A Propaganda Lesson from the New York Times.  

Propaganda is an important political tool ages old, well-seasoned, and essential to any authoritarian political system in power or to any cabal waiting in the shadows for their chance. We would all be living in some place more dismal than Foggy Bottom or Fresno if we believed that that news is not slanted by bias, poltroonery or imbecility with conclusions and pleas not supported by the facts. Today we take a lesson in advanced political propaganda with a fine example.

The most sophisticated form of propaganda employs a carefully controlled landscape or policed stage setting where the players can display the appearance of an unbiased and perfectly objective analysis of some matter urgently presented. The actors point to or suggest some obvious conclusions to be drawn or hinted about while actually obscuring the intent of the article. The facts and counter arguments are moot and absent in a good piece of yellow journalism and ignored out of necessity and adherence to the theme. The New York Times has mastered this technique and raised propagandism to heights appropriate to far left liberalism along with its anti-capitalist stance, racist pronouncements, and pro Marxist stand along with other radical political themes creating the grand gestation pool from which they take sustenance. Stalin would be proud of this work. He praised Walter Duranty, the New York Time’s finest journalist to date and his picture still hangs in the lobby of the Old Grey Lady in NYC.

A good lesson case is the recent article by Linda Greenhouse offered to the readers as a:

‘Supreme Court Memo’ entitled: Oral Dissents Give Ginsburg a New Voice on Court (Published: May 31, 2007) [1]

The lead paragraph sets the stage to introduce some ‘new’ findings for the reader:

“Whatever else may be said about the Supreme Court’s current term, which ends in about a month, it will be remembered as the time when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found her voice, and used it.”

From this startling news we must presume that she was silent before, or somehow restrained in some audio-deficient medium where she could not speak or communicate. Victim hood is now suspected.

[1] We are introduced to the possibility of her being muzzled or her notions and emotions suppressed by some mysterious veil or cabal. She is now a confirmed victim.

[2] The notion of a possible courageous female fighting gloriously for equality may be entered as evidence in this saga. Feminism rises to the occasion!

And more:

“Justice Ginsburg read forceful dissents from the bench. In each case, she spoke not only for herself but also for three other dissenting colleagues, Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer”.

[3] We are now introduced to a new leadership role for this Justice and her comments are reinforced by her cohorts, three other liberal Justices. Her allies are now identified by counting backward from nine, a process that even some liberals can manage if not rushed. Note: there is no mention of liberalism here, but the next few lines widen the stage:

“But the words were clearly her own, and they were both passionate and pointed.”

[4] What the hell does this have to do with the law?? Nothing! This paragraph conveys no information except that she was not exactly carved out of some stooge-like mass and set up to parrot platitudes. She thinks and now talks!! Wow. She has apparently broken new ground in the intricate workings of SCOTUS. Let the whooping begin. Nothing legal here.

“In the abortion case, in which the court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act seven years after having struck down a similar state law, she noted that the court was now “differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation.” In the latest case, she summoned Congress to overturn what she called the majority’s “parsimonious reading” of the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.”

[5] Here, we bring in the far left-liberal action items for judicial activism as a matter-of-fact item and hint to the reader that the composition of the Court has changed. Abortion is mentioned as being obviously lawful and supported by her and the ban on PBA [Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ]is indicted herewith. The ‘majority’ is now at fault. We have defined the enemy and they are them.

[6] Notice the phrase “a restrictive abortion regulation” that removes the regulation from a somber and learned analysis by the High Nine and immediately suggests that the Court (SCOTUS) has erred and previously sustained mountains of injustice. The intrepid sole woman on the court will valiantly fight for justice.

“To read a dissent aloud is an act of theater that justices use to convey their view that the majority is not only mistaken, but profoundly wrong. It happens just a handful of times a year. Justice Antonin Scalia has used the technique to powerful effect, as has Justice Stevens, in a decidedly more low-key manner.”

[7] Here, we introduce the Devil in the form of the Highest Order of Satanic Being, a Justice who has opposite views on may topics dear to the left on topics such as abortion, sloth, sodomy, drug addiction, terrorism and reverse discrimination. Scalia is now the bully, clearly in the wrong, and the valiant woman stands up for what is right and what is wrong by being so bold as to use ‘strong court tactics.’ How brave. We are not introduced to any history concerning W. O. Douglas or Brennan or Harry Blackman as to their public comments, public interviews and vibrant speeches on various findings by the Court. We are certainly not shown the photograph of Justice Douglas reclining like a junkie in a speed stupor in his wheel chair appropriately outfitted with a strong rubber sheet lining his underside to keep his legal and fecal matter from tarnishing the Supreme Court steps and office area. Apparently, from the context, we only find that the nasty right wingers have used this blatant media circus swindle except others were more demure when they attempted to gallantly compete with those in the wrong . Stand by for the crescendo:

“Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, said of Justice Ginsburg’s comment linking the outcome in the abortion case to the fact of the court’s changed membership. “She is accusing the other side of making political claims, not legal claims.”

[8] The punch line appears. This is the central message shaped and formed so even the least cognitively endowed mesomorph may hiss and whoop at the galactic news. THEY have brought politics to the Court!! Enter, stage left, the ‘unbiased observer’ and learned ‘legal expert with portfolio’ who sanctifies the message: The other side is using politics in the court!!! No?! Really? Here we have a summary indictment of the other justices from the lofty nest of academia. The Leftist Elites sound the siren and issue a clarion call for assistance. And, we are to conclude from this theater that the left never uses politics in law and there must not be any leftist judicial activism as it is not mentioned here.

Another testimonial bursts forth in song:

“She has always been regarded as sort of a white-glove person, and she’s achieved a lot that way. Now she is seeing that basic issues she’s fought so hard for are in jeopardy, and she is less bound by what have been the conventions of the court.”

[9] How brave!! How pure!! Such a brave new world she lives in that she can challenge the nasty old demonic composition of the Court’s conservatives because she ‘knows they are wrong.’ This form of conduct, along with the faulty and biased interpretation of her message, actually highlights the left’s frantic need to bring politics into the Court, as if we were not aware of that. Perhaps, the reader now believes that politics is necessary to battle the Evil Right. Is it time for civil disobedience on the Court? Activism time? This piece masks the notion that liberals have politicized the court for decades.

“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., are not open to persuasion on the issues that matter most to her.”

Emotion devoid of any legal antecedents or reasoning! Given the stogy pyramid theory of modern composition used in journalism, where propagandists learn to compose their articles in retrograde starting with the conclusion while slipping a few supporting details, somewhere around the third paragraph is where the Swan Song barking habitually begins and most of the red meat is chucked to the now-infected dogs. By the fourth paragraph, or so, on cue from the rigid propaganda training of the author (read Propagandist Extraordinaire) , we find the obvious conclusion and the rest is meager amplifying fluff:

Citing no references to the laws of the land in this NYT piece, Justices Roberts and Alito must be wrong because she cannot persuade them to change their views, thus they are demons and subject to ridicule. They are playing politics and just plain wrong!!

The champion of justice bravely stands up for truth and justice and the Liberal Way.!!

The rest of the article is an menial ensemble of hoots, mumblings and baleful bleats from the usual political pedestrian-grade front parlor fluffers and bottom feeders who claim expertise in the legal arena and are in fact only functionally more fresh sand for the cat’s litter box in the context of this article. Mere fluff.

Conclusion:

This is a classic piece of disinformation and propaganda worthy of the New York Times Daily Walter Duranty Award with the following sterling attributes:

[a] The poor heroine has suffered the abuse of evil white males in her job and she struggles for truth and justice against the collusion and intimidation of the Controllers of the Court. There is no mention of the basis for law or any legal reasoning anywhere in the article.

[b] She is obviously ‘correct’ about her maudlin pleas and case opinions and does her touching best to do combat with the Forces of Evil. There is no mention of the basis for law or any legal reasoning anywhere in the article.

[c] Echoes from the cheap seats reinforce her political views, not supported by legal reasoning or case law, but by rabid emotion as if to sanctify the only correct path to justice. There is no mention, for the third time, of the basis for law or any legal reasoning or references to the Federal body of law anywhere in the article.

Classic piece of propaganda from the masters of the game.

rycK

The New Liberal Leaders and Icons: Take a close look. They want your support and taxes.

The Party of Democrats, now not well known for strongly pursuing democracy since the McGovernites came into power, have shown the voters their true intent by sponsoring and adoring their new spokespersons. Look for trends in these comments and see what you find! We can see what the liberal Democrats have in mind when we listen to such wonderful people as:

Rosie O’Donnell[1]

O’Donnell stated that "radical Christianity is

just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." The comedienne also attacked America’s response to 9/11:

O’Donnell: "We were attacked not by a nation. And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries."

We lost 400,000 American lives defending humanity against Fascism in WW2, close allies of the Communist Soviets for many years, and their threat were peanuts compared to the menace of world domination by some Islamic Jihad and nuclear bombs going off in Europe and the US, or both. The Russians were psychotic murderers but they were not insane.

"He [President Bush] had one sentence that I thought struck me. I thought, what did everyone think? ‘The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.’ And I would say the outcome, really, of America really depends on the battle in the streets of New Orleans, that that city is still decimated and $303 billion have been spent fighting this war. If, literally, a third of that money was put into Katrina and facilitated with honest people who knew how to do it, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in."

Apparently, Rosie doesn’t understand that the crime, sloth, drugs and sodomy in N.O. are the direct result of decades of decadent left Liberal politics. 110 bln$ has been set aside for Katrina. George Bush did not summon Katrina from the capitalist underworld and giving free needles and praising degenerate behavior in New Orleans will not affect how Osama bin Laden views us or change his plans to nuke us. The Shia and Sunni have been in a religious war for 14 centuries now, and it is not expected to stop. According to Rosie, we might send money to New Orleans and this would stop.

O’Donnell’s comments only support the enemy: Islamo-Fascism. Comments like hers were common when we were fighting the 50-year cold war with the Soviets who threatened to ‘bury us’ with songs and the praise of left liberals in the US. We saw this with Lillian Hellman, Ernest Hemmingway, John Steinbeck, Walter Duranty of NYT fame, Jane Fonda, Angela Davis and many others over the decades who praised our enemies and hoped we would fail. Liberalism is carved out of this kind of twisted logic; liberals thrive on it.

Ward Churchill[2]

Churchill touched off a firestorm with an essay likening some victims in the World Trade Center to Adolf Reichmann, who helped carry out the Holocaust.

He called them “little Nazis.” Not, you see, little commies or little leftists or little socialists. A good leftist or left-liberal wouild never insult Communism or Marxism-Leninism.

More liberal tactics: support US enemies and equate our leaders with Nazis. Why, Joe Stalin is ‘our Uncle Joe.” This is old and stale, but still common currency and able stock for liberals to banter about in his Hate Rituals over democracy, Christianity and decency.

Nancy Pelosi[3] [4]

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. -- Nancy Pelosi

So, what do we do?? Let him alone or help him out with his nuclear weapons development as we did with North Korea, known friends of liberals?? Talk and send him money? Name a street in San Francisco after him?

The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition. -- Nancy Pelosi

He has two UN mandates to follow and had some 30 countries behind him. We wonder what the word ‘true’ means here. Is it like True Believer?? We had no ‘proof’ for WW1, WW2 or Kosovo either. We lost more than 500,000 dead during the terms of two Democrats and 35,000 more during the term of LBJ, also a Democrat although lots of Dems didn’t like this guy, a crook, liar and drunk, which have made him just one of the old favorites like Ted Kennedy.

We must remain focused on the greatest threat to the security of the United States, the clear and present danger of terrorism. We know what we must do to protect America, but this Administration is failing to meet the challenge. Democrats have a better way to ensure our homeland security. -- Nancy Pelosi

What is that? More massage parlors in San Francisco, more safe havens for illegal aliens where they cannot be identified or challenged even if they bring in weapons of mass destruction?? More drugs? More massage parlors? What way do you have? Talking? Talking seems to be an end process with the left. Jimmy Carter, an ignoramus, ‘talked’ about ‘talking’ with the Communists and made his biggest impact by kissing Leonid Brezhnev on the [wrong] cheek. He was about three feet to high for a leftist to page homage to a great Communist. When it comes to Communists the left ‘talk’ and try to send our tax monies to help them out. This is a reciprocal arrangement that is decades old, and very stale.

Talk is cheap and that is all we get from liberals unless there is some ideological challenge to solve as in Waco Texas: Burn them down!! Tax Exxon!! They only control 3% of the world’s oil supply but they must be price fixing so we have the world’s lowest gasoline prices. Tax anything you don’t understand or cannot tolerate.

John Murtha [5]

From the Abscam Video Tape”

“Now, as I told Howard, I want to deal with you guys a while before I made any transactions at all, period. In other words, I want to say, "Look put some money in these guys." And I, just let me know, so I can say, you know, these guys are going to — they want to do business in our district. Then there's a couple businesses that I'm not personally involved in but would be very helpful for the district, that I could make a big play of, be very helpful to me.

After we've done some business, then I might change my mind. But right now, that's all I'm interested in. Period. And I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it, and I'm not bull (expletive deleted) you fellows, I can get it done my way.”

Crook Murtha survived by ratting out a fellow creep and crook.

Paris Hilton[6]

Every woman should have four pets in her life. A mink in her closet, a jaguar in her garage, a tiger in her bed, and a jackass who pays for everything.

If it feels good and someone else will pay!. How about the US taxpayers for the pet jackass!! Free needles, legalized drugs, sex with children, tax avoidance…..all liberal virtues.

Edward Kennedy[7]

Flunked out of Harvard, murdered a young party/girl/aid while drunk, etc. Old news for Teddy. Read Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up. By Leo Damore for details. None of this matters to liberals who believe in Teddy, sober or not.

John Kerry[8]

Aided the North Vietnamese in Paris, lied to Congress about American soldier’s atrocities in Viet Nam, voted against nearly every single weapons program, got three Purple Hearts in VN with only three drops of blood, etc. etc.

Jesse Jackson[9]

Spat in hamburgers ordered by whites in Chicago, is a race baiter, dedicated racist and political agitator, and ‘poverty p--p’ according to some of his victims. Read Shakedown by Timmerman for a few hundred pages of his crimes and sleaze.

Every one of these comments by adored liberal icons consist of at least one attribute here chosen from the following list:

Sleaze, sodomy, alcoholism, drug abuse, racism, sloth, treason, crime and/or apology for criminal behavior [just let them go!], sexism, child abuse, reverse discrimination, perversions, high taxes for any reason, spite and self pity.

Some of these liberal icons have nearly all of these disgusting attributes to their discredit.

That is how liberalism is today, and it will get worse if they lose again in 08. These are the kind of people who want to govern you and spend your tax money. Just look at their own words and deeds and see for yourselves.

rycK

[1] http://newsbusters.org/node/7577

[2] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275999,00.html

[3] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/nancy_pelosi.html

[4] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/

[5] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=52e18fae-9744-4f6b-8b3c-57e6f2845036

[6] http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/hilton_paris.html

[7] http://www.amazon.com/Senatorial-Privilege-Chappaquiddick-Leo-Damore/dp/044020416X

[8] http://philomathean.townhall.com/g/6f04dd6e-bf53-404a-8b4b-78d7c2c7c168

[9] http://www.amazon.com/Shakedown-Exposing-Real-Jesse-Jackson/dp/0895261081

Three Ways for the Party of Democrats to Lose in 2008

Looking carefully at the leading contenders for the Leftist Throne in North America and what do you see? Ignore Joe Biden, al gore and other Lessers of the Least, and you must appreciate what is left [pun intended].

Here, we have Hillary Clinton of Bill Clinton and Monica fame, a sour old, wrinkled Saul Alinsky Marxist with some felonies on her sheet as well as perjury in the Castle Grande Scandal, then there is the now famous Barack the Magic Negro as the L. A. Times chooses to characterize him[1] along with ex Senator Edwards the Channeler to the Dead.

It must be said, even if I say so meself, that many groups or clusters of frantic persons, frequently jammed together by common devotion to racism or sloth or even sodomy, and likely drug addiction, seem to be operating on what we might call the Shrum Method.[2] Bobs new book was already read and analyzed and a response suitably posted on pro Clinton sites[3] Poor Bob. He loses a 9^th time??

To wit: The Post article reveals details of both the Gerth and Van Natta volume and of Carl Bernsteins A Woman in Charge, though the Clinton campaigns attack on the former is more intense. It reports that Her Way delves into Hillary Clintons supervising attacks on an alleged Bill Clinton lover, Gennifer Flowers, and quotes passages from Bernsteins book on Hillary Clintons reaction to her husbands infidelity.

The Post also said that the book dwells on Bill Clintons attempts to seize the issue of climate change from his vice president, Al Gore.

Al has decided not to run as has Kerry, for obvious reasons. Two overt Marxists in single file formation  were too much for the voters the last two rounds.

All this Hillary book stuff is quite sordid and just reheats the acrid hash from the Bill Clinton Era leaving a sour taste in the mouths of all but the most dedicated racists who will support Hillary for any and all reasons. Edwards has channeled before and received millions in some court judgment for a dead child who he was reaching across the void for in the court room. And Barak is not black enough for many liberals and also not white enough for other flavors of the liberal community. He is inexperienced, but does have some magic qualities.

It seems to boil down to the following choices:

[1] You can vote for a foul-mouthed crooked woman lawyer with an acidic personality who incessantly lies about everything including her own daughter and her own name, or

[2] You can vote for a very liberal black man, or half black, or too much black or whatever who has no experience and probably cannot win because of his race, or

[2] You can vote for a Fruit-Loop lawyer who communicates with Charon across the river Styx and could not even carry his own state for Kerry.

This is a rough choice, if one is a bit absent from a few hours of doing drugs and listening to Jane Fonda praise Ho, but given a list of past candidates to ponder [Mc Govern, Dukakis, HHH, Walt Mondale or Kerry] this looks bright in a spot or two.

It will be an exciting election next round and the outcome probably depends on how many illegal aliens vote.

I choose Obama for the moment .

The Exciting Political Adventures of Bob Shrum, the political shrummer and Sen Edwards.

Bob Shrum’s last name is now a reflexive transitive verb chosen in special political circumstances when describing the general bungling of some political project. This guy carries along a negative fecality factor that is astonishing, as his presence seems to ensure failure. His astonishing election record [0 for 8?!] is almost as dismal as that of J. Kenneth Galbraith’s elections picks, who unsuccessfully predicted the glorious elections of Northern Liberals to the White House on several occasions, and lost all of them. J. K. G. also seems to have predicted about 40 economic downturns from 1965 to 1980 as well. His credentials as an economist and political pundit, however, remain solid with left-wing anarchists and other parasites.

When exploring the reasons for the Kerry loss, we can rely on Shrum who suggests that Edwards shrummed Kerry and Kerry apparently agrees. Apparently, Edwards was channeling to some dead relative or what not, a practice of crippled and revival-tent hucksters and ambulance-chasing lawyers, mediums and other frauds.

Is this the best they can offer?

But, the election season is early and not yet ripe so we may get to see Bob Shrum and his progressive shrummings come to fruition. I hope Hillary chooses this master of politics to guide her campaign.

Shrum & Twiddle de Dumb.

We remain fortunate that the old Marxist/Criminal wing of the Democrat Party has talent of this gauge.

_________________________________________________________

Excepts from the book are given below:[1]

“After compiling an 0-8 record in presidential campaigns, Shrum has taken something of a beating from the political and media establishment of late, and he has been conspicuously absent from the 2008 campaign thus far.”

“Shrum says that, in the end, Kerry "wished that he'd never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut" and selected Dick Gephardt. And the feelings between Kerry and Edwards seem fairly mutual. After Kerry reached out to Edwards in the wake of his wife's disclosure of a recurrence of cancer, Shrum writes, "Kerry told me that the Edwardses simply stopped returning calls or talking to him and Teresa."

“That surely helps to explain why No Excuses repeatedly portrays Edwards as a hyper-ambitious phony. Nowhere is that clearer--and more startling--than in a passage recounting Kerry's first meeting with Edwards during the summer 2004 running-mate selection process. Kerry had qualms about Edwards from the start, Shrum writes, but grew even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else--that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Hillary Stalked Jennifer Flowers and Flunked the Bar

HILL WANTED TO "DESTROY" FLOWERS: BOOK[1]

“May 25, 2007 -- Senator Hillary Clinton was so angered by Bill Clinton's alleged relationship with Gennifer Flowers, that she hired a private investigator undermine Flowers, "until she is destroyed," according to a new biography.”

“The Washington Post obtained a copy of the book "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr., as well as "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Carl Bernstein.”

Here, we see the intrinsic hate for anybody who might challenge Bill and perturb his political objectives. Hillary did not do this out of love, she did it out of hate as she had done before as in the Waco Massacre of children.

And for the Smartest Woman in America we find:

“Bernstein also delves into Clinton's decisions to stay married to Bill Clinton. She waited two years before deciding to wed and move to Arkansas, and Bernstein points to a little-known contributing factor: Hillary Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam after law school, something she hid from her best friends for 30 years until disclosing it in passing in her autobiography, "Living History." Bernstein suggests that blow to her ego may have played a role in her decision to move to Arkansas, where she had passed the bar.”

Hillary Clinton is a sour old Saul Alinsky Marxist, a crooked lawyer who lied under oath and used political to surveil and punish her political enemies.

We should vote for this parasite??

The Wonderful Politics of Jesse MacBeth

Here, we see some form of rapid retreat from the stories of Jesse MacBeth, a reputed Ranger and eye-witness to genocide in Iraq. The radical Iraq Veterans Against the War group bought and celebrated his parasite in mere seconds without proof or checks. This guy and his story was show-cased in liberal hallowed terms as some form of proof that out GIs in Iraq are Nazis or worse. Anything to defeat us as we seek out America’s enemies is fine with the left.

It was discovered that this drug-crazed parasite lied about the whole story and applied for tax money to keep him in drugs or whatnot. Jesse was unfit to even complete basic military training and discharged. Jesse never served in Iraq or even in a combat unit.

Not that any of this mattered as the leftist media embraced his story, simply because it was the politically correct thing to say. We have seen all this before in John Kerry’s phony works and purple hearts at one drop of blood per medal, the adulation of Walter Duranty as he lied about the Soviets and their gulags, the Rosenbergs who spied on the US for money, Bobby Seale—the ‘freedom fighter’, Jane Fonda and Susan Sontag who adored the Marxists, the alcoholic blowhards LBJ, Ernie Hemmingway, John Steinbeck, Allen Ginsberg, and Ted Kennedy and the the eternal praises for Commandante Fidel Castro and his ‘excellent’ heath care system, which is a joke.

It matters not a whit that this drug-whacked alley cretin was lying: what he said fit precisely in with the left-liberal propaganda machine wanted to hear and was proffered upon their readers with only praise and zero background checks. Propaganda needs no proof to be successful.

Whatever the rabid left can cobble together that besots our society, gives tax monies to perverts, druggies and radicals, that attacks our society and religion and supports our enemies such as the Marxists and Islamo-Fascisti the WILL do in a heartbeat.

Give him some more drugs to satisfy the rabid left.

___________________________________________________________

Confessions Of An Iraqi War Veteran[1]

[Ed Note: This item has been removed - Some readers suggest Jessie Macbeth, may not be as he portrays himself. Many have cast doubt as to the validity of his experiences. See Reader Comments (191) Further investigation as to the validity of his history and allegations are ongoing and will be added to this page as the become available.]

IVAW Statement on MacBeth Video

Iraq Veterans Against the War recently learned of a video interview with Jesse MacBeth that directs viewers to IVAW’s website and phone number. IVAW was not made aware of the creation of this video program and our input on it was never sought by its producers. Jesse MacBeth is not a spokesperson for IVAW and any claims made by MacBeth about his service have not been verified. We are currently investigating these claims and will have a full statement pending its resolution."

Sure, we await your retraction.

A Book Review of al gore’s The Assault on Reason

Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason

By Al Gore [1]

This is a new propaganda blow by al gore, who lost the 2000 election and three extra recounts even though the media was on his side and he only wanted recounts in four counties, which would have favored him. Read At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried To Steal The Election by Bill Sammon for details on this thug.

After the usual mumblings he sums up with this tripe:

“As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.”

This is wild rhetoric from a person who pandered for bribe money from the Red Chinese and then lied about it. The hollow part here is the loss of political power by those who were fanatic anti-Communists and tried to subsidize Cuba, Nicaragua, and were successful in sending millions to North Korea so they could build nuclear weapons and challenge us. These are the remnants of the Fellow Travelers like the Rosenbergs who took Soviet money to spy. They are heroes to the left. So is Susan Sontag and Jane Fonda. Let us all recall that al gore’s father tried to help the North Vietnamese and lost his seat in Congress in TN and got a cushy job with Occidental Petroleum from Armand Hammer, a known Communist whose father started the CPUSA and was an abortionist. All this fits in a neat package if you analyze it a while.

Back to the noise:

“Many young Americans now seem to feel that the jury is out on whether American democracy actually works or not. We have created a wealthy society with tens of millions of talented, resourceful individuals who play virtually no role whatsoever as citizens. Bringing these people in—with their networks of influence, their knowledge, and their resources—is the key to creating the capacity for shared intelligence that we need to solve our problems.”

This is a tortured and oblique essay on the frantic need for illegal aliens and terrorists to have a vote in our society. Liberal Democrats cannot survive without this. If Osama bin Laden could have stuffed the ballot boxes, al gore would have won by 80% or more. HAMAS could have given him 99% of their vote.

And now to the media and the Internet, an invention of al gore:

“The democratization of knowledge by the print medium brought the Enlightenment. Now, broadband interconnection is supporting decentralized processes that reinvigorate democracy. We can see it happening before our eyes: As a society, we are getting smarter. Networked democracy is taking hold. You can feel it. We the people—as Lincoln put it, "even we here"—are collectively still the key to the survival of America's democracy.”

What this means is that the liberal print media, like the New York Times or otherwise know as the Duranty Papers are losing out and blogs, like this one, are challenging the left-liberal, Marxist-Mimicking liberal Democrats in their grunting and grabbing votes and wasting tax monies. He salutes only the left-wing blogs and such as CBS as he wails about Dan Rather. We can now expose these parasites. Let us do so!

Here is what they really want as outlined from from a half century ago:

“In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation. This does not mean, of course, that there is no impulse to conservatism...but [they] do not, with some isolated and some ecclesiastical exceptions, express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.”

Gore’s garbled and clumsy rants seem to skirt this very direct analysis from a liberal when liberalism was on top. They no longer are.

Education is the key here. Al gore rants about communication and education and forgets that both of these, in concert, were able to defeat Communism around the world and come close to destroying the Party of Democrats, now less associated with democracy once the word got out about their leaders and ideas. Clinton spends three weeks in Moscow with an Afro hair-do while our troops die in Viet Nam and NO liberal questions him about this. Kennedy is a drunk and Byrd was KKK Imperial Lizard or some high official. Sure.

This is a lame lament from al gore as he whines about the need to grunt and grab more votes. He worries, and justly so, that the crooked lawyer Hillary, of Castle Grande fame, will get the nomination and lose as al did. Her only real asset was that she probably slept with Bill on an occasion or two.

Without lies, subversion of our system by moveon.com, help from the terrorists and votes from illegal aliens al knows he will lose.

And, I hope he does. The era of smoozing with the Communists is over. The irritable mental gestures simulating ideas are from the left.

rycK

[1] http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html

Comments on Immigration Bill Deal

.

“The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.” [1]

There are two problems here. [1] the Democrats sorely need votes from illegals and [2] any previous attempt at a National ID System was thwarted by the left. Might be phony.

“Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."”

We know all about the Rule of Law now, which permits illegal aliens to get free medical help, sell drugs and vote in California.

“The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.”

How many points do those who have applied for legal immigration get?? Zero??

“The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.”

If this Marxist Stooge is for it then there must be problems.

“The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.”

This is a very tough measure and would, naturally, be ignored by leftist judges. This fine is equivalent to 25% of a year’s earnings by illegals. Also, what is the penalty for NOT ‘coming forward?’ Nothing? Deportation??

“They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.”

When was a social program ever completed in the US??

“A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.”

This sounds tough, but triggers have a way of getting involuntarily filed and can go off spontaneously.

“Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time. “

This reminds me of the Brocero Program of mid century last. That program worked for CA farmers, but was shot down by Eastern liberals because they thought it ‘took jobs away from Americans [read Okies here]’

“Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.”

Lots of votes there. Several states do not check ID or citizenship to vote.

“In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.”

Do they pick lettuce?? Do they even have colleges in Mexico? U. of Mexico is a joke.

“Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card—except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.”

“New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.”

We must be very wary of such stuff as a 500-600 page bill contains a lot of room for loop holes to get around the central issues.

I cannot trust the liberal Democrats any more than I can that Buffoon of the Magic Bullet Theory, the Senator from PA. He ‘solved’ the JFK problem with mush.

The Democrats have the Presidency at stake here on getting votes from illegal aliens and have to have some way to allow most of them to vote in the next election.

A Question for Senator Joe Biden from a Delaware Resident:

This is the second letter sent to Senator Joe Biden about undocumented workers. There was no reply to the first one a couple of months ago and I wonder if he can manage to answer this one from one of his constituents:

Dear Senator Joe Biden,

May 14, 2007

Here are some brief facts about undocumented workers in the US.

[1] They crossed the border illegally.

[2] They misappropriate Social Security numbers from our citizens.

[3] They fill out employee forms for tax purposes with no intent to pay taxes.

[4] They do NOT file state or federal taxes as the misappropriated numbers would conflict with other returns by the original tax payer.

[5] When deported for criminal activity they frequently return.

Are these all facts?? Are any or all of these also crimes?? Please correct me if these are not crimes.

Somewhere, the liberal Democrats cannot seem to acknowledge that these are all crimes. As a presidential candidate one would presume you know about the Rule of Law, a favorite theme of the Democrats.

I would like for you to tell me if these are crimes and why we cannot address such crimes.

A Delaware resident.

The sorry fact is that Senator Biden is willing to sacrifice both the Rule of Law and American lives in Iraq to gain political power from illegal aliens and terrorists and their supporters. He has undermined every measure designed to stop the flow of illegal aliens into this country and cannot see any crimes committed. But, he does want us to go to Darfur and spend American lives to satisfy some 'moral' issue, as if Iraq was not a moral issue.

We remember the mess in Kosovo, a direct result of his work with Tony Blair.

Tell us all about the Rule of Law, theft of Social Security numbers, tax evasion and supporting terrorists Joe, you get the benefit of more votes for these items it seems.

rycK

A Wonder of the World: The Liberal Mechanism of Racism

All political parties must compete for votes from selected groups identified or self-identified in many ways. Usually, a majority of 51% of the votes is necessary to win although pluralities in some elections allow wins with less than half the total. Liberalism is a critical component of the Democratic Party as it provides most of the necessary marginal percentage points necessary to win elections both nationally and locally. Liberals do not constitute more than 4% of the population, but they seem to be in dominion over the general political direction of the Democratic Party, at least since 1968. The Democrats have no hope of winning without this faction.

Given the usual party distributions among Republicans, Independents and Democrats, both traditional parties need a large fraction of this independent, non-aligned, voter base to vote for their causes and also to simultaneously hold dear to their core constituencies. Perhaps a quarter or more of the traditional parties members might cross over and vote against their own party for numerous reasons, most based on pocket book considerations. It is important to keep core constituencies intact and loyal by giving them what they want. The Independent Party, interestingly, is not really a party, but an option to register and vote as nonaligned with other parties. It has no affiliation to the parties of Henry Wallace, George Wallace or H Ross Perot. As such, it has no core cadre of candidates. Because there is nobody to vote for and members can either stay home or vote accordingly for a traditional party.

One critical core constituency for the Democrats is the rather ill-defined group of minorities consisting of many people sometimes including women. The biggest minority group here is the African Americans some 11% of the legal US population. Their vote, some 90% voting Democrat, or so, as Afro-Americans did in the 2006 elections provides 2-3 essential percentage points in national elections and ensure many or most of the big cities go blue in the modern political lexicon. . The suburbs and country regions appear to be the red reserve of the Republicans. The independents are scattered about. This small fraction is essential in winning close races and fits in well wit the traditional splinter party group theories of politics. Ronald Reagan, as we recall, split both the black and union votes in a roughly 40/60 manner for a solid win. In order for the Democrats to capture and maintain this voter base, it is necessary to reach out to that group and supply them with what ever politicians can offer in order to secure votes. In this respect, this group is no different from others such as corporations, farmers, gun owners, teachers’ unions, yacht owners, business groups, insurance companies, arms dealers, cotton growers and so on and so forth and is not atypical of any political strategy. All political parties operate in this manner. This is the way our country and many others like ours has operated for many decades and is not unexpected to see as it was observed even in ancient Rome by trade guilds and associated groups. The science of politics is very old indeed and the theory of political science is well known.

For the Democrats the question becomes: What do the minorities want in return for their votes and how do the politicians supply their needs and requests? Minorities want to participate in the American ‘good life’ as do many others living abroad or living here. The allure of the US lifestyle attracts a billion people, or more, from all over the globe who would leave their current lands for a chance in the US in a heartbeat. There are few ‘good life’ places to live outside the US and is limited to only certain parts of Europe or reserved for the very rich in third world. It is well known that the US is the place to live and many thousands, perhaps millions, have died trying to scale the Berlin Wall, run the blockade from Cuba, escape the Cambodian killing fields or fled the European armies and dictators and get away to safety in America as proof. The millions of illegal aliens who reside here are proof of this magnetic character of our society.

The good life scenario is not without requirements and in point of fact places strict demands upon the individual. These demands are no in the law books. The US is now, at least in the present, is a gift for several unfit millions. It would seem that minorities could simply play the old, stable, highly proven and often copied American game of:

[1] Getting A Good Education.

[2] Staying Away From Crime.

[3] Avoiding Drugs.

[4] Being A Good Employee Or Business Owner.

[5] Being Generally A Good Citizen.

Most of us were immigrants or the offspring of such in one form or another in the last 30 decades and have struggled with language, customs, temporary poverty and other factors to become successful in America. Some, however, are not successful and cannot seem to fully participate in the capitalist system that we offer. Obviously, following all the guidelines above can be considered as the paramount chance to enjoy the life of prosperity here. The converse is obviously true as well. It is a rare occurrence to see sociologists seriously suggest that minorities or new immigrants might choose the diametric opposite of items [1..5] above and embrace crime, sloth, drug addiction or degeneracy. That social avenue would be absurd and argue against attaining success. However, in the passive sense, we see exactly that scenario frequently offered to many minorities, immigrants or not, citizens or not, by the left-liberal faction of the Party of Democrats. Liberals offer several ways around struggling to be a good citizen by practicing the guidelines above and obeying the laws. They offer a short cut for a free ride with no obligations. A vote is, apparently, a small price to pay for this. Having the taxpayer pay for these votes costs the Democrats nothing at all.

When it comes to good jobs, which lead to prosperity, there is little substitute for a sound and pertinent education. With good jobs, this liberal counter notion cannot be successfully argued with any force of reason or evidence as the consequences are usually grim. Yet, that is exactly what many in the minority groups are encouraged to do. There is no pressure from liberal Democrats for minorities to perform in schools or society. Money is offered; passing courses and graduating is not. Education cannot be a very high priority since many minorities have a 50%, or higher, dropout rate and are the major part of the ‘education gap.’ The solution to ‘closing the gap’ is always: “more money, more teachers and more time…” although the gap has been large since 1950 or earlier and is not closing very fast. The funds and resources for education success are clearly offered to all at this time, but ignored for several reasons. A criminal record is an assured way to obstruct even the prospects of getting a good job or entering a first-rate profession as all will attest, but crime rates among blacks and Hispanics are much higher in proportion to their fraction of the total population. Together, they account for nearly all the prison population. Drug addiction abounds in prison. Most prison inmates are Democrats or should be. Drug use and alcoholism are seen to be prime factor in ‘feeling good,’ despite the evident consequences in disease and death. Lives are ruined by drugs like crack, crystal meth, angel dust and others, many after but a single dose. Death and near-death episodes from drug overdoses are common in every city hospital in the nation on every day of the year. Yet, the choice of drugs over education and having fun over working is very evident in our society for many who act like victims. They choose to lose. Drugs have a detrimental and terminal effect on all of society as the Chinese found out from the British opium sales in the mid 20^th century. Drugs were ruining their society hence became the starting point for the Opium Wars. Hard-core drug addicts are lost to society and only exist as an expensive burden. Few, if any, drug addicts who take the new high-intensity and super-addictive drugs will ever recover.