Influential Canadian nipple escapes universal health care

One of the main arguments that liberals put in support of the "Universal Health Care" is that it is more fair than American free-market system. It is also proclaimed that the government-run medical care will be cheaper and more efficient, but I am not sure I even need to debunk the argument that socialism is efficient - this was achieved quite well by the Soviet despots and requires no further commenting.

An honest liberal should first acknowledge that "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payer System" are neither. The rich and the powerful will not and cannot be forced into this system. Just watch Canadian left-wing politicians eschewing the system they promote and traveling (example 1, example 2) to US to get medical care which is beyond the reach for the Canadian middle class. 

The first example is quite peculiar if not outright hysterical. Canadian MP, Belinda Stronach was and is a strong supporter of the Universal Health Care. Belinda had this to say about the right of Canadians to opt out of the Universal Health Care: "Well I dismiss the two-tier... I am not in favour of two-tier health. I been very, very consistent on the record in the last 31 days, saying I believe in universal access to healthcare, I believe in universal access to healthcare." When asked about the possibility that Canadians could pay more for faster service Belinda replied: "No, that's a two-tiered health system, which I said I'm not in favour of a two-tiered health system."

But then something unexpected happened, and Belinda decided to ignore her own pronouncements about the superiority of Canadian socialist system and sought the medical treatment in US. In spite of what any decent person would do, she has not ceased telling the Canadian people how much they were lucky to be trapped in the system of "universal" health care. "In fact, Belinda thinks very highly of the Canadian health-care system, and uses it when needed for herself and her children, as do all Canadians. As well, her family has clearly demonstrated that support," Belinda's spokesman MacEachern told the Star.

Now, it's fair to ask why Belinda, the strong opponent of the two-tier system for Canadians, actually decided that a two-tier system would actually do wonders for her. The answer is simple - while Belinda's heart and mind strongly prefer the Canadian Medical Care, her nipple apparently had second thoughts once it realized the Universal Care was about to murder it. And when her nipple speaks - Belinda listens. According to Belinda: "It was important to me at the time that I wanted to preserve my nipple, and that wasn't at the time an option that I was given here."

Note the importance of her nipple was emphasized in the same article: "Without the technique to preserve the nipple, women who have breast reconstruction can opt for a "nipple" tattoo, but that's not what she [Belinda] wanted." Apparently, Belinda has no problem with the untimely death of the nipples of average Canadians, but she would raise hell to save her nipple - and don't even mention tattoos to her.

Belinda clearly is not ashamed of her decision to have preferential treatment for her nipple - while the system she strongly supports prohibits this for the rest of her country: "When you're faced with those pretty difficult decisions, you make the choices that you feel are best for you at that time. I'm not apologizing for it ... I don't view it as a cosmetic surgery. I think it's part of the healing process." As one can see, treating Belinda's nipple is what real health care should do - but as far as every one's nipples go - this is an elective plastic surgery, and the normal average Canadian nipples are of no importance.

It's fair to ask whether the treatment that Belinda has sought for her nipple in US (and which is not available to the nipples of ordinary Canadian taxpayers) is a standard procedure for middle-class Americans. Unfortunately, we cannot get an answer to this question, since Belinda is very secretive about her nipple surgery. As her spokesman says: "As we said back in June when we confirmed the surgery, this is a personal and private matter between Belinda, her family and her physicians. I think you'll understand that because of respect for Belinda's privacy, we refrained from offering specific details around her medical treatment."

Note that while Belinda won't shy away from making decision on whether other people's nipples deserve medical care - her nipple is out of reach for the common folks, so to speak.

The second story involves the heart of an important Canadian politician that followed the steps of Belinda's nipple and sought treatment in US for its ailment. According to Globe, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, another strong supporter of Universal Health Care has suddenly discovered that his heart was ailing and travelled to US to receive required medical treatment.

That trip did not preclude him from the standard announcements in support of the Universal Health Care.  Danny is just as positive on the Canadian Medical system as he ever has been. "I have the utmost confidence in our health-care system, I certainly do," the 60-year-old said, perched on a leather chair in his condominium in Sarasota, Fla. "It's a bum rap for someone to turn around and say, 'Oh, Williams does not have confidence in his own health-care system because he has to leave the province.' "

Moreover, in order to explain his trip to the evil profit-seeking American medical facilities, Danny claimed (wrongly) that the type of surgery he was seeking was not available in Canada: "Did some checking, of course, and what was ultimately done to me, the surgery I eventually got ... was not offered to me in Canada."

Canadian doctors were not amused and noted that Danny was not 100% accurate in his description "It's his body, it's his money, hopefully, but don't tell us the operation cannot be done here. It can be done," said Arvind Koshal, director of cardiac surgery at the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute in Edmonton. Note that the doctor sounds uncertain on whether the politician used his own money to pay for the surgery, or it was actually someone else's funds - presumably the taxpayers dime. And, as you will see later, the good doctor had good reasons for his doubts.

When questioned about his choice for medical treatment, Danny Williams discovered the long-lost inner libertarian and had this to say: "This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."

Ah, this certainly clears it all up. Surely Williams has the utmost confidence in Canadian health care - it's just he does not believe it's good enough for him - but it is perfectly all right for the plebs.

Of course, Williams did not stop there, and had this to add: "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." Moreover, the same rich politician also proclaimed that he would not be ashamed to have the Canadian middle class pay for his surgery: "If I'm entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would."

In summary, Belinda and Williams, two high-level Canadian politicians strongly support the system that prohibits the right of normal citizens to escape from the government, while themselves choosing the American medical care. If anything, the rich and powerful liberals, unapologetic promoters of the government monopoly on health care turn into raving-mad libertarians when it comes to their medical care.

So, what about the fairness of the Universal Health Care? As the examples above show, the rich and powerful will still have superior service compared to the rest of the public under the misnomered "single payer system". In other words, even the names used to describe the liberal ideas are false, since it is impossible to have a single-tier system. Whether it's North Korea, Canada, Soviet Union or Great Britain, the rich and well-connected politicians will have the best health care, well above what the average tax-payer can even imagine.

What exactly does the "Universal Health Care" mean for the American Middle Class? It's fairly simple and obvious. While the top 1% of Americans will not see any immediate changes to their health care, the middle class and the poor will most likely see the equalization of their medical treatments. In other words, a hard-working middle class American citizen will be treated no better than a street bum. This will be achieved only by somewhat raising the level of care for the poor and drastic lowering the standards for the middle class. In short, following Obama's unwritten motto "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" - at least in respect to the people who are not rich and powerful like him. And don't forget, it will be the government that will determine your "need" and your "ability" to pay.

It's undeniable that many Americans will see a drastic decrease in incentive to do better in their professional life. No matter what you do and how much you have achieved, you won't see any improvement in your health care. And unless you are rich and powerful - you will be treated by the government as a bum - with same amount of respect for your needs. Does this sound life a fair system - a system where you get what you deserve?

The second consequence of the Universal Health Care system will be a drastic slow down in the rate of medical development. It should not surprise anyone that American health care is on the front lines of medical research, and that rich and powerful people from around the globe come to US for the best possible treatments. It should be also said that all new medical treatments are very expensive, but as the history teaches us - technology and mass production eventually lower the costs dramatically, and middle class starts enjoying what was before considered as luxury goods. If America were to copy the Canadian system - where would those pesky Canadian politicians go? What would have happened to Belinda's nipple and William's heart, had US dropped its free market and adopted Canadian health care?

The most maddening aspect of the current situation is that the medical science is clearly on the brink of major discoveries that could prolong human life, find treatments for numerous diseases and greatly improve our health. The genome research and nano-technologies coupled with greatly improved computational capabilities will result in some revolutionary new technologies - unless the government takes over medical care and effectively shuts down the medical progress. Theoretically, the people who are born today may live eternal lives if we do not give up the free market system. It is my firm belief that the fight against Universal Health Care is the fight for mankind - and for our children's lives.

Are you with me, comrades?

Obama answered every question with a thoughtful, comprehensive response

This was the message that DNC promoted BEFORE the healthcare summit held by our President, Barack Obama. It's quite amazing that these guys can see the future so clearly - I wonder why they don't make money in horse races.

According to the email from a Democratic strategist sent to Politico in advance of the summit, written in the past tense:

“The president walked into a room filled with the entire House Republican Conference. There were no preconditions, his only request was that it be open to the press so that the American people could see the exchange. He answered every question with a thoughtful, comprehensive response. He spoke for over an hour and discussed substantive policy issues.

“The president never once worried about it being a trap. He did not cry about the room set-up. His conduct reflected someone who was confident in his ideas, respectful of the other side, and not afraid to debate important issues."

 
Actually, I do know why the dems don't make money in horse races (Hilalry Clinton's stock deals don't count) - their predictions are normally incorrect. In real life, the republicans mopped the floor with professor of African-American grievances. Just as I hoped, republicans brought the 2,500 page Obamacare plan. The bewildered President called it "a prop" - which is quite an insult when describing the legislation he is promoting at the expense of political careers for dozens of Democrats in Congress.

I am somewhat disappointed that the republicans did not take time reading the Obamacare bill out loud, page by page - occasionally stopping for a moment and asking his Excellency, Barack Hussein Obama – "Comrade Obama, did you really expect to discuss all the 2,500 pages of this monstrosity in 6 hours? We may need some extra time to finish this."

Republicans could have also asked some deep and penetrating question about the Obamacare. For example: “My Lord, Your trustful servants have a question on the Senate Bill, that Your Excellency says is 96% of what you wanted. We are not sure what section 3, subsection J of the Senate Bill requires of your American subjects. Would YOU take YOUR precious time and explain to us in plain words what this subsection means. Hugs and Kisses, Republican Party”. I suppose Republicans decided to be as respectful and nice as was humanely possible.


I believed that GOP had to raise questions about Obama’s secret deal with the pharmaceutical companies – As was reported by NPR, the pharms agreed to spend 150 MILLION dollars in ads to support Obamacare in return for a preferential treatment in Obamacare. Republicans could also bother Him with inquires about the promised C-SPAN coverage of the entire conressional process or the secret negotiations pertaining to the Louisiana purchase.

And lo and behold, Senator McCain comes back from the grave and pushes His Excellency on these topics and more. Visibly irritated (and emotionaly shaken) President Obama replied that corruption, backroom deals, broken promises don't matter to him in the least right now because the presidential elections are over. ""We're not campaigning any more, John. The election is over," Barack Obama replied. Ah. I am glad that was cleared up.

 I hope the republicans don't forget to include his confession in the 2012 election campaign. In fact, Barack Obama, the candidate, and Barack Obama the President are so different, that they seem not to be even  acquainted.


In short: Obama wanted a show – and GOP gave him a show. He wanted to be the main character – and he was.

BTW, I was blogging during the hours of the debate, and you can see my comments here.

On a more serious note, if anyone wants to know my opinion on how to lower medical costs - I've proposed 5 simple and easy steps nearly a year ago on my blog. I reproduced the arguments below (with minor editing):


  How to slash medical costs in 5 easy steps

1. Allow the sale in the US of all medical drugs and medical equipment, which are legal in EU, Canada, Australia and Japan. FDA approval should be optional.

2. Everyone who has a doctor’s license in those countries should be allowed to practice medicine in US. Moreover, US policy must encourage and aid immigration of doctors from those countries to America. Immediate permanent residency to all practicing doctors from developed countries who want to come to the US.

3. Abolish state limitations on minimum medical insurance coverage.

4. Give private doctors and hospitals same protection from lawsuits as the government entities have.

5. Stop the influx of illegal immigrants.

Is it enough for GOP to be the party of "No"?

Is it enough for the GOP to be the party of "No"?
If you ask my opinion - no, not even close. GOP should become the party of "Hell, No!" or even "Why are you even bothering me with this crazy bullsh*t?!" I would not object, if GOP utilizes McAuliffe's reply to the Nazi hordes during the battle of the Bulge "Nuts!"


Obama slams Israel over her attempt to protect sacred Jewish sites - no one is surprised
Israeli government designating two shrines, Cave of the Patriarchs  and Tomb of the Biblical Matriarch Rachel in Judea and Samaria (commonly known as West Bank of River Jordan) as Israeli national heritage sites. Obama administration was not amused, and the "State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the administration viewed the move as provocative and unhelpful to the goal of getting the two sides back to the table." It's a bit difficult to understand why Obama administration hates the Jewish Holy sites and why their protection would be a provocation to the Moslems. Does he thing that Moslems have to destroy all Jewish Holy sites as condition of their religion?

Moreover, it's not like Israel had no reason to be wary of Moslem attacks on Jewish Holy sites. When the Moslem terrorists were destroying the Jewish Holy sites, the entire world was silent. But now, when the Jews are trying to defend them - Obama calls it "provocation". I am curious why this cannot be classified as "anti-semitism"?




Van Jones will be teaching in Princeton - as if it needs another ignorant marxist

According to worldnetdaily: "Princeton today announced Jones has been appointed a visiting fellow in the Center for African American Studies and the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the university's Wilson School. Noliwe Rooks, associate director of the Center for African American Studies, told the Daily Princetonian Jones will also conduct research and host discussions on such subjects as "the next phase of green jobs, environmental policy [and] environmental justice."

Van Jones has no credentials in science, environment or technology. His appointment in Princeton proves once again that Princeton program in "Science, Technology and Environmental Policy" has absolutely nothing to do with Science, Technology and Environment - but everything with left-wing propaganda.

Quoting Bill Maher

Bill Maher in support of government run health care: "Maher stated that Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes for it, "he only needs 51". "Forget getting the sixty votes or sixty percent - sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country - he just needs to drag them to it, like I said, they're stupid; get health care done, with or without them."


Bill Maher does not trust the government with health care: "Why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any vaccine. I don’t trust the government, especially with my health."

This is why I don't watch Bill Maher's show - he is just too stupid to see the contradictions in his own pronouncements. It's irritating.

Say what?!

President Obama on corporate lobbying - just words, just speeches

Quite recently, Barack Obama was full of anger because of the recent decision of the US Supreme Court, which recognized that corporations had the right to criticize his Majesty, the US President and his lackeys in Congress. Reliably liberal yahoo noted - the President "unloaded on a divided Supreme Court for allowing more corporate influence over elections". According to yahoo, Obama shouted at the top of his lungs that "We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans. And we don't intend to."

President's side-kick, liberal congressperson Van Hollen followed up with more outrage: "At a time when Americans are more worried than ever that special interests are running the show, this will further undermine their confidence in our democracy."

In short, if corporations are allowed to advertise against the politicians - the sky will fall, and the republic will be no more. I believe it was a mere coincidence that a few days later I was listening to NPR, and this liberal outlet told a rather peculiar story about Obama's relationship with corporate advertising. It is somewhat more nuanced than a reader would realize after listening to our president "unloading" his outrage.

Before the Supreme Court decision, our illustrious President had rather benign (but not advertised) support for the corporate ads - assuming, of course, that the corporations were supporting him. Back in 2009, when Obama was pushing for the government take-over of US medical care, he actually made some interesting deals with corporations.
According to NPR: "One of the things that the pharmaceutical industry promised to do in its deal with Obama was to spend up to $150 million on advertising." "...Tauzin and a number of these board members made this deal [between Obama and pharmaceutical companies], and part of the deal was to spend 100 to $150 million in advertising for a bill [Obamacare] that wound up going nowhere. "

Where did the ad money go? I am glad you asked...

"...the company that was hired to produce the ads and to place the ads was a company that David Axelrod, one of Obama's chief advisors and one of his chief campaign managers, the company that he used to be a partner in. "

"..His company, which still employs his son and still owes David Axelrod $2 million, was the initial company to be hired to place the beginning $24 million in advertising that was spent through to advocacy organizations that were created in a secret meeting between Jim Messina, John Selib, the chief of staff to Max Baucus, and the pharmaceutical industry and a number of other groups."

So, it was openly said that the ads came from the pharmaceutical companies, which were supporting Obamacare? Not exactly.

"Actually, these were run through an advocacy organization called Healthy Economy Now, which included a number of other groups, including labor unions like SEIU and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and they don't have to disclose in their advertising who is paying for these ads. But most of the money came from the pharmaceutical industry and from PhRMA."

In the conclusion of this passage, I will quote our President - Obama's own description of his promises: "Just words, Just Speeches." Nothing to add here, Barry said it all.


The State of Oregon raises taxes in the middle of the recession, and uses money to build a bike path
  Back in early February 2010, the bicycle enthusiasts promoted a plan to build a bike path, which they estimated would cost 630 million dollars. This was mildly surprising, since just a few weeks ago, Oregon bureaucracy promoted a huge tax increases on businesses and individuals under the threat of major cuts in education and police spending. But once those tax increases were approved by the scared public, the government found out that it had enough money for, should we say, more urgent programs than education, and building bike paths was surely most needed by the population. The plan was duly approved by the local government, and then a few days later it was revealed that the actual cost of the bike path was 2.5 times higher. The reason was trivial - the local government "forgot" to include the labor costs in the calculations of the price of the project. Only question bother me now - who is stupid enough to believe the government? 

Everytime I am told that welfare is short on funds...

I reply that this is complete bullsh*t, that the federal, state and local administrations swim in free government money. And if you meet someone who would question my assertion - show him this article and quote this statement from the administrators of food stamps:

Juan Diego Castro, 24, is a college graduate and Americorps volunteer whose immigrant parents warned him “not to be a burden on this country.” He has a monthly stipend of about $2,500 and initially thought food stamps should go to needier people, like the tenants he organizes. “My concern was if I’m taking food stamps and I have a job, is it morally correct?” he said.

But federal law eases eligibility for Americorps members, and a food bank worker urged him and fellow volunteers to apply, arguing that there was enough aid to go around and that use would demonstrate continuing need. “That meeting definitely turned us around,” Mr. Castro said.

If the welfare administration has enough funds to give aid to the middle class young educated fellows, and if it is trying to inflate the number of poor people in order to keep the government money coming - it means the taxpayers are over-taxed. There can be no argument about this. Please, ask the feds to refund the money - you've been grossly overcharged. Moreover, it seems that the government officials engage in fraud, which should be prosecuted by the law enforcement.

Lastly, what the hell is this Castro-brother doing with his education? He is paid nearly 30k a year by the federal government to do exactly what? It sounds as if his job is to "organize" the bums and use them to get more handouts from the government. Why do we pay him to do this? How exactly does it help the taxpayers? Did you ask for this service? I sure did not.

"Promoting Fascism as spirituality" award

The quote from the liberal site that wins the "Promoting Fascism as spirituality" award in 2009:


"The awakening of social consciousness has always been resisted by the ego. The ego is attached to it’s construct of reality which is based on it’s identity as separate from all others. Resistance to universal health care as a human right is the ego asserting its disconnection from the whole. The rest of the debate is just smoke, mirrors and projection."


Compare and contrast this with the doctrine of fascism exposed by Benito Mussolini:

"The man of Fascism is an individual who is nation and fatherland, which is a moral law, binding together individuals and the generations into a tradition and a mission, suppressing the instinct for a life enclosed within the brief round of pleasure in order to restore within duty a higher life free from the limits of time and space: a life in which the individual, through the denial of himself, through the sacrifice of his own private interests, through death itself, realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies."

"Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society."
"..for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people."

"The Fascist State, the highest and most powerful form of personality, is a force, but a spiritual force, which takes over all the forms of the moral and intellectual life of man. It cannot therefore confine itself simply to the functions of order and supervision as Liberalism [Mussolini is discussing classical liberalism, which is a mixture of today's libertarian and conservative ideologies in America] desired. It is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual. It is the form, the inner standard and the discipline of the whole person; it saturates the will as well as the intelligence. Its principle, the central inspiration of the human personality living in the civil community, pierces into the depths and makes its home in the heart of the man of action as well as of the thinker, of the artist as well as of the scientist: it is the soul of the soul."



"Fascism, in short, is not only the giver of laws and the founder of institutions, but the educator and promoter of spiritual life. It wants to remake, not the forms of human life, but its content, man, character, faith. And to this end it requires discipline and authority that can enter into the spirits of men and there govern unopposed. Its sign, therefore, is the Lictors’ rods, the symbol of unity, of strength and justice."


In essence, today's liberalism and progressivism are practically indistinguishable from the classical fascism of Benito Mussolini. Way to go, comrades.

What's new, pussycat? #1

Israel is preparing for war
It is reported that Israel demonstrated a strategic bombing capability. According to Yahoo : "The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel’s military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads.

At the fleet’s inauguration ceremony at a sprawling air base in central Israel, the drone dwarfed an F-15 fighter jet parked beside it. The unmanned plane resembles its predecessor, the Heron, but can fly higher, reaching an altitude of more than 40,000 feet (12,000 meters), and remain in the air longer.

I believe Israel should step up its nuclear production in order to demonstrate that a nuclear attack on Israel would result in complete obliteration of the entire Moslem world. Do you remember the liberals celebrating the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) as a major reason for keeping the peace during WW2 (of course, this was done AFTER USSR was destroyed)? Well, I have a feeling that the liberals will abandon this theory once the Jooos declare it as their main defense against the destruction of Israel.


Liberals discover that "green tax cuts" go to politically connected entities
I've accidentally found an article written by a liberal about an interesting development - the so-called "Business Energy Tax Credit", whose official purpose was to promote "Green Energy" is used by large and small companies to avoid paying taxes. The gist of the story - a well-connected foreign company Solar Panel(which accidentally does not pay any taxes in the state of Oregon) received a "tax credit" from the liberal government of Oregon - and then sold it to Wal Mart.

The article clearly demonstrates the narrow-mindness of a liberal reporter Al Norman, who fails to see the obvious. According to him, "This financing credit was designed to stimulate the development of renewable energy, and to attract jobs to Oregon. It was never intended to write down costs for retailers like Wal-Mart, whose fixation with 'green' has nothing to do with energy."

But in real life, according to one of the critics, this tax credit is "a financing scheme for people with money to make money. There's this whole industry of lawyers and wealthy individuals that sells the tax credits."  Al Norman is still perplexed and says "It is puzzling why the state would offer a huge tax break to a manufacturing company that already pays no taxes -- but the real incentive is in the provision which allows the manufacturer to turn around and sell the credit to a company that imports cheap products from China as its mainstay -- nothing at all to do with renewable energy."

Al, what you see is not a bug in the Oregonian system of taxes - it's a feature. This is how politicians get elected - by promoting nice sounding policies which in reality are nothing more than a handout to well-connected. The entire "Green Energy" is designed to help the incumbents. It has nothing to do with saving planet. Why can't a liberal "question authority"?

And here is the best part. "Business Energy Tax Credit" was supposed to cost 1.2 million dollars during the first biennium, but in real life "it cost $235 million for the current two-year budget cycle, growing to an estimated $374 million for 2011-13." And this is happening in the state that just passed a major tax increase on real businesses that produce what people need - and this tax increase ins unlikely to generate enough revenue to offset the "Business Energy Tax Credit". I am asking - who is stupid enough to believe that this debacle is not by design?! And if it is an "accident" as the governor of Oregon claims - then he should lose his driving license - he cannot be allowed to ride a bicycle, let alone drive a car. In fact, I am not sure he can be trusted with a fork - since it would be dangerous to the public.

European Union is using government money to promote itself to the children
This is another dog-bites-man story. EU commission is spending government money to persuade the children that it is a great organization. Nothing new here - this is good old Soviet agitprop.


Moslems may receive a special status in US
Another "dog-bites-man" story. A moslem man brutally kills his daughter. His lawyer argues that the moslem man cannot be sentenced to death because christians cannot be allowed to kill moslems in US - even if this moslem is a vicious murderer. The prosecution listened to the lawyer and apparently agreed with him. In other words, moslems just got a special status - above all other US citizens. Just as expected.

Hyphenated American goes toe to toe with ABC News...

One of the most devalued professions of this day and age is the profession of a reporter. In the heyday of the newspapers, a reporter was supposed to be a person of keen observation skills, ability to size up people and news, the talent to sniff bullsh*t and the temerity to report the hottest news to the public.

When you read today's newspapers, watch mainstream TV or read the blogs of "respected news sources" - do you have the impression that the reporters that work for them still possess any of these qualifications? Or, maybe the media no longer employs the reporters - instead concentrating on the so-called "journalists", whose main task is to "make a difference" - in other words promote the left-wing agenda? And what is even worse, most of those "journalists" are not terribly smart or knowledgeable - and what is worst they lack any desire to learn new things and understand the basics about the subject they "report" on.

The reason I went on this long diatribe is pretty trivial. On February 17th, ABC News published an article about Obama's newly assigned "special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference", Rashad Hussain. In the article, the ABC journalists discussed a controversy associated with this envoy - namely that he was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Sami Al-Arian - a financial and ideological supporter of Islamic terror groups.

According to ABC News, "In 2006, Al-Arian, a Florida professor, entered into a plea agreement in which he admitted conspiring to help people associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group designated terrorist by the US government in 1995. Al-Arian admitted that he hid his associations with Palestinian Islamic Jihad by lying to some people, and that had been associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad during "the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s."

According to Discoverthenetwork, "In addition to others in the video who praised the killing of Jews and Christians, Al-Arian declaimed, “God cursed those who are the sons of Israel ... Those people, God made monkeys and pigs ... Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death.” In another videotaped speech, Al-Arian said: “We assemble today to pay respects to the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish, from butchery to butchery, and from martyrdom to martyrdom, from jihad to jihad.”



Among other things, ABC discussed the accusation that Obama's envoy Rashad Hussain proclaimed that the investigation of this "civil rights activist" was "politically motivated persecutions” and that the case against Al-Arian was being "used politically to squash dissent." I am not sure why Rashad Hussain, Obama's envoy equates dissent with the calls to murder Jews and destroy America. A better name for this particular type of "dissent" is Nazi propaganda.

Until this moment, ABC was on the solid grounds - but then its reporting took a strange turn. Rashad Hussain denied making those statements about Al-Arian, and quite unexpectedly (okay, whom am I kidding - it was expected), ABC News took the side of the Obama envoy and believed his side - unequivocally. Here is the appropriate passage about the report on Hussain's explosive rhetoric:

"But that report was apparently erroneous. Hussein denies being the one who made the comments, and the editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Delinda Hanley, later edited the quotes out of the story because, she says, Al-Arian's daughter, Laila Al-Arian, actually made the comments attributed to Hussain. (The mistake was made by a then-intern at the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, who has said she stands by her original story.)"


Now, what was the basis for ABC to conclude that the report was erroneous, or that the journalist, who actually was present during those comments and  who reported on Hussain's claims was mistaken? None whatsoever. Why was ABC so sure that this report was "erroneous" and mistaken? In this "he said, she said" story, ABC took the side of the person, who had all the reasons in the world to lie, and accused the person who had nothing to gain - of making a mistake.

An attentive reader would quickly notice these "abnormalities" in the ABC "reporting" and, if he cared enough, would comment on this. Luckily, Hyphenated American was on guard, and promptly made the appropriate remarks: "So, did Hussain proclaim that a prosecution of a financiers of a terror group was "politically motivated" or not? The article claims that the journalist who reported this was mistaken, but provides no other evidence than the denial of Hussain himself. Since when is a simple denial is enough?
I tell you when - when the denialist is the one working for Obama."

And just in case you wonder - Hyphenated American reached these conclusions after he read the ABC report - and felt no need to read any other resources.

Interestingly enough, some media outlets apparently still hire professional reporters. For example, Fox News reported on February 16th (one day before the ABC screwed up the story) all the necesary details, including a short interview with the journalist that reported on Hussain's inflamatory remarks and a White House claim that these remarks were made by Sami Al-Arian's daughter. It also contained a very interesting piece of information: "The Web version of the 2004 article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs [the one which reported on the Hussain's explosive comments] was later edited to delete all of Hussain's comments. Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News she believes the change was made in February 2009, though she does not recall who requested the edit."

BTW, wouldn't it be an interesting task to find out who pressured Washington Report to delete all of Hussain's comments? That's the job for a real news organization, I don't expect ABC News to do this.


A couple of days later, the real media checked the transcripts and confirmed the obvious - that Obama's special envoy Rashad Hussain indeed made those inflammatory comments. In response to this overwhelming evidence, Obama's envoy confessed that he made those comment - which meant that he and the White House were lying.

This also confirmed what Hyphenated American knew all along - that ABC News screwed up the story. Today, the ABC page about Rashad Hussain looks somewhat different - gone  are the claims that about erroneous accusations and mistakes made by reporters. All air-brushed by ABC News - and only one sentence at the end of the ABC page says that "This post was updated after Hussain admitted being the one to have made the 2004 comments, once presented with a transcript of the event."

It's only fair to ask - why did it take so long for ABC News to see the obvious? Is this malice [i.e. ABC would inherently choose Obama's side] or incompetence? I personally believe that both are a factor here.


BTW, you may remember that "damn America" was also a popular refrain in the religious cult that Obama enthusiastically participated for 20 years.

The conclusions are obvious...

The situation with Iranian nuclear research would be extremely funny, if it were not so dangerous. Back in 2007, the liberal moles in the CIA leaked a report, which claimed that Iran stopped all the work to produce nuclear weapons. Here is how ABCnews described  it: "In a stunning reversal of Bush administration conventional wisdom, a new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program over four years ago."

The NIE report specifically stated: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program". The ABC triumphantly declared that "The new intelligence report could create an embarrassing situation for the United States as it pushes for a third United Nations resolution against Iran for its nuclear activities." So, who is embarrassed now, assholes?

In 2010, Iran is in the final stages of developing a nuclear bomb, and amazingly the liberals still cannot believe it. On February 11th, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that "Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the  the U.S. imposed new sanctions." The pygmy also added "I want to announce with a loud voice here that the first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists." And then he whispered "What else can I possibly say or do to make my intentions obvious to the liberals? These guys are driving me nuts! That does it - when we finish bulding the nukes - we will detonate them in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem."

On the very same day, the dimwitted Press Secretary Baghdad Bob Washington Bob persisted in refusing to recognize the obvious and declared  "We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree they say they are enriching."

A few days later, even the International Atomic Energy Agency could not deny that Obama's administration was full of sh*t and reported that Iran had hit 19.8 percent enrichment on two days last week.

The liberal dimwits in the State Department studied the IAEA report, analyzed the situation and came up with an even dumber statement: "I think the conclusions of the report are consistent with what the secretary was saying in the region this week. [How so?] We have ongoing concerns about Iran's activities. [I am feeling safer already!] We cannot explain why it refuses to come to the table and engage constructively to answer the questions that have been raised, and you have to draw some conclusions from that."

Indeed it is very tempting to follow the State's advice and draw some inescapable conclusions from the fact that it cannot explain Iranian refusal to give up the nuclear program. Everyone in the world knows that Iran is building nuclear bombs, and only the State officials are apparently puzzled about Iran's intentions - and are now asking us to explain why they are puzzled.

Let me be clear on this one - The State Department is puzzled because it is filled with imbeciles who cannot chew gum and fart at the same time.

Hey, State Department - is this explanation good enough for you?

Fighting for the little guy

This photo made me chuckle. A midget unceremoniously sandwiched by the two "beautiful people", Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton is a senior Democratic senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulksi. If these two liberals can be so reverent to a physically tiny, but politically powerful senator, imagine what these two would do to a John Doe from Lower Village standing in their way?

In case you don't want to leave anything to your fantasy, I will give you an idea - it's same old Chuckie who publicly called a stewardess "b*tch" when she followed the flight instructions and asked him to turn off his cell-phone.

Is "being an ass-hole" in the job description of liberal senators?

Step one - collect underwear

Another liberal defends Obama's economic policy by waiving the calculations of some liberal economists propagandists that are supposed to prove that the stimulus package #2 (the other two were Bush's stimulus package in 2008 and second Obama stimulus package is in the works) produced ten gazzillion jobs. The kid even claims that  the evidence in support of the package is "overwhelming". Needless to say I am underwhelmed - and so are all sane people.

The arguments in support of the effectiveness of the stimulus reminded me of an old South Park episode about the gnomes that were stealing underwear in South Park. Their purpose? The gnomes had an elaborate 3 step plan...
Step 1: Collect underwear
Step 2:
Step 3: Profits.

It's too bad the gnomes could not figure out what was step two.

Which brings me back to the liberal argument in support of Obama's stimulus plan. According to the left-wing economists, the federal government was to subsidize multiple state and local "shovel ready" projects, and help them to stave off the budget crunch and save the government jobs. And liberal economists were supposed to calculate how many jobs were "saved" or "created" by this government spending (which as is well-known was done in a way that would make astrologers look respectable scientists).

It was also agreed that a massive portion of the spending went to projects that the state and local governments would have probably never started in the first place in good times, let alone in the times of severe recession and the drop of revenue.

But it's quite clear that the liberal economists propagandists are just as farseeing and deliberate as the South Park gnomes (surely the gnomes have an excuse that they are cartoon characters - which is unlikely to be the defense for most of the liberal economists propagandists - Paul Krugman excluded). We know that step 1 was huge government spending. Step three was healthy economy. But what happens in between?

A true economist would ask another obvious question -  what will happen to the economy when the federal money is all spent? The federal government cannot continue borrowing 2 trillion dollars every year - it's unsustainable. Will the projects be stopped in the middle? Will the policemen, teachers and road workers lose their jobs? Did the state and local budgets reduced their deficits from 2008 and 2009 by cutting spending and thus prepared for the eventual cut off of the federal funds? Or, what is more likely, they greatly expanded spending and raised taxes in 2009 and in 2010 - and became more addicted to the government largess?

So, what will be the empirical test of liberal theory? One obvious sign of failure of the stimulus package is a double dip recession. In this case, it would be obvious that the stimulus only prolonged the recession at the great expense to the US taxpayer, and made the second recession much worse. A second sign would be high inflation in 2010-2012, which would demonstrate that the stimulus money was mal-invested, and that the taxpayer was screwed. And if we have both - high inflation and a recessions (the infamous stagflation) - then we surely know the liberal economists are indeed cartoon characters - or they are illiterate.

If the liberals are right, we will see fast job creation and fast GDP growth for the next 5-6 years. But the chances of that are minuscule - and even the liberal economists now realize that.

In all fairness, it's all quite simple to any individual who familiarized himself with the basics of economic theory and heard about the broken window parable. And I am not even talking about the real deep stuff - like the Austrian Economic Theory.

This story reminded me of a quote...

Althouse is expertly mocking Anne Lamott's wicked article about the writer's visit to India. The mockery is pretty powerful, but it is dull and un-imaginative compared with how pathetic Annie sounds on her own. With most people you would not even need to mock Annie - it would be quite sufficient to read aloud the writings of this self-absorbed, mentally undeveloped, intellectually retarded and emotionally hysterical author - and have people crawling on the floor with laughter.

On a second thought, I would probably give up a year of my life for an opportunity to debate debase this wrinkled princess on TV. She is the poster face of liberal ideology, and I cannot stop giggling every time I read anything she writes. I mean, really, can anyone be so stupid - and don't even realize it?! Does she even understand how pathetic she is - and always has been, and always will be - from the moment she was dragged out of her mother's vagina - to the moment when she draws her last breath?

But fear not, comrades, I will write a nice story that would make you all smile. Be warned - it won't be a culturally enriching story about a monkey lost in Anne's hair. While Annie feels excited when she meets foreign customs, and she is particularly excited about Indian traditions - some Westerners are grown ups and that makes them a little bit more skeptical about these other developing backwards nations.

In India, the local population used to have a peculiar tradition "sati" of burning alive the wives of recently deceased men. The British decided to intervene - which understandably led to a criticism by the local "multi-cultists" that Indian people should have been allowed to murder women. The British General Charles Napier had this to say in response to their objections: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Interestingly enough, when I pushed American liberals about the British reply on one of the blogs, some of them had the temerity to claim that British attitude towards burning defenceless women alive was imperialistic, racist and intolerant. Sometimes, I feel like Annie should have been born as an Indian woman during those dark times, and lived in the Indian areas which still followed the old traditions. That would have taught her to appreciate the Western views a little bit more and care for the monkeys a little bit less.

My blog is getting very popular - I've received a hate letter

I must confess that for quite some time my blog was missing a counter-point, a strong consistent unashamed left-wing point of view. All of the blog entries and 95% of comments were coming from right-wing, very right-wing, extremely right-wing and yet even more right-wing authors. Finally, yesterday my blog was visited by a liberal, and he was brave enough to share his ideas with the readers of this blog. Comrade Morrisminor responded to my blog entry "Meghan McCain - literacy is racist". Let me start by explaining the background and reiterating was said in my blog entry.

Meghan McCain, a mentally retarded daughter of John McCain was upset with Tom Tancredo's idea to introduce literacy tests for the voters. Even though such tests would be color blond, Meghan claimed that these tests would be inherently racist, and they would be indistinguishable from the earlier anti-black voter tests in the South.

Clearly, her claims were stupid from logical and historic perspectives. Firstly, the anti-black literacy tests were NOT color blind, and illiterate whites were treated differently than illiterate blacks. So, by default, Tancredo's proposal is completely different from the racist literacy tests executed half a century ago.

Secondly, an idea that literacy test is inherently racist - is RACICT, since it rests on the hypothesis that some races are inherently unteachable to read.

Mr.Morrisminor responded to my post with very thought-provoking claims, which I decided to reproduce here in full. He wrote:

I guess you are too ignorant and/or racist yourself to notice similar traits in Tancredo. Literacy tests have a long history here in America of denying blacks the right to vote. If LGF and Megan are far left to a Russin creep like you, then you must be to the right of Ivan the Terrible. Since I found this link on Pajama Dreck, I am not surprised at your pathetic trash.

 
I must confess that I was unduly impressed with Mr.Morrisminor's response. Firstly, he completely ignored that his main point "Tancredo's literacy tests are identical to racist Southern literacy tests" was debunked in my original post. In fact, I have a feeling that he actually did not read my post, because no one can be so stupid as to repeat the accusations proposed by mentally retarded Meghan McCain without even bothering to read the counter-arguments.
 
Secondly, I was also quite persuaded by the ad hominem attacks in the post - I was called "ignorant", "racist", "Russin creep" and my writing was "pathetic trash". Mr.Morrisminor could have spent some time developing arguments in support of his main thesis (that Southern literacy tests were color blind), or he could have used same time, effort and energy on putting together a list of insults - and we can all see which path he chose.
 
What amused me most was Mr.Morrisminor's reference to Ivan the Terrible, who in his mind was some kind of Tea-Party going, small limited government right-wing guy. I can only presume that Mr.Morrisminor is a product of American public education, and his knowledge of Russian history probably rivals his understanding of quantum mechanics.
 
Mr.Morrisminor, let me give you a little tutorial on Ivan the Terrible - all free of charge. Contrary to what you have been taught by your liberal middle-school teacher, this Russian tsar was very left-wing. If you are to the left of Ivan the Terrible, you must be somewhat between Pol Pot and Nikolae Chaushesku. If you are wondering how that could be, I will use Joseph Stalin (a solid left-winger, very progressive, very communist and in addition adored by your grandparents, beloved by FDR and promoted by the liberal New York Times) as an official reference.
 
Back in the 1940ies, a famous Russian director, Sergey Eisenstein made a 3-part movie about Ivan the Terrible. In case you are wondering why I am mentioning this man - it was Sergey Eisenstein who created "Battleship Potemkin" - the famous movie which you grew up watching in your red-diaper-doper camps. "Ivan the Terrible" was quite critical of Ivan the Terrible, and comrade Stalin (same one your grandparents worshiped as the second coming of Lenin) prohibited the showing of the second part and ordered the physical destruction of the third part.
 
In case you are wondering, comrade Stalin believed that Ivan the Terrible was a very progressive Russian tsar, far better than Peter the Great, and that if anything, Ivan was not cruel enough. Here are a few appropriate quotes from Stalin's opinion about Ivan the Terrible, which are taken from Stalin's critique of Eisenstein's movie:
 
Царь Иван был великий и мудрый правитель, и если его [c. 433] сравнить с Людовиком XI (вы читали о Людовике XI, который готовил абсолютизм для Людовика XIV?), то Иван Грозный по отношению к Людовику на десятом небе. Мудрость Ивана Грозного состояла в том, что он стоял на национальной точке зрения и иностранцев в свою страну не пускал, ограждая страну от проникновения иностранного влияния. В показе Ивана Грозного в таком направлении были допущены отклонения и неправильности. Петр I – тоже великий государь, но он слишком либерально относился к иностранцам, слишком раскрыл ворота и допустил иностранное влияние в страну, допустив онемечивание России.
 
My translation:
Ivan was a great and wise ruler and if you compare him with Ludvig XI, you would see that Ivan was much better. The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible was that he was a nationalist, and he would not let in the foreigners - and thus protected the country from the foreign influence. The depiction of Ivan the Terrible was incorrect [in Eisenstein's movie]. Peter I was also a great tsar, but he was too liberal to foreigners [the term liberal is used in Russian meaning of the word - which today's means "libertarian"], he opened the gates and let in the foreign influence, and allowed the Germanization of Russia.
 
The further quotes from Stalin are staggering - he compares Ivan the Terrible with the liberal icon - Vladimir Lenin...
 
Замечательным мероприятием Ивана Грозного было то, что он первый ввел государственную монополию внешней торговли. Иван Грозный был первый, кто ее ввел, Ленин – второй.

My translation:
The great achievement of Ivan the Terrible was the introduction of the state monopoly in foreign trade in Russia. Ivan the Terrible was the first one who introduced it, and Lenin was the second.


And last passage makes an even stronger case that Ivan was a lefty -  alas, a hesitant lefty by Stalin's standards.



Иван Грозный был очень жестоким. Показывать, что он был жестоким можно, но нужно показать, почему необходимо быть жестоким.

Одна из ошибок Ивана Грозного состояла в том, что он не дорезал пять крупных феодальных семейств. Если он эти пять боярских семейств уничтожил бы, то вообще не было бы Смутного времени. А Иван Грозный кого-нибудь казнил и потом долго каялся и молился. Бог ему в этом деле мешал… Нужно было быть еще решительнее.

My translation:
Ivan the Terrible was very cruel. It is permitted [permitted!] to show his cruelty, but it is necessary to show why it was required of him to be so cruel. One of the errors of Ivan the Terrible was he had not cut the throats of five largest feudal families [Stalin uses a very literate term - he indeed believed that Ivan should have murdered the 5 families in their entirety]. Had Ivan the Terrible exterminated these 5 families, there would be no Time of Troubles.

Ivan the Terrible would execute someone, and then he would be repentant and praying to God for forgiveness. God was an obstacle to his policies. Ivan should have been even more decisive in his actions.

And as far as left-wing authorities go - Stalin beats you hands down. If this world renown leader of communism believed Ivan the Terrible was a left-winger, who are to doubt him?

And lastly, I was to ask a very pointed question. If an "ignorant", "racist", "Russin creep" writing "pathetic trash" is smarter and more knowledgeable than you are - then what does it make you? Give it a thought, comrade.

Everyone, please, act surprised and fast

The State of New York, one of the crown jewels of liberalism is in dire financial straits. The 2010-2011 budget deficit is a cool 8.2 billion dollars. And if you think this is due to a dramatic drop in the revenue - let me show a simple graph that clarifies the issue. On the y-axis, you will see the total spending in the NY State, and on the x-axis you see the budget year.

As you can see, the NY spending was going up relentlessly, even when the economy started tanking in the end 2007. And, as one would expect - at some point the revenue became less than the spending, and the budget deficits crawled in. No mystery there for people who finished middle school.

So, who runs this dysfunctional state? It must be mentioned that the current governor of the state is completely accidental. The elected governor of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, previously known as a top prosecutor of all sins, real and imaginary, was caught hiring very expensive prostitutes and screwing them in fancy hotels (according to one of the prostitutes, he enjoyed wearing socks while he was doing them). In response to the scandal, Spitzer resigned in March 2008, and his side-kick, David Peterson, a man of equally high moral values moved into the governor's office.

Governor Peterson, a financial genius extraordinaire decided to improve the State's financial difficulties by expediting the legalization of casino business. Previously, the NY authorities invited world-renown companies to compete for the right to work in the State. NPR reports that the "process took years and years, and the rules kept changing. But when the state finally asked for bids to run it, a lot of famous casinos applied: Harrah's, MGM Mirage, Hard Rock Entertainment. There was big money at stake."

All is well that ends well - and according to NPR, "...in a secret process, the governor and the leaders of the legislature did not pick MGM or Harrah's. They picked a group called AEG, which runs some of Elko, Nevada's finer establishments." A naive reader will most likely assume that a small unknown company from Nevada offered the best deal to the long suffering taxpayers of NY - and get quite excited about this Cinderella story.

According to wikipedia, the word Cinderella  "come to mean one whose attributes are unrecognised, or one who unexpectedly achieves recognition or success after a period of obscurity and neglect." And boy, is it true for NY State. The achievement of AEG came quite unexpectedly after a period of obscurity.

The reliably liberal NPR noticed that the choice was influenced by some, should we say, unconventional reasons - because according to Peterson "AEG was ranked number two in the process".  And true - what kind of Cinderella would be rated #1 in a decent fairy tale in NY State? So, what could have forced the governor of NY to betray the financial interests of the taxpayers and choose an inferior company? As Peterson explains "They [AEG] had a good relationship with the community. They had a strong minority in women's business quotient to their plan." 

This explanation fails to clarify the actual decision making process. How exactly have Peterson and the team of accountants calculated the community relationship? And what is the meaning of a mystical term "strong minority in women's business quotient"? Is it better or worse than, say, a "weak majority in Eskimo's' business quotient" - and by how much? Is one Eskimo worth more than a woman or less? Is there a formula that we can put into a computer and check which company comes first? And why were these criteria not clearly explained beforehand? And why would the governor of a near-bankrupt state spend his time counting the number of women in a company - hasn't Spitzer's story taught him anything? Finally - the most important question - was Peterson wearing socks when he screwed NY taxpayers and picked AEG?

Of course, things were much simpler, and Mr.Peterson did not spend time counting women or Eskimos. The mystery was resolved when NPR announced that one of the owners of mysterious company is a NY big shot, former Congressman, Floyd Flake. Any Cinderella worth her britches needs a fairy - and Floyd was the one. It's fair to say that Mr.Floyd was a typical NY fairy - Director of an African-American Center in a university, former House Representative, who resigned in the middle of his term, and prosecuted for fraud and embezzlement of church funds (a friendly judge was able to defend Mr.Floyd from conviction). In spite (or because) of all his shortcomings, Mr.Floyd is a very powerful figure in the NY State politics today, and could be quite useful to Mr.Peterson's re-election campaign.

And thus all became clear - NY taxpayers were sacrificed in order to help Peterson's re-election. And the mystical term "community relationship" simply meant the obvious - how friendly or useful were the company owners to Mr.Peterson and his political future.

This story brings us to a query - is it possible that every time a liberal politician tells you that the government should choose businesses based on some non-monetary unquantifiable values - he may have an ulterior motive? Maybe it makes them easier to operate like a  fighter plane and ask one simple question - "Friend or Foe?" If you are a friend to the politician - you will get the business. If you are not - well, you better think fast on how to become his friend. Everything else is pure bullsh*t for idiots. And I trust there are no idiots among my readers. Am I right?

BTW, during the entire report, NPR was unusually shy and did not find it appropriate to mention the party affiliation of Mr.Peterson and Mr.Flake. Any attentive reader would immediately guess that they are both Democrats - and he would be correct. The Democrats - the Party of Corruption. Another "dog bites man" story.

Lawyers will be lawyers...

The saga of a scumbag lawyer and Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards is continuing. ABC News reported that his wife was trying to silence Johny's former assistant and friend Andrew Young through a frivolous lawsuit. She is claiming that he destroyed her marriage by helping Edwards conceal his affair - and she promises to withdraw her suit if he vows complete silence on the matter of her husband's infidelity and pays up a lot of cash to her personal fund. As I said in the title of this post - lawyers will be lawyers.

Both Edwards' sounded and looked like parasites that were living off their "pro-poor" propaganda and frivolous lawsuits (remember how Johny channeled the thoughts of a fetus?). Now, they are going for the jackpot - violating freedom of speech, individual liberty - everything - just in order to hid some of the crap they have done. This is pathetic.

If only there were a single honest media organization, that could come out in support of Andrew Young and made it their mission to protect freedom of speech and make Edwards finally disappear from the national arena into complete oblivion - but only after returning all the money that he collected from his infamous lawsuits.

A few tasty pieces...

ABC News mixes cause and effect

In their recent article ABC News blog had this to say: "The President says he's trying to reach across the aisle but the Republicans are not reaching back. And in the latest ABC News poll we may see the reason -- Republicans are in a dramatically improved position for the midterm elections..."

Interestingly enough ABC puts Obama's words in the same category as Republicans' actions. Note that back in the spring, when Republicans invited Obama to meet with them and he refused, the ABC did not say that the president was not reaching back .

But even this is small potatoes compared with a very obvious logical error in the media "reporting". ABC claims that the cause of Republican refusal to reach out to Obama is their huge popularity among American people. But in reality, the opposite is true. GOP popularity was growing through out the 2009 BECAUSE they did not bulge and did not cooperate with Obama's radical agenda and kept voting " HELL NO" on all his proposals.

If you doubt this, I suggest you remind yourself that cause cannot come after the effect.

According to the Washington Post poll, "asked how they would vote in the November House elections, Americans split evenly — 46 percent siding with the Democrats, 46 percent with the Republicans. As recently as four months ago, Democrats held a 51 to 39 percent advantage on this question."

"When narrowed to registered voters, Republicans edge out Democrats 48/45. Four months ago, Democrats had a 12-point lead." Clearly, when the Grand Old Party rediscovered its conservative roots and started opposing the Obama agenda their popularity skyrocketed. Cause and effect...


Government unions attack the Tea Party

According to Fox News, major pro-Obama government unions covertly poured millions of dollars into the campaign against the anti-tax, anti-big government "Tea Party" movement. No one should be surprised that those unions depend on the federal funding, so their support for Obama and attacks on the taxpayers are expected.

One question stands out - who is representing the American taxpayer in the federal government? Obama, a man who wines and dines with the government unions (at the expense of the taxpayers)?


German government pays for stolen private information
 
An article in pajamasmedia informs the readers that German authorities decided to pay €2.5 million to the criminals that had stolen information from the private banks in Switzerland. The declared goal of this action is to raise the tax collections.
 
It would be interesting to see the reaction of all the liberals that were outraged because some civil-rights activists copied the a few emails from the CRU and shared them with the public. After all – if what Germany is doing is not a crime, then neither is the copying of the climate emails.

A quick retort to John Brennan...

Assistant National Security Advisor John Brennan wrote a peculiar article for USA Today. Sure enough, evil right-wingers came out and demolished him - check out powerlineblog  for example. I don't feel like competing with the big guys - I don't have the time, nor the talent, but I decided to respond to at least one sentence in Johnny's article. Here is what he says: "And the notion that America's counter-terrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd."

Now, does anyone in his mind shares John's confidence in the ability of "system worked" Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, to combat Al Qaeda "human caused disaster"?  Or maybe in the skills of the terrorist-freeing Eric Holder? Or perhaps the recent  failure of Obama's security apparatus to stop a KNOWN terrorist from boarding the plane and nearly blowing it up makes them feel confident about our security?

I mean, if anything, the hysterical shriek "Don't read me lectures, I am better than anybody else, so shut up, you evil anti-Americans" makes me feel even more nervous. People, who are so unable and unwilling to listen to criticism are destined to fail. And the failure of Obama's security apparatus means the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of people.

Meghan McCain: Literacy is racist

According to little green Johnson (formerly a progressive right-winger and currently a blogger with a progressive case of untreatable and acute liberal insanity), Meghan McCain, a classical brain-dead left-wing bimbo (and also a daughter of senator McCain - need I say more?) claimed that Tom Tancredo was a racist. What exactly did he do to deserve such a harsh treatment? In his recent speech Tancredo proposed a literacy test for all Americans as a condition for voting. He also claimed that illiterate people were the ones that put Barack Hussein Obama in charge of this country.

In her remarks, the plus-sized model claimed that literacy tests were innately racist, and, making fun of Tancredo's age, said that revolution was always launched by young people. The art's history major also claimed that Blacks could not vote in the 1950ies because of the literacy tests of exactly same nature that Tancredo proposed. And, as you may imagine, the little green football agreed with her.

At this point I am torn between leaving this stupidity as it is without commenting on it - or spend time and actually rip it into little pieces. After some hesitation - I decided to rip it into little pieces - since I am feeling I owe it to those very few that clicked on my link and decided to read my posts. Here it goes.

Firstly, to suggest that a literacy test, executed in same way for all people who wish to vote, is innately racist is, well, racist. Can Meghan explain which races have innate illiteracy? Does Meghan believe that some races inherently cannot learn how to read and write? Clearly, her claims indeed make it obvious that she does believe so.

Secondly, the literacy tests designed to keep Blacks from voting were not color blind. Wikipedia states that "... the literacy test was applied in a patently unfair manner, as it was used to disfranchise many literate blacks while allowing many illiterate whites to vote." In other words, Meghan either does not know anything about the Southern literacy tests, or she is lying. In short, she is either illiterate (innately or not - who knows?) or evil - and quite possibly both.

The point she raised about the age of the revolutionaries is also quite peculiar. For example, George Washington became the Commander in Chief of the US army at the age of 43. He became the US president when he was 56. In short, he was hardly a teenager - particularly if we take into account that people live and stay active much longer today. Vladimir Lenin was 47 years old when he commandeered the communist takeover of the Tsarist Empire. Mao Zedong conquered China at the gentle age of 55. Abraham Lincoln took over presidency when he was 52.

All in all, what Meghan McCain demonstrates is that while genius may be lost from one generation to another, the idiocy is not only saved but greatly multiplied. As for the little green football - I refuse to make fun of his medical condition. It would be too politically incorrect. I can only hope that some day he gets better.

That's a fair question...

Another Black Conservative posted a photograph of an ad which features our previous president, Mr.George W. Bush. If you click on the link, you will see Mr.Bush asking a very pertinent question.
Check it out.

Another castrated conservative strikes out....

It is always painful to watch the castration of a perfectly fine, tough-looking conservative writer. It's even more painful when the castration is voluntary and self-performed.

Today, Ron Radosh published a bizarre article against Glenn Beck. There is no sense or reason in it, and apparently no one put a gun to Ron's cat and demanded that he betrayed his principles in order to save the life of his pet. It was all uncoerced, enthusiastic and silly.

The article itself is quite illogical. On one side, Radosh argues that Martin Luther King was indeed a communist. On the other, he claims that FBI agents slandered him when they said that King was a communist. On one side, Radosh says that it's well known that King was a communist, and there is no need to get alarmed when his supporters come out and tell the public just that - it is common knowledge that King was a communist. On the other side, Ron confesses that King was indeed very secretive (if not outright deceiving) about his communist and Marxist leanings, and he purposely differentiated between his public announcements and private conversations (this reminds me of the PLO and Yasser Arafat).

The twists and turns in Ron's article are nauseating. It's worse than Obama's attempts to explain how on one side he did not know that his pastor of 20 years was a nut - while on the other side that surely he could not miss Wright's heated claims, but had to disregard them because Wright was a father figure to him. What Ron forgot is that he is no Barack Obama, while Barry read his claims from a teleprompter, Ron was forced to perform his intellectual slalom in writing.

And if you read Glenn's opinion that Ron attempts to criticize - it strikes you as quite reasonable. Glenn says that King's communist sympathies were not common knowledge, and that he believes the reason why King's friend came out with the announcement of King's political "infidelity" to the principles of liberty are most likely calculated to mainstream the communist views. What's so wrong about this? Isn't Glenn's view at least plausible?

So, why the fury, Ron Radosh? Are they holding your cat hostage? Don't be so upset, we will all chip in and buy you another cat - even better than the one you had.


P.S. In case someone is wondering, I love cats, and I kept cats in my house for decades. I want everyone to understand that I am not cato-phobic. But in all sincerity I must confess that sarcasm is my first love, and no cat would dare to stand between me and a mean-spirited joke.

Why I don't recycle - a personal statement

I’ve recently noticed that even my progressive right-wing friends are stunned when they find out that I do not recycle. If I get a hold of an empty bottle or some scraps of paper in our house before my wife does - they are immediately sent to the normal garbage bin. I believe that my friends deserve an explanation.

I will use two stories to give some resemblance of reason behind my actions. I believe anyone who reads them will – if not outright agree with my position – but at least understand my rationale.

The first story is apocryphal, and I cannot guarantee its veracity. Lord Keynes, the infamous inventor of the Keynesian economics was a devoted teetotaler, he refused to smoke tobacco products, and he was a fanatical pacifist. The outbreak of the First World War left him outraged with the insanity of mass murder in a useless war. At some point later, he had heard the passionate speech of the British Prime Minister Lloyd George calling on the British citizens to shun the excesses of personal consumption, particularly drinking and smoking, as a sign of support for the nation’s war against Germany. Immediately after hearing this speech, Lord Keynes once and for all abandoned his previous habits, and engaged in heavy drinking and smoking. Surely Lord Keynes understood the health repercussions of these activities – but he could not resist the opportunity to give the middle finger to the establishment. While I am surely no Keynes, and we are not talking about the World War, I must still confess that the urge to give the middle finger to the liberal busy-bodies is a pretty laudable feeling.

The second story features two famous Russian poets, Joseph Brodsky and Yevgeny Yevtushenko, and one famous Russian writer, Sergey Dovlatov. It must be said that Brodsky was a  devoted anti-communist, and before immigration to the West, he was poor, his poems were not published. What is worse, at some point in his life he was exiled to Siberia by the regime because the government did not believe that being a poet qualified as a proper employment if he could not provide a government approved license.

Yevtushenko on the other side was a rather well-known poet, well-treated by the communist regime in spite of his occasional outbursts against the excesses of stalinism. One of his published poems was devoted to the heroism of the Soviet people during the building of a hydro-electric station on the Volga River (if you don't feel a sudden unstoppable urge to puke your guts out after you've read about the subject of his poem - I can bet serious money you never lived in a communist country). It should not surprise anyone that Yevtushenko's unofficial nickname "Euvtuch" was chosen due to an obvious similarity with the word "eunuch" (in Russian these two sound nearly identical).

Needless to say that Brodsky hated Euvtuch with all his soul. The reader should also realize that Brodsky indeed was one of the top nine Russian poets of all times (I believe the other eight are Alexander Pushkin, Michail Lermontov, Joseph Mandelshtam, Sergey Yesenin, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Boris Pasternak, Marina Tsvetayeva and Anna Akhmatova), and there was no comparison between the two of them – which was well understood by all educated Russians including Yevtushenko and Brodsky.

In 1972, Brodsky was expelled from the USSR, he immigrated to the United States, became a renown poet in his own right and won the Nobel Award in literature. But even this dramatic change of fate did not alter his attitude towards Yevtushenko. At the time, there were rumours that one of the root causes for this hatred was Brodsky’s belief that Yevtushenko was a KGB informant and that he was instrumental in its efforts against the young dissident poet. Whether it is true or not is unknown and unknowable - and at this point is beside the point.

Sergey Dovlatov, another Russian writer who found his fame after immigration to the US, was a close friend of Brodsky. According to Dovlatov, in the end 1980ies he visited Brodsky in the hospital. Brodsky was recovering from a heart attack in the intensive care unit, and his situation was quite serious. Dovlatov tried to cheer up the poet and told him that USSR was reforming itself, and that during the latest Party Congress, Yevtushenko was publicly advocating the abandonment of the system of collective farms and freeing the peasants from communist oppression. Brodsky thought about the news for a moment, and weakly replied – “If he is against the collective farms, then I support them”.

There surely is no doubt that Brodsky, like all progressive Russians, was solidly against the system of forced collective farms, and his retort was in pure jest. But joke or not, his attitude was easy to understand – if communist activists were against something, then it only made sense to support it. And to Brodsky, his arch-rival Yevtushenko was more than a "sell-out" or a "conformist" - to him, Yevtushenko was the epitome of the two-faced oppressive communist regime.

So, how does this all have to do with me? My political views were formed during the last 5 years of Soviet Union, and even today my natural inclination is to support everything that the communists oppose. After I have stayed for more than a decade in the US, my initial reaction to anything that liberals propose follows the same pattern. If liberals support the gay marriage, then I am against it. And don’t even start with Global Warming or recycling. If there is any way I can do to stick my finger in the eye of the left-wing establishment and the liberal busy-bodies – I will gladly do it. You may disagree with me – but who are you to throw rocks at me? Are you without a sin?

And when it comes to “recycling”, the most mind boggling thing is the level of self-righteousness of the left-wing activists, which knows no bounds or limits. The reader may well remember the South Park’s sarcastic episode which poked fun on the smug drivers of Toyota Prius. And indeed, as the cartoonists correctly noted – the real danger to the nation comes not from the pollution smog – but rather from the smug of the liberal busy-bodies, who won’t rest until everyone is forced to give up all of the life’s pleasure.

I am often puzzled how anyone can indeed surrender to the demands of the environmental wackos without any protest, let alone volunteer support for their agenda. It’s one thing if you decide to recycle a plastic bottle of your own volition, and it is quite another when the State coerces you to do it through fines or higher costs, while the smelly activists are pouring scorn at you for not following their orders fast enough. And the recent trends to ban plastic bags in the stores makes me wonder if the liberals have retained any sanity.

Now, that I shared my views on the subject – do you feel that my personal decision not to recycle is based on some logical arguments?