More hope and change!

This week we received news of more "Hope and Change" from the Chicago Democratic Party Political Machine.

It seems Obama's pal Gov. Blagoevich tried to sell his vacant senate seat.

Mafioso kickbacks, extortion schemes, blackmail, it's part of a good days work for Illinois Democrat politicians.

Hope and Change!

Oh and wait all of Obama's friends are here for the party too!

Condemned welfare project sheister Valerie Jarret, Hedgefund Comboy Rahm Emmanuel, Campaign manger David Axelrod( Worked on Both Blago's campaigns) and of course what would an Obama scandal be without old pal Tony Rezko, who sold Obama his house for 300K under market value.

That's a pretty sweet deal, wish I could get something like that someday.

Clearly theres nothing suspicious happening here at all.

Hope and Change, Hope and Change, Ughhhhh, Ughhhhh, Hope and Change.

If this were a Republican the Media frenzy would cause an 8.5 Tsunami.

Then we have USA Today promptly produce an article that claims the "North Dakota"is the most corrupt state to cover Obama's ass.

What a joke!

Get ready for 2 years of vicious resistance before we boot you all back out!

Why this election means nothing, except more problems.

First lets address the mythology of the Democrat controlled medias analysis of this "financial crisis".

The 1978 Community Development act passed under Carter, pressured banks and financial institutions to lend to low income families, minorities and people with bad credit.

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are quasi government agencies known as GSE’s that guarantee half the home mortgages in the US.

Their “GSE” status allowed Fannie/Freddie to amass a dangerous and distorted proportion of the overall market share. Prominent Democratic politicians including Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Shumer, and Barack Obama are all closely tied and have received substantial contributions from Fannie/Freddie.

Franklin Raines is a former Clinton Administration official who ran Fannie since 1998 and got out with 90 million. Raines instituted a new “pilot program” in 1999 to further loosen lending requirements. He has advised Obama on economic issues.

Clinton and the Republican Congress attempted to implement more oversight over Fannie/Freddie but were resisted by congressional Democrats.

When accounting irregularities were eventually divulged in 2004 Dem’s again resisted more regulation. Rep. Barney Frank quoted was quoted as 2006 saying “These institutions(Fannie/Freddie) are fundamentally sound”.

Glass/Seagal, which separated commercial and investment banking was repealed in 1998 under the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

Sarbannes/Oxley, a so called “regulatory reform” measure was passed during the first Bush administration after the Enron Debacle. It simply created more red tape and led to ballooning accounting costs due to increased and arbitrary federal audits.

Hey liberals are you starting to see a pattern here?

Extremely heavy government influence in the housing market/mortgage business and close relationships between the GSE’s and politicians.

Routinely ignored is the Federal Reserves encouragement of malinvestment by mandating artificially low interest rates. Even worse they debase the value of our currency by printing fiat money to finance deficit spending by politicians.

Having the government “fix” this problem is like asking an arsonist to put out a fire he started. And now the left wing media will tell you that it was “unregulated free-market capitalism” that caused this mess. The same old lie, here we go again.

I know, I know….

“The only way we can fix this is even bigger more intrusive government!”

So let me get this straight, the Federal Reserve controls/manipulates the currency. The Government taxes/spends and engages in deficit spending and inflationary monetary policy. They guarantee half the home loans. Then they mandate that private institutions must give loans to people with bad credit, and the media/politicians absolve themselves of all responsibility and say “It was all Wall Streets Fault” and “The evil of Capitalism”. Oh brother, what self righteous nonsense.

Any politician that voted for this “bailout” which is really corporate welfare deserves nothing but contempt(Obama/McCain and all the rest). It will not solve these problems it will only exacerbate them.

If the left really cared about this issue than they would have the assessors appraise everyones property down to the current market value rather than continue to collect property taxes on inflated assessments from 2004-2007 which would also help people refinance their loans.

Oh but then we would have less property tax revenue, and liberal democrats couldn’t have that.

When the media, Democrats, “moderate republicans, and George Bush all team up for legislation you know your in trouble. The fear-mongering that preceded the bailout was unprecedented.

Nobody is “too big to fail”. Institutions that make bad investments SHOULD FAIL. And the 90% of homeowners that are currently paying their mortgages on time should not foot the bill.

Liberals act is if only solution to any problem is intrusion and interference by government. It really is a bizarre mental disorder. They believe that politicians are some kind of combination of Superman and Santa Clause.

If their magical ideology was infallible than why do left wing states like California have such enormous problems?

California is dysfunctional. Stagnant growth, broken schools, crowded prisons, high unemployment, shocking violent crime, high taxes, excessive regulation, suffocating traffic, deteriorating infrastructure, unbalanced budgets, alarming drop out rates, gangs, crowded hospitals. The state is bankrupt and we also have one of the worst bond rates in the country. Amazingly, we have several measures currently on the ballot to spend even more money! Most are pork barrel energy initiatives pushed by corporate backers and special interests.

Politicians don’t have the power to fix your personal financial issues. They do however have the capability to inflict tremendous harm on the economy as a whole and create endless rules that accomplish nothing.

An Obama administration will be nothing more than an extension of the failed policies that got us here in the first place. Get ready for Jimmy Carter part 2.

Besides this housing bubble has been brewing for 20 years. It’s the predictable product of malinvestment encouraged by the Federal Reserves manipulation of interest rates and easy credit policies. Notice that you almost never hear criticism of the Federal Reserve system from the left or neo-conservative republicans.

All this government nonsense is the root of the financial problems. Private lenders with hard currency WOULD NEVER loan to a shaky borrower without coercion.

How often do we hear democrats talk about “affordable housing”. Well thats what this nonsense is all about.

Here in LA Villraigosa wants to spend 5 billion taxpayer dollars to finance new welfare projects for the destitute and illegal immigrants. PEOPLE THAT DON"T PAY TAXES.

Sounds so nice doesn’t it, except every project that’s built tends to fail, become worn down, infested with drugs/crime, condemned and actually encourages the type of behavior the perpetuates poverty. The sweetheart no bid contracts that politicians award to construct “affordable housing” usually end up lining the pockets of political contributors/operators.

The Obama/Rezko fiasco in Chicago is a perfect example.

Have projects, welfare and food stamps helped Cabreni Green in Chicago?

No, its even worse than before.

Are the Marcy projects of Brooklyn nicer places to live today because of the patronage of NY Democrat politicians?

No, once again they are even worse. Crime, drugs, chaos, poverty, unemployment are rampant.

We have a lot of big-hearted democrats here in LA, I guess South Central LA must be getting better right?

Wrong, these schemes don’t work. They just enrich politicians, political operators, and encourage the very conditions that create poverty in the first place. They also create a cycle of dependency which allows politicians to use confiscated wealth to redistribute in order to bribe their constituents for votes.

If you didn’t earn it, you don’t deserve it.

Koreans in LA don’t ask for handouts. They work hard, own business and what a surprise, they end up succeeding.

I don’t see any Indian Americans living in housing projects either. People from these countries often come from circumstances significantly worse than the urban poor in the US. If the left-wingers theory of class disenfranchisement is so irrefutable than why do these people succeed WITH NO GOVERNMENT HELP.

If democrats really cared about the downtrodden poor than once again why not assess housing down to lower taxes and help refinancing.

The reason is they want to keep taxes as high as possible and have a vested interest in continuing to prop up the artificial government created housing boom.

Taxes, inflation and deficit spending hurt the poor more than any “government program” will ever help them.

Inflation confiscates wealth by driving up prices and devaluing the currency. Not one of the solutions proposed by Democrats will help alleviate these problems. And pork barrel energy schemes that benefit politicians and their political patrons will not solve our energy crisis.

WAKE UP, THE CAVALRY ISN"T COMING, AMERICANS MAKE THIS COUNTRY GREAT NOT POLITICIANS.

The sad truth is McCain's defeat will be an appropriate rebuke. The neocons must be purged NOW.

How can we differentiate ourselves from Democrats when Neo-cons like McCain
support socializing the mortgage industry and team up with the likes of Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold?

If McCain opposed the bailout he could have made a stand, but by supporting it he blurred his position with Obamas on the financial crisis. A critical error, since the bailout is morally wrong and was opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people. McCain deserves to lose on that issue alone.

McCain would help us keep radical liberals off the bench, but at what cost? Would another neo-conservative administration really help the conservative movement in the long term?

Fortunately, the left wing agenda will only exacerbate the financial crisis and encourage our enemies to challenge America. "Cap and Trade" plus pork barrel energy schemes will mean an energy crisis like Carters during Obama's first term. Far left policies will always fail because they are fundamentally philosophically flawed. We can resist Obama and the left, but the neo-cons only make it harder for us by supporting the same big government policies.

The important question should be how will we fight? Will it be through continued Neo-conservatism or a return to traditional constitutional conservative principles.

America is a center right country. We could turn the tide in 2010, but only if we purge the neo-cons and stand up for the principles of financial conservatism, non interventionist foreign policy and limited government that have been abandoned.

The Left Wing Media Vermin

Lately I've been amazed the putrid vitriol spewed by the left wing media at VP pick Sarah Palin.

Since she doesn't conform to the socialist vision of a pant wearing, disenfranchised, bull dyke, the Left is understandably upset. After all how could a women be independent successful, intelligent and also CONSERVATIVE OH NO!

The disgraceful coverage has led MSLSD to sack morons Keith Overbite, and Chris Matthews. But don't worry the left will keep trying. Their obvious bias has never been any impediment to relentless propaganda saturation.

Interestingly they gave Obama a free pass for 18 months and ignore his bizzare radical associations. I mean, after all Reverend Wright letting us know that the US government and white people gave AIDS to Africans isn't controversial at all. There was no way that Obama agreed with that even though he sat in a church and listened to it for 20 years.

GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I burst out in laughter after seeing the OK Magazine story on how wonderful Obamas family is juxtaposed with the "Sex, Lies and dirty Secrets headline" about Palin on the front page of US magazine. I've never see anything like it, they're not even pertending to be impartial anymore.

Every channel and periodical in lockstep, trying to destroy this woman and ridicule her family. BUT GUESS WHAT LEFTIES, HER FAMILY IS ACTUALLY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

And if it is than all I have to say is Reverend Wright, Bill Airs, Reverend Wright, Bill Airs.

Oh and don't forget Michelle Obama, who is proud of America for the first time in her life. This is despite attending Yale and working a $250,000 a year job on a hospital board.

A hospital which charges uninsured patients ten times more than the uninsured.

Clearly living in America didn't provide her any opportunity.

The medias plan has actually backfired though, casting suspicion on their sympathies and rallying the Republican parties conservative base.

Obama The Special Interest Fraud

I was fascinated the other day to find out that the Messiah Barrack Obama is in fact in bed with the Corn lobby.

Obama rails about lobbyists and yet is intimately involved in one of the most insidious lobbies in Washington today.

Corn ethanol production drives up food prices in developing nations and is less efficiant and more polluting than sugar.

Obama supports sugar tariffs which has led to wasteful unneccessary investment in corn ethanol and also the use of high fructose corn syrup in consumer products which are unhealthy.

SO MUCH FOR CHANGE! But don't worry, the left wing will continue their vile attacks and have some convoluted justification for this ridiulous policy.

Just check out the NYTIMES article not exactly Fox news huh libs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Liberalism is Death

Yeah I said it.

And I got the evidence to prove it as well!

Check out the following blog copied from a LA Times article on water shortages.

The only way to conserve water, reduce our carbon footprint, and stop pollution is to stop reproducing. The problems are caused not by what we do but by how many of us are doing it. The most proactive thing we all can do is to get a vasectomy or have your tubes tied.End of discussion.




Submitted by: ROCKETMAN
1:47 AM PDT, May 15, 2008

Oh Rocketman if only we were as smart as you! Perhaps then we could all live in a celibate communist hairy pitted matriarchal Eco fascist internment commune.

Alright everybody line up, we need to chop off your balls for Global Warming.

Well at least Rocketman won't be reproducing, we certainly don't need any more like him!

But seriously though liberalism is death.

The West is slowly dying through population decline. A product of mass market mechanized sexuality, contraceptives and unborn child murder also known as abortion.

Westerners have abandoned their faith and become spiritually destitute. Their god is a self indulgent merchant of death, masked by self righteous collectivism, socialism and Enviormentalism.

The product of this demented ideology is people like Rocketman.

An ideology of human hatred and death. Of contempt for the most basic and essential purpose of human life.

Except of course we have to protect serial killers and rapists from the death penalty.

I mean executing perfectly healthy unborn children is perfectly fine, but we wouldn't want to harm any brutal violent criminals.

After all society made them do it. It's not like they are responsible for their hideous crimes unlike an innocent unborn child.



Great job!

Mexican Immigration Hypocrisy and Politically Correct Death

The United States has arguably the most liberal immigration laws in the world.

According to Wikipedia 1,266,264 people emigrated to the U.S legally in 2006. The US also issued hundreds of thousands of work and student Visas.

This is in stark contrast to our "progressive liberal friends" in Europe who seek to strictly limit migration and have extremely tough naturalization requirements.

This is done primarily to protect the welfare-state from doling out medical and social entitlements to new immigrants.

Unlike liberals here, European socialists understand that a constant inundation of unrestricted immigration will eventually overwhelm any entitlement system.

However, when sensible Americans criticize the process of un-restricted illegal immigration they are often labeled as "xenophobic" and "racist".

Mexico has been criticizing the US for George Bush's half hearted attempts to secure our borders.

Surely the Mexicans must have one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world right?

Well it turns out that under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:

_ "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of 300 to 5,000 pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

_ Foreigners with immigration problems may be deported, rather than imprisoned. (Article 125)

_ Foreigners who "(make attempts) against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are considered criminals:

_ A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

_ Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

The Mexicans have gone so far as to station their army on the southern border to prevent illegal entry by migrants.

Meanwhile our border is in chaos, drug and human traffickers ply their deadly trade with immunity, our schools and social services are overwhelmed and up to a 1/3 of the criminals in federal prison are illegal immigrants that cannot be deported.

Here in LA an African American High School Honor Student and Football captain Jamil Shaw was executed outside his home by an Illegal Alien gang member and convicted felon.

The killer had been in prison only a month before for a weapons assault charge but was released.

This has led to renewed calls for the repeal of the executive order prohibiting police officers from inquiring about a suspects immigration status in LA County.

Of course the democrats including the mayor and city council would denounce this revision as "racist". One city council member disgracefully went so far as to imply that Jamil Shaw was a gang member to his embattled and heartbroken father.

I guess that's just good old left wing politically correct socialist compassion at best!

Well hypocrisy is understandable when dealing with the Mexicans.

After all, the policy allows them to export their disenfranchised poor to the U.S while boosting their economy from remittances.

So helping America secure the borders is diametrically opposed to Mexico's geo-politcal and social ambitions.

I just have one thing to say to the Mexican government and PC activists.

Why doesn't Mexico reform their immigration laws and treat their own migrants with respect instead of criticizing the U.S for enforcing far more liberal regulations?

The 9/11 Hucksters

Like an insidious parasite the paranoid ramblings of the left have created created a new infection known as the "9/11 truth movement"

Unfortunately for these folks their assertions have been disproven scientifically. But facts never stopped crackpot lefties before.

Legitimate dialogue is distorted and interrupted by these lunatics. Websites have become completely inundated by jack off juveniles spewing retarded propaganda.

Ron Paul, a man who I greatly admire had his campaign destroyed and smeared as a result of their lies. They even insisted that Dr. Paul secretly agreed with them even while he publicly disavowed and criticized their comments.

This is because 9/11 hucksters do the same the thing most lefties do when confronted with evidence that contradicts their assertions.

THEY JUST IGNORE IT!!!!!!!!!!

I remember I saw video of the Popular Mechanics guy's ripping one of the "Loose Change" assholes.
After getting served with the facts he said something like......

"Well your just a mouthpiece of the yellow journalism Hearst propaganda machine."

In other words I can't contradict you with facts so I JUST IGNORE IT AND CONTINUE MY FANTASY.

An interesting facet of this is their so called "revisions".

Every time one of their theories is destroyed they go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make it work and then release a "new version of the truth".

Ac ham's razor tells us that the simplest explanation to a problem is most often the correct one.

Instead 9/11 loonies tell us that the government flew military jets into the WTC while coordinating a simultaneous explosion from with the buildings at the moment the planes hit. The plane over Pennsylvania was "shot down" and the Pentagon then shot a cruise missile at itself.

Maybe the Madrid and London bombing were a conspiracy too!!! Maybe when Hamas straps suicide vests to children in Israel are also a part of the Zionist capitalist international right wing conspiracy!!!

Or what about Bali, the 72 Olympics and the Lockerbie disaster? I guess we should just stick our heads in the sand.

Often ignored however is what I call the inherent radical left wing Bush bashing conundrum.

This is that that Bush is the most incompetent idiotic president who ever lived, and that he engineered the most flawlessly executed,intricate, difficult, improbable and physically impossible conspiracy ever devised.

I thought that G.W Bush was stupid liberals?

John Edwards - The Populist Hedge Fund Trial Lawyer

John Edwards has an estimated $100 million dollar bank account and a 30,000 a square foot home.

He made this fortune by suing doctors and hospitals and then re-investing the money in Wall Street Hedge Funds.

One of these funds was recently found to be eviciting destitute Hurricane Katrina victims from their homes.

But this comes as no suprise since hypocricy is Edward's most consistent trait.

Now that he's finished chasing ambulances, John Edwards can be found on the campaign trail where he regurgitates Anti-Capitalist rhetoric to his delluded supporters.

He is also fond of criticizing the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Coincidentally he authorized the former and voted for the latter.

But to realize what a true scumbag John Edwards is you have to go back to his illustrious career as a Trial Lawyer.

This excerpt is from Wkipedia

In 1985, Edwards represented a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarean delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million verdict for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's award, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.[11] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.[12]

So John Edwards made millions of dollars by suing a doctor who made an honest mistake on a technicality.

Impartial observers including the judge noted that "The jury seemed to be swayed by Edwards passionate oratory rather than the actual fact's of the case".

Theres also something twisted and ironic about a sheister lawyer engaged in medical malpractice suits over child birth while advocating pro-choice policy.

He most likely ruined the doctors career and bankrupted the hospital. But it's OK, when your a trial lawyer theres always more people to sue and ruin!

Like later as a personal injury lawyer suing corporations for product liability. Garnering millions even in cases when products were clearly labeled and used irresponsibly.

Of course you could expect the anti-business rhetoric from Edwards. After all he never made money by creating products and services like a real businessman.

Every dime he made was taken from someone else's hard work and tears.

And every political gain was based on distortion and lies.

John Edwards a real American Democrat Dirtbag.

Hate Crimes and Liberalism

On January 6th 2007 a Tennessee couple went out for dinner and a movie at a friend's house.

They would never make it.

Instead they were assaulted, sodomized, tortured and mutiliated for 4 days before being killed and then burned.

The assailants were a gang of four African American men and one woman.

Given the horrific nature of this crime you would think it would garner national media attention.

Instead, the media focused on stories like the Duke Lacrosse case and later the so called "Jena 6" in Louisiana.
But you see there is a catch.

The victims, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian where white, and as every good liberal knows only "minorities" can be the victims of hate crimes.

Where I wondered, were the crusading activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to help and console the victims families?

Where was the FBI Hate Crimes Unit to collect evidence?

The ACLU was coincidentally too busy that week to bother.

After all, arguing for the legalization of Child Pornogrophy, and suing public universites to install Muslim foot baths while conversely attacking Chrisitan worship in public is difficult work. They can't be expected to intervene in something so trivial as racially motivated gang violence.

They can still help though, perhaps they can organize a fundraiser to pay for the murderers defense team!

The whole thing made me wonder, what is a hate crime?

The answer is a series of laws designed to give minorities special rights and protection under our Federal judicial system.

But just like affirmative action these laws actually encourage more racism by endorsing the idea that people should be treated differently based on race.

The result being that when a white couple is viciously attacked, tortured and murdered by a black gang it is not considered a hate crime.

But imagine the uproar if the same thing had been done by a white gang to a black woman, hispanic or any other racial minority.

The truth is that everyone should be treated and punished equally based on the severity of their crime.

Did Timothy McVeigh or the unabomber "hate" the goverment when they bombed and killed people?

Did the VT Tech killer "hate" the students on the campus that he murdered?

Why would we not use hate crime legislation in these cases as well?

RICO statutes can and have been used to prosecute racist criminal organizations.

Premediated crimes should all be prosecuted under the same criteria.

And if not, then these laws should be extended to everyone.

Diary of a Liberal - All Corporations are evil except Starbucks and Apple

Corporations are all wicked and irresponsible.

You know, even the notion of private property is immoral and despicable.

Its clear that we need an authoritarian goverment which will reign in these ruthless plutocrats.

We should nationalize all private business and redistribute their ill begotten wealth to the destitute.

I mean it's not like these companies became successfull by providing goods and services efficiantly to their fellow citizens for a reasonable price.

Everybody knows that real wealth is created through intrusive taxes and goverment welfare programs.

Well, I guess I can't say that all corporations are evil.

Also, I wouldn't want the goverment infringing on my private property.

It's only OK for the goverment to steal property from the wealthy.

This is fair because they "stole" it from the poor. Nobody ever becomes successfull through hard work or innovation.

Apple and Starbucks however are just fantastic!

I love their $6 Cappucinos and those little danishes by the counter.

Apple is truely a fine example of contemporary corporate egalitarianism.

I mean it's almost like they give away overpriced computers and gadgets for free., direct from the factory in Indonesia.

And when Steve Jobs is involved in an insider trading deal for millions of dollars by defrauding investors we can just ignore it.

It's only wrong when companies like Enron are involved in corruption.

They sell energy to power our Macs which is just downright evil, think of Global Warming.

BREAK...

BACK TO REALITY

The Apple Starbucks phenomenon is another syphtom of liberal hypocricy.

I like to point out the left winger selling a Che Guevera T-shirt which is in of itself a process of Capitalism.

Or Rage Against the Mansion, a band whose very success condradicts the notion of class disenfranchisement and non-existent social mobility.

To the liberal I say if you hate private property than why don't you give me yours.

And if you hate corporations so much than stop participating in Capitalism.

Steven Colbert Dirtbag Extraordinaire

I despise Steven Colbert and his communist variety show.

Colbert lampoon's the right by hosting left wing academics and then utilizes the most cliched talking points to ridicule their position.

The result is brainwashed viewers who then think that the most extreme left wing position on any issue is the correct one.

This is the intellectual equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

This annoying shtick is as irresponsible as it is repetitive and obnoxious.

I wonder how long Steven will do the same thing over and over again.

I guess the answer would be as long as it makes money.

Like fellow socialist crackpot Michael Moore, Colbert makes a handsome living delivering naive criticisms of Capitalism.

Hey I bet I can be just like Colbert, only a right wing version poking fun at the left.

Let's see how hard it is!

"Obviously it's the governments responsibility to take care any problem a person might have"

"What we need to do is plan every aspect of the economy, pay for every one's
health care and personal bills while having a $20 an hour minimum wage and a 20 hour work week".

"Financial responsibility isn't important, we should be spending as much as possible on every government program, it's OK because we can just tax it from the rich people who stole it from the poor. That won't cause financial problems and inhibit growth at all".

"Obviously we should never be allowed to eat meat, which is the moral equivalent of murder".

"Unborn children should be aborted when convenient, but serial killers and murderers should never be executed, that would be downright wrong".

"All cultures are uniquely deserving of respect, except western culture which is evil racist and sexist".

"Industrialism is wrong, in order to save the planet we have to move back to the forest and live off the land. That way we can build a hairy pitted matriarchal eco society".

"If we only coddled our foreign enemies more and handled them with kid gloves everything would be better, I mean appeasement was a really successful policy in the 1930's".

"Corporations are all evil, except of course Starbucks and Apple which make great coffee and computers"


Whew, that was really difficult! Colbert sure is a genius.

The sad thing is that an entire generation is being misled by this nonsense.

Colbert is willing to distort facts and interrupt his guests to push his ideological agenda. He is no different than those he purports to ridicule.

We should honor the hard working people that built this country, not the Kook's and Whiners who hate it.

Sex In The City Or Slut's In The Sewer?

I prefer the latter.

I hate this show more than just about anything. The sound of that intro music turns me into a howling monster, thrashing about until the source of the disturbance is eliminated.

In this disgusting series and it's clones, women are told that cheating on your husband or partner is a "fun and exciting thing to do". We also learn that the only important thing in life is being a licentious, self indulgent, materialistic tramp.

Or what about "Desperate Housewives"? Let's wait until our husband leaves and then go screw the neighbor, hell the whole family can watch!

The sad thing is that these programs provide "life lessons" for the moronic modern woman.

So we can treat people and our partners disrespectfully because "You know they just weren't doing it for me".

Or...

"Wow, that man has lot's of money and a girlfriend, I sure do want to go fuck him".

The star of this show is so called "sex symbol" Sarah Jessica Parker who is no great beauty by the way.

The woman is old and looks like someone smacked her in the face with a 2 X 4.

Judging by the damage, this attack was most likely perpetrated by professional wrestler Hacksaw Jim Dougan.

Of course, no left wing media shit burger would be complete without tales from People Magazine on our wonderful celebrity benefactors.

Nobody actually knows these people, but we all love their dedication to knee jerk left wing causes with their surplus millions.

We also get important information like which whore sucked some guy's cock that particular week. Or which lowlife vomited all over themselves on Sunset Blvd.

Women can spend hours conversing about this reprehensible trash.

The only thing I can say's is that it's amazing.

Amazing that values in the West have degenerated so far, and that the most contemptible individuals and irresponsible behavior is placed on a pedestal for a whole generation of scum to worship.

Could My Dinner With Andre Be The Worst Film Ever Made?

My Dinner with Andre is a famous film based on a single shot of a postmodernist conversation at a restaurant in NYC. It features that bald guy from The Princess Bride

The movie focuses on two men. One is a struggling playwright, who moonlights as an actor in order to pay the bills. The other is Andre a successful playwright who leaves town in the midst of some kind of mid-life crisis. The protagonist arranges to meet Andre and is nervous. He is jilted by Andre's success and his long absence.

Initially the conversation delves into Andre's experience's in experimental theater with a polish director named "Brutowski" in Poland.

He describes his first experiment. He asks Brutowski to give him"40 Jewish women to play harp in the forest" and that they "do not speak English". He emphasizes the nature of theatrical improvisation and its importance in helping solve the question of "Who am I, Where am I going, What am I doing here? He then tries a beehive, or a mass concentration of human beings interacting randomly. He remarks that their is a striking similarity between the "Group Trance" he experienced and the Nuremberg rallies.

Andre describes himself as completely flabbergasted by these experiences. He calls these random interactions an example of "surrealism" and the art of Jackson Pollack. The next stage in the conversation is his trip to Morocco and a desert oasis. It is here that he "eats sand, and throws up". He also meets cuson, a Japanese Buddhist monk who helps "enlighten" him.

Later he returns to NYC with kuson. He decides to make a flag based on the Tibetan swastika which is just "hideous". Later it is destroyed by some random women. It is here that he begins ruminating on Finhorn. This is an experimental artistic colony in Scotland where he enjoys carrying out his experiments. He exclaims that while there he "could see what if alive in those leafs" and describes "drinking instant coffee out of the top of my shaving cream with brutowski in the bathroom". Throughout these episodes is constant drinking, and dancing until "7:00 AM" as described by Andre. With the last bizarre comment I wondered if the participants in these "experiments" were possibly jacked up on psychedelic drugs.

Eventually he describes writing his last will and testament and "being photographed naked and then buried alive". Then he begins attacking his identity and likening himself to Nazi industrial minister Albert Speer and describes his artistic record as "horrific". The existentialist leanings of the conversation and its reminiscence of Sartre and German Nihilism is revealed when he says

"I feel like I am just washed up, I feel as though I squandered my entire life"


Andre attempts to show how perspective can be diluted through emotional confusion. He describes a doctor expresses optimism at his mother's failing health when he actually knows that she is dying. This is complete nonsense. The woman is either sick or she is not sick, just like an object is its identity or it is not. For example you cannot say that "the piano is a piano but also not a piano". Fact in objective reality is unyielding. Human emotions have no implication on the actual existence of objective reality. A is A, B is B. A is not be and also not A. Just because a doctor is uncomfortable with a sensitive topic and chooses to articulate in a careful way does not mean that perception of reality in itself is changed. These arguments echo the moralistic interpretations of duty and skepticism of sensory perception common in today's Postmodern/Existentialist philosophy.

Andre emphasizes that suppressing emotions is abnormal. By this method of reasoning , perhaps I should interrupt the teacher in class every time a point that i disagree with is made. Since I am a savage male perhaps I should express my sexual libido to females whenever the instinct tells me. This nonsense is rooted in the German and Austrian school's of mental repression. Sigmund Freud argued that all human interactions are predicated on thoughts and feelings which are suppressed in the sub-conscious mind. Freud also believed that cocaine was good for you, and regularly "interpreted his female patients dreams to mean they wanted to have sex with him".

Consider the story of Joe Sixpack as articulated by the postmodern left. Joe Sixpack works a 9-5 job a an industrial factory doing a repetitive task. Before he comes home he purchases beer, a product of mass manufacturing. He guzzles his beer and sinks into his comfortable chair. He then turns on the television, and for several hours is bombarded by advertisements and erroneous information. As he does this the phyco-active effects of the beer slowly comforts him and dilutes his inhibition and perception of the world around him. When he becomes tired he goes to sleep and then repeats this process indefinitely.

This the postmodernists say, is how all reality can be predicated on sub-conscious reality and the pervasive effects of technology and society. These themes are common in the writing of Chomsky, Parenti, and Postman. Not included however is a more important factor, free will. Individuals in a free society can choose to go about their lives in any way. Joe Sixpack can watch survivor and work at the factory while I build a business and rehearse a piano concerto. A woman can get a tatoo above her rear end and then watch sex in the city while I write a song and read Sir Edward Gibbon. Most people are ignorant and stupid and always have been. If the postmodernists have such contempt for "Joe Sixpack" than why do they so fervently wish to liberate him? Just like abstract socialist thought, the school of repression aims to influence individuals who have no concept of these arguments much like Marxisms intellectual relationships to the proleteriat.

Andre says that individuals often "really don't know what they are talking about". This may sometimes be true, but I assure you I and many others KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. If I say please pass the ketchup, than please pass the Ketchup. There is no sub-conscious agenda in passing conversation for most individuals. Consider that relativist epistemology and postmodernism have absolutely no application to any of the technical fields. I suppose a mathematician doesn't know what hes talking about when he addresses a complex problem, or a biologist doesn't actually understand the micro-biotic events taking place in a petri dish.

Andre exclaims that people place no value on "the perception of reality". He goes on to ridicule the idea of individual goals and plans.

If this is the case than postmodernists can go about life in an aimless and pointless manner while I set practical goals. Postmodern theorists and educators are themselves examples of planning and individual goals. They hate America, the west, reason and fervently study relativistic epistemology and sociological issues to enumerate points to this effect. When contradictory philosophy becomes a matter of principle, it is easy to make non-sensical arguments based in emotional feelings.

Andre eventually asks "are we really hungry, or is it just a habit". I will answer this succinctly. Yes I am oftentimes hungry. In fact when I woke up today I was hungry and then made a sandwich. I ate the sandwich and my hunger was satisfied. The reasoning wasn't predicated on any "habit" accept my own need and desire. Andre than ruminates on how an "electric blanket" misinterprets reality because it eliminates perspective on "all those poor people in the cold" or the starving children of Africa. Once again postmodern contradiction is evident. Technology is bad but it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

I am not responsible for starving children in Africa or the bum on the street. My material comfort is created by wealth produced by myself and my family. I have no moral responsibility to society besides respecting other peoples individual rights and safety. My goals are my own just as your goals are your own. Altruism is a concept rooted in religion and contempt of reason. It is not abnormal that people should reflect their own rational self-interests. Perhaps all my friends should give me a foot massage because it is a "nice thing to do". I'm also pretty broke right now. Maybe society should give me money so i don't have to work, I sure do hate working.

In conclusion I despise My Dinner with Andre and its philosophical overtones. The film is boring, pretentious and biased in its presentation of philosophical concepts. The movie implies that it has done a great service by "liberating" the protagonist from his blind perceptions of reality and daily habit. I think however that this film has actually done a dis-service to humanity. It emphasizes emotions, perception, altruism, contempt of technology, and anti reason as the most important factors in understanding "truth". Curiously absent however are arguments based on individual rights, private property, goals , reason, science, liberal capitalism and rational self-interest.

The Myth of New Deal Economic Recovery

In almost every scholarly discourse concerning the origins and eventual cause of the Great Depression; it is implied that the recession was a result of the runaway excess and instability of capitalism. Traditional wisdom in American History Books asserts that the go-go 20’s aided by the lassiz-faire non-interventionist policies of Herbert Hoover assisted and then accelerated the process of economic decline. Most intellectuals then argue that the unprecedented state interventionist and regulatory initiatives spearheaded by F.D.R quote “saved capitalism from itself”.

It is my purpose in this essay to show that contrary to popular belief, Hoover’s administration was one of the most interventionist in American History, and that its policies were among the principal causes of the Great Depression. I also intend to show that legislation enacted by the US government after the stock market crash exacerbated the recession. (Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Federal Farm Board). I will provide evidence that F.D.R’s state regulatory schemes and initiatives were actually economically harmful and lengthened the depression. Finally I intend to show that real economic recovery did not occur until after WWII, when reduced government spending and the elimination of new-deal legislation spurred economic recovery.

Herbert Hoover was a hyper-interventionist who sought to rigidly regulate the functioning of the American Economy. As commerce secretary he increased his own budget by more than 50 percent, expanded the commerce department into thirty divisions, and hired more than three thousand additional government bureaucrats. While Commerce Secretary and then as President he advocated legislation that included.

1. Government enforced wage controls (propping up wages to increase purchasing power.

2. The Railway Labor Act- The first law to interfere with private labor relations.

3. Providing “Easy Credit” government enforced initiatives on lending.

4. High Protectionist Tariffs including the notorious Smoot Hawley act.

5.Government Cartels controlling specific Industries- Limited Broadcast Licenses to regulate radio. The Bureau of Aeronautics to regulate civilian aviation.

6.“Work Sharing” or limiting hours worked to spread employment (while conversely creating more unemployment).

7.500 Million Dollars in Public Works spending or approximately 13% of the Federal Budget in 1931.

8.The Revenue Act of 1931- A massive tax hike in the midst of recession.

9.The Norris-LaGuardia act – Union protection Legislation.

10.The Federal Farm Board – A Government agricultural cartel used to artificially prop up prices.

Hoovers attempts to regulate Agriculture were pervasive and harmful. In 1929 the Agricultural marketing Act was passed. This created a Federal Farm Board that sought to control farm surpluses and bolster prices. It essentially created a legal cartel that would artificially “fix” prices. Ironically the major heads of almost every agricultural corporation served as administrators on this board. Predictably they used this power to drive up consumer prices while using the government as an enforcer to stifle free-market competition.

Amazingly while starvation and grinding poverty plagued Americans, The FFB purchased surplus wheat from farmers to “drive up prices”. When farmers continued producing agricultural products en masse the FFB concluded that “Overproduction was driving prices down”. The next step was to begin paying farmers not to farm. By 1931 the Federal government had purchased 67 million bushels of wheat that it was keeping off the market.

Eventually the FFB would insist that land be withdrawn from cultivation, surplus crops be destroyed and livestock be slaughtered in order to maintain artificial price ceilings. F.D.R continued and expanded these policies, burning crops, subsidizing farmers not to farm and enforcing arbitrary price ceilings. The result was predictable, chronic food shortages, exorbitant prices, inflation, conspicuous waste, and increased unemployment in the agricultural sector.

Perhaps the single most harmful piece of legislation enacted by Hoover was the Smoot-Hawley tariff of March 1930. This intrusive tax instituted 60% tariffs on over 800 products. Several countries immediately retaliated with equally reactionary tariffs on American products. By 1933 global trade had been reduced almost 83 percent, from 3 billion dollars a month in 1929 to half a billion a month by 1933. The United States suffered the worst with a 53 percent reduction in exports from 1929 to 1933.

The international ramifications were catastrophic. The tariff exacerbated the effects of depression on global economies and heightened political instability around the world. With little or no demand for exports more workers were laid off. In Germany, the Tariff precipitated complete economic collapse, runaway inflation, massive unemployment and greatly aided the instability that enabled the Nazis to seize power. Data from the US Department of Commerce substantiates the devastating effect the tariff (along with other schemes) had on unemployment. In 1930 the unemployment rate stood at 8.7 percent, by 1933 it had skyrocketed to 25% the highest in American History.13 By 1931 The Federal Deficit stood at 2 billion. Clearly Hoover’s regulatory initiatives stifled growth and made the recession worse.

In 1933 F.D.R came to power promising radical social change and economic recovery in the form of the First New Deal (1933-1938). It is commonly asserted that the policies and programs that F.D.R instituted, contributed to the alleviation of unemployment and the gradual restoration of prosperity in the United States. A closer look however reveals that unemployment was extraordinarily high during the great depression, and did not substantially improve during the first or second Deal. In fact unemployment was higher in 1938(19.0) than in 1931(15.9).Unemployment did not substantially improve until millions of men were sent overseas to war, a fate far worse than being out of work.

The Gross National Product lagged behind the 1929 level until 1940. Eventually arms exports and manufacturing did significantly increase the GDP. However this is not a validation of New Deal economic policies. Many countries briefly benefited economically from massive arms build ups and manufacturing. These included Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Like the United States they also succeeded in building innumerable tanks; ships, guns, ammunition and aircraft while providing their citizens with temporary work in wartime industries. Personal consumption data shows a similar story. Consumer spending was approximately 8 % lower in 1938 than in 1929 that’s without considering shortages as a result of government price controls

Temin, in “The Spoils of War” argues that it was government interference and mismanagement in the maintenance of the gold standard that primarily contributed to the depth of the depression. He states that after World War I financial policies contributed to “Great strain in the operation of the interwar gold standard, the asymmetry forced countries lacking reserves to contract more than reserve rich companies expanded". The result was a "deflationary monetary policy during the 1920's and 30's".

An interesting microcosm of Temin’s conclusion is F.D.R’s gold standard policy during the new deal. In 1934 FDR nationalized the gold stock by making the private ownership of gold illegal and nullified all contractual promises to pay for anything in gold. F.D.R hoped that the measure would inflate prices, but instead it greatly assisted in deflation. This is indicated by the stagnant and or declining personal consumption data that was common throughout the 1930's, The combination of arbitrary price ceilings and deflationary monetary policy clearly had a devastating effect on average Americans during the Depression.

Perhaps the most bizarre, misguided and harmful legislation enacted by F.D.R was the so called N.R.A or national recovery administration. This act organized each industry into a federally supervised trade association called a “code authority”. These “codes” then determined production, prices, and distribution methods all according to government policy. Each code was essentially a government backed monopoly headed by an unholy alliance of businessmen and government bureaucrats. Just like with Hoover’s FFB, the codes used government coercion to prop up prices to the detriment of consumers while prosecuting free-market competition. The AAA or agricultural adjustment act was essentially a continuation of the bewildering and wasteful policies of Hoover’s Federal Farm Board.

Eventually the First New Deal became such a debacle that in 1935 the NRA and AAA were declared unconstitutional by the U.S Supreme Court. In 1934 a senate commission headed by attorney Clarence Darrow described the NRA as “Harmful, monopolistic, oppressive, grotesque. Invasive, fictitious, ghastly, anomalous, preposterous, irresponsible, savage, wolfish”. The government “make-work” programs like the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation were also a complete disaster. In fact FDR advisor Harry Hopkins told the president in 1935 that “I’ve got four million at work (in federal jobs), but for gods sake don’t ask me what they are doing”. These “make work” policies led to greater government spending and temporary employment but did not help alleviate the great depression. This is indicated by the economic data concerning GDP, Personal consumption and unemployment which show decreased personal spending, a stagnant GDP and high unemployment.

Many economist’s and historians argue that the New Deal was essentially modeled after fascist and planned economic systems in Europe and Russia. In fact, Rexford G. Tugwell, F.DR.’s principal economic advisor was a great admirer of Soviet Russia’s central economic planning system. The New Deal government cartels closely mirrored the systems then in place in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Under these arrangements business and government colluded to create legal monopolies that fixed prices, regulated labor and eliminated competition. These schemes were clearly harmful and distinctly un-American. Given these disturbing correlations, it is amazing that generations of American intellectuals have maintained that these oppressive measures helped “alleviate” the Depression.

Even if these points are true many New Deal apologists maintain that at least the New Deal was an attempt at an altruistic social experiment that attempted to help the neediest in American Society. An economic study conducted by renowned economists Jim F Couch and William H Shugart directly contradicts this assertion. In the “Political Economy of the New Deal” Couch and Shugart conclusively show through economic data that the hardest hit sections of the country (the south) received proportionately less aid than better off areas. In addition New Deal largess was doled out in a greater percentage to constituencies that supported F.D.R and the Democratic Party. They eventually conclude that New deal social legislation was nothing more than pork barrel politics used to coerce support for the Democratic Party and New-Deal legislation.

The most damning indictment of these policies is the economic data after World War II. The Data shows that personal income substantially increased after WW2 as a result of decreased taxes and government spending. It is true that personal income did increase during World War II and even surpassed the 1929 level. But temporary wartime employment and production is not a true indicator of economic prosperity. An analysis of peacetime economic data is a more reliable indicator of economic well being. The GDP data reveals a similar story. In 1938 at the height of the “Roosevelt recession” the GDP was almost 20 points lower than in 1929.23 By 1950 the GDP was almost 3 times the 1938 level! Roosevelt apologists will argue that this was a result of New Deal legislation. The real explanation is that the massive reduction in government spending after 1945 sparked investment, personal savings and economic recovery.

In conclusion I believe that the Great Depression was a result of misguided fiscal and trade policies implemented by quasi-socialist and fascist governments in The United States and Europe. The combination of fluctuations in the value and maintenance of the gold standard, massive government spending, and reactionary government intervention in the free market and protectionist tariffs caused the Great Depression and lengthened its effects.

Neil Postman and Postmodernism

In "Amusing Ourselves to Death" Postman makes the argument that the nature of the visual entertainment medium degrades rational public discourse, political debate and public participation in government. Throughout Chapter 4 "The Typographic Mind" Postman cites countless examples of how 18th and 19th century American culture was print based, and how public involvement in politics was a national passion rather than a unnecessary nuisance as is commonly regarded today. Postman discusses the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates and their fundamentally different character from current political discourse. He wonders at the audiences ability to "cheerfully accommodate themselves to several hours of oratory". In today's culture he argues, it would be difficult or near impossible to engage an average citizens attention span for seven minutes, much less seven hours. In this fundamental premise he is correct. The average American today is possibly the "most entertained and least informed in the world". However, this "ignorant" American is capable of accessing almost unlimited information. He chooses television and limited corporate outlets because of the ease and relaxing nature of media information/entertainment as opposed to print. Postman makes several troubling epistemological arguments in his introduction and unfairly maligns technology and symbolic information by citing religious/ethical examples.

In Chapter 2 pg 29 Media as Epistemology Postman states that

" The invention of the printing press is itself a paradigmatic example. Typography destroyed fostered the modern idea of individuality, but it destroyed the medieval idea of community and integration. Typography created prose but made poetry into an exotic and elitist form of expression. Typography made modern science possible but transformed religious sensibility into mere superstition. Typography assisted in the formation of the nation state but thereby made patriotism a sordid of not lethal emotion."

This is a preposterous statement. Medieval society and its domination by the catholic church represented one of the most unfortunate and oppressive eras in human history. The "community" was composed of corrupt priest's and nobles who controlled all the wealth and ruthlessly terrorized impoverished peasants. Serfs were tied to the land, unable to move freely, and prohibited from reading and writing. The invention of typography directly led to greater literacy, circulation of scientific and political ideas, the protestant reformation and liberty from the tyranny of the Catholic Church. Typography enhanced all forms of written expression and made it generally available not "elitist". In addition the absence of the "religious sensibility" that Postman laments represents an ethical/moral judgement. No reasonable person could possibly envy the "religious sensibility" of the medieval era. This would probably include witch burnings, executions for homosexuality, arbitrary punishment,coercive religious taxes(indulgences) and the brutalization of women.

Postman claims that he is no epistemological relatavist yet he states on pg 24 that

" We must remember that Galileo merely said that the language of Galileo is written in mathematics. He did not say everything is. And even the truth about nature need not be expressed in mathematics. For most of human history, the language of nature has been the language of myth and ritual. These forms, one might add, had the virtues of leaving nature unthreatened and of encouraging the belief that human beings are part of it. It hardly befits a people who stand ready to blow up the planet to praise themselves too vigorously for having found the true way to talk about nature"

This is a relativist epistemological argument typical among neo-Rousseauian socialist thinkers. The essential premise is that technology is bad and human beings are morally superior in a primitive state. He asserts that it is absurd for human beings to claim "the true way to talk about nature". He also states the the "truth about nature need not be expressed in mathematics". These are anti science, anti reason arguments which deprecate the scientific method. Science is not perfect, but it is certainly a more accurate interpretation of the natural world than religious ceremonies or superstitious beliefs. Postman's assertion that the process of language inherently changes the context of information is also absurd and relativist. If a symbol depicts the number zero in one language, and zero is depicted in another by a different symbol, it does not change the essential information which represents the numeric value of nothing.

Postman resorts to more ethical/moral based judgements by citing Decalogue, from the Second Commandment

"Thou Shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth"

Postman than comments that

" It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture."

Postman finally asserts that iconography and symbol based representation is "blasphemy" although he admits that

" If I am wrong in these conjectures, it is , I believe, a wise and particularly relevant supposition that the media of communication to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the the culture's intellectual and social preoccupations."

Postman then goes on to define humanity, which of course can be done in two sentences

"Speech , or course, is the primal and indispensable medium. It made us human, keeps us human, and in fact defines what human."

This passage suggests a moral superiority of monotheistic culture over polytheistic culture. It also suggests an inherent ethical inferiority of symbolic representation. The greatest civilizations of the Ancient World including Egypt and China(to this day) utilized pictographic information in the formulation of their language, history, culture and architecture. Television by the nature of its medium, degrades the transmition of symbolic information. But to indite symbolic information in its entirety by using religious scripture is absurd and prejudicial. It is also predicated on "Judeo-Christian" values and is certainly not an objective source. Postman's statement on speech is even more ridiculous. Is a man that cannot speak or hear not human? Or perhaps it is his mind and ideas that make him human. Speech is nothing more but a system of grunts to convey ideas and information.

Webb Brothers Live at Harry Nillson Tribute Show @ The Bordello 11/15/08

The Global Warming Hucksters by Pat Buchanan

Here is a great article on Climate Hysteria by Pat Buchanan
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/apocalypse._now.html