 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Issue 7
 | Ask Uncle Sigmund: I am terrified of Nancy Pelosi! | |
| The HomeGrown Conservative: Economics and Politics | |
| Mad Dog's Maunderings: Obama's Invasion of Our Schools | |
| From the Editorial Desk: Humanity No Longer Top Priority for New Left | |
| Phaque-Phicktishus News: "Bami the Smelt" to Hit Classrooms! | |
| Liberal Hypocrisy Meter: Obama Calls Other Rude?! Valerie Plame? | |
| Simple Observations: What Is that Smell? |
- On the Inside Page:
| Ammunition for Your Next Fight With a Liberal: "Even a Compromise on | |
| Health Care Is Better than Nothing." | ||
| Madame Orlofsky Predicts: Animals Rule with Sunstein | |
| Phaque-Phicktishus News: Obama Injured Patting Self on Back at UN | |
| Memo to Congress: NO MORE MEGA-BILLS! | |
| On the Phun Page: | |
| Angst-Filled Anagrams | |
| Phaque-Phicktishus News:, Helen Thomas Accidentally shipped Overseas |
- Below the Fold:
| "Icon-itorials"- The Marxist Brothers Star in CommieNuts | |
| Your Country on Obama, More | |
Thanks for reading. We, here at THE
COOL CONSERVATIVE, seek to explore
conservative thought in a format that is unique
and entertaining. Please let us know what you
like- what you don't like- what you'd like to see
that you don't see now. Thanks.
COOL CONSERVATIVE, seek to explore
conservative thought in a format that is unique
and entertaining. Please let us know what you
like- what you don't like- what you'd like to see
that you don't see now. Thanks.
By Sheila J. Murphy, Editor in Chief
Please visit the Blog to comment on this article
| Please Click above to visit our Blog Page to comment on the issues of the day or any of our articles. |
| Don't Forget to BLOG! Click here and be quick about it! |
| Editor's Note: The Foregoing expresses the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of The Cool Conservative. |
Off the Wires of the
Phaque-phicktishus News Service...
Enviros, White House Launch
Massive PR Campaign in Schools
Massive PR Campaign in Schools
Washington DC- Sheila J. Murphy, PPNS Correspondent-
“We’re extremely disappointed.”
Alexander Jebring, leader of the Environmental activist group Earth Savers spoke
quietly as he stroked a small fishbowl in the center of his desk. In it swam a small,
solitary fish.
“I’m disappointed that Americans are allowing themselves to be swayed by an angry
handful of earth haters on the FOX News Channel and talk radio.”
According to Jebring a few “conservative talking heads” are trying to vilify efforts to
save millions of these “magnificent creatures.”
“But they won’t win. We have the President with us”.
Jebring refers to the long fight by environmentalists to save Delta Smelt Fish. The 2
inch minnow that has migrated to California from its habitat of origin can be sucked
into irrigation water pumps and killed. Federal regulations and judicial decisions have
protected the fish and resulted in the water being turned off for the vast, fertile farm
regions in central California. The lands are completely dried up and useless.
Unemployment in the region has surpassed 40%, the growing season ruined and
estimates suggest that more than 30,000 workers are desperate even for food for
themselves and families.
“I guess it’s too bad, but these people have been whining to the White House for
months. Obama has had countless opportunities to turn the water on but he hasn’t.
That tells me he’s on our side.”
Jebring went on to describe Obama as the “greatest President ever for
environmentalists”, citing Obama’s inclusion of animal rights radical Cass Sunstein in
the highest levels of government.
“Obama has already shown us that he thinks exactly like we do- that humans are only
interlopers on earth and no more deserving of consideration than insects. We know
he doesn’t get caught up in silly things like the borders of a nation. Clearly, his
priority is not America but planet earth and her creatures.”
“We may be unpopular with some, now, but with the White House’s help, we’ll change
that. Obama has shown us that you start by getting the kids on your side first. We
are introducing a new character in America’s schools. He’s Bami the Smelt. He’s nice
and happy. Our goal is that every child in America will cry himself to sleep worrying
about all these cute little fishies that could die if these people get to water their crops.
Jebring dismissed criticisms that the action is tantamount to "brainwashing" the
children and teens of America.
Said Jebring, "It is our moral responsibility to educate the kids in our effort and bring
them into it. The Whit House agrees."
When asked if President Obama minded being the inspiration for Bami the Smelt,
Jebring said the President was “flattered”.
-30-
“We’re extremely disappointed.”
Alexander Jebring, leader of the Environmental activist group Earth Savers spoke
quietly as he stroked a small fishbowl in the center of his desk. In it swam a small,
solitary fish.
“I’m disappointed that Americans are allowing themselves to be swayed by an angry
handful of earth haters on the FOX News Channel and talk radio.”
According to Jebring a few “conservative talking heads” are trying to vilify efforts to
save millions of these “magnificent creatures.”
“But they won’t win. We have the President with us”.
Jebring refers to the long fight by environmentalists to save Delta Smelt Fish. The 2
inch minnow that has migrated to California from its habitat of origin can be sucked
into irrigation water pumps and killed. Federal regulations and judicial decisions have
protected the fish and resulted in the water being turned off for the vast, fertile farm
regions in central California. The lands are completely dried up and useless.
Unemployment in the region has surpassed 40%, the growing season ruined and
estimates suggest that more than 30,000 workers are desperate even for food for
themselves and families.
“I guess it’s too bad, but these people have been whining to the White House for
months. Obama has had countless opportunities to turn the water on but he hasn’t.
That tells me he’s on our side.”
Jebring went on to describe Obama as the “greatest President ever for
environmentalists”, citing Obama’s inclusion of animal rights radical Cass Sunstein in
the highest levels of government.
“Obama has already shown us that he thinks exactly like we do- that humans are only
interlopers on earth and no more deserving of consideration than insects. We know
he doesn’t get caught up in silly things like the borders of a nation. Clearly, his
priority is not America but planet earth and her creatures.”
“We may be unpopular with some, now, but with the White House’s help, we’ll change
that. Obama has shown us that you start by getting the kids on your side first. We
are introducing a new character in America’s schools. He’s Bami the Smelt. He’s nice
and happy. Our goal is that every child in America will cry himself to sleep worrying
about all these cute little fishies that could die if these people get to water their crops.
Jebring dismissed criticisms that the action is tantamount to "brainwashing" the
children and teens of America.
Said Jebring, "It is our moral responsibility to educate the kids in our effort and bring
them into it. The Whit House agrees."
When asked if President Obama minded being the inspiration for Bami the Smelt,
Jebring said the President was “flattered”.
-30-
| Ask Uncle Sigmund |
Dear Uncle Sigmund,
I read about this psychological thing called "megalomania" and I'm
pretty sure the President has it. But lately I wonder. He keeps
putting our own country down in front of other countries. We're
getting weaker and weaker. Wouldn't he want to head up the BEST
Read More
I read about this psychological thing called "megalomania" and I'm
pretty sure the President has it. But lately I wonder. He keeps
putting our own country down in front of other countries. We're
getting weaker and weaker. Wouldn't he want to head up the BEST
Read More
When a fear is so profound that it interferes with our lives we call them phobias.
Yet, a certain amount of fear is normal.
This brings to mind an incident when I was a student at University in Vienna. I
had a professor for literature classes. She seemed very nice and talked quite a
smiled and was somewhat attractive. She always spoke softly. However, I came
to believe she was a monster. She made up outrageous story about William
Shakespeare and taught them as fact. One brave freshman raised his hand and
said he would like to respectfully disagree with the veracity of her statement.
She went to the Dean in tears, claiming the student had said horrible and
threatening things. She finally got him expelled.
I believe Nancy may be the same kind of sociopath. Capable of saying
ANYTHING to achieve her goal and very capable of portraying any emotion as
well.
In my opinion, dear Phobic, you show great perception to fear this creature. It is
terrifying that she holds such power. Anybody who doesn't fear her needs the
shrink!
Uncle Sigmund
| Featured Bumper Sicker |
If you've read our entry on the "About Us" page, you know that one impetus in our
creation is our resistance to the trend in recent decades for Conservatives and
Republicans to stand by tacitly while the opposition dictates and defines the terms of
examine a few words and phrases in each issue.
ObamaSpeak: theory and method of communication popularized by 21st
century American President, Barack Obama. Rather than a direct form of
communication based on denotations of words, it is a system of language
manipulation. ObamaSpeak seeks to give a general impression of what a
speaker might be saying rather than attempting to clarify what the
speaker actually is saying. Example: Obama liked to say he was "not
interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine". Those uninitiated in the
interpretation of ObamaSpeak assumed that meant that Obama opposed
what the Fairness Doctrine entailed. They later learned that Obama did
seek to silence dissidence in the media but was more "interested" in
avenues other than the doctrine. When employed properly
ObamaSpeak uses words with general and multiple meanings and allows
the speaker to consistently escape accusations of lying by constantly
re-interpreting their own words.
Czar: originating in Russian, the term described an autocratic ruler.
Since that time it has come to mean a person with great autonomous
power. In the past, United States Presidents have, on rare occasions,
appointed individuals called "Czars" to assist them with special issues or
situations beyond the scope of Cabinet duties. President Barack Obama
took the practice to an unprecedented level appointing dozens of Czars
that were seemingly redundant to Cabinet officers. Unlike Cabinet
officers, the vast majority of the said Czars did not require any kind of
approval or confirmation. These individuals answered only to Obama and
their powers were not clearly discernible to Congress or the citizenry. Met
with criticism, Obama responded by discarding the term "Czar" and using
different words to describe these appointees. (see ObamaSpeak).
Racism: a belief that cultural or individual achievement is based in the
differences between races; a belief that one's own race is superior; a
hatred or intolerance for other races. The Obama Administration and
Congressional leadership in the early years of his term utilized the word
"racism" or "racist" with such frequency in response to any criticism or
disagreement with their policies that linguistic experts claimed that there
was an attempt to transform the traditional denotations into a new
definition stating that "racism" would thenceforth refer only to any
criticism leveled against the President regardless of the nature or validity
of the criticism. There was widespread opposition to this effort to redefine
the term.
COOL: DEFINITION: A CONSERVATIVE..
creation is our resistance to the trend in recent decades for Conservatives and
Republicans to stand by tacitly while the opposition dictates and defines the terms of
examine a few words and phrases in each issue.
ObamaSpeak: theory and method of communication popularized by 21st
century American President, Barack Obama. Rather than a direct form of
communication based on denotations of words, it is a system of language
manipulation. ObamaSpeak seeks to give a general impression of what a
speaker might be saying rather than attempting to clarify what the
speaker actually is saying. Example: Obama liked to say he was "not
interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine". Those uninitiated in the
interpretation of ObamaSpeak assumed that meant that Obama opposed
what the Fairness Doctrine entailed. They later learned that Obama did
seek to silence dissidence in the media but was more "interested" in
avenues other than the doctrine. When employed properly
ObamaSpeak uses words with general and multiple meanings and allows
the speaker to consistently escape accusations of lying by constantly
re-interpreting their own words.
Czar: originating in Russian, the term described an autocratic ruler.
Since that time it has come to mean a person with great autonomous
power. In the past, United States Presidents have, on rare occasions,
appointed individuals called "Czars" to assist them with special issues or
situations beyond the scope of Cabinet duties. President Barack Obama
took the practice to an unprecedented level appointing dozens of Czars
that were seemingly redundant to Cabinet officers. Unlike Cabinet
officers, the vast majority of the said Czars did not require any kind of
approval or confirmation. These individuals answered only to Obama and
their powers were not clearly discernible to Congress or the citizenry. Met
with criticism, Obama responded by discarding the term "Czar" and using
different words to describe these appointees. (see ObamaSpeak).
Racism: a belief that cultural or individual achievement is based in the
differences between races; a belief that one's own race is superior; a
hatred or intolerance for other races. The Obama Administration and
Congressional leadership in the early years of his term utilized the word
"racism" or "racist" with such frequency in response to any criticism or
disagreement with their policies that linguistic experts claimed that there
was an attempt to transform the traditional denotations into a new
definition stating that "racism" would thenceforth refer only to any
criticism leveled against the President regardless of the nature or validity
of the criticism. There was widespread opposition to this effort to redefine
the term.
COOL: DEFINITION: A CONSERVATIVE..
| from the Lexicon |
Obama's Invasion of
Our Schools
Our Schools
The Cool Conservative Is Expanding!
Enter: THE SECOND WAVE
Enter: THE SECOND WAVE
We call it THE SECOND WAVE of the American Revolution. It is an effort to unite all of the varied
organizations, individuals and movements from across the country that share a common desire to
defend the Constitution and protect the Republic. It is our intention to build a national clearing
house for information about activities and events from every corner. Hopefully, soon someone from
We call it THE SECOND WAVE of the American Revolution. It is an effort to unite all of the varied
active organization and contact information. We also seek to provide focus for all of today's issues
organizations, individuals and movements from across the country that share a common desire to
against a backdrop of what we call "ideological battlefields". Lastly, we are developing a series of
defend the Constitution and protect the Republic. It is our intention to build a national clearing
projects that we hope will attract the involvement of many. Please take a look. The link below will
house for information about activities and events from every corner. Hopefully, soon someone from
take you to The Second Wave, where you can navigate between Second Wave pages. Meanwhile
say-Alabama will be able to visit The Second Wave, click on Alabama and find news, profiles of
back at the ranch... The Cool Conservative will continue to serve up the satire and opinion
Conservatives crave!
organizations, individuals and movements from across the country that share a common desire to
defend the Constitution and protect the Republic. It is our intention to build a national clearing
house for information about activities and events from every corner. Hopefully, soon someone from
We call it THE SECOND WAVE of the American Revolution. It is an effort to unite all of the varied
active organization and contact information. We also seek to provide focus for all of today's issues
organizations, individuals and movements from across the country that share a common desire to
against a backdrop of what we call "ideological battlefields". Lastly, we are developing a series of
defend the Constitution and protect the Republic. It is our intention to build a national clearing
projects that we hope will attract the involvement of many. Please take a look. The link below will
house for information about activities and events from every corner. Hopefully, soon someone from
take you to The Second Wave, where you can navigate between Second Wave pages. Meanwhile
say-Alabama will be able to visit The Second Wave, click on Alabama and find news, profiles of
back at the ranch... The Cool Conservative will continue to serve up the satire and opinion
Conservatives crave!
The
Second Wave
Second Wave
Of the American Revolution
To Go to the 2nd Wave Main Page
Charles A. Petterson
Editor's Note: The Following is the first in a series of three.
Dear Uncle Sigmund,
My friends are making fun of me because I am terrified of
Nancy Pelosi. Even though I'm a guy, I'll admit I used to be
afraid of rats and high places but now it's her. I start to shake
when hear her voice and when I see her - those eyes and that
weird smile that pops out at inappropriate times when she
talks! I'm having nightmares. Should I see a shrink?
Phobic in Phillie
My friends are making fun of me because I am terrified of
Nancy Pelosi. Even though I'm a guy, I'll admit I used to be
afraid of rats and high places but now it's her. I start to shake
when hear her voice and when I see her - those eyes and that
weird smile that pops out at inappropriate times when she
talks! I'm having nightmares. Should I see a shrink?
Phobic in Phillie
The HomeGrown Conservative
| The Liberal Hypocrisy Meter |
national epidemic of hypocrisy.
According to monitoring analysts, President Barack Obama's "war on rudeness" leads
the way. It seems that The President accuses his critics of being rude. Yes, what
Representative Wilson did was rude, although his frustration level must have been
understandably high. And yes as the President implies, frustrated and anxious taxpayers may
become a bit loud and boisterous at a town hall or tea party. But it is shocking first that this is the
only comment he has to make on the frustrations of his citizens. Even more surprising is that
Barack Obama lectures others on rudeness. Obama seems to define it all by the decibel
level of the voice and believes himself blameless because he insults others routinely
but in a moderated voice. Obama has used a very unctuous and sarcastic snideness to
ridicule and insult those in his cross hairs. His reactions and comments about protesting citizens,
congressional opponents and media that fails to worship at his feet have been consistently rude.
No President in recent history has treated his immediate predecessor with more rudeness. Yet
he feels it is all acceptable because he delivers his rudeness cloaked in an affable
smile and urbane wit. The staff suggests that almost anyone in Great Britain will
confirm that Obama id the "rudest President in modern times". Yet, he lectures
others...This is described by the monitoring staff as the most insidious hypocrisy ever.
Meter Monitors also report that treatment of CIA agents has spurred countless
incidents of liberal hypocrisy. For example, when liberal democrat Valerie Plame who
worked for the CIA but not as a field operative, was mentioned as working for the CIA
in news stories about her husband's efforts to use intelligence gathering for political ends,
there was a great hue and cry- there still is.
It was discovered early in the investigation of the situation that Valerie Plame had told her
hairdresser and several merchants that she frequented that she worked for the CIA, the
Democrats and the liberal media embarked on a witch hunt against any member of the
Administration they thought could be blamed for endangering her by "outing" her. And
although any information about Plame has been traced back to the left-leaning Bush-hating Dick
Armitage, Many in the media and on team Obama still seek blood, especially from Dick Cheney. It
is astounding that the same people so concerned about the welfare of office worker
Valerie Plame aggressively and consistently pursue actions that reveal the identities
of past and present CIA field agents with involvement with the capture and
interrogation of terrorists. They support releasing pictures of agents and names of agents.
Attorney General Houlder's law firm is involved in efforts to "protect the rights" of said terrorists;
these efforts often necessitating revealing information about American field agents.
This is indeed, the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
According to monitoring analysts, President Barack Obama's "war on rudeness" leads
the way. It seems that The President accuses his critics of being rude. Yes, what
Representative Wilson did was rude, although his frustration level must have been
understandably high. And yes as the President implies, frustrated and anxious taxpayers may
become a bit loud and boisterous at a town hall or tea party. But it is shocking first that this is the
only comment he has to make on the frustrations of his citizens. Even more surprising is that
Barack Obama lectures others on rudeness. Obama seems to define it all by the decibel
level of the voice and believes himself blameless because he insults others routinely
but in a moderated voice. Obama has used a very unctuous and sarcastic snideness to
ridicule and insult those in his cross hairs. His reactions and comments about protesting citizens,
congressional opponents and media that fails to worship at his feet have been consistently rude.
No President in recent history has treated his immediate predecessor with more rudeness. Yet
he feels it is all acceptable because he delivers his rudeness cloaked in an affable
smile and urbane wit. The staff suggests that almost anyone in Great Britain will
confirm that Obama id the "rudest President in modern times". Yet, he lectures
others...This is described by the monitoring staff as the most insidious hypocrisy ever.
Meter Monitors also report that treatment of CIA agents has spurred countless
incidents of liberal hypocrisy. For example, when liberal democrat Valerie Plame who
worked for the CIA but not as a field operative, was mentioned as working for the CIA
in news stories about her husband's efforts to use intelligence gathering for political ends,
there was a great hue and cry- there still is.
It was discovered early in the investigation of the situation that Valerie Plame had told her
hairdresser and several merchants that she frequented that she worked for the CIA, the
Democrats and the liberal media embarked on a witch hunt against any member of the
Administration they thought could be blamed for endangering her by "outing" her. And
although any information about Plame has been traced back to the left-leaning Bush-hating Dick
Armitage, Many in the media and on team Obama still seek blood, especially from Dick Cheney. It
is astounding that the same people so concerned about the welfare of office worker
Valerie Plame aggressively and consistently pursue actions that reveal the identities
of past and present CIA field agents with involvement with the capture and
interrogation of terrorists. They support releasing pictures of agents and names of agents.
Attorney General Houlder's law firm is involved in efforts to "protect the rights" of said terrorists;
these efforts often necessitating revealing information about American field agents.
This is indeed, the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph
Goebbels
When President Obama gave his education speech on September 8,
2009, something about just didn’t seem right. The more I looked at it, the
more it troubled me- until I finally found the sentence that was the source of
my unease. Towards the end of the speech the president said:
“I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books,
equipment and computers you need to learn.”
Does that include Detroit, Michigan, where one third of the school budget
came up missing last year? Where well under fifty percent of students
graduate high school? Where there has been a steady drumbeat of
interest from minority parents for a voucher system so that they can get
their children out of these government warehouses and into actual schools?
Apparently not. From what President Obama said, all he really wants to do
is to throw more money at the problem. We already throw more money at
education, per student, than almost anywhere else on earth, and yet our
high school graduates aren’t rated in the top fifteen percent- and we
dropped again this year. Clearly, we don’t need more money. Look, I
know that all schools get old, things break, resources get out of date. But
throwing more money into government school systems that don’t work will
not help these students learn, any more than tossing another bucket onto
the Titanic would have helped.
That was the lie. That was what bothered me. If I suffered from a torn
artery, I wouldn’t think much of a doctor who said, “Boy, that looks serious.
Nurse, pass me a band-aid.” The lie didn’t start with Pres. Obama. It
started some forty plus years ago. It is always the same lie, though. If only
we would spend more money… If only we would give the schools more
autonomy and more power, our educational problems will vanish….
The lie is big enough. It certainly has been repeated often enough. But
have we become convinced it is true? Thank God, no. We still have
thriving private and religious schools. Our home-schooling programs are
stronger than ever. The voucher war, though bitter, has resulted in a few
notable successes.
What bugs me the most is that nagging question: If the President and his
statist flock really care about the quality of education, especially of the
poorest, in the government schools of America, why do they insist on
keeping them trapped in the “Public” system from which escape would be
so easy if vouchers were made universally available? Could it be that the
statists (the term “liberal” really is too nice for them) don’t want any of those
captive to the system to leave? If so, why?
Over the following weekend I was doing some reading and I found what I am
terribly afraid is the answer. This is a quote from Adolf Hitler:
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say
calmly, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time
they will know nothing but this new community'."
Time is running out.
We must take back our culture, our government and our schools
before it is too late- for all of us.
But Maybe I'm Just being a
MAD DOG
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph
Goebbels
When President Obama gave his education speech on September 8,
2009, something about just didn’t seem right. The more I looked at it, the
more it troubled me- until I finally found the sentence that was the source of
my unease. Towards the end of the speech the president said:
“I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books,
equipment and computers you need to learn.”
Does that include Detroit, Michigan, where one third of the school budget
came up missing last year? Where well under fifty percent of students
graduate high school? Where there has been a steady drumbeat of
interest from minority parents for a voucher system so that they can get
their children out of these government warehouses and into actual schools?
Apparently not. From what President Obama said, all he really wants to do
is to throw more money at the problem. We already throw more money at
education, per student, than almost anywhere else on earth, and yet our
high school graduates aren’t rated in the top fifteen percent- and we
dropped again this year. Clearly, we don’t need more money. Look, I
know that all schools get old, things break, resources get out of date. But
throwing more money into government school systems that don’t work will
not help these students learn, any more than tossing another bucket onto
the Titanic would have helped.
That was the lie. That was what bothered me. If I suffered from a torn
artery, I wouldn’t think much of a doctor who said, “Boy, that looks serious.
Nurse, pass me a band-aid.” The lie didn’t start with Pres. Obama. It
started some forty plus years ago. It is always the same lie, though. If only
we would spend more money… If only we would give the schools more
autonomy and more power, our educational problems will vanish….
The lie is big enough. It certainly has been repeated often enough. But
have we become convinced it is true? Thank God, no. We still have
thriving private and religious schools. Our home-schooling programs are
stronger than ever. The voucher war, though bitter, has resulted in a few
notable successes.
What bugs me the most is that nagging question: If the President and his
statist flock really care about the quality of education, especially of the
poorest, in the government schools of America, why do they insist on
keeping them trapped in the “Public” system from which escape would be
so easy if vouchers were made universally available? Could it be that the
statists (the term “liberal” really is too nice for them) don’t want any of those
captive to the system to leave? If so, why?
Over the following weekend I was doing some reading and I found what I am
terribly afraid is the answer. This is a quote from Adolf Hitler:
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say
calmly, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time
they will know nothing but this new community'."
Time is running out.
We must take back our culture, our government and our schools
before it is too late- for all of us.
But Maybe I'm Just being a
MAD DOG
Poster that will be displayed in America's classrooms
I am taking pen in hand today to challenge you to consider why you think you are a Republican, or a
conservative. This will not be an easy question for any of us to answer because each of us is much like a
brilliant cut diamond, that is we have a broad table surrounded by many facets. The many facets produce the
flash and brilliance seen in the large table.
Where we are unlike diamonds is that our personal or collective facets aren’t precise, we don’t have the
same size or even number of facets and therefore the our broad tables don’t have the same flash and
brilliance. Indeed, politically speaking, many of us Republicans have broad tables that are just facets for
others.
If you are still with me you might respond that the same thing can be said of Democrats and they are
flourishing while Republicans languish. You are correct. The question now becomes why imperfect
Democrats are cleaning up over the equally imperfect Republicans.
The answer, in my opinion, lies in economics as the main factor, personal ambition as a lesser factor and
greed as a much lesser, although important factor, and last no moral compass.
I hope all of you remember the slogan that did in George H.W. Bush, “It’s the economy, stupid.” As yes, the
economy. Economics. Economics, the elective course you didn’t take and not only that, you wouldn’t date
anyone who did take a course in economics. Yet of all the studies it is the one that most affects every day of
our life. Farmers, you would think, would be the best versed in economics; after all they are independent
businessmen. Yet, farmers, for the most part, are the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. (In Minnesota it is
the Democratic Farm Labor, or DFL, Party.) Why would independent business people be in favor of the
government that is proposed by anti-business candidates? I will answer that question later.
My concession to my farming friends in the Iowa GOP, I know you are out there and this is not an attack on
farmers.
This is going to evolve into a lecture, because I think that too many Republicans and the vast majority of
Americans don’t ever think about how societies work. In fact, I believe if you ask any of your college educated
political friends if they took a sociology class the majority of Republicans would say no and the majority of
Democrats would say yes. This is an important factor, in my opinion, in why Republicans are fading, perhaps
to the point of not being able to maintain political viability. So here is a brief lesson (as brief as I can make it)
in social structure, economics, government, and politics.
Societies
I am going to start with the insect world because they represent the truest, purest social orders anywhere.
Pick your favorite, bees, termites or ants; it makes no difference to me. These colonies exist for only one
reason, and that is to keep the queen fed so she will lay more eggs so there will be more workers to build
more nest to allow for more eggs to develop to mature into more workers to forage for food to feed
themselves and the queen, ad infinitum.
The queen doesn’t “demand” the workers do this and the workers don’t “want” to do this, but it all happens
for the simple reason that is their behavior and all their minuscule neural complex can produce is behaviors,
not anything that could be considered cognitive.
Move way, way up the chain and consider prey mammals. Some live in communal groups, but those that do
live under the pleasure of the “Alpha” animal. The alpha gets that way, and maintains the status, by
persuading all other members of the community that it is his/her way or suffer the consequences of an
unworthy challenge. All live in relative ease and comfort AFTER the alpha has cared for him/herself.
Humans are little different, except we have developed cognitive reasoning and we have tools other than teeth
and claws to respond to an alpha. Unlike a lower species pack, a clever but weak pack member can do in an
alpha that is physically stronger.
The first thing one learns is the core of all human societies is the family unit. Once a person learns this single
point he or she can manipulate social outcomes on a local or global scale. I will demonstrate in a little while.
Families of hominids (Creationists fear not, this isn’t going to turn into a creation-evolution debate) became
extended families and whether or not they discovered the problems associated with inbreeding, they
developed tribes. Tribes are good, although intellectually stifling they provide for an efficient method of
feeding and protecting each other. As tribes grew they eventually needed more territory and if they
encountered another tribe and that tribe’s territory, guess what? Did they sit down and smoke some rope and
decide that by working together they could become a better community? No. They fought and one tribe
conquered the other and the victor became the landlord of the new, combined territory.
How were these tribes governed? They were led by the one the others feared the most, for whatever the
reason was. The notion that a leader was chosen because of respect is often propagated by those who
would have you believe the respect came from admiration of wisdom. Hogwash. The respect came from the
knowledge that the leader would punish anyone that challenged his authority.
The next point is what separates homo-sapiens from the remainder of the animal kingdom. Somewhere along
the line one person had something another wanted and they EXCHANGED fish for grain, or whatever.
Humans started moving from hunter-gatherers to producers. Not all humans, and not everywhere.
Thousands of years after the first exchange was made, hunter-gatherer tribes still survive in remote jungles.
“Civilized” societies formed and flourished. Sure, there continued to be conquerors, both local and global, but
the people who didn’t resist sometimes were allowed to go about their daily lives. After all, if a conqueror
killed everyone, there would be no one left to pay tribute and without tribute the conqueror would have to
return to tending a flock or following an ox pulling a plow.
The survivors went about their lives and the few who were thinkers or artists often were granted favor from
the conqueror that always could use more wise counsel or more elaborate trappings. The producers? Well, I
guess they were content with being alive and procreating.
The notion of the son or daughter having the birthright of succession is obvious. From time to time a trusted
advisor would realize the kid was an idiot and nowhere near as bold or brave as the father and the advisor
would cut a throat or administer a poison and the kid was gone and the heretofore unknown advisor, by his
own pronouncement, was the new king. It made no difference to the commoners. What the heck, they still
had tribute to pay, it made little difference if the old king got it or the new king took it.
Governing was done by decree. If the decree was unpopular; too bad. It isn’t as though one had any say in
any of it, regardless of the name on the throne.
Everything would have been all right, except somebody came up with the concept of transmitting information
in a permanent, graphical form. Be it cuneiform or hieroglyphics, the very institution of transmitting an idea
beyond the strength of one’s voice and beyond the span of one’s lifetime gave rise to the possibility of
gathering in, of converting, minds in far off places. Now the truly wise could share their wisdom with others.
Not many others, don’t get too excited, but enough others.
In Greece the populous shook off the mantle of the single conqueror and decided they could rule themselves
with rulers of their choosing. It was a nice model. Later the Romans kind of adopted a similar system (for
those living in Rome) except it didn’t apply to those living in “occupied territories.”
The tributes in these enlightened societies helped fund public works projects, many of which stand today.
Whether or not the stone masons that formed and assembled the structures were slaves or well paid union
members or something in between is beyond the scope of this briefing. However, many of the remnants
indicate that a luxurious life was available to merchants and politicians, often the same people.
Politics and Economics
Forget Camelot-
Campaign was a clinic- not really in
campaigning as much as in
marketing. One of the more
successful PR efforts utilized was
portraying Obama as the "New John
F. Kennedy". Obama was presented
as being so similar to JFK in that he,
too, was charming, witty, charismatic,
likeable, a devoted family man with
an intelligent wife and two adorable
kids. The American Camelot. Implicit
in this the promise that good
campaigning as much as in
marketing. One of the more
successful PR efforts utilized was
portraying Obama as the "New John
F. Kennedy". Obama was presented
as being so similar to JFK in that he,
too, was charming, witty, charismatic,
likeable, a devoted family man with
an intelligent wife and two adorable
kids. The American Camelot. Implicit
in this the promise that good
It's not images of John Kennedy that
Obama conjures up for me. It's this man.
Obama conjures up for me. It's this man.
times would return- laughing children at play on the White House lawn and a feeling
times would return- laughing children at play on the Lyndon Baines Johnson is
echoed through the Obama Presidency in White House lawn and a feeling of
camaraderie throughout the land. Now the truth is countless ways.
Obama's sharp glibness has little in common with Kennedy's charm. Obama's
sarcasm has much more in common with the "cut-'em- dead" remarks of LBJ
than with the gentle wit of JFK.
LBJ was a ruthless, hard-nosed political boss. We see now that Obama's
Chicago-style political machine could make LBJ's people look like girl scouts.
Under Obama, American social values and policies impacting American families
are undergoing their greatest period of devastation since the enactment of
LBJ'S "Great Society". Johnson's agenda was a broad, sweeping group of
initiatives based in aggressive social engineering accomplished through an
unprecedented level of federal government intrusion and control. It is thanks
to the "Great Society" that the door to public health care was kicked open with
Medicaid and Medicare, and that the National Endowment for the Arts was created.
The endangered species Act, now so twisted in California, came into being with many
other environmental acts.as well as many, many welfare programs such as food
stamps. "Community action and organizing" became part of the matrix of government
with LBJ and he oversaw the government funding and control of education being
removed from local authority and placed in Federal hands. Johnson also created
National Public media and also inserted government authority into every level of
transportation. Clearly Obama has picked up LBJ's baton.
We stand today on the precipice of the most startling similarity
between these two: Viet Nam and Afghanistan.
Many today wail that Afghanistan will be another Viet Nam. I believe it is a tragic
certainty. But it is not because of the wars, themselves, but because of the
Commanders in Chief at their waging. I don't accept the posit that Viet Nam was a
"BAD war". We have forgotten. We have forgotten that Viet Nam was a beautiful,
peaceful agricultural nation. Viet Nam was a very loyal friend to the United States and
entitled to our protection through a long standing series of treaties and agreements.
The Viet Cong were aggressive, communist troops that were funded and assisted by
Communist China and the Soviet Union. They moved through Viet Nam
"guerrilla-style", attacking one peaceful village after another. Their usual MO was to
disembowel the oldest daughter of the mayor in front of him to gain his cooperation.
Young men were forced into service, many girls and women raped, countless
innocent, unarmed citizens killed and many villages destroyed. Of course we should
have come to their aid. The war did not become a "bad war" until it became politicized
by President Johnson. He disregarded calls to allow air strikes on VC supply lines. He
did not supply or condone what could have brought sure victory because he did not
want to anger his anti-war base. Yet, he did not want to appear to be a complete
coward so he kept the war in a "holding pattern" that never could produce a real
victory. Thousands upon thousands of young American lives lost for no reason-
that's what created the negative image of this war.
I see Obama as very ready to leap into LBJ's footsteps. Already, we hear of American
troops not getting what they need to win in Afghanistan but still being ordered to stay.
I fear that Obama will be too afraid to provide what his own General tells him is
needed for victory lest he anger his anti-war base. I fear that he will maintain troops
that there in some sort of holding pattern so that he won't look like a complete
coward and someone who lied when he passionately pushed for a victory in
Afghanistan as a candidate. The press played a big role in vilifying our American
troops in Viet Nam while attempting to spare Johnson. I pray we do not see a repeat
of that, but, sadly, I would not be surprised.
times would return- laughing children at play on the Lyndon Baines Johnson is
echoed through the Obama Presidency in White House lawn and a feeling of
camaraderie throughout the land. Now the truth is countless ways.
Obama's sharp glibness has little in common with Kennedy's charm. Obama's
sarcasm has much more in common with the "cut-'em- dead" remarks of LBJ
than with the gentle wit of JFK.
LBJ was a ruthless, hard-nosed political boss. We see now that Obama's
Chicago-style political machine could make LBJ's people look like girl scouts.
Under Obama, American social values and policies impacting American families
are undergoing their greatest period of devastation since the enactment of
LBJ'S "Great Society". Johnson's agenda was a broad, sweeping group of
initiatives based in aggressive social engineering accomplished through an
unprecedented level of federal government intrusion and control. It is thanks
to the "Great Society" that the door to public health care was kicked open with
Medicaid and Medicare, and that the National Endowment for the Arts was created.
The endangered species Act, now so twisted in California, came into being with many
other environmental acts.as well as many, many welfare programs such as food
stamps. "Community action and organizing" became part of the matrix of government
with LBJ and he oversaw the government funding and control of education being
removed from local authority and placed in Federal hands. Johnson also created
National Public media and also inserted government authority into every level of
transportation. Clearly Obama has picked up LBJ's baton.
We stand today on the precipice of the most startling similarity
between these two: Viet Nam and Afghanistan.
Many today wail that Afghanistan will be another Viet Nam. I believe it is a tragic
certainty. But it is not because of the wars, themselves, but because of the
Commanders in Chief at their waging. I don't accept the posit that Viet Nam was a
"BAD war". We have forgotten. We have forgotten that Viet Nam was a beautiful,
peaceful agricultural nation. Viet Nam was a very loyal friend to the United States and
entitled to our protection through a long standing series of treaties and agreements.
The Viet Cong were aggressive, communist troops that were funded and assisted by
Communist China and the Soviet Union. They moved through Viet Nam
"guerrilla-style", attacking one peaceful village after another. Their usual MO was to
disembowel the oldest daughter of the mayor in front of him to gain his cooperation.
Young men were forced into service, many girls and women raped, countless
innocent, unarmed citizens killed and many villages destroyed. Of course we should
have come to their aid. The war did not become a "bad war" until it became politicized
by President Johnson. He disregarded calls to allow air strikes on VC supply lines. He
did not supply or condone what could have brought sure victory because he did not
want to anger his anti-war base. Yet, he did not want to appear to be a complete
coward so he kept the war in a "holding pattern" that never could produce a real
victory. Thousands upon thousands of young American lives lost for no reason-
that's what created the negative image of this war.
I see Obama as very ready to leap into LBJ's footsteps. Already, we hear of American
troops not getting what they need to win in Afghanistan but still being ordered to stay.
I fear that Obama will be too afraid to provide what his own General tells him is
needed for victory lest he anger his anti-war base. I fear that he will maintain troops
that there in some sort of holding pattern so that he won't look like a complete
coward and someone who lied when he passionately pushed for a victory in
Afghanistan as a candidate. The press played a big role in vilifying our American
troops in Viet Nam while attempting to spare Johnson. I pray we do not see a repeat
of that, but, sadly, I would not be surprised.
Stimulus money is the buzz these days. It seems that everyone is convinced that the
payout. One of Iowa’s senators earmarked more than two million dollars for a special
project to study swine manure and odor. This will definitely bring Iowa to full
employment and stimulate the rural economy. I am going to do my part to make this
a worthy expenditure of tax dollars.
My official study will be conducted by simple observation. Our rural countryside is
quickly becoming populated by former city dwellers who want to experience the good
life. They have given up the hustle and noise of the city to enjoy the serenity of rural
living. Our senator contends that manure and odor is offensive to them and should
not be part of the rural experience. My study was conducted to determine any
significant change in the smell emitted from pig manure produced on a family farm in
1969 and how it relates to the odor produced on the same farm in 2009. All
volunteers were carefully screened to ensure that they were intimately familiar with
input resources as well as the output product. My review panel provided affidavits
certifying their familiarity with pig poop. All volunteers were of an age that qualified
them to compare the output of the 40 year comparison.
Each volunteer sniffed the prepared feed and the input area of the pig. They also
sniffed the output end of the pig, as well as the product. There was unanimous
agreement that the output smelled significantly worse than the input. A similar
parallel study was conducted using a cow on the same farm. The review panel
determined that the cow had a tendency to belch and emit gas from the input area as
well as the output station. However there was agreement that the degree of offense
from the bovine output was considerably less than that of the swine. In sworn
statements, the panelists concurred that there was no significant difference in the
output product and the odor emitted from the 2009 product when compared to their
recollection of the 1969 product.
Upon evaluation of the pertinent poop contained in this study, the review panel
determined that pig poop still smells very bad. However, they noted a considerable
difference in the makeup of the complainants. In 1969 rural Iowans lived on farms
and made their living from the production of agricultural commodities. In 2009 the
population consists of a larger number of residents who work outside the community
and come home to sleep next to their farming neighbors. Many of them find the
natives offensive and want to expel them from their tranquil subdivision lifestyle.
Wouldn’t we all be better served to buy our pork in the grocery store and bypass the
smelly farm process? In reality, the pig was here first and is probably going to stay.
All federal guidelines were followed during the course of this study. The procedures
and findings will be submitted as soon as the 943 page compliance report is
completed. Basically, the project created no new jobs; the study had no significant
value; and the findings will have no impact upon the community. This project might
even qualify for a cash bonus. The only real finding being returned to Washington is
that the intolerable stink is not found in the barnyard.
payout. One of Iowa’s senators earmarked more than two million dollars for a special
project to study swine manure and odor. This will definitely bring Iowa to full
employment and stimulate the rural economy. I am going to do my part to make this
a worthy expenditure of tax dollars.
My official study will be conducted by simple observation. Our rural countryside is
quickly becoming populated by former city dwellers who want to experience the good
life. They have given up the hustle and noise of the city to enjoy the serenity of rural
living. Our senator contends that manure and odor is offensive to them and should
not be part of the rural experience. My study was conducted to determine any
significant change in the smell emitted from pig manure produced on a family farm in
1969 and how it relates to the odor produced on the same farm in 2009. All
volunteers were carefully screened to ensure that they were intimately familiar with
input resources as well as the output product. My review panel provided affidavits
certifying their familiarity with pig poop. All volunteers were of an age that qualified
them to compare the output of the 40 year comparison.
Each volunteer sniffed the prepared feed and the input area of the pig. They also
sniffed the output end of the pig, as well as the product. There was unanimous
agreement that the output smelled significantly worse than the input. A similar
parallel study was conducted using a cow on the same farm. The review panel
determined that the cow had a tendency to belch and emit gas from the input area as
well as the output station. However there was agreement that the degree of offense
from the bovine output was considerably less than that of the swine. In sworn
statements, the panelists concurred that there was no significant difference in the
output product and the odor emitted from the 2009 product when compared to their
recollection of the 1969 product.
Upon evaluation of the pertinent poop contained in this study, the review panel
determined that pig poop still smells very bad. However, they noted a considerable
difference in the makeup of the complainants. In 1969 rural Iowans lived on farms
and made their living from the production of agricultural commodities. In 2009 the
population consists of a larger number of residents who work outside the community
and come home to sleep next to their farming neighbors. Many of them find the
natives offensive and want to expel them from their tranquil subdivision lifestyle.
Wouldn’t we all be better served to buy our pork in the grocery store and bypass the
smelly farm process? In reality, the pig was here first and is probably going to stay.
All federal guidelines were followed during the course of this study. The procedures
and findings will be submitted as soon as the 943 page compliance report is
completed. Basically, the project created no new jobs; the study had no significant
value; and the findings will have no impact upon the community. This project might
even qualify for a cash bonus. The only real finding being returned to Washington is
that the intolerable stink is not found in the barnyard.
What Is that Smell?
| Editor in Chief |
That has sparked several conversations. I now believe people are starting to see and
thousands of farmers, farmworkers and their families were stripped of their farms to
flourish, the towns that they supported thrive and families to have food and their
living expenses met. Things have changed dramatically. The incredible human all. In
fact, they are quite annoyed that Sean Hannity has put a spotlight on the situation.
For all the criticism leveled against Sarah Palin for using the term "death panel",
there is actually some validity to the reference. Early in the discussion of ObamaCare
there were oblique references to "productivity" as the yardstick for evaluation as to
whether some one would be worthy of the expense of medical care. They've dressed
it up and clothed it in a new vocabulary. Nonetheless, it is clear by a thousand subtle
phrases and a few direct actions, that budget considerations and not the intrinsic
value of humanity that steers the boat.
Granted death would not necessarily be forced on senior, sickly or disabled persons
by a government panel. There is no doubt that they would be encouraged to hasten
toward death as a cost-saving measure.
Although the 13 year old girls mentioned as imported child prostitutes in the "ACORN
TAPES" did not really exist, for purposes of this discussion, they are just as real as a
13 year old girl persona created online by law enforcement to nab a pedophile. Yet,
not only did the ACORN employees not bat an eye but most of the New Left have
expressed only that this is a very minor incident. Several young girls- their innocence
and futures trashed to make money for others- this represents profound human
loss. The new Left cares not.
This is born out in the ideology publicly expressed by several f the President's New
Left Czars. Their radical views on abortion, animal rights, euthanasia and eugenics
all signal the plummeting of humanity as the priority.
We are suffering constant infringements to our liberty and endless barrages against
our national prosperity. Yet, before this is over we will see that no single
philosophical movement has harmed us more than the Administration's
ever-increasing penchant to devalue our humanity.
This will not end well. History tells us that it never has.
(see "Understanding the New liberals" on the rt. Side of the Daily Fix Page)
thousands of farmers, farmworkers and their families were stripped of their farms to
flourish, the towns that they supported thrive and families to have food and their
living expenses met. Things have changed dramatically. The incredible human all. In
fact, they are quite annoyed that Sean Hannity has put a spotlight on the situation.
For all the criticism leveled against Sarah Palin for using the term "death panel",
there is actually some validity to the reference. Early in the discussion of ObamaCare
there were oblique references to "productivity" as the yardstick for evaluation as to
whether some one would be worthy of the expense of medical care. They've dressed
it up and clothed it in a new vocabulary. Nonetheless, it is clear by a thousand subtle
phrases and a few direct actions, that budget considerations and not the intrinsic
value of humanity that steers the boat.
Granted death would not necessarily be forced on senior, sickly or disabled persons
by a government panel. There is no doubt that they would be encouraged to hasten
toward death as a cost-saving measure.
Although the 13 year old girls mentioned as imported child prostitutes in the "ACORN
TAPES" did not really exist, for purposes of this discussion, they are just as real as a
13 year old girl persona created online by law enforcement to nab a pedophile. Yet,
not only did the ACORN employees not bat an eye but most of the New Left have
expressed only that this is a very minor incident. Several young girls- their innocence
and futures trashed to make money for others- this represents profound human
loss. The new Left cares not.
This is born out in the ideology publicly expressed by several f the President's New
Left Czars. Their radical views on abortion, animal rights, euthanasia and eugenics
all signal the plummeting of humanity as the priority.
We are suffering constant infringements to our liberty and endless barrages against
our national prosperity. Yet, before this is over we will see that no single
philosophical movement has harmed us more than the Administration's
ever-increasing penchant to devalue our humanity.
This will not end well. History tells us that it never has.
(see "Understanding the New liberals" on the rt. Side of the Daily Fix Page)
The Top Priority
"Even a compromise Bill that might contain a few good features will be
agencies to administer all of the many, many social programs
included. These "compromises" must be defeated. Adding layers to
the bureaucracy and unavoidable added expense will only cripple the
the bureaucracy and unavoidable added expense will only cripple the
system more."
agencies to administer all of the many, many social programs
included. These "compromises" must be defeated. Adding layers to
the bureaucracy and unavoidable added expense will only cripple the
the bureaucracy and unavoidable added expense will only cripple the
system more."
Their Attack: "Any Health Care Bill Would Be Better
than the Status Quo and to Oppose a Compromise
Bill Indicates No Concern for Americans"
than the Status Quo and to Oppose a Compromise
Bill Indicates No Concern for Americans"
"Any form of the so-called "ObamaCare" will actually be damaging to
the welfare of all Americans because it and all the premise, and that is
the welfare of all Americans because it and all the premise, and that is
any service than the private sector. There is not one example that can
: A centralized federal government can do a superior job in providing
results of American individuals and businesses operating in a free
market place "
the welfare of all Americans because it and all the premise, and that is
the welfare of all Americans because it and all the premise, and that is
any service than the private sector. There is not one example that can
: A centralized federal government can do a superior job in providing
results of American individuals and businesses operating in a free
market place "
replacing it with a similar government-run coop system does not
constitute, in itself, a good enough reason to support 'compromise'
Bills, especially if they are still Trojan Horses for a socialized welfare
network of nonessential services and if they do not contain reforms of
the litigation and law suit award system as this is largely contributing
to high costs in medical procedures."
constitute, in itself, a good enough reason to support 'compromise'
Bills, especially if they are still Trojan Horses for a socialized welfare
network of nonessential services and if they do not contain reforms of
the litigation and law suit award system as this is largely contributing
to high costs in medical procedures."
| With a Liberal |
Remove that and allow them to market state from state and costs will
from job to job. We don't need a huge social-engineering program.
We need clear , direct legislation that addresses only what has made
costs rise but leaves our system alone"
from job to job. We don't need a huge social-engineering program.
We need clear , direct legislation that addresses only what has made
costs rise but leaves our system alone"
