This sleazy son of a bitch...

Read this and cry. It's as if Ayn Rand wrote this herself...
http://www.counterpunch.com/kerr11282008.html

Republican Talking Point#1

What is the best strategy for republicans to win in 2012? Can we persuade millions of people to change their minds?

Firstly, it goes without saying that GOP must cleanse itself of the liberal elite, which is so powerful in the republican leadership. We must present ourselves as a party of small limited government, which, if elected, will dramatically cut the government spending, unapologetically defend the freedom of speech, drastically cut the regulations, abandon the liberal war against energy production, and finally, will fight and win the war against the Islamic terrorists. These are all obvious points, but there are still worth repeating.

What should be the GOP message to the Middle America, which decisively shifted to the Obama's side during the last presidential elections? It is predicted that Obama will screw up the economy and the foreign policy, and some conservative pundits are ready to say the traditional "I told you so" to the people who had voted for Obama. This emotion is understandable - but I believe this message would be misguided and harmful to the country.

We should not spend the time and people's good will on making the country wallowing in guilt for its choice of the president- and instead use the occasion for a much more pointed message. Instead of "I told you so", we must say - "It's not your fault you voted for Obama - it's the media's fault, they misled you".

Republicans must use Obama's presidency and the unavoidable times of extreme economic distress and undeniable foreign policy failures to destroy the media hold over people's minds - and thus make the Obama's presidency look like mainstream media presidency. Lets try to shoot two targets with one bullet.

And all in all, I think it's easier and more useful to convince American people that they have mistakenly chosen the rookie Marxist as their president because of lies and misinformation by the mainstream media - instead of telling the people that they were stupid and uninformed.

If you think you can change people's minds by telling them they were stupid - I suggest you work a few months working as salesmen and check how this strategy works in real life. Right now, GOP must use the media as a scapegoat for the election of inexperienced and possibly fraudulent candidate with the obvious anti-American, anti-Western views....

You can't invent this stuff - even you try...

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh's show this week, and his substitute was interviewing a retired member of the UAW - United Auto Workers. The union guy was demanding the bailouts for the auto-industry and claiming that hundreds of thousands of people could lose their jobs and pensions if the government let the American auto industry fail.

At the very end he said the following: "The company is treating us (the workers) well, because we are the one who turned Ford into what it is now". At this point my brain exploded. WTF?! Does this guy have any brains left? Ford is a bankrupt company, losing billions of dollars monthly. Why does he look at his company and feel proud at what he achieved? This is insanity!

I guess this summarizes the situation quite well...

A major economic shit-storm is coming to US. And in times of this great peril, American people elected as their president and leader - a man with a major case of diarrhea. I am just not sure it is such a good idea...

By God, Ann Coulter is right!

"In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president."

Full article is here.

What if...

Obama calls you to "serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges" and you tell him to be "be fruitful and multiply" - would this be considered a hate speech?

Is compulsory government service a good idea?

As you may know, parteigenosse Obama wants to require middle school kids to serve the government. The link is Here here.


This is how the liberals put it: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."

I believe this is an excellent idea. I think our kids would learn a lot about the government and the Democratic Party if they were to be forced at gun point to serve "community". Moreover, this involuntary servitude will be called, yes, you guessed it "voluntarism". I assume if the schools keep teaching "1984", the new generation will understand the newspeak vocabulary much better. The earlier you start realizing the tenets of liberalism, the sooner you can contribute to society.

Viva la revolucion! Give me liberty or give me death!

Should patriotic Americans support the Obama's presidency?

Well, one thing that makes me feel better [about democratic lead in the polls] is that Obama seems to be gaining ground, and may well be our next mumbler and stumbler in Chief, while the libs will continue their control of Congress.

Some political party will pay dearly for all the crazy spending, bankrupt SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Someone will have to make hard decisions on the war with Islamo-fascism. Someone will have to deal with failing Europe, resurgent Russia, belligerent and powerful China, insane global warming scares.

If all of that falls on the narrow shoulders of Obama, Pelosi, Reid - and they fail (and fail they will) - the DNC will have to pay a dear price. Can Obama be better for the GOP and America than Jimmy Carter was? I most surely think so.

So 4 years from now, when unemployment is 10-12%, inflation is 10%, GDP is down, stocks are down, our economic freedom is gone, I can look at liberals and tell them: "You folks were kind of stupid in 2008, weren't you? Now, drop on your knees and beg for forgiveness". Isn't it totally worth it? I say yes...

In short, the chickens are coming home to roost - and the liberals may be the ones organizing the welcome party for them. Libs did not want to reform the Social Security under Bush - heck, they will have to deal with it under Obama. Libs thought we could easily win the war by talking to our enemies - smile, Obama will have 4 years to cool down Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest by talking to them. Libs did not want to cut welfare spending - they got Obama who will expand it. Taxes are too low for companies? Obama will raise them. You think our economy can sustain the liberal Congress, liberal president and the coming recession? Think again.

Bush is doing his best to avoid the recession under his watch. He is pumping the market with paper, so he could postpone the inevitable. And stupid democrats are playing along. Whoever is elected will have to deal with a crisis of Gargantuan proportions, and Obama is the best guy to screw it up – since I don’t want a republican to do it. In short, good freaking luck to liberals and what the liberals lovingly called "A Magic Nergo".

And yes, don't let me forget - Europe is, not feeling too good. Something to do with sclerotic liberal economy and "youths". It will get worse soon. Don't be surprised -liberal policies are quite advanced in Europe - like the advanced stage of cancer. I believe the Europeans should run for their life...

All in all, I expect Obama presidency to be an utter failure, and I do expect the Republican party to cleanse itself by 2012 and take over Congress and Presidency. No more pussy-footing this time. And I hope the MSM will be completely ruined – if Obama-Messiah fails. After all, everyone knows the MSM is promoting Obama. Many people can live with it because they believe Obama could be a good president. And yet, when he proves to be a horrible one - who would the people blame? Do you believe they would blame themselves for voting this socialist into office? No, they will blame the media for tricking them. And there goes the MSM...

It’s a win-win-win situation. Glory, Glory, Alliluiah!

Granted, Obama presidency will be a major defeat for liberty in the short run. I expect him to drastically increase taxes and government regulations. I know he will try to silence all the alternative media. Election campaigns will be filled with fraud and, what is euphemistically called in Russia “the administrative factor”. War against Islamo-fascism will be forgotten, while US allies will be thrown overboard. Liberal media will get considerable government bailouts. And yet, and yet, this country will get a glimpse of where liberalism leads us, and I believe America will recoil when it sees the abyss, and wake up from its sleepwalk to socialism.

And lets not forget the danger of comrade McLame, if he wins, becoming a Hoover to Obama the FDR. We cannot have that, if we love this country. I hope we should get Obama now, and elect a true conservative republican in 2012 – which would be similar to electing FDR in 1929 and getting a true republican in 1933, at the peak of recession.

Will it work out this way? I don’t know. And granted, I would love to see Obama lose on Tuesday – just so I could see the faces of his supporters in the MSM. So, just to make sure you understand me, if Obambi falls on Tuesday, I will have fire works in my drive way. But a more sober analysis calls for Obama presidency. That's what I think...

In short, lets hope the best man for this country wins.


Full Disclosure: This article was edited for style (and only for style) in 2009. The predictions were not changed.

When I went to Russia this summer...

I've talked to my friends and told them that Obama's middle name was Hussein and that it was racist to say it. They could not believe me. "But this is his middle name, right?", they would ask me. "Yes, it is," I would reply. "But you cannot publicly say so, correct?", they would ask me. "No, it's racist to say his middle name" would me my reply. "Well, but it is his name, right?"...
On and on we would walk in this vicious circle. Yes, his name is Hussein, and no, you cannot say it out loud, because some people may get offended.
I am curious now - is it okay to call him "Barack Obama", or should I call him John Smith - just in order to be politically correct?

A quick question to liberals...

Lets assume Obama wins and libs get a solid majority in the senate. What economic indicators 4 years from now would convince liberals on this board that Obama was a wrong choice?

Say, 10% unemployment and 15% inflation in 2012 - would this mean that Obama is a failed president?

What if unemployment if 12%? 15%? What if the GDP drops from 2008 till 2012? Stock prices?

Any liberals here, who believe Obama when he says that 95% of Americans will see their taxes cut under their administration?
And if not - how do you explain that he is openly lying?
If yes, would you say that you were lured to vote for him under false pretenses if he does not lower taxes on 95% of the population?


What if taxes are NOT decreased for 95% of Americans, and instead 30% of Americans see their taxes increased - would this convince any liberal that conservatives were right when they claimed that Obama was lying about his tax plans?

Obama's economic policy is already being implemented...

So far, no survivors...

In a local restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

I got it from here.

Can Liberals Count?

A CNN operative proclaimed that Biden's win was overwhelming.

Link.

I counted 12 pro-Biden and 11 pro-Palin hands. I am curious if the liberals can do better than that.

And if my numbers are correct, can someone explain why the CNN made this stupid claim? Was this a propaganda attempt?

Anyway, why is this important. Well, it is an old debate on who is biased and who is objective. Liberals claim CNN is objective. Conservatives find Fox News and Rush Limbaugh objective. If indeed CNN was lying and this can be proven beyond reasonable doubt by math - then we get something concrete.

All right, lets the fun begin. Who can count the number of votes fo Palin and Biden?

I am getting worried about my Social Security Lockbox

We all know that the federal government takes 16% of your income and invests it - so when you retire, you could get a pension. I am curious where the government invested my money, and if my money is in danger.

Does anyone on the left knows how one could check what is happening with our social security lockbox? Just asking.

Radical proposal on how to improve the US economy

I have a radical but efficient proposal, which will result in immediate and considerable improvement to the US economy. Hear me out.

As senator Barack said - everyone must sacrifice for the common good. Rich, poor, all of us must do something, so that American economy could rise again.

A simple but effective solution would be to give a direct president's order to kill all endangered species. Later, this could be discussed and debated in courts, and this measure may be declared unconstitutional - but this will be later. If we kill all endangered species, a lot of environmental government regulations which limit the growth of our economy will be come non-operational. Great many of our government subsidized and regulated companies - oil, gas, electrical companies would be forced to concentrate on actually producing oil, gas and energy, and not appeasing the environmental activists and the judges.

I say - lets slaughter all the endangered species - for the common good! America cannot afford them now. If you don't believe me - just ask a poor mother, whose son died from a treatable disease - does she think that his life was worth the well-being of a bald eagle?

Dems, media on Sarah Palin....

Obama became the genius of the DNC after he read a speech in 2004. I am curious why the dems decided he knew everything there was to know about the world back then, but for some reason they think that Sarah Palin, a woman with decent executive career knows nothing about the world?

When Barack was moving through the corrupt Chicago machine, foreign policy was irrelevant. When he was a community disorganizer, his main issue was how to get more connections and not get caught. When he was a US senator, well, he spent all the time campaigning. So, all in all, Obama has no advantage on the foreign policy over Palin, let alone McCain. And yet, the myth of Palin’s inexperience lives on. How smart is it?

Most feminists believe that Hillary was mistreated by the media and the DNC. If Sarah is faced with a barrage of questions that Obama was not (and Obama is still an unknown quality through out the campaign) - then many of those feminists will very likely stay home on the election day. After all, do you really expect them to vote for the abusive liberals?

A secondary effect may be an utter loss of credibility of the media among the feminists. As you may remember, the feminists are still pissed off at the media for their “sexist” attack on Hillary Clinton, so their eyes are not closed yet on how media promotes its own agenda. I sincerely hope that this election will be the straw that breaks the media’s back, and it won’t be a second too late.

As one dem said, we are all in this together...

We are all in this together, shared sacrifice and shared reward. I am sure you've heard these banalities coming from the liberals many times. Here is a quick question to you. My wife and I work long, long hours. While my job is more theoretical and research oriented, she has to support much more time-sensitive process technology development. She is on call every other week, and some times she is paged at night. And yes, we are in the top 5% of earners, which means we have to pay a lot in taxes.

People in the bottom 20% work at most half the time we work, if even that. Their income mostly comes from the government handouts, their living, medical care, housing is subsidized by the government. They contribute next to nothing to our common social spending - roads, schools, police, military.

And yet, it is us, my wife and I who are called evil and exploiting, while the bottom-feeders are considered righteous victims of oppression. I keep hearing about common sacrifice, common rewards, that we all in this together. Could someone explain to me - just exactly when are the people in the bottom going to start sharing not only my rewards, but also my sacrifice? When will they start putting in at least 50 hours of work every week?

Oh, never mind, I was just kidding. Silly me. It will never happen.

Liberal Media Bias? You won't say....

Recently, the media has started pushing the meme that Sarah Palin is a bad mother, since she is not staying at home taking care of her children. Well, color me unimpressed. Do you remember the Clinton family? It was claimed that both of them, papa Clinton and mama Clinton were running the American government. As Hillary once said - she will not be baking cookies. Or, as Clinton also said - get two for the price of one. So, while both parents were busy, who exactly was raising their daughter? Was it Monica Lewinski? Alas, I never heard this question asked before. No one claimed that Clintons are bad parents because they chose a political career instead of taking care of their precious little daughter. So, why is Palin treated differently? Does it mean that media is sexist, or that it is liberal and it would do anything to help the unfortunate Mr.Obama?

Should Obama give more details than McCain on his economic plans?

Well, as you know, liberals are complaining that McCain's speech is less informative on his plans to reform the economy than Obama's. It's not fair! Well, think about it...

As the Russian saying goes - "You have to build socialism. It's sufficient to allow capitalism". Obama wants to nationalize the medical care. He plans to drastically increase spending on social programs, raise minimum wage, make "volunteer service" compulsory for high school students. Moreover, he wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on "alternative energy", heavily tax all businesses that emit CO2, regulate labor relations, heavily tax all companies that export capital to foreign countries and make much tougher environmental laws. It's his duty to explain how exactly he proposes these thing to work, and why exactly he believes these new (actually modern day European) policies will create jobs, revitalize the US economy and increase the wealth production. For example - it's common knowledge that minimum wages increase unemployment, particularly among uneducated workers. So, why is he promoting a policy which will undeniably hurt his professed goal of creating more jobs?

As for McCain, his job is much simpler. In many cases he supports simple conservative-libertarian position - cut the government role and give money back to the people. Since he won't be the one spending people's money - he cannot explain which mechanisms will be created in a free market economy. Asking him what solutions will become popular is like asking someone promoting democracy to explain who must become the president.

What do community organizers do?

A recent New Republic article described in detail what Obama had been doing, and how he had failed in everything he tried to do as a community organizer. Why? Actually, it's a no brainer.

Here is what "Faithful America”, a liberal community organizing group and a staunch supporter of Barack Obama says about the job of community organizers:
"Many politicians simply don't understand what community organizers do. So here's a short lesson: They work in church basements, synagogues and mosques to empower their communities and make life better for millions of working people across the country."

Thanks a lot, Faithful America, now it’s all clear for me, even though I am no politician. A janitor cleans the toilets and takes away the garbage. A developer builds houses. An engineer designs new technical appliances. A doctor treats diseases. And a community organizer "empowers communities". Sounds like a "community organizer" is a job description for people who need high self-esteem, but who cannot or do not want to do the actual job of a janitor, engineer or a doctor.

In fact, a million community organizers cannot create a single job, build a single house, or open a single store. It's all done by people who have actual jobs - you know - builders, businessmen, store clerks, developers. So what do "community organizers" actually do? Lets repeat the slogan – “They work in church basements, synagogues and mosques to empower their communities and make life better for millions of working people across the country."

So, in summary, we know exactly WHERE they work – but their day-to-day responsibilities are a bit uncertain. Don’t you love the liberal “nuance”, the ability to use many words while saying absolutely nothing about the subject?

Nice quote from Charles Darwin

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

Nice quote from prince of leaves

I’m not voting against Obama because he’s black. I’m voting agains Obama because he’s red.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/06/21/obama-drops-pre-emptive-race-bomb/

Nice quote from Chris Hitchens

“People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it.”

Nice quote from right-wing nut house...

It has been asked “Is America ready for a black president?” Maybe a more relevant question would be “Can America see through a racial charlatan who will shamlessly use the color of his skin to avoid debating the tough issues and call his opponents “racists” for disagreeing with him?”

Nice article from Steyn. This guy is so right...

Steyn on America
Sunday, 15 June 2008
The short version of the Democratic Party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to.

"I felt this thrill going up my leg," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews after one of the senator's speeches. "I mean, I don't have that too often." Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for more than six months, see your doctor.

Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast, and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program. On the strength of Chris Matthews' vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money – over $300 million – and massively outspent Sen. Clinton, but he didn't really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin' down the track at 2 miles an hour.

But what does he care? Sen. Obama has learned an old trick of Bill Clinton's: If you behave like a star, you'll get treated as one. So, even as his numbers weakened, his rhetoric soared. By the time he wrapped up his "victory" speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:

"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation."


It's a good thing he's facing it with "profound humility," isn't it? Because otherwise who knows what he'd be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 – the long-awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: When Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn't want to have to use a stepladder to get up on it.
There are generally two reactions to this kind of policy proposal. The first was exemplified by the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder:

"What a different emotional register from John McCain's; Obama seems on the verge of tears; the enormous crowd in the Xcel Center seems ready to lift Obama on its shoulders; the much smaller audience for McCain's speech interrupted his remarks with stilted cheers."

The second reaction boils down to: "'Heal the planet'? Is this guy nuts?" To be honest I prefer a republic whose citizenry can muster no greater enthusiasm for their candidate than "stilted cheers" to one in which the crowd wants to hoist the nominee onto their shoulders for promising to lower ocean levels within his first term. As for coming together "to remake this great nation," if it's so great, why do we have to remake it? A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

I thought this was so cute, I posted it on the Web at National Review. Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Sen. Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting e-mails from reporters from Florida to Oregon, asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator, in fact, uttered these words. And I'd patiently write back and explain that they're John Gross' words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public. Yet last week his demand in his victory speech that we "come together to remake this great nation" came awful close.

Speaking personally, I don't want to remake America. I'm an immigrant, and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the Western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there's nowhere for me to go – although presumably once he's lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.

Marc Ambinder is right. Obama's rhetoric is in a different "emotional register" from John McCain's. It's in a different "emotional register" from every U.S. president – not just the Coolidges but the Kennedys, too. Nothing in Obama's resume suggests he's the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only last week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew," said the senator, in what's becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he's known for 20 years.

Yet at the same time as he's being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama's convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America's enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly-up, and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that "this isn't the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."

Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don't. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly-legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric.

What we should do about the gas prices...

I've been listening to Hannity's radio show, and Sean is promoting a petition that would demand Congress to allow drilling in America (you can sign the petition here). Personally, I think this is not enough. I believe conservative radio talk show hosts, conservative writers, bloggers and all people of good will should organize a nation-wide 2-day demonstration in front of the gas stations (this could be done on the weekend) with conservatives showing signs like "Gas is so expensive because liberals don't want to drill in America" or "Republicans want to lower your gas prices - Liberals want to raise them to save caribous in Alaska".

If we could have many gas stations covered in one blitz attack - we could get quite a reaction from the citizens. Either American people will force liberals to let the oil industry to drill, or they will decide to vote for republicans in November. Americans are pretty pissed off today, GOP should use it. Of course, there is little hope that the GOP leadership can do anything, so it's up to citizen activists to do so. In reality, it should not be too difficult to organize. It could also be a good idea to link with truck drivers, farmers and others, and organize some acts of civil disobedience, road blocks in front of Capitol and the like. It could be a huge event, and it would shook the country.

Here is why I am pissed...

The Boumediene v. Bush decision by five liberal judges, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, which granted enemy combatants harbeus corpus has been met with obvious glee from the left. The conservatives were understandably pissed off. Here is one possible explanation for the conservative reaction. Back in 2005, same five liberal judges Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer decided that the government has a right to take your property "to promote welfare" - i.e. basically, if the government likes it, it can take and pay you whatever it thinks it okay (see Kelo vs City of New London). In other words, same liberal judges grant more and more rights to terrorists, while fucking up the rights of law abiding Americans. Now, I wonder, why wouldn't this piss off the liberals? Could someone explain?

Very nice quote...

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded ≈ here and there, now and then ≈ are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." --- Robert A. Heinlein

Liberals are so stupid, it's amazing....

A few days ago I read this article on internet. It was written by a Clinton secretary of labor, Robert Reich. The article is amazingly stupid. I mean, at some point, this guy should take a basic class on economics.

Reich's comments reminded me of a passage from an old Russian book "12 chairs". Two crooks got on the ship cruise, pretending that they were artists. At some point they were asked to paint a drawing. One crook asks another "I've got a question for you, as one artist to another, can you paint?".

Anyway, here is a nice passage that surprised me:

..(it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution).

I would like to understand why would the consumers have zero benefit if the proposed tax cuts stimulate the demand? In other words, if the prices were not lowered by the tax cut, why would the demand rise? And if prices are lowered, wouldn't the consumers benefit from it?

To put it bluntly, liberal economists (nice oxymoron) would greatly increase their understanding of economy if they took time to familiarize themselves with the law of supply and demand. Mr.Reich, when are you going to take Macroeconomics 101 class? Seriously, this is embarrassing.

One of the reasons why rich kids tend to be liberal

Quite recently we started looking for a school for our elder kid. After some hesitation, we dismissed the government schools - since we knew that they were horrible. The only decent option was to go to private schools. Now, I hope you understand that we are not super rich, and it's not easy for us to afford a private school. Moreover, both of us, my wife and I are non-religious Jews, which meant christian schools were out of question. One school that caught our attention was a secular private school, pretty expensive, excellent SAT scores, good statistics for university admissions. One thing among others caught my attention. During the interview we asked the school bureaucrat about the kids who go to that school, and whether the private school prepares them to live in a real world, not in a gated community. The answer was quite amazing - we were told that the teachers understand our concerns, and that they do everything possible to let the kids understand the world and the community. One of the things they do is to send kids regularly to work in the kitchens for the poor folks.

Now, think about it. Say, you are from a very rich family. You are surrounded by rich kids in the kindergarten, school, university. Your neighbors are rich. The only people you see who are out of your circle are the bums, drug addicts and the like. I wonder if this is what pushes rich kids to become liberal and elitist. That - and uber-liberal propaganda in schools and universities.

What about them Supreme Court Judges?

Here is an excellent quote from the Goldberg's article .

Supreme Court justices must “solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

Note the bit about doing right to poor and rich alike. Feeling sorry for the poor guy who violates the Constitution or the law has no role in how a Supreme Court justice is supposed to make a decision. Legislators can write laws based on empathy. They can invoke their pet theories about “how the world works.” They can even, as Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are fond of doing, consult foreign laws and court decisions in their efforts to make a more perfect union. But Supreme Court justices are supposed to decide what the written law requires, not pick winners and losers based upon some sense of noblesse oblige. That’s why all of those statues of Lady Justice show her standing blindfolded, not bent over kissing the boo-boos of the unfortunate and the downtrodden.

Excellent quote from Mark Steyn

As for "gun-totin'," large numbers of Americans tote guns because they're assertive, self-reliant citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. The Second Amendment is philosophically consistent with the First Amendment, for which I've become more grateful since the Canadian Islamic Congress decided to sue me for "hate speech" up north. Both amendments embody the American view that liberty is not the gift of the state, and its defense cannot be outsourced exclusively to the government.

Read the full article here

QUOTE OF THE MONTH (From www.anncoulter.com)

"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."

--Thomas Sowell

This is an excellent quote

The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted one will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.

Lyndon Johnson

Nice quotes about freedom of speech

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859


The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager


The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers


Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart


We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764


The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman


Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire


I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech. ~Nancie J. Carmody


The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859


Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959


Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960


A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus


To reject the word is to reject the human search. ~Max Lerner, 1953, on book purging


Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935


What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books. ~Sigmund Freud, 1933


Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823


Every burned book enlightens the world. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


The paper burns, but the words fly away. ~Akiba ben Joseph


Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" ~Joseph Henry Jackson


If you don't have this freedom of the press, then all these little fellows are weaseling around and doing their monkey business and they never get caught. ~Harold R. Medina


Obscenity is not a quality inherent in a book or picture, but is solely and exclusively a contribution of the reading mind, and hence cannot be defined in terms of the qualities of a book or picture. ~Theodore Schroeder


Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. ~George Bernard Shaw, "The Rejected Statement, Part I," The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet, 1911


I believe in censorship. I made a fortune out of it. ~Mae West


Censorship feeds the dirty mind more than the four-letter word itself. ~Dick Cavett


The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion


If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859


To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor▓s prohibited list. ~John Aikin


To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves. ~Claude-Adrien Helvétius


Censorship offends me. ~Author Unknown


We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy


God forbid that any book should be banned. The practice is as indefensible as infanticide. ~Rebecca West


If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky


Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." ~Lenny Bruce


Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle


Books won't stay banned -
Ideas won't go to jail.
~Alfred Whitney Griswold


You can cage the singer but not the song. ~Harry Belafonte, in International Herald Tribune, 3 October 1988


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire


The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear - stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others - must surely be resisted. ~Jonathon Green, "Did You Say 'Offensive?'," as posted on wordwizard.com

Watch the most dangerous movie...

Watch this movie about Islam. It is the most dangerous movie today. One may agree or disagree with the criticism towards Islam, and we all know that Judaism and Christianity had their ugly days, as well as pretty ugly ideas. Personally, I don't have much faith in religions. But today, there is one religion which you cannot discuss honestly - and that religion is Islam. Today, there is one religion, which you dare not insult, under fear or death - and that religion is Islam. Every progressive man should now do his best to slow down and reverse this trend. Freedom of speech means that - freedom of speech. In a free country, we cannot have "blasphemy laws". In a free country, we cannot allow the threat of violence to silence us. Today, the great battle for personal liberty and freedom of speech, is the battle against islamo-fascism. Come and join.

There are no pacts between lions and men

Hector:
I've seen this moment in my dreams, I'll make a pact with you,
with the gods as our witnesses, let us pledge that the winner will allow the loser all the proper funeral rituals.

Achilles:
There are no pacts between lions and men...
Now you know who you are fighting.

Hector:
I thought it was you I was fighting yesterday
And I wish it had been you, but I gave the dead boy the honor he deserved.

Achilles:
You gave him the honor of your sword...
You won't have eyes tonight, you won't have ears or a tongue,
you will wander the underworld blind deaf and dumb,
and all the dead will know,
this is Hector, the fool who thought he killed Achilles.

Howard Roark's Courtroom Speech

It rarely gets any better than this. A prequel to Atlas Shrugged perhaps, but incisively to its very last drop.

From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand

“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted dardness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden terrritory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.
“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.
“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.
“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.
“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.
“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.
“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.
“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.
“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.
“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of expoloitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.
“The man who attemps to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.
“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.
“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
“The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.
“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.
“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.
“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.
“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.
“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.
“Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.
“But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.
“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.
“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.
“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.
“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!
“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.
“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country. “I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.
“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.
“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.
“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.
“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
“I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.
“I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.
“It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.
“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.
“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.
“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.
“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.
“My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”

This is hillarious.

"According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change. 'The time for change is now,' said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. 'The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change.' "--Onion, March 19, 2008

Obama-mania, just as the doctor predicted

I don’t know about you, but it is fun to watch the unraveling Obama-drama. What was known to only the most attentive observers became painfully obvious to all. Obama ain’t no racial healer – but rather a slick snake oil salesman. He is very, very slick, I grant you that, but poor Obama had to square the circle – and this is burdensome for even the smartest of the smart.

As you have heard, it was recently discovered by the astonished crowds that a presidential candidate with an untreatable messianic complex was and is an active member of a radical anti-American bigoted cult, which goes by the name of “Trinity United Church”. If I have to guess, the word “Trinity” refers to the group's anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and demand for the government handouts. At least, they did not say it was a Holy Trinity. So now, the over-exposed Messiah is trying to reconcile his public image of a moderate high principled figure and the obvious truth. How exactly is he supposed to do so? Personally, I don’t exactly see any way for him to bamboozle the American electorate – because the issue is too clear-cut. For people who don’t get this simple truth I can only say that it’s amazing they can breath on their own, let alone why they are allowed to decide who will be the next president of the United States of America. This article is written for the rest of the public – and more specifically, the right-wing progressives who never had any illusions about Obambi.

I will start by stating the obvious – for 20 years Obama was an active member of an extremist group. Throughout the years he became very close with the pastor of the church - the very same guy who was screaming at the top of his lungs – “God Damn America”. I don’t know if the pastor was high on drugs or he was suffering from an acute case of indigestion – but his parishioners seemed to agree with his message. Moreover, Obama used this pastor as his political, spiritual, and no doubt sexual advisor. I suppose it is also necessary to add that Obama was not 5 years old when he joined this cult – he was a graduate of the Harvard Law School, a former editor of prestigious Harvard Law Review. In other words, he was a highly educated successful adult. Clearly, he made his decision willingly, and consciously. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew the guys he was befriending. There are two possible explanations for this – either he joined and stayed in the cult because he believed in all the garbage that was spewed there, or he did it to advance his political career. Either of these explanations makes him unelectable. Why did he join this church and continued attending it for 20 years? When did he find out that his soul mate and advisor for 20 years was an anti-American fascist? When did he find out that his pastor was a supporter of the infamous terrorist and bloody dictator of Libya Muamar Kaddafi? When did he find out the church that he attended for 20 years proclaims that blacks should not join the middle class? When did he find out that his buddy considered Israel to be a terror nation? What could be a good answer to these questions? The guy is either a complete imbecile, or a liar.


Recently, Obama decided to deal with the issue head on. Long gone were the “I never heard him say any nasty things” denials. They did not ring true to anyone who had an IQ higher than the room temperature. So, the Messiah decided to talk to the nation, explain his position, clear up the air. Amazingly, Obama chose an interesting way of explaining his associations with the unseemly character – he lectured the American people on the race relationships. Which is equivalent to a robber, who stands up in court and explains the bewildered public that they need to earn their living and that stealing is immoral. Well, it’s all nice, but who the fuck are you to talk to us in this manner? Shouldn’t you clean up your act first? In the immortal words of Hippocrates, “heal yourself first, bitch”.

The speech was cleverly designed, and it clearly aimed to impress the people of lower intelligence. As one may have expected, Obama threw some white folks under the bus. What was not anticipated was that he would choose his own grandmother to sacrifice. According to Obama, she is a “typical white person” who is a racist and a bigot. I don’t exactly know why he did it – I suppose for one, he wanted to remind the white electors that he was also half white, so they should not take all the racist demagoguery from his pastor close to their hearts. Moreover, he obviously did not mind his grand-mother’s bigotry very seriously – which meant to say that racism is okay from all sides. In other words, Obama was ready to unite all racists and bigots in one big tent and then commandeer this crowd to bring the racial reconciliation to America. This is somewhat counter-intuitive to me, if you know what I mean. In the meantime, he also threw the blacks under the bus – according to Obama most blacks are racist, who hide their feelings from the white folks – but when they feel comfortable among their people – hell, they say really nasty things about those white devilish motherfuckers. Notice a pathetic parade of black “leaders” on television asserting exactly the same thing – yes, we are all like reverend Wright, he is one of us, we all talk like that, we all think like him. Well, if it is true (and I sure hope it is not), then how exactly are we supposed to get the racial reconciliation?! It takes two to tango, doesn’t it? Heck, how can any reasonable voter trust any black politician? He may say nice things to us in public, but as you know that when he is with other blacks, you can see him wearing his black robe and burning the cross (or should it a crescent?).

Of course, Obama did not intend us to make all these conclusions – but he was in a tight spot. Firstly, he could not completely disavow the Trinity Church Fuhrer because this would have raised even more questions on his authenticity. How can anyone trust him? For twenty years Obama is close buddies with bigots, Wright becomes his closest advisor, Obama regularly goes to his church – but when the shit hits the fan, Obama treats Wright as if he is radioactive. No doubt Obama looked at this perspective and decided to dance around the issue - but it’s not easy. In chess this situation is called “Zugzwang” – every move makes you weaker. In short, Obama was fucked from the start and no fancy talking could get him out of the hole.

One of Obama's excuse is that he could not really leave community of the church of holy anti-semitism. Those hate-mongers got him closer to Christ, and they helped the poor, and they were his dear friends, who held his hand when he needed. One can find an interesting angle on the situation by recalling the infamous “I have a scream” presidential candidate and the current (ass) head of the Democrat Party, Howard Dean. As you may remember, Howard left his church because he disagreed with its decision on the bike path. And just to drive the point even further, Howard is not a godless atheist – he is a self-professed biblical scholar, who takes religion very seriously. It would be very educational to watch his response when he is tracked by the ruthless journalists and asked about his view on Obambi’s enthusiastic participation in an anti-American cult. Is anti-American propaganda more damaging to a pastor than a refusal to build a bike path? Howard, tell us what you think…

In short, the response to his speech was not surprising. The usual suspects thought that his speech was courageous, inspiring, and a huge risk to his political career as well as a revolutionary expose on race in America. Reasonable people see that Obama carefully constructed a “cover your ass” speech, which had been designed solely to save his political career. Can someone tell me – if the speech was so courageous – who exactly did Obama risk to alienate with this speech? How would any liberal change the speech and make it less “courageous” and more politically beneficial to Obama? To ask these questions is to answer them. It’s all a game, nothing more. Obama is playing the public, playing the liberals, playing the media. I hope, only the last two are stupid enough to be caught in the game, and that the public is smart enough to know the truth. And the polls show that this is indeed the case. You can deceive liberals all the time, but it won’t work on the silent majority. After all, there is a good reason why America is the greatest country on Earth. If Americans were as stupid as some people think – it would not be so rich.

Worrisome prediction...

What to expect from the newest revelations about Obambi’s ties with a radical black supremacy church? Should we assume that the 2008 presidential elections are in the bag for the GOP? I don’t think so. The one thing that goes for America and the GOP is that while Obambi is mortally wounded, he is far ahead in the popular vote and in the number of delegates. Only super-delegates, the democrat party bosses can now stop him. Will they do so? There is one troubling scenario, which goes as follows. Hillary strongly wins the rest of elections, party bosses turn against Obambi, and Hillary persuades him to be his VP candidate. In this case, either Hillary becomes a much stronger candidate, with a popular support from the DNC base, or Obambi waits 4 years, and enters the elections a much stronger candidate. Moreover, the elections 4 years from now will be wide open – since McLame is 300 years old, it’s unlikely he can go for a second term. Is this a realistic scenario? We will see. So far, all the predictions went to dust at every stage.

Here is my prediction – and I consider it to be right on the money. Here is the deal. Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor is known for his political acumen. Interestingly enough, my wife noticed one quite peculiar thing about him – usually most of his predictions turn out wrong. Just a few days ago he wrote an article, which told Hillary that her chances to win the nomination were nil. That was, I repeat, a few days ago. Does anyone think now that her candidacy is dead? By no means, of course. So, according to Dick Morris’ law discovered by my wife – Hillary is almost certain to win the nomination of the Democrat Party. You heard it here first, don’t forget about it.

Obama as a modern day Lenin...

During the nomination process of Supreme Court judges, Obama said that he could not support Roberts and Alito, because they would not give distinguish between "weak" and "strong" parties in the dispute.

What Obama is saying was already said long time ago. During the communist revolution in Russia, Lenin or some guy of that caliber thus explained the revolutionary justice (the quote is 90% accurate):
"When considering innocence or guilt of the accused, we have only one question to ask of him - what class do you belong to? Do you belong to the class of the bourgeois or to the class of proletariat? If the person belongs to the bourgeois, then the verdict is clear - up against the wall."
Or, as they were saying, "persecution is not punishment for a particular guilt." Perfect Obama.

O-ba-ma! O-ba-Ma! O-ba-ma! Zeig Heil! Zeih Heil! Zeig Heil!

Watch this dreadful video. It's really disgusting for any self-respecting individual capable of critical thinking.

Neo-neo-con thinks this video is how this phenomenon was described before.

Sally on the same page responded with a much more brutal
analogy from a somewhat earlier period. The similarity is uncanny.

Obama is really scary. I mean it.

Read the quotes from Ms. Obama. This is scary shit. She is saying that the federal government and specifically the president of the United States has to "fundamentally different kind of leadership," one that challenges people to be different, and better to one another. And that, she said to critics who say it is not his time, cannot wait." Obviously, she believes it is Obama who can take such a task on his shoulders - and he alone. Who does she think Obama is - Jesus? Is he a God, a prophet, a man of such moral values that he tops all the American people? Seriously, this is moral elitism and snobism unprecedented - or more precisely, this girl is stupidly arrogant and cannot hide it. Or, what is even more scary, she is saying exactly what the liberal idiots need to hear. Any self-respecting American should be very afraid of anyone who believes in his absolute moral superiority to be put in the position of awesome power over hundreds of millions of people. If you think Obama will be lecturing us to become better, you are very mistaken. The man will use government powers - the use or the threat of use of violence against those who are not good enough for him, let alone openly disagree with him. Is liberal fascism coming to America? It may well be so.

Blasphemy...

So now, evidently, it's a complete taboo to use Obama's middle name. If you say it - you are immediately sentenced to an eternal damnation. Why? Well, as we all know, liberals can't take a joke, that's why. Imagine for a second that Reagan's middle name was "Hitler". Heck, imagine that his middle name was Adolph. Now, do you think the liberals would shy away from saying time and time again "Ronald ADOLPH Reagan"? Hell no. It would be considered to be the funniest joke in the world that his middle name is the same as the one of the worst dictator in the world.

And yet, when it comes to their own kind - Barack HUSSEIN Obama, they become outraged. They say it's racist to say his middle name. They claim that it's an obvious slander to pronounce it. It's obvious that anyone who says "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" is doing that to promote islamophobia, racism and the like. It's a dark conspiracy to insinuate that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a moslem. Well, guys, it's not like he is "John HUSSEIN Smith", you know. The "Barack Obama" part ain't all that WASP either - and no one has a problem with it.

The only real issue with his middle name, is that it is the same as the last name of a nazi dictator that US recently deposed in Iraq, that's all. And, unless you missed it - Barack HUSSEIN Obama was trying to keep this nasty dictator in power. But all jokes aside, seriously, folks, the real issue here is that liberals cannot take a joke. They love denigrating their opponents, smearing, innuendo, slander - but God forbid republicans make a passing comment on them - they react as Victorian women who heard the word "fuck". They either faint or they spew hatred.

Coming to think of it, I think Victorian women probably behaved much better even when someone used the word "f*ck" in front of them. After all, liberals are liberals, don't forget that. They are cursed individuals.

Hey, you think "universal health care" is a good thing? Think again before it's too late.

Well, go ahead and read the article on the government run medical care in the good old United Kingdom. After you are done, don't forget to read the comments from the British folks talking about the issue. In short, yes, the government run medical care can be cheap - but you get what you pay for - if not even worse.

This is what we believe in!

Guys, here is the speech that will make your blood boil and your mind explode. This is a speech from Ayn Rand's famous book "Atlas Shrugged". I love it.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."