Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Ernie's a big fat colored guy that plays the piano. He's a terrific snob and he won't hardly even talk to you unless you're a big shot or a celebrity or something, but he can really play the piano. He's so good he's almost corny, in fact. I don't exactly know what I mean by that, but I mean it. I certainly like to hear him play, but sometimes you feel like turning his goddam piano over. I think it's because sometimes when he plays, he sounds like the kind of guy that won't talk to you unless you're a big shot....
Even though it was so late, old Ernie's was jampacked. Mostly with prep school jerks and college jerks. Almost every damn school in the world gets out earlier for Christmas vacation than the schools I go to. You could hardly check your coat, it was so crowded. It was pretty quiet, though, because Ernie was playing the piano. It was supposed to be something holy, for God's sake, when he sat down at the piano. Nobody's that good. About three couples, besides me, were waiting for tables, and they were all shoving and standing on tiptoes to get a look at old Ernie while he played. He had a big damn mirror in front of the piano, with this big spotlight on him, so that everybody could watch his face while he played. You couldn't see his fingers while he played--just his big old face. Big deal. I'm not too sure what the name of the song was that he was playing when I came in, but whatever it was, he was really stinking it up. He was putting all these dumb, show-offy ripples in the high notes, and a lot of other very tricky stuff that gives me a pain in the ass. You should've heard the crowd, though, when he was finished. You would've puked. They went mad. They were exactly the same morons that laugh like hyenas in the movies at stuff that isn't funny...
Anyway, when he was finished, and everybody was clapping their heads off, old Ernie turned around on his stool and gave this very phony, humble bow. Like as if he was a helluva humble guy, besides being a terrific piano player. It was very phony--I mean him being such a big snob and all. In a funny way, though, I felt sort of sorry for him when he was finished. I don't even think he knows any more when he's playing right or not. It isn't all his fault. I partly blame all those dopes that clap their heads off--they'd foul up anybody, if you gave them a chance.
And I can only repeat after Salinger - I feel sorry for poor Obama - I don't think he knows anymore when he is saying the right things or not. And it's not all his fault. I partly blame all those dopes that clap their heads off - they'd foul up anybody if you gave them a chance...
Sunday, January 24, 2010
In all fairness, since I was born, raised and educated in the former USSR, these methods are hardly news to me. There is one big advantage that I and people like me (as well as a huge majority of Americans) have over Alinsky - namely, we know that socialism/statism does not work. Alinsky's methods may help people like Obama to get elected - but they start working against liberals the moment the Messiah is inaugurated.
This reminds me of the later days of socialism in the USSR – any person who trusted the government was treated as a complete imbecile, or a KGB agent. Any local problem – a long line at the DMV for example was directly attributed to the malice of the rulers of the communist party, a career failure was a sure result of the deliberate actions of the KGB. There was absolutely nothing that the government could do to persuade the people, nothing whatsoever. If the government criticized a movie, hundreds of thousands would rush to the movie theatre to watch it. And today, Obama is steadily moving into this territory. And it’s no accident, since as I said, Alinsky rules work mercilessly against the statists once they get in power.
So, lets examine this rules one by one.
Rule #1 “Never go outside the experience of your people.”
Obama and his team have no executive experience, and they do not understand how economy works. Right now they are completely responsible for everything that happens in the US economy – and everything they can do would make it worse.
Rule #2 “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules”.
By default, liberal elites are hypocritical. They want good food, big cars, nice houses. And this is where they will get creamed. Anytime you talk with an “environmental activist”, tell him that you are ready to make as much sacrifice as president Obama. As long as you drive a car like him, live in a house like him, set your thermostat as him, travel with as much luxury as him – you are doing what you are supposed to for the environment. Obama sets an example – all questions and complaints should be directed to him - and no one else. Make the liberal elite live according to their ideas. I've written a few articles that could be used as rough examples of such propaganda. See here, here and here.
And here is one rule that I invented:
Rule #3 Since liberals control all branches of government, each and every failure of the government must be linked directly to president Obama and liberals.
Every inconvenience in your life must be linked to Obama and the liberals. We must set a pattern, an automatic response. Here are a few articles from me that illustrate this point - here and here.
Here is the conclusion from my last article:
“Conservatives should start putting ads in the airports, which link liberal PC policies (lack of profiling) and pathetic work of federalized airport security with the long wait times, horrible travel and abysmal security.”
And don't forget linking traffic jams and enviromental policies. Do you think it would be effective to buy ad spaces near the highways, which are known for traffic jams and put signs that say: "Stuck in the traffic? Don't forget to thank Sierra Club".
Rule #4 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”Obama is probably the easiest target for ridicule in the whole history of universe. He is a combustive combination of arrogance, narcissism, horrible advisers and ignorance. Moreover, the media adores him and that drives him completely insane. He can no longer function in the real world, which is very sparsely populated by people who feel tingles down their legs when he speaks. And last, but not least, Obama does not possess a sense of humor - which is a mortal sin for any human being, and is simply unforgiving for a narcissist.
Here are a few articles I wrote that made fun of him – we should use mockery more and more, and it will be easier and easier, since every joke will push him further and further. Two articles that could be used for this - here and here.
Rule #5 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”Today, Obama is the target – he is the face of liberalism. And this target is frozen, personalized and polarized by the simple fact that he is the PRESIDENT. And what is best - even liberals stopped adoring him. I cannot imagine how hard this fall from grace is hurting the Annointed One.
Conservatives should use this to their advantage. Obama is one man, and he is being attacked by tens of thousands of bloggers and activists, millions of tea-party attendees. You may remember Obama’s attempts to personalize his opponents – it was Rush Limbaugh, then it was Fox News, the Insurance Companies, Tea Party Movement – but it all amounted to absolutely nothing since these were small, mobile and diverse targets. Poor Obama was trying to knock down the shadows - which is impossible. And as long as conservatives don’t have a leader – he will be forced to fight the shadows. And these shadows can knock him down, as we have seen in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
And lastly – about the fart-attack that Alinsky organized in the theatre. I am puzzled that conservatives did not attempt something like this during Obama’s speech to the students. Why not allow our children to have some fun at school? Say, draw an upper lip mustache for Obama’s portrait (it’s art, art is supposed to be provocative) or bring a funny tee-shirt? If 10 out of 40 do it – they cannot punish the kids. Moreover, rebellion is fun, and it is popular. See my article written months ago.
All in all, the next 3 years will be fun...
Friday, January 22, 2010
And this brings me to the second point. It is well-known that liberal politicians love to accuse their opponents of being racists. So, it is quite possible that in November 2010, some liberals will complain that the ads that link their candidates to Obama are racist, and that by invoking the image of Obama, the Republicans are simply appealing to the white racism and bigotry. This will be the re-run of their criticism of the Willie Horton ads - but this time, it will be Barack Hussein Obama who will be the boogie-man.
What do you think - is my prediction plausible?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
When the French royalty returned to France in 1814 after the end of Napoleonic wars, the French foreign minister Talleyrand famously quipped “they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” In a very short time, the French people remembered why they had beheaded the previous king. The Bourbons did not rule France for too long after their return from the exile….
In 2009, the American Bourbons, the liberals, came back to power after the decades of political exile. Now, it's fair to say that they controlled the House and the Senate since 2007, and they threw enough roadblocks to Reagan and both Bushes, but the White House was the crown jewel that they really longed for - coupled with complete control of Congress. Finally, the liberals were setting the agenda for the entire nation.
By all means, it was the first time when they truly regained the power since 1981 - if we ignore the short rule of Clinton-the-liberal-activist in 1993-1994. Finally, it was the moment to settle all scores and "fundamentally change America". Just like the Bourbons, the left-wing establishment did not forget anything, and they did not learn anything. They still remembered that one of their ultimate goals in the last 100 years was nationalization of health care, and they went full speed to fulfill this dream. What they did not learn during their time in wilderness was that American people did not want socialism, and that they were quite distrustful of the big government. And this ignorance bit the liberals right in their sweet spot.
What happened in 2009 proved to be a complete disaster for the liberal establishment. The American people, who were lured into false belief in Obama's moderate and center-left political views, were alarmed when the new president indulged himself in a horrendous campaign, whose aim was clearly to turn the clock back to 1979, and maybe even beyond that. In all probability, Obama was interested in replaying the FDR strategy and commandeering the entire US economy from the White House. But he forgot to notice that it was another century, and different country and the old tricks were could not fool the nation anymore.
It is my opinion that the return of flaming liberals to power will be short lived, but it will act as a strong reminder to people to continue being vigilant. The presidential power is too important to be handed to a liberal, particularly a slicky one like Obama. I hope American people will re-learn the bitter lessons of the 70ies, and by 2012 liberalism will finally cease to be a respected political ideology. What we need today is one last push from the left - and they will fall off our country into the abyss.
So, all in all, I believe it would be better for America if Obama and his liberal allies continue their insane policies and completely lose their minds - try to steal elections in Massachusetts, and when that fails, delay the swearing in of senator Brown until they ram through their HealthCare Bill. And then, in November 2010, the DNC suffers the worst defeat ever recorded in world history, and the GOP turns everything around.
Back in November 2008, I predicted that liberals would be in deep trouble if Obama was elected, but even I am surprised at how quickly they f*cked up everything they touched. It’s simply amazing. I think it was Karl Marx who said that "Laughing, mankind bids farewell to its past". President Obama, thanks for all the fun.
Today, while driving to work I switched my radio to the Air America channel. I was dying to know what they had to say. Again, the libs did not disappoint - the talk show host said that Obama lost the election because he was not left-wing enough. Somehow, that was supposed to help him with independents and moderates - who, I presume out of their frustration with Obama's "right-wing" policies turned to republicans. Aren't these guys a treasure of wisdom?
All in all, president Obama is acting as a perfect uniter of this country. The entire population seems to be disgusted with liberal policies and liberal corruption.
To be fair – Obama was in a tough spot to begin with – bad economy, bankrupt banks, social security, medicare, medicaid, government pensions, unionized companies – everything bad and getting worse. Any president would have a hard time – but Obama - he was able to mix the most insane left-wing policies with complete arrogance, inability to run things, hubris, hubris, hubris, arrogance, inability to communicate with people, obvious corruption, hubris, hubris and arrogance.
I predicted in November 2008 on my blog that Obama would be a great president for America (he would drive America back to conservatism), but even I am surprised at how quickly and efficiently he did this. It's as if he was custom built in the laboratories run by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Obama, you are my most favourite American president! I am so happy American people elected you, and not that old f*rt RINO, McCain.
Anyway, the next thing I expect from our illustrious president is to go absolutely nuts in public. Rage, baby, rage. It’s all Bush’s fault!
It's a bit of a mystery though why the president declared that the malaise started in January 2002. I mean, what's so special about that date? A easy guess is that Obama forgot that he was the president of the United States for the last year, so eight years is simply the duration of Bush's presidency. Or, maybe the president is being environmentally conscious, and he is recycling the pieces of last-year speeches.
What do you think?
Coakley is allowed 67 words to explain her views.
Obama speaks 231 words - all devoted to the theme on how much America needs Coakley.
And Brown is limited to a meagre 20 words.
Isn't it special?
Now, in all fairness, we must note that while Brown is accused of being mean, his opponent, Martha Coakley, a state prosecutor, is undeniably guilty of keeping an innocent man in jail for two years. A truly objective observer would be torn apart between hurting Keith's feelings and voting for the cruel, immoral (and possibly criminal) prosecutor.
But lets ignore everything that Keith did not tell his listeners, and instead take at a face value what he did say. He continued his rant with the following explosive statement: "In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."
So, what's so special about this "time in our history"? Why is it, that the people in the most "progressive" state of Massachusetts, the state which is most pro-homosexual, pro-women, anti-racist and anti-violence ignored Obama's teary pleas to help his liberal policies, and instead voted for the "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman"? Just how horrible should president Obama and his policies be that the moderates and independents in Massachusetts would choose such Scott Brown? Why is it, when given a choice between an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman" and Obama's preferred candidate, people with a huge margin pick the "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman"?
Any takers on this puzzle? Liberals and "Progressives" are most welcome to explain this conundrum.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The whole article is nonsensical, but there is one thing that compels me to read Rick - no matter what subject becomes a victim to his interest - Rick will most surely provide a comic relief. Every time he makes a serious face and pronounces some serious stuff – you can expect him to say something really stupid.
Here is one example: “After more than 30 years of being involved in politics, I can assure you that if it is possible, it can happen.”
Think about this – it took Moran 30 years to figure out that if something is possible, then it can actually happen. To simpler minds, the terms "possible" and "can happen" are synonymous, but Rick took his precious time to realize this and then declare it to the entire world as a world class discovery. What a brilliant intellect! And if he keeps up the good work, 100 years from now he will learn how to tie his shoelaces….
BTW, back in November, Rick published a scattering review of Sarah Palin's book - solely based on his examination of the comments by the left-wing hacks. Mr.Rick was too busy to read the book itself, so he outsourced his job to the moveon-com types. It did not occur to him that their views may be skewed, and that a true reviewer should actually read the book he reviews.
If anything, Rock Moran is consistent and I highly recommend him....
Monday, January 18, 2010
And I am starting to wonder what Obama will get for the second anniversary. And I kind of doubt it will be a sweater - most likely something much more memorable. Maybe republicans will take back the House and the Senate? A man can dream, can he not? It's the Martin Luther King's day, for God's sake!
On a slightly different subject - today O'Reilly was interviewing a liberal hack from Washington (com)Post about the Massachusetts elections. He asked her if Obama's position would be weakened if Marcia Coakley were to lose the elections. The hack replied that she did not think there would be any damage to Obama. Exactly 3 seconds later, without a pause, she asserted that Obama's trip to Massachusetts and his support for Coakley's dismal campaign was a very brave action, and it showed his political courage and willingness to take a risk for the fellow liberal. It obviously did not register in her mind that these two statements were contradictory.
No wonder legacy media is going bankrupt - it is staffed with complete imbeciles...
"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."
I personally believe that this man must be investigated - it's very likely he has already broken the election laws in the past.
But what is even more obvious is that the man who is ready (and proud of it) to break the law and disenfranchise the voters to get his favourite politician win, will most likely lie for exact same reason. It's a fair question - can anyone trust his reporting from now on? Is there any doubt that the man has no integrity and, therefore, he cannot be a trustworthy journalist?
Lastly, anyone who doubts that liberals will try to rig the elections, should listen to this liberal openly calling for fraud. It must be our priority to make sure that elections are conducted in accordance with the law, and anyone who does not agree that Ed Schultz should be fired and blacklisted - does not believe in democracy and media honesty.
P.S. Isn't it ironic the a self-proclaimed "Democrat" is openly calling to abolish democracy?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
The new draconian measures taken by the TSA (detention of the passengers during the last hour of the flight, passengers are not allowed to put anything on their knees, full body scans, etc., etc.) clearly violate our civil liberties - but they are but a fig leaf against Islamic terrorism. Indeed, I haven't see any experts that could explain how any of these measures would increase security during the flight.
In short, I applaud comrade Obama. Finally, he made a promise that he did not break. Indeed during his presidency, there will be no trade-off between our ideals and security. American people will lose their civil liberties with no appreciable gain in security. Well done, Mr.President, well done! The whole country is proud of you....
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
A few days ago I've read the most recent Dave's article repeating his accusations against the tea-party, and, among other things, I was touched how he called himself and his comrades-in-whining - the "educated class". Presumably, the ill-educated Americans envy Dave and his groupies for their education and intelligence, which explains their negativity towards the ideas that Dave was able to give birth to in the last few decades.
It is fair to note though, that no one in the tea-party movement ever used this term to describe them, so it is my educated guess that poor Dave felt slighted at the indifference of the world, which forced him to praise himself and his ilk. Of course, the most flattering term which is normally reserved for the likes of Dave is "second-hand dealer of ideas", clearly a far cry from the "educated class".
Anyway, I would be curious to know how Davie defines "education". Isn't it in the eyes of the beholder? Who is he to decide that a degree in feminism is worthy more than a degree in engineering, or that a professional mathematician is less educated than a specialist in African-American studies slash Chicano-Chicana studies?
It is quite amazing that a man who can hardly solve a simplest mathematical equation, and who has a BS degree in history, suddenly claims that all his opponents hate him because of his high level of education and intelligence. This is remarkably close to an explanation that a 12 year old girl would give to her unpopularity among other girls - "These sluts hate me because I am smart, beautiful and witty". What is not remarkable is how close most liberals and castrated conservatives came to resemble adolescent girls....
Saturday, January 2, 2010
The more I am thinking about the response of the Obama National Security team to the bombing threat on Christmas, the more mindboggling it appears to be. Any individual with an IQ above the room temperature can recognize the absolutely astonishing incompetence of this administration.
The Obama team knew the name of a possible terrorist, the date of attack and the method to hide the explosive material - and they completely ignored all the information. And after the attack, Obama comes out and says it was an isolated incident, while his chief of security on TV tells the entire country that "the system worked". Heck, hand these people a cup of coffee, and they will find a way to f*ck it up!
January 2013, please, can you come sooner, just this one time? The country needs you!
Friday, January 1, 2010
- The terrorist was called "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab" (Read this name out-loud and use all your God-given intuition and think if a man with this name is more likely to join the jihad than, say, Laura van-Ingram, 80 year old blond woman);
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a devout moslem;
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a devout moslem, is a 23 year old, single male, a former student in a British University with no apparent source of income;
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the president of the Islamic Society in the University College London, which organized protests against the United States and United Kingdom. Three previous presidents on the Islamic Society face terrorist charges;
- According to his high-school teacher, little Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab strongly supported Taliban "social policies" and their barbaric destruction of the Buddha Statue;
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a devout moslem, bought a one-way ticket with cash;
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a devout moslem, was going on a trip across the whole planet, and yet he had no luggage with him;
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a devout moslem, previously made a trip to terrorist-infected Yemen;
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a devout moslem, had his visa denied by the United Kingdom;
- British MI-5 knew of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s UK extremist links, and
most likelyinformed Obama's administration;
- The father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab told the Obama-security he was a terrorist threat;
- The CIA had information that Al Qaeda was preparing a terrorist attack against US on the Christmas day, and they planned to use a Nigerian national. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a Nigerian national and a devout moslem;
- Last but not least, Obama administration was informed by the Saudis about the new method that Al Qaeda uses to deliver the explosive devices - by hiding them in the underwear.
And yet, the Obama administration willfully ignored all the warning signs. After all, it's much more fun to spend all time and efforts to push through Congress a deeply unpopular medical care bill than to protect American people from the "man-caused disasters". Heck, even house insulation is a much more exciting and "sexy" topic for Obama than protecting human lives. And don't even mention the Olympic games, Global Warming and the like.
And so, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab waltzed through security with a bomb glued to his genitals and leisurely boarded the plane. Luckily, when he tried to detonate the explosive device, it malfunctioned, and the white-privileged male from Netherlands was able to put down the fire and the bomber(the lawsuit from CAIR against the Dutch is expected any second now).
So, how did the Obama-team respond to this debacle? Luckily, they did not disappoint the anxious public. Firstly, the top Obama official responsible for protecting the American people, Janet Napolitano, declared that the system worked. Indeed, the volunteer passengers disarmed the terrorist, while her agency (which spends nearly 7 billion dollars a year) sent an email to all air-lines about the incident within the same business day.
The second step was even better - the Obama administration decided to make the air-travel even more uncomfortable for the common folks and ordered that every passenger should be effectively detained in his seat during the last hour of the flight. Moreover, the passengers won't be allowed to hold a book in their hands or cover their knees with a blanket during this time. I am guessing that even convicted murderers (let alone jihadi "freedom fighters") have more rights than American passengers.
The next step that Obama has in stock is to allow airport security to see everyone naked during the boarding (the islamic modesty exclusion rule is expected to shield moslem men and women from the infidels checking them for halal explosive belts).
The question I am asking my readers is obvious - do you feel better about Obama-security of the American people? And if you really believe that "political correctness", "fear to injure the moslem sensitivities" and general inaptness of the Obama administration had nothing to do with this colossal failure to protect American people from jihadism, then I have a whole collection of bridges over the Martian channels that should be of extreme financial interest to you.
What is worse, the same "stuck on stupid" administration will take even more civil rights from Americans, while failing to provide the minimum common sense security measures like racial and ethnic profiling. Why shouldn't we respond to terrorism based on empirical data, while abandoning the policies whose sole purpose is merely to make liberals feel better about themselves?
And while we are at it - the liberals claimed that racial and religious profiling cannot work because of the predicted onslaught of terror bombings by the blond 70 year old Swedish-looking grannies. Now, I've seen a lot of those grannies stripped-searched in the airport, but I haven't heard of any terrorists who were blond, blue eyed 70 year old grannies. If anything, the last few years proved decisively, that the ONLY contingent active in the Al Qaeda suicide movement are either the racial minorities (mostly middle-Eastern) or children of white liberals who have became an easy pray to islamic indoctrination - and who should be easy to spot by the FBI.
Ignoring the reality is a very dangerous proposition - and I hope it's the Obama administration that will pays for it dearly (at the polls in 2010 and 2012) - and not the innocent passengers through utter inconvenience in the hands of the Obama-security, let alone through death in a horrific terrorist attack.So, what exactly do I propose for all progressive people to undertake, so as to to take the country back from the hands of the Obama-regime in the next election cycle? I believe that if conservatives truly want to win the 2010 elections and re-take the Congress, they should seize on every mistake, every stupidity of the liberal establishment and show it to the public. Conservatives have to start banging the heads of the public with a loud message - "Liberals policies are stupid, expensive and dangerous", and the best way is to use time and places, where the failures are obvious.
For example: Conservatives should start putting ads in the airports, which link liberal PC policies (lack of profiling) and pathetic work of federalized airport security with the long wait times, horrible travel and abysmal security.
They could do even one better and say that anyone who likes how the feds deal with airport and flight security, would love Obama-care. Moreover, every ad should have a huge portrait of Obama (example: Obama pointing his finger in the Uncle-Sam style and saying - "I will fail to protect you), so that every time you are stuck in the airport - you enjoy watching his face smiling at you. The power of negative association can work wonders.
Lets take the country back!