|
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Saddam's Terror Ties - Deroy Murdock
Saddam's Terror Ties - Deroy Murdock
Perhaps the best, most detailed exposure of the evidence for Saddam's links to terrorism -- so far -- has been laid out by Deroy Murdock of National Review Magazine. Why do the self-declared enemies of President Bush -- the ones in THIS country, I mean, not the foreign ones -- refuse to accept any piece of the reams of evidence of Saddam's wrongdoing? Although they say "Of course, Saddam was a bad person and a bad leader... of course he had to be dealt with," they invariably use their very next breath to ATTACK THE MAN WHO DID IT! It's difficult to believe that Liberals and their pet politicians, the Democrats, would go so incredibly far to make President Bush look bad that they're actively seeking ways to exonerate a brutal mass-murdering totalitarian dictator like Saddam Hussein... all in the name of an all-out left-wing power grab in November 2004. Yet that's the only rational explanation for their otherwise inexplicable behavior. Here are excerpts from Saddam's Terror Ties... an article the Liberals want you to ignore. The entire article can be found at http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp
As President Bush more robustly promotes his Iraq policy, he should confront directly those who dismiss Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism and, thus, belittle a key rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush's critics employ a flimsy argument that nonetheless enjoys growing appeal among a largely hostile press corps. Since Hussein did not order the September 11 attacks -- the fuzzy logic goes -- he has no ties to terrorists, especially al Qaeda. Therefore, the Iraq war was bogus, and Bush should be defeated.
According to the State Department's May 21, 2002 "Patterns of Global Terrorism," the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Worker's party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization and the Palestinian Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's hospitality towards these mass murderers placed him in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe harbor to or otherwise supporting terrorists.
Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Hussein's hospitality. Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree who Abbas's men rolled, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Baathist Iraq.
Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999. As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others. Among other atrocities, ANO henchmen bombed a TWA airliner over the Aegean Sea in 1974, killing all 88 people on board.
Coalition troops destroyed at least three terrorist training camps including a base near Baghdad called Salman Pak. It featured a passenger-jet fuselage where numerous Iraqi defectors reported that foreign terrorists were instructed how to hijack airliners with utensils. (The Bush administration should bus a few dozen foreign correspondents and their camera crews from the bar of Baghdad's Palestine Hotel to Salman Pak for a guided tour. Network news footage of that ought to open a few eyes.)
While Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, fled the U.S. on a Pakistani passport, he arrived here on an Iraqi passport.
Author Richard Miniter reported September 25 on TechCentralStation: "U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and a monthly salary." Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin was indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring some 1,000 New Yorkers.
Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer ruled. An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.
If one has the time or professional duty to connect these dots, a portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as sugar daddy to global terrorists, including al Qaeda and perhaps the 9/11 conspirators. Why won't Team Bush paint this picture? One administration communications specialist told me the government is bashful on this front because these links are difficult to prove. Yes, but prosecuting the informational battle in the war on terror is not like prosecuting a Mafia don, with wiretaps, hidden cameras and deep-cover "stool pigeons." Evidence of terrorist ties can be even more shadowy than a Costa Nostra whack job. While this makes metaphysical proof elusive, the White House and relevant agencies owe it to America's national security to highlight what they know about Saddam Hussein and terrorism, even if some of the evidence against him is only circumstantial.
Posted at Wednesday, October 22, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Limits On Free Speech For Servicemen?
Limits On Free Speech For Servicemen?
The hypocrisy of Liberals, especially those in the media, apparently knows no bounds. One of the bubbles of marsh gas rising in the Democratic swamp right now is the story of Army Lieutenant General William Boykin, who said while speaking in his church -- a private meeting place, not a government or public forum -- that the "real enemy" is Satan and that he felt that God put George W. Bush in the White House at the right time to deal with the threats we face today.
Immediately the Liberal Meat Grinder formerly known as the free press revved into action, attacking the General because his personal beliefs might offend the terrorists who are trying to kill us. "Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world and, perhaps, increased risk for members of the U.S. armed forces serving in Muslim nations," read part of a letter from Senator John Warner (R-Va) (I'm shocked) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi). It also said, "there are limits on the right of expression for service members."
When did THAT happen?
When did it come about that a man cannot even speak his mind in a private gathering? He wasn't giving away State secrets. He wasn't speaking in his capacity as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He was expressing his personal opinion in a church. When did that become a crime deserving of death, as Nina Totenberg of NPR immediately advocated when she said "I hope he’s not long for this world"? She immediately backtracked, saying "In his job, please, in his job."
Well, when did believing in a religion start being a disqualification for holding military rank? Did his personal beliefs make him a bad soldier?
It may have been the part where he spoke of a Somalian warlord who taunted him by saying that Allah would protect him that upset the Left. "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," Boykin said, referring (as he later explained) to the warlord's "worship of money and power."
If General Boykin had stood in a mosque and denounced President Bush, calling HIM a representative of Satan instead of Osama bin Laden, he would have been instantly lionised by the media instead. If anyone had dared to criticise those statements, the media and the ACLU would have been screaming bloody murder about the repression of his right to speak his mind, and his freedom of religion.
General Boykin exercised his First Amendment rights of free speech and practicing any religion he chose. When those things become crimes, book me on the next flight out. Since he wasn't speaking in his official capacity, or even in a public place, his rights ought to be protected as much as those people who, like most of the Democratic Party, viciously attack the President and accuse him of perjury without proof. As Donald Rumsfeld said about Boykin's remarks, "It is not our statement; it is his statement." Maybe the members of the press ought to stop exercising their First Amendment rights to attack someone for exercising his First Amendment rights.
Posted at Wednesday, October 22, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
State By State Breakdown For The 2004 Election
State By State Breakdown For The 2004 Election
John Hawkins of RightWingNews has compiled a state-by-state look at the upcoming 2004 Presidential election, including the number of electoral votes (the only ones that matter in case you're reading this, AlGore) and voting record for the last four elections. I'll have to add this to the sidebar so it'll stay accessible over the coming year. Thanks for doing all that work, John!
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_10_19.PHP#001429
Posted at Tuesday, October 21, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Monday, October 20, 2003
The U.N. Wants Your Guns
To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons...
UN Document A/CONF.192/15 Part II Section 2
http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html
Though they piously claim that their purpose is to stop illegal trade in small arms around the world, the United Nations' drive for global gun control is all about one thing: declaring between 60 and 65 million law-abiding Americans (according to the 2003 NRA factsheet) instant criminals. The UN wants to oversee all sales of "small arms" -- including handguns, rifles and shotguns. The resolution demands that "henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process." They want to track all guns from manufacturer to owner to owner, and "prevent the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of any unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons" (which must include all existing guns, since these marks have not yet been created). In other words, if you own a gun manufactured before the new marking is determined, you're in violation... you and tens of millions of other Americans exercising the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were extremely clear on their purposes regarding gun ownership. (Again referring to the NRA factsheet) Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms." Some people might argue that a militia is no longer necessary to the security of the country. Some of those people might argue that if a militia is no longer necessary, the people have no right to keep and bear arms. Reading the Constitution, I find no place in it where that or any right is specifically granted; therefore the rights the Constitution was designed to protect were pre-supposed to exist independently of and prior to its existence. There is certainly no precedent in the Constitution for removing the rights of the people, however... nor should there be.
If the United Nations succeeds in removing your right to own a gun, they will have succeeded in circumventing the Constitution of the United States, rendering it inferior to the will of the United Nations. Many "multiculturalist" (meaning "anti-THIS-culture") Liberals would think of that as a good thing, since (in their opinion), the United States is neither capable nor worthy of self-determination. To say the least, I disagree with that opinion. The Amendments in the Bill of Rights were designed to protect one thing: our freedom. An armed citizenry need never fear falling under the sort of totalitarian dictatorships that comprise many of the United Nations members, for instance.
Posted at Monday, October 20, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Liberal Litmus Test part 2
Liberal Litmus Test part 2
Take the following simple test to see whether you're a Liberal. Keep track of your answers.
11. The U.S. Military...
a. exists to protect America from harm, as aggressively as necessary. They're all heroes.
b. is too powerful; any use of America's overwhelming military might is unfair.
c. is accurately portrayed in movies like Oliver Stone's "Platoon" as a bunch of swaggering testosterone-drunk bullies, just aching to murder foreigners.
12. Osama bin Laden...
a. sits in a hidden cave issuing threats. It's just as important to dismantle his organisation as it is to find him... maybe more so. He doesn't carry out operations himself, you know.
b. is the most important member of al-Qaeda and our only legitimate enemy. Once we've captured him this "War on Terror" should be over, and we can stop being so aggressive and other countries won't hate us.
c. is only practicing his faith; it's unfair to keep harassing him this way. Try seeing the world from his point of view before you go around trying to kill him!
13. The Democratic Presidential hopefuls...
a. are mostly a joke. All they do is bash Bush like a bunch of angry children... not a thought or plan among them, except to raise our taxes some more. Who are they again?
b. will hopefully win the election, if they can come up with some really good platforms. Who are they again?
c. HAVE to win in 2004, no matter who ends up getting the nomination or what his ideas are. Who cares who they are, as long as they beat Bush?
14. The Democratic Party leaders...
a. were calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein five years ago based on Saddam's known weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian crimes, violation of UN resolutions and support of terrorism. They are the lowest of hypocrites for attacking the President (after the fact, of course, and after voting in favor of military action) just for political gain.
b. are finally making their voices heard in a Republican-dominated Washington.
c. should openly revolt and force Bush out of power, at gunpoint if necessary!
15. Filibustering judicial nominees...
a. is an attempt by the Democrats to hijack the Constitutional process. The same hypocrites that vehemently opposed the mere threat of filibustering Clinton's nominees are now leading the fake two-year filibuster on Bush's. The Constitution does not support them; their actions violate it. Is it even legal to block a nominee from even being voted on just because you're afraid you might lose? That's called democracy.
b. is acceptable, if the Senators really feel that the nominee is unqualified.
c. is acceptable, if the nominee is a Conservative right-winger nominated by a Republican.
16. Hillary Clinton...
a. became a partner in her law firm only because her husband got elected Governor, and became a Senator only because her husband got elected President. She has no actual qualifications to hold any office, yet some people are so star-struck they want her to run for President? At least Arnold had experience owning and managing his own companies before running for Governor!
b. should run for President, because it would be great to have a woman President!
c. should run for President, because she might get enough votes to beat Bush!
17. Iran...
a. is harboring and supporting terrorists (especially Saad bin Laden, who they said they expelled last year), and certainly seems to be on the verge of building a nuclear bomb. If they don't prove to the IAEA by 31 October 2003 that they aren't... they're in serious trouble. (And they can look east and west to find out what "serious trouble" means.)
b. is in danger of incurring the wrath of the United Nations, which will almost certainly issue resolutions and sanctions to teach them they should cooperate!
c. is sure to be the next country illegally invaded by Bush, when they are doing nothing to deserve it any more than Iraq or Afghanistan were.
18. Conservative talk radio hosts...
a. are entertainers who exhort people to think for themselves instead of blindly obeying politicians and media elites spouting messages of gloom, doom and fear. They often point out inconsistencies, shading and outright lies in media stories, which is why they're hated by the Left.
b. are mean, inhuman people who rant in front of millions of brainwashed followers, just like Hitler.
c. are dangerous because so many people listen to them... and people are merely sheep who NEED a shepherd. If we don't make them stop preaching their evil messages of disobedience and anti-political correctness, people will run wild, offending each other and voting Republican! They have to be silenced.
19. Gun ownership...
a. is a right of all responsible, law-abiding free Americans, protected by the Second Amendment. Non-law-abiding people will get them no matter what the law says.
b. should be restricted so that only people who really demonstrate a need for them should be able to get them.
c. should be stopped! The only kind of people who own guns also drink beer and watch NASCAR, for crying out loud... and who wants a bunch of drunk, testosterone-soused redneck bullies running around waving guns? The unwashed masses are too stupid to own guns. People need to be protected from themselves.
20. Cuba...
a. is an oppressive totalitarian Communist regime guilty of violating human rights, which people risk death daily to escape. We need to push for democracy for the Cuban people.
b. is a shining example of a Communist country that works, to counterbalance the oppressive Captalism of the USA. They have no unemployment, and no poverty!
c. is run by a great, wise, benevolent leader, and all the people adore him and are blissfully happy. No, I've never been there, but that's what celebrities like Oliver Stone, Ed Asner and Danny Glover say, and THEY have.
So, how did you score?
Mostly a's: No, you're no Liberal. You're a fine human being with a good grasp of the issues. Make sure you vote next November!
Mostly b's: Yes, You're a Liberal, but there's hope for you. You can be reasoned with. You need to get over the brainwashing you've undergone at school and by the Liberal media, and start thinking for yourself.
Mostly c's (or, you're utterly brainwashed): If you hate this country so much, why are you here? You'd enjoy Canada or France, or perhaps Cuba or North Korea MUCH more, I'm thinking, and create a job vacancy for a REAL American by your absence.
BONUS: If you refused to take this test because tests are inherently unfair... then you, my friend, are definitely a Liberal.
Take Part 1 and Part 3 of this test for the full effect. By the way, the "c" answers were all paraphrased from actual arguments I've had, mostly online. The other side, of course.
Posted at Sunday, October 19, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Friday, October 17, 2003
Another Iraqi Thank You
The American media's moratorium on everything coming out of Iraq with the exception of bad news is really beginning to grate. What kind of "free press" mostly reports one side of the story? Even as Ted Kennedy (D-C2H5OH)* rants "We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not"... they are. Sorry, Ted.
It's a sad day when an American has to read news from other countries to get an idea of what his country's doing that's NOT being reported at home. We used to joke (back in the bad old days of the Cold War) about how TASS and Pravda only presented one side of the issues to citizens of the U.S.S.R. How much worse is it when American media outlets refuse to print anything that puts the American government in a favorable light? TASS and Pravda were, at least, rooting for their OWN COUNTRY, instead of against it!
A recent article in the Hindu Business Line (a Madras-based business newspaper, of all places), For This Iraqi, It's Thank You, Bush, contains a few quotes from an interview with a 45-year old teacher from Baghdad:
"The Americans are good for two reasons: First, because they got rid of Saddam Hussein, and second, because they have provided safety and security for the people of Baghdad."
Another reason for which Anwaar and her neighbours are grateful to the Americans is the unearthing of an ammunition depot in their neighbourhood. "Saddam Hussein had kept a huge amount of ammunition here. But someone tipped the Americans and they came and cleared the whole place. Had a single lighted matchstick been thrown in that place, the whole area would have blown up, killing -- Allah alone knows -- how many innocent people."
She insists that things are much better in Baghdad and the situation is improving by the day. "Even you can go around safely in Baghdad; just avoid going out at nights and be very careful about your purse. But otherwise, Baghdad is a safe place, particularly for women like me."
She recalls with a shudder the horrific times under Saddam Hussein. "He was a tyrant of the worst kind. Nobody can imagine how bad he was. Let me give you an example. Under the `Food for Oil' programme, we used to get supplies of medicines, some of it meant for the sick children in our hospitals. But Saddam would seize the supplies and instruct paediatric departments or children's hospitals that the medicine should not be given to the children and they should be allowed to die. He would order that once 20 children were dead, their janazas (coffins) should be taken out together so the world could be led to believe that these children were being killed due to the UN sanctions on Iraq. He was heartless. Loads of expired medicines would be thrown away instead of treating sick children. That is why I would like to say: Thank you Mr Bush for getting rid of Saddam."
Anwaar is sore at the Iraqis who curse the Americans. "There were only two entities who could have saved Iraq from Saddam: God or the Americans. God did not listen to our prayers."
Future generations of free Iraqis will be glad that someone did.
* C2H5OH is the chemical composition of alcohol.
Posted at Friday, October 17, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Clinton's Warning
In a Reuters news story yesterday, former President Bill Clinton says that he warned President Bush in his "exit meeting" that Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to the US. I wish I could ask Clinton why, if he felt Osama was such a threat, he passed up chance after chance to arrest him.
Mansoor Ijaz, now a New York City-based investment banker who traveled to Sudan more than a half dozen times in the mid-1990s, says he repeatedly relayed offers from the Sudanese government to the Clinton White House to share intelligence on bin Laden. In one case, the president of Sudan offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden and turn over information about global terrorist networks, Ijaz says.
The Clinton administration declined to take him up on the offer, Ijaz has argued in a Los Angeles Times commentary, in the pages of the January issue of the magazine Vanity Fair, and on national television shows.
http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story123493.html
I thought what Mansoor Ijaz had to say in December 2001 was bad until I found Richard Minter's book Losing bin Laden and Dereliction of Duty by Robert Patterson. For a man who thought Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to the nation, Clinton certainly did a whole lot of nothing about it.
I wonder what that "warning" he supposedly gave President Bush was like? I'd like to know exactly what he said. I wonder if, as the meeting was ending, Clinton turned back at the door and said something like this:
"Oh hey, by the way, George... I left a few things for y'all to deal with. I couldn't be bothered to make that Kim Jong Il fellow keep his promises; you'll have to take care of that. Same thing goes for Saddam Hussein... I tossed a couple of cruise missiles over there in Iraq, as you know, but I didn't want to risk my popularity by insisting that the UN inspectors be allowed back in after that, to see whether we actually hit anything, y'know? Oh, one more thing... people keep trying to get me to arrest this Osama bin Laden guy, they say he's dangerous... Hell, Sudan even offered to send him to where we could pick him up easy, but I didn't like their lack of socially progressive programs, so I just told 'em 'no'. I had other fish to fry, y'know what I mean? But I'm sure you'll be able to wrap up these here loose ends soon as you finish fixing up the economy. It started tanking in May of 2000, you know, but I managed to gloss over it long enough to skate outta here looking good, didn't I? That's the key... make sure no one can make anything stick to you, and you'll leave a good legacy. Well, George, it's been real fun meeting ya'll like this, but I have a few more pardons to sign before I leave."
Posted at Thursday, October 16, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Liberal Litmus Test
Take the following simple test to see whether you're a Liberal. Keep track of your answers.
1. Tax cuts...
a. stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of all consumers, while reducing the size of government.
b. should be on a sliding scale, so that the more money you make, the more taxes you pay by percentage.
c. ...for the rich!
2. A woman is days away from giving birth, and doesn't want to keep it. She should:
a. give the baby up for adoption.
b. get an abortion... after all, it's not really a child.
c. get an abortion, and the government should pay for it!
3. The United Nations...
a. is proving itself more irrelevant and opposed to America every day; we should consider leaving the UN and forming a new, permanent coalition of nations that are actually on our side. No rogue nations or terrorist states need apply.
b. should be our guide and conduit for international relations.
c. should be given complete sovereignty over all nations, especially the USA!
4. France...
a. is no longer our ally, because of their direct actions against us.
b. has always been our ally; maybe we should listen to their wise advice.
c. knows better than America. We need socialised medicine, shorter work weeks, government-sponsored vacation time, and freedom from morality too!
5. Countries who support terrorism...
a. are on the fast track to becoming our enemies, if they continue.
b. are only doing so because they fear the terrorists.
c. have a right to hate us because we're really the bad guys here.
6. Saddam Hussein...
a. was a monster who needed to be stopped.
b. was a bad leader who should have been stopped by the gradual application of international pressure. Oh, but not sanctions, because that only hurts the people. Just frowning at him at UN meetings would have done it eventually.
c. was a better man and a better leader than Bush!
7. Terrorists...
a. are being taken down one scumbag at a time.
b. hate the US because of world poverty and American arrogance.
c. have the right idea, but they're not active enough.
8. Israel...
a. is a democracy and our ally, and has the right to defend itself against terrorists, the same as we do.
b. is just as bad as the Palestinans; we should stay out of it.
c. should be destroyed; they're as arrogant as America!
9. The mainstream media...
a. is mostly liberal by their own admission. They filter news from Iraq to emphasise the bad, they promote the liberal point of view, and side with the elitists against America.
b. is pretty fair, on the whole. America isn't perfect, you know.
c. is owned by Zionists and controlled by the Bush administration!
10. President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, Leader of the Free World...
a. is doing a damn fine job, considering all this country has been through in the last three years. His tax cuts are starting to turn Clinton's recession around, his war on terror has prevented over a hundred terrorist plots against America from coming to fruition, and he's responsible for toppling two dictatorships and freeing fifty million people with an incredibly small loss of innocent and American lives. The good far outweighs the bad.
b. is doing a terrible job. There are still poor people and unemployed people in America, the Patriot Acts are killing our freedoms (though I refuse to be more specific about that), and all the other countries really hate us!
c. Hitler! Cowboy! Fascist! Bad evil scum garbage hate (froth) @*#$%^*&^#^%)@^!!!!! ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!! (head explodes)
So, how did you score?
Mostly a's: No, you're no Liberal. You're a fine human being with a good grasp of the issues. Make sure you vote next November!
Mostly b's: Yes, You're a Liberal, but there's hope for you. You can be reasoned with. You need to get over the brainwashing you've undergone at school and by the Liberal media, and start thinking for yourself.
Mostly c's (or, your head exploded): If you hate this country so much, why are you here? You'd enjoy Canada or France, or perhaps Cuba or North Korea MUCH more, I'm thinking, and create a job vacancy for a REAL American by your absence.
BONUS: If you refused to take this test because tests are inherently unfair... yes, you are definitely a Liberal.
Take Part 2 and Part 3 of this test for the full effect.
Posted at Tuesday, October 14, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Friday, October 10, 2003
Thought Police Beware in California!
Thought Police Beware in California!
Not too many Liberals, I'm betting, have read Tammy Bruce's books The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds and The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values. Well, if they want to get an idea of what's coming soon to California, they'd better. According to NewsMax.com, Tammy Bruce has been asked to be part of Governor Arnold's transition team. Just the titles of those two books alone ought to give you some idea of the shakeup California's about to undergo politically and socially. It's going to make the 1974 movie Earthquake look like a mild hiccup in comparison.
After all, how many conservative feminists who also happen to be lesbians can YOU name who have a chance to get into politics and help re-make an entire state?
The Left-wingers are rushing to assure each other that the election of a Republican, especially one who's socially liberal, means nothing at all to the essentially Democratic nature of the state. Well, democracy -- with a small "d" -- has spoken, and the Left-wing radicals are about to REALLY understand the point of view of the Taliban watching A-10 Warthogs sweeping over the Afghanistan horizon. If anyone doubts that most Californians voted to overthrow the Democrat stranglehold on California, all they have to do is check the results map at http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/recall/mapN4.htm.
Not a pretty sight... for the Democrats. A lot of people have gone on record to say that they hope the Democrats get the message, they hope the shrill mud-slinging stops, and that they hope the Democrats soon come back to their senses. Not me.
I foresee a split in the Democratic party nationwide. That's what it will take for them to divest themselves of the foaming mad anti-American elitists. You know who I mean: the ones who think anyone who drinks beer ought to be placated with "bread and circuses" every November instead of taking part in the democratic process. The "classic Democrats" -- those that would promote American interests over those of the French instead of vice-versa -- will probably spend the next ten years rebuilding their power base, and will hopefully by THEN learn that the American people root for America in any conflict. We have a vested interest in our own future, and we have to protect it... from enemies within as well as without.
If the retaking of California is the first step towards the rebuilding of America, the best part about this revolution is that our opponents believe in gun control. The most they can give you with an A.N.S.W.E.R. pamphlet is a nasty paper cut.
Posted at Friday, October 10, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
This Is the Liberal!
For me, the best part of the California recall election has been watching the Liberal reaction. I've never seen so many people so frothing at the mouth with rage, and -- I'm sorry -- it's hilarious! They seem to be struggling to outdo each other climbing to higher ivory towers to escape the teeming masses of stupid ordinary people -- that's you and me, in case you don't know. Consider this absolutely typical post (from Democratic Underground); of the thousands I've read today on various left-wing political forums, this one expresses the mindset of the Liberals the best.
What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed
This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.
I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.
#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.
I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.
In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.
#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN, etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.
Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.
THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=495887&mesg_id=495887
Heart-warming, isn't it? THIS is the Liberal mentality in a nutshell! THIS is what the people living in those ivory towers REALLY think of YOU! THIS is what we have to be on guard against... THIS IS THE LIBERAL!
Posted at Wednesday, October 08, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
|
|
