KNUCKLE DRAGGING RACISTS

In his recent column Is racism behind the tea party movement? Leonard Pitts claims to have figured out the true motivation behind the Tea Partiers. He used a commentary by Keith Olbermann to demonstrate the depth of his analysis. Swell! Lefty columnists citing lefty commentators. These are the same morons that can’t figure out why the main stream media is in the toilet! Olbermann thinks the tea party movement is nothing more than “the outcry of people who haven’t yet made peace with fact that their president is black.” Note to Mr. Pitts – you should only watch Olbermann when properly medicated so as to prevent any chance of remembering any of the stupid things he says. Anyway, Pitts doesn’t think that Olbermann’s argument is wrong, just incomplete

“The truth, it always seemed to me, was more nuanced. People liked Obama’s policies, his eloquence and his fierce intelligence, and the fact that he was black was a desirable bonus, but only that – icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I submit a rough inverse of that dynamic now helps define the tea party movement.

The tea party people distrust Obama’s policies, his eloquence, his fierce intelligence and the fact that he is black then becomes the final straw, the difference maker and the deal breaker. To put it another way: I doubt most of the tea partiers hate Obama strictly because he is black, but it sure doesn’t help.

Yes, race is a component, and a major component at that, of the reaction against the president.”

What a load of crap! Pitts goes to great lengths to construct the illusion of a nuanced and thoughtful analysis but in the end he comes to the same ugly conclusion as the dolt Olbermann. We’re all just a bunch of stupid racists. Really? The day after the election, Pitts opined that it was:

“[u]nfair – to him, to us – to make Tuesday’s election about race. Whatever appeal Mr. Obama may have had to African-Americans and white liberals eager to vote for a black candidate is, I believe, dwarfed by his appeal to Americans of all stripes who have simply had enough of the politics of addition by division as practiced by Karl Rove…” blah blah blah

Oh, I get it. The American people elected Obama on his merits, not because he is black and one year later “Americans of all stripes” are pissed just because that there boy in the White House is a darkie! Come on now!

Let’s look at some historical facts. The table below illustrates some presidential election demographics that are germane to this discussion.


_____________PERCENT VOTING FOR _______

The data supports several interesting conclusions. I have to admit that the first thing that jumped out at me was rather distressing. It appears that anywhere from 16 to 20 percent of conservatives are retarded. These idiots have voted for the democrat in the last five elections!

It is interesting to note that the republican candidate got anywhere between 64 and 84 percent of the conservative vote in this sample while the democrat never got below 81 percent of the liberal vote with Obama maxing out at 89 percent. Nothing to be proud of as far as I’m concerned, but it is ironic, considering that liberals always portray conservatives as intransigent partisans when in fact liberals are the ones voting as virtually one monolithic block.

Going directly to Mr. Pitts thesis, conservative support for democrat candidates has been remarkably consistent – 16 to 20 percent – with Obama tying Clinton’s high mark of 20 percent. On the other hand, liberals went for Obama at an all time high of 89 percent. While blacks went democrat at an average of 86 percent over the previous four elections, they jumped that up to an astounding 95 percent for Obama. It’s apparent that race meant a lot to some people in the election but none of them were conservative.

In typical liberal fashion, Mr. Pitts’ analysis is way off mark. The real motivating force behind the Tea Party movement is better articulated by a man born into slavery:

“Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are restricted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Frederick Douglass

The Tea Party movement is a manifestation of the collective will of freedom- loving American patriots committed to re-establishing the constitutional limits on a tyrannical government.

Pitts closed his column with this:

"So for all the frustration the tea party movement engenders among the rest of us, one also feels a certain pity for people like the woman last year who cried, plaintively, that she wanted her country back. As if she didn’t realize that it is already, irrevocably, gone."

The hell it is Mr. Pitts! One way or another, words or blows. Your side gets to choose which it will be.

SPECIAL WORDS

In his essay Politics and the English Language George Orwell observes that “the English language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” Such are things in the hyper-sensitive world of American political correctness. The latest stink comes from Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanual. Some time last summer Emmanual called some liberal special interest groups “fucking retarded” because they were going to run ads against some Democrats not supportive of ObamaCare. The Special Olympics organization was offended and Emmanual was quick to issue an apology to their chairman. Sarah Palin, who has a son with Downs Syndrome, was also offended and called for Obama to fire Emmanual. That’s not going to happen. Obama lacks both brains and stones and Emmanual provides them for him.

Palin also compared retarded to the “N-word.” While I empathize with Mrs. Palin, I think she is wrong. Nigger is clearly a pejorative term taken from the word negro. It has become socially unacceptable because it is so offensive to black people. So offensive, in fact, that the only people that can say it are black rappers. Retarded, on the other hand, is a real word. It means “slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development.” Rahm Emmanual is just another left wing asshole from Chicago but he used a descriptive term in referring to some liberal groups and he was right. Let’s face it, the Democrat’s constituency is made up of young people that don’t know any better, bureaucrats that are dependent on big government, teachers and other union members, the professionally unemployed and retards!

Words convey ideas. The medical establishment introduced “mentally retarded” into the lexicon in the 50’s and 60’s to replace previous diagnostic terms such as “idiot” and “moron” that were thought to be offensive. They don’t even use the term any more. Retarded has been replaced with “developmental disability”, “intellectual disability”, “special needs”, “cognitive disorder” and who knows what else.

Instead of trying to ban the use of some words we should be more concerned about the liberal practice of co-opting words and changing their meaning. Being a white, middle aged Christian, I know I belong to an “un-offendable” group but it really irritated me when Bill Clinton tried to convince us that taxes were “contributions.” It bothers me that Obama is getting away with equating “fairness” to taxing the crap out of the producers to pay for the moochers. And it really ticks me off that liberals have convinced a substantial minority in this country that dependency is “freedom.” Freedom is the original F-word for liberals and we should never trust them when they use it. As Orwell also said: “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

STUPID DEMOCRATS

The Democratic Party certainly has no monopoly on idiots. No doubt there are enough dopey Republicans running around but at least they are not hurting the country every time they vote. Republicans also have the good sense not to elevate morons to positions of influence and power within their party. For the Democrats, however, being a nut job seems to be a prerequisite for advancement. Governor Doyle’s lame dope status makes Mike Tate, Chairman of the State’s Democratic Party, de facto leader of the Party in Wisconsin. This little twit is a complete moron. To wit, here is what he has to say about the Tea Party movement in Wisconsin:

“These are extremist elements pulling together, distinct vocal minorities that frankly don’t believe in this country. They don’t want to see more people have access to quality, affordable health care; they don’t want clean air and water. They fundamentally don’t understand how the American government, economy and capitalism work.”

American citizens assemble to protest the actions of their government and this is the response from the Democratic Party Chairman? Unbelievable! Tate doesn’t understand these protests because nobody in attendance is looking for a government handout. When faced with a challenge, the default strategy of Democrats is always an attempt to marginalize the challenger. Hence the ridiculous comments like “[We] don’t believe in this country.” You’re an idiot Mike! The passion of the Tea Party movement comes from our love of country and a belief in the principles of its founding. You don’t see us running around prostrating ourselves in front of foreign leaders or apologizing for American primacy and we are fed up with your guy doing it in our name!

“They don’t want to see more people have access to quality, affordable health care…” The key word here is access. In classic Orwellian fashion, liberals use that word when they really mean free. Liberals want large sectors of their political base to have free health care but they can’t say that because it sounds so stupid. The fact is all Americans have access to the best health care in the world. The Tea Party people want to maximize the number of people who can pay for it because somebody always pays and we believe in personal responsibility.

“…they don’t want clean air and water.” Hey Mike, we breathe the same air and drink the same water you do jackass! Furthermore, Tea Party people and conservatives in general are more concerned about the sustainability of these resources for future generations because we have more kids than liberals. Look at your constituency Mike. You’ve got the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender “communities” along with some heterosexuals who think it’s ok to kill their unborn babies. Not much potential for procreation with this group. You guys plan for next week. We plan for our grandchildren.

“They fundamentally don’t understand how the American government, economy and capitalism work.” You are mistaken Mike. We understand that the United States is a representative republic, not an oligarchy. We believe that it is un-American for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama to sit in a room and determine national policy with no open debate. We are disgusted when they use our money to buy the votes of unprincipled politicians so they can ram their anti-American and anti-freedom agenda down our throats.

I would sit through a Tiger Woods lecture on fidelity before I would listen to a liberal expound on capitalism and the economy. Here is what Vice President Joe Biden had to say on fiscal policy: “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.” Brilliant!

Liberals have no core values, only vague notions of spreading the wealth and creating a dependant population. They are in constant need of validation from a helpless citizenry. They fear freedom and the independent patriot. The Tea Party movement has a rock solid foundation Mike and we’re coming after you. You are right to be afraid.

LEADER?

America is a resilient country. We have met every challenge and overcome every obstacle in our illustrious history. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War and the end of slavery, to the great depression and two world wars we have always triumphed. Heck, we even overcame four years of Jimmy Carter but I am beginning to have serious concerns about our ability to survive Barack Obama. Domestically, BHO has us hell bent on, in the words of Friedrich von Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom.” Bad enough. But while he and his czars are busy with health care, cap & trade and nationalizing American industry, the enemy is at the gates. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama’s number one job is ensuring the security of the United States. When attacked, a leader is charged with rallying the troops and citizenry for war. How has the dear leader done in this regard? To judge BHO it is helpful to look at past leaders to provide some historical context.

On May 13, 1940 Winston Churchill, having just replaced the appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, addressed the House of Commons for the first time as Britain’s new Prime Minister. World War II was in its early stages, Germany had already divvyed up Poland with the Russkies and the invasion of several European countries was under way. Following are some excerpts from his magnificent call to arms.

I say to the House as I said to the ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea and air. War with all our might and all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs-Victory in spite of all terrors-Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed Congress and the American People the following day. He said, in part:

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.

After the attacks of September 11, President Bush went before a joint session of Congress. His address included the following:

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

Americans are asking, “How will we fight and win this war?” We will direct every resource at our command-every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war-to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

And tonight a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I have called the armed forces to alert, and there is a reason.

The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Fellow citizens, we’ll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.

In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Great speeches and you will notice that they have a few things in common. None of these leaders blamed their predecessor though Churchill and Bush certainly had reason to. They all state a specific goal of victory and how it will be achieved, through the perseverance of the people and the courage and commitment of a great military. They were also relatively short. Bush’s could have been shorter but he seemed to feel a need to spend ten minutes thanking liberals for pretending to love America. At least he got around to the salient points eventually.

And now the dear leader. On December 1, Obama went to the United States Military Academy at West Point to deliver the speech outlining his plan for the “Overseas Contingency Operation” in Afghanistan. He used the cadets as a prop thinking that surrounding himself with credible and courageous men and women would somehow give him an air of credibility and courage. It didn’t work. Here are some excerpts from his speech with my comments in red.

I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan-the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. You ask, what is our aim? Why, it is a successful conclusion! Go get ‘em boys! Please don’t forget to knock first and identify yourselves and make sure you read them their rights.

As we know [those that attacked us] belonged to al Qaeda-a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions…” We are not a Christian nation and we are not at war with that wonderful religion of peace.

The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention-and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. So you see, its Bush’s fault! Before we get all full of patriotic fervor in the defense of America, we must consider the feelings of France and other great nations.

When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. Did I mention that this is all Bush’s fault?

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. We will never surrender! Well, at least not for the next 18 months. Sorry Mr. Soros and other fellow lefties but I had to do something! I’m getting the feeling that people are beginning to think I’m an incompetent jackass. It’s not like I’m committing to victory, only 18 months. OK?

As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. …Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. …So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars. No more Army stuff until it goes on sale. Acorn needs money too! And then there is the cost of buying votes for my health care plan. Senators don’t come cheap, you know!

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Did I mention this is all Bush’s fault? Besides, I spent more than that in my first 8 months! Ha Ha.

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. Just ask those young people that protested the elections in Iran. Oops. Sorry about that.

In Obama’s recent appearance on “60 Minutes” Steve Kroft brought up his West Point speech. “There were no exhortations or promises of victory. Why? Why that tone.” Obama replied, “…And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war. …[Like] this is some glorious exercise. When in fact, this is tough business.”

Like he has any f’ing clue. A man that lacks the courage and conviction to defend freedom has no business being the leader of the United States of America and a man that can send our best and bravest off to war with no call for total victory is unfit for command.

OFFENSIVE JIHADISTS

The Dear Leader Obama continues to demonstrate his disconnect with freedom - loving Americans. On the day 13 people were slaughtered at Fort Hood, Obama was scheduled to give a speech at something called the Tribal Nations Conference. A president that recognized the implications of the attack and its affect on the American people would have cancelled his silly publicity opportunity and addressed the entire nation. Not Obama. He went out and joked around with the audience and gave a “shout out” to some guy. After nearly three minutes of this inanity he finally got around to the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9-11.

But then, Obama considers the Fort Hood attack just a “man caused disaster” and nothing to get all worked up about. The next day he admonished the American people not to “jump to conclusions” over the motives of the shooter. His condescending warning was a little late for me. The moment I heard of the attack, I thought it was probably a Muslim. When my suspicion was confirmed, I “jumped to the conclusion” that it was an act of Islamic terrorism. Not much of a jump really. It was more like a little hop along the path of reason and logic.

Common sense is incompatible with liberalism as demonstrated by the Main Stream Media reports following the attack. Taking Obama’s lead, the liberal media engaged in all sorts of convoluted speculation in an effort to cloud a perfectly clear picture of Islamic terrorism. One of the many ridiculous N.Y. Times articles had the headline: PRELIMINARY INQUIRY FINDS NO LINK TO TERROR PLOT. Who did the inquiry? Inspector Clouseau? Syndicated columnist and committed lefty Leonard Pitts opined with an article entitled: ACKNOWLEDGE MUSLIM HEROES. An Islamic terrorist murders 13 people and the first thing Pitts does is urge us to remember Muslim heroes! What? This has nothing to do with loyal Americans who happen to be Muslim. No reasonable person is suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists. What Pitts and his liberal colleagues refuse to acknowledge, however, is that ALL Jihadists are Muslim! Pitts states:

“At this writing, we know next to nothing of why he did it.

Maybe he was a stone-cold psychopath like Eric Harris who, with Dylan Klebold, shot up Columbine High in 1999.

Maybe he was deranged and delusional like Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Maybe he was driven by a grudge against the federal government like Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a federal building in 1995.

Maybe he was a terrorist.”

Gee, Leonard, you think? Liberals can be such predictable idiots. Millions of Muslims have declared a holy war against the United States and when they strike us Pavlov’s lefties immediately cite Columbine and Timothy McVeigh in an effort to equate Islamic terrorism with domestic crime. Pitts laments, “So it is for Muslims, now, sacrifices and service unremembered and unremarked.” Give me a break! We bend over backwards to accommodate and coddle Muslims and those of Middle Eastern descent. Muslims that happen to not be murderous jihadists are depicted uniformly as great Americans. As if our country would be immeasurably worse off without them.

Liberals are constantly lecturing us about stereotyping. They tell us that Muslims are just like Christians and these religions all have their crazies. As Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation, explained about the Fort Hood attack: “It’s looking more and more like he was just, sort of, a religious nut. And you know Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has it’s full, you know, full helping of nuts too.” I’m not sure what “nuts” Bob is referring too here. One of the liberal favorites is when someone attacks an abortion clinic or kills an abortionist. Well Bob, call me nuts but I make a distinction between the random murder of innocents and the killing of a baby killer. Abortionists are not innocent people! That does not mean I condone these killings. In fact, “mainstream” Christian denominations are always quick to condemn these types of attacks. Compare this with that “vast majority” of “peace loving” Muslims who never say a damn thing when some jihadist goes on a killing spree. To try and equate the isolated and rare actions of some supposed Christians to an organized and persistent jihad against the United States and “infidels” everywhere is ridiculous and dangerous. Instead of trying to put veterans, gun owners and pro-lifers on his terrorist watch list, I think Obama should maybe take a closer look at these curiously silent Muslims.

With liberals in control of the government, Mainstream Media, academia and Hollywood, it’s not too surprising that political correctness permeates society in general. That’s bad enough. But when it bleeds into our military structure we’ve got real problems. The more we learn about what the Army and FBI knew about Major Nidal Hasan, the scarier it gets. Yet nothing was done! Afraid of being charged with racism and discrimination, the Army and FBI let a “soldier of allah” continue on as an officer in the U.S. Army. It gets worse. Even after knowing what we now know, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said, “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” Unbelievable! Our soldiers deserve so much better. Diversity as a goal is a liberal concept and it has no place in our armed forces. The goal of our military can only be greatness. Diversity, as an ancillary condition of achieving this goal, is fine. Any other kind deserves to be a casualty of this war.

PEACE FOR OUR TIME?

So that august body of socialists over in Norway has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Hussein Obama. How nice! In presenting the award, the committee cited Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples “ and “attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Let’s see. Iran and North Korea are launching test missiles every other day and Iran continues unabated with their nuclear weapons program. The Dear Leader has ditched the Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe because it upset the Russians and he needs their help with Iran. He left our allies twisting in the wind and in return got some oblique statement from the Russkies about possible sanctions against Iran. Then, just last month, the Russian Foreign Minister stated “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” Wow. What a shocker! China seems unimpressed with our Nobel Laureate and continues to do nothing while North Korea runs amok and they remain opposed to sanctions against Iran. Yes, everybody seems to be getting along splendidly!

This latest joke is nothing new for the Nobel Committee. With their ideological litmus test and penchant for wishful thinking, they have been on a steady path to clownish irrelevance. Consider this collection of charlatans, commies and miscreants, Nobel Laureates all:

2007 – AL GORE

The “Goracle” shared the prize with something called the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (our tax dollars at work). The Committee awarded them the Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” What any of this nonsense has to do with peace is beyond a logical person’s understanding. I think they just felt a need to award him for not being George Bush.



2002 – JIMMY CARTER

Jimmy won “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” This sounds like more Norwegian speak for “he’s not George Bush.” Economic development? When Jimmy left office in 1980, after four disastrous years, the unemployment rate was seven percent, the inflation rate was 13.5 percent and interest rates were at 21 percent. Oh, those were heady times!

Maybe it was the way he handled the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Jimmy’s bold response to this “international conflict” was to send Moscow a sternly worded letter and then he manned up by boycotting the 1980 summer Olympics. Wow! After spending ten years getting their asses kicked by the U.S. backed mujahideen, the Soviet’s pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989.

Then there was his “peaceful solution” to the Iranian hostage crises. Actually, the American people solved this one for Jimmy. Americans had the good sense to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. After 444 days of whining and pleading by Carter, the hostages were released on the day Reagan took office.



1994 – YASSER ARAFAT, et al

The committee gave Arafat, the head of the Palistine Liberation Organization, and leaders from Israel the peace prize “For their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.”

Some of you younger readers might not know this but the Middle East was not always the land of peace and harmony that it is today. Israel was constantly being attacked by suicide bombers, mortars, rockets and bombs. The preferred targets were usually innocent women and children. The man that funded and planned many of these attacks was Yasser Arafat, a lifelong terrorist. He signed a worthless agreement with Israel and never stopped murdering innocent civilians but he did get his “peace prize.”

1990 – MIKHAIL GORBACHEV

Those nutty Norwegians gave Gorbachev the award “for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community.” So it was the commies that ended the cold war and brought peace to the “international community”? I don’t think so. Let’s review some facts.

In a 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, President Ronald Reagan said:

“In your discussion of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

Reagan rejected the liberal concept of moral equivalency and believed America had not only the responsibility and moral authority to confront and defeat Soviet tyranny, but also the singular ability to do so. The only thing lefty politicians and the Main Stream Media took from his speech was that he called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” They were quite distraught and there was much hand wringing and whining. They thought Reagan was unstable and dangerous and now he was calling commies evil! Well, from the time of the Russian revolution to 1987, 70 years, it is estimated that 50 to 60 million people were killed in the Soviet Union through starvation, forced labor camps and outright murder of political dissidents. I think evil empire is an accurate description. Reagan decided that the United States, with the wealth generated by a capitalistic economy and the superior technology facilitated by free markets and private property rights could bury the Soviet Union. And he was right. Even the Soviet Union understood what American liberals would not or could not contemplate. Speaking to the Politburo in October 1986, just days before he was to meet with Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland, Gorbachev told his fellow commies:

“We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limits of our capabilities. …If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.”

So Reagan’s doctrine of “peace thru strength” worked. The leader of an oppressive, tyrannical regime realized he could not beat us so he quit. And the idiot Norwegians made a defeated bully a Nobel Laureate.

1973 – LE DUC THO

In a mild upset, Le Duc Tho, chief negotiator for North Vietnam, shared the award with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for reaching a cease fire agreement in the Vietnam War. Hollywood lefties and media elites were hopeful that Jane Fonda would win the award for her “heroic” trip to North Vietnam in 1972. “Hanoi” Jane spent two weeks cavorting with the enemy, posing for pictures and accusing our armed forces of being baby killers. Jane was ultimately vindicated in 1995 when Bui Tin, a member of the North Vietnamese Army General Staff said that Ms. Fonda and the American antiwar movement “was essential to our strategy.” Traitorous Bitch.

So, U.S. forces left Vietnam and the commie Le Duc Tho got his Nobel Prize. Of course, this paved the way for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to turn Cambodia into the killing fields where they slaughtered nearly two million people in four years. No matter. The imperialistic, war-mongering Americans were out of Southeast Asia.

Barack Hussein Obama received his prize not for anything he has done, obviously, but because of who he is. The Nobel Committee was so giddy that America finally had a president that subscribes to their guiding principle – NOTHING IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR – that they couldn’t wait to give him a prize. This principle is antithetical to the belief of American Patriots. As Patrick Henry said:

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

That a bunch of Norwegian socialists would find the views of an American Patriot to be extreme and misguided means nothing to me. But an American President? God help us!

DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE

“Society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams

Think of the founding fathers. Men such as Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and so many others. Common men and intellectual giants they all possessed great courage and character. They proved themselves eminently worthy in the leadership of a new nation.

Now consider our “leaders” of today. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest of the wannabes in congress. Man, are we in trouble!

The founders gave us one of the most profound documents in the history of man, the Declaration of Independence. What if the “leaders” of today possessed the courage to honestly put forth their concept of the proper relationship between citizen and government? Below is the text of the original Declaration of Independence. It is lengthy but it will do you good to read it again. Following that is my version of what I think today’s “leaders” would come up with.

Declaration of Independence-July 4, 1776

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

And now a new version as I see our contemporary "Floundering Fathers" would have it.

Declaration of Dependence-September, 2009

When in the course of elitist frustration it becomes necessary for the ruling class to dissolve the constitutional constraints which have rendered them subservient to the common people and to assume among the tyrants of the earth, the separate and equal suppression of our people to which the will of the State and of the State’s legislature entitle them, a decent attempt at rationalization requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to this power grab.
We hold these truths to be self evident to us, that all survivors of Roe vs. Wade are created equal but some are more equal than others, that they are endowed by the State with sundry rights, subject to the caprice of the legislature. That among these are free education, free housing, free health care, a clean environment, a living wage, eight weeks paid vacation and card check. That to secure these rights, the State will confiscate the guns of the American citizen and the wealth of those that produce, deriving their just powers from the consent of a plurality of qualified voters as determined by ACORN. Convenience, indeed, will dictate that this State, newly established, shall not be challenged for light and transient causes such as liberty and self determination; and accordingly all experience hath shown that freedom is insufferable to the ruling elite. So when a long train of advancements, pursuing invariably the same object of individual freedom and happiness evinces a design to reduce the State to a condition of mere servitude to the people, it is the ruling elites duty to throw off such pursuits of the individual, and to provide new guards for their future subjugation. Such has been the patient sufferance of these elitists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present American Republic is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations of State power, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute freedom from tyranny. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a sleeping world.

The American Patriot:
Has continued to read the Bible and make assertions that there is a power higher than the State.

Continues to believe that individual autonomy supersedes the collective good, as determined by the State.

Has insisted on his right to own guns thereby scaring the crap out of liberal wienies everywhere.

Continues to insist he is entitled to the fruits of his labor.

Has objected to our establishment of a multitude of new offices and has resisted the swarms of bureaucrats we have sent hither to harass him and eat out his substance.

Desires to destroy evil rather than compromise with it.

Believes people in this country illegally should be treated as if they have broken the law.

Believes it is right and proper to execute murderers but would deny a mother the “right” to kill her unborn child.

Objects when the judiciary creates new law, out of whole cloth, merely because such law would never be codified by the legislature with the consent of the people.

Would rather kill our enemies than try to understand them.

Believes it takes a mom and dad, not a village, to raise a child.

Continues to question the credibility of Al Gore just because he has a carbon footprint the size of Texas.

Prefers freedom to the illusion of security we so graciously provide.

In every stage of these annoyances we have petitioned the common people to just shut up and behave. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by the obstinate behavior of free men. A people, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define an American Patriot, needs to be taught a lesson. We must, therefore, hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in freedom, in chains servants. We, therefore, the self anointed elite of the Ruling Class, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Main Stream Media for the distortion of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of our own hubris, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and if they swallow this, ought to be, subservient to the Central Government, that they are absolved from all allegiance to any concept of States Rights, and that all divine connections between U.S. Citizens and freedom is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the timid acquiescence of the masses, we mutually pledge the vacuum of our honor and conscience.