It came in an email, and I thought, “If liberal academics can revise history to their liking, why can’t conservatives?”

World History

Subject: For those that don’t know a lot about history…Here is a condensed version..

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.

That’s how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men or wussies. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth; the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

A few modern liberals like Mexican light beer (with lime added), but most prefer a chilled glass of Sauvignon Blanc, with passion fruit and kiwi aromas which are marked by grassy notes, then rounded out on the midpalate by peach flavors. Crisp and refreshing, with a hint of chalky minerality on the finish; or Perrier bottled water. They eat raw fish but dislike beef. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, Ivy League professors, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated-hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink Sam Adams, Harpoon IPA or Yuengling Lager. They eat red meat and still provide for their women.

Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively.

Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today’s lesson in world history.

A Major Hat Tip to Brenda!

…has been the provision within our legal system that allows conscienceless scumbags with law degrees to victimize anyone they please via frivolous, fraudulent and/or overstated lawsuits. I say “victimize” because our legal system compels people who are subjected to these lawsuits to hire attorneys to defend them and, win or lose, they are out the cost of their defense. Some of us can weather these costs, others can’t: The latter lose businesses, homes and sometimes the very money needed to survive.

John Stossel has a column up at today’s Jewish World Review that tells it like it is.

“We cannot use force.”

That was my response last week when a lawyer shouted at me, “You media types are bullies, too!”

We were arguing about my Wall Street Journal op-ed that called class-action and securities lawyers bullies and parasites who enrich themselves through extortion. It’s legal extortion, but extortion nonetheless.

These aggressive lawyers and their Naderite defenders don’t get it. Or they pretend they don’t.

Oh, they get it all right, they simply suffer from any lack of morals — can anybody say “parasite”?

Hmmmm, for some inexplicable reason, John Edwards comes to mind…

There are only two ways to do things in life: voluntarily or forced. We reporters may be obnoxious, intrusive, stupid, rude, etc., but we cannot force anyone to do anything. All our work is in the voluntary sector.

But litigation is force. When a plaintiff sues, a defendant is forced to mount a defense. If he settles or loses, he’s forced to pay. Government is the enforcer.

Exactly.

Just look at organizations like CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) in the aftermath of the Flying Imams debacle, where they opted to intimidate anyone who reported suspicious activity on the part of Muslims on airplanes by suing the people, causing them to have to spend money they couldn’t afford to spend on defense council (thankfully, Congress established the John Doe clause, nipping that one in the bud), or any ever-hungry, rank & file liberal trial lawyer.

Our legal system invites lawyers to act like bullies. Only in America can I sue you for dubious reasons, force you to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers (not to mention the psychic costs — the anxiety and lost sleep that lawsuits create), and when a judge rules that my claim is bunk, I don’t even have to say “sorry.” I can blithely move on to sue someone else. In other countries, I would have to pay your legal fees to at least compensate you for some of the financial damage I caused. “Loser pays,” it’s called.

As Shoprat pointed out in a comment on one of my recent posts, this is a result of our electing lawyers (and in context, since the post was a rant about complicated tax laws, accountants) to Congress — they can always be counted upon to enact laws that generate profitable work for their colleagues, and for them as well, should they lose an election and have to go back to work in the private sector.

“Loser Pays” is an excellent concept, and while I’ve never been an advocate of applying foreign law to our own, I think this is something we ought to emulate. Remember when SCOTUS applied Euro-law to their deliberations re GITMO/Camp Delta? Well….

“Loser Pays” would definitely put a damper on frivolous lawsuits!

However,

The trial lawyers have even gamed the language. They call “loser pays” the “English Rule,” as if it’s some weird British law. But it’s not. It’s really the Rest of the World Rule. America is the odd man out because we rarely punish litigators who misuse force.

Litigators fight for a living, day after day. Practice makes perfect. They get good at winning. Because of their clout, “loser pays” never gets though the legislature.

Which just goes to show that “justice” and “the law” are nowhere near synonymous in many cases. Like Arlo Guthrie said in Alice’s Restaurant, “…and Officer Obie realized that this was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn’t a thing he could do about it!”

An example John Stossel cites, a response to the airing of the issue on 20/20,

“After a real estate deal fell through, the owner of the property, a lawyer, sued me for $25,000 in damages. After two years, I won a summary judgment, which he immediately appealed. We are still in litigation over this, and there is nothing I can do to stop the process. I have offered settlements all along the way, but at this point I have paid more for my mandatory defense than the entire case was worth. If that’s not bullying, I don’t know what is. He continues to do everything in his power to prolong the case, knowing full well what it is costing me. By the time this is all over and I ‘win,’ I will have spent $35,000 and dealt with the stress of the case for more than five years. We are a modest, middle-class family. What was once the hope of being able to pay for my children’s college education now lines a lawyer’s pockets. I have had no recourse but to take it.”

Great, some litigation “professional”, in demonstration of the remorseless greed of his ilk, lines his pockets at the expense of some childrens’ futures. Bravo, Mr. Lawyer! Use the money to put a jacuzzi in your condo! Buy a new Porsche! Put hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place!

Scumbag!

America needs judges willing to say no to the lawyer bullies. America also needs “loser pays.” Otherwise, the parasites will bully away your money and your choices.

Amen to that, brother John! I always knew there was a reason you number among my personal Top 5 columnists!

…I knew I just had to share it, as it couldn’t be more accurate.

CHARLEY REESE explains incompetent Congress

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating deficits.

The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.

–CHARLEY REESE (born January 29, 1937) is a syndicated columnist known for his plainspoken manner and paleoconservative views. He was associated with the Orlando Sentinel from 1971-2001, both as a writer and in various editorial capacities. King Features Syndicate distributes his column, which comes out three times each week.

H/T Shana

Look, we on the right and those on the left have our political differences, more bitter and more divisive today than in decades, but the fact of the matter is that we elect our politicians to do a job for us, that job being to govern our country to their best ability.

Though they seem to have forgotten, they are our employees, not the other way around. They are there to work for us, as Americans, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. As members of the same team, that being, collectively, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President, their job is to represent the nation as a whole, as co-workers, and to work together to see that the best interests of this country and its citizens are served.

In the private sector, such behavior and such results as we’ve seen on the part of our government would result in a whole bunch of pink slips and the same amount of new hires, so why should government be any different? Why do we give these career politicians the sort of free passes for failure that we, as citizens, would never get in our own occupations?

In the case of our elected officials, each and every one of us voters is “the boss”. If our employees can’t work together in a proactive manner, securing the fruition of our best interests, we need to fire them and hire people who will.

It’s great that so many people enjoy the salesmanship skills it takes to convince a majority of voters in their respective bailiwicks to elect them, but it would be even greater if they also had the skills, to say nothing of the negotiating abilities and statesmanship, to work together, compromise where needed and produce results that actually benefit We, The People, their employers.

Instead, as Charley Reese wrote so eloquently, we have a bunch of people at management level who are not part of any solutions, but rather are the factors behind the problems.

…and his retinue are apparently encountering some degree of resistance, at long last.

British environmental analyst Christopher Monckton says Al Gore’s latest attack on global warming skeptics shows the former vice president and other climate alarmists are “panicking.”

And well they should be.

On Sunday, CBS News correspondent Leslie Stahl asked Al Gore on the television show 60 Minutes what he thinks of people like Vice President Dick Cheney who doubt that global warming is caused by human activity.

“I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, and those who believe the earth is flat,” replied Gore. “That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off.”

However, Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, says the former vice president can enjoy his “flat earth fantasies” for a few months, but in the end, the world will be laughing at him.

“The alarmists are alarmed, the panic mongers are panicking, the scare mongers are scared; the Gores are gored. Why? Because global warming stopped ten years ago; it hasn’t got warmer since 1998,” he points out. “And in fact in the last seven years, there has been a downturn in global temperatures equivalent on average to about [or] very close to one degree Fahrenheit per decade. We’re actually in a period … of global cooling.”

Hmmm…

Mr. Monckton, my hat is off to you!

Monckton contends Gore is now “panicking” because he has staked his reputation as a former American VP on “telling the world that we’re all doomed unless we shut down 90 percent of the Western economies.” He also contends that Gore is the largest “global-warming profiteer.”

It’s pitiful that Algore, a typical modern Democrat, is willing to screw the rest of us, using a typical liberal agenda, in order to make megabucks for himself. Nancy Pelosi, another leftist hypocrite, is probably foaming at the mouth in anger that she didn’t think of this racket first.

Gore’s group The Alliance for Climate Protection is currently launching a new $300 million ad campaign that demands reforms in environmental law to help reduce the supposed “climate crisis.” But Monckton points out that in the U.K., Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his “green investment company” because to do so would violate racketeering laws by “peddling a false prospectus.” He says that fact came about after a British high court found Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, riddled with errors.

Emphasis mine, and speaking of emphasis, bravo, U.K.!

It’s good to see that someone, somewhere, has exposed Algore for the opportunitic fraud he really is. Now let’s see some prosecution for same: After all, an individual who commits fraud on a bank or other business to the tune of a few hundred bucks gets a felony sentence. Gore has swindled the world at large for millions, yet he’s still walking around free.

What’s wrong with this picture?