Sunday, November 20, 2005

A Fitting Punishment for Liberals

Have you ever noticed that Liberals seem to have a love affair with leaders who fill mass graves? From the French Revolution and Joseph Stalin to Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, Liberals love to defend the nastiest of characters. In the sixties they marched through our streets waving Viet-Cong flags and remain proud of it to this day. I can remember a Kerry supporter saying how they had developed a sympathy for the enemy over the course of the war. There is a word for such people. It is traitor.

But seriously, this notion came to me in the Summer of 1989, right before the walls started coming down. It was the 20th anniversary of Woodstock and old hippies were celebrating their mud fest. At that same time, deep in Siberia, they were digging up my Lithuanian kin from shallow graves. I can still remember emaciated corpses they panned the camera on. Innocent people who had no chance. Most Woodstock groupies would have yawned. Earlier that Spring, old Berkeley hippies said of the Tienanmen Square demonstrators "oh they are just like us." Huh? I don't think a barrelfull of Berkeley monkeys would make a pimple on the behind of your average hero of Tienanmen. What's more, the Berkeley crowd stood up to be counted with the same side as were rolling the tanks into Tienanmen.

My question is, how are Liberals so cavalier about enemies who plunge innocent people into mass graves? Is their Rodeo Dr/Upper Manhattan world SO far removed from reality? I'd have to suppose so. When the Left makes one of its many nauseating anti-McCarthy films, it is introed by describing the early '50s (when Stalin, a mass murderer, was still alive and the worst of his atrocities were just coming to light, not to mention his successful infiltration of FDR's cabinet) as a time of "great paranoia." Oh, excuse me for getting all worked up about the two largest land armies on earth united and dedicated to destroying our way of life. When an enemy that outnumbers you five to one is on the march, I don't call being alert for him "paranoia" I call that being awake with a very healthy fear!

They love to dismiss the atrocities of Global Socialism, whether Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, or Saddam Hussein as "right wing paranoia." OK. So here's my fitting punishment for the Liberals, it will be a great education for them. Let them come to Iraq, Cambodia and Siberia, and let them dig up Socialism's mass graves. Then let them throw their arms around the neck of every corpse in there and say "you're just a figment of right wing paranois, now go back to sleep!" If this is just something that we on the right wing made up, it should be no problem, should it?

Saturday, November 19, 2005

There They Go Again

Once again, we find ourselves, our nation, under assault from the Left. Oh yes, fair warning Lefties, if you soil your trousers at any hint that you might not be the red blooded American your average Conservative is- tough rocks! In a move that only benefits terrorists around the world, Congressman Frank Murtha, the distinguished (said with heavy scorn and sarcasm) gentleman (said with sardonic chuckles and guffaws) from Pennsylvania called for American troops to be pulled out of Iraq. Who cares about the millions of Iraqis who have relatives in mass graves who are depending on America to safeguard their new democracy until they can do it themselves? Who cares about the thousands who will be tortured in a terrorist takeover for their participation in Republican politics? For you Libs out there, to give you an idea of what that would be like, picture breaking one of your manicured nails, or your favorite blend of moca java not available at your local Starbuck's TIMES A MILLION!

I never could understand why Liberals get their panties in a wad when you point out how much they obviously hate this country. When I was sixteen in Massachusetts and the Liberals defended every action of the Communist enemies and attacked everything America stood for, they'd get so resentful if you pointed out the fact that they preferred Communism over Americanism. Why? They should just say it loud and say it proud- they love European Socialism over the American way of life. That preferrence is so strong that they'll even help out Islamofascists to stick it to America.

And make no mistake about it. The terrorists watch everything we do. And when they see Liberals saying asinine things on tv like Murtha and the traitor Kerry, they laugh and say how weak we are. It's reached the point where America's enemies count on Liberals to stab the US in the back. In a recent interview with one of the Iranian hostage takers of 1979, he stated that him and his fellow punk students were surprised that most Americans rallied around the flag when they took the embassy. They expected bombs and riots and long-haired, unbathed protesters to help them out in our streets. They were disappointed when their pal Jimmy Carter got booted out of office that next year.

It's the same with the terrorists in Iraq. they wouldn't even be bothering with a fight there, losing a hundreds or even a thousand for every dozen we lose, if not for their counting on Liberal traitors like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Frank Murtha (I couldnt care less if he fought in Vietnam, Benedict Arnold was a veteran of the American side of the Revolutionary War too) to sabotage our war effort and disunite the American people. If Osama bin Laden isn't paying the aforementioned three stooges, then they are being cheated.

Right now we stand at Thermopylai- a million Persians coming down on three hundred Spartans. We are in a life and death struggle to determine if the world will be free or if it will be a gigantic Islamofascist slave plantation. We don't have time for the silly antics of people who are out of touch with reality. The Left has stood up to be counted with the enemies of freedom. And this is nothing new.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Liberalism, What is it Good For?

I was hornswaggled earlier this week. I was in the little Bistro at the Hotel I work at, getting some dinner on my dinner break. There are three big screen tvs in there, two of them muted at any given time. On one it looked like a political debate between two candidates. It was Monday and I knew that there were two gubernatorial elections on Tuesday. I knew it wasn't New Jersey's, as it was obvious Jon Corzine wasn't there. I thought it might have been a debate between Kaine and Kilgore, the two candidates for Virginia governor. I didn't know the faces of either man and I didn't get a good look at the faces of the two on the screen. It turned out to be a well-correographed debate on the West-Wing, and I think the moderator was a real moderator from one of the Bush-Kerry debates. Alan Alda, Arch-Liberal, played the "Conservative" and Jimmy Smits played the Liberal candidate.

I only watched a few parts of the show, I dont know what it was all about. I could only stomach so much of it and they didn't even have the courtesy to give me a Liberal Propaganda/Barf Alert. It was a debate between two Liberals, scripted by a Liberal, and one of them was doing a really crappy job of playing a Conservative. Alan Alda spoke derisively of Liberals and Jimmy Smits took up the gauntlet and spoke of the great accomplishments of Liberalism and how proud he was to be one. Liberalism had ended slavery, he claimed, got women the right to vote and made Civil Rights. I stuck my finger down my throat and changed the channel. I never expected that of Jimmy Smits. I didn't imagine that he'd be a great Conservative, but I didn't imagine he was capable of such ignorance.

So what is the real record of Liberalism? This is important, the facts, not what Liberals say when they pat themselves on the back.

Smits said that Licoln was a "Liberal Republican" and the "Conservative" Alan Alda didn't respond. I don't honestly believe that Abraham Lincoln fits into either Conservative or Liberal by modern standards. But abolitionism as a force was heavily Christian. While slavers used the same ridiculous arguments that pro-abortion groups use today. They argued that it was their right to choose slavery and that the Abolitionists had no right to impose their Christian morality. So in this regard the Anti-Slavery side was Conservative.

Conservatives are doing a good job of not letting Liberal Democrats get away with claiming Civil Rights was their thing. They had 67 Senators in 1964 and would never in a million years have gotten Civil Rights legislation passed without the near unanimous support of the 33 Republicans. We need to keep hammering Democrats on this. But we also need to start getting on them about women's right to vote.

Smits claimed that Liberals got women the right to vote. WRONG! That was accomplished by Conservative Republicans. One should not confuse the narcississtic Marxist harpies of groups like NOW in the present with the suffragettes of yore. The old school womens' movement was deeply religious and did much good for the community as a whole. Many on the Left, some socialists and Marxists, actually were staunch opponents of womens' suffrage because they feared women would never buy the potatoes they were selling. Picture a group of Marxists, after a hard day of discussing Marx in the local coffee-shop, going to their local brothel or saloon and finding the Temperance League there ahead of them shutting the place down.

In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed, giving women the right to vote, Republican majorities prevailed in Congress and the State Legislatures, where Constitutional Amendments were passed. What's more telling is that in the several election cycles after the XIX was passed greatly increased these Republican majorities. The first three presidential elections after 1919 were crushing Republican landslides. And Congress was solidly Republican in those days. And let no one deceive themself into believing these were Liberal Republicans. The GOP in the 1910s and 1920s was staunchly Conservative. Republicans really need to start pointing out these facts, because Democrats aren't going to do it. They will act as if the Left gave the women the vote.

So what is Liberalism good for? What have they achieved? Well, they helped bring about Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia that wiped out a third of the population in that country. They also helped the Hanoi Politburo turn South Vietnam into a gulag. They have supported lawyers that have added heavy burdens to the people but who don't lift a finger to help them. They have imposed political correctness on our universities and other places, stifling the free thought that is the lifeblood of America and the American Way. They have aided and abetted the terrorists in Iraq, and the blood of our 2000 is on their hands as much as on those of the terror-mongers because the latter would not keep fighting without the hope that Liberals will betray America and help them take over.

Liberals fought for "peace" (appeasement) with the USSR, not caring about the people languishing under the Soviet system (so much for their notions about caring for the civil rights of others). They have caused the murder of fifty million innocent babies. Liberals are not the movement of Civil Rights. On the contrary, they are the movement of selfish indulgence at the expense of others' civil rights. Who cares if millions are being nudged into mass graves in Cambodia and we just stuck a fork in our own baby's head? Let's go Disco Dancing at Studio 54! That is the Liberal legacy. And no other.

This is the Conservatives' problem. The Liberals, for all the dents we have put in their Orwellian Propaganda Machine, still greatly excell at deceiving millions. As Orwell put it, he who controls the past controls the future. the time has come to challenge Democrats on what is supposedly their own turf- civil rights. They do not care about such things truly. And we have to let people know.