This site will remain as an Archive Site, for the foreseeable future, of
all postings made before 23 December 2009. Because of this fact, my domain [thecampofthesaints.com] will still direct
you here for the time being. I have issues to work out with the transference of my archives to the new site that will
take some time.
Thank you for your indulgence and I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion. —Bob Belvedere
It's Time To ROC 'N' ROLL: Restore Our
Constitution & Restore Our Lost Liberties
Dispatches from The Camp Of The
Saints... by Robert Belvedere [DHS-Certified Rightwing Extremist / White House Certified
'Fishy' / Carter-Certified Raaaaacist!]
The TCOTS Rule 5 Compliance Committee, after much
deliberation and in light of the fact that it does not want to make the same horrible mistake as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee
and chose a someone who has not earned such an exalted prize as The TCOTS Rule 5 Saturday Award,
has decided to shine the spotlight this week on a gal who has most definitely earned the respect and admiration of men across
the world for many decades and whose beauty proves, beyond all doubt, that there is, in fact, a God, who so loves
man that he sent this lady to please the eyes of man and ease mankind's worried minds, hereby presents...
CLAUDIA CARDINALE...
As The Committee has decided to follow last week's lead and present another Italian woman of
exceptional beauty, I have no choice but to chose another song from the land where Romance was invented...
If our lips should meet Innamorata [Sweetheart] Kiss me kiss me sweet Innamorata Hold
me close and say you're mine With a love as warm as wine
I'm in heaven's door Innamorata Want you more
and more Innamorata You're a symphony a very beautiful sonata my Innamorata Say that you're my sweetheart, my love
You're a symphony a very beautiful sonata my Innamorata Say that you're my sweetheart, my one and only sweetheart Say you're my sweetheart, my love
Both The Washington Post and The New York Timeshave recently done stories about the art chosen by the Obamas to display
in The White House. Being one of the world's most famous and celebrated self-renowned artists, the other day I commented
on three of those 'works of art' here. I must say I was usual brilliant and witty self. However, acknowledgement must be made of Brian Ledbetter's
serious [unlike mine own] discovery, over at Snapped Shot, a fraudulent 'work of art' that is among
those on display at The Imperial Palace White House:
I
managed to throw together the following animation, which definitely shows that the layout of the two pieces is identical.
I think it fitting as our President is an utter and total fraud, and, remember I am also a self-renowned blogger,
as well [and more handsome than Lance Burri].
Over at Piece Of Work In Progress [as opposed to Obama, who's
just a piece of work], Dan Collins is having a contest: You all recall the 12 Labors of [Hercules], the greatest of Greek heroes. Now that a demi-god
walks among us, it’s time for comparisons. Consider, and suggest, the 12 greatest labors of [Obamacules].
My favorite, out of the one's his readers have submitted so far is from Enoch Root: I am told that Obama once had to wipe his own ass.
I've submitted a few:
-Convincing the clinging Typical White
Persons to vote for him.
-Battling the raaaaacists who don’t want to see Obamacare pass.
-Resisting
Janeane Garofalo’s advances.
-Finding a place to hide where Michelle can’t nag him so he gets a few
minutes of friggin’ peace!
-Having to deal with inferior people [ie: the rest of the human race].
-Having to waste so much time being re-elected when he should, like Caesar, have been appointed Dictator-For-Life
by now.
Head on over to POWIP, have a little fun, and submit your suggestions. Just remember:
The Ol' Broad has up a great joke, courtesy of her husband, Mr Ol' Broad, that captures in a nutshell, as only humor can, the mindset of The Anointed One:
Barack Obama and Tonto went camping in the desert. After they got their tent all set
up, both men fell sound asleep.
Some hours later, Tonto woke the president and said, “Kemo bro, look towards
sky, what you see?”
Obama replied, “I see millions of stars.”
“What that tell
you?” asked Tonto.
Obama pondered for a minute then said, “Astronomically speaking, it tells me there
are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Time wise,
it appears to be approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, Mother Nature is all-powerful and we are
small and insignificant. Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What’s’ it tell you,
Tonto?”
Tonto says, “Obama, you dumber than buffalo shit. It means somebody stole the tent.”
The following appears to be quite true and, therefore, very very disturbing...
From Warner Todd Huston, over at Red Country, we learn:
Obama's
Attorney General, Eric Holder, has apparently hired a cadre of left-wing, Democrat campaign bloggers to troll through the
Internet looking for news stories and blog posts that denigrate the Obama agenda. After such websites are found it is the
job of these secret lefty bloggers to leave comments that come to the support of Obamaism in the comments sections. It seems
that Eric Holder has created his own little propaganda unit in a valiant effort to become the Bloggi Riefenstahl of the Obama
era.
As reported at The Muffled Oar, a blog that first broke the story of Holder's secretive blogging unit -- dubbed the "Blog Squad" by blogger
Isaac Muzzey -- Holder has housed this unit in the Office of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice. It also appears
that former John Edwards staffer Tracy Russo is part of this special unit.
A site called whorunsgov.comreported back in May that DOJ hired Russo to do "media outreach for the whole department." It is, according
to whorunsgov.com, the first time such an effort has been made at DOJ.
Of Russo's duties, The Muffled
Oar says:
Not only is the Department of Justice Blog Squad
going to reach out to nontraditional media like TPM Muckraker or the Muffled Oar, but they are also tasked with fostering
anonymous comments at conservative leaning blogs such as the Free Republic. They are also tasked with fostering anonymous
comments, or comments under pseudonyms, at newspaper websites with stories critical of the Department of Justice, Holder and
President Obama.
If indeed this is what DOJ media outreach
does it would most certainly qualify as "astroturfing." Astroturfing is the action of using fake commenters and multiple screen names on all
sorts of sites to push a similar opinion to create the appearance of a grass roots movement and make it seem as if there are
all sorts of individuals naturally supporting a product or political movement.
It most certainly is a creepy, propagandistic
sort of effort that Holder's office is involved in and it is one that certainly seems an immoral one. After all, it most certainly
is lying to the public if there are a handful of DOJ employees casting about on hundreds of different websites pretending
that they are just your average citizen coming to the support of the Obama administration. But is it illegal? Hans von Spakovsky
of National Review's the corner blog certainly thinks so.
Karl Marx once wrote: 'History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce'.
Over at Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson thinks that the Emperor of Hopeychangeland has reversed
the forces of history:
Barack Obama has reversed these historical forces. With
Obama, farce repeats itself as history.
As a neophyte politician, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate
when he managed to eliminate his opponents from the race through nominating petition challenges. A farce, but it started Obama's political history.
Obama did littleof note as an Illinois State Senator, but was elected United States Senator when Obama's supporters
dug up embarrassing divorce records on his opponent, while Obama publicly claimed he was against exposing
the records. A farce, but Obama made history.
When elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama promised the voters he would serve out his term and not run for President. Two years later Obama began his campaign for President. A farce,
but Obama made history.
The election of 2008. Thrills running up the mainstream media's legs. Children singing songs about "Hope for Change." The post-racial candidate who used the race card to take down the Clinton machine. A farce, but historically successful. The most historic
campaign by the most historic candidate ever.
Now the Nobel Peace Prize for someone everyone knows does not deserve
it, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Yet another in a long line of farces. But historic.
Do not forget,
however, that there is a third prong in Marx's equation - tragedy.
Tragedy to me has always meant a negative brought on by the person himself, effecting himself by the choices
he has made under Free Will. While history tells us that Barack Hussein Obama will meet a sad and probably pathetic
end [and, no drooling Lefties, I'm not implying actual death via assassination or whatever] and I don't care [he's made his
grubby little bed, let him lie in it full-on], what worries me is that his reckless behavior, born out of an appalling and
reveled-in ignorance, will bring horrors upon the people of America and in The West.
There's a comedy group out of New York named Olde English and
one of their members, Adam, was best man to one of the other members and was tasked with making a slideshow of pictures
of the happy couple. His instructions from the groom were: 'We want our slideshow to be DIFFERENT. You can do whatever
you like, and I won’t ever try to approve it.' Well, this Adam fellow has made ONE OF THE FUNNIEST SLIDESHOWS
EVAH!, most especially in light of our Fearless Leader's winning of the Nobel Appeasement Peace Prize.
Enjoy [and then visit the comedy group's site here—guys this funny deserve our support]...
Thorbjøm: Try tew stay informed, Inger-Marie. De name
ain’t “Baruch Whoosis”; it’s Baruch Øbama.
Agot: But, Meester Chairman, he ain’t
done nuttin’ yet.
Thorbjøm: Vhat d’yew mean “he ain’t done nuttin’yet”?
He got hisself elected in a country vhere de vite people hate de blacks.
Agot: But, if de vite people hate de blacks,
how did he get elected in de first place?
Thorbjøm: Hmm. Vell, yew got me, dere, Agot. But consider dis
here: he tawks a pretty gewd game on furrin policy, by grannies! Vhy, giff him a year or tew, and I betcha kroner tew donuts
he redewces American influence an’ power to sump’n like Belgium’s – or mebbe even Canada’s!
[Murmurs of approval arise from around the table]
This man Paco is amazing. [Although,
it should be mentioned that there are some out there—certainly not me—who think he's actually Keyser Söze—not me, mind you; oh no.]
So...the Dali Bama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. I must say I'm impressed that a man who has accomplished absolutely
nothing to bring about peace...oh...wait a minute...I forgot: he has brought peace amongst the world's tyrants.
Well then...I guess he deserves it.
-Over at And So It Goes In Shreveport, Pat has already got
up a very good aggregation of the commentary flying through the ether. As she writes:
...The blogosphere is going crazy! This ought to be fun to watch!
But then again, we elected Obama
before he accomplished anything, so who are we to criticize.
Good point, Prof, but that only applies to
fifty-two percent of us.
-Pundette also has up a very good aggregation and is dead solid perfect in this observation:
...What's good for the Obama ego is bad for the United States of America.
...
So he's getting it for his pro-Islamic rhetoric, his adolescent no-nukes mentality, his denigration
of the US, and his infatuation with the UN. Oh yeah, and for bringing us all "hope."
It's apparent that he's viewed as a narcissistic leader who is weak and vain enough to let his foreign
policy be influenced by the ego-stroke of the award. I'm afraid they've got his number. This will only puff him up and encourage
his president-of-the-world ambitions even further.
God help
us.
-Michell Malkin has some good aggregation too and comments:
The World Apology Tour yields dividends.
We on the Right should
be ashamed for criticizing the Tour. And, hey, at least something is yielding dividends these days.
-You
may be wondering how our Fearless Leader qualified for this Award. Erick Erickson has some thoughts:
The deadline for nominations was two weeks after he was sworn in as President.
So in less than two weeks
of entering office, Obama did something to qualify. What was it? Not closing Gitmo? Continuing the Bush administration's policies
in the War on Terror but no longer using the name? Or pronouncing a policy of abject American capitulation to our enemies?
Yo Erickson! Don't you know this guy's The Messiah?
-Over at The Pirate's Cove, William Teach has up a very goof posting on this. A highlight:
Maybe one day he will deserve the prize. Right now, "It was clearly seen
by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration." In
other words "f**c Bush."
Jonah, as one of those "right-wing domestic terrorists"
laughing his head off at Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, I was shocked at how badly off-message the DNC's Communications
Director has wandered:
"The Republican Party has thrown
in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel
Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO.
Also, here, here, and here, where he describes the Prize as 'a Lifetime Pre-Achievement Award'.
-Being every inch the true gentleman in these
ungentlemanely times, Charles Crawford shows a bit more panache in saying the same thing as Mr. Steyn:
An award which at best is a tad
premature?
-Peter Kirsanow's comments, over at NRO, are worth quoting in full: Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama will surely provide lots of material for comedians and joke-writers.
But here's a partial list of folks who may not see the humor:
— Iranian dissidents
— Tibetans
— Cuban dissidents
— Honduran democrats
— Venezuelan dissidents
— Georgians
— Israelis
— Chinese dissidents
— Eastern Europeans
Let's hope the list doesn't grow over the next three years.
I'll take the other side in that bet.
-Over at The Sundries Shack, Jimmie does
his slave-riding-behind-the-triumphal-Roman-General-in-a-chariot-thing and whispers a warning in Tiberius Obamacus's ear:
But the President would be wise to remember that
the same people who were cheering for the real Messiah when he rode into Jerusalem on ass-back were yelling “crucify
him” just a few days later.
[Actually, methinks I should stop calling BHO 'Tiberius'; more
and more he seems like our Julius.]
The name of the prize should be changed to the Nobel Prize for Leftwing Dogma,
or maybe "the Moonbat Award."
While I usually agree with friend Stogie, I think the latter idea
is rather inappropriate on the day when we, The United States Of Amerika, unilaterally bombed the Moon.
...I think the message is that Obama is now supposed to get out of Afghanistan,
leave Iraq, sign cap-and-trade, defer to the U.N., and shun the Israelis — just the sort of thing that is likely to
make war much more likely.
-Meanwhile, Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit, does a bit of contrasting: Meanwhile... George
W. Bush liberated 50 million people from two of the most violent regimes in history and brought democracy to the Middle East
and what did he get?... Spit on.
-Many around the ether are wondering if the Cy Young Award is next for our Fearless Leader. Jonah Goldberg
makes a convincing case using the Nobel Committee's logic:
The guy threw out the first pitch at the All
Star Game, so why not?
Hey...What the hell; why not?
-The great Lech Walesa was rather surprised
[tip of the fedora to Kathryn Jean Lopez] according to the AFP:
"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast - he hasn't had the time to do anything yet,"
Walesa told reporters in Warsaw.
-Ace has posted some photos of other recent Obama triumphs here.
-The TrogloPunditmakes the case for himself being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature:
Not to be sarcastic
or anything, but a Pulitzer would really help encourage my initiative to produce more great prose. I mean,
I may not have produced any great prose yet. Good prose, maybe, or at least adequate prose, peppered with lot of ho-hum prose.
I’m just saying. Giving me the Pulitzer would really encourage me.
There's always hope, Lance.
Look at me: several years ago, I was in your exact situation. And look at me now [although, I also had good looks
going for me].
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack
Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has
attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy
has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can
play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.
The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to
Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is
confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only
very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better
future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and
attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For
108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for
which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all
of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
If buttercups buzz'd after the bee, If boats were on land, churches on sea, If ponies rode
men and if grass ate the cows, And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse, If the mamas sold their babies To the gypsies for half a crown; If summer were spring and the other way round, Then all the world would be upside
down.
Pat, over at And So It Goes In Shreveport, has been a rather
gloomy Gus lately. And who can blame her, what with the ongoing efforts by the Leftists in power to destroy everything
that America stands for. They're attacking us on so many fronts, creating such a whirlwind, that one feels that it is
impossible to win this War Of Restoration.
Well, today she's feeling a bit more optimistic:
To counter my "end of the world" post earlier, I'll make note here of Michael Berry's guest host spot yesterday for Mark Levin.
I didn't hear the whole show; I was driving and
caught a few minutes on the radio, but it was encouraging. Berry was making the case that this is a great time in America
- the greatest time, in fact. We are more politically active and aware right now than we've been in years!
He hooked
me from the beginning of the spot because he was describing exactly what I've done over the past year. Berry asked, and I'm
paraphrasing, "How many of you have pushed away from the television, quit watching commercial network sitcoms, and started
watching conservative news programs?" I've been watching conservative news programs for years, but in the past year find
that I watch less and less television because I'm reading, researching, or writing.
A slow awakening of our reality is sinking in on many fronts. One of those
realities is that we have moved ever more drastically from a nation led by doers to a nation led by non-doers.
Some
formulate this as The Doers vs. The 'Thinkers' but I think that gives too much credit to the non-doers, and suggests that people who actually
build companies, create jobs, and generate economic activity lack the quality of a "thinker."
...
This administration epitomizes this disastrous trend towards governance by those who are only book-smart,
life-long politicians, or money-movers. People who never have done anything in their lives to generate the type of sustained,
organic economic activity that grows an economy and creates long-term jobs.
The stimulus bill, the pending health
care restructuring bills, and the cap-and-tax legislation all are reflective of a mentality that politicians with word-processors
and degrees know better than individual Americans what is best for each of us. A fear of what Washington sees as the great
unwashed actually making decisions for themselves.
In other words, we have moved towards governance by those who
study the people rather than governance by the people.
The Left develops their ideas, in a sense, in a lab,
away from the real world. They set the climate conditions to their own liking, creating an artificial environment for
their ideas to develop in. In other words, the Left molds their policies and programs and philosophy to fit in conditions
ideal to their thinking. They then work to implement these ideas in a real world for which the ideas are not
suited to and, therefore, can never acclimatize to. And being that these ideas have never been put through real testing,
they inevitably don't work. And considering that these ideas most often are imposed on human beings, people get
hurt or killed. This is the nature of the Leftist Beast.
YOU'RE SO UGLY YOU CAN BE A MODERN ART MASTERPIECE!
There have been several reports published on the art the Obamas have chosen to
display in The White House. The most piece most blogged about is the painting I Think I'll... by some
modern master named Ed Rushcha. It has been said that you can tell a lot about a person by the type of art they display.
Looking at this 'work of art', I can easily see why this one, out of all of them, has grabbed everyone's intention.
As Cassy Fiano writes:
...But how… interesting that the Obamas
would choose a painting about someone who can’t make up their minds. It’s like the entire Obama presidency, captured
on canvas, isn’t it?
The WashingtonPost has put up on their site a slideshow of twelve of the forty-five 'works of art' that the Obamas have hung in that little old house we own. Being
a self-renowned artist, I took a look and offer my interpretations in the same veinas Cassy's. Space and time only
permit me to comment on three of them [I will be avoiding the idiotic dreck that is known as 'Urban Art', or, as I like to
call it: 'Stuff my nieces made in 4th grade Art Class while listening to Maya Angelou speaking and Judy Collins singing']...
1) This painting is by Josef Albers and is entitled Homage to the Square: Elected II:
I see this magnificent work as capturing the essence of the President's National Security Advisors, ie: blockheads.
2) This next work is by Glenn Ligon and goes by the title Black Like Me #2:
Looks to me like an excellent representation of Obamacare bill, ie: a descent into darkness.
3)
Finally we have a sculpture:
As an expert, I'd say that this Degas inspired our Fearless Leader recently:
...is hereby awarded to Jimmie Bise, proprietor of The Sundries Shack
[2 for 1 on the limes all this week]. Some context first: Representative Charlie Rangel has been under fire
for quite sometime for not paying his taxes and many other corruptions [Discover The Networks has all the
dirty details here]. Recently, fellow Rep. Maxine 'Batshit Crazy' Waters [D-Cretinsville] said this:
I want to tell you, there are many members who, if you go back over all of their records, over all of the years,
you’re going to find that there were disclosures that were not made.
Ohhhh, I see. It’s the old “We’re all crooks, so if you fire
one of us, you have to fire all of us” ploy.
Very well, Ms. Waters. We accept your challenge.
That's the spirit! Give me some TEA-flavored ice cream with some Jimmies on it.
Speaking of retarded Reps
and Rangel: over at The Shack, Paula delivers a righteous—and constitutional—Fisking
to Dana 'Is He?' Rohrabacher (R-Rainbow). A highlight:
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was one of only three House Republicans to vote against removing
tax cheat Charlie Rangel from his position as head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He defended his position thusly:
Tom Delay and others had their careers destroyed because of accusations
and not convictions of wrongdoing. Whether it’s Charlie Rangel or Tom Delay or Joe McDade (who had to give up a lifetime
of seniority because he was indicted by a politically-motivated prosecutor. . . later to be found totally innocent of all
charges, but the damage was done, his career was over), they should not be punished until they are found guilty of a crime.
Punishing a leader who has only been accused of wrongdoing (not convicted) is a great injustice and does not serve our country
well….
I was elected to uphold the U.S. Constitution
and that’s what I aim to do, whether it’s politically expedient or not. As patriots, we should be paying more
attention to the U.S. Constitution rather than a politically-motivated lynch mob.
I’m calling bull on that.
I’ve got my pocket Constitution handy and I’m frantically
trying to find the clause that covers committee chairmanships but, oh, wait! There isn’t anything!...
In high school, I had an English teacher who would not let her picture be taken.
She believed that the camera would steal part of her soul if she did. While I understand the philosophy behind this
belief, I do not think it true. However, I do subscribe to a variant of it: the camera can steal your public reputation
if you let it capture too much of your private life. We've all heard the stories of people who put up racy
pictures on their Facebook pages only to be denied jobs at prestigious companies because their potential employers have
looked them up. Now, often this happens to young people who have not reached a certainly level of maturity. But
how to explain when a veteran politician allows very racy pictures to be taken? I suspect it may be due to arrogance.
Track-A-'Crat has a theory and some questions:
...If you’re going to do odd things in your free time, then it’s
probably best not to (1) let people take photographs of you doing it and (2) get a job where public intrusion into your private
life is to be expected.
Do people want to be caught doing things like this? Is that why they run for public
office despite their skeletons in the closet? It cannot possibly be subconsciously easier for them to be outed by the
press rather than doing it themselves, can it?
Pictures of East Cleveland Mayor Eric Brewer surfaced last
month in women's lingerie that ended up costing him re-election. According to John Caniglia, of The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 'Brewer became the butt of many comedians' jokes, in particular late
night TV host Craig Ferguson'. I wonder why... BuzzChow has more photos here.
As you probably have heard, Anne Leary, over at Backyard Conservative,
encountered and spoke with terrorist Bill Ayers Monday Morning at Reagan National Airport. She also snapped a picture of the corrupter of
youth. At one point in the brief conversation, things got rather interesting:
Then,
unprompted he said--I wrote Dreams From My Father. I said, oh, so you admit it. He said--Michelle asked me to. I looked at
him. He seemed eager. He's about my height, short. He went on to say--and if you can prove it, we can split the royalties.
So I said, stop pulling my leg. Horrible thought. But he came again--I really wrote it, the wording was similar. I said I
believe you probably heavily edited it. He said--I wrote it. I said--why would I believe you, you're a liar.
He
had no answer to that. Just looked at me. Then he turned and walked off, and said again his bit about my proving it and splitting
the proceeds.
As Clifton, over at Another Black Conservative, put it:
Talk about freaky deaky. I am not too sure what to make of this.
Who is Anne Leary you may ask? William Jacobson, over at Legal Insurrection, vouches for her:
...I've had a lot of contact with Anne, mostly because of my interest in the
Rod Blagojevich fiasco last winter. Anne strikes me as a completely straight shooter.
...
Was Bill Ayers
just causing some trouble with a tall tale sure to get people talking, or telling the truth to a stranger to get it off his
chest? I don't know, but I do believe that Anne was accurate in telling what Ayers said.
That's good enough
for me.
As to the terrorist's motives in saying such things, Miss Leary writes:
Of course Ayers is messing with us. He's messing with Obama too. I think he wanted plausible deniability. But I think
he wants credit. Whether he wrote it or not, I think he wants credit. And I actually do now think he wrote it. But if no one
believes him now that would be funny too--because he's cried wolf all these years and has no credibility left. Now that he's
ratting out Obama it could be all bets are off. Maybe some of Ayers old partners in crime will be persuaded by Rahmbo to rat
him out. Whatever. You decide, but I don't think this is the end of it.
Many others think the same as well,
and she has linked them all at her posting.
I think the terrorist Ayers is practicing a little Operation Mindf--k. It takes one to
know one and I have been a soldier in discordia for years. As Wikipedia somewhat hippieshly describes
OM:
...It is most often manifested as a decentralized campaign of civil
disobedience, activism, art movements, especially performance art and guerrilla art, culture jamming, graffiti and other vandalism,
practical jokes, hoaxes, reality hacking, chaos magic, words of power, trolling and anything else that is believed to bring
about social change through disrupting paradigms and thus forcing the victim to question the parameters of one's reality tunnel.
[man]
As for his motive: I think Obi's Sister maybe right:
Evidently Ayers, the terrorist, is getting tired of being left out of the limelight
he helped weave and construct for his clueless and non-eloquent community organizer in arms. People with insufferable egos
are like that. No wonder they were (and remain) such close friends.
The TCOTS Rule 5 Compliance Committee, in recognition of
the popularity of this past weekend's choice of Sophia Loren as the Rule 5 Gal, hereby presents...
SOPHIA LOREN MEETS JAYNE MANSFIELD... Take that, Anne Hathaway.
Everyone, who upon election wishes to serve in the Congress, must take the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
This is a mandate of federal law [TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart B, CHAPTER 33, SUBCHAPTER II, § 3331].
It seems to me it would be a mighty
good thing right now to incorporate senitiment expressed in the following statement by Barry Goldwater into this oath:
I have little interest in streamlining government
or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend
freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that
do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial
burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally
permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents" interests,' I shall reply that I was informed
their main interest is liberty and that in that cause, I am doing the very best I can.
That's the title of No Sheeples Here's new channel on You Tube.
So far, she has posted three videos. I especially liked the most recent: The Great Divider Accomplishes NOTHING.
The man simply known as 'Paco', CEO and owner of Paco Enterprises, is a very private man. In fact, except for a few, privileged people, no one is quite sure what he looks
like. Several pictures have surfaced in recent years* that purport to be of him, but no one can say for sure if they
are real or not. Be that as it may, the man is a modern Howard Hughes. He does not seek publicity, nor accolades
for himself. So, for him to go public with something means that that something must be serious. In this case,
I think it is...
Paco has gotten a hold of the transcript of a recent meeting that took place in The White House
between President Obama, Vice President Biden, top national security officials, and, via video link, General McChyrstal.
A highlight:
Biden: Sorry, Mr. President, I got tied up in traffic. [notices
General McChrystal’s face on the television screen and scowls] Oh. What else is on?
McChrystal: Pardon
me, Mr. Vice President, but you might want to familiarize yourself with the mute button.
Biden: What? Oh…heh…yeah.
Just kidding, General.
Obama: All right, let’s get down to business. General McChrystal, in order to create
a clear path for consideration of our strategic options in Afghanistan, I’ve identified two factions or teams. I’ll
refer to you and General Petraeus as the “Militarist” Team, and Joe Biden’s team will be called…What
was the name you came up with, Joe?
Biden: I’ve designated our side as “The Winning Assessment Team”
Another day, another radical appointment by our Fearless Leader. He has
nominated one Chai Feldblum to sit in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. Track-A-'Crat
has the dirt on this Leftist:
...true to form, she is as radical a left-winger
as all the rest. Let’s go through the check list:
1) She’s clerked for Supreme Court Justice
Harry A. Blackmun, the judge who handed down the Roe v. Wade decision, which means that,
2) She’s a rabid
fan of abortion, a stance confirmed by her having worked for,
3) The ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign Fund (an
organization that preoccupies itself solely with LGBT concerns – is that not discriminatory?), both of which adore abortion,
too.
Trackis spot-on in his general assessment of the Left:
...The
sole criteria for Left-wing policy formulation today is seemingly that their proposals must be devoid of any and all evidence
of their potential for beneficial results. If something already exists, then it is, in their warped world view, already
wrong by default. Thus the crazed attempts of Barry and his partners-in-crime to do so much at once: they want to change
everything.
Every time the Left achieves significant power, they rollback the calendar to
the Year One [in this case, they would probably call it 'The Year Of The One']. History is wiped clean as if it never existed; the
lessons of the past discarded; tradition rejected. Interesting that the Left does this as they are all a bunch of zeros.
Being 1/16th Cherokee, I thought it important to mention that, thirty-six years
ago today, Cher's latest single Half Breed captured the number one spot on the charts...
My father married a pure Cherokee My mother's people were ashamed of me The Indian's
said that I was white by law The white man always called me Indian Squaw
Half breed That's all I ever heard Half breed How I learned to hate the word Half
breed She's no good they warned Both sides were against me since the day I was born
We never settled went from town to town When you're not welcome, you don't hang around The other children always laughed at me 'Give her a feather, she's a Cherokee'
Half breed That's all I ever heard Half breed How I learned to hate the word Half
breed She's no good they warned Both sides were against me since the day I was born
We weren't accepted and I felt the shame Nineteen I left them, tell me who's to
blame My life since then has been from man to man But I can't run away from what I am
Half breed That's all I ever heard Half breed How I learned to hate the word Half breed She's no good they warned Both sides were against me since the day I was born
Though I wear a shirt and tie, I'm still a red man deep inside.
In April of 2008, Barack Hussein Obama said that he knew terrorist Bill Ayers
only slightly, that he wasn't friend, and that they did not even 'exchange ideas...on a regular basis'. The facts told
us otherwise, but nobody, outside of the Right, wanted to know. And last Fall evevidence began to emerge that the unrepentant
terrorist and corrupter of children's minds may have actually written Mr. Obama's book Dreams From My Father,
or, at the very least, have been the ghostwriter. Those who published their theories and proofs were dismissed as tin-hat
fanatics or ignored. Well...new information has come to light that offers further proof that the terrorist did do the
writing of Obama's celebrated memoir—that the man he claims he hardly knew penned The Messiah's intimate search
to understand His life.
The Classic Liberal has up a great aggregation of the latest. It
is well worth your time.
Last Wednesday on Alan 'Ewww Get It Off Me!' Colmes's radio show, the great John
Derbyshire [I urge you to buy his book, We Are Doomed, by clicking here] had the following exchange with the Bugman:
DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that
I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I'll say this — if it were to be,
I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.
COLMES: We'd be a better country if women didn't vote?
DERBYSHIRE:
Probably. Don't you think so?
John also explained:
[Women] want
someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren't inclined to do it — and in the present
days, they're not much — then they'd like the state to do it for them.
While this is quite the blanket
statement, John certainly has a point as my blog pal, Chris*, over at the always interesting Wyblog, commented:
From a Conservative perspective Derb has a point. The right to vote is not enshrined
in the Constitution as ratified by the Founding Fathers. Throughout centuries of western civilization it was understood that
the right to vote followed from the obligations of citizenship. And chief among those obligations was the requirement to pay
taxes. Providing for the good of the realm, having a stake (via land holding) in the prosperity of the citizenry, those
are what elevated someone to attain the power to participate in elections.
Universal suffrage devolves into rent-seeking. Those who do not contribute to the maintenance of the state are emboldended to vote themselves
lavish benefits at the expense of those who do. Politicians will naturally pander to the largest voting bloc, ergo a majority
of non-contributors will inevitably gravitate to the representatives who promise higher and higher subsidies that are confiscated
from the prosperous minority.
Given these facts it is indeed hard to justify universal suffrage. Landowners, taxpayers,
and merchants contribute directly to society and via taxes to the state. It is they who should be entrusted with voting for
the officials who will control the government....
Indeed, it is very hard to justify it. But Chris
thinks the source of the problem lies in another action that was taken:
It was
not women's suffrage but rather the 17thAmendment which set this country on the road to perdition. Direct election
of senators is diametrically opposite to every principle of governance held dear by our nation's founders. The entire purpose
of a bicameral legislature was to insulate the upper house from the vagaries and vicissitudes of popular opinion. This Amendment
should be repealed forthwith.
Where I break with Derb is in excluding an entire class of residents from voting
based solely on their gender. Women can own property, women can (and do) run thriving businesses. It is those characteristics
which ought to imbue the right to vote.
I agree. I've railed against the 17th Amendmentfor
years. There was a reason the Founders left the election of Senators up to the governments of the sovereign states.
By having their two Senators appointed by the state legislators and/or the governor, the individual state would ensure that
the Senators so chosen would represent the interests of the sovereign state as a whole and not be subject to the
whims of the people. This would provide a check and a balance against the popularly elected representatives of the House.
It also had the benefit of having a direct presence in the nation's capital of a group that could fight against federal encroachment
of state's rights as granted under The Constitution. [My one quibble with Chris on this point is that
I think the passage of the 17th Amendment was the final chapter in a process that had begun during the Jacksonian
Age when individual states began expanding the franchise on the state level; the Amendment was merely the
culmination of a long insidious process.]
I agree with Derb that most women rely on emotions in their voting choices.
However, this can be a good thing because [major political incorrectness alert!] women's intuition is right in the vast majority
of cases when it comes to getting a read on another human being. [Also, in this day and age, a lot of women exhibit
a more man-like common sense than the pantywaist metrosexuals do.] So, I would not deny the right to vote based on sex
[can we stop using the word 'gender'? (another argument for another time)].
Chris's solution is a good one:
In my ideal world, if you don't own land or pay taxes, you don't vote. Those who do
own land are entitled to vote in local elections (town council and Board of Chosen Freeholders). Those bodies are empowered
to exercise control over the land so it is only fair that landowners are responsible for choosing their membership. Voting
in a statewide election should be predicated on whether or not one pays taxes to the state. Likewise with federal elections;
only those who pay federal taxes should be entitled to render a decision as to who should be elected to the House of Representatives
or the presidency.
There's a reason the Founders of the state governments during the War Of Independence
all set up their governments this way [FYI: some did restrict the franchise to those of the Christian Faith as well]
and it is for the reasons Chris states so well.
However, I must disagree with his further refinement:
I might even take it a step further and say that your vote should count in direct proportion
to the amount of taxes you pay. If you think about it, such a scheme is consistent with the lobbyist-driven system we suffer
under now. Instead of wealthy benefactors lavishing campaign contributions on individual officials for special favors our
cumulative contribution to the government would determine the extent of our influence.
In such a system
of proportionality, the interests of the small landowner and the small taxpayer would not be represented. The likes
of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would be able to dominate in the voting. I say apply some the same logic that was used
in the creation of the U.S. Senate: equalize the representation of landowners and taxpayers through them having an equal vote
[like Delaware and California in terms of Senate representation]. Also, impose a flat tax whereby everybody paid the
same percentage and stop penalizing people for being economically successful.
Chris's conclusion is, sadly, spot-on:
Alas, the citizens of these United States would never endorse my plan. Having been
granted, suffrage is existentially impossible to revoke. People who can vote today would of a course have to decide to disenfranchise
themselves for the good of our republic. It is unrealistic to expect that their self-interest could be subordinated. Pandora's
Box once opened, can never be closed again.
Things that make you go: Arrggghhhh.
*Chris
was kind enough, in the posting quoted from above, to link to one of my postings on John [here] and I should have written this Dispatch citing his wonderful take on things back then, but life and
other matters intruded. I never even thanked him in a comment on WyBlog. My apologies Chris.
Comrade Obamnin knows that he could never get passed the kind of Amendments to The Constitution he would
wish to, so, like the good Leninist he is, he will just ignore the supreme law of the land. From Anne Bayefsky, over at The Weekly Standard [this is worth quoting at length because it is such a serious matter]:
The Obama
administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of
expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended
in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the
balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states
quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs.
Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than
a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission
on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum
standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008,
against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed
the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . .
[that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."
The Obama administration decided that a
revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement
policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of
freedom of expression.
Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations
with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday,
October 1--adopted by consensus the following day--the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths,
crowed:
"The United States is very pleased to present this joint
project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement
throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual
respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased--for all the wrong reasons.
He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,"
insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must
. . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."
The new resolution, championed by the Obama
administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression
carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description
of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social
responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical
conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that
they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by
anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions"
instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined
by government--to curtail it.
It's no wonder Obama thinks so highly of the United Nations. It shares not only
his commitment to reducing the USA's status in the world, but also his fundamental hostility to the principles of liberty
that form the backbone of American civilization.
With this action there is no longer any doubt that... President Barack Hussein Obama is a Tyrant
The goal of an overarching Federal government is to control every miniscule aspect of our lives. President Obama,
via the auspices of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and the Federal Trade Commission, has now extended that reach to testimonials
and endorsements made by bloggers. FTC regulations issued today require that any blogger who writes about a product or service
must disclose his relationship with its makers and advertisers.
Failure to comply can result in fines of up to
$11,000 per violation.
With literally millions of blogs and sites out there in the ether, I agree with
Chris that we can expect enforcement of these regulations [ie: diktats never voted on by elected officials that have the force
of a law that is] to be 'selective and arbitrary'.
Selective and arbitrary is the way the Left always rules.
After all, (1) everything is relative and (2) the ends [immanentizing the eschaton] justifies all means.
Over at The Other McCain, Smitty recalls his sordid history
with The Supreme One himself. For the first time, we learn the details of how a sailor with diabolical proclivities
on extended leave met and was swept up in the whirlwindy madness that surrounds a reactionary raaaaacist who
writes hard for the money. A highlight:
...Poring over the records meticulously stuffed into a milk crate over in corner
of the porch, I see that my first actual meeting with Stacy was 03Oct08, for the screening of "An American Carol". This should have been a huge, red warning sign. The movie was rife with extremism,
including that known reactionary, Jon Voight. Yet there was Stacy, finding me in the crowd by means of my USS Constitution ballcap, holding forth hope for an America that will simply never again be. Stacy had
other plans.
You have to read the whole thing by clicking here. Warning: vulgar cars featured.
In order to cleanse your eyes after viewing them, please stare at the picture below for one minute, then continue reading:
The Supreme One himself has published another one of his insightful mini-essays on the occasion of passing
the big Hawaii 5-0. A highlight from that one:
God gives us enemies for a reason, and He chastises those He loves. Israel was
enslaved by the Egyptians, conquered by the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans -- did this signify God's blessing of Israel's
conquerers? God's chosen people were dispersed to the four corners of the earth after the destruction of the Temple. They
were despised, oppressed and persecuted.
Had Genesis 12:3 been repealed? God forbid! For somewhere in all this misery and suffering, the Lord of Hosts
had a purpose and a meaning. Yet we see through a glass, darkly, and like Job's doubting wife, many will counsel us to "curse God and die." However, we know that the very name Israel can be translated "he who
overcomes."
When an inveterate joker begins to speak seriously, people become frightened: "Are you OK,
McCain? Have you been getting your rest? Taking your meds?"
Don't worry, folks. I'm just fine and dandy today.
As Nurse Madeleine Ochoa might say, "Affect: Bright. Mood: Expansive." It's my 50th birthday, I was denounced on
"Meet the Press" Sunday and I was libeled yesterday by a syphilitic poofter. All because the Left has it in for Sarah Palin and her new bestselling memoir Going Rogue.
The Kid Is Alright
Don't forget Psalm 63 Stace: 1O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth
for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; 2To see thy power and thy glory, so
as I have seen thee in the sanctuary. 3Because
thy loving kindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee. 4Thus will I bless thee
while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name. 5My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow
and fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips: 6When I remember thee
upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches. 7Because thou hast been my help,
therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice. 8My soul followeth hard after
thee: thy right hand upholdeth me. 9But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth. 10They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes. 11But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that
speak lies shall be stopped.
I wanted to do something special for the man because he has been so good to this cynical old SOB and because, over
the past several weeks, Stacy has been the subject of vicious attempts to smear his well-deserved grand reputation by
the likes of the cretinousignoramus and possible crack whore Rachel 'Madcow' Maddow and some British poof named Neil 'The Possible Pedophile' Horne. And let us not forget the rat bastard known as Little Green Johnson.
A little background. Stacy and
I were both active musicians in the 1980's. Two years separate our births, so we lived through the same time era
of music. We're also both guitar players and that means we're a special kind of crazy. He and I both are big fans
of the old CREEM Magazine. If you never encountered CREEM during its heyday, here's
a flavor of what it was like from Stacy:
Circa 1975-1985, Creem was the best rock magazine in the world. It was
smart and funny. They had these incredibly hilarious, sarcastic captions on the photos, sometimes with running gags. For example,
on any photo of Neil Young, he would always be a "whining Canadian."
The writing was excellent. Like
I said, Lester Bangs was my favorite. I'm pretty sure it was his review of the first Ramones album -- to say nothing of that
ultra-cool album-cover image -- that caused me to go out and plunk down $8.99 for an album by a band I'd never actually heard,
because the Ramones never got any radio back in the day. But the writing was all-around excellent, and I'm sure you could
tell me the names of the other writers whose names I've forgotten.
The photos were excellent, too. One I'll never
forget had Gene Simmons holding Brooke Shields in a sort of King-Kong-and-Faye-Ray fashion. Simmons had his tongue hanging
out and was leering suggestively, as if he were about to ravish this innocent girl (Brooke couldn't have been older than 14
at that time), and the look on Brooke's face -- sheer terror -- was classic. The implication of that picture was totally wrong,
and yet Brooke's eye-bulging fear made it ROTFLMAO funny, long before anyone ever heard of "ROTFLMAO."
Finally, of course, there was Boy Howdy! Beer, favorite beverage of all cool rock stars. When I was in college, my goal
in life was to become such a cool rock star that one day I could appear in the pages of Creem magazine holding an ice-cold
bottle of Boy Howdy! And the coolest thing about that dream? Well, the year I graduated college was the year Brooke Sheilds
turned 18, so . . .
Well, those clueless bastards who run the music industry never recognized my genius -- or how
cool I was -- so Brooke's loss ended up as Mrs. Other McCain's gain. Bitter?
Sour grapes? Nah. My wife's sexier. Besides, who wants Gene Simmons' sloppy seconds?
Bangs wrote, in my opinion, the greatest record review of all time: it was for one of Lou Reed's albums, took
up a full column, and consisted of only the word 'NO' repeated over and over and over. His review of Metal Machine Music is also a classic.
My goal, too, was to be in the pages of CREEM holding a Boy Howdy Beer in one
hand and a bottle of Jack in the other, sitting next to Jimmy Page discussing sharks and sharing Miss Pamela's charms.
CREEM understood that rock and roll was supposed to be fun [the wankers at Rolling Stone
and Crawdaddy always took it too damn seriously], like National Lampoon understood that life was absurd.
As I said, I wanted to do something special for Stacy as he passes the Hawaii 5-0 mark. Well, here you go Stace,
you finally made it: YOU'RE IN A BOY HOWDY AD....
...is awarded to Robert Stacy McCain for reminding us that any so-called 'good economic news' is nothing but a bunch of illusions created by (1) people who
are intentionally lying [see: The White House] and (2) by people who are prone to irrational exuberance [see: Wall Street
analysts of all stripes and kinds]:
What has actually been happening in the economy,
of course, is that the way the TARP bailout was structured, it pumped massive liquidity into Wall Street. This inevitably
led to a rise in stock prices -- a "sucker's rally" -- that I believe is the main reason we haven't seen a consumer
price increase as a result of the Fed's insanely inflationary monetary policy. Relatively little of that extra currency is
going to Main Street. Instead, it's been siphoned off into the financial sector and we're seeing an inflationary stock bubble.
Because the MSM desperately wants to believe in the unicorns-and-rainbows magic of Obamanomics, they've highlighted
the stock market rally and twisted the headlines about other economic news -- "We only lost 200,000 jobs last month?
Great!" -- in an attempt to manufacture consumer confidence.
Alas, consumer confidence isn't
magic, either. At some point, the fundamentals actually matter and, as I have occasionally had cause to remind you, the fundamentals still suck.
Indeed they do. Considering only what actions have been taken so
far, things are going to get a lot worse. If the Leftists in power are allowed to continue to follow the course they
have, things will go catastrophic [maybe that's exactly what this crew wants (see: Alinksy, Saul and Strategy, Cloward-Piven)].
Dark Times, my friends, dark times.
Some Britisher named Nigel Horne, who is Executive Editor of something called The First Post, published a column yesterday that concerned itself with Lynn
Vincent, ghostwriter for Sarah Palin on her new book due out soon entitled Going Rogue. A highlight:
For the past 10 years, Vincent has been working for
the Christian-based Worldmagazine, from which she took time off to work on Palin's book. She is a creationist and
strongly anti-abortion, the subject of many of her World columns.
She is also staunchly anti-gay, backing
the controversial vote to re-criminalise gay marriage in California, and - this is where Palin and her publishers might have
drawn the line, but didn't - she is closely associated with a well-known white supremacist.
He is Robert
Stacey McCain (no relation to John McCain), a former editor at the Washington Times, a
paper he left two years ago after a steaming row with a colleague.
For a taste of McCain's politics, this is him
on the subject of interracial marriage: "[The] media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of
perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting
business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no
matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us."
Before he left the Washington Times,
he and Lynn Vincent collaborated on a book called Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
- a chronicle, so it boasted, of "shameless bribery, illicit sex, sweeping corruption".
The same
old tired false charges leveled using the same old tired method: The Ransom Note Method. Herewith, in brief, a primer on the RNM [sorry Stacy]:
The term derives
from the way the smear merchants typically assemble their smears by quoting a phrase here, two words there, and two sentences
from something else, and then gluing it together with their own perjorative interpolations and a bit of guilt-by-association,
much like a kidnapper cutting out words from a magazine to paste together a ransom note.
A longer explanation
is available at the link immediately above.
Nigel Horne's word clearly fit into that category. Another good
example of the RNM is use is what Rachel 'Madcow' Maddow recently said on Meet The Press, which I wrote about
here and here.
Eric Dondero, over at the Libertarian Republican, brought the matter to Stacy's attention and then proceeded
to deal Mr. Horne a righteous Fisking. Thanks Eric. He also comments:
I've never met Stacy in person. But
we've had numerous phone and email communications, most especially during the Bob Barr, Libertarian Campaign for President
in 2008 (prior to Sarah Palin being picked as McCain's VP). I can tell you from talking with him, his writings, and most especially
his choice of friends and associates, there isn't a "racist" bone in his body, and as a self-described "libertarian"
he would have no problem whatsoever, with bi-racial dating and marriages.
Stacy the evil "racist" was
one of the earliest supporters of African-American candidate for RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
While I am not litigious by nature -- my views being rather Jacksonian in that regard -- perhaps Governor Palin, Mrs. Vincent and their publishers have different views. It
is my understanding that British libel law is far more inclined toward the plaintiffs than is true here in the United
States, especially for "public figures" as covered under the U.S. Sullivan precedent.
Should Mrs. Vincent retain the services of a British attorney, I suspect that
your publisher would be advised to settle the suit at any sum asked, as it would be quite impossible to prove that Mrs. Vincent
is "closely associated with a well-known white supremacist," which I most assuredly am not, no matter what
any particular idiot has published to that effect or how often it has been repeated.
...
Here in the
United States, we have enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution an ancient principle of English common law, whereby
the fact that I have not chosen publicly to address any specific defamatory accusation against me cannot be taken as evidence
that the undenied accusation is true.
Were it otherwise, every citizen would be compelled constantly to disprove
any malicious thing said or written about them, lest it be considered to be fact that, for example, Nigel Horne is a notorious syphilitic poofter.
What accusation of secret vice might the executive editor of The First Post be
compelled to deny or repudiate? Nigel Horne is a pedophile, who buggers boy prostitutes while on holiday in Phuket? Nigel Horne is a pornography freak, whose hard-drive is crammed full of the most vile photos and videos imaginable? Nigel Horne is a heroin addict, who supports his habit by embezzling from his employers?
You see there is no
end to the mischief that might ensue if journalists were to adopt a habit of recklessly repeating accusations that the accused
would then be required to disprove.
One has to wonder if Felix Dennis, Publisher of The First Post, will have any comment in future on his Executive Editor who may, some believe, be one or more of the following:
For my five previous postings on this subject, please click here and here and here and here.and here.
Over at the Greenroom, Stacy McCain published the first part of the report on his investigation
into the murder of Bill Sparkman. Not only is it very informative, but it is extremely well-written. The caliber
of his prose is something you don't see too often anymore [too much time spent in both private and public schools teaching
kids to bad mouth their country, as R. Lee would not doubt phrase it (he'd probably add some about them being twinkle-toes
c***s*****s too)]. A highlight:
As I walked back to my car – and trust me, I was walking mighty fast – I’d only been in Kentucky for 24
hours. Yet I’d already talked to dozens of locals about the Sparkman case and none of them believed that his death was
the result of any kind of right-wing conspiracy, unless you consider it “right-wing” for a drug dealer to protect
his stash.
“Send the body to Glenn Beck,” one liberal pundit declared Sept. 24, but I’d seen nothing in eastern Kentucky – an area I’d jokingly begun
to call Lower Glennbeckistan – that would lead any reasonable person to think Bill Sparkman’s death was the deed
of fanatical Fox News junkies or Tea Party protesters.
Crossing the stream and reaching the gate down by Arnetts
Fork Road, I paused to look around for just a minute. This was the scene of the crime, and having come all this way to see
it, I wanted to have a clear image in my mind. I put my camera and notebook back in the car, fired up a Parliament Light and
thought about the situation as I stood by the gate and listened to the stream trickling past under the bridge.
If
Bill Sparkman hadn’t just driven up here to Hoskins Cemetery to enjoy the scenery, but rather had been lured up here
or brought here by his killer, then whoever killed him was almost certainly a local resident, someone familiar with the area.
No way somebody from out of town, a stranger to the area, would have driven past many other possible places to dump a body
in order to reach this isolated location.
Rodney Miller at the Enterprise had pointed out the significance
of the location in our conversation Monday afternoon, just after I arrived in Clay County. This cemetery was far away from town, and even farther
from Sparkman’s home in Laurel County. Sparkman’s truck had been parked up here when his body was found. How did
the truck get here? Did Sparkman drive up here, or had he been kidnapped by someone?
And that's just Part One. I've got piles of notes, photos, videos and copies of local Kentucky newspapers
that don't have Web sites, so I'll be posting Part Two in a couple of days. Plus, I've got all kinds of phone numbers for
sources as this story goes forward.
RACHEL MADDOW HAS NOT RESPONDED YET TO CHARGES SHE IS A CRACK WHORE
Yesterday in this Dispatch, I looked at the possibility that MSNBC's Rachel 'Mad Cow' Maddow was a crack whore. Speaking
of Sarah Palin's book on Meet The Press, the liberal lesbian had accused Stacy McCain of being a 'white supremisist':
....And she's chose--the person who's writing her book, her last--the last person
who she co-authored a book with was called "Donkey Cons" and it was co-authored with a guy who's widely believed
to be and I believe him to be a white supremacist. So she's chosen Lynn Vincent, who's written a book with a white supremacist,
to write her book, and she's the biggest name in Republican politics.
Apparently, no actual facts, evidence or proof are needed to slander someone
on MSNBC, as long as one "believes" the slander to be true.
So with that said, "Rachel Maddow is widely believed to be, and I believe
her to be, a crack whore." Therefore, Sarah Palin's book was criticized on the air by a crack whore. Are you going to
believe a crack whore? Especially one who looks like your younger brother? Of course not.
No response has
been forthcoming as of yet from Mzzz. Maddow—neither a denial or a confirmation. Which may cause some [not me necessarily] to
wonder: is she hiding something? People want to know. Some are just asking questions.
Fellow freedom
fighter, The Classic Liberal, has done us a great service by aggregating what some good people in The Rightosphere
have said about Mzzz. Madcow's accusations.
I found
Robert Stacy McCain’s blog, oh, probably sometime around last January. I’ve read it daily ever since.
Being an information junkie, I’ve read through some of his archives too. McCain is a stand-up guy. He’s the best
thing the conservative media has going for it. McCain is not a racist by any stretch of the imagination.
Anyone
who says Stacy is a raaaaacist is either a lier or and an ignoramus. The alleged crack whore seems to be both.
GaterDoug speculates that Mzzz. Maddow may be suffering from a psychological malady:
...Here is
another intellectual coward, playing the RAAAAACIST card rather than actually debating ideas. Maddow is no different than
other Leftists afflicted with PBS (Perpetual Bitterness Syndrome). She cannot argue facts, or reason, or logic. She cannot
refute Conservative ideology, so, she attacks the person that dares disagree with her.
Rachel Maddow has got several facts wrong, and you know what? I'm going to let
her try to figure out which facts she's got wrong. She gets paid by MSNBC to report the facts, and as she goes about
the process of proving she couldn't find her own ass with both hands, I'll be content to watch and laugh.
That brings us to the even more refreshing aspect of
this controversy: It is not a Left-Right issue. I’m not normally one to celebrate bipartisan unity, but it’s nice
to know there are some things political or ideological opponents can agree on. Some of the most ardent and clear voices on
the Polanski issue have been on the Left.
Go into a bar or union hall and ask whether fat-cat directors should
get special treatment when they rape 13-year-old girls and you’ll discover that on this issue, the differences between
“blue America” and “red America” are vanishingly small.
And yet, there is a controversy.
Many of the international community’s leading lights are rallying to the Free Polanski movement. A petition is circulating
with such names as Harvey Weinstein, Martin Scorsese, and Woody Allen on it. (No surprise that Woody’s on board, given
that he married his adopted daughter.) The arguments in Polanski’s defense range from lawyerly red herrings to intellectual
piffle to horrendous affronts to human decency. Whoopi Goldberg (no relation) dismissed the allegations because she was sure
whatever Polanski did, it didn’t amount to “rape rape.”
It all boils down to the fact that Polanski
is famous and talented and an Olympian artist, living above the world of mortals. Indeed, if he didn’t rape that girl
— and he did — Polanski would still be considered a pig in most normal communities. This is the man who, after
all, started dating Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15 and he was in his 40s. His taste for teenage girls is an established
fact.
His defenders don’t care. They are above and beyond bourgeois notions of morality, even legality.
And that’s the main reason I am grateful for this controversy. It is a dye marker, “lighting up”
a whole archipelago of morally wretched people. With their time, their money, and their craft, these very people routinely
lecture America about what is right and wrong. It’s good to know that at the most fundamental level, they have no idea
what they’re talking about.
I must agree with Charles Crawford that the phrase 'a whole archipelago of morally wretched people' should be awarded Phrase Of The Year [Damn,
I wish I had written that]. It kind of sums up, not only the refuse of Hollywood specifically, but applies to the Leftists
in general. Bravo, Jonah.
From The London Daily Telegraph, Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat
reporting, we learn:
A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections
in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.
A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known
as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.
The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family
changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.
The Sabourjians traditionally
hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the
Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry
of the Interior.
Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could
be an overcompensation to hide his past.
...Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that soothsayer
of silliness, that puking prophet of pablum, Mohamed ElBaradei! [tip of the fedora to the Drudge Report]:
Israel is the number
one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses.
Mr. ElBaradei will be receiving a 2x4
[certified kosher] upside the head as soon as we can get a hold of the little bastard. As always, a tree will be
planted in his name in Israel that will service Jewish dogs for years to come and he'll receive a gift certificate for the
Spiegel Catalogue.
As culpable as Russia and China in allowing Iran all the time that it needs
in order to advance its nuclear weapons program, however, is Dr. ElBaradei.
This man should never have been permitted
to assume leadership of the IAEA, which has racked up nothing but successive failures under his charge. Libya surrendered
its WMD program – of which the IAEA was entirely oblivious – only after becoming incontinent with fear following
the shock and awe of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libya’s capitulation quickly led to the discovery of A. Q. Khan’s
nuclear black-market, another development about which the IAEA was completely unaware, and, in North Korea, the IAEA has been
comprehensively sidelined by the Six-Party Talks. Perhaps most damning of all, the IAEA had no inkling of Iran’s
20-year history of clandestine nuclear tinkering, until its very public exposure in 2002.
This, of course, is all in addition to his legendary ability to grasp the wrong end of the stick by repeatedly
praising Iranian non-cooperation and singling out Israel for criticism, as well as his frequent dispensation of invaluable
advice, such as:
We have to cross our fingers that nothing will happen.
Thanks, Doc.
Yes, thank you Mohamed. Shalom! from all us folks here in The
Camp Of The Saints and The Beloved City.
From today's round-table discussion of Sarah Palin and her book on Meet
The Apparatchiks Press [emphasis mine / tip of the fedora to Pat Austin]:
MR. MURPHY: Yeah. No, no, look, she has a constituency. She'll never be the nominee, I totally agree with David.
I agree with Steve Schmidt, it would be actually a disaster if she was the nominee. I do wish my friend Steve felt that a
year ago when a lot of people were asking John McCain to put her on the ticket. But the truth is--and I'm going to agree with
David here, too--the noisiest parts of kind of the conservative media machine have far less influence than the mainstream
media machine that covers the Republican world thinks they do. These radio guys can't deliver a pizza, let alone a nomination.
And you can case study that out in the last election. So I--the question is whether or not our party will learn, when we have
a pretty good midterm victory due to Obama's mistakes this time, that turning up the volume is not the reason that we're going
to do well, I believe, in the midterms. And the fact is to get all the way, there are a lot of things we have to do to modernize
conservativism to be successful. MS. [RACHEL] MADDOW:
I, I do think that there's a little bit of reckoning that needs to happen on the right for Sarah Palin's success. I mean,
she was the vice presidential nominee, she is going to sell a kazillion books and she is the biggest brand name in Republican
politics still right now. And she's chose--the person who's writing her book, her last--the last person who she co-authored
a book with was called "Donkey Cons" and it was co-authored with a guy who's widely believed to be and I believe
him to be a white supremacist. So she's chosen Lynn Vincent, who's written a book with a white supremacist, to write her book,
and she's the biggest name in Republican politics.
MR. MURPHY:
Oh, but, Rachel...
MS. MADDOW: And you can dismiss her and
say she's not going to be the nominee, but I do think the right needs to sort of answer for what's happened to conservatism.
MR. MURPHY: But let me just say, I am a well-documented nonfan
of Sarah Palin, at least as a national politician. I don't know her personally. But that's guilt by association stuff. That's
the cable stuff. That's the problem.
MS. MADDOW: But why would
you--you can pick anybody to be your ghostwriter.
MR. MURPHY: Sarah
Palin's a lot of things, but she's not a white supremacist. And... MS.
MADDOW: You could--no, I don't think she is. But when you can pick anybody, why would she pick somebody who's associated with
the League of the South, who said that Americans are revolted by the idea of having a black sister-in-law. I mean, she--this
is who she picked to write her book.
MR. MURPHY: Yeah, but
there's...
MS. MADDOW: Why do you do that?
MR. MURPHY: That's sort of guilt by association stuff, which I don't know and
it can--I--check it out.
MS. MADDOW: It's guilt by choice. It's guilt
by choice.
DAVID GREGORY: OK.
I never knew that irresponsible cretin known as Rachel Maddow was such a fan of Little Green Johnson
Footballs.
[In case you don't know, Lynn Vincent, Mrs. Palin's ghostwriter, co-authored Donkey
Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party with Stacy McCain.] [The 'MR. MURPHY' of the transcript
is Mike Murphy, the big time loser Republican operative.]
Big tip of the fedora to Pat Austin, over at And
So It Goes It Shreveport, for doing the dirty work of actually watching that fetid piece of folderal MTP.
Pat is spot-on when she comments:
...I've read NOTHING in Stacy's works to support such an accusation and it seems
to me that Maddow just lowers the level of debate when she spews trash garnered from Charles Johnson.
Was it necessary
for Maddow to slander Stacy McCain in her attack on Palin's ghostwriter? I don't think so.
It's a nasty, damaging
attack to label someone as a "white supremacist" and it shows that Maddow has sunk lower than I even thought her
able to go, which was pretty low.
I've already testified with all my strength to Robert Stacy McCain's goodness,
fairness, and racial evenhandedness. I know this is not a racist man. But for whatever statements he's made, or that have
falsely been attributed to him, the radical left is using Robert Stacy McCain to score libelously cheap political points.
Maddow's despicable comments constitute liberal slander on steroids. Rachel
Maddow stated that McCain is "widely believed to be, and I believe him to be, a white supremacist."
Apparently,
no actual facts, evidence or proof are needed to slander someone on MSNBC, as long as one "believes" the slander
to be true.
So with that said, "Rachel Maddow is widely believed to be, and I believe her to be, a crack whore."
Therefore, Sarah Palin's book was criticized on the air by a crack whore. Are you going to believe a crack whore?
Especially one who looks like your younger brother? Of course not.
This is one of those rare
times where you wish you lived under British Law with their easy libel statutes. I will merely republish what I wrote
several weeks ago [suitably updated for this occasion] when The Lizard King slandered my friend, Stacy McCain:
I've known Stacy for nearly a year now. We have never met or spoken, but have communicated many times with each other.
Since I became aware of him, I have read many of his works from over the years [check out here for some of his older writings—many good pearls to be discovered there]. Stacy has also been a great booster
of this website and its subsidiary sites. His advice has been priceless, as has been his encouragement and good cheer.
Never once have I read one word of his that could remotely be accused of being evidence for Maddow's
baseless and malicious charges. Let it be noted for the record that: Rachel
Maddow is a despicable cowardly cretinous ignoramus who deserves a good shunning by all decent men and women.
Stacy McCain is one of the finest, most decent men I have ever known.
'This one was worth
the fight. And it's only one fight in the battle, and we have to keep fighting.' —Doug
Hoffman
The Restoration will not be televised; it will be blogged. —Robert Belvedere
Click The Picture Above For The Latest Updates/Linkage
'Bob Belvedere may have the best compilationof IG-Gate information.' —Robert Stacy McCain
'Robert Belvedere at The Camp
of the Saints appears to be maintaining the definitive index of all things PIG-gate...at TCOTS. ...This is an excellent resource.
We thank you, sir.' —Smitty
'More great commentary and juicy
links on l'affaire IG from Camp of the Saints..' —Paco
Click here and here to find out why I think Robert Stacy McCain is THE CONSERVATIVE
SHAFT
MY KENYAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Please Click on the Image to View Full Size
Please click on the image above to learn more from Michelle Malkin.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
T E R M S
Let us make precise and clear-cut the terms we should be using.
Aristotle wrote that A is A; you may also call it B, but
it always remains A. A thing is what it is and, to say it is something else, is to deny reality. There is a lot of denial
of reality going around these days.
As John Adams wrote: 'Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence'.
POINT 1:There is no "War in Iraq"
or "War in Afghanistan".Like the Pacific and Europe in World War II, Iraq and Afghanistan are
just parts of a larger war.Unlike them, they are not separate from each other.Therefore,
they are part of the Middle East Theatre of Operations [METO] as the Pacific was the PTO and Europe the ETO.
POINT 2: Many on the Left and some on the Right want to "end
the War".There are only two ways to end a war: (1) by achieving Victory or (2) by being Defeated.A pullout, before Victory is achieved, is Defeat.They want Defeat.Pullout may
be the best policy―I am not arguing that here―but, leaving without achieving our objective is Defeat.
POINT 3: We are engaged in a War Against Islam.
The term is more correct than "War against Islamo-Fascism" or "War On Terror".
Islam has been at war with all non-Muslims since the
time of its founder, Muhammad [his name be cursed].Like the Hundred Years' War, there have been periods
of peace in this long conflict, but the Muslim has never stopped believing that he is at war with all non-Muslims.He can't: Allah commands that all of the world be conquered in his name and he must submit, in all things, to the
will of Allah [the word Islam means "submission", sometimes rendered as "surrender"].Any
periods of peace we in the West have enjoyed have only occurred after we have dealt them such a devastating blow that they
have not been able to wage their jihad and then have pursued polices that have kept them subjugated.This
began to fade in the latter half of the 20th Century as we forgot the dangers posed by this militant religion and
as they regrouped under new and committed leaders.
If you
doubt that Islam is at war with all non-Muslims, keep in mind this: Islamic apologists
often point out that Islam is not a monolith and that there are differences of opinion among the different Islamic schools
of thought. That is true, but, while there are differences, there are also common elements. Just as Orthodox, Roman Catholic,
and Protestant Christians differ on many aspects of Christianity, still they accept important common elements. So it is with
Islam. One of the common elements to all Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to
conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law. The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic
religious jurisprudence]) -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- all agree that there is a collective obligation on
Muslims to make war on the rest of the world. Furthermore, even the schools of thought outside Sunni orthodoxy, including
Sufism and the Jafari (Shia) school, agree on the necessity of jihad. When it comes to matters of jihad, the different schools
disagree on such questions as whether infidels must first be asked to convert to Islam before hostilities may begin (Osama
bin Laden asked America to convert before Al-Qaeda’s attacks); how plunder should be distributed among victorious jihadists;
whether a long-term Fabian strategy against dar al-harb is preferable to an all-out frontal attack; etc.
They have been at war with us for
centuries and we, therefore, have been at war with them.We are engaged in a War Against Islam whether
we want to say so or not.In an interview with a Pakistani TV network on 23 July 2008, Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid,
Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man and top commander in Afghanistan, has this to say: “Islam does not distinguish between the
American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam”.
POINT 4: The term "Islamo-Fascism" seems
to have been created by Leftists.Since (1) they wrongly place fascism on the Right, (2) they believe [rightly]
Muslims want to establish a theocratic regime on Earth, and (3) anything political that has any connection with religion is
bad and emanates out of rightwing thinking, the term makes sense to them.Therefore, the term is nothing
but a way to associate Islam with the right-wing.Muslims believe in a totalitarian way of governing; in
submission [that word] to an all-powerful Islamic leader or leaders.
POINT 5: As to the term "War On Terror",
it is just plain silly: how can you wage war on a thing?
POINT 6: What is fascism? It is when a government
allows private property to exist, but controls and manages the use and disposal of property in all its forms. Citizens
retain all of the burdens and responsibilities associated with property ownership, but are not allowed to control and shape
its use.
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied
bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone
liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism
and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through
direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally
private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their
property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a
few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance
of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled
the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. [Source: Sheldon Richman, The Concise Encylcopedia Of Economics,
Liberty Fund, found at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html]
On the political spectrum, therefore, it is located between modern liberalism
and socialism.
POINT 7: What is socialism? It is when a government
allows no private property to exist, and controls and manages the use and disposal of property in all its forms.
Citizens are not allowed to control their lives and are subject to the whims of bureaucrats and officials. If they
retain freedoms and liberties, they do so at the discretion of them. On the political spectrum, therefore, it
is the next logical stage after fascism; some would argue that it lies between fascism and communism.
POINT 8: What is pragmatism? It is a tool used by Leftists,
or those operating under the influence of Leftist logic, to achieve Utopian ends—heaven on earth through social, political,
cultural, and spiritual engineering. It is merely a tool of ideology, part of the means to an end.
POINT 9:The Big Lie - When confronted with truths that reflect
unpleasantly on them, the Leftists deflect it buy claiming over-an-over ad nauseum that these truths apply to and are products
of the Right. This practice is known as The Big Lie. It has been successfully practiced by the
Left since, at the very least, the French Revolution. Thus, we have the now-widespread belief that the Nazis and the
Black Shirts of Italy were right-wingers when the reality-the truth-is they were both people of the Left. I suspect
the violent objections from the Left to conservatives use of the term 'fascist' arise from the fact that they have spent well
over seventy years trying to convince the world of The Big Lie that it is not and never has been a Leftist
ideology.
How does one practice this distortion truth and why is it effective? In a report issued during
World War II by the OSS, the author provided an explanation for all practitioners by describing how Hitler practiced it:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault
or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame;
concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than
a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
By repeating
their lies over and over, the Left creates a false reality that supplements the real world. In this false reality, the
lie is the truth, the truth is the lie. A is not A. [But we know that A must always be A.]
The Left
also practices a variation of The Big Lie that I like to call The Big Deception which involves
a Big Deflection away from the reality of the situation. None of their policies or actions can survive
direct questioning, so the Leftists must turn the tables on the questioners and make it seem as though the inquisitors have
bad or evil intentions. Overtime and after constant and unrelenting hectoring, the Left's way of thinking triumphs.
They successfully infect enough people so that this diseased mode of thinking becomes chronic, deep-rooted, instinctual. If
the Devil's greatest triumph was that he convinced people he did not exist, the Left's greatest triumph has been to convince
people that the Leftist way of thinking is normal. It is not. It is a perversion of reason and a horribly mutant
form of logic. It is antithetical to human life. Nothing but decay and destruction are left [pun intended] in it's wake.
What They're Saying
About BOB BELVEDERE & The Camp Of The Saints...
'You are contributing to a noble yet futile cause -- the butchification of metrosexuals. TCOTS
roolz!' —Red—
'[H]e takes retro dame blogging to a new, narrative noir level.' —Smitty—
'Staunch Rule 5 aficionado Bob Belvedere, is shameless indeed (I have so much respect for this man)!' —The Classic Liberal—
'Who knew he was such a fan of the undead?' —Smitty—
'We need fighters, and I suspect Beck will fight 'til ev'ry foe is vanquished. Bob Belvedere gets it. Phyllis Chesler gets it. We defend truth and
liberty against lies and tyranny. Every eye is upon us and we are surrounded by enemies as numerous as the grains of sand
on the shore. Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer. WOLVERINES!' —Stacy McCain—
'Bob Belvedere, you're a nasty piece of work.' —Anonymous—
'Lord Fatheringay von Whoopsie of the Dung Heap Hooter' —Anon. —
"...Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go out
to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth...to gather them together to battle: the number of whom
is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the Camp
of the Saints...and the Beloved City: and the fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them...."
So...the Dali Bama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. I must say I'm impressed that a man who has accomplished absolutely
nothing to bring about peace...oh...wait a minute...I forgot: he has brought peace amongst the world's tyrants.
Well then...I guess he deserves it.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was one of only three House Republicans to vote against removing
tax cheat Charlie Rangel from his position as head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He defended his position thusly:
Comrade Obamnin knows that he could never get passed the kind of Amendments to The Constitution he would
wish to, so, like the good Leninist he is, he will just ignore the supreme law of the land. From Anne Bayefsky, 
As I walked back to my car – and trust me, I was walking mighty fast – I’d only been in Kentucky for 24
hours. Yet I’d already talked to dozens of locals about the Sparkman case and none of them believed that his death was
the result of any kind of right-wing conspiracy, unless you consider it “right-wing” for a drug dealer to protect
his stash.
I've known Stacy for nearly a year now. We have never met or spoken, but have communicated many times with each other.
Since I became aware of him, I have read many of his works from over the years [
