The Progressive Legacy of Democrats

A review of history is essential in understanding their current stance on Iraq and the War on Terrorism. The Democrats have always favored the Marxist-Leninist views of totalitarian control of our planet. We can see the rabid support for Marxism, the October Revolution, the support for the Spanish Republicans [Communists], wild praise for Stalin in WW2, songs and protests in support of Ho Chi Mingh in Viet Nam, spitting on US soldiers and chants that the US would lose the war.

Liberal Democrats, whose ranks were polluted with paid Communists, and probably still are, favored the Inevitability of Communism, détente, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks [SALT] and other political programs that allowed the Soviets to double their military capacity and threaten Europe and the US with ‘the bomb threat.’ Their society collapsed mostly because of their silly economics (Winston Churchill) and Ronald Reagan’s anti-anti-Communist stance.

The Leninist principle of ‘peaceful coexistence’ was a ruse that appealed only to simple minds, but captured the imagination of the leftist who control the Party of Democrats, nothing recognized as being democratic embedded in that organization.

Their first major theme was to attack the anti-communists in the US. This meant that they could pose as ‘Americans’ and be for ‘the poor’ and ‘justice’ and not stand up as formal communists. Many of their ranks supported the Soviet Union as paid agents and spies. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were caught and executed as spies in a whirlwind of support from liberal Democrats. Later, the VENONA Files, decoded transmissions between Moscow and their embassy in New York and Washington, revealed their names and code names (Julius’s code name was LIBERAL!) [1] . There were a lot more spies that were not caught.

Liberals seem to believe that our society as evil, a product of imperialism, racism, a capitalistic oligarchy and worse and seem to seek to destroy the system we have. They covet and howl about the ‘unfair distribution of wealth’ and monger the public with hackneyed, reflexive phrases like “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer…,” which is not true. Our poor are rich compared to most of the rest of the world, mostly in places controlled by Marxists such as in Africa, China, the shrunken remains of the Soviet Union and spots in South America.

Their concern for the ‘poor’ is not genuine given the phony social programs and their subsidization of sloth, sodomy, drug addiction, violent crime through their phony welfare systems, fighting incarceration of criminals for just about any reason and their objections to capital punishment. They desperately need poverty and disease and subsidize these proceedings with social programs. They must suppose that capitalism has something to do with capital punishment. Their political thrust is wholly counterfeit. We saw the ruins of the Great Society, War on Poverty, HUD, and their unbridled welfare system consume 5,000,000,000 dollars since 1950.

But, ‘education’ is one of their remaining strongholds. Here, they choose to ignore the results from standardized tests for their victims that clearly show they have failed even their own constituency. They cannot handle the common bell curve that mandates that half of the people who take IQ tests must fall in the lower half. Many so-called ‘educators’ in California, wish to eliminate testing as it causes sorrow and despair among their ranks. Ebonics may become the official language of Oakland, CA sometime in the future. We would now require Ebonics translators in every city, courthouse, post office and business in the nation to ‘be fair.’

Liberals know they are failures and following Marxism or some variant of this economic wreckage is obviously hopeless. They are disgusting and evil—not stupid. The know where the power lies They continue on because they have no other means to get wealth. They cannot acknowledge that tax cuts actually stimulate growth. They cannot do anything for themselves thus they emulate the ghoul in our society.

Look at this prediction from 2003:

“All of the above tax-cut rationales — while creating the lion's share of the $500 billion-plus deficit the United States faces for the next fiscal year — were unlikely to inspire any of the positive economic impacts touted by the Bush administration, Krugman said.”[2]

Anybody call this turkey on this foolish statement? I wonder if Krugman ever read any economics or attended college from his reflexive rants?

The reason for the violent opposition to tax cuts spearheaded by phony economics disguised as ‘education’ by prevaricators like Krugman is that it removes power from the left. The have nothing left. Money is power and even the liberals cannot prevent this fact from being aired. When more money is returned to the citizens then power leaves government and resides in the hands of individuals. This salient economic feature ruins socialism, Marxism, liberalism and all the other phony variants of the left. They have little to do other than become functional parasites or, alternately, being viewed as parasites leprotically attached to the polis they currently attempt to destroy. Most of the world lies prostrate in front of the US and grovel for money in the form of trade concessions or foreign aid, which is proffered by liberals to ‘help out’ with poverty, disease and such. Some of our buns in Congress want us to send troops in The Sudan for ‘moral reasons.” The salient fact that the last 100 or so ‘governments’ in Africa since 1950 were Marxist and that all of those countries are poor only encourages the liberals in their quest to make political hay with taxpayer dollars. Cuba is often favorably reviewed by the New York Times as some kind of social success. They cite the ‘wonderful’ medical system in Cuba even thought the communists cannot afford to offer their citizens with annual blood tests because that would cost perhaps $200 per citizen. Neither can The People’s Republic of China. Who knows what happens in North Korea, recipient of US tax dollars to make nuclear bombs as a gift from the Clintons. As such, the premier basis for diagnosis in medicine is not possible in Cuba for the masses and is only reserved for party elites and tourists. But, liberals hail such a phony system as remarkable and a success. Here is one view of how Cuba’s health care system works from 1995: “In case one is checked in, the patient, for the most part, has to provide his/her own sheets, soap, dental hygiene equipment, sleeping garments, toilet paper, etc. Most hospitals do not change beds often. Once a week is common." [3] It must be some kind of remarkable system when you have to bring your own toilet paper. This must have inspired the current dizzy leftist Sheryl Crowe to limit one per sheet per person per call to nature. "“She proposed a use of "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required"”. A few dozen cases of TP might help Cubans comply with the Crowe Laws for decades. [4] The average temperature might fall in Havana too. Isn’t liberalism wonderful? Or pesky in a certain sense?

A review of the history of liberalism and their penchant for violence, lies, Marxism, tax mongering and phony social programs allows us to state unequivocally that the liberal Democrats and their Marxist allies are quite willing to force us to: lose the War on Terrorism, retreat from Iraq, raise taxes, waste our money in more social programs raise taxes, legalize and provide drugs at no cost, raise taxes, celebrate sodomy, kiddy porn, raise taxes some more, legalize and promote sex with children on PBS, set up more racial quotas, raise taxes even higher, encourage sloth, promote racism and reverse discrimination, enhance and expand welfare and celebrate AIDS as the taxes soar.

That is what Nancy Pelosi and her Marxist puppets have to offer the citizens of the United States.

No thanx Nancy , but North Korea would welcome you any old time. Take some toilet paper along just in case.

Global Warming: Science And Politics Work In Different Ways.

In science, there is a scientific method that requires a survey of what has been learned before and the need for data and a supporting theory or hypothesis to advance. If there are no data or an insufficient set of observations or measurements to support a strong theory then the guess [elegantly known as a hypothesis for lack of something more formal] remains what might be accepted by some or all. The hypothesis is open to criticism, comment and other views in science until a law is found—that settles the matter. Those who question laws are not scientists unless they can show exceptions to laws then they really have a breakthrough to present and scrutinize. There were many ‘accepted’ theories on most aspects of science that were found to be worthless in the last few centuries. We still have a flat earth society. Check out this interesting link: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Two-time Nobel Prize winner (Chemistry and Peace) Linus Pauling advocated consuming mega doses of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to solve some medical problems and avoid disease, which was widely accepted and then shown to be ineffective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling. Who knows what data he was looking at. He had tremendous influence stemming from his work in chemistry and had a strong consensus following his views.

There were numerous ‘studies’ on silicone breast implants that were ‘accepted’ by the ‘scientific community’ despite experiments to the contrary. These devices caused several systemic diseases it was shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant#Systemic_illness_and_disease. If we squabble over data and studies with ‘experts’ divided in opposing camps with conflicting opinions then what can we say?? We can state that the ‘opinions of experts’ and the ‘scientific conclusions” are faulty. Perhaps both views are incorrect. Several studies have shown that the augmentations are not associated with disease although the lawyers might take exception to this. Then, there was the battles of asbestos.

Any particular segment of science becomes satisfied to all scientists, except heretics, certain politicians, witches, hired lawyers and the mentally ill, when firm laws are found, discovered, guessed or derived and shown to predict and describe observations. The transmutation of lead into gold was once “accepted” by kings and paupers alike. They were shown the process and did believe. Once the scientist can calculate the outcome then there is no ‘consensus’ about what is going on in that particular area. Newton’s laws of motion were originally guesses [no proof exists even today for f =ma] and he happened to guess correctly except for the singular case of the atomic scale, which was beyond his reach. We can now calculate the outcome of any kinetics or kinematics experiment at any time and get a precise answer. We can circumnavigate the moon thanks to Newton, who guessed correctly but gave no mathematical proof. No proof has been found.

The issue of global warming is political in nature and has little scientific basis. In global warming measurements, we have to look at the data set and the time scale, some history and some short term measurements to decide if we can predict the change in global temperatures. Since a reasonable time span to look for relevant data to predict future weather spans is 10,000 years or more (which is not much out of 4-5 billion years and perhaps this ought to be extended to 500,000 years) we need some data points throughout that span along with the uncertainty of the measurement. What was the mean surface and upper atmosphere temperatures every century for 10,000 years? That requires some precise measurements and some agreement on how this might be done on a whirling earth with cyclic weather seasons. What we actually have is a limited set of data of temp measurements in limited places on the globe We have a scant 30 years of precise satellite data to go on that shows essentially no change within the noise level. That does not cover a significant range. With poor certainty, how can we influence public policy when the key numbers of global temperature measurements might be found to be 1 degree +/- 5 or ten degrees. One has to have a confidence limit to numbers and it takes many numbers from several sources on the planet to come to some ‘average’ or mean surface temp.

A potential danger in any scientific prediction usually lies in a faulty extrapolation from an existing data set. Given the short length of time of precise measurements in our weather history we can fall into several traps. How do you extrapolate? It matters not if your data set is ultra precise if indeed the data period is small compared to the outer boundaries of the system. Is there a trend or a cyclic phenomenon present? Is this a second or third order system? We could, for example, take precise daily measurements in, say August, of any year and use those data to predict what might happen in December or June of the same or any other year. This process is folly because the extrapolationist’s ignorance of the cyclic nature of the process defeats the validity of the process. The precision of the August data, even say down to 0.00000001 % error) has nothing to do with the temperatures in February of any future or past year. That ought to be obvious all but single-issue political activists, lawyers and the ignorant. The use of tree rings to ‘correct’ data in the global warming debate when there is a need to get temperature averages to within 0.1 deg C is folly. http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0208013.htm. Read this for a good laugh. The same goes for reported ocean temperatures taken in the 19th and 20th centuries with a thermometer and wood bucket on sailing ships. How accurate can they be given the currents and changes in weather. What happens when a storm comes up? Skip the measurement? What about cloudy days?

We don’t have enough data to show that mean surface temperatures, that, according to history, have varied significantly in the last 10,000 years, are cyclic or not or controlled by sun energy, which could be cyclic or not. We think sun spots are cyclic but have little data on that one. It is very difficult to come up with a mean surface temperature given the several thousand sections of the planet as defined by one area proscribed by a single degree of latitude and a single degree longitude.

Thus, the current scientific product of this political adventure rests in the crude guessing stage and can (and has) produce several either meaningful or fanciful predictions. We were warned of some 14 major hurricanes last year and got zero as a result. A 0/14 is a very poor result from ‘experts’ using highly sensitive measuring devices and super computers to make predictions. They just look like fools. Their work on predicting earthquake is just as dismal. Nevertheless, many people believed this prediction and formed a ‘consensus’ as to the validity of this guess. Politicians need for people to believe in their causes and the truth is not necessary. In ancient Arabia there was the custom of the clergy publishing the weather forecast. It seems some scientist made the measurements and published the correlation between what they predicted and what actually happened. That did not change either the weather or the predictions. So much for the truth.

Politics need not be based on truth to be successful and, as such, needs only persuade people to believe in some outcome whether it may be verified or not. Fear or demagoguery are political factors that surpass the truth in power. That is what we see in Global Warming. There is no way to tell if the process is cyclic or undulating or not and the data set is too small to define and shape of any global temperature curve. The presumption that the temperature rises with carbon dioxide concentrations is not established. A few decades ago the scientists warmed us of Global Cooling. Oh?? Which way are we going and how do we know? We do know the glaciers melted in Kansas about 8000 years ago and that the settlements on Greenland iced over about 1000 years ago. We know the Vandals got their only chance to cross the Rhine about the 5th century A.D. when it froze over, a rare occurrence that defeated the Roman military control of that part of Gaul. We also know that the Thames River was the site of numerous consecutive decades of winter parties on the solid ice and such until 1814 when it ceased to freeze. No such parties have been held since Napoleon. Did his cannons heat up England? Did Josephine hex the Thames?

There are insufficient scientific data sets and prediction algorithms to predict just which way the global surface temperatures will go. To say that there is a consensus is to assert that Aristotle was correct about his description of science given the huge, nearly 100%, consensus in his day and for several centuries after he made his errant guesses based on no data. The effect of the sun’s radiation might well be ten times the effect of any change in atmospheric carbon dioxide gas concentrations. How can we know?

Global warming is a simple political exercise devoid of any science and it fits in well with the concepts of the Tooth Fairy, the Tarot and reading tea leaves. The politicians and activists want us to make severe changes in our use of energy, directed mostly at the United States giving India and China a pass.

That is just politics, as usual. Kids can believe in the Tooth Fairy because there is proof the next morning. Money!! Or, we can just believe in Rosie O’Donnell.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070424/D8OMKU9O0.html

Filthadelphia

“Philadelphia has seen more than one killing a day this year, totaling 127 as of Monday afternoon. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles - whose populations are much larger than Philadelphia's 1.5 million residents - have had fewer homicides this year.”

So, the crime rate soars in Philly and many “don’t know what to do?” Of course they do! Raise taxes! Start off some new ‘education’ program.

As we look a Philly, a city that has lost more than half its population since 1950 and is as business unfriendly as any leftist neo-Marxist city can aspire to, we see the ‘root problem” as being obvious: Philadelphia is 100% controlled by left liberals. The leftists want this and will maintain it to keep the voter base.

And who commits these crimes?

“Most of Philadelphia's killings are by gunfire, most involve young black men and most are the result of arguments, often over drugs but sometimes over trivial insults or perceived slights.”

As Bill Cosby points out 1/3 of all black men in the US will do hard time in prison. He is soundly denounced for telling the truth, something frequently found inconvenient by the liberals.

Community involvement must help!!

“…But the countless candlelight vigils, anti-violence rallies and community meetings have done nothing to stop the murder rate, which is 17 percent higher than last year at this time.”

Philly, like its sister cities Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans and Oakland, is a product of liberal Democrat rule, the high profits from the sale of drugs, prostitution, robbery, car jacking and more in concert with the usual Great Society welfare-subsidized society with no responsibilities.

Here is what the citizen in Philly is NOT required to do:

[1] Be responsible for their acts in any way. [Screw around, take drugs and complain about racism.]

[2] Achieve the necessary education to get a decent job and get off welfare. [The standardized test scores are abysmal. Sex, rap music and drugs are much more important.]

[3] Call 911 when the shooting starts or the druggies gather on the corner. [Don’t be a snitch as the rappers sing.]

[4] Avoid the socially-terminal state of advanced drug addiction. Nobody returns from this pit. [Have fun and feel good. Get some ‘rehab’ and get well so you can do more drugs. Welfare pays for this anyway.]

[5] Find any other ways to fund so-called ‘social projects’ except by high city taxes and fees. [Sorry—no options here.]

Nobody in the urban criminal sections of Philly is required to do anything responsible. Sloth, crime, sodomy, abortion, drug addiction and more are clearly the prime identifiable attributes of a degenerated society. There are no demands upon any city citizens to do anything other than vote Democrat. Want more money? Vote Democrat.

Such social clusters, which can defend against the encroachment of the law, decency and justice, are the sacred cows of the liberal Democrats who get a rubber stamp block of votes each November. All they have to do is to continually hike taxes and plug their ears to avoid the gun noises to maintain this political candy land. The liberal song: Let the tax payers buy our votes!!

The obvious political solution:

“The five Democrats hoping to succeed Street, also a Democrat, have proposed crime plans. Nearly all recommend hiring hundreds of new police officers to buttress the current force of about 6,600; one plan includes spending $15 million to post more surveillance cameras around the city.”

Spend more tax monies on social programs. Hire more flop house druggies, drop outs, street hustlers and cons so they watch their profits grow close up.

This endless cycle of degeneracy and crime are the vectors that form a degenerated society and produce this kind of violent crime and social unrest. It can only get worse. Crime, sloth, sodomy, drug addiction, abortion, unwed mothers are the actions that actually bring more money into the community. Screw for dollars is the name of the game.

Vote Democrat and enjoy the results. Everybody else get the hell outta there.

rycK

Rosie on Catholic Justices: 'How About Separation of Church and State?' | NewsBusters.org
 

 

Posted by Justin McCarthy on April 19, 2007 - 14:37.

On April 19, the ladies of "The View" offered their analysis of the Gonzales v.

Carhart decision upholding a federal partial birth abortion ban

Rosie expressed horror that there are five Catholics on the Supreme Court and

Catholics on the Court apparently violate the "separation of church and state"

O’DONNELL: You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are

Catholic, Barbara?

WALTERS: Five.

O’DONNELL: Five. How about separation of church and state in America?

WALTERS: Every one of them, when they were going through their Senate

confirmation hearings said the fact of my religion does not mean that I will

vote a particular way because of my religion. So we cannot say that they did

it because they’re Catholic. It is interesting that they’re Catholic.

Through the course of the segment, Rosie repeatedly emphasized that partial

birth abortions only represent a very small percentage of abortions annually.

Elisabeth reminded her that, that is still 2,000 lives lost each year.

Rosie repeatedly played up fears that this is "a way to get in to start eroding

Roe v Wade," and it’s "as if the women’s movement never happened." She even

quoted Gloria Steinem line, "if men can get pregnant abortion would be a

scarament." Rosie also provided this factually flawed analysis.

"The difference is, you know, we are half the population and there was a

women's movement and, you know, feminism really was the reason that this bill,

women's reproductive rights ever came into the forefront and was entered and

was Constitutionally upheld since ‘73."

Roe v. Wade did not uphold any law. In fact, it struck down a Texas law

prohibiting abortion. The entire transcript is below.

ROSIE O’DONNELL: Speaking back to where we started also Supreme Court came

down and the first time since 1973 with a partial abortion ban.

BARBARA WALTERS: Five to four.

O’DONNELL: Five to four was the Supreme Court vote. Now it's shocking to me.

This is the first time since 1973. Everyone agrees partial birth abortion is

horrific. It’s horrific for anyone who has to decide it. 1.3 million abortions

done in America every year, 2,000 partial birth abortions. What is that? Zero

[pause] .1 percent, 0.1. This is just a way—

Cho only killed 32. What was that? Not enuf?

O’DONNELL: Five. How about separation of church and state in America?

Don’t you really mean separation of powers?? Dumb liberal species does not know the difference.

Out of all the citizens killed by drugs in the US, Cho only killed 32. So: “What is that? Zero

[pause] .1 percent, 0.1. This is just a way—“

That makes sense for a liberal.

Here is a bit larger number Rosie: “Communists killed 100,000,000 people from 1917 to 2000”

This is just a way??

Let us only appoint lesbians and murders on the US Supreme Court as an appeasement to Rosie and her bunch.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter

Alec Baldwin's Threatening Message to Daughter

An enraged Alec Baldwin unleashed a volcanic tirade of threats and insults on his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland, calling her a "thoughtless little pig," and bashing her mother Kim Basinger -- and TMZ has obtained the whole thing unfiltered and raw. And we've learned, a family law judge was so alarmed after hearing the tape, she has temporarily barred Baldwin from having any contact with his child.

What a slimy, liberal parasite. It is difficult to find a worse example for anybody to watch in the movies than this now-exposed pervert.

This turkey looks like a Cho in the making. No telling what he will do when he gets back on crack and crystal meth.

But, the liberals will sing the praises of this parasite as they always do.

How sad.

ryckki@gmail.com

The Legal Murder of Children is Now Stalled.

Here, again, we see the far left lose a moral case in the courts. The propensity for the liberals to murder, enable dopers, parasites, perverts and celebrate abortion shows us just how a sick society we have with the left. Democrats, bowing to the convenience of their drug-besotted and AIDS-inflicted constituencies, tried to get this disgusting form of murder not only legalized but deemed ‘necessary’ and such.

Every time some pervert murders a child or old man, commits sodomy with a child, runs down a pedestrian while under the influence of some disgusting drug, or bashes some old lady over the head for her welfare money prompt the liberals, led by the ACLU, to free the perpetrator.

The 5/4 split decision was expected given the disgusting performance of the former Head Counsel of the ACLU and her perversions. The Democrats have no problem with sucking the brains out of a perfectly healthy child for the convenience of the mother or her sexual handler to add votes to the leftist voting lists.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ5JLG1&show_article=1

From the Kennedy Majority opinion: The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Comments from the Marxist Wing of the Party of Democrats:

HILLARY: 'Erosion of our constitutional rights'...
GIULIANI: 'I agree with it'...
OBAMA: 'I strongly disagree'...
ROMNEY: 'A step forward'...
MCCAIN: I'm very happy...
EDWARDS: 'I could not disagree more strongly'...


"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Let us take the parasite Ginsburg’s words and replace the abortion theme with capital punishment :”… which becomes: ...the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American People to punish certain criminals."

CP is proper and abortion is not. The left, as usual, pander to the criminal class for their support and votes. We must change that.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

No act of degeneracy is too disgusting to be hailed as praiseworthy by the Communist, criminal left.

rycK

Comment on the Massacre at Virginia Tech

The facts about the shooter are not in yet and may never be given the process that becomes snarled by the press as time goes by. In the absence of full knowledge about this tragedy we can say the following with a high degree of certainty:

This twisted, drug-crazed, whacko sicko was an apparent ‘Hate America First’ type of leftist loser. He rails against ‘rich kids’ and ‘debauchery’, whatever those terms mean in his sick mind. But, these are the slogans of the left. He did not live in a slum, but in a trendy area in Fairfax Co, one of the richest areas in America.

The actions of this guy appear to be stuck in the same old racist, leftist Marxist groove that the liberals like to plow for votes and satisfaction. He hated America. That gets votes for liberals and their Marxist handlers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting

"When we read Cho's plays, it was like something out of a nightmare. The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn't have even thought of," former classmate Ian McFarlane, now an AOL employee, wrote in a blog posted on an AOL Web site. He said he and other students "were talking to each other with serious worry about whether he could be a school shooter."

This playwright stuff sounds very liberal in content. Can we apply the same comments to some of the noted leftist writers who wrote about similar plots?? Harold Robbins? There are some very sick leftist writers out there who would acclaim this bozo’s fantasies as ‘modern prose’ or ‘enlightened.’

There was ample evidence to at least monitor this jerk. Since he finished his deadly work, he will probably become another leftist icon such as Squeaky From, the illegal alien Malvo of DC Sniper fame, Angela Davis or George Jackson.

When the rabid left complain about ‘invasion of privacy’ they cannot persuade a reasonable person to believe that if he had been watched by authorities perhaps much of this tragedy could have been prevented. As such, he becomes a ‘victim of society,’ elevating him to special minority status and provides a basis to argue for gun control. A few armed students at VT could have fixed this problem quickly.

It is too bad the left praise and enable such social garbage as this guy.

rycK