Liberal Versus Conservative

[American Patriot]

I'm starting this thread, as a place to put articles, speeches and other material that contrasts the differences in these two idealisms.

Making the thread sticky, please all of you, participate. I'd like to see where we really stand on things.

Rick

[American Patriot]

I found this article, it is long, and was an article by Evan Sayet, for the Heritage Foundation.

It is pretty long, but it is well done and you understand when you're finished where Liberal and Conservative differ.




May 10, 2007
Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"
by Evan Sayet
Heritage Lecture #1020

Delivered on March 5, 2007

BECKY NORTON DUNLOP: The Heritage Foun­dation has a very fine reputation for excellent research and writing on policy issues that are facing our nation and our world, focusing on Capitol Hill. One of the things that we have talked about in some of our work and with some of our speakers is the challenge that we face in our culture.

So we've decided to do something about that in this year of 2007, and what we've decided to do about it in the External Relations Department is to bring some people to our podium who have worked in the enter­tainment world: people who have a profession that is recognized and well received but come from a per­spective on the culture that doesn't get widespread coverage, let's say, in today's mainstream media.

We aim to change that. We think some of the peo­ple and some of the productions that we're going to be bringing to Heritage in 2007 are ones that more and more people should see and hear and messages from people that need to be told to the mainstream, and you're going to hear them first here at The Heritage Foundation.

Evan Sayet has written and/or produced in virtually every medium there is. He started out as a stand-up comic. Very few are successful, but Evan has been suc­cessful at that. He was quickly spotted by David Let­terman and offered a spot on a special episode featuring young talent. He then moved into writing, and he was an integral part of the team that made the "Arsenio Hall Show" the first late-night program in 30 years to give the "Tonight Show" a run for its money.

Then he moved to a very interesting assignment called "Politically Incorrect" with Bill Maher. After that, Evan wrote and produced the highest-rated special in the Learning Channel's history, "The 70's: From Bellbottoms to Boogie Shoes." He perfected the book for a musical comedy, wrote a screenplay optioned by Penny Marshall, and even tried his hand at game shows as the original writer of the cult classic, "Win Ben Stein's Money."

The latest twist in Evan's career came during the recent presidential elections when he turned his attention and skills toward convincing others of the greatness of America and the need to reelect Presi­dent Bush and to stay the course in the Middle East. In a short time, Evan was made the communica­tions director for Los Angeles for President Bush. He wrote a number of articles about this for major conservative outlets and later was asked to offer weekly commentary on KMJ Radio. He also began delivering the lecture that he's going to be deliver­ing to us today.

He now is among Los Angeles's most in-demand speakers, a political pundit recognized by Dennis Prager as brilliant for his take on the unique power of the Judeo-Christian culture and singled out by Rush Limbaugh for his explanation of why Liberals lie. Evan is signed with one of the country's top speakers bureaus and has recently been booked at the highly prestigious Lincoln Club, whose monthly roster of speakers has included people such as Ken Starr, former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, and the Consul General of Israel.

At around that same time, Evan returned to his first love, stand-up comedy, only now with a decidedly conservative twist. He has been the headliner of a night of conservative comedy called "Right to Laugh" and is now planning a series of one-nighters around the country. He recently appeared at the Conservative Political Action Con­ference and was well received by his audience on a night when there were many luminaries on the stage. He will soon produce his first CD, "Funny, You Don't Look Conservative."

Becky Norton Dunlop is Vice President for Exter­nal Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

EVAN SAYET: I call myself a 9/13 Republican. I grew up a liberal New York Jew; you don't get much more liberal than that--although it was lower-case "l," not what's considered Liberal today. I graduated from high school knowing only one thing about politics: that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil.

I tell a story. It's not a true story, but it helps crys­tallize my thinking that brought me to become a conservative. I say: Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and you're catching up, and suddenly he blurts out, "I hate my wife." You chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together, and you know he doesn't hate his wife; they've been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters, and they're just like her. No, he doesn't hate his wife.

So you're having dinner, and you look out the window and spot his wife, and she's being beaten up right outside the restaurant. You grab your friend and say, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help your wife," and he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it." At that moment, it dawns on you: He really does hate his wife.

That's what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I'd hear my friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd chuckle to myself and think, "Oh, they always say that; they love America." Then on 9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and I said, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help America," and they said, "Nah, she deserves it."

At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America. And that began me on what's now a five-plus-year quest to try to understand the mindset. How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and see only oppression? How could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and see us as the ultimate in imperi­alism? How could you live in the least bigoted nation in human history and, as Joe Biden said, "see racism lurking in every dark shadow"?

Over the next five years, what I came to think through, what I came to learn, what I came to find in conversations and studying, listening, and read­ing became this talk and very soon will be the book Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think."

I assume that just about everybody in this room agrees that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to propose to you that it's not "just about" every issue; it's quite literally every issue. And it's not just wrong; it's as wrong as wrong can be; it's 180 degrees from right; it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful.

What I discovered is that this is not an accident. This is part of a philosophy that now dominates the whole of Western Europe and the Democratic Party today. I, like some others, call it Modern Liberalism. The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Give the Modern Liberal the choice between Saddam Hussein and the United States, and he will not only side with Saddam Hussein; he will slander America and Americans in order to do so. Give him the choice between the vicious mass murderer corrupt terrorist dictator Yasser Arafat and the tiny and wonderful democracy of Israel, and he will plagia­rize maps, forge documents, engage in blood libels--as did our former President Jimmy Carter-- to side with the terrorist organizations and to attack the tiny democracy of Israel.

It's not just foreign policy; it's every policy. Given the choice between promoting teenage abstinence and teenage promiscuity--and believe me, I know this from my hometown of Hollywood--they will use their movies, their TV shows, their songs, even the schools to promote teenage promiscuity as if it's cool: like the movie American Pie, in which you are a loser unless you've had sex with your best friend's mother while you're still a child. Conversely, NARAL, a pro-abortion group masquerading as a pro-choice group, will hold a fund-raiser called "‘F' Abstinence." (And it's not just "F." It's the entire word, because promoting vulgarity is part of their agenda.)

So the question becomes: Why? How do they think they're making a better world? The first thing that comes into your mind when trying to under­stand, as I've so desperately tried to understand, is that if they side always with evil, then they must be evil. But we have a problem with that, don't we? We all know too many people who fit this category but who aren't evil: many of my lifelong friends, the people I grew up with, relatives, close relatives.

If they're not evil, then the next place your mind goes is that they must just be incredibly stupid. They don't mean to always side with evil, the failed and wrong; they just don't know what they're doing. But we have a problem with this as well. You can't say Bill Maher (my old boss) is a stupid man. You can't say Ward Churchill is a stupid man. You can't say all these academics are stupid people. Frankly, if it were just stupidity, they'd be right more often. What's the expression? "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," or "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again."

But if they're not stupid and they're not evil, what's their plan? How do they think they're making a better world by siding with Saddam Hussein, by keeping his rape and torture rooms open, by seek­ing the destruction of a democracy of Jews? I don't know if you've seen the list going around the Inter­net of all the Nobel Prize-winning scientists from this tiny state of Israel. How do they think they're making a better world by promoting to children behaviors that are inappropriate and cause diseases and unwanted pregnancies and ruin people's lives? How do they think they're making a better world?

What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with--none of the religions, none of the philos­ophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government--have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, pov­erty, crime, and injustice must be found--can only be found--in the attempt to be right.

If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight, of course we wouldn't go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It's a utopian vision, and all that's required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi­dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency--all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.

When this first started to dawn on me, I would question my Liberal friends--and believe me, there were plenty of them in Hollywood. The thing about Hollywood is that it is overwhelmingly Liberal: upper-case "L," not lower-case "l." There are a lot more of us conservatives than you would suspect, but they are afraid. It's hard to come out because what's so Orwellian--and virtually everything about this philosophy is Orwellian--is that the Lib­erals are as illiberal as you can imagine. As much as they scream "McCarthyism," there is a "graylist" there that sees people not get hired because they don't toe the Leftist line.

What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn't right and to prove that wrong isn't wrong. You see this in John Lennon's song "Imagine": "Imagine there's no countries." Not imagine great countries, not imagine defeat the Nazis, but imagine no religions, and the key line is imagine a time when anything and everything that mankind values is devalued to the point where there's nothing left to kill or die for.

Obviously, this is not going to happen overnight. There are still going to be religions, but they are going to do their best to denigrate them. There are still going to be countries, but they will do what they can to give our national sovereignty to one-world bodies. In the meantime, everything that they teach in our schools, everything they make into movies, the messages of the movies, the TV shows, the newspaper stories that they pick and how they spin them have but one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc., and that is: Does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil? Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong? Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones that lead to failure so that there is nothing left to believe in?

You might recognize this as the paradigm and the purpose of one of the most successful Liberal motion pictures of all time, Fahrenheit 9/11. There's nobody who believes Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was an honest attempt to portray the real events of that horrific day and its aftermath. Every­body knows that Michael Moore is a Leftist and that it was a propaganda film in which the facts were cherry-picked, the evidence manipulated, the nar­rative near-lunatic, all for one purpose. The ques­tion that we were debating at the time was, "Should we go to war against the Iraqi government, against Saddam Hussein?" So he used all the tricks and manipulations and lies that he could to show that America isn't that good, that America isn't worth fighting for, that Saddam Hussein isn't that evil and not worth fighting against, for the purpose of undermining our efforts to go to war.

Again, there is quite literally nothing in Holly­wood, in the newspapers, in our schools that does not have this as its sole criterion. For example, there is no journalistic standard by which the misdeeds of a handful of night guards at an obscure prison for terrorists--misdeeds in which nobody was killed and nobody was seriously hurt--ought to be a front-page story in The New York Times. Not for a single day. Yet, for 44 straight days, this non-story was a front-page story in The New York Times. Why? Because while it met no journalistic standard, it met the one and only Modern Liberal standard: "You think America's good? We found something that's going to make you not believe that any longer. You think that the Islamic fascists are bad? No, no, no, this is why they do it. No wonder they fly airplanes into our buildings."

And that's just one of so many other examples. There was no journalistic standard by which News­week printed the story of Korans being flushed down the toilet. Not only was it a bogus story, it never happened--it was an impossible story. Think about it: Can you flush a book down the toilet? Even a five-year-old would know that you can't flush a book down the toilet; you can't fit a square peg into a round hole. So why did Newsweek run a story that was not only bogus, but that failed to meet even the most obvious logic? Because nothing matters to them. There is no standard, because a standard would require them to say something is better than something else, which goes against this entire philosophy. It met the one and only criterion of truth to Newsweek, which was that it attacked America and justified the Islamic fascist terrorist.

The same thing is true in the art world. There is no artistic standard, no aesthetic criterion by which-- forgive me--a jar of urine with a cross in it is beauti­ful. There is no aesthetic criterion by which the cura­tors of the museum said, "Take down the Monet and put up the urine," but it met the one and only stan­dard of art that exists to the Modern Liberal.

Similarly, the movies last year met no criterion of storytelling and no criterion of cinematography. The five nominees for Best Picture met one criterion. Brokeback Mountain said heterosexual marriage isn't that important; go be a homosexual if you choose. Munich said there is no difference between the terror­ists and the people who stop them from murdering again. And if you look at the other pictures as well, ultimately with Crash winning, Crash said America is this evil, horrible nation where every moment of every day is filled with bigotry and racism.

There truly is no standard, no criterion for truth, beauty, justice, or anything else amongst the Mod­ern Liberals, the dominant force in today's Demo­cratic Party: not all Democrats, but those who will mindlessly accept without question, without doubt, that of course we went into Iraq to steal their oil because that's what America does; no need to even consider any other possibility. Not everyone who voted for John Kerry and who fits that description is aware of the elite's blueprint for utopia, and I don't think some of them would support it if they were.

What the elite have succeeded in doing through the institutions we've allowed them to control--and if we're going to save America, we must take back the schools, the universities, the media, the entertain­ment industry--is indoctrinating, starting with the very young and going all the way up through college and beyond, starting the first time they turn on "Ses­ame Street" and "Buster Bunny," going up through the middle years when they're told, "Hey, little boy, if you have a queer eye, you're going to be a cool guy," or, "Hey, little girl, it doesn't matter how cool you are; if you grow up to be a heterosexual married woman, you're going to be a desperate housewife."

So many of the other shows that are on the air show family and marriage and all the things that are traditional and that we recognize as good--shows like "The War at Home" and "Rules of Engagement"--as if it's another battle. They wouldn't allow "Make Room for Daddy" and shows like those because they were not realistic, so instead we now have the Bundys, where the mother and father hate each other and are looking to get as much as they can from each other, and this whole mindset. And it continues on through Ward Churchill's ethnic studies class.

What happens is, they are indoctrinated into what I call a "cult of indiscriminateness." The way the elite does this is by teaching our children, start­ing with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry; that no matter how sin­cerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your great-great-great-great-great grandfa­ther's birth; that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other than the reflection of your bigotries, and the only way to eliminate bigot­ry is to eliminate rational thought.

There's a brilliant book out there called The Clos­ing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the recog­nition, that they'd been raised to believe that indis­criminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. I para­phrase this in my own works: "In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate."

I'll give you an example. At the airports, in order not to discriminate, we have to intentionally make ourselves stupid. We have to pretend we don't know things we do know, and we have to pretend that the next person who is likely to blow up an airplane is as much the 87-year-old Swedish great-great-grand­mother as those four 27-year-old imams newly arrived from Syria screaming "Allahu Akbar!" just before they board the plane. In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.

The problem is, of course, that the ability to dis­criminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options--as in "she's a discriminating shopper"--is the essence of rational thought; thus, the whole of Western Europe and today's Democrat­ic Party, dominated as it is by this philosophy, rejects rational thought as a hate crime.

So what you're left with after 10, 12, 14, 20 years in the Leftist indoctrination centers that our schools have become are citizens of voting age who are utterly unwilling and incapable of critically judging the merits of the positions they hold and have held unquestioned since they were five years old and first entered the Leftist indoctrination process.

There was a book that came out at just about the same time as Professor Bloom's that in some ways even better describes and explains the mindset of the Modern Liberal. It was Robert Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, and it reads like the bible of Modern Liberalism and the playbook of Democratic Party policy.

The sentence fragment "Don't hit," which is one of the lessons that Fulghum refers to, has morphed into an entire sentence now that they're adults: "War is not the answer." But they don't really need to know anything, because even though they know about Neville Chamberlain and what happens if you appease evil, they don't really need to know it because knowing it or not knowing it would not have changed the position they have now and have held unquestioned since they were five.

When I was five years old, I used to go around the neighborhood trick-or-treating with my friends on Halloween, and we'd have in one hand a bag for candy and in the other hand a little box with a slit on top for nickels and dimes and pennies for UNICEF, because at five years old, the United Nations is a terrific thing: "Don't hit, talk." Another lesson from Robert Fulghum is "Share everything." Well, here, we'll share power; we'll share our wealth; we'll pay for the United Nations. Let's talk things out. What a lovely, wonderful thing.

Then you turn 10, 15, 20, and you learn some things about the United Nations that change your opinion. You learn about the corruption. You learn about the anti-Semitism, that they ran away from the genocide in Rwanda, have done nothing about the Sudanese genocide--in fact, made the Sudanese members of the Human Rights Commission while they were committing this genocide! You and I change our position because these are things we really need to know, yet the Modern Liberal will maintain their five-year-old's position, their belief that the United Nations is this great, wonderful thing, and completely ignore everything they've learned since.

There was a song that came out at about this time called "Goodbye Stranger" by a group called Super­tramp--because, you know, being a "tramp" is super! In it, this guy and this girl shack up together for a couple weeks, and apparently things are pretty wonderful until she says something like, "Honey, we've run out of food. Why don't you go to the supermarket, pick up some things, and then we can do this for another week or two?" He says, "I should go shopping? No, no, that's not my paradise. I'm leaving." And as he's walking out the door, he says to her, "Now, I believe that what you say is the undis­puted truth, but I have to see things my own way just to keep me in my youth."

That is so much the mindset of the Modern Lib­erals. It's not that they are not aware of all the things that we're aware of; it's that they need to reject them in order to remain in this five-year-old's utopia that they've been told is the only hope for mankind: a mindless indiscriminateness.

So what you're left with is not really adults, but citizens of voting age who cannot judge their own positions but are virulently antagonistic to any posi­tion other than their own. Why? Because when you've been brought up to believe that indiscrimi­nateness is a moral imperative, any position other than their own must have been arrived at through the employment of discrimination. This is why Bush is Hitler; this is why Reagan is Hitler; this is why Giuliani is Hitler.

How is Rudolph Giuliani like Hitler to a thinking person? In one way: Hitler discriminated against the Jews; Giuliani discriminated against the crack-addicted prostitutes mugging people in Times Square. Hitler discriminated against the Catholics; Giuliani discriminated against the criminal over­lords. Hitler discriminated against the gypsies; Giuliani discriminated against the terrorists on 9/11 and beyond. In other words, any form of discrimi­nation is wrong.

The Modern Liberals know that theirs is a posi­tion arrived at through the moral imperative of indiscriminateness; therefore, any position other than their own must have been arrived at through the employment of discrimination. So this makes you not just wrong on your issues and your stances. They don't even think about your issues and your stances. They don't have to. Even if they were will­ing to, even if they were able to, they don't need to. Would you sit and contemplate Hitler's Social Secu­rity policy? No, you would fight Hitler.

So what you're left with is, after 10, 12, 14, 20 years in these indoctrination centers--and it's not a coincidence that the longer you stay in the indoctri­nation process, the more morally inverted you become, so that to become head of the Ethnic Stud­ies Department, you have to argue that the Islamic fascist terrorists are the good guys and the victims of 9/11 were all little Eichmanns--is people who quite literally cannot differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse.

But indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. Indiscriminateness of thought invariably leads the Modern Liberal to side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Because in a world where you are indiscriminate, where no behavior is to be deemed better or worse than any other, your expectation is that all behavior should lead to equally good out­comes. When, in the real world, different behaviors lead to different outcomes, you and I know why-- because we think. We know why communities that promote teenage promiscuity tend to fail at a greater rate than communities that promote teenage absti­nence: Teenage promiscuity and teenage abstinence are not the same behaviors. Teenage abstinence is a better behavior.

Forget the moral component for a moment; let's just talk practicalities. If your boy's out messing around, he's not home reading a book. If your daughter's down at the abortion mill again, she's not at the library studying for the SATs. If your son's in a hospital bed somewhere dying of AIDS, he's not putting together his five-year plan.

You and I recognize why communities that pro­mote teenage abstinence do better than those that promote teenage promiscuity in their music, in their movies, in the schools. But to the Modern Liberal who cannot make that judgment--must not make that judgment--that would be discriminating. They have no explanation. Therefore, the only explana­tion for success has to be that somehow success has cheated. Success, simply by its existence, is proof positive to the Modern Liberal of some kind of chi­canery and likely bigotry. Failure, simply by its existence--no other evidence needed, just the fact that it has failed--is enough proof to them that fail­ure has been victimized.

So the mindless foot soldier, which is what I call the non-elite, will support the elite's blueprint for utopia, will side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success, out of a sense of justice. As I said at the beginning, they're not evil. It's just a mindless acceptance without any true Socratic desire to talk about the real consequences. It's meaningless to them, and it's why John Lennon said utopia was all the people living for today.

By the way, it's not a coincidence that those who live for today now have so much debt. What is debt? It's the failure to repay a promise from yesterday. And they vote themselves nothing but more and more entitlements, which is what? Stuff for me. I'll worry about who pays for it later.

The same is true of good and evil. Since nothing can deemed good, nothing can be deemed evil. That which society does recognize as good must be the beneficiary of some sort of prejudice. That which society recognizes as evil must be the victim of that prejudice. So, again, the mindless foot soldier will invariably side with whatever policy, mindlessly accept whatever policy seeks to tear down what is good--America, Israel, Wal-Mart--and elevate what is evil until everything meets in the middle and there is nothing left to fight about.

Take an issue in the news and think like a Mod­ern Liberal, and you will see how, once you've been indoctrinated into this mindset, there is no other choice. Remember, I said it was inevitable. Once you belong to this cult of indiscriminateness, there is no other conclusion you can come to than that good is evil and that evil is the victim of good.

We all know it's official policy at the Leftist media outlets to never call Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, Hezbol­lah, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, or any of the oth­er Islamic fascist terrorist groups around the world "terrorists," and you know why. In fact, it's even in official memos to reporters ordering them not to use the appropriate word. That reason is that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are we to employ critical, rational judgment?"

But, as a very minimum standard, can't we at least agree that in order to be called a "freedom fighter," you have to be fighting for freedom? We know what Osama bin Laden is fighting for; he's told us. It's not freedom; it's an oppressive theocracy in which women are covered from head to toe and beaten if their ankles become exposed, and unless we all change to his religion, we are considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys to be decapitated. People like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore will call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter because being indiscriminate quite literally leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom and having your head hacked off. That's how sick this mentality is.

So, if The New York Times and CNN and News­week and the rest of the leftist media outlets are right and there is no objective difference between the ter­rorist and the freedom fighter, why is it that you and I teach our children that George Washington is a hero and Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are vil­lains? You and I know why because we think.

George Washington risked his personal fortune to personally lead his troops into battle: battles fought nobly against other uniformed warriors for the purpose of creating the freest nation in the his­tory of the world. Pretty noble, pretty heroic stuff. Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, stole his people's money, sent 14-year-olds out to fight his battles: battles fought against kids and women and civilians in pizza parlors and Passover ceremonies, all for the purpose of maintaining his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty villainous stuff.

But to the folks at The New York Times, there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter. So why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero? The only possible explanation is that he is a white Christian of Euro­pean descent. If there is no difference between the behaviors of the freedom fighters and the terrorists, then why do we teach that Yasser Arafat and Sadd­am Hussein are villains? There can be no other rea­son than they are darker-skinned Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.

So when push comes to shove and after 18 Unit­ed Nations resolutions and 10 years of having our airplanes shot at in direct violation of our very clear agreements, after Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia and bombed Israel, committed atrocities against the Kurds in the North and was committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the South, we finally, reluctantly go to war to liberate those poor people. You and I know why because we think: because we make critical, rational, moral judgments.

But to the Modern Liberal, to the mindless, to those who cannot discriminate between these behaviors, the only possible explanation for us going to war is some nefarious cause: because we're evil and Saddam Hussein, therefore, is a victim. So they will rush there, as we've seen, and act as human shields to protect his rape rooms and his tor­ture chambers because they won't judge rape rooms and torture chambers, for that requires critical and moral judgment.

And if you listened to the chants of the mindless minions as they marched down the streets in their anti-America rallies, which the forged document users and the Leftist press euphemistically called "anti-war rallies," you could hear their chant: "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war." What race, exactly, comprises Iraq? What are they talking about? They don't know. It's not a factual statement; it's not an accurate statement. Didn't we just recently go to war to protect Muslims in Kuwait? Didn't we bomb the Christians of Europe to protect the Muslims of Europe?

What is this based on? It's based on the reality that once you subscribe to indiscriminateness, any­thing other than indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.

Questions and Answers

QUESTION: You repeatedly used the term "Modern Liberal." When you go back in time, how do you view other definitions of "liberal" religiously, as when liberals were called "bleeding hearts" relat­ed to Jesus Christ, and in classical intellectual thought? I know a lot of Libertarians today like to call themselves liberal in the classical sense. How do you view Modern Liberalism with past liberalism?

MR. SAYET: Normally I would refer to the dif­ference between upper-case "L" and lower-case "l." I refer to these people as Modern Liberals because it did come out of what we thought was the liberal tra­dition but went in a new direction. What they are now is very different from what they were. In fact, Modern Liberalism--upper-case "L" - is about as illiberal a philosophy as we've had in America, and though it's not quite yet gotten as violent as some others have, I fear that it's on its way.

As you go back through time, there was always the sense that we were trying to work toward some­thing; there was a belief that there was something better than what came before. This Modern Liberal­ism is nihilism in a lot of ways. They will constantly argue, "question authority, question your govern­ment, don't trust your neighbors, don't trust Wal-Mart, everybody's out to get you," but they don't really replace it with anything. So there is nothing to aim for that you can make a judgment whether that's truly a good thing to do.

I think that, more than anything else, Modern Liberalism is characterized by its destructive nature. It tears down the authority of people in the schools, the authority of the old textbooks, the heroism of the people we would look up to and teach our chil­dren to look up to, but replaces it with nothing.

QUESTION: Do you have any more commen­tary on the past liberals? Do you respect liberals in the past?

MR. SAYET: There was always a liberal tradition in America, starting with the Founding Fathers and prior to them. It's very, very, very rare that the major­ity would cede so many rights and recognize that the rights came to everybody and that they didn't come from the powers here but came from a greater power than ourselves. The power that minorities have in America and have always had in America-- and I include myself as a Jew amongst the minori­ties--is unprecedented in human history, and that was true liberalism: the fact that it wasn't forced upon people.

The things that are happening now, like losing free speech in our schools, are the opposite of what liberalism was. Some of the same values that were liberal back in the '60s are conservative now. I'll give as an example a color-blind society. That remains a liberal concept; unfortunately, it's not liberal from a Modern Liberal--upper-case "L"--point of view.

QUESTION: Owen Graham, foreign policy intern here at Heritage. I think you've come to the nexus of what we as conservatives confront, because it really is a revolution. As Bloom puts it, it's chang­ing everything from a right society to the privileging of differences and the lack of being capable of mak­ing decisions based on principles. The only princi­ple is that you can't discriminate against anything.

MR. SAYET: Indiscriminateness of thought doesn't just lead to sometimes being right; it actual­ly is a philosophy that has an inevitable conclusion. Bloom talks about "seeking the good," and that's what we try to do. It doesn't mean we're always right, doesn't mean we always get there, doesn't mean we don't stumble along the way; but without a recognition of good, then how do you progress toward good?

Which puts the lie to the concept that Modern Liberalism is progressive in any fashion. If they have nothing to progress toward, if there is no good, then they are forcing every single generation not only to reinvent the wheel, but to fight every battle we've ever fought to get to this great nation, this great time that we're in.

QUESTION: I thank you, and I hope that you are counseling some of the conservative candidates to bring this up, because it has permeated everything.

MR. SAYET: It's quite literally everything. That's why I didn't hesitate at the beginning to say it is the only standard in Hollywood, the only standard for journalism, the only standard for art, the only stan­dard for justice.

One of the big canards of Modern Liberalism is this notion of diversity, as if diversity is a virtue. Diversity is not a virtue; diversity is meaningless. Diversity just means "different." Without the critical moral judgment to say, "Yes, it's different and good," you're not only not supporting good, but you are invariably supporting evil.

Our melting pot melted out some of the failed behaviors, some of the lesser behaviors. That's how we became such a terrific nation: by taking the best and leaving aside the rest. That makes the bad behaviors rare in our society, so to be diverse you have to promote that which is rare. Common sense and conventional wisdom are both rejected for no other reason than that they're common and conven­tional. So you find, again, the Modern Liberal championing always that which is the worst.

QUESTION: Alan Nichols from Washington Dip­lomat magazine. If Hillary Clinton were sitting here listening to you, trying to be open to you--assum­ing she's capable--she would say, "You have a per­spective, but I also am working toward the good." You say liberals don't work toward the good, but Hillary would say, "I want universal health care because I believe it is best for America's citizens."

MR. SAYET: Absolutely. I really did try to stress at the beginning that I don't necessarily consider them evil. I absolutely believe that they believe that they are working toward "the good." The problem is that you've eliminated critical, rational judgment; you've eliminated the ability to tell the difference between what works and what doesn't work; you're coming from the mindset of a five-year-old.

When I was five years old, the New York World's Fair closed up in my neighborhood, down the street from me, and I insisted that my father buy the monorail that went around the park because I want­ed to put it up alongside the Long Island Express­way and ease congestion and pollution because I was a liberal kid. He explained to me in grown-up fashion that we couldn't afford it and, technically, there were problems like getting the rights of way, creating a bureaucracy, etc.

When you have a conversation with a Modern Liberal about health care, there's no doubt that their goal is as good as mine was: curing air pollu­tion or curing everybody's health problems. But if you don't have the grown-up sense to be able to discuss how, what's the reality, what's the truth, you can't have a conversation where you make the world a better place. It's all fantasy at that point. Again, you're dealing with a five-year-old, so of course she wants to make the world a better place. Very, very few of us don't.

It's a matter of having given up the ability to dis­criminate: (a) they can't bring it about because it's a childish conversation; and (b) when you have to make the decisions about who gets certain things-- for example, health care, welfare, or illegal aliens-- certain decisions have to be made about who quali­fies for it, and when you're just going through indis­criminately giving all these benefits, then you're actually going to be assisting that which is most failed because they're the ones who are going to be most in need.

QUESTION: Global warming and Al Gore?

MR. SAYET: I am convinced that global warm­ing is not a position they have arrived at through an honest and sincere look at the scientific data and the recognition that these models--look, we don't even trust models of weather three days down the road on the nightly news, but we're going to trust this one for 50 years down the road? I don't think it's an honest attempt to understand global warming.

In one fell swoop, you can turn America from the greatest nation in the history of the world--our pro­ductivity feeds the world--into the most evil nation in the history of the world. The idea that we're destroying the world is accepted more because it's an attack on America as evil polluters than it is because it's scientifically supported.

QUESTION: Since you're here from Hollywood, let's talk about the future. There are conservatives in Hollywood; they just don't want to put their heads out of the hole in the ground. Where do you see us getting to the tipping point, or where can we get along the road of retaking?

MR. SAYET: Let me tie those two questions together very quickly. One of the things that conser­vatives recognize is that the answer to problems is progress, and fortunately, technological progress has seen the conservatives find alternative methods.

Back in the studio day, you needed to work at the studio, and there was no place else to go; but now you have a Mel Gibson who can find unique ways of distributing and promoting, and there's the Liberty Film Festival that my friends run and whatnot. I am able to promote my shows via the Internet and through all kinds of technologies that would have made it impossible just five or seven or ten years ago. So as more and more channels come on cable, you're going to have more and more opportunities for unique voices, and because we are so incredibly right, they find us.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the term "pro­gressivism," how that sort of replaced liberalism in a lot of ways as the new way they talk about them­selves and what it means to be a progressive?

MR. SAYET: What I find interesting is how often what the Liberal claims about himself is exactly the opposite of what the truth is. Chris Matthews has this show called "Hardball," as if the title is going to tell us what the show really is when it's really quite the opposite. They've come to recognize that people recognize Liberalism in its modern form as the pol­icies that have failed our schools, the policies that have failed us as a nation, the policies that have done so little to help the black community to get out of the rut that it's been in for the last 40 years in some ways--and that it is a pejorative.

It's funny, because the Liberals very much recog­nize themselves. I remember watching "Hannity & Colmes," and Sean Hannity said of Nancy Pelosi that she's a San Francisco liberal, and immediately Alan Colmes yelled at him that he was trying to demonize her. How do you demonize someone by stating the facts?

So suddenly they decide, "Okay, people have caught onto us about Liberalism; now let's call ourselves progressive. We won't be progressive in the slightest. It's just a name. It's just an adver­tising slogan."

[American Patriot]

Progressives Strut Their Stuff
The Fifth Column A.J. DiCintio, Featured WriterFebruary 11, 2008
Since you must be wondering what the “Progressives” are all about, let me begin by quoting Mark Twain’s King, whose explanation of this term favored by Hillary Clinton has never been equaled: “I say Progressive, not because it’s the common term, because it ain’t – Liberal bein’ the common term – but because Progressive is the right term. Liberal ain’t used in the Northeast and West Coasts no more now – it’s gone out. We say Progressive because it means the thing you’re after more exact. It’s a word that’s made up from the Latin PRO, front, forward; and RECTUS, rear, behind. So, you see, a Progressive is a person that looks like he’s talkin’ out the front when he’s (or she’s) really talkin’ out his, er, back end.” Now, on to what stuff Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California Progressives strutted on Super Tuesday. I begin in The Bay State, home to Ted Kennedy (who, with Jimmy Carter, shares the title of “America’s Moral Laureate”); Harvard (that world renown bastion of free speech and academic freedom); and the Massachusetts Legislature (so much a paragon of wisdom and morality that it routinely ignores citizens’ petitions for amendments to the state constitution). And don’t forget the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which has said it is ready to take Liberal Judicial Activism to the “next level” by claiming the power to decide whether a constitutional amendment duly approved by the people is “constitutional” or not. Now, Bay State Progressives like to drone on and on not only that their politics is “local” (a big digging lie) but also that it is guided exclusively by purely secular reason: ...a reason that bows to rank political expediency in denying racism injected into a political campaign by an ex-president and his would-be president wife ...a reason that frets not a bit when an ex-president fills the joint checkbook he shares with his would-be president wife with tens of millions and stuffs the coffers of his library and foundation with hundreds of millions of mostly secret dollars stained by enormous conflicts of interest and outright shady dealings ...a reason alleged to love all things new, fresh, inspiring, and hopeful. So, how did these Bay State Progressives vote in the Democratic presidential primary? With a dogmatic solemnity worthy of their Puritan ancestors, they gave a resounding “yes” to the establishment of a Clintonian theocracy by handing a smashing victory to the Clinton Machine and Hillary Clinton, a woman who, by virtue of the dour, angry, secretive, hypocritical, dictatorial, dark side of her character and personality, would have been perfectly suited "on day one" to assume leadership of the Bay Colony of old. I now travel to New York, where highly sophisticated but street smart Progressives love to brag they can spot a fraud (whether dissembling on the sidewalk, stealing in the boardroom, or swindling in political office) a mile away. Moreover, whether they wear a black dress and dark suit as they drink in sumptuous homes far above terra firma in Manhattan, drive home to drink on ground level in the lavish Hamptons or Cheever Country north of The City, or live more modestly in the state’s Western and Northern regions, when it comes to their politics, New York Progressives pretty much “look like” and “sound like” their hypocritical Red Sox cheering counterparts. (In fairness it must be said that hypocrisy doesn't taint the state's Progressive attorney general, who, taking his cue from Hill and Bill, was as up-front as he could be with his racism when he “educated” the entire nation by lecturing us that in this modern age, a candidate, actually, you know who, can’t simply “shuck and jive.”) So, no surprise that people who wouldn’t be caught dead wearing something “so yesterday” celebrated election day by slipping big red apples on Hillary’s brown, pandering desk in Chappaqua and her formerly necessary but now expendable (and completely broken) black one in Bill’s Harlem office. Of New Jersey’s obeisance to Hillary Clinton, I must say sadly that the Progressives of the Garden State have become so jaded of mind and spirit (most likely owing to the Progressive-created incubus that is the $30 billion state debt they must bear) as to make Italy’s voters look wildly optimistic and vibrantly innovative. Having given up after planting only 25 of the 25,000 trees California Progressives require to be planted by every visitor who jets into the Golden State (50,000 if driving in from the East Coast), I, like so many others, entered California “undocumented” but still found an entire bureaucracy eager to provide results of the state’s primary. But first, know this. Although California Progressives look and sound a lot like their Right Coast fellows, there is a huge difference: They are residents of a state that is more like a nation. Therefore, if only because of their huge numbers, they blow away even the French when it comes to pretending to “look like” the future and “sound like” the most individualistic, high-tech, Hollywood hip, socially conscious, environmentally sensitive, optimistic, creative, least stuck-in-the-political-or-any-other-kind-of-mud group of people in the entire galaxy. So, they, too, lined up like lemmings to give Hillary a big, fat win. Now that I’m home again, I have had time to contrast the voting of Democrats in states from independent Connecticut to Liberal Minnesota to show me Missouri to libertarian Idaho to self-sufficient Alaska with that of their “Progressive” friends in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California. Having finished contrasting, I once again borrow from Mark Twain (this time from the Duke) to construct a warning for anyone who even thinks about bending my ear about the sublime qualities possessed by the latter group. The warning is this: “Don’t you dare Pergressive me no more brave, honest, independent, sophisticated, forward-thinking Pergressives long as you live! Don’t you dare — long as you live!”
A.J. DiCintio is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up. Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and polished by experience, to social/political affairs.

[American Patriot]

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/...8/02112008.htm

Link for above.

[American Patriot]

True Left: 'You're off the air after we win'

WTKK | 2/11/08


Posted on 02/11/2008 2:02:28 PM MST by pabianice


Just on the Jay Severin Show, WTKK Radio, Boston...


A self-described 24-year-old Obama supporter called Severin on the topic of the presidential campaign. The young man waxed at length about how in this election cycle the 18-29-year-old age group would be voting, for the first time, in enormous numbers. Enormous enough, in fact, to assure a victory for Obama. Severin countered that this group's huge turnout had never happened before and he doubted that it would happen now. The caller then started getting warmed-up, insulting Severin in particular, and conservatives in general as "old" and "on the way out." Severin countered calmly, which just enraged this peace-loving Obama supporter.



The caller then spooled-up into a rant about the end of "old conservatives" in favor of the new, hip, 18-29-year olds (I couldn't help but flash to 'Wild in the Streets'). The caller finished by promising that, when his side won, Severin would be out of a job after the Young Left used their power to pull his show from the radio.


In all, a great look into a large part of Obama's support and what the Left is simmering over these days.

[Brian Baldwin]

Yale Art Student Claims She Used Blood Samples, Video of Self-Induced Abortions for Senior Project

A Yale student who claims she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project says she will showcase the stomach-turning display next week — complete with her own blood samples and videos from the terminated possible pregnancies.
The story of art major Aliza Shvarts' upcoming exhibit, which the Yale Daily News broke Thursday, has sparked widespread disgust and outrage.
"It’s clearly depraved. I think the poor woman has got some major mental problems," said National Right to Life Committee President Wanda Franz. "She’s a serial killer. This is just a horrible thought."
Critics on campus have said the display sounds like a shock-and-awe look at the highly sensitive issue of abortion and called it a sick stunt to get attention. The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America also condemned the exhibit.
"This 'project' is offensive and insensitive to the women who have suffered the heartbreak of miscarriage," said NARAL's communication director Ted Miller in a statement.
But Shvarts said the goal of the project is to encourage debate and discussion about the connection between art and the human body.
"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts, whose age was withheld, told Yale's newspaper. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."
The senior's campus phone has been disconnected, and she did not respond to e-mailed requests for an interview. Yale University also didn't return calls seeking comment.
Shvarts told the school paper that her sperm donors, whom she declined to identify, were not paid for their participation but added that she did require them to be screened for STDs.
The drugs she took to induce contractions and miscarriages were legal and herbal in nature, according to Shvarts — who didn't specify what they were. The art major insisted she wasn't concerned about the effects of her research on her own body.
But ob-gyn Dr. Manuel Alvarez, FOXNews.com's health managing editor, said the young woman should have been worried because what she was doing was extremely unsafe.
"It’s quite dangerous," Alvarez said. "She was playing Russian roulette with her life, if she indeed did this to these unborn children for the sake of art. I don’t even have the words to express the disbelief that I have."
Alvarez said herbal remedies to trigger uterine contractions have long been used in countries where abortions are illegal — including certain raspberry teas and strong cinnamon teas — but they are far from consistently effective, and they tend to be risky.
"They interfere with pregnancy and are either toxic to the fetus or cause contractions," he explained. "The reason they are effective is that they create side effects, but none of them are 100 percent prescriptive to be abortive."
Shvarts wouldn't say how many times she was artificially inseminated and actually got pregnant for the project — which she described to the Yale paper as a huge cube hanging from the ceiling and swathed in plastic sheeting smeared with her blood from the reported miscarriages. The existence and number of pregnancies Shvarts may have had weren't independently confirmed.
Videos taken of what the college student says were self-induced abortions in her bathtub will be projected both on the cube's sides and on the gallery walls.
The exhibit will be on public display from April 22 to May 1 at Yale's Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall. Shvarts will be honored at a reception April 25.
Franz likened Shvarts' process of artificial insemination and induced miscarriages to the human experimentation that took place during the Holocaust. She said the Yale senior's work highlights a stark truth about American society's approach to abortion.
"She really has hit on a reality that what she has done is legal," Franz said. "Anything she chooses to do here can’t be stopped in terms of legality. And there are people fighting for her right to do this."
Alvarez believes such an endeavor in the name of art is offensive, harmful and insensitive, especially to women who face difficult choices about pregnancy or who aren't able to conceive.
"Anybody who trivializes a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy is really not contributing anything positive to these matters," he said. "I don’t see anything artistic about this. ... It’s completely unethical and immoral. What have we accomplished? Absolutely nothing."

This is why there should be laws regulating this. I'm against doing away with abortion altogether but I certainly think this crosses the line and is a good example of Liberal thinking.

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

Link to the above. Sorry.

[Ryan Ruck]

WHAT. THE. FUCK.


This "woman" (in quotes because no real human could conceivably do this) should be charged with murder just as those who DWI can be charged with two counts of murder when a woman and unborn baby are killed because of their actions. At the very least, she should be institutionalized for severe mental health issues.

You know you are a real shitstain when even NARAL calls you a turd.

[American Patriot]

wow. just... wow.

[Toad]

That is seriously f-ed up.

[American Patriot]

A lot of VERY interesting dollar talk.....


This email comes in three parts:

Part 1

In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?

Thought you might like to read the following:

A little over one year ago:


1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.


Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:


1) Consumer confidence plummet;

2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);

5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;

6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.


America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!


Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

Quote of the Day........"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama


Part 2:

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.

www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates

It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.

PART 3:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?

Read this:

Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it

is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again

until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I

have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens

each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs

such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school

education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the

American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &

social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:

http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused

by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate

that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,

their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens

that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens

from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin

and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total

cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average

cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."

Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...eportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances

back to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million

Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States."

Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.



Why are we THAT stupid?

If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other

hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you

forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in

Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore

some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352498,00.html

A man heckling First Lady Laura Bush and daughter Jenna outside the 92nd Street Y was arrested after he punched a wheelchair-bound girl whose parents had told him to shut up, authorities said Wednesday.

German Talis, 22, was shouting obscenities at the Bushes, who were leaving the building Tuesday, when he crossed paths with Wendy and John Lovetro and their daughter Maureen, 18, who has cerebral palsy.
They had been in the audience to hear the Bushes talk about their children's book, "Read All About It."

"He began yelling about Iraq and Iran at Jenna Bush. She was waving at the crowd. I told the guy, 'What are you doing? Shut up. This is about a child and books,' " said John Lovetro. "He was unperturbed. I said, 'Get out of here! You're being a moron!' "

The next thing he knew, Talis was allegedly punching Maureen, a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004.

[Ryan Ruck]

Hooray for Liberal Tolerance and Compassion™!

[American Patriot]

Why the Fk wasn't he tasered until he pissed his pants and then beaten shitless by the dad?

I'll tell you what, had that been MY daughter or son in the wheel chair, he'd have been a fucking dead mother....

ok. I feel better now

[American Patriot]

How crypto-Marxism won the Cold War
American Thinker ^ | May 23, 2008 | James Lewis

Today, for the first time in American history we have two --- count 'em, two --- hard-core Leftists running for the Democrat Party nomination. The Left hasn't had this kind of chance for power since Truman defeated Henry Wallace in 1948. Hillary and Obama are Marx twins who only differ in race and gender.

All the media tell us is how great it is to have a woman and a black man running for president. What those two really believe, where they learned their quasi-religion, where they derive their support, who else they want to raise to power, and what they will do if they get there --- all that doesn't even get discussed. All over the world, Leftist hearts are leaping at Hillarybama. What exciting progress!

Wait a minute. Marxism lost the Cold War, right? The Soviet Empire came down, Eastern Europe was liberated, China is now semi-capitalist, and post-socialist countries like India are thriving like never before. More of the world is prospering, because economic and political freedoms have spread since the USSR crumbled. Even Russia has a low, flat tax to encourage free markets. Indigenous talents and enterprise are finally being liberated, and the results are wonderful for hundreds of millions of people.

Liberals are upset today because free-market economies are growing too fast, and are therefore polluting an unsullied Mamma Earth. Tens of millions of ordinary people in China and India are doing too well. The elites seem to yearn for the good old days --- the famines in India, the massacres in Russia and China --- and that wonderful sense of being in charge of human progress.

And yet ... in spite of years and years Leftist catastrophes, our organs of propaganda are still tilting drunkenly to the Left. Crypto-Marxism, a barely disguised revival of the old farce, is flourishing in our chattering classes. The prestige that Marxism lost in the real world soon came back in fantasy. Oh, if people only loved one another! Oh, if people only cared! Oh, if we only had real solidarity with the wretched of the earth! That's the feel-good story. But the real yearning is for power: Oh, if only people like us were in charge of everything.

In Britain, under the daily pounding of the Bolshie Beeb, the most admired "philosopher" of all time is now ... blood-dripping old Karl Marx. Freedom is routinely trashed; thieving tyrants like Hugo Chavez are celebrated.

"Crypto Marxism" --- crypto meaning "hidden" --- is a useful word to describe what's happened in the last twenty years. Because as soon as the Soviet Union crumbled, a host of barely disguised post-Marxist ideologies grabbed the microphones: the Green Movement, now furiously peddling global warming fraud; Third Way socialism in Europe, trying to hitch the welfare wagon to free markets; the European Union, a new autocracy of unelected committees, exactly what the USSR used to call "workers' Soviets"; the unbelievably corrupt, bigoted and self-serving United Nations; and all over the academic world, an explosion of anti-Western and anti-democratic fads like Post-Modernism, Multi-Culturalism, Deconstructionism, Feminism, anti-Zionism, Black Liberation Theology and other repackaged Marx imitations. It was a triumph of image-making and marketing.

Today, crypto-Marxism dominates our political discourse. It's wild --- just as if Nazi goose stepping had became a popular sport after World War Two, instead of the hula-hoop. The Nazis were horrific in their thirteen years in power. The Marxists had seventy years in the Soviet Union, and managed to kill 100 million people according to Marxist historians themselves. But here we are, twenty years later, and all that is deliberated wiped from our minds.

So --- who won the seventy-year struggle of the Cold War? We did in reality. The good guys really did triumph, and in the most profound way, going by Sun Tzu's Art of War --- not by waging a mega-war, but by constant political pressure, by far outrunning Marxist regimes economically, and by a spontaneous revulsion from within the Soviet Empire itself. Yet we fought many small wars --- and two large, bloody and unpopular ones, in Korea and Vietnam. The United States and a few allies faced down numerous Marxist threats in a very determined way. It was a huge test of our will to live and win.

And yet, today the New York Times makes a boutique specialty out of writing loving obits for flaming Old Reds, when they finally sputter out and die. No one on the American Left has ever expressed public sorrow for the estimated 100 million people killed by Marxist murderocracies; after all, they were murdered for "idealistic" reason. The crumbling of the Soviet Empire simply made it possible for the Left to walk away from Darth Vader and the Evil Empire. Soviet Union? Never heard of it.

As Rush Limbaugh often says, conservatives stopped teaching when the Soviet Union fell. Marxists, on the other hand, just accelerated their propaganda. Privately they mourned the "idealistic" experiment of the Soviet Union --- never confessing their own, whole-hearted participation in unrelenting evil. The Boomer Lefties rose to power in the 1970s, and they were not going to sacrifice their religiomania just because all the Marxist nations walked away from Marx. (Except for North Korea, which is still as murderously Stalinist as ever.)

In fact, without the Soviets our hard-core Leftists were no longer agents of a foreign power --- as the KGB archives showed that many of them were during decades of Moscow's control. So they could pretend to be running different "idealistic" movements: Red changed to Green, but that was it. The mainstream media learned to peddle that old Daily Worker agitprop instead of real news, until talk radio and the web broke the media monopoly, and conservatism revived. In Europe this is only barely beginning to happen.

Since 9/11 the Left has been telling itself how really patriotic it is --- providing that you redefine patriotism as internationalism, just like the old CP USA. And of course, the vitally important history of the Cold War is being written by the hard-core Left. It's just as if the Confederate South controlled the history of the Civil War.

Senator Joe Lieberman's fate shows what has happens to centrist Democrats: They are all but thrown out for deviationism, which is exactly what Josef Stalin used to do with the CP USA.

Both Obama and Hillary grew up on the Alinsky Left, which only a theologian can tell from orthodox Marxism. Coming out of Yale Law, Hillary joined a crypto Marxist law outfit in Oakland, California. David Horowitz, who was part of that world until he recovered his moral center, has been pretty clear about the real roots and goals of that Greater Berkeley network.

The triumph of crypto-Marxism is not just weird, it's dangerous. The Reds haven't changed. They have just metastatized: That is why we are now so vulnerable to the next wave of totalitarianism, the Islamofascist kind. The long struggle of Western civilization against bloody tyranny is being covered up. The very real danger of new totalitarianism is being dismissed.

We have to start teaching again from scratch.

Well, that's how it is.

Note to conservatives: You don't win a war until the histories are written.

Roll up your sleeves and go to it. There's work to do.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

[American Patriot]

Friday, June 27, 2008

Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe
By John Hawkins




Once you've watched liberals long enough to understand how they think -- scratch that, how they feel -- they become extraordinarily predictable.


To begin with, the liberal agenda is, in many respects, the same as it was in the thirties. Whether you call it communism, fascism, socialism, liberalism, or progressivism, the only real difference is how much they believe they can get away with, the way they sell it to people, and the latest trendy name for what they believe.


So, once the liberals pick a policy from their stale program to push, the next step is to get it implemented. This is where liberals have problems because whether a policy makes sense, is practical, or actually improves people's lives is of secondary importance to them. What is important to liberals is whether supporting or opposing that policy makes them feel good about themselves.


This is why liberals continue to support dysfunctional policies that have been failing miserably for decades and why they often oppose common sense programs that have been proven to work time and time again -- because it isn't about whether it works or not, it's about how it makes them feel.


In other words, a liberal will almost always prefer a policy that's extremely expensive, is difficult to implement, helps almost no one, but seems "nice" -- to a policy that is cheap, simple to implement, extremely effective, and seems "mean."


However, since most Americans make decisions about policies based on whether or not they believe the policy makes people's lives better or worse, liberals have had to become habitually dishonest about what they believe and want to do to get their ideas put into action.


This is a point worth stressing because many people who aren't familiar with politics believe that conservatives and liberals are simply flip sides of the same coin and therefore, approach issues the same way. However, conservatives genuinely believe that this is a center-right country. That's why conservatives have no qualms about being publicly labeled as conservatives and it's part of the reason why we're much more honest than the Left -- because we believe that a majority of the American people generally agree with us and share our values.


So, those of us on the Right spend our time trying to explain to the American people what we really want to do, while the Left spends its time trying to hide what it really wants to do from the American people.


Because of this, when liberals don't feel that the political winds are blowing in their direction, not only will they generally avoid discussing the things they believe, they will typically deny that they believe them at all.


Additionally, liberals go to bizarre lengths to tilt the political playing field in their favor. They move into the mainstream media so that they can tip what are supposed to be "objective" news stories in their favor.


They get into positions of power in our educational system so that they can teach kids liberal propaganda before they're old enough to know better. They uniformly support judges who care nothing about the Constitution as long as it moves liberal ideological goals forward. Even the Left's support of illegal immigration is rooted in the desire to bring in millions of poor people from socialist countries who are more likely to vote Democratic. If they can't convince the American voters they're right, then they'll just bring in some new voters.


More disturbing is the Left's ever-increasing reliance on what are commonly thought of as fascist tactics. Liberals at college campuses attempt to disrupt conservative speeches and the Democrats want to try to drive conservative talk radio hosts off the air with the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives like Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter have been targeted criminally for political reasons and there's even talk of trying to jail members of the Bush Administration over policy differences after they're out of office. Ideological soulmates of modern liberals -- like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao -- would certainly approve of those tactics.


Still, even though this is a center-right country, we do have political cycles and there are times when those cycles favor the Left. When that happens and the Lefties start to get a bit more confident, usually a few liberals at the edges will start talking about what they want to do. At that early point, most other liberals will still vehemently deny their ideological goals to the public out of fear that it will prevent them from getting into power.


However, when the Left gains enough strength to be capable of getting one of the policies they favor implemented, all the liberals who previously denied that they supported it will unapologetically shift on a dime and vote for it en masse -- while they rely on their ideological allies in the media and the fact that many Americans are ill informed about politics to cover their tracks.


So, if you want to know what liberals want to do, their words mean absolutely nothing because lying about their agenda has become as natural to them as chasing a cat is to a dog.


Instead, what you have to do is watch what other liberals have done when they have come into power. Look at Canada, where conservatives are being put on trial for hate crimes because they've dared to criticize Muslims. Look at European countries, where they have socialistic economies, sky high tax rates, rigid speech codes, and overweening nannystates. You can even look at liberal enclaves in the United States like Berkeley and San Francisco, where members of the military are treated like pariahs and they boo the national anthem.


If you believe the liberals in Berkeley, France, Canada or for that matter in the bowels of the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, are significantly different than, say Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, you are kidding yourself. The only differences are in what they think they can get away with and how honest they are willing to be about their agenda.

[American Patriot]

Southern California to kiss wood fireplaces goodbye starting this September
South Coast AQMD ^ | 3/7/8

RULE 445. WOOD BURNING DEVICES
(a) Purpose
The purpose of this rule is to reduce the emission of particulate matter from wood burning devices.

(c) Definitions
(4) FIREPLACE means any permanently installed masonry or factory-built device used for aesthetic or space-heating purposes and designed to operate with an air-to-fuel ratio greater than or equal to 35-to-1.
(18) WOOD BURNING DEVICE means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr).

(d) Requirements
(1) No person shall install a permanently installed wood burning device into any new development.
(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (d)(1), effective September 8, 2008, no person shall sell, offer for sale, supply, or install, a new or used permanently installed indoor or outdoor wood burning device or gaseous-fueled device unless it is one of the following:
(A) A U.S. EPA Phase II-Certified wood burning heater; or
(B) A pellet-fueled wood burning heater; or
(C) A masonry heater; or
(D) A wood burning device or fireplace determined to meet the U.S.
EPA particulate matter emission standard established by Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart AAA, February 28, 1988 or subsequent revisions; or
(E) A dedicated gaseous-fueled fireplace.

(h) Penalties
Any person that violates the provisions of subdivision (e) is subject to the following:
(1) For first time violators during each wood burning season, attendance at a wood smoke awareness course that has been approved by the Executive Officer or payment of a penalty of $50;
(2) For second time violators during each wood burning season, payment of a penalty of $150 or submission of proof of installation of a dedicated gaseous-fueled fireplace within 90 days after receiving the notice of violation; and
(3) For third time violators during each wood burning season, payment of a penalty of $500 or implementation of an environmentally beneficial project as derived through the mutual settlement process.

[American Patriot]

Left Wing Radio Host Attacks Rush And Listeners On Fox(VIDEO)
Eyeblast ^ | 7/2/08 | FOX


Left-wing radio host Mike Papantonio attacked Rush Limbaugh and his audience, saying that Limbaugh promoted "nut-talk journalism." Papantonio also alluded to Limbaugh's struggle with Oxycontin.
VIDEO

[American Patriot]

GOOGLE REMOVES ATLAS HAGEE VIDEOS
atlas shrugs 2000 ^ | july 1, 2008 | pamela geller GOOGLE REMOVES ATLAS HAGEE VIDEOS
As bloggers continue to slog through increasing regulation, scrutiny and in some cases deletion (here) I received this from google (big brother, busy suspending anti-Obama blogs).


Youtube removed my Hagee video(s)( three 9 minute videos of of the his AIPAC speech - that great inspiring speech from AIPAC 2007. They cited copyright infringement. Whose? There were 6,000 people there.


And it was such a great speech. "Israel you are not alone" listen to it here. (You know Atlas is always one step ahead Download JohnHageeAIPACSpeech-all-20min.mp3 (I love Hagee, what a friend Israel has. My only regret is that no one will be able to see that wonderful speech.)


Oh and they said - any other infringement and they will delete my account and all of my videos. I am beyond caring at this point

(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com ...

[American Patriot]

Also posted in that thread at FR:

HEADS UP, AMERICA!

In case you aren't aware, there is a concerted effort going on...sneakily...under-the-radar...to shut down the blogs as well as our videos access.My friend Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs is posting what's currently happening. We all need to publicize this.

Recently, I was forced to remove two videos from the ISA(Islamic Saudi Academy) protest in Fairfax, Va.(as well as a Gathering of Eagles video of the family in Pennsylvania being assaulted) Until the ISA videos I have had many videos get high volume hits (Cindy Sheehan videos in particular as I followed her around the city) Not a peep from MotionBox until the ISA videos.

I am done downloading copies of my videos OFF motionbox (doing screen shots of each folder) I was given a reprieve as long as I removed the offending videos,BUT, I was told they would be watching my account....(Big Brother is alive!) I'm prepared to be shut down. I expect that.

FYI- In the process of my downloading I found a Cindy Sheehan video that had over 24,000!! hits. Can't figure that out since it wasn't one of the more interesting videos I took of her. I had many videos that Atlas Shrugs posted in the past year that got upwards of 5,000 hits etc... The ISA vids (the 2 they made me remove)one in particular had over 11,000.

We ALL know what probably happened. It had to be CAIR...someone like that who put the screws to them. Atlas is sure that's why they came down on her a few months ago.

It's getting worse, America.

Here's the link to Atlas' report.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...e-removes.html Read all the way to the bottom for updates.

Conservative blogs are being shut down ....slowly but surely for 'violations'.Some of us have already lost our video accounts. (they don't like our content) What happened to Freedom of Speech?

What's next...the internet?!

PLEASE. Post or email if YOU or anyone you know of has had similar experiences.WE MUST get this info "out there". ATLAS is doing that for us. It's so important!!

We must NOT BE MADE SILENT!!

Pamela H.
1 posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:34:03 AM by boo-boo kitty