Thursday, May 31, 2007

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says. Larry says: Bullshit!

Hold on there Mrs. Clinton, you sanctimonious elitist bitch. I ain't in nuthin' with you.

Why can't you just come out and say it: You're a socialist. You're a even a communist.

You've got some nerve to call for a socialist society by stating "it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity."

What the hell do you think we've been doing? We live and breathe the god damn Federal government every day of our lives as it is. You want even more encroachment?

Go to hell.

I don't need you to tell me who I should be responsible for. And don't you dare stand on your stump and give me speeches about sharing my prosperity. (Unless you want to give me a hint on buying and selling cattle futures.) You elitist pukes are all alike. You live like kings and queens -- mostly on the taxpayer dollar -- and you spread your lies that government is going to cure all our ills. Well government doesn't have any cures. No "Have nots" ever became "Haves" due to welfare. Government handouts do not create success.

I don't begrudge anyone who earns a dollar -- or a billion dollars -- in a free market place through their own hard work and ingenuity. But no matter how much money you have there will always be someone who has more. So what? No one should feel guilty for being successful. No one should feel resentment because someone else makes more, either.

Do we have to pay taxes? Yes, of course there are basic functions that are required of the federal government.

But your communist 'it takes a village' ideology stinks. I'm tired of being made to feel guilty for every failure out there. I'm tired of being told I have to support someone just because I've been more successful than someone else. This is America, the Land of Opportunity, not the land of guarantees. You do not have a 'right' to be successful.

If you really want to talk about fairness then stop screwing around and pass the
Fair Tax and give us all a break. If you really want our children to have a better, more secure financial future then cut loose from your collective grip on a portion of their Social Security money so they can invest it themselves (It's already too late for us). If you really want our kids to have a better education then shut down the iron-fisted monopolistic hold of the Teacher Unions and open our schools to real competition through school vouchers and academic competition.

If you don't really want these things, then shut the hell up.

Argg.. you make me so damn mad I can't even type.


Wednesday, May 30, 2007


Wednesday - May 30, 2007


"Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position."

[Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

[Hillary Clinton, 1993]

"When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?"

[Henry David Thoreau]

Well .. there you go.  A few different opinions on the value of the individual and individualism.  This Thoreau character seemed to recognize the primacy of the individual.  You really can't say the same for European fascists and our probable next president of the United States, the smartest woman in the world, Hillary Rodham.

Have you been listening to Hillary?  I'm not asking if you've been hearing her.  The question is have you been listening?  Have you taken her words, sat down and absorbed them?  Have you looked for the nuances?  Have you tried to read between the lines?  Remember her "I want to take those profits" rant after Exxon Mobile released their FY 2006 profits?  Listen, folks.  Hillary .. the real Hillary ... is starting emerge from her den.  If you listen --- really listen --- you aren't going to like what you hear.

Read those quotes in the box again.  Notice that our probable next president is right in there with the fascist pre-WWII leaders of Europe in her rhetoric.  Hillary-the-anti-individual is on the prowl.

Hillary played her anti-individual cards yesterday in Manchester, New Hampshire.  She was speaking to a group of high school children who attend what is basically a technical high school.  In other words, unless I miss my guess, you won't find these young people filling out a lot of college admissions applications.  A perfect place to play the class warfare game.

Hillary Rodham seems to have developed a bit of a code phrase for her anti-individualist philosophy.  Much like eco-radicals have decided that global warming should now be called "climate change," Hillary has now decided that a society based on the value of the individual should henceforth be referred to as an "on your own" society.  The phrase "on your own" certainly exemplifies the concept of individuality.  It implies that each and every person in this country is an individual who carries the primary responsibility for their success or failure on their own shoulders.  Well, a big-government liberal can have none of this!  Haven't we learned that it is the government, nor the individual, who bears the primary responsibility for whatever measure of success the people are to achieve in their lifetimes? 

Hillary exemplifies the essential difference between a liberal and a conservative.  The conservative believes that the individual lives for themselves while the liberal believes that the individual exists to serve society.  Conservatives believe that the individual should be free to act freely and independently so long as they don't violate the rights of others; liberals believe that for the individual to act freely and independently IS a violation of the rights of others ... a violation of the basic human rights of the other members of society who somehow have developed an enforceable claim to a portion of the lives of their fellow men.

In short, conservatives, and especially libertarians, believe that the individual owns himself. The liberal believes that the individual belongs to society, an entity to be exploited for something called "the common good."  The libertarian believes that the best thing a person can do in this life is to live their own life in responsible and self-sufficient manner so as not to impose a burden on others.  The liberal believes that we have a duty to live our lives for the benefit of others or for society.  To do anything else is to be "selfish" or "greedy." 

You need to read between the lines here.  You need to digest what this lady is saying.  Hillary Rodham is presenting herself and her philosophy on freedom and individual rights to the entire country.  Her "on your own" usage is nothing less than a negative reference to individualism.  Her reference to an "we're all in it together" society represents her strongly held belief in collectivism.  You're not in this for yourself.  You don't matter.  You're in this for society.  You exist to serve the needs of your fellow men, with government your life's choreographer.

Listen ... listen hard.  Listen well.  Absorb.  don't just taste the words.  Digest them.   Hillary is talking. 

Yesterday Hillary said that Bush's "ownership society" is really nothing more than an "on your own" society.  Ownership.  Now that is a solidly individualistic concept, isn't it?  Ownership means "This is mine.  Not yours.  Not ours ... mine.  I created it.  I earned it.  I -- an individual -- own it, and it can't be taken away."   Well, there will be none of this "ownership" stuff for Hillary!  No!  She says "I prefer a 'we're all it it together' society."  Translation?  "You don't own it.  We own it.  It's not yours.  It's ours.  We're all in this together." 

Follow the path through Hillary's darkened woods a bit further.  If the concept of ownership and the ownership society is to be replace by a great, warm and wonderful collectivist "we're all in it together" society, what does this say about your property?  More particularly, what does this say about the wealth that you create by sacrificing portions of your life to hard work?  Why .. that stuff isn't yours!  It's ours!  Remember?  We're all in this together!  And this is where "fairness" comes into play.

Hillary used the "F" word a few times yesterday at this tech high school.  She told the students that we needed to be "pairing growth with fairness"  And just what is fairness to Ms. Rodham?  Don't we deserve a definition somewhere along the line?  We certainly knows what the word means when it's applied to broadcasting, don't we?  The Democrats want to bring back something called the "Fairness Doctrine" to radio?  The working definition of fairness in this application is a system whereby all points of view, no matter how widely or narrowly held, are given equal attention on privately owned radio stations.  The ideal situation would be one where differing opinions are equally expressed.  No consideration is given to the fact that people with differing views are invited, even encouraged, to express those views on the air.  The question revolves not around the ability to express differing viewpoints, but whether or not those viewpoints are, in fact, being expressed.

Perhaps "fairness," to Hillary or any of her Democrat-socialist comrades, means not so much whether a person is free to apply themselves, to work hard and to make good decisions in order to acquire wealth, as it does whether or not the wealth is spread properly among the people.  Remember -- Democrat rhetoric would lead one to believe that wealth is distributed, not earned.   

So .. here is Hillary Rodham telling these high school students that "Fairness doesn't just happen.  It requires the right government policies."

Ah ha!  There you go!  It takes government to be fair!  And just how does government bring fairness to favor our land?  Through the exercise of its unique ability to use force to accomplish its goals, that's how!  Taxes!  Fairness is brought about when the government redistributes income!  Just as Democrats want to create an artificial, government enforced balance of opinions on the airwaves, so Hillary wants to create an artificial, government enforced balance of wealth in the people.  The methodology is simple.  Take from those who have, give to those who have not. 

Hillary complained about the gap between the rich and the poor in yesterday's speech.  Now I've told you that the rich keep getting richer in our society because they keep doing the things that make them rich.  Ditto for the poor.  Democrats, Hillary Rodham in particular, have a different perspective.  The rich keep getting richer because they're operating as individuals.  These people are operating "on their own" and not participating properly in an "all in it together" society.  But, since fairness requires the "right government policies" it is perfectly OK just to step in, seize some wealth, and redistribute it.  Ownership?  What ownership?  You say you worked for that money and it is yours?  What? Do you really think you're "on your own" here?

Tax increases.  Here they come.  Not because they're necessary for our economy.  Not because the government needs the money.  Remember, our economy is growing, the deficit is shrinking, and federal government revenues are actually rising faster than federal government spending?  Tax increases?  For what?  Come on, folks?  Aren't you listening?  To make things fair!  That's for what! 

Hillary certainly knew her audience yesterday, though she may have misunderestimated their ability to understand her policy initiatives.  She did tell them that she wanted to expand the hideous Earned Income Tax Credit.  The EITC is no tax credit, my friends.  It's welfare.  An income redistribution payment.  From those who achieve "on their own" to those who have not.  The "on your own" types sacrifice property for the "we're all in it together" at the bottom of the economic food chain crowd. 

This woman is dangerous.  Perhaps the most dangerous politician in America.  This is a woman who believes that America is great because of its government, not because of the dynamic of individual freedom, economic liberty and the rule of law.  She casts wealth redistribution in the light of "fairness" and decries the concept of ownership.  Her attacks on individualism are clear, as is her affinity for "we're all in it together" collectivism.  Her professors had it right.  Socialist.


A smart person (and I've never suggested that Hillary isn't very, very smart) recognizes that in order to destroy a person's awareness and appreciation of themselves as an individual, and to promote the collectivist ideal, you need to start working on their psyche as early as possible.  There was, after all, a reason why Marx and Engles were so adamant in The Communist Manifesto that the government just absolutely had to be in charge of educating our children.  This lesson certainly isn't lost on Hillary Rodham.

Even before her Tuesday speech to that tech high school in New Hampshire, Hillary was speaking on Monday at an elementary school in Miami.  There she called for a nationwide pre-kindergarten program.  She wants the federal government to seize an additional $5 billion of wealth from American taxpayers and give it to the states to get their Pre-K programs cranked up.  The tally would increase to $10 billion over the next five years.  And where would the money come from?  Well, for one, Hillary says we could cut the $500,000 a year the Bush administration is spending for private contractors. 

Now what Hillary is referring to here as "private contractors" are really private Pre-K programs receiving grants from the federal government.  OH NO!  There will be none of that under a Rodham administration.  None of this taxpayer money for private education stuff on her watch.  The government must run the education establishment.  Period.  And if the government indoctrination process can begin at age six in the first grade, why not age four in a Pre-K program? 

I really love one of the closing paragraphs in the Miami Herald story about Hillary's visit.  "Clinton sat in a circle with the 16 kids, chatting about school, pets and their favorite games.  She was charmed by their answers and their songs."

Yup.  She's charmed, all right.  Like a cobra, ready to strike.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' movie

"What's the truth about Global Warming? Global Warming is indeed real,
but does it have more to do with the natural cycles of the Sun rather than Man-made C02?

"We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.
But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers
have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."
See 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'  1:16
British documentary counters Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The Truth Will Set You Free!

A little banter with the 'other side' ...
Since I'm here and it's a slow day, I'm going to take a minute and answer some of Martha's questions from the original post ("Why is there no outrage?"):
"Maybe it's only because subscribers to Rush Limbaugh's Web site were the only ones to see it – that is, until it got posted all over the Internet."
Well actually, Martha there's nothing to see.  It's an audio.  And Rush has been playing it for some 2 months on the radio. Remember the radio?  Pick almost any AM station and you could have heard it yourself FOR FREE, like millions of other people have. Uh, you may have to turn off your ipod.
"But there has been little outrage about the radio talk-show host's video, which features an Al Sharpton impersonator singing "Barack, the Magic Negro" (to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon) about presidental candidate and Illinois sentaor Barack Obama."
Rush Limbaugh did not make any video, nor did he authorize a video, which proves you know little about which you speak. You are apparently reading a talking point off some other web site. Rush had, a political satarist, make the audio.
"Limbaugh has said lots of nasty things about Obama before (including taking exception to his ethnic background) as he has about Sharpton. But why is this any less offensive than what Don Imus said on his air? Why isn't there more people upset about Limbaugh and calling for his dismissal?"
I challenge you to cite me one example of a "nasty thing" Rush has said about Obama or anyone else, other than to read a newspaper article over the air. Words that someone else said.
"According to one published account, Limbaugh not only refuses to apologize for the slur, but says it was a "liberal" black writer who coined the phrase in reference to the candidate. OK, just like Imus and his producer coined the phrase we all now know so well about the Rutgers women's basketball team."
One published account?  It WAS a liberal black writer who posed the question.  What does Imus have to do with this?
"But just because someone else said it first, doesn't mean it's OK to repeat it."
Are you talking to your two year-old?  Pray tell me why no one is allowed to challenge, question or criticize commentary that is offered up into the public discussion?  What would shows like Saturday Night Live,The Daily Show, Colbert Report, even Jay Leno do if they couldn't repeat and make fun of stupid or racist things other people in the media or in politics say?  Or is it only allowed when it's the liberal media doing the attacking?
"A person such as Limbaugh, who has a history of making disparaging comments about people who are members of races, religions and mindsets other than his own (remember his Donovan McNabb comments?) , has a forum and many followers who thrive on his inflammatory rhetoric."
The question is, DO YOU remember his Donovan McNabb comments? The liberals have tried to spin this into a racist attack by Rush on McNabb, when anyone who heard it or read the transcript of the incident knows his comment was not racist and was not even directed at McNabb. It was yet ANOTHER poke at the liberal media, who were hyping McNabb as God's Gift to football, despite his then 0-2 record for the season and sluggish performance thus far. McNabb pulled out of the slump and Rush has said many times since then that he's a great quarterback.  But the fact is, at the time, he wasn't earning his highest-paid salary and the press was largely giving him a pass.
"One is just left to wonder why his employers have left him in front of the microphone."
Rush doesn't have employers, Martha. Rush has employees.
"For his part, Obama said he hadn't heard the song but knew about it, and couldn't take offense at everything said about him."
I would hope not. Political satire is as old as this country, and today's satire is mild in comparison to previous periods.
"That's good, because it's a long time between now and the 2008 presidential election, and Limbaugh is just getting warmed up."
You got one right, Martha!  Rush IS just getting warmed up.  And all you liberals should listen to him 3 hours a day so you can be educated on what he's actually saying instead of regurgitating some slanted tripe off a whacko blog somewhere.

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

So John "Two Americas" Edwards got paid $285,000 last year (2006) for 9 speeches at colleges and universities around the country. Taxpayer dollars, of course.

I submit that he doesn't know the first thing about poverty, except he's sure that he and the Democrat Party are the Shepherds and you're the sheep and they'll take care of you.

Poverty in America is almost a misnomer. There is so much wealth and opportunity in this country that even our poor are rich beyond compare with the rest of the world.

Are there poor people? Of course. Do some of them need help? Absolutely, and we should help them (and we do). Not coddle them, but actually help them, by teaching them how to be successful and take care of themselves.

Edwards tries to put on that he arose from poverty himself, but as I understand it -- I could be wrong here -- his father worked in a mill as a manager and momma was a homemaker. That may mean he didn't have a new bicycle every year, but that does not mean he lived in poverty either. I'll bet he wouldn't know an outhouse if he saw one. We didn't have indoor plumbing until I was 12.

People need to understand that being poor is not the same as being broke. There are many people who have little or no money, but who have a winning can-do spirit that is unquenchable. These people have a fire in their belly to improve their lives and the lives of their families, and while they may not have money, they are not poor. They work and save and feed their families and put a roof over their heads and they teach their kids that they can have even more if they are willing to go out there in the Land of Opportunity and work for it. I suspect John Edwards' father was cut from that fabric rather than the broken spirit of the truly poor who just can't seem to get up in the morning and try. They're not hungry enough 'cause that welfare check jus' keeps a comin'.

People who are constantly being told that they just can't make it without the help of government, and are bombarded with negativity and doom and gloom messages will likely not be successful. I learned a long time ago that if you want to be successful then hang around successful people. Listen to successful people that teach a positive, uplifting, you-can-do-it message. Most people would be far better off listening to Rush Limbaugh every day than ever listening to anything John "Two Americas" Edwards has to say.

It irks me no end when I hear people refer to Limbaugh as a racist, an extremist, etc. They are either terribly misinformed or they have an agenda. Most who tout those talking points have never actually listened to him. I guarantee that if you will listen to Rush Limbaugh for 21 days with an open mind you will find that he promotes all of the good qualities that America is supposed to be (and was). Freedom, opportunity, liberty, success. Sure, much of his banter is sarcastic, devil's advocate and tongue-in-cheek self-indulgence. That's why if you turn it on for 5 minutes you're liable to hear anything. You have to give it a wider window of time to get the full message.

Don't waste your time listening to someone who purports to be your national leader when all he does is focus on the 5% in this country who need help. We need a leader who promotes success, who teaches with positive messages, and encourages everyone to enjoy life and be the best you can be, not one who rewards failure and sees half of America as nothing more than downtrodden, poor and hungry.

ps. It is blatantly obvious that these huge speaking fees that many politicians are paid, as well as Edwards' "consultant" stint at the hedge fund and the like, are just shams to funnel large amounts of money to them. John Edwards probably wouldn't know a hedge fund from a Hedgehog, but they 'hired' him and paid him a huge salary as a means of getting around campaign contribution limitations. The only poverty that he learned about was reducing his own. He may have millions but he's no Bill Gates. He likely sees himself as the poor boy in a world of billionaires.

Glenn Beck's History of Illegal Immigration

One video worth 10,000 words.
Ever wonder how government is going to fix the illegal entry of immigrants into this country when they can't fix anything else?
Oh, and the climate. They're going to fix the climate too, just you watch.

YouTube - NBC's "Today" attacks Limbaugh's parody of Barack the Magic Negro song

NBC really shows its (left) hand with this piece. This is the kind of pathetic attack the left media does to try to discredit the giant of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, implying or outright saying he's a racist.  If you think you understand the real story from this video you are either woefully uninformed or just plain stupid.
If you saw this song as a skit on an episode of Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show, you'd all be laughing your asses off.  It's political satire, people.  Instead you show this silly mock horror and keep asking the question 'Is Rush getting a pass?' hoping it will fan a 'racist' fire in the press. 
Not that he needs to, but Rush has fully explained the genesis of this parody song.  The full chronicle of this story is on Rush's web site for you to read for yourself, including all of the links to the liberal media articles that were used to make the lyrics of the song.
The song is not attacking Obama.  It is satirizing the racist statements that were made about Obama by liberals in the liberal media.  Rush points out that it's the left who are obsessed with Obama's "blackness". It is the left who are worried about the color of his skin, not Rush Limbaugh.  Rush is throwing it back in their faces that they are the ones who are being racist by questioning whether Obama is 'black enough' and bringing up his slave-owning ancestry, etc.  It's not the right, or conservatives who are doing this.  It's the liberal media who are attacking one of 'their own' because he doesn't fit their liberal black stereotype.  He's not their boy, and they are trying to embarrass him and knock him out of the running so as not to obstruct their Anointed One, Hillary.
Rush called them on it and now they're all red-faced and trying desperately to shift the blame onto Rush.  So now, after two months, the Big Boys are piling on.  They think they smell blood.  But they're a little late coming into in the game, which really shows how much they don't really have a clue.  I find it amusing to watch them try.  This passes for news at NBC?  How sad.
Note: There's a video floating around Youtube in which someone took the song parody and set it to pictures.  This is not an authorized work from Rush Limbaugh.  He only authorized the song parody as audio.
Make a special note of this one.  Here Media Matters is whining about Rush talking about a Chicago Tribune article that is discussing Obama being assigned Secret Service protection. The left media is implying that Rush is the cause of it because of the song parody.  But note in the quote from the Tribune that they point out that Obama lives in the "Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood".  Now, if they were really concerned about the safety and security of Obama, why would any thinking person point out where his house is, and what does that have to do with the story?  Fact is, some of these left weenies would love to see Obama just up and disappear to clear the path for their Master, the Hildabeast.  Rush is right, as usual.  I'd be far more concerned about the Clinton Machine, Inc. than commentary on talk radio, even if it's Rush Limbaugh.
Finally, a Rush quote from his May 7, 2007 broadcast:
"Something that you should know that you don't know if you don't listen to this program, and that is that there is no racism on this program, that me, my audience, everybody associated with this program wants the best country possible.  We want people to live life to the fullest.  We try to inspire that here, try to motivate it, try to tell people not to be affected by the constant negative doom and gloom that makes up mainstream news media reporting these days; everything is a crisis; everything is going to kill us; the economy is doing horrible; there's no future in America.  All of these things are ridiculous. 

This is the greatest country on earth, and it pains us and it breaks my heart to see people who are not educated, motivated, and inspired to access the opportunity that this country provides and has provided since its founding.  It's a shame.  It is a crime, and it is not this program that's holding anybody back, it's quieted contrary.  We're doing our best to inspire and motivate people.  There is no excuse to tell people that they have no future in this country.  There is no excuse to tell people that they can't get where they want to get because of their skin color or because of their gender or because of their sexual orientation.  We all have obstacles to overcome.  That takes motivation and inspiration, takes desire.  I believe that desire and passion are 80% of achievement.  On this program we try to inspire that on a daily basis.  One of the ways we do it is make fun of the people, I think, who are holding other people back, and that's the American left.  I think the American left in this country looks at average Americans with contempt.  They don't see people with rosy futures and great opportunities.  They see people with too many obstacles to overcome.  They see people with limited intelligence and limited abilities and thus, as liberals, they set themselves up in power, in government, to come up with programs to help these people, which are nothing more than disguised attempts to buy votes. 

I think it's a crying shame to see anybody in this country so looked at and so treated.  This is the United States of America.  We want everybody and I want everybody in this country to achieve and to reach their potential, using whatever desire or ambition they have.  If you listen to this program regularly, you would understand that.  I mention all this only because what gets missed in all this so-called controversy that happens on this program is the context under which everything happens here.
I think. Therefore I am... a Rushie.
Continuing my education at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Carter Blasts Bush on His Global Impact

Well would you look at who's calling the kettle black?

The worst president?

Why didn't this one-term wimp show that much nerve when he was in office? His weak-kneed policy of appease, negotiate and ignore is one of the building blocks that has emboldened today's terrorists. Why should Iran be afraid of us when Carter let them humiliate us as a superpower during the 444 days of the hostage crisis?

Don't you remember 20% inflation and over 8% unemployment, skyrocketing interest rates, soaring gas prices and even gas shortages? It may be arguable that these things weren't Carter's fault directly, but they happened on his watch so he gets the 'buck'.

It does go to show him to be a weak president in terms of our international standing with both foreign partners (and adversaries) and domestic policy. We're still fighting against the global impact left by his failed foreign policy from nearly 30 ago.

Why don't you just shut up and go build a house, Jimmuh.

Carter Blasts Bush on His Global Impact

Jimmy Carter: The Worst Ex-President in History
The Worst Ex-President
(Just Google 'jimmy carter worst president' and you'll find over a million entries)


Saturday, May 19, 2007

Global warming debunked

Global warming debunked



Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Why Harry S. Truman is the president we want now

Sounds to me like Truman -- a Democrat -- was virtually everything today's Democrats are not. 
One more example of the further march toward the socialist/communist left of today.
Many of the 'old' Democrats would likely not fit the mold of today's Democrat Party.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Keep up with what they're up to...

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Global Warming: Not the End of the World as We Know It

Not the End of the World as We Know It 

International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - New

Finally! A common sense article without all the hype.