Let us just call them traitors.

Why not call the liberal Democrats traitors?? They seem to oppose everything we stand for and will seemingly defend any enemy of the US. Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangle have American values? John Kerry? Cinthia McKinney? These people are Americans??

In Viet Nam, the same bunch called our soldiers Nazis, spit on them, howled and protested and threw rocks at the buses exiting the base at San Diego. They sent Susan Sontag and Jane Fonda to Hanoi to help the propaganda effort against us. The praised Ho and the Marxists. When they got control of Congress they defunded the aid to the Republic of South Viet Nam and doomed them. They will do that again for Israel and Iraq?

If given back control of Congress those who would call our soldiers Nazis as Durbin did would close Guantanamo and free hundreds of prisoners taken on the battle fields of the War on Terrorism. They would slash military spending and give money to terrorists as they did for North Korea.

They would halt military aid to Israel and allow the Hezbollah to shell Israel. They would support the PLO in Gaza and would just ‘talk’ to Iran. They would vote out the money to continue the War on Terrorism in Iraq. They would invite Iran and Syria to expand their military around the Middle East. They would invite any and all illegal aliens to vote and give them a tax amnesty while raising taxes on the middle class. They would open the jails and let out the criminals.

Why not just call these people traitors and set the record straight? They are traitors. They abhor our work ethic, our social values, our religions and envy our economic success. They would tear down our society and replace it with a set of puppets similar to Cuba, a place the left-liberals never seem to stop admiring.

The liberal Democrat traitors are simply traitors-as-such  and need to be repulsed at the ballot box in November. They have only the harm and destruction of our society in mind. If a nuclear bomb went off in NYC they would only cheer and see their chance to impeach George Bush for ‘lies’ and ‘negligence.’ They think more of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro than President Bush and Dick Cheney.

Let us just call them traitors--to their faces.

rycK

 

To say that folly is the mother if misfortune is to underestimate the situation in Lebanon. Here, Shriekmona (the maudlin illegitimate ‘head of state’ of a country not even recognized by his masters in Syria and actually controlled by Hezbollah and money from Iran) and his toadies have declared a ‘victory’ over Israel. How long can one grown man bawl? This is interesting, but not unusual, given other instances that remind us of the satire The Mouse that Roared. Ho Chi Mingh also declared some form of ‘victory’ as he surveyed the destruction and rotting remains of a million ignorant Communists who died for him.

South Lebanon is a wasteland with tourism halted as if by a steep cliff and we see songs of jubilation and praise for the ‘valiant’ warriors that managed to hide away long enough to not be killed by the IDF.

Such jokes are purveyed and churlishly hurled at the strong by leftist sycophants like Walter Conkrite who declared the Viet Cong the ‘victor’ in Viet Nam—the very group that lost so many members that they never held a press conference after the Tet Offensive. The Tet was only an offense to reason and truth. 50,000 or more idiots died in this fiasco. One of the remaining Castros is now readying their military forces (read farces) to stand against the US in light of the impeding invasion. But, the idiocy continues on as the dunces dance the Dunciad to at applauses and wild praise of the left and their Islamo-Fascist allies.

But, think not that they are bereft of allies! The NYT, mere stooges of any person who hates the US and morality and truth, and other hurdy-gurdy grinders of leftist propaganda signal the world that Israel and the US have lost this one.

So, let us rest amused at the phony and amateurish antics of the Hezbaloney Bozos in Yellow and Green as they jeer and find new ways to destroy their society. Bringing imbecility, religious fanaticism, sloth and suicidal tendencies is not really a threat to others.The Serif Nasrambolognia ought to keep to the caves and basements if he wishes to postpone his audience in Heaven. It will properly keep their phony society in moral, military, economic and social ruins. Who can be alarmed at that??

So, prepare for the PLO dunces in Gaza to find a new path to ‘victory’ as they launch a new offensive against the IDF and get shorn like sheep in a ditch.

So it is with the lunatic left and their droolers.

rycK

 

A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism. III

The leftist notions of individualism were previously discussed and shown to be so much trash in the first and second parts in this series: A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism I, II. We continue the dissection and public exposure of this virulent social disease with the third part. We need to discuss the leftist notions and myths of moral-relativism. We find this on the Internet:

Excerpts from http://www.moral-relativism.com/ are cited below in quotes and indents.

“Moral Relativism - What's It All About? Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

It is interesting that no boundaries are mentioned here. Where do we go with ‘deciding’ and at what point do we decide that activities are a detriment to society or outright violent crime? The left-liberals do not wish to define any limits to degeneracy. When we make some kind of decision does this amount to an individual veto to law? Can I decide that certain taxes do not meet my particular vision of moral relativism and refuse to pay?? Perhaps that is just part of ‘my culture.’

For another case study, if Stanley Tookie Williams believed it was proper for him to ‘choose’ a certain 7-11 and murder the workers there with a shotgun blast in the back of one of the victim’s heads it must have been okay—thus sanctioned-- in his culture of street gangs. Was this Tookie’s individual choice? Who opposed this murder and robbery? His peers? Not the left. Tookie was considered an ‘intellectual’ and leader of the left and more an icon breaking new social boundaries than a simple, disgusting murderer. Mumia murdered a cop, but is considered an ‘intellectual’ in France and parts of Europe and has been hailed as a political prisoner and possible candidate for the Nobel Prize in literature.

“In describing her view on morality, the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America once stated, "…teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do - and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves." She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly intended to influence the thinking of others… an intention that is not, in fact, neutral.”

It this is so then where is the condemnation for the US when they hunt down terrorists and obliterate them? Do the far left stumble over their own words as they assert the negative in these cases to oppose what they teach? If some can justify their acts based on the very definitions of moral relativism then who prevents others from doing so?? All I have to do is to give my reasons for believing as I do. The first thing a leftist would do with a terrorist incident is to ask: “Why do they hate us?” Why not just shovel out tons of dollars from taxpayers and maybe they will ‘respect’ us.

The hypocritical left have no intention of allowing any criminals to be executed or even punished if they can prevent it, but they will ignore their own words when used by others to sanction similar acts. We still hear the ringing and noisy applause for Fidel Castro who seized power in Cuba and with a lengthy list marched hundreds up to the wall and had his firing squads gun them down. We hear nothing from the far left on this incident. So, we wonder how they handled Pol Pot in Cambodia. Why, it was the fault of the US!! They caused Viet Nam to invade Cambodia! We heard in the 60s that “the criminal act (murder, rape, larceny, selling dope, slavery, forced prostitution, etc.) is over so why commit more crime by punishing the criminal? Left-Liberals DO have a ‘moral code’ and will not allow others to use their sordid reasoning against them. Their style of addressing morality is to block all other forms of ethics and deny an equal basis of reason. They claim to have a ‘moral’ agenda if you can manage to call their dogma moral. It is not.

Now moral relativism is a cofactor of nihilism, or worse. We wonder how we can control the actions of others if their actions, illegal by statute, are sanctioned and even encouraged by the courts who would strike down such laws. To say that a given law or statute is devoid of some moral basis is to toss out the legal system. Yet, that is what the left-liberal activist judges seem to be doing. One dirt bag was spared prison after being convicted for having sex with children because he was ‘too short.’

“Evidence that moral relativism is seen as more "fair" or "neutral" than a "hardline" stance on morality is seen in a 2002 column from Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly, who asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article, O'Reilly cites recent Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught in American universities. Studies indicate 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered."

It seems that if we use the liberal notions of moral relativism we should be able to set up the stocks and institute public hangings again on warm Sunday afternoons where all can bring their lunch and tail gait and see their particular form of justice meted out in their personalized form of moral relativism. But, others are not allowed to exercise their own choices or advocate actions because the

We can all now be moral relativists! Since there is no wrong or right let us keep hunting down terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon and killing them. I recommend napalm for its sanitization effects and deference to the environment. That is certainly not wrong in my wisdom base not does it conflict with my views of my own cultural diversity. From the definition of moral relativism I think they ought to die and because I believe it then that's true for me.

Liberalism is crumbling if based on fluff like the above, as it should. No loss.

 

Go get ‘em.

A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism. II

Individualism

The leftist notions of egalitarianism were previously discussed and shown to be so much trash in the first part in this series: A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism I. We continue the dissection and public exposure of this virulent social disease with the second part. We need to discuss the leftist notions and myths of "individualism." This notion is proffered to be primarily concerned with "...protecting individual autonomy by opposing encroachment by the state. Ref http://www.answers.com/topic/individualism “This is not to be confused with the alternate liberal usage of the word where people who attempt to be independent of big government are assaulted and ridiculed for such actions also labeled as "individualism." The liberal constantly reminds the person who seeks "individualism" (read freedom from excessive taxes) that their government has already given them much.

This definition of “opposing encroachment by the state” is unworkable now given the practices of the left. Apparently the left think that control of crime is some form of encroachment upon freedoms of the individual. Radical individualism is now apparently concerned with simply 'feeling good.' If an act is pleasing or highly offensive to many, such as we note in an assortment of current popular social perversions, then it must be a good thing for liberals to do, and needs to be nurtured and advocated, and as such, this conduct must be invariably found to be ‘protected’ by the Constitution. Drug addiction is a good example. The rabid left pine and howl for legalized drugs in the manner of the late Carl Sagan, a big-time hophead marijuana smoking loser with a really sloppy and embarrassing scientific record. Recently, a new ‘right’ has been asserted for sexual predators to attack children by some pervert. The ACLU has a new ‘right’ to champion! Justice Ginsberg, former ACLU Head Counsel, urges the age of sexual consent to be lowered to 12 {I think 10 or less] so as to decriminalize such a right. This is just another step in the leftist support for government sanctioned and tax-sponsored degeneracy, a seemingly main pillar of the progressive Democratic Party in the USA. It does get votes.

The left gaze at the inner-city 'citizens' use of mainline narcotics, barbs, methamphetamine, and such, and praise their use as conforming to norms of 'diversity.' We heard from Tim Leary and Allen Ginsberg of the ‘mind expanding benefits’ of drug addiction. Liberals were thrilled by their adventures into addiction, sloth, and addiction. The social cost of their addictions: failed lives, discarded children, death, sloth, disease, despair and such are ignored or enthusiastically overlooked if the proper votes are cast. After all, jobs are created when degeneracy is exploited to its fullest extent. Somebody has to tend the afflicted and pay for the yellow rubber gloves and disinfectants where appropriate. Under liberalism drug addicts and their social workers can form a common social bond and even share needles if they want. The poor are encouraged to take drugs as they howl at the system seemingly giving them a platform of social protest. Killing yourself with drugs is akin to self-directed starvation: it is a social message. Please note that the high human population of the world is a major factor in leftist politics and that those who die from drugs are appeasing left-liberal Democratic population policy. Phony social programs that offer free needles to 'prevent the spread of AIDS,’ and worse, are a mere official left-liberal political statement to the abusers:

“We like your addiction, we will support your habits and we will get more tax monies to help fund the enormous cost of your addiction. We benefit from your suffering and seek to enhance our political power from your right to use drugs. We can provide abortions at minimal cost, or even free, to help you free yourselves from the usual social responsibilities so you can pursue your numerous addictions, public whoring and perversions. Free housing and medical treatments are already provided. Shoot up in confidence that there is more on the way if you support liberalism. You can ‘Tune in, turn on, and drop out’ and be properly aligned with liberalism.”

There are several aspects to this left-liberal ‘individualism’ notion that need examination and comment:

(1)A general contempt for any 'normal' life: Liberals are thrown into a vomiting episode at the mention of the TV Show Father Knows Best. The traditional family setting is unacceptable. Here, we see a general assault on common decency, American society and capitalism. We have seen much of this before. Liberalism has no future in common decency and morality and must find ways to counterbalance their political power. Decent folk will just vote for crime, corruption, sloth, degeneracy and Marxism.

(2)The frustration of being politically powerless: The leftist leaders are obviously phony, flip-flop in the Kerry manner on any issues, have many disgusting persons as leaders, praise communism, employ criminals and major substance abusers for leaders and are anti American and pro Islamo-Fascist and pro Marxist. Much of this frantic attitude has to do with their loss of political power. It was interesting to watch Cynthia McKinney escorted by the Black Panthers who provided ‘security’ for her in her futile efforts to hang onto her Congressional Seat in George. Such overt use of racism is an integral part of the left-liberal agenda of 2006 and the elections of 2008. Such frustrations will drive the Democrats to do anything that is necessary to support another 911 attack so they can blame the Republicans and get back some control of the government. Race riots always seem to benefit the left as they did in Watts 1, 2 They are now crazed with hate and we have only to listen to Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney or George Soros to hear the accepted Democratic Party line in detail on these subjects.

(3)The ongoing quest for more votes and the need to preserve inner city voting patterns [hence hyping the Blue] lead to the following observations: New Orleans was a toilet of corruption, sloth, drug addiction and racism, but it was a solid Democratic bastion of voters. The high vote content was sufficient for the liberals to maintain the status quo of the city using any and all methods, illegal or not and ignoring the crime was mandatory. Katrina changed that. This loss is unacceptable to the liberals in LA, CA and MA. The leftist powers now whine and moan for federal money to transport the ‘poor’ back to the voting booths in Louisiana to maintain this disgusting leftist social bastion of votes. The governor of LA asked for $50,000,000,000 to fix things. That would have made her the biggest Tax Grubber in the history of the world, adjusted for growth and inflation, and probably a bit ahead of Cleopatra VII. Note that crime in New Orleans has recently skyrocketed to ‘normal’ and the ‘police’ have to use the National Guard to patrol the streets. But, they are voting Democrat—so that must be maintained! They just reelected their resident sleaze bag. The same corrupt officials must be reelected according to the liberal agenda. NOLA here is a mirror image of the corruption and crime in Daley’s Chicago, Kennedy’s Boston, and Green’s Philadelphia or anytime in Baltimore. Next, they will try to allow illegal aliens to vote anywhere and get back to their traditional ballot box stuffing of the 30s, 40s, and 50s in Chicago as their model. They are already bribing illegal aliens to vote for them with give aways such as tuition credits, free health care, freedom from federal taxes and such.

As with the case of radical egalitarianism, the leftist notions of individualism are disgusting, immoral and have no place in a modern society.

rycK

 

On Leftist Notions of Economics

This ongoing liberal discussion tangent continues on with a condemnation of the act of accumulating wealth, via rising market values of financial assets. The implication was that some harm is done when one's assets appreciate. Recall that

Marx was correct in that the class struggle is the basis for many wars and famine in the last few hundred, or thousand, years. Karl, a drunk and sloppy thinker, muddled his own theory so badly that Engels and others had to rewrite the mess. The central message here that capitalism was inherently evil and unsafe, was used to ruin the economies of half the world's population. Even the USSR, with strict training for all members of the polis, a standardized education, gulags for complainers, and finally the firing squad if necessary, and strict controls on spending could not make this strange theory work in 74 continuous years of trying. Will dead horses ever rise and serve their masters?? They will in the dreams of the left it seems.

The Marxism-Leninism-whateverism-has failed miserably. Is there a message here? We look at Africa with nearly every nation to date having attempted some kind of Marxist revolution. The result is war everywhere. South America is not much better having been isolated and left to their historic cultural devices for nearly 500 years and has achieved little of economic success in those times. That was the land of crooked politicos and revolutions. At one point Bolivia was averaging one coup per year for 150 years. Mexico has a rotating dictatorship with a six-year clock. Corruption is unmatched in Mexico City. The PRC is a wreck and has survived only by forming an alliance with the profane capitalists. N. Korea and Cuba are in horrible shape. The many dictators we have seen [1000 since 1900?] have all failed, which includes Cuba of course in spite of the Clown Castro who still stumbles around in the heat looking for Che. So, what are we to say about how the vaulted alternatives to capitalism have fared? What happened? Bum theory? We can look around the world and note that capitalism is a success while those countries with a giant government have generally failed. India, now improving swiftly with rampant and unashamed capitalism running rampant, has made great progress from its unspeakable poverty of the last 5000 years. The change can be attributed to capitalism.

The response to socialist alternatives is usually that places like Sweden are doing well, although they sold guns and explosives to all belligerents in wars for 150 years to earn their wealth—but what the hell. Olof Palma took a bullet in his back [.357] for backing out of a dirty missile deal with Iran, but so what. Switzerland, a frequent example, is in the dirty money business, and has been for centuries. They would, and still will, hide the ill-gotten gains of any dirt bag from taxes. Everybody needs a safe haven for his or her loot it seems, since so many use this secret place. Profit was an object of scorn with the so-called theoreticians of the left, and still is. This is the target. So, that gets us around to the notions of how to structure a society. Do we allow the self-anointed cognoscenti to decide who gets what and how much money? All known utopias have fallen apart because of internal bickering and a failure to cooperate with the “plan.” Are these people “leaders?” Really?

From a standpoint of reality and history, it is clear that capitalism is the best option for producing an environment for a good life with plenty of goods and services. Marxism and its half witted cousin socialism fails the citizens except for party members. They live in splendor. From a standpoint of competency and skills, the unequal distribution of these attributes among all citizens forces us to prevent those with limited mental faculties from having important jobs. Look at Stalin, Amin, Mao, H. Wilson, Ortega, etc. Look at the inbred bozos in Moscow [particularly Moscow Central Planning!] and how they turned out. Better to have the slow types swabbing the latrines than try to put one of them in charge of NASA or Xerox of the banks. Let the left whine, since they have no workable alternatives. All they can do is tax and spend. Recall that they spend you money—not theirs. Win or lose they will waste your assets and whine for more. They don’t like to give up control or lower taxes. You cannot trust the average government given their records of performance and failed outcomes.

Look out for yourself lest you be a victim like the boy Elion Gonzales, the folks at Waco or those who were chosen to fight dirty wars for strange reasons and die for somebody’s political guesses.

The leftist economic ideas are simply dog poop and should be removed with a plastic scoop.

rycK  ryckki@gmail.com 

 Let us all celebrate the loss of Cynthia McKinney in her GA primary. We can derive some satisfaction that even the far left have some remnants of decency remaining when they identify a person like her and throw her out.

 

rycK

 

The basis of liberalism needs to be inspected and a complete autopsy performed on this disease. We ought to begin the dissection of liberalism by examining one of their most celebrated (and intellectually dishonest), tenets: egalitarianism.

Among the numerous, many incoherent, fluid versions of the term egalitarianism we learn that “everyone ought to be equal in economic and social opportunity.” One might think this an obvious and noble goal until the political and economic mechanisms of the implementation of this concept are inspected closely. Here, as is most usual, we find the inevitable link to communism where such an egalitarian doctrine specifies that everyone is supposed to enjoy material equality. That did work in Cambodia and North Korea according to your notions of equality. Dead people are equal-- at least in a political sense. Noting that 100,000,000 people died as a direct result of this energetic far-leftist political notion, we can only show contempt for such a preposterous idea. People are not equal and probably shouldn’t be in any case. There is no way for the far-left and Marxists to gain equality without mass murder and/or confiscatory taxes or both and this theory is built into egalitarianism.

The snake oil theoretical basis of egalitarianism is touted by the understandable observation that material inequality is pervasive in the current economic systems globally. How novel! This corresponds with every worldwide observation dating back least 4000 years BCE with no contrary examples. The spurious details of egalitarianism start to brighten to the observer when it is made very clear that some method of forced material redistribution is necessary and mandatory for realization of this concept. Here is where the problems begin. The eternal quest for a governing body to exercise absolute coercive powers of material redistribution upon the masses have been tested, in limited numbers, by certain dictatorial political operatives thus producing the very inequalities of political power and inhuman coercion of the polis in exactly the manner that they complain about in their phony manifesto. As in the French Revolution, “…the second most important event in history according to Lenin (or was that Stalin?),” there was no limit to the abuses of the Bolsheviki and their lackeys could use in grabbing material wealth and wholesale murder and genocide and wasting it in failed social projects doomed to disappointment due to the intrinsic faults in the general theory. 20,000,000 Kulaks were murdered, several million Ukrainians were starved and some 30 million Russians died to support this concept of egalitarianism. The wealth in those cases were merely transferred to the Marxist elites and shared within their ‘Communist Party.’ They promptly exhausted these resources and hid away money in Swiss bank accounts. The USSR collapsed in 1989. But, there is no apology from the left for these actions and no call for something like a Russian War Crimes Tribunal to investigate how 60,000,000 people were murdered in the USSR and more in the People’s Republic and elsewhere. When 100,000,000 people die and certain political groups voice no serious objections we know there is a major problem yet to be solved.

The followers of Lenin, Castro, Sung, Ho and others did ‘redistribute’ shares of material resources in a vastly unequal manner to their political cronies, thus ignoring the tenets of egalitarianism in their selfish, ruthless and misguided cases. Party members suddenly became the material elites that they had previously ranted against and the masses remained hungry or dead. The promises of ‘land reform’ and ‘rule by the masses’ were short-lived. But, they had the loot!

The United States Declaration of Independence declares “all men are created equal", and, as such, each person should receive equal treatment under the law. The political assertion that "all men are created equal" fails in the face of world history everywhere. It is a goal. People are unfortunately not equal and espousing the classless system designed by the left is merely an excuse for murder and confiscation of power and wealth. Just check out the SAT and public school test scores and wonder why people are not equal, or even close to being so. Check the high school graduation statistics. All US citizens ought to be equal under the law, but not politically mandated to be equal in intellectual gifts, attitude, achievements or economic abilities. We might as well dump school tests and give away jobs at random. That would be a fine method for the left to select our brain surgeons. It turns out that favored leftist legislation actually forces inequality in the law by discriminating against many because of their color or other political an economic attributes. Examples of this include set-asides, reverse discrimination, quotas and certain court rulings that frequently are the reverse what the voters wanted. We have to manage ‘equality’ so that every person gets fair treatment and they are not just sorted politically where certain groups are sequestered in the gulags or mass graves, as is the celebrated leftist egalitarian solution to this problem. The left is actually against equality and equal treatment because if ordinary people are allowed to exercise their entrepreneurial skills they will defeat the egalitarian precepts and obtain unequal wealth. Such is the history of the bourgeoisie, the enemy of socialism and Marxism. Those who are unskilled or besotted with drugs and crime will sink to the bottom of society. All men were created equal but some choose to become unequal by their actions. The left needs those who cannot cope to fill their ranks with howls and votes. Their vote is a cheap purchase.

Modern liberalism depends, desperately, upon the concept of egalitarianism for their power base. Their bourgeois opponents have the wealth so they are the only source of this substance. Nobody ever accused the left of getting rich in honest business. Liberals must grunt and grab as much of this wealth base as possible. No liberal in good standing would ever suggest a tax cut. Or, if they did as a cheap artifice, recalling Clinton’s Middle Class Tax Cut would quickly drop the notion after the power was obtained to do so, as he quickly did after the election. No tax relief!

We find from the literature of political fiction (George Orwell’s Animal Farm) that "All Animals Are Equal, but the pigs seemed to be more equal than others”. The pigs in this reference are the liberals or their more violent Marxist congeners. This is the actual basis of egalitarianism: use any phony doctrine or persuasive slogan promising some unearned wealth to the masses, preferable festooned with gooey precepts, and then proceed to grunt and then grab the wealth and spend it on yourselves.

Egalitarianism is just a slick political system designed to confiscate your wealth and is merely a political construct that only benefits the ‘more equal pigs.’

rycK

The French in Lebanon??

There are some famous jokes floating around the world that describe the military prowess of the French. Most of these hilarious stories can tell us in detail how the Vietnamese, Algerians, Germans, Spanish and many more sometimes inept and weak assemblies of farmers have managed to defeat the French anywhere outside France they choose. There are more humorous stories about how the French cannot seem to notice that Islamo-Fascists burn between 50 and 500 cars in their Hexagon. When was the last French military victory? Napoleon at Austerlitz?? Who can remember back that far?

Now, we are hearing news that France will be the stabilizing force in Lebanon! There is some speculation of a U.S.-French draft resolution to be voted on by the U.N. Security Council. Apparently, France will send troops (do they still have the French Foreign Legion intact?) to Lebanon. Whose feet will fill the boots on the ground? French Citizens. Oh, maybe they can recruit a few million militant Muslims in Paris and beg them to go, for good pay. The French could even save money if they take horrible losses in the field, as they are accustomed to do.

Since the French cannot seem to quell violence in their own streets and stare woodenly as if in a stupor at burning cars in their major cities we can wonder what they can do in Lebanon.

Here is a humorous account of the French as they take a few centuries to learn elementary military arts:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokefrenchmilitaryhistory.htm

“French Military History in a Nutshell”

They lost the following: Gallic Wars, Hundred Years War, Italian Wars, Wars of Religion, Thirty Years' War, War of the Augsburg League, War of the Spanish Succession, The Napoleonic Wars, The Franco-Prussian War, WW1, WW2, War in Indochina, Algerian Rebellion, and War on Terrorism.

But they seem to have tied The Dutch War and did actually win both French Revolutions. We can give them much credit for those.

“ France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.”

 What a scream! I am certain that Israel, who could overwhelm the French in a few days, can be confident that ‘peace’ will be ‘ensured’ by the presence of France in Lebanon.

What a joke! Israel must ignore this fluff and tear down as much of Lebanon as is necessary to prevent Hezbollah from staging another attack.

We need to defund the ACLU and provide moral and financial support to challenge any and all lawsuits they may dream up for any reason.

The ACLU was originated and founded by a Communist (Roger Baldwin) and the strong anti-American Marxist ideology has pervaded the ACLU ever since. They form the basis of the Hate American First forum.

Roger Baldwin said: "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental." Ref: http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html

Justice Ginsberg of the United States Supreme Court [SCOTUS] former head counsel for the ACLU, supports sexual consent at age 12, supports abortion for any and all reasons, and apparently gives support for any form of degeneracy. With sexual consent at such a low age, it is possible for the sexual predators and slave merchants to escape the law, a prominent goal of the ACLU as we have seen in drug addiction, sales of drugs, airport searches and most forms of violent crime. The ACLU stands ready to support any pervert or criminal and to use taxpayer money to do so. They can punish the Boy Scouts for excluding gays but apparently are thrilled and encouraged by the acts of sexual predators and similar perverts.

The nauseating practice of letting ACLU lawyers gain money from the taxpayer is one of the most disgusting laws on our books. Here, we must subsidize sleaze, murder, perversions, drug addiction while being prevented from searching for terrorists and allowing the Boy Scouts to keep their membership free of those who do not fit within their membership requirements.

The ACLU routinely prepares assaults on any form of American values and institutions and calls for the unambiguous support of any enemies of the US including terrorists in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. If somebody wants to trash the US then the ACLU will instantly applaud any and all actions.

Recently, Senator Brownback (R-KS) has introduced legislation to repeal this revolting gift to the Communists and their followers. In a recent article: “Sen. Brownback: ACLU -- Not Taxpayers -- Should Foot the Bill for Church-State Lawsuits” http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/32006a.asp , we read:

“The Public Expressions of Religion Act (PERA) (S. 3696) was the topic of discussion at hearings on Wednesday (August 2) before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The U.S. House is considering similar legislation (H.R. 2679) that is sponsored by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler. Brownback has made it clear in recent weeks that if groups like the ACLU want to sue city after city for displays of religious images, it should be on their own dime -- not at taxpayers' expense.”

To this we must also add the plea: Where are the organizations that can meet each and every ACLU suit in court and stop this intimidation process that they have used? Individuals, small corporations and small cities cannot afford to compete with the ACLU when they are financed by US taxpayers? Every time an ACLU suit is filed an American with a good law firm needs to be there to defend anyone and everyone against this disgusting Marxist outrage.

Contact your friends and elected officials and expose the ACLU for what they really are.

rycK

There are howls from the far left that Israel is conducting an 'illegal war' in Lebanon. It is interesting that the word 'legal' in international terms has only to do with treaties, most of which have been ignored or trashed since 1900. We have the UN Resolutions to consider when judging the legality of wars and such. Strangely, the UN Resolution 1559 called for the elimination of Hiz Bollah, who are currently hurling rockets into Israel. I wonder if that is 'illegal or not' in the current context.

Apparently, it is fine with many UN types and the far left in the US and elsewhere to ignore (or sometimes celebrate) acts of terror when children strap on bombs and blow up other children, but a military action to stop direct attacks on civilians seems to be 'illegal.'

Only the sleazy political notions of left-liberal political thinking could subvert common logic in such a manner.

I call for the IDF to tear down as much of Lebanon as necessary, ignore the UN and their Arab allies and clean out the Islamo-Fascists house-by-house until a 30 mile free zone is established. I have no hope that there will be any 'international force' to come and help supress the Hiz Bollah, Iran's terrorists on the scene or others.

Good luck to Israel and hammer the terrorists.

rycK


ryckki@gmail.com