December 17, 2006

The Government Once Again....

.... proves that this is not the free country intended by our founding fathers, interfering, and not for the first time, with the competitive structure of the marketplace.

Of course, scum sucking, piece of shit, treasonous, commie liberal politicians are at the source of this particular infringement, but what's new? They always are!

In this case, the victim is a dairy farmer who chose to charge less money for his milk.

Posted by Seth at 05:08 PM | Comments (6) |

November 28, 2006

They Just Don't Quit

I can see no reason why liberals should even want to live in America, except to destroy this great country. There is no other conceivable purpose they could have for remaining here.

They should go to countries whose governments are structured more to their liking and leave this one alone.

Sure, they claim to respect our form of government, yet prove time and time again that they do no such thing -- if they did, they would permit it to work as it's supposed to.

For example, if a given decision is solely the responsibility of Congress and the President to reach agreement on, like the decision or not, that is the final word. Next time elect senators, representatives and/or a President who are more in tune with your own political agendas. If you fail to do this, well, guess what? This means that the majority of the citizens with whom you share this democracy disagree with your choice. Sorry, try again next election.

What do liberals do when they don't get their way? They weasel around Congress and take their case where it just flat out, plainly does not belong: To the courts. To leftist judges like those treasonous commie toilet cakes on the bench at the 9th Circus in San Francisco, or, if that doesn't work, to the Supreme Court.

The courts have no mandate to legislate, yet these self important, sleazy southpaw judges are permitted to get away with it both blatantly and regularly.

One such issue is the global warming farce. You know, the one that caused recent snow in Florida and seems to be adding density to Algore's "melting" Arctic ice mass (It's pretty easy to B.S. a few hundred million people when you know they're not very likely to climb into a boat and go up there to check for themselves).

The Supreme Court this week will begin hearing perhaps the most significant environmental case ever to reach its marbled halls — a dispute that could shape the future of U.S. policy on global warming.

This is not SCOTUS' mandate. It is not their job. It is not a Constitutional issue. It is purely a Congressional issue.

The Court's rightful response here, simply put, should be "Ees na' my yob, man!"

In 1999, when environmental groups originally petitioned the EPA, they argued that the Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate "any air pollutant" that could "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

EPA denied the petition in 2003, saying even if the agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, it would be inappropriate because there's no conclusive proof the gas hurts to the environment.
The agency cited a 2001 study by the National Research Council that concluded, "A causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established"

Some climate scientists say that view contradicts the best evidence now available.
"The EPA position is untenable," said Andrew Dessler, an associate professor of climate science at Texas A&M University. "At the present time it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet. The real question is how much warming we can attribute to emissions, and it's likely that most of the recent warming is due to human activity."

There they go again! ....it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet.

Yoda: Virtually certain, they are!

....the best evidence now available.

And what the {pick an expletive} does that mean? They couldn't convict OJ with "the best evidence available"!

Excuse me, Andrew, but last time I looked, no one had proven anything of the kind! The only science that supports your theories is political science. Get any new research grants lately?

If SCOTUS does its job, it will simply opt not to rule on the issue and cite it as a matter for Congress, but after some of their more recent offerings of note, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by Seth at 04:32 AM | Comments (19) |

November 27, 2006

This Is Too Funny

And here we have a sterling, totally blatant example of liberal hypocrisy in its finest hour, courtesy of none other than John Edwards, our former Vice Presidential candidate.

Posted by Seth at 10:22 AM | Comments (8) |

November 19, 2006

Murderous Exasperation

I was perusing the comment section at another blog yesterday and read a liberal's comment that made me thankful he and I were not in the same room -- had we been, I probably would have strangled the son of a bitch out of sheer frustration. My own comment, in reply to his, was as restrained as possible, I believe it remained within, though pushing the envelope, the boundaries of respect due the owners of that most excellent site.

I mean, these people (not the owners of said most excellent site, but liberals) are such -- such varmints!

Look.

They claim to be champions of human rights, for example. Here in America, human rights are honored more than they are anyplace else on earth. Freedom of speech? C'mon. Here, you can shout obscene jokes about the President from the rooftops if you feel like it.

In the Soviet Union, you'd have been hauled off to the Lubyanka, or perhaps Lefortovo Prison, in a heart beat, and not seen again for quite some time, if at all.

If they needed information they thought you might possess, there was none of this patty cakes BS like water boarding or playing loud music at you, they were somewhat more practical -- maybe running some electricity through your genitals, or shooting you up with interesting chemicals like lysergic acid mixed with amatol that might get you to babbling, but might also scramble your brains permanently. Then again, permanently might have only meant a couple of hours, anyway.

So what did American liberals do? They extolled the virtues of communism in all its grand superiority over capitalism, even as they enjoyed instant gratification at the local mall while Soviet citizens were standing in bitter cold, in four and five hour lines, to buy a potato.

North Vietnam, an oppressive communist regime, invades the south, and our country defends the South Vietnamese against the north and its VietCong terrorist apparat. Liberals at home fight tooth and nail against the conflict. They influence politicians, who influence the war effort itself, prolonging it by several years. They eventually succeed in getting our troops pulled out. They rejoice. Ho Chi Minh's communists sweep into South Vietnam and butcher hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then they enslave the country under said oppressive government.

Meanwhile, here in America, the liberals are celebrating their "victory". They could care less about the fates of those poor souls thousands of miles away, human beings they've helped murder as surely as if they'd been there, splattering brains across the ground.

In the 1990s, there was brutal conflict in the Balkans. Muslims were slaughtering Christian Serbs, and Milosevic's people were killing Muslims.

The EU, led by Germany, exploited the violence in order to get a foot in the door for influence in the Balkans. They altered intelligence reports and manipulated the media to paint a gruesome picture of Muslims being victimized via
"ethnic cleansing" by Milosevic's people. Peaceful, nonviolent Muslims, victimized!

Then-boss liberal Bill Clinton bought into it and got us into it, and we helped eliminate a lot of obstacles al-Qaeda and fellow travellers faced in the day-to-day ethnic cleansing operations they were engaged in over there.

Milosevic was arrested and tried for his "crimes" -- and died in custody five years later without ever being convicted of anything.

Muslims in the Balkans continue murdering Christian Serbs to this day.

Onward to Iraq, and to the global war we are waging to defend ourselves against the abolition of liberty under Islamic rule.

There we are again -- which side are liberals on?

The other side, of course, as usual!

America's enemies, any enemies, have never had a better friend than a liberal.

You want some liberal friends? Just declare war on the United States and they'll be coming out in droves to shake your hand or, if requested, stick their noses wherever you wish.

Liberals....

Certainly not on our side, ever, yet when you state this obvious truth, they will actually argue the opposite, as often as not with that smug smirk that brings out the strangler in many of us....

Posted by Seth at 04:48 AM | Comments (25) |

November 06, 2006

Those Who Vote Democrat Tomorrow....

.... will do so because, out of negligence, malevolence toward the right or simple ignorance , take your pick, they want for themselves and their fellow Americans what is on this list at Always On Watch.

Posted by Seth at 04:47 AM | Comments (7) |

October 22, 2006

When You Get To The Polls....

....on 7 November, before you think about casting any votes to the left, it might be good to consider what the Democrats have in store for us should they win themselves a majority in Congress.

Gayle, at My Republican Blog, has posted a partial summary of Nancy Pelosi's voting record and a link to same in its entirety -- Pelosi's voting record reflects perfectly the agendas of today's Democratic Party, and with a majority vote would be able to make many of their agendas a reality.

Unlike so many of our Republicans on the Hill, the Democrats don't believe in compromise: The first chance they get, it will be "my way or the highway" as they begin slamming out bills that will do great harm to our national security, our economy, our already broken education system and the criminal justice system, not to mention, of course, various "adjustments" to social issue legalities that would go against what most Americans endorse. They have already laid out their plans to impeach the President based on their dubious charges regarding his conducting of the War On Terror.

Many elections in the past have been less significant in terms of combined major impact, but this upcoming election comes at a time when the wrong policies generated from the Hill can do the most long-term harm to this country.

Please give Gayle's linked post and the link within a good read....

Posted by Seth at 09:19 AM | Comments (9) |

September 18, 2006

One Theory....

.... I have been mulling over regarding the motivation behind some of the otherwise unfathomable peculiarities of today's liberal-infested Democratic Party deals with their resistance {is that understated, or what?} to the President's endeavors at fighting the Global war On Terror and keeping Islamofascists from committing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Now, it's immediately obvious (at least it is to anyone with an IQ above 6) that the liberal media and of course most of the rest of the Democrats we hear from, operating under the nickname of "the Angry Left", have been seething mad since one Tuesday in November, 2000, when George W. Bush beat Al Gore in a Presidential election. After several decades, they'd finally had one of their own in the White House for two whole terms, and they thought they were on a roll -- Al Gore was obviously going to win, how could a "dumb redneck" like Dubya possibly even dream of defeating Gore? Keep in mind, here, that liberals seem to think that everyone shares their political philosophies, because.... because.... well, how couldn't they?

And then Bush won. I think that was when the left actually became totally "unhinged" (Michelle Malkin definitely hit the nail right on the head with that book title). It was incomprehensible! It was monstrous! It couldn't be! It was not acceptable that the majority of American voters thought Bush would be a better President than Gore! So the debacle began, a spectacle that demeaned the American political system in the eyes of the rest of the world as the left made a judicial spectacle of the unsatisfying election results, going all the way to the Supreme Court.

This is the left's answer to everything these days -- if they can't get no.... satisfaction.... via the proper channels, call these channels (Congress, the polls) Daddy, they go crying to Mommy.... The Court. As they make legal issues out of legislative decisions they don't like, after the 2000 election they ran bawling to SCOTUS, accusing the GOP of "cheating".

Fortunately, despite a lot of arm-waving about "hanging chads" and other moonbattery, the desperate, flabbergasted lefties received no solace there. SCOTUS didn't go with the program, and George W. Bush became the next President of these here United States. Yay!

From the time he was sworn in, Dubya has been the target of more irresponsibly conceived, extremely disrespectful, immature and certainly rabid, drooling verbal and written attacks by both the mainstream media and our nation's entire inventory of liberals, to whom the MSM caters.

That's fine, as Americans we enjoy the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Then we endured the terrible tragedy of 9/ 11. During the Clinton years, Americans and American interests had been attacked by Islamic terrorists numerous times, and the "honorable" William Jefferson Clinton had played the passive resistance game or something similar {just ignore them and they'll go away?}, so the Islamofascists had perceived rightly that the U.S. was, collectively, a physical coward that could be "bitch slapped" and be too afraid to fight back -- except they miscalculated, they didn't take into account that a liberal was running the country, not a conservative.

After 11 September 2001, Bush responded in a 180 to Clinton's mode of being CEO of the United States Government. He launched a global war against Islamic terrorism. We invaded Afghanistan and kicked butt in record time, ousting the Taliban, and later invaded Iraq, taking down Saddam's government. After each defeat of bad guys, we helped their former subjects construct new governments. Democratic ones, where the people could determine whom and of what political dogmas their leaders were, and could have a say in the making of their laws.

Anyway, I've been digressing big time, but I've felt that giving background was a good idea, here.

To get back on topic, well, here we have the left.... Hooray, Left!!!!.... You fucking idiots!

Bush got reelected, defeating Jacques Kerry, which caused a new symptom of mental anguish, a genuine terrifying emotional malady called BDS{Bush Derangement Syndrome}

Bush Derangement Syndrome, imagine that! A disease worse even than rabies, though certainly related. Instead of being a fear of water, though, it was a fear of a "shrub" that the terrifying water had helped grow.

Okay, now ....

Back to the Angry Left.

They were .... angry enough at Bush's first victory, but once he had beaten Kerry -- a second winning of the Presidency in a row -- they apparently went completely around the bend....

They developed a new mission in life -- Damn all! Get Bush out of office at any cost! Obstruct him at every turn! We hate his so-called War On Terror, so let's make him lose it! Lie, cheat, steal {wait, before you object to the last, remember Sandy Burglar Berger.... The MSM helped all they could, a superb example being the New York Times, who went so far, on two (count 'em, 2) occasions, as to publish U.S. intelligence secrets so that the enemy got a "heads-up" and could rethink their strategies. The left has done all they can to sabotage Mr. Bush's war effort and his national security policies so as to help the Islamofascists butcher Americans and make the President fail.

Just so they might get their own politicians elected.

Right now, I'll acknowledge that Nixon had similar motives in his time that led to the Watergate kerfuffle, so anyone who wishes, still, to bring up that comparison in comments is now on notice -- we agree there, so if it's referred to in any argument, it will be ignored.

There is a difference... no one sought tragedy as a way of implementing their policy, as the Democrats do now.

Ah, finally, after all the background, we have reached the stage wherein I can make my point! Yes, friends, there is actually a point to all this.

We have an enemy, Islam, that is the antithesis of our concept of freedom. It is attacking us in a murderously brutal way, its targets innocent civilians, its ultimate goal rulership of the entire planet according to its ruthless, intrusive and oppressive Sharia law, a legal system that relegates women to the same social strata as toilet water and demands that the rest of us tow a line not far removed from spiritual, mental and physical slavery. A religion that orders its followers to murder anyone who doesn't believe as its own followers do.

You know, with all this background, I've seriously digressed!

Okay, here goes --

During the Cold War, all the folks that joined the American Communist Party came from Democrat/ liberal origins. Argue all you want, Communist Party Presidential candidate Angela Davis was no Republican.

Today, because they're pissed off that Bush got reelected, the same people are willing to sabotage him every way possible.... They would actually love to see Islam win.

....so we come to the "why"....

Because they hate Bush? Welllll, here's where the theory comes into play.

They will never be dissuaded from their opinion that they will eventually be able to reason with Islamofascsm. They are convinced that they are dealing with people who think and reason on the same plain they do.

So they are willing to do whatever they can to make Dubya fail, wrongfully thinking that they'll later be able to come to an agreement with Islam.

However, let's look back on their track record.

Today, they entertain socialist ambitions for our country. Yesterday, pure Marxist.

So --

the left doesn't believe that the people should make their own laws, a dictatorial gov't should do so.

So they supported the Commies for years, now the same people support anyone who is anti-Bush, especially Islamofascism.

Islam promises to micromanage our very lives.

That must turn today's Democrats on -- if we can't have the details of our lives dictated by communists, we'll let our friends of "the Religion Of Peace" make the rules.

Someone has to dictate, right? People, according to the Democrats, can't manage their lives without government leadership and regulation, so....

Islamofascism promises a way that the people can be ruled, as the left feels we need to be.

Sure, why not?

Unfortunately, surrendering to Islamofascism will prove a mite more extreme than surrendering even to the Nazis might have been.

Senators and Reps and rich people who believe that their wealth and/or previous status will be greeted with respect, will be treated like scum.

They all believe that Islam will treat them diplomatically, provide them deferential treatment for supporting Islam... throughout history, conquerors have left business dynasties alone. Islam will do the opposite: It will butcher them. They will be stripped of every aspect of their lives as they know them.

An Islamic will sneer at a wealthy liberal and say, "Shoot this pestilant piece of camel fesces! The infidel scum has served his purpose!"

Posted by Seth at 02:53 PM | Comments (38) |

August 26, 2006

Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome... LOL!

This is great, it truly is, to say nothing of vastly amusing in a pitiful sort of way, and demonstrates perfectly why the Democrats aren't getting Congress or the White House back anytime soon.

While the Republicans are running on platforms related to national security and the survival of the free world in the war against global terrorism, et al, the Democrats' big contribution is the "war on Wal-Mart". Here is a retail behemoth that makes it possible for millions of low income Americans to make ends meet and at the same time enjoy many products and technologies that might otherwise be beyond the reach of their respective finances. It is also an entity that creates large amounts of jobs, with benefits, in places where employment is scarce.

When you stop to think that lower income voters are at the same time both the meat and drink constituency of the Democrats and the biggest customers of Wal-Mart, you just have to wonder... The Democrats don't like that the unions don't like that they can't get into Wal-Mart for their usual profiteering activities, and given the size of the company, it would be an enormous coup, they could bleed the retailer until in order to survive it had to raise its prices, thereby hurting those same low income folks who depend on the savings they enjoy at Wal-Mart.

The Democrats in their present incarnation do more to campaign for the Republicans than the Republicans do. And these are the "intellectuals" among us. The cultural elite. The "champions of the poor". Go, Dems!

In this weekend's edition of Jewish World Review, Jonah Goldberg introduces a new malady called WMDS, or Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome.

The New York Times reported recently that the Democrats have, en masse, declared their party to be the enemy of the mega-box store. Sen. Joe Biden Jr., D-Del., recently delivered what the Times called a "blistering attack" on the company at an anti-Wal-Mart rally in Iowa, and other Democrats have appeared at similar events. Indeed, one of the few times Lieberman and Lamont appeared at the same event during their primary contest was at an anti-Wal-Mart clambake in the Nutmeg State.

This bonfire of buffoonery is helping me learn to love Wal-Mart. First, let's talk politics. More people shop at Wal-Mart every week (127 million) than voted in the 2004 presidential election, according to a company Web site. They are disproportionately low-income folks who, by some estimates, are collectively saving hundreds of billions of dollars by shopping there.

Compounding the electoral asininity is the glorious hypocrisy of it all. Hillary Rodham Clinton — who returned a donation from the devilish retailer — was on Wal-Mart's board of directors from the mid-1980s until the 1992 presidential campaign. If the store's policies are so un-Progressive, how come it never occurred to her to do anything about it until now? Similarly, former would-be first lady Teresa Heinz attacked the store in 2004, saying it "destroys communities" — which apparently never stopped her from hawking her ketchup there or owning $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. Even Lamont, the golden boy of the new yuppie populism, owns a few thousand bucks of Wal-Mart stock.

Read the entire column, it's quite enjoyable.

With a hat tip to James Taranto, here's another spot-on column on the War On Wal-Mart by Herman Cain.

Posted by Seth at 01:52 PM | Comments (34) |

June 28, 2006

Irresponsible Journalism

Re this kerfuffle:

A recent leak to The New York Times and some other newspapers revealed a previously secret program by the Bush administration to examine foreign banking transactions in its pursuit of terrorists with ties to al-Qaida. The banking transactions mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas. This isn't about examining our canceled checks for items that might embarrass us before prying eyes.

As they have with previous secrets of the President's prosecution of the Global War On Terror, the only thing that stands between the safety of Americans in America and encores to the likes of 9/11, the New York Times has again aided and abetted our enemy by publishing classified information leaked to them by treasonous elements of past or present federal employees.

Yes, I say treasonous -- the people who are in a position to possess the sort of information, deemed "need to know" that Bill Keller and the rest of those leftists over at NYT take such pleasure in publishing are betraying not only any oaths of confidentiality they might have taken on accepting the jobs they occupy; worse, they are betraying the American people, those of us whose taxes pay their salaries and will be supporting them through their pensions when they retire.

In my honest opinion, I believe that what the NYT has once again done, despite Keller's lofty protests that his paper was adhering to their 1st Amendment rights and that he had done all kinds of soul searching and moral deliberation before, has been to use information leaked to them by above mentioned traitors to commit treason themselves. What else can you call it when a newspaper prints stories they have to know will alert our enemy, in time of war, to secret methods by which we are fighting that war?

Cal Thomas has it completely right:

This isn't about the privileges guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is about the agenda practiced by the Times and some other newspapers and media outlets that clearly want the administration to fail in Iraq — and in everything else — so that Democrats will retake the reigns of government. The Times' editorial board fears what one more Republican term could do to the left's judicially imposed cultural realignment and wants to blunt the Bush administration's counteroffensive.

Yes, completely right.

Read his entire column here.

Posted by Seth at 04:04 PM | Comments (3) |

June 15, 2006

Still More On The "Global Warming" Myth

Recently, I put up two posts on the Global Warming Myth, here and here.

Right Wing News has posted an article from the Canada Free Press that further, and profoundly so, debunks the myth that high CO2 levels caused by man are inducing dramatic changes in the earth's climates. The article in question includes input from several scientists who, unlike most of those with whom the likes of Algore consulted to make his film, "An Inconvenient Truth", are actually experts who specialize in Climate, as opposed to climate related fields.

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

And from another expert,

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Read the entire article here.

Posted by Seth at 06:23 AM | Comments (16) |

May 24, 2006

Global Warming, The Myth

Former Delaware Governor Pete Du Pont has an informative Op-Ed up in yesterday's WSJ Opinion Journal titled, "Don't Be Very Worried" that rather succinctly debunks most of the left's global warming fantasies.

Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:

• The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.

• The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.

• Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."

Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down.

This doesn't sound like we're in the throws of environmental homicide to me, it sounds like things are getting better.

But now comes the carbon dioxide alarm. CO2 is not a pollutant--indeed it is vital for plant growth--but the annual amount released into the atmosphere has increased 40% since 1970. This increase is blamed by global warming alarmists for a great many evil things. The Web site for Al Gore's new film, "An Inconvenient Truth," claims that because of CO2's impact on our atmosphere, sea levels may rise by 20 feet, the Arctic and Antarctic ice will likely melt, heat waves will be "more frequent and more intense," and "deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years--to 300,000 people a year." If it all sounds familiar, think back to the 1970s. After the first Earth Day the New York Times predicted "intolerable deterioration and possible extinction" for the human race as the result of pollution. Harvard biologist George Wald predicted that unless we took immediate action "civilization will end within 15 to 30 years," and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people--including 65 million American--would perish from famine in the 1980s.

I'm curious to know how these doomsayers respond, years later, when their theories of impending disaster have failed to come to fruition. Do they simply go on pontificating, expecting the usual suspects to continue to regard their theories and projections as gospel? Of course they do, because those "usual suspects" are liberals, and liberals will never let anything as picayune as being proven wrong alter their opinions in any way. Its a political thing. A liberal would as soon see America die as admit that he or she has believed a lie.

There are substantial differences in climate models--some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--but the Climate Science study concludes that "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase." The National Center for Atmospheric Research's prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is.

What warming there is turns out to be caused by solar radiation rather than human pollution. The Climate Change study concluded "half the observed 20th century warming occurred before 1940 and cannot be attributed to human causes," and changes in solar radiation can "account for 71 percent of the variation in global surface air temperature from 1880 to 1993."

There are more myth-debunking facts and figures in the Op-Ed, so give the entire article a read here.

Posted by Seth at 06:39 AM | Comments (24) |

March 14, 2006

Creeping Liberal Victories

Last year I hit the half century mark, and I know I’m not the only conservative who’s done so and taken the time, from time to time, to compare the way things were when I was growing up and the way they are now.

Of course we’ve advanced technologically, more so in the quarter century since Armstrong took that small step for mankind than we did in all the centuries that came before, but socially and politically we in America seem to have regressed in many ways, the changes engendered willingly by Americans – despite the fact that allowing this regression has damaged and continues increasingly to damage our country.

The regression I’m talking about is the decline of patriotism and love of country, the gradual abolishment of our morality, values and the relationship with God our founding fathers incorporated into the documents that have defined our great nation since its inception.

The source of the problem lies to the left of our political center, emanating from the once credible Democratic Party that has since allowed itself to be hijacked by liberals whose only goal seems to be to replace our capitalist republic, synonymous with the awesome success that has made us the richest and most powerful country on earth, with socialism, which has proven time and time again to fail its constituents through astronomic taxation and the removal of personal responsibility from individual citizens by forcing all citizens to carry the weight of a non-achieving and/or unambitious/unmotivated few while shouldering the blame for the failures, transgressions, laziness, stupidity, negligence and other shortcomings of the few.

When I was a kid back in the 1950s and 1960s, a Democrat (all the way up until Jimmy Carter’s presidency taught me the error of my ways) in a Democrat family, nobody in my household ever spoke as disrespectfully and derogatorily of a sitting President as Democrats do today. Comparing a President with Adolf Hitler would have been unthinkable to anyone with a patriotic bone in his body and pushing leftist politics on school children would have been the formula for both parental and administrative outrage leading to the dismissal of an offending teacher. Even with the outpouring of rage and hatred toward the government by the hippie movement over Vietnam and the draft and the support of same by the liberal media and a bunch of ambitious and feckless politicians, there was little if any invective of today’s magnitude advanced by said politicians or newsies. The pols and scribes won their battle – General Giap admitted after we pulled out of Vietnam that we were winning, and had it not been for this loud dissent from those politicians and the media, the North Vietnamese would have surrendered long before our withdrawal.

Certainly, public school faculties maintained the discipline not to preach personal politics to pupils who were there because they had to be, nor to echo the anti-war rhetoric of the left.

Now, thanks to the slow creep of liberal judicial and political influence, teachers’ unions and Marxist organizations like the ACLU being as powerful as they are, teachers like that Jay Bennish asshat are free to rain their farfetched, anti-American diatribes, unchecked, upon their students without restraint and still keep their jobs. Any parental outrage that occurs is all but swept under a rug as the liberal educational system gradually pushes parents’ say in their children’s educations out the door.

In school, we were also given the option of taking a moment for silent prayer every morning. No particular religion was endorsed and we were under no obligation to pray. Nothing was being forced on anyone, nobody was being exposed to anyone else’s beliefs.

Now, thanks to left wing judges, sleazy opportunistic leftist lawyers and again, the ACLU (also sleazy, opportunistic leftist lawyers), such prayers are illegal as they have been falsely branded as a “church and state” issue. It’s come to the point where the ACLU can successfully sue any public institution that sports the Ten Commandments or a Christmas message.

And of course, there’s the Global War On Terror: Muslim extremists have been waging war on our country in one way and another for twenty five years, give or take. They became emboldened during the Clinton Administration, when that President allowed them to commit terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies and one of our naval vessels with virtual impunity, and early into the Bush Administration they brought us 9/11. Unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush responded decisively, first by taking Afghanistan away from the Taliban and helping promote a democracy in its place, then by doing the same in Iraq. He has strengthened our homeland security venues so that no further acts of Islamic terror have occurred, though there have been foiled attempts.

What say the Democrats?

Angry that Bush defeated straw man Al Gore in the 2000 elections and then went on to win a second term, beating John Kerry, the Democrats under their liberal masters have joined the “angry left” in placing anti-Bush politics over the well being of America and her citizens.

Knowing full well that Islamofascism poses what is probably the greatest threat to the safety of U.S. citizens in our nation’s history, they impede Bush’s defensive efforts on that quarter purely in the interests of attempting to make him fail. Democrat politicians rail against the Administration with irresponsible slurs and slanders, they make pronouncements that demoralize our troops in harm’s way and encourage our enemies to fight harder and terrorize more, they support the media when they print or broadcast secret defense data.

We can’t speak plainly and accurately without being censured for political incorrectness or accused of bigotry. A bunch of Muslims can blow people up, slice up a citizen for disagreeing with their views, burn hundreds of cars, vandalize, set embassies on fire in the name of Islam… And the media will bend over backwards to omit the fact that these crimes and terrorist acts were done in Allah’s name, by followers of Islam. At airports and other transportation venues, searching a dark-skinned Arab male who fits the profile of every terrorist in recent history is “racial profiling”, just to appease a few peoples’ sensibilities we have to ignore the natural suspects and search the more unlikely passengers, such as little old Caucasian grandmas and old men in wheelchairs, or preadolescent girls with Barbie dolls.

Had this country been under attack by a huge, well financed, globally based terrorist organization when I was a kid, had an attack the equivalent of 9/11 happened on our soil, the order of the day would have been “rally ‘round the President,” not “Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford lied, people died.” Our politicians, the media and most Democrats would have acknowledged that we were defending ourselves, that failure to support the administration’s efforts would result in Americans being murdered on our very streets.

Today, things are just the opposite.

The fact that Republicans have been the majority on the Hill since the early 1990s and have been gaining more power ever since renders the underlying victories of the liberals a paradox of sorts. They have woven atheism, socialism and PC into the fabric of our society and even now are twisting the Constitution around to interpretations that have little relationship to the original text. They have found the means to represent child molesters as regular Joes and made same sex marriage a front burner issue, just about turned our schools into anti-American, leftist propaganda institutions and vilified our primary religions while approving that religion which is practiced by people who want to kill us because we are “infidels.” They’ve obstructed the President’s national security policies in times of a serious threat to our country and enabled frivolous lawsuits to become as commonplace as a trip to the grocery store.

And the level of outrage we would have seen during my childhood years had such things even been dreamed of is simply not there, except among those of us who are informed and active on the conservative side.

Did I mention that there was some regression afoot?

Posted by Seth at 03:05 PM | Comments (9) |

March 03, 2006

S.S.D.D. In Leftsville

Well, the Dems are still banging away at the NSA's monitoring of outbound telephone conversations by suspected terrorist associates here in the United States, still obstructing Bush Administration efforts to keep Americans safe from terrorism.

Stifling partisanship is preventing the Senate Intelligence Committee from overseeing the nation's spy agencies, the Senate's Republican leadership says.

But the top Senate Democrat says the Republican-controlled panel is falling down on its responsibility to hold the Bush administration accountable.

...to hold the Bush administration accountable is the operative concept here, of course.

Not that of giving the proverbial rat's rectum about the safety of Americans, nor of anything else except the usual partisan political agenda of discrediting the President.

Luckily, the majority of Americans, since immediately after the treasonous lefty scum at the New York Times aided and abetted terrorism via reporting U.S. defense secrets when they broke the story, listened or read about it with mild to middling interest, thanked Bush and the NSA for doing what they have to do to protect us and went about their respective business.

So what are lefties like Reid, Rockefeller and Feinstein doing besides flogging what amounts to a dead horse? Why, they're trudging desperately down a veritable road to nowhere because a)they have no other ammo in their political armory at the moment, and b) if they push the issue hard enough and get it back to kerfuffle level, they can waste Congress', and therefore the taxpayers'(you and me, folks) time while preventing the timely addressing of other, more vital issues.

"Now why would they want to do that?" You ask.

Because the more obstacles the Democrats put in the way of Bush's prosecution of the Global War On Terror and the enforcement of Homeland Security policies, the more likely another 9/11 style incident could have of occuring in a U.S. city, and that would reflect as a grand failure on Dubya's part that could conceivably give the left, albeit at great and mortal cost to thousands of American citizens, a shot at getting back both the White House and a majority on the Hill(that's a pretty brazen thing for me to write, perhaps, but in view of the Democrats' treacherous collective behavior almost from the outset of the GWOT, I see no other possible explanation. Their ruthlessly single-minded concern is to score political victories. When they demonstrate otherwise, maybe I'll find my point of view modified).

And,

Because the less that gets accomplished during this President's watch and therefore the more this lack of results hurts the American people, the more opportunity the Democrats have to cite supposed inadequacy on the part of the administration and the GOP during this year's and 2008's election campaigns.

Sounds a lot to me like sabotage, friends, and not even a little to me like any kind of patriotism, love of country or concern for what happens to the people these politicians were elected to serve.

Posted by Seth at 05:00 PM | Comments (2) |

January 21, 2006

Obstacle Course

...is about the most accurate term for what the left presents George W. Bush as their contribution to homeland security.

The administration is prosecuting a war against terrorists who mean to harm murder all Americans who are not Muslims. Men, women, children, old folks, all the same to them... and Dubya's having to spend an inordinate amount of time defending policies that have proven themselves to have saved a whole lotta lives -- American ones -- here in the continental United States.

All this aggressive energy the Democrats and their liberal masters, for purely political reasons, have been investing in attacking and obstructing Bush's efforts to protect our country, ourselves, our families and our fellow Americans from an ambitious, remorseless, implacable enemy would be better invested in supporting the Global War On Terror and the Patriot Act.

Instead, we get a thinly concealed declaration from the left that they want to see Bush fail, meaning, among other things, that terrorists would be successful in mounting attacks here in the United States. Despite these peoples' Utopian fantasies, we really can't have one without the other, which pretty well tells us where their priorities lie.

Those leftists are, indeed, some sick puppies...

Posted by Seth at 05:50 AM |

January 17, 2006

Genocide, By Any Other Name...

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

Posted by Seth at 12:22 AM | Comments (2) |

January 04, 2006

Where Teachers' Union Dues Go

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.

Posted by Seth at 11:47 AM | Comments (2) |

December 23, 2005

Can You Spot The Atheists?

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."

Posted by Seth at 07:30 PM |

December 22, 2005

Hypocrisy Of The Times

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.

Posted by Seth at 03:36 AM |

December 20, 2005

MSM: The Truth Doesn't Count

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.

Posted by Seth at 02:55 AM | Comments (9) |

December 07, 2005

The Government Is Not Your Mom And Dad

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.

Posted by Seth at 06:36 AM | Comments (8) |

November 26, 2005

Selective Reporting, MSM Style

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.

Posted by Seth at 04:26 AM | Comments (1) |

November 18, 2005

The Cut And Run Party....

....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.

Posted by Seth at 08:29 AM | Comments (2) |

November 07, 2005

Economics 000

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....

Posted by Seth at 11:44 AM | Comments (4) |

November 01, 2005

A Thought

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.

Posted by Seth at 05:54 AM | Comments (2) |

Radical Conservatives? Where!?

It's pretty pitiful that one of our two major political parties, I won't tell you which one except to say that it's not the Republicans, continue to refer to conservatives as "radicals."

Radicals.

radical

In politics, someone who demands substantial or extreme changes in the existing system.

That's funny, considering that we conservatives are the folks who are battling to maintain an America based upon the Constitution, as written, and an America based upon the blueprint drawn up by our founding fathers.

So what's happened?

The left and their Mainstream Media propagandist allies have an interesting strategy: They ignore reality in favor of politics, pretending in speeches, interviews, newspaper "reports", columns and newscasts that, despite Republicans winning a significant majority of elections the last few years, from the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress to governorships, that the far-and-away, vast majority of Americans despise all that conservatives stand for and are in total agreement with the Democrats' "message" -- they are not deterred by the bald fact that they don't seem to have any sort of message -- and that whatever the Dems do, whether it's having one of their judges legislate from the bench to set a precedent that is not in keeping with the letter of the Constitution or simply slipping some Utopian ideal or other through as "what the Constitution meant" in a given case, is ironclad, The Law, a done deal.

When the Republicans attempt to set the record straight, the left then accuses us of being "radicals" by "trying to change the Constitution(boy, this is really Beatles Week for me, isn't it?)"

So they change something, we try to put it back in its original state and we're the radicals.

Hmmmmm.

Doze Dems, dey shaw gotta lotta bawls!

Democrat definition of a "radical": Anyone attempting to prevent America from pursuing a socialist agenda.

Posted by Seth at 04:50 AM | Comments (2) |

October 20, 2005

Tom DeLay Booked in Houston

Tom DeLay turned himself in quietly at the sheriff's office in Houston earlier, got himself fingerprinted and photo'd, spoke to a judge and posted bail and was gone within half an hour, depriving self seeking, politically motivated, shyster, Travis County, Tx D.A. Ronnie Earle of the dog and pony show he would have preferred.

DeLay showed up with his attorney, Dick DeGuerin.

"Now Ronnie Earle has the mugshot he wanted," DeGuerin said, referring to the Travis County district attorney who brought the charges. DeLay and his lawyer have accused the district attorney of trying to make headlines for himself.

Earle is a shameless maggot who has no compunction about destroying another man's reputation or career if he believes it will advance his own political future.

DeLay had been expected to turn himself in in his home county outside Houston, Fort Bend, where a horde of reporters awaited. But under Texas law, he could check in anywhere in the state.

DeGuerin said he and DeLay went to the sheriff's office in Houston because it was convenient and because "I wanted to avoid the circus."

"That's what Ronnie (Earle) wanted. He wanted a perp walk and we did not want to do it," the defense attorney said.

I predict Tom DeLay will be cleared of the trumped up charges against him, but unfortunately, as happens as a result of human nature, there will always be a lingering doubt among the voting public, and that will have a highly negative impact on the future of his career in politics.

Posted by Seth at 10:33 PM | Comments (2) |

September 24, 2005

What Media Bias?

I refer you, readers, to a post that so succinctly describes the bias of the Mainstream Media today in its reporting on Iraq that only a complete imbecile could walk away after reading this and still believe that they are getting any kind of fair and unbiased accounts from that quarter. The post is here, at GM's Corner.

Posted by Seth at 09:37 PM |

September 14, 2005

Enough Of The Race Card

Ah sorry, ladies an' genemuns, but enuff be enuff o dis racial crap!

I've read liberal "opinions" that Katrina the Bitch was the fault of George W. Bush who, according to these idiots, caused the disaster by refusing to sign off on the Kyoto Assininity, thereby allowing global warming{already bebunked as myth by scientists} to create the devastating hurricane that blew along the gulf coast and caused so much devastation, some going so far, because so many poor blacks were stranded in New Orleans, as to label it a "racist" hurricane{owned, of course, by GWB}.
I've read liberal opinions that the poverty that stranded these people was the fault of the Republicans because of our belief in limited government, that we failed them by not awarding them a much larger share of our hard earned tax dollars so they could live a better, if unearned, life, thereby giving them the means to own cars and to drive themselves to safety as Katrina descended.
I've read liberal opinions that the sole reason there wasn't a quicker government response to help in New Orleans was because the victims were poor blacks.
Naturally, all the blame somehow finds its way to Bush, if you take the portside braying of the liberal mainstream media as gospel, which unfortunately millions upon millions of Americans seem to do. It's not their fault, they are simply folks who don't know any better than to believe that venues like CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and countless others value the truth more than they do partisan Democrat propaganda. Rarely if ever will you find anything that reports positive accomplishments by the Bush Administration on their news programs or in their newspapers, even the most glaringly obvious positive seems to be subdued to the point of nonexistence while the most picayune trace of the negative becomes a blaring epic.
So now every aspect of the Katrina debacle, from the hurricane's creation to the breaking of the levee to the "slow" government response is the result of Bush's "racism."

I lived in New Orleans some years back and got out quite a bit.

It was always a Democrat city, in fact there was always a black mayor when I lived there, first a father(Dutch Morial), then a son(Marc Morial), and since, the son was ousted by C. Ray Nagin.

The city's Democrat mayors and other politicians did absolutely nothing to help extract their large, poor black population from poverty, in fact those who did manage to pull themselves up, along with the politicians, always seemed sort of amused at the terrible joke that served for public education and the poorness of the poor. The locals had a reason for keeping these people down: A tradition of poverty among blacks kept available an abundant low paid, underbenefitted pool for staffing the hotel and restaurant kitchens, street cleaning, housekeeping, garbage collecting and other occupational needs of the tourist dependent city.
The only "help" these Democrats ever gave those particular constituents was welfare-- enough income to keep them alive and "in their place" so they could continue to breed necessary cheap labor, a continuation of the slavery we abolished in most of the country in the early 1860s, only the postwar "masters" didn't have to supply room and board out of pocket.

Crack addiction and street crime were rampant among the black population, murders literally a dime a dozen and the city simply shrugged and went about its collective business, as often as not with a humorous grin.
If there was any racism, it came from the collective of the city's democrat majority.
And the poverty there didn't just spring into existence when Bush took office, it was an institution, sad to say, going back to the end of the Civil War and the "abolition" of slavery.

Enter Hurricane Katrina, the breaking of the levee(the Levee Board was not comprised by engineers, as you'd expect, but by members of the unbelievably corrupt local old boy network, mostly businessmen who had made significant donations to the right political campaigns) and sheer pandemonium.
The Bush Administration had, at the outset, advised the people of New Orleans to evacuate the city, but had been mostly ignored.
Rescue workers were repelled by roving gangs of local blacks bearing arms, many stolen from looted gun shops and sporting goods stores, others already owned as implements of policy among gangs. Local blacks and even police looted stores like it was a new kind of Christmas and the mayor fled when he could have been using large fleets of school buses to evacuate those who would go. The governor, when offered assistance by Bush, had said she "wasn't sure," and needed 24 of what turned out to be crucial hours to decide. This is a governor's decision to make, as local and state authorities "own" their natural disasters.
Yesterday, George W. Bush took responsibility for the "slow" federal response and the FEMA executive responsible resigned. I see that not as admitting to any fault so much as doing a leader's job and taking responsibility for something happening on his watch. I have yet to see a Democrat do the same-- no, he or she would just blame it on Bush.
The truth is, a whole bunch of Democrats failed to do their jobs-- they even failed to implement a documented response plan put together after the last big hurricane that came to town.
The truth is, this whole issue that race is involved may be accurate, but if that's the case it does not rest in the lap of the Bush administration. It rests in the laps of Nawlins Democrats who gave little priority to blacks except as vassals created for cheap labor.

Blacks who march to the false drum of Democrat support need to wake up and realize that they're victims of a great con by a party whose interests are better served by keeping them poor and keeping racism alive.

A pretty on-point Opinion Journal commentary by Brendan Miniter is here

Posted by Seth at 05:15 AM | Comments (2) |

August 07, 2005

A Letter I Wrote

A couple of weeks back, Vilmar at Ranting Right Wing Howler, one of my favorite blogs, posted on a Long Island schoolteacher who was forced to resign her job because she was a conservative and not following the liberal dictum of the school district(she had a pic of President Bush in her classroom). Initially, Vilmar had said he would like to post my letter to the school principal at his blog, so I didn't post it here, but I suppose he either forgot about it or changed his mind, so I am posting it here and now. This is how to let a liberal piece of &%&&#%* know that you disagree with his/her agenda:

Dear Ms. Becker-Seddio;

 

Posted by Seth at 05:40 PM | Comments (3) |

July 29, 2005

Feminist Hypocrites

Living in San Francisco(not for much longer, thank God!) and "getting out quite a bit" I meet a lot of so-called feminists on a pretty regular basis. I have yet to meet one that is not a liberal, and I have yet to meet one that is not a hypocrite.

Why?

Here are women living in a free country, so free that it permits them to openly and vitriolically lambast their government, their president and the "reigning" GOP with a tenacity a hundred times more than would be needed to land them in a prison, a torture chamber or both in a lot of countries, including some of those that support global terrorism.  

These American feminists enjoy the right to go out without a father or brother escort without worrying about getting a critical, bloody beating or worse from male family members, and they can go out without having to cover their faces. These American feminists enjoy the right to go as far as they wish in both education and career venues under the law of the land. They are accepted as leaders in business, politics and in the military.

They purport to champion the cause of women's rights and equality, all a lie as they take the stand of the Angry Left, protesting and obstructing wherever possible our efforts to liberate Muslim countries in which the women are both treated and viewed as fifth class citizens, slaves to husbands, brothers and even sons who can beat them or even kill them with impunity, where a woman who is not appropriately attired is pelted with fruit, rocks, whatever comes to hand, beaten by religious police or viewed as eligible for rape.

Why do these feminists not give the proverbial "flying fuck" about these women in Muslim countries? Because they hate Bush. Bush doctrine has freed women in Iraq and Afghanistan and caused women in other repressive Islamic countries to start rethinking their situations, and had Clinton had the spine to do what needed doing during his second term in office and beaten Bush to the punch, you can bet these same feminists would have been singing his praises.

Unfortunately, Slick Willy's lightweight handling of terrorism and his obstructionism of national security operations(ie interagency cooperation between external intelligence and internal security agencies) were strong factors in the ability of terrorists to bring us 9/11.

But that's what it's all about where feminists are concerned: Supporting our liberation of these societies and the resultant freeing of their female populations would mean supporting a Bush agenda. Rather than do that, the rank and file feminist would just as soon see her millions of "sisters" continue to be repressed, veiled, beaten, disrespected from birth to death. Is hypocrisy a strong enough term, do you think?

****************************

Perhaps one reason most Islamic nations are so backward is because they don't allow their women to contribute, and that means they exclude potential major assets for bettering their lot and coming into the modern world.

Women in free countries have more than proven their value to our societies as a whole, in business, politics, science, journalism, culture, and there have been quite a few women inventors. Check out the site, it's definitely worth reading and there are several pages listing women through U.S. history and their inventions in a wide variety of areas.

One of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking novels I've read in quite awhile was Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I think the concept of the Sacred Feminine is very real. Being Jewish, I can tell you that in my religion, women are considered very special and their contributions on all levels are welcome. A woman of our faith doesn't need liberal feminists to do her talking for her. The Jewish-cum-atheist women or those who denounce Judaism or even deny God's existence for social convenience, on the other hand, feel the need to support feminist movements that no longer serve any purpose save espousing the farthest left causes that come down the pike, whether they have anything to do with women's rights or not. Of course, today it seems like all liberal based organizations are united in their War On Bush, and national security, the liberation of oppressed peoples and all other considerations be damned.

***************************

Women from both sides of the aisle who lean toward supporting groups like NOW should really give more thought to the actual level of sincerity these people have evolved to, and to what they actually support before sending them money or signing petitions on their behalf.

The feminist movement of today cares less about women's rights and more about liberal political agendas. Period.

                 

Posted by Seth at 08:41 PM | Comments (12) |

July 09, 2005

Wal Mart's Detractors

Liberals attack Wal Mart the same way a pitbull does a trespasser on his master's property. Why?

Low wages without any chance of unionization. Total outsourcing, most of the chain stores' inventories made in China. One of America's most profound corporate success stories(the libs who program the opinions of Democrats today mostly have their own successful businesses, megasalaries or equally outsourced or "oppressive" corporations, but they conveniently leave them out of any assaults on "corporate America.") Bottom line? They're a prime target.

It matters little(if at all) to these liberals that Wal Mart makes it possible for low income families to enjoy the same luxuries and even necessities that upper income families do. Granted, they may not be manufactured in the U.S.A., but at least they're affordable to those customers who can't afford union-made American products. Why shouldn't a rural American who does a necessary job for $16,000.00 a year have a DVD player, a computer or be able to buy socks without spending money he needs to feed his children?

If Wal Mart was a union shop, they would have to readjust their pricing upwards, and that would mean less revenues from elements of the population that depend on the rock bottom prices to shop there. Or it would mean making adjustments such as staff reductions. Remember, people are in business to make money, and when the profits subside, they cut their losses via layoffs or termination of the the business(es) in question.

Wal Mart employs hundreds of thousands of people, significantly people in rural areas where there are otherwise no jobs at all and a lot of grateful employees stay with them forever.

The big city liberals who oppose Wal Mart's existence do not speak for the chain's customers, nor do they speak for Wal Mart employees. They speak only for themselves and their partisan political agendas. Some prick in L.A., San Francisco or New York who earns $100,000.00+ per year could care less about someone in the "Flyover Zone" who doesn't have the income to buy a major American brand nor any job options outside the local Wal Mart.

FUCK these sanctimonious liberals!

Posted by Seth at 09:29 PM |

June 23, 2005

Patriotism, Liberal Style

I linked to this during my daily read of Best of the Web Today.

This is insane, how far are these people going to go in their efforts to rewrite American History? These Berkeley liberals are trying to have Thomas Jefferson Elementary School renamed because Jefferson owned slaves. 

How far does this mean the libs will go?

Maybe they'll sue to have Jefferson's very existence stricken from our children's history books. Perhaps they'll push to change the causes for the South's secession that brought about the Civil War. And why stop there? For that matter, why bother to even mention the War Between The States in children's history books, why not rewrite the entire American saga from the Mayflower through, say, the Eisenhower Administration? That way they could erase inconvenient holidays like Thanksgiving, that commemmorates the pilgrims' giving of thanks to God, and any other aspects of U.S. history and culture they find embarrassing.

But then, what can we expect from those fine, patriotic folks in Berkeley, the same "Americans" whose verbal reaction to the horrors of 11 September 2001 was that The United States had deserved it? 

Posted by Seth at 12:58 AM |

June 15, 2005

The Last Antitaxation Hero

Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger is taking on the California tax and spend liberals who, as usual, are looking to sleaze yet more money out of the tax payers with blind-siding, sneaky legislation. Proposition 13, a 1978 initiative that capped California property tax increases, is the issue at hand with the state's Dems looking to change it or add taxable increments to the prop that would enable them to extract more money from voters.

Santee, San Diego County -- Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger's special election campaign suddenly became all about the landmark Proposition 13 property tax initiative Tuesday when he warned elderly homeowners they could lose their houses to taxes if Democrats and union leaders got their way in the fall.

 

"They want to back us into a corner so eventually they can force us to raise taxes," Schwartzenegger told about 25 people in a backyard gettogether at this town outside San Diego.

 

He accused Democratic legislators of sneaking around with backdoor efforts to "tweak" Prop. 13, the 1978 initiative that put tight caps on property taxes in the state.

 

....The attack enraged Democratic leaders, who accused the governor of campaigning on issues that aren't on the Nov 8 ballot.

 

Changing Prop. 13 to boost taxes on homeowners "isn't on the ballot and it isn't even on anyone's radar screen," said Maviglio, a spokesman for assembly speaker Fabian Nunez, D- Los Angeles. "The governor is trying to scare people to the polls and that's shameful."

 

Democratic legislators have authored bills that would amend Prop. 13 to make it easier to impose special parcel taxes and backed efforts to boost taxes on commercial property.

 

The San Francisco Chronicle article that tells the story will not link, but in today's online edition of the paper, the item reads Guv: It's About Prop 13.

California is the liberal stronghold of America, the home base of those who think we should be a socialist country, a nation in which the government and, through taxation, the rank and file tax payer and successful businesses are responsible for every last Utopian jerkoff social whim these asshats want to espouse. 

Oh, shit! We've blown all the state taxpayers' money, we'd better hit 'em up for more....

 

Their tax the people into the ground, the more the merrier attitude, during previous gubernatorial administrations such as that of Gray Davis, whom we fired in favor of electing the Governator, has driven businesses(can you say, jobs?) out of California and into neighboring states with more agreeable business tax rates.

These people are so far beyond unreasonable that it borders on insanity! They have no concept of budgets, they simply spend money on their bottomless pit feel-good agendas and when the kitty bottoms out, they seek to squeeze more money out of Joe Taxpayer. European countries, whom the liberals admire to the extent of worship, confiscate more of their citizens' wages and salaries than they allow them to keep, and their economies still fall short of ours by enormous margins(more than double the unemployment, etc).  

We are a Capitalist Republic that's proved out(the richest, strongest nation on this planet) with a constitution that forbids taxation without representation(remember the Boston Tea Party, or has that, too, been stricken from primary education textbooks by liberal revisionists of history?), and the vast majority of liberal agendas are just that. The liberals' favorite passtime would seem to be spending our tax dollars on issues that the majority of us would vote against if given the opportunity to do so, if for no other reason than to hang onto enough of the money we earn working to live under reasonable conditions. The liberals want us to be just like France and other failing countries.

Arnold's referendem for the vote in November is a counter to the California libs' tendency to obfuscate issues in order to get the voters to pass laws and enact policies they might not vote on if they had the true picture.

A good example is a proposition that was on the ballot here in San Francisco, where all the politicians are liberals, in 2002. The city supervisors(the local equivalent of councilmen) needed a venue for rewarding their more noteworthy supporters, so they decided to form an entertainment commission that would decide issues relating to licencing night clubs and like businesses that would consist of their political cronies. They voted it in among themselves without consulting the voters, and on the proposition ballot they gave the voters a choice as to whether or not the mayor(the baksheesh and political advancement seeking Willie Brown) should be able to appoint X number of members to the commission and the city supervisors the rest. The way it was worded on the ballot made it appear to most local voters that they were actually having a say on whether or not to form the commission to begin with, a "yes" or "no" vote all that was required. In my book, that constitutes misleading the public.  

The California branch of the Angry Left has been maligning Schwartzenegger since he took office and the opinion on the street(read that as "among the state's liberals") is that he's "sold out" the citizens of the state and reneged on what he purported to stand for when he ran for governor.

Bullshirt. Like the rest of today's Democrats, the majority in California's legislature would rather sabotage their GOP governor(like the Dems on Capital Hill do to W at every opportunity), letting the rest of us pay the price, in order to undermine his performance and get him voted out in favor of their own candidate in the next election. These anal cavities should be slowly smothered to death, or exported to France where they belong. 

I don't envy the California governor his job, which has to be a frustrating ordeal in itself just because of the obstructions he faces on a day-to-day basis from the state legislature's liberal majority.

Posted by Seth at 11:26 AM |