weeks, Bowers reports, the distribution went beautifully, “like a well-oiled machine.” Not worth a story, apparently. Only when something went wrong did the press see something worth reporting…

When a liberal argues that he or she has developed his or her opinions by consulting diverse news sources, you can pretty much take that to mean one of the “Big 3″ networks or CNN over breakfast, the local liberal newpaper or NPR, perhaps, during the commute to work and more of the same at ten o’clock on the tube. Between dinnertime and the news, prime time sitcoms are interwoven with the politics of mainstream Hollywood liberals.

And yet, despite this unending uphill public relations battle conservative America is forced to undertake, the majority clearly favors our point of view by going to the polls and electing significantly more Republicans than Democrats to public office.

Go figure.

….is the title of Mona Charen’s latest column, and I probably don’t have to elaborate on who she is referring to, but I will.

She makes a point that really should be considered by the American left, but of course won’t be, because while the Bush Administration is prosecuting a global war on terror, the liberals are prosecuting a domestic war on the Bush Administration.

During the 1990s under Clinton, remember Somalia, where Bubba panicked and withdrew our troops in a tail-between-their-legs manner at the first whiff of American casualties, he labelled the U.S. a bluff, and subsequently allowed terrorists to bomb two U.S. embassies and the U.S.S. Cole without executing any notable retaliatory measures. Well, Mr. Hillary did manage to destroy an aspirin factory with a well placed cruise missile, but if that accomplished anything at all, it was to piss off some Muslims who, if they hadn’t been jihadis before, well….

My point being that Clinton managed, in his own special way, to make the richest nation with the most powerful military machine in the history of the world look kinda sorta, well, toothless. Yellow. Impotent. Weak. Vulnerable. Moot.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, has let the world know that the U.S.A. is still the same strong nation it has been for a very lonnnng time, and that we are willing to make great sacrifices to advance the cause of freedom on our planet.

Since we went into Iraq, however, a sizeable chunk of our voting public, the politicians they support and the profoundly biased media that in turn supports them have done all they can to sabotage the war effort by demoralizing our troops by making their sacrifices and accomplishments appear to have been either worthless or for an evil cause and sending signals to terrorists that the majority of Americans are against our fighting them and the fascism they represent.

Leftist politicians are even demanding a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq, a sure way of letting the enemy know when we’ll be gone so they can lay back, conserve their strength, assets and ammo and wait to attack the new Iraqi government after we’ve gone.

This would play right into the hands of anti-Bush, anti-war liberals, because the Iraqis would almost certainly be defeated by the fanatics and bitter Baathists in their midst, and then the left could crow that Bush screwed up in Iraq, because we “lost.”

And these people call themselves Americans?

But now we are in Iraq. The full prestige and credibility of the United States is on the line. Iraq has been liberated from Saddam, yet remains under assault from jihadists, dispossessed Tikritis, and a variety of other assassins and terrorists. Al Qaeda’s ringleader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, maintains a network of suicide bombers and saboteurs who blow our people up when they can and cut off hostages’ heads when they require added amusement.

If we were to withdraw in the face of this onslaught, the message to al Qaeda and to the world would be obvious: defeat. Osama bin Laden took credit for chasing the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and gloated that his forces had frightened the U.S. out of Somalia. How much more decisive would it appear to the jihadists if they were able to chase the U.S. out of Iraq? And not just to them, but to any potential adversary anywhere on the globe? Don’t Democrats ever consider these matters? If they do not, can they really be considered mature or responsible?

Whether the liberals like it or not, we are in Iraq now and if we turn tail and cut out we will lose not only the respect of all those other nations that joined the Coalition and fought at our side, but also that of our enemy, who would view our evacuation of Iraq as a weakness and an indication of cowardess, and the next chapter might well be 9/11 revisited.

It does not bide well for our country when one of our two principal political parties considers attacking POTUS more of a priority than spreading freedom to countries that haven’t previously had any.

Despite the apparent naivety of the “liberal in the street,” the one who soaks up and believes all the dramatic nonsense preached by the likes of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, Dick Durbin and the rest of that dubious crowd who claim to be Americans of some sort, there are some pretty sharp thinkers lurking in the background over there on the left who know how to orchestrate situations that enable their political and media lackeys to blare accusations and innuendo at the GOP and the eeevil corporations in an attempt to draw votes to the left side of the aisle.

I don’t believe these strategists are creating any of their own strategies, but they are simply following guidelines set down by leftists of decades past.

Before I go on, I must once again say this: I was raised in what would today be called a Conservative Democrat family. Back then, the Democrats were a viable party that stood for real ideals, stood behind the concept of America and could be respected for their political beliefs, if not agreed with. They, like the Republicans, were true patriots.

Somewhere along the line, however, they were hijacked by far left liberals – the folks who nowadays prefer to be called “progressives,” and since then they’ve been allowing these liberals to do their talking for them. As a result, we have the privilege of listening to grown men, senators and reps, no less, comparing our Armed Forces members with Nazis(JFK would neither have condoned nor kept silent over something like that, but he was a genuine war hero and a true patriot), calling the president a liar and a fascist, comparing Camp Delta, the detention center where we store captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, with the “killing fields of the Pol Pot regime” – my favorite Durbin idiocy – and a ration of other innuendo that only a total moron would listen to and then vote to reelect the politician who said it.

That said, my topic here is more an economics related commentary than anything else.

It must be understood that liberals, whether it occurs to them or not, support a socialist or, in as many cases, a purely communist itinerary for the United States. Everything they stand for literally screams this.

America is a capitalist republic. We were founded on the concept of limited government , which means that the Fed’s responsibility is to protect and govern the country on a “big picture” level and leave social and “detail” issues to the individual states. Where local disputes as to law arose, the Supreme Court ruled based on the Constitution. This policy served us well for a long time. We became the wealthiest and most powerful country on the planet, the world’s manufacturing dynamo and a nation whose benevolence has helped numerous poor countries develop independent means of economic survival, even to the point of lending them megabucks we have never even collected interest payments on.

Enter the left:

The left believes that as many jobs as possible should be unionized, even unskilled positions, so as to milk companies for as much of their profits as possible. I am in favor of unions for skilled personnel in jobs that present physical risks that might shorten their career spans, such as carpenters, roofers and so forth{my best friend was a carpenter for nearly three decades, and before turning 48 his knees were shot – if it weren’t for the union, he, his wife and four children would be screwed – his disability retirement is due exclusively to the union as his condition, which included internal replacement surgery, was the result of many years’ high impact work rather than a single incident that could be cited at a hearing}. I am not in favor of someone who has no skills and performs a function anyone could do being compensated according to a union scale that is well beyond his value to the marketplace. That is absurd.

The left believes differently, and they back the unions 100%.
The left believes that the government must micromanage business, whenever possible saddling corporations with costly regulations and taxing them mercilessly.
The left believes in “going after” companies that have become industry leaders, because success means independence to a certain degree, and independence brings any entity farther away from government control – who needs any kind of subsidy funds or tax considerations when they are worth a ten digit figure?
The left believes in bribing people not to work, so that the continued bribery(welfare, anyone?) will get them votes.
The left believes that their every whim should be a federal case, ignoring states’ rights, that the federal government is mom and dad.
The left believes that those who bust their touchases, gamble, sacrifice and achieve financial success should divide their profits with the lazy, who have contributed nothing and have no intention of contributing anything, ever.

We go to the company in which the unskilled people are “earning” $35,000.00 per year plus an impressive package of benefits and perks, all paid by the employer due to the union. On top of everything else, for those who don’t know, an employer has to match the Social Security tax paid by an employee, including the overly compensated employee.

The liberals and their labor unions, all for the sake of gaining votes, make this unskilled labor too expensive for the firms involved, and in order to make it affordable, the victimized companies seek out foreign labor, lay off employees , and suddenly the guy making over twenty bucks an hour in a nine dollar job has no job at all.

Here in California, where liberals rule the roost, financially smothering regulations and high corporate taxes run many businesses out of the state and into more business friendly states. They often leave behind four digit newly unemployed figures.

The sad part is that they really don’t give a damn, and I mean they have no feelings one way or the other, for those families and individuals who go through financial hell as a result of their actions. To the liberals, more unemployment and more misery, despite the fact that they caused it by design, are completely insignificant. They just don’t give a damn about the victims of their political plays, and that’s exactly what they are: To liberals, unemployment and/or poverty they’ve caused is perfectly acceptable as long as they can blame it on the Republicans and those eeevil corporations I mentioned earlier.

My whole point here is that the socialist left has acquired the recipe for sabotaging big business and then blaming it for its survival-oriented responses, all in the name of sleazing out a few additional votes. It is both pitiful and tragic that the Democrats, under the control of their Marxist liberal associates, feel no shame when they manipulate people out of jobs in order to blame the political opposition and attract votes to their side of the aisle.

The goal is financial chaos, anything they can do to be able to blame or attack{at present} the Bush Administration or (at any time) the Republican party, capitalism or any vestige of American business tradition they can label negatively in order to gain popularity for their cause.

Their cause is obvious to anyone who really pays attention to the left’s activities: The end of the American way of life and the beginning of the sort of collectivism we see under the heading of socialism…. Or worse.

If only those mindless twits that support “liberalism” were smart enough to understand exactly what they are trying to drag this great and free country into….

I wonder what our founding fathers would’ve said had they known that one day, a certain major American political party’s greatest criteria for placing justices on the highest court in the land would be that the candidates were enthusiastically in favor of mothers being permitted, by law, to murder their babies.