Skip to content
Image

It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, a Beautiful Day…

ABeautifulDayInNeighborhood

Weapons of Mass Political Disruption

Did President Obama know about the weapons I have been contending existed ever since reading several accounts where servicemen described guarding chemical weapons, intercepting them, and finally the reporting I read in July 2008 about the Yellow Cake that arrived in  Canada fresh off the boat from Iraq?  DID HE?!

The American people should be truly outraged, I know I am.  If you are one of those people who ignored these reports and trashed the Tea Party and Conservatives for believing in the purpose our troops had been given to find and destroy these ordinances, then you should feel like the idiot you truly are.  For political expediency, for the purposes of trashing your political adversaries, you turned a blind eye to those reports in the news and in anecdotal accounts, for your own selfish purposes, just for the ability to stick it to your opponent.  Think of that!  Think of how unbelievably self-centered and POLITICAL it was to IGNORE the evidence so that you could put a bumpersticker that had a cute saying on it on the ass-end of your car.  It’s disgraceful and (on your part) embarrassing.  So here’s what I have to say to whatever ridiculous excuse you find yourself digging deep for now: “Screw you and your unpatriotic, selfish, stupid self because there were indeed weapons of mass destruction and even with THIRTEEN MONTHS to get rid of the weapons while Bush coddled the U.N., there were so damn many of them, we couldn’t control them!

And what was the result of the “Bush Lied Soldiers Died” mantra?  An entire generation of newly-minted veterans were made to believe that they had participated in an effort that Hillary Clinton labeled, “Immoral and Illegal,” and that the American public supposedly didn’t support.  A dispirited young military led to dispirited families and, honestly, a disillusioned public.  So, what happened then?  Republicans lost the house and the senate in 2006 and then in 2008, we elected a Progressive Demagogue who has suppressed our economy, colluded to “deem” the largest socialist health care program in history into law, and driven our dollar through the floor by supporting Q3 & Q4.  According to Inteligence operatives, long-time intelligence workers lost careers over their supposed failures.  In the military, soldiers who had signed non -disclosure agreements after guarding the WMD, returned to a scathing political environment where families and neighbors  argued with each other about the purpose of the war and where there developed a bizarre “good-” war “bad”-war story that propelled into office a Party that promised not to expend blood and treasure on such a worthless effort.

The Liberal slogan of “WMD: Zero, KIA: 12, 000,” has given us an administration that, as I write this, has ordered the Army and the National Guard, for crying out loud, to enter a country where a disease of disastrous consequence,  where only 30% of those who contract it survive, to “assist and build facilities” for citizens of this foreign country where over 10,000 people have varying degrees of the fatal disease.  This slogan was an unmitigated lie perpetrated by the “One-World” leftists who would like nothing better than to send our soldiers into Liberia to further expose Americans to a disease that could devastate our medical system, shut down our schools and turn our country into the third-world backwater the Left has been hoping for.   Since we are so “rich and powerful,” a series of events that serve to devastate our infrastructure would provide the perfect comeuppance.

In a 2006 report on CBSNews.com, asked about the potential danger to U.S. troops [of transporting reportedly “old” chemical warheads], Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said: “They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found.”  In typical Rummy fashion, he lets the facts speak for themselves.  I’m just guessing here, but I think that when Rove directed that the administration bury this information, Rumsfeld said, “Right… whatever.”

But it was Dick Cheney’s senior advisor on national security, Dave Wurmser, Republican Intelligence Committee Chair, Dave Hoeksta, and former Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum who pushed for more information about the chemical weapons stockpiles.  What bothers me about this report, however, is the result of Rove’s effort to bury the story was that Santorum and Hoekstra learned that our intelligence efforts to locate the source(s) of the chemical weapons stockpiles had ceased.  The main focus remained on “buying” the weapons when they appeared on the market.  It sounds to me as though we never fully controlled the source and therefore lost the battle to contain the weapons.  Perhaps that is the real story here.  Afterall, how can you truly investigate something that wasn’t reported in the first place.

I ask again, did President Obama know about the weapons of mass destruction?  I suppose that depends on whether or not he paid attention to his first couple of days of the intelligence briefings.  Or perhaps it was buried there too?  Nah, he knew about it, it was just too good to be true.  Karl Rove, by covering up the extent of the find, did Obama the biggest favor ever, he handed him the Presidency!  But to know is to be blamed and when the first Serin gas attack on U.S. soil happens; and even though Obama did not support further efforts to stabilize the region, the same political hacks that came up with “Bush lied, soldiers died,” will undoubtedly find a way to blame the weapons of mass destruction attack on Bush.  The blame really should fall squarely at the feet of Karl Rove’s Lily white reputation  where it should fester like the malignant cancer it is.  Maybe then, the hold that Rove has on the Repubican millionaire /billionaire  crowd will wither and die.  One can only hope.

Eric The Divider: Founding Racism

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/129360

The founding of our country took place in an environment where racism was a part of the culture, as were many injustices, but none so “egregious” to the likes of Abigail Adams, as the market for African slaves.  The founders, like John Adams, knew what Americans (& Abigail) did not yet realise, that the issue of slavery and the culture of racism was going to generate a far greater conflict than a simple debate would solve.  They knew that the changes necessary to end slavery were going to require a sea-change in our society encompassing economic activity, trade relations, and a serious cultural upheaval.  The founders, of course, were right, and we lost 600,000 Americans in a civil war that nearly brought an end to our union.  But Liberals continue to blame slavery upon men who abhorred it and were compelled to start a country despite its entrenchment.  This argument is a red herring, of course, used to focus attention on the heroes of the conservative Right in an attempt to impeach their characters with their supposed support of the evil of slavery.

The same type of ruse is used contemporaneously by the great Eric Holder who finally found it necessary to resign today in the face of orders by a judge to release important information in the Fast & Furious scandal.  Not only has Eric Holder perpetuated this red herring lie, he has mastered the language necessary to incite racial tension in post-racial America.  As the young victim of real racial tension in early 70’s Chicago, I can attest that the children of the civil rights revolution had yet to evolve beyond pure hatred for their white brethren.  The memory of being punched in the stomach by a young black kid for daring to slide down a slide in his playground should have scarred me for life, but not having the slightest clue why he had punched me (hard) and run, I was far more focused on the pain than the motivation behind the action.  I remained oblivious to my encounter with racial hatred throughout my school years in mostly white New Hampshire.   I knew that there were those who truly hated other races; I had heard all the racial epithets in movies: nigger, ho, wetback, cracker, and worse, but I still felt no animus toward races different from mine.  What was all the hubbub about?

In college, I finally read some literature that attempted to explain racial tension from both a historical perspective in Flannery O’Connor’s stories, and from the perspective of an immigrant as ignorant of racial tension as I, but with a deeper understanding about the reasons behind racial behaviors in Illiberal Education by Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian immigrant to America.  Flannery provided the cultural perspective to a young white girl whose encounter on the playground was still a mystery.  What I learned from Flannery was that though race may provide humans with the weapons of hatred, evil permeates human nature regardless of race and ignorance affects us all equally.  Honestly, her stories simply affirmed what I already knew in my heart, that I should not be afraid to recognize and call out evil behavior from any human being, white black, or green.

In Illiberal Education, Dinesh D’Souza examines racial relations from the perspective of a minority immigrant removed from a caste society and newly arrived in a Republic that claimed to be color-blind.  The simple revelation that Dinesh was not able to easily distinguish the facial features of northern European or black people was a revelation to me.  I had always wondered why I had difficulties distinguishing one black man or woman from another, and finally I had found that it was not because I was an inherent racist, but that it was a simple matter of human genetics.  Races also develop unique cultural characteristics that humans of that race tend to prefer and gravitate toward such as music, language, and art.  Finally, I had found the freedom in my own mind to gravitate toward and prefer my own culture.  Not to say that one should not be curious about other cultures, but now I had the prerogative to prefer my own, sans any guilt imposed by those who mistakenly believe that cultural preference equals racism.

The problem with “isms” is that they are usually defined by others and do not recognize individual integrity.  I think that’s the key here: integrity and individualism, two states that when acting in harmony serve to define what should be the civil society.  But when an individual, like Eric Holder, defines an entire culture as inherently racist, the concept of civil society breaks down.  So-called “leaders” can then portion off entire swaths of society for ridicule and even hatred by others.  This is the antithesis of civil society, and for my part, Eric Holder will not be missed.

World Mourns Death of Palestinian Children While Christian Genocide in Iraq Ignored

Yesterday, a lovely Iraqi Christian immigrant, a middle-aged woman with seven children who sought asylum in the United States last year, gave me some onions and zucchini from her garden.  Used to farming many acres, this beautiful human being is now content with a small rectangle of soil in the rich loam of the Blackfoot river alluvial plane in the heart of Missoula, Montana.  My hope is that she is content with the life she now has that is so different from her home in Mosul, Iraq where she and her family farmed land that was passed down through generations.  She worries that her friends and family that remained in her homeland are now dead.

Fanaticism is evil.  There is no comparison, no relative term, though reporters and politicians worldwide would have you believe that the [Insert noun here] actions are equivalent in both activity and intent.  Go ahead, insert anything in that spot: American’s, Israeli’s, Brit’s, Australian’s…according to world media, these country’s troops and actions are equal to those of the muslim radical fanatics and should be put on the same scale for comparison to the head-removing lunatics who smile pretty for the cameras in Iraq while placing the heads of Christians (killed because they are Christian; is that racism?) on fence poles so that the world can see some serious outdoor landscaping.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn in “Warning to the West” which was his address at the Harvard commencement in 1980, was the first to call out the western pundits and journalists as traitors to their countries in aid of evil; journalists were outraged, of course, but the reasoning behind Solzhenitsyn’s labeling is that journalists use relativism while describing the most hideous behaviors, yet genocide and fanaticism are practically revered in the search for the most sensational story.

A former CIA operative who appeared on Fox News, “Fox and Friends” this morning called Bill Clinton a “liar” and a “coward” and Geraldo pushed his way on set to make excuses for the philanderer-in-chief, calling the operative a political hack who had it in for Clinton and who had, in his retirement from the CIA, become a pundit for the “enemy.”  This man dared to call Bill Clinton, our most revered living president, a liar and a coward and the Leftist reporter Geraldo could not help himself. He exclaimed that this man had become “political,” and Geraldo asked his audience to question the story because the former CIA operative had politicized a politician.

This CIA operative told the audience that he had controlled an asset in Kandahar (the same “small town” in Afghanistan Bill Clinton referenced in the audio tape that initiated the entire discussion) who had escorted Osama bin Laden to a suite at the hotel when it became too late for the radical Islamist to return to his own compound.  This was a chance in a million to kill a man who later ordered the brutal murder of over 3,000 Americans with little collateral damage and Bill Clinton, according to the CIA, was worried that shrapnel would strike a Mosque nearby, thereby hurting his world-wide reputation.  The descriptive terms, “liar” and “coward” don’t do justice to Bill Clinton’s dereliction of duty that night, but Geraldo couldn’t let that pass because the gentleman reporting it had somehow become a political pundit in Geraldo’s eyes.  I don’t care about the punditry, the facts of that case speak for themselves and have been widely reported, but it serves as yet another example of the insidiousness of ad hominem attack and the ability of those who use it to confuse an audience and to obfuscate true evil.

The only ones who don’t equivocate are the terrorists themselves who pound their fists on podiums and tell us exactly what evil they will do.  Americans choose to block out the news of the world because we live in the safety and the beauty of our environs, far from the fear and apprehension evil brings to the world.  But when you come face to face with a gentle soul who hands you food from her garden and see the sadness and fear in her eyes when she speaks about the genocide in her home country, it hits home, and it makes the heart sick.  It is time for Americans to stop accepting relativism as true reporting.  We need to find our way back to the path where evil is evil and good is good and we are strong enough in our hearts to know the difference.

Update to “Hillary Clinton is a Lying 8itch”

Because I am watching the Left cough up Hillary Clinton as their candidate yet again, I am re-posting this blog.  It’s the same-‘ol, same ‘ol Billary ticket, and if I have to listen to one more person claim that they would vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she is about as transparent as a John Deere tractor, I will continue to talk smack about her.  In fact, she should be smacked, and anyone that is stupid enough to vote for her should be smacked as well.  What? can’t the Left come up with anyone that hasn’t traded political favors for important national resources?  This is it?  This is what you have?  Wow.  So, here’s what I thought of her last year at this time, and there is not one word of this blog that I would change:

May 14, 2014: I am sick and tired (read in a mid-west bitchy twang) of listing to Hillary Clinton claiming that she is a moderate.  COME ON, HILLARY, run as the Alinskyite that you are!  You are NOT a centrist moderate Democrat.  You are a LEFTIST CREEPER.  You are a LIAR of the first order.  “We can turn ‘surpluses into debt,'” she says in a recent political positioning speech. Quoting Reagan, Hillary says, “we learned (we being she and Bill when Bill wasn’t flucking Monica in the Oval office) that a rising tide DOES lift all boats.”  Do YOU know who said that?  DO YOU!?  Ronald Reagan, Conservative President, former Governor of California.  In “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky says, “position yourself in your enemy’s camp.”  Well, she’s doing it now and Jeb “the Hick” Bush, NEO-CON, FLorida, is talking about illegal aliens.  “WHAT?” you are asking yourself.  “What the Frack?”  You may even be wondering what fricking planet you are on.  Well, I’m here to tell you, you are on planet earth and Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States as a Conservative Republican Democrat.  You heard me.

God I’m sick of Democrat Leftists running as Conservatives.  STOP IT!  You are not good Conservatives, you SUCK as Conservatives.  You’d never be able to handle Conservatism because you can’t read anything longer than Rules for Radicals nor understand anything more complicated than Lying 101.  You can’t figure out basic Economic models and anything that we Conservatives do support economically that works, you copy, and then lie about it saying that you were the ones supporting it in the first place!  Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them!  Wasn’t that moron-boy in Minnesota’s book title?  Former comedian turned joker, Al Franken?  Well, it really doesn’t matter because he’s never had anything to say worth reading.  I know, I read the ridiculous piece of trash he called a book that attempted to explain his political philosophy…and mine.  He utterly failed to explain mine, and his political philosophy was so full of emotional pap that I had a hard time making it to the next chapter without throwing up in my mouth.

What is wrong with you people?  Run on your OWN BELIEFS you CREEPERS.  Stay away from mine.  Mine are mine and yours are yours and let the chips fall where they may!  Are you SCARED?  Are you AFRAID that most of the people in this country will throw your lily-white arses out of Congress?  You have a half-Lily-white President who LIED about a major health care law to get it passed, LIED about his economic beliefs to get elected, and LIED about critical security measures that were NOT taken to save lives in a foreign embassy.  The LYING LIARS THAT LIE are you Leftist Creepers who cannot run for election on your own records.  Pathetic.  The only thing MORE pathetic is the Republican Leftist Statists who think that the answer to your antics is Jeb “The Hick” Bush.

Wake up, Conservatives.  It’s time to get busy.  Let’s make sure that every one in this country KNOWS that Hillary Clinton wrote her master’s thesis at the foot of Saul Alinsky ABOUT his philosophy and IN ITS support!  She was and IS friends with this CREEPER and it’s time to call her on the carpet.

Cruz, In Control.

After reading the columns excoriating Ted Cruz for his threat to filibuster the Senate, I hear that John Lenon song in the back of my mind and I start to sing, “What if there was no Party.”  Referring to the Republican party, of course, I allow myself to dream.  What if there were no Republican “establishment?”  What if Republicans were all Conservatives?  What if, when Ted Cruz, the “junior” Senator from Texas, stood up on the floor of the Senate and expressed his objection to Obamacare, every last one of the  Republican Senators stood with him, in solidarity?  What would that accomplish?  Thomas Sowell called Cruz’s strategy “rule-or-ruin,” in his recent essay criticizing Sen. Cruz.  I do not agree; I don’t believe that rule-or-ruin accurately describes Cruz’s strategy at all.

Only someone with limited intelligence would truly believe that s/he could win a the battle to rescind Obamacare in a senate controlled by Harry Reid.  Sen. Cruz is not a man of limited intelligence.  And neither is Dr. Sowell, but in this argument I think Dr. Sowell is swayed by what he sees as Sen Cruz’s “self-interest.”  What is Sen Cruz’s interest in fighting a law that will change one-sixth of our economy?  He probably doesn’t want to lose his doctor!  Seriously, Dr. Sowell answers his own question.  He says that, “Freshman Senator Ted Cruz says many things that need to be said and says them well. Moreover, some of these things are what many, if not most, Americans believe wholeheartedly.”  This would probably suffice, to attribute standing up for constituent beliefs as the motive to fillibuster in opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but there is a desire among conservatives promoting party unity to ascribe devious motives to Sen. Cruz’s actions.  Neither does the “ruin” part of Dr. Sowell’s strategic equation explain Sen. Cruz’ actions.  No Senator who starts a fillibuster, especially in this Senate, honestly believes that s/he will somehow bring the United States government to its knees!  Yet some of my favorite conservative pundits get weak in the knees when a single Senator from Texas fillibusters an issue that 65% of Americans believe in!

Rand Paul filibustered against the NSA gathering information on private U.S. citizens last fall.  Did Sen. Paul think that he was going to win the “battle” of the fillibuster?  Of course not, but he did it in order to focus American attention on the issue.  Can you imagine the kind of attention the Republicans could have focused on the ACA?  It was already going to be a disastrous roll-out, and the Senate could have been railing against the new bureacracy and attacking the cronyism found in the website development bidding process.  Instead, those crafty Republicans threw Ted Cruz under the bus claimimg that some how, Ted Cruz was ruining the re-election chances of weaker Republican candidates.  The only people hurting those candidates chances of re-election are the weak-kneed candidates themselves!  Sixty-five percent (!) of the American people dislike this law and the Republican party is worried how a good fight will affect its candidates re-election chances?  Baffling.

Again with the Investments!

I’m sick to death of “analysts” saying that the right combination of “investments” (read: Solyndra) and taxing the rich will spur greater economic growth.  I don’t believe it.  I, along with millions of others in the business community are more than just skeptical of government “investments,” we flat out don’t believe that “spending” should be called “investment” when an organization as corrupt and inefficient as the government uses borrowed fiat money to buy the pensions of U.S. auto makers, spend Trillions (pls see my discussion on the concept of a Trillion) on solar companies that ANY business consultant with basic knowledge of business practices would have counseled to avoid, and (insert government failure here)!

So,  go for it Libs.  Go get those rich people.  I mean, how dare they pay only
15% on long-term capital gains?   It should be at least 20 or 25%, right?  The housing and stock markets will take a hit, but we have Paul Krugman to save us.

Face it folks, economist and great thinker, Walter Williams was dead on in his column penned early in the spring entitled, “Why Barrak Obama will Win Re-Election.” He posited that we have come to a turning point in our society where the “Takers” outnumber the makers.  No racial component here, Mr.Wlliams  is black and comes fron a relatively modest background.  He is convinced that this is the end of the line for true capitalisn, innovation and general upward movement by the poor in this country.  They’ve voted for mediocrity and that is what they will get.

%d bloggers like this: