Archive for the ‘Out of Touch’ Category

Vast army of ‘Hillary haters’ has claws out

August 26, 2007

This “IS” ALMOST too funny!

Here we go with the lamest of the lame losers going off whining about the obscurity abyss the Chief Leninist of the DNC will soon find her self sinking into. This article is a Godsend.

Thanks, Jill Zuckman. She is apparently a graduate for the same Moonbats In Training school as the idiot from Huff and Puff.

I was wondering where all these Moonbats from the Fruit Loop Brigades were coming from and we have it right here.

Chicago Tribune…LOL!!

 

DALLAS – Richard Collins, a wealthy Texas philanthropist, businessman and political aficionado, heaps praise on the woman he has set out to destroy, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

“She looks like a winner,” said Collins, sitting in his high-rise office with sweeping views of the city. “She’s run a good campaign, very consistent, no mistakes.”

But make no mistake about it: Collins is just one in a vast army of professional “Hillary haters” who are banking on Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election who denigrated John Kerry’s military service in Vietnam, Collins and others are searching for just the thing that will crystallize the way voters think and feel about her.

What is with these sad-sacked Slumber Party attendees on the left? There is a conspiracy under every rock. One could draw the conclusion that since they slither out from beneath the rocks, one would see the conspiracies. Simply amazing. Come one, come all. This is all too good!

Hillary, the Budding Leninist is a Clear and Present Danger and I don’t care if Hillary is a man, woman or any combination thereof. She talks from both sides of her backsides and has the nerve and the audacity to charge people with doing the exact same things she does. Double Standards. Plain and simple.

She comes across one way while hiding her darker side from the public eye and her followers are dumber than a box of turtle turds.

Come on Hillary! What’s the deal?

LOL!!

rantings continued 

Go Publius!!

August 3, 2007

Czarinas’ Thesis Is Now Made Available

Go Publius posted a link at the Hot Rodham Blog that presents a copy of the long suppressed Alinsky Thesis.

Freedom Underground has the PDF as well.

Go download the PDF file and read it. Or, got to Go Publius and read one page at a time.

Future posts on this WILL BE forthcoming.

An American Communist: Hillary Clinton & The Democrats

July 28, 2007

Call them liberals, progressives or Democrats, it is all the same thing. I once penned a piece, listed under my “featured posts” in the sidebar, called “Liberal Communist Manifesto“, where I showed my readers the comparisons, if fact, some of the exact wording from the Communist Manifesto stated today by our “progressive, liberal democrats”.

The NYT has a piece today showing us the exact time in Hillary Clinton’s life where she made the transition from being a conservative to a communist. (Via memeorandum)

Before I continue, go read the Communist Manifesto, in its entirety, make the comparisons yourself to what you read from the document, written in 1848, to what the Democrats/liberals/progressives have to say today.

Specifically when they refer to “common good“, “taking from the rich to give to the poor“, and what they call “progressive or graduated taxation“, definitely keep those terms in mind when reading the Communist Manifesto. (You will learn where the “progressives” of today GOT those talking points, and how they are simply the Communists of yesterday, using another name)

Now the definition of Communism, defined from the dictionary, I am using Dictionary.com, but most all dictionaries use the same definition is:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Now that we have shown you just three simple examples of how the Democratic party, call them liberals or progressives if you prefer, the “label” doesn’t matter as much as the philosophy does, how the democratic party is trying to bring Communism into America.

It is said in the Principles of Communism that all the measures to ensure communism cannot be brought about at once and it must be introduced into a country gradually, as we can see the progressive liberal democrats trying to do today.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Please keep that definition in mind also as you read this post.

Our country has fought against Communism for decades and the history of Russia should have taught us what Communism can and will do to a country.

One of the first measures of War Communism was the nationalisation of land. Banks and shipping were also nationalised and foreign trade was declared a state monopoly. This was the response when Lenin realised that the Bolsheviks were simply unprepared to take over the whole economic system of Russia. Lenin stressed the importance of the workers showing discipline and a will to work hard if the revolution was to survive. There were those in the Bolshevik hierarchy who wanted factory managers removed and the workers to take over the factories for themselves but on behalf of the people. It was felt that the workers would work better if they believed they were working for a cause as opposed to a system that made some rich but many poor. The civil war had made many in the Bolsheviks even more class antagonistic, as there were many of the old guard who were fighting to destroy the Bolsheviks.

On June 28th, 1918, a decree was passed that ended all forms of private capitalism. Many large factories were taken over by the state and on November 29th, 1920, any factory/industry that employed over 10 workers was nationalised.

War Communism also took control of the distribution of food. The Food Commissariat was set up to carry out this task. All co-operatives were fused together under this Commissariat.

War Communism had six principles:

1) Production should be run by the state. Private ownership should be kept to the minimum. Private houses were to be confiscated by the state.

2) State control was to be granted over the labour of every citizen. Once a military army had served its purpose, it would become a labour army.

3) The state should produce everything in its own undertakings. The state tried to control the activities of millions of peasants.

4) Extreme centralisation was introduced. The economic life of the area controlled by the Bolsheviks was put into the hands of just a few organisations. The most important one was the Supreme Economic Council. This had the right to confiscate and requisition. The speciality of the SEC was the management of industry. Over 40 head departments (known as glavki) were set up to accomplish this. One glavki could be responsible for thousands of factories. This frequently resulted in chronic inefficiency. The Commissariat of Transport controlled the railways. The Commissariat of Agriculture controlled what the peasants did.

5) The state attempted to become the soul distributor as well as the sole producer. The Commissariats took what they needed to meet demands. The people were divided into four categories – manual workers in harmful trades, workers who performed hard physical labour, workers in light tasks/housewives and professional people. Food was distributed on a 4:3:2:1 ratio. Though the manual class was the favoured class, it still received little food. Many in the professional class simply starved. It is believed that about 0% of all food consumed came from an illegal source. On July 20th 1918, the Bolsheviks decided that all surplus food had to be surrendered to the state. This led to an increase in the supply of grain to the state. From 1917 to 1928, about ¾ million ton was collected by the state. In 1920 to 1921, this had risen to about 6 million tons. However, the policy of having to hand over surplus food caused huge resentment in the countryside, especially as Lenin had promised “all land to the people” pre-November 1917. While the peasants had the land, they had not been made aware that they would have to hand over any extra food they produced from their land. Even the extra could not meet demand. In 1933, 25 million tons of grain was collected and this only just met demand.

6) War Communism attempted to abolish money as a means of exchange. The Bolsheviks wanted to go over to a system of a natural economy in which all transactions were carried out in kind. Effectively, bartering would be introduced. By 1921, the value of the rouble had dropped massively and inflation had markedly increased. The government’s revenue raising ability was chronically poor, as it had abolished most taxes. The only tax allowed was the ‘Extraordinary Revolutionary Tax’, which was targeted at the rich and not the workers.

War Communism was a disaster. In all areas, the economic strength of Russia fell below the 1914 level. Peasant farmers only grew for themselves, as they knew that any extra would be taken by the state. Therefore, the industrial cities were starved of food despite the introduction of the 4:3:2:1 ratio. A bad harvest could be disastrous for the countryside – and even worse for cities. Malnutrition was common, as was disease. Those in the cities believed that their only hope was to move out to the countryside and grow food for themselves. Between 1916 and 1920, the cities of northern and central Russia lost 33% of their population to the countryside. Under War Communism, the number of those working in the factories and mines dropped by 50%.

In the cities, private trade was illegal, but more people were engaged in this than at any other time in Russia’s history. Large factories became paralysed through lack of fuel and skilled labour.

Small factories were in 1920 producing just 43% of their 1913 total. Large factories were producing 18% of their 1913 figure. Coal production was at 27% of its 1913 figure in 1920. With little food to nourish them, it could not be expected that the workers could work effectively. By 1920, the average worker had a productivity rate that was 44% less than the 1913 figure.

Even if anything of value could be produced, the ability to move it around Russia was limited. By the end of 1918, Russia’s rail system was in chaos.

In the countryside, most land was used for the growth of food. Crops such as flax and cotton simply were not grown. Between 1913 and 1920, there was an 87% drop in the number of acres given over to cotton production. Therefore, those factories producing cotton related products were starved of the most basic commodity they needed.

Read the rest and remember, this is just one example of what Communism does to a country.

I once read a quote from Hillary Clinton and it infuriated me because it proved what I had thought for a very long time, she wishes to bring communism to America and makes no bones about it.

At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the “common good.”

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaign.

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Link to the story here.

I said on that post linked above:

The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to “punish” people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her…. the woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech.

The term is “common good,” and it’s catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what “compassionate conservative” did for the Republicans.

“It’s a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives,” said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community — sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty.”

So, the basic concept here is that “materialism” is bad, people earning the wealth to enjoy some of the finer things in life is “bad“, they object to “greed”, but in their self righteous world, greed is defined as those that work their asses off to EARN MONEY, wow, wanting to earn more money is a BAD thing again…ok so I am bad!!!! “Shared sacrifice”, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean that if I am capable of earning a good living, because I am good at what I do for a living, the “Democratic Government” should be able to take more from me? How the hell do they justify THAT?????? For the Common Good be damned and so should the Democrats.

To be fair, the people that originally created that phrase many decades ago, did so with good intentions, but the way the phrase has been corrupted by the Democratic party is disgusting.

To use the catchphrase, “common good” to justify atrocities, is beyond comprehension. To think the American people will sit still for it, bend over and take it, is sheer stupidity.

The Democratic party and their definition of “Common good” can go to hell.

Pure and simple, Hillary Clinton is a communist.

I am a capitalist and damned proud of it, Capitalism is a good thing.

Capitalism as defined in the dictionary:

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Capitalists produce, manufacture, employ millions, provide healthcare to millions, they expand and hire more employees, the money those employees make gets spent and helps economic growth throughout our country.

There is one thing that Democrats/progressives/liberals do not account for.

What if the Capitalists of this world do not wish to be punished for producing, manufacturing, employing millions and providing healthcare for those millions and helping the economy?

What if they stood as one and said, “SCREW YOU”?

What if these capitalists got tired of being punished for their ability?

What if they drained their bank accounts, moved their money overseas where the vultures/Democrats could not touch it and just went to live on some island somewhere, where they could live quite comfortably on the billions or even millions they already have?

Millions of Americans would be out of a job and on welfare, millions of Americans would be on medicaid or other government programs where the rest of us would be paying for their insurance. Unemployment would jump to increasingly unacceptable and unmanageable rates.

The snowballing effect of such a “strike” , for lack of a better word, would take America from being one of the healthiest economic countries to one of the weakest, poorest countries in a matter of decades if not before.

What incentive would our millionaires and billionaires have to keep their businesses thriving should the Democrats/liberals/progressives force their communistic agenda upon us?

Name one.

We have fought communism for decades in other countries and it is time we looked at ourselves and started fighting against communism in our own country.

To be continued….

Cross Posted from Wake up America

Pentagon SLAPS Down On Hillary!

July 19, 2007

From my friend Spree:

Hillary Gets Pentagon Slapped

Stolen from Spree…this never ceases to amaze me either. I was just over at BlandlyUrbane’s place reading and commenting on another bleeding heart liberal communist pinko moron Andrew “Moosetwt” Sullivan. He is one of those wanna-be generals as well. These idiots never stop.

[hillary+clinton1.jpg]

 

Pentagon Tells Hillary Clinton :She Boosts Enemy Propaganda

 

In The News:

It is about damn time the Pentagon tells the surrender crowd, especially Hillary Clinton, who changes her mind as soon as the “polls’ tell her to, how damaging their public desire to force America’s defeat is to our National Security and how it demoralizes our troops!!!

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

A copy of Edelman’s response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,” Edelman wrote.

He added that “such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

Here is Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman Bio. I would say he is much more qualified to know what he is talking about, and shows perfectly, that Hillary, DOESN’T.

 

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, Hillary is gonna complain to his boss because she doesn’t LIKE THE TRUTH.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman’s answer “at once outrageous and dangerous,” and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates would do well to tell her to kiss his ass, if she cannot handle the truth, then she shouldn’t be doing everything in her power to HELP THE ENEMY.

 

(If Gates has to show more diplomacy because of his position, well I don’t, sooooo HILLARY, KISS “MY” ASS“)

 

The “left” is atwitter with indignation…. How dare the Pentagon tell it like it is? Actually I think they are just pissed because, finally, years after they should have, our admin and our military are finally deciding to weigh in on the war in the media.

 

More on this from Fox News, (I am only adding this link cause it makes “certain” peoples heads explode)

 

In the meantime, we have the Sunni’s ending their parliament boycott, which brings Iraq one step closer to those political benchmarks that will be due in September.

 

In other news, our U.S Diplomats seem to be seeing progress in Iraq, which of course the left is completely ignoring, because it just doesn’t fit with their defeatist attitude.

 

We already covered General Petraeus and his fascinating interview telling us how much progress is being made in Iraq as well as showing us what difficulties lies ahead.

 

Take Our Country Back posted this morning here about the latest Centcom news.

 

If you missed it in the previous post, head over to USA Today to see exactly why Victory in Iraq is vital to the U.S.

 

On The Blogs:

 

Also remember to take a look at how the Iraqi citizens are banding together to help the U.S, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces to help route out insurgents and al-Qaeda members.

 

Amy Proctor from Bottom Line Up Front shows us that when a liberal MSM actually decides to leave the comfort of DC to embed with our troops in Iraq, they come away with a whole different attitude… CNN war correspondents are no exception. (3 minute video.)

Debbie Hamilton from Right Truth gives us more about the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq that we captured on July 4th, 2007. Seems he is singing like a little birdie.

 

Mike’s America has some awesome, related Quick Takes. Cartoons included!!!!! That first quote cracked me up.

 

Demediacratic Nation points out something I have mentioned before, the “progressive liberals” only want us to listen to the Commanders on the ground in iraq, IF those commanders are saying what they want. Otherwise, why listen to them?

 

Gazing at the Flag says there should be a special place in hell for those that try to scam others using our fallen heroes families.

 

Back to Hillary Clinton for a second, Miss Beth’s Victory Dance brings us some of her more memorable quotes.

 

Tanker Brothers brings us some words from a Gold Star Mother, for those unaware of that term, it means a mother who has lost a child in the military.

 

The Tygrrrr Express shows us some of the good, the bad and the ugly.

 

Woman Honor Thyself brings us Bur-Kas Bawling and Bellowing.

 

Finally, Heroes, from Yankee Mom.

 

This has been my look, so far, from around the blogosphere and in the news.

 

More might be coming.

 

ALSO SEE:

 

And The Enemy Depends on American Democrats

Thank You, Hillary! Thank You! I Can Crap Better Now!

July 9, 2007

This woman is the very definition of MORON!  Who or what in the hell does she think she is?  Czarina? Queen Pork Spending Whore?  Woman’s gift to Harlotry?  Listen to this jerk.  She has some serious head shrinking voodoo dance doctor requirements.

Times Watch: (in its entirety…this one cannot be piece-meal delivered)

Hillary Forgives Republicans of Their Sins

“Her Methodist faith, Mrs. Clinton says, has guided her as she sought to repair her marriage, forgiven some critics who once vilified her and struggled in the bare-knuckles world of politics to fulfill the biblical commandment to love thy neighbor.”

Posted by: Clay Waters
7/9/2007 3:21:34 PM

Reporter Michael Luo’s front-page Saturday story on Hillary Clinton’s religious faith, “For Clinton, Faith Intersects With Political Life,” was a pretty transparent attempt to moderate Hillary Clinton’s secular reputation by emphasizing her religiosity.

 

Meanwhile, Luo naively cast candidate Clinton as a passive spouse betrayed by her husband during the Monica Lewinsky scandal — as if Bill Clinton’s White House philandering came as a total shock after all the years in Arkansas.

 

“Long before her beliefs would be tested in the most wrenching of ways as firs lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton taught an adult Sunday school class on the importance of forgiveness. It is a lesson, she says, that she has harked back to often.”

 

Through the long piece, Luo portrayed her as a victim: “Her Methodist faith, Mrs. Clinton says, has guided her as she sought to repair her marriage, forgiven some critics who once vilified her and struggled in the bare-knuckles world of politics to fulfill the biblical commandment to love thy neighbor.”

 

Unless the neighbor happens to work for the White House Travel Office, in which case all bets are off?

 

“Mrs. Clinton, the New York senator who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has been alluding to her spiritual life with increasing regularity in recent years, language that has dovetailed with efforts by her party to reach out to churchgoers who have been voting overwhelmingly Republican.

 

“Mrs. Clinton’s references to faith, though, have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity (one writer recently lumped her with the type of Christians who ‘believe in everything but God’) and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics. And her motivations have been cast as political calculation by detractors, who suggest she is only trying to moderate her liberal image.”

 

Luo was swept up with the symbols of Clinton’s religiosity, symbols the Times would no doubt see as suspicious or bothersome if openly displayed by a Christian conservative: “In the interview and a subsequent telephone conversation, she described her spiritual habits — she carries a Bible on her campaign travels, reads commentaries on Scripture and on other people’s ‘faith journeys’ and spoke of experiencing ‘the presence of the Holy Spirit’ on many occasions.

 

Luo has still more on Saint Hillary, who graciously forgives Republicans for their sins: “And she talked of forgiveness. Mrs. Clinton volunteered that she was moved by apologies in recent years from David Kuo, a Republican speechwriter and evangelical Christian who later worked in the Bush administration, and Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, both of whom have confessed to harboring hateful thoughts of her. She spoke of her own shortcomings — ‘it’s a challenge every single day’ — in leading a moral life and of turning to Christian writers for solace after her husband’s infidelity.”

 

After some brief criticism from the left and right, Luo returned to his credulous portrayal of Clinton’s religious beliefs: “Mrs. Clinton’s religious roots run deep….As for how literally to interpret the Bible, she takes a characteristically centrist view….Shortly before her father’s death in 1993, Mrs. Clinton sought to meld her faith and political ideology into an overarching philosophy of public service. In delivering a passionate speech on health care, she said Americans suffered from a ‘sleeping sickness of the soul’ and called for a ‘new politics of meaning.”

 

“Liberal and conservative pundits alike jumped on what they called her religious moralisms wrapped in New Age language. But Melanne Verveer, her former chief of staff, said the speech was merely an extension of how Mrs. Clinton’s religious values infused her sense of public service.”

 

Luo was not nearly so respectful of the views of Republican Mitt Romney in a May 10 story. Ostensibly covering the controversy over Al Sharpton’s suggestion that Mormons weren’t real Christians, Luo instead devoted most of his story to allowing Sharpton yet more attacks on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith as racist and backward.

And just what did this wasted efforts of human tissue do just recently?  Did she not vehemently attack GWB for doing far less than her Zipper Loose Cigar Muppet husband did?

Please.  Enough is enough.  Those jerks at HillaryRub are worse than she is.

What “IS” It With The Rodhams, Anyway?

July 7, 2007

The Rodham Family of Criminals, Charlatans and down right Wrong Doers just never ends.

I mean, really. Right? Or IS that left?

NY Post: CLINTON BRO SET TO SETTLE

July 7, 2007 — NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A lawyer for Tony Rodham, the brother of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said yesterday he’s confident he can avoid a trial next week on charges that his client failed to repay debts to a Tennessee carnival operator.That should be a relief to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign since the case could have revived stories about how her brothers accepted money from people pardoned by her husband, President Bill Clinton.

 

Rodham is accused of failing to repay $107,000 plus interest to the bankrupt estate of Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, both of whom received a presidential pardon in 2000.

Rodham’s attorney, Samuel Crocker, said he’s sure a settlement will be reached before the trial begins Thursday. “May lightning strike me down if it does” go to trial, Crocker said.

Bankruptcy trustee Michael Collins said he was glad to hear Rodham was eager to settle because negotiations have been going on for some time. “There’s certainly room for a settlement,” he said.

Rodham claims in court documents the money he received from the Gregorys was for consulting services, but the trustee for the Gregory estate claims it was a loan. Rodham was reached by telephone Thursday at his home in Vienna, Va., but declined to comment.

In court filings, Rodham says the Gregory estate actually owes him $130,000.

 

 

And Hitlery, Czarina, Queen Pork, friggin’ FRAUD beotch, had the audacity to yap about the Libby Commutation? And the folks granted PARDONS by her hubby King Zipper Loose are involved…AGAIN?

Uh, Hillary? Shut the hell up and go to your room and don’t come out for about 100 years you idiot!

On Hillary and Scooter Libby

July 3, 2007

 

By now, even the jerks on the left know that the “issue” with Scooter Libby was a manufactured BDS driven witch hunt. Fitzgerald KNEW from the beginning that Armitage was the leaker of the non-covert bitch Valerie Plame and her retarded and wussified dweeb of a coward husband knew as well.

Is my angst showing?

This is what makes Czarina’s statement about the commutation of Libby’s sentence the real joke of the day. This woman, and I use that term loosely, is no better than Fitzgerald and Armitage. Knowing the truth and doing nothing of it equates to needing to be euthanized. They should all check in immediately to wherever Kavorkian is hanging out so he can assist them with the relieving themselves of all this BDS hatred. It would the best they could do for this country. They just plain suck.

Here is what the idiot that would be King (she has to have a bigger unit than Bill does):

Liberals Cry about Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby

 

Liberals are all upset about President Bush pardoning Scooter Libby.

 

Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:

“Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

That criminal Hillary DARES claim someone is above the law? PLEASE! Spare us the bullshit! Hillary is a QUACK!

Please visit the site above to see the list of PARDONS Bill The Cigar Boy Sex Fiend and Addict issued. WHERE WAS HILLARY’S ANGST THEN? Oh. Wait. Her brother-in-law was pardoned by Billy Bob Can’t Keep His Pants Zipped Moron. I see. And Scooter Libby was the attorney! GO FIGURE!

What a schmuck this Hillary creep is. DAMN!

The Socialist Christocrats

June 24, 2007

Frank Pastore has a two-part piece at Townhall explaining what he means about The Socialist Christocrats. In essence, the anti-God Leftinistra will use Christ for inroads into areas they have alienated for years. Most Christians are about forgiveness and giving folks the benefit of the doubt. They are also gullible.

On Budgets, Morality, and Priorities(Part 1)

Jim Wallis, leader of Sojourners and one of the Big Three of the Religious Left (along with Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo), recently asked, “What are the great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?”Good question, though I’m not sure if there are any moral issues evangelical Christians don’t care about.

He asked this in response to a statement by James Dobson that he didn’t like. Dobson had said that the current global warming controversy wrongly shifts “the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”

This is right off the first page of the Left’s playbook: “Persuade evangelicals to care less about abortion, homosexuality, and abstinence and more about “social justice.” The latter a euphemism that encompasses a Marxist redistribution of wealth, anti-capitalism, European-style big government socialism, an environmental policy that believes man is the pollution, and an overall sense of morality where what you do privately doesn’t count, it’s only what you do collectively that counts. Socialists believe in the virtues of government so much that even morality is defined in collectivist terms.

From Wallis’ own website (www.sojo.net) I’ve gathered the following “great moral issues of our time.” They’re listed below.

And again, these are important issues, but the questions that need to be answered are: “Who should pay for these? How much should they pay? What gets funded first, last, least and most? How does the limited pie get cut up? Is the money being spent wisely and efficiently? Are our policies helping or hurting? What is the responsibility of the host governments? Who lives and who dies?”

Here’s the list: Global poverty, global hunger, global warming, global disease, HIV-AIDS, the genocide in Darfur, human trafficking and other violations of human rights-especially the war in Iraq-and closer to home, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, providing universal health care, expanding the Food Stamp program, and actually increasing (increasing!) Medicaid and Medicare benefits.

These are important issues that we all should care about. And we do. American tax dollars are the primary source of funding for these things, that is, in addition to our incredibly generous charitable giving.

And, don’t complain to me about how we give less per capita than European countries, or how their economies are more “just” than ours. Since the end of WWII, what they should have spent on defense they spent on social programs. We bankrolled the West’s military spending in the shadow of the Soviet threat. Sure, it’s really easy to be “generous” when Daddy’s paying your mortgage, utilities, and tuition.

So, we care a lot about these things, and we prove it through both our taxes and our donations.

But, apparently we don’t care enough for the Left or Jim Wallis. We must care “more.”

Notice how Dobson’s “marriage, abortion, and abstinence” are more moral than economic, while Wallis’ long list of “great moral issues of our time” are more economic than moral? Could it be that “social justice” simply means that there should be no rich and no poor rather than some rich and many poor? If so, that’s communism-with more value placed upon equality than freedom.

Wallis is fond of saying “budgets are moral documents.” He’s right. A federal budget is a snapshot of the current moral values system of the nation-except for the fact that rarely is something we no longer care about actually de-funded. And, budgets are generally zero sum entities, as well-if you’re going to fund New Program A, you must cut from Old Program B.

So, when he implies “care more,” let’s translate. “We must raise your taxes, and/or cut your entitlement benefits, and/or cut your security spending, and/or cut other programs we don’t think are as deserving as these ‘great moral issues of our time.'”

Let’s see if such directness will fly…

Raise your hand if you’re not paying enough in taxes. Unemployed college students put your hands down. Raise your hand if paying around 30% is not quite your “fair share.”Boomers, raise your hands if you’d like your Social Security benefits cut as you ready to retire next year and then collect Medicare in 2011. Oops, sorry. Wallis actually wants to increase benefits as we wait beneath the shadow of the crashing fiscal tsunami of entitlement spending-yeah, that’s smart-when the boat is sinking, drill more holes in the hull.

Americans, raise your hands if you don’t think survival is a moral issue, and you think we ought to defund our security budget in a post-9/11 world. Wallis is a pacifist who believes all wars are immoral, not just Iraq. Hence, in his worldview perhaps we don’t even need a standing army at all. Come to think of it, this might be how he plans on funding his proposals: just eliminate all military spending, all DOD spending and all NASA spending, and all border security spending, and all port security spending…

Lastly, raise your hand if you know of a federal program that should be cut and the money diverted to one of these “great moral issues of our time.” By the way, this is what legislatures do really well. They argue and debate competing priorities while being held responsible for their decisions by the people who put them in office.

I don’t see many hands.

See, it comes down to this. Wallis is preaching to the wrong congregation. He’s preaching to all Americans about how their federal budget needs to be more moral-which is why he wants to raise their taxes-when he should be preaching to churches about how they’re not giving enough to the “great moral issues of our time.”

It should be more about church donations than federal taxes.

Like you, I believe I already pay too much in taxes and I don’t want to pay anymore. But, I also believe I could never donate “too much” or even “enough” to charity-there’s never “enough,” there’s always room for “more.”

“Just one more dollar, Sir, for the starving children in Africa?”

And “more” money spent on these issues would make Jim Wallis happy-unless he just cares about raising taxes out of some anti-capitalist bent. I wonder…

Who knows…maybe spending more money might actually help to solve some of these problems, but I doubt it. After all, I believe the real solution begins not with money, but with having the right values and morals. But, that’s a topic for another column.

The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.

The Socialist Christocrats (Part 2)

In an earlier column, I discussed why the religious left is wrong on budgets, morality, and priorities (available here). Here, in Part II, I want to focus on what happened Monday night between the three Democrat frontrunners and the sponsor of the event, Jim Wallis of Sojourners.First, some general impressions.

I found it both ironic and troubling that the top three Democrats talk more comfortably about their faith than do the top three Republicans. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise though-after all, they’ve been rehearsing for this performance since Bush’s reelection in 2004.

The actors knew the script. Director Wallis had coached them well. Real Christians care about poverty and global warming. No more of that sin-salvation-Jesus stuff for us. Don’t talk about heaven and hell, we’re for the Kingdom now! Let’s raise taxes and the minimum wage, grow government, start more unions, provide universal health care and child care, with free college for everybody-including illegals. And above all, let’s replace greedy-selfish capitalism with generous-loving socialism and truly achieve social justice. Vote out poverty now! Raise taxes on the rich!

Right. And Jesus was a big government Robin Hood socialist. And so they’ve created God in their own image.

Second, what did we learn about the candidates on Monday night?

John Edwards believes in theistic evolution, he is “personally against” gay marriage but for civil unions, believes the separation of church and state means a Christian president should violate his religion if it conflicts with his politics, and that poverty can be cut in half in the next ten years by starting more unions, raising the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour, providing free government housing to those who can’t afford their own place, and by having universal health care and day care, along with free college tuition for all students.

That sounds very expensive. And who’s going to pay for all this?

I wish he had said, “I personally oppose abortion and gay marriage on biblical grounds, and I support abstinence education and a Protection of Marriage Amendment. As President, I will take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And though no President can impose his will on the Congress, I will work to overturn all laws I believe to be immoral.” Again, that’s why it’s only a wish. (I hope Fred Thompson reads this.)

We learned that Jim Wallis believes poverty is a “gospel issue,” and that eliminating it is a “biblical priority” for the government.

Another wish: I wish Wallis cared about teaching the Bible to the poor and in our schools half as much as he cares about baptizing his schemes for the redistribution of wealth.

We learned from Barack Obama that he believes God doesn’t take sides in war, but that the Civil War and World War II were just wars fought against evil. When asked about this, he answered,

I always remember Abraham Lincoln, when, during the Civil War, he said, “We shouldn’t be asking whose side God is on, but whether we’re on his side.” And I think that’s the question that all of us have to ask ourselves during any battle that’s taking place, whether it’s political or military, is, are we following his dictates? Are we advancing the causes of justice and freedom? Are we our brother’s keeper, our sister’s keeper? And that’s how I measure whether what we’re doing is right.

I wonder if he thinks God was rooting for the South, or the Nazis-or today, if He’s for al Qaeda? If we’re supposed to be following God’s dictates in order to advance justice and freedom, I’m sure Ahmadinejad and Osama have a different opinion as to what Allah’s dictates are. Therein lies the root of the global war against radical Islam. I would have liked him to mention that.

Obama also opposed taking away educational programs in prisons in order to be tough on crime. If he was really concerned about reducing recidivism, he’d support the wonderful success of Prison Fellowship, they teach God’s dictates too. He also criticized the high salaries of corporate executives. He said, “I also would like to see executives recognize that when they’re getting as much in one day as their average worker is getting in an entire year, that there is a moral element to that.”

Funny. He didn’t mention the salaries of rappers, athletes, Hollywood moguls or trial lawyers.And lastly, we come to Hillary.

She wants abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.” I wonder if she’ll be supporting the renewal of Title V funding for abstinence education or the increased distribution of condoms in high schools?

The scariest line of the night came at the very end when Hillary was asked about sacrifice and excessive individualism. She said:

And I think you can sense how we are attempting to try to inject faith into policy and also to elicit from people a sense of our common humanity and how we have to be in this together as a nation. We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy-you know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people.

Let me translate. The “turf” and the “something” she wants to take away from you is your money.

Edwards, Obama, Hillary, and Wallis. Yes. Some Americans may have learned a lot about these Christians this past week.

Others of us knew what we needed to know long ago.

Remember, today’s Democrats always want to be generous with your money-whether they’re Christians or not. Economically, they’re socialists.

That’s why this cast of candidates are the new Socialist Christocrats.

The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.

Hillary and Her Progressive Tripe

June 21, 2007

And we all know what this means, right?

Trying to win over her party’s liberal activists, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday accused President Bush of disregarding the Constitution and promised to bring a new progressive vision to the White House.

Translation: socialism and regressiveness

Bush’s government has “a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok,” she said in one of the more partisan speeches of her campaign. “It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”

Clinton returned to the Take Back America conference where she was booed last year for opposing a set date for pulling troops from Iraq. This time, she said she is working to deauthorize the war.

Her comments on Iraq drew heckles, but she won applause for promising to get out of Iraq and for embracing liberal positions on domestic issues.

More of the same yip and yap with no substantiations to offer.  Translation: pandering to the fruit loops on the left.

Queen of Pander

June 21, 2007

If Hillary had a conscience,  she would move to Borneo and pull  the beach up over her head.

A different Hillary indeed.

Good report and article but it just makes this veteran ill.