Saturday, December 31, 2005
The National Security Agency intercepted long distance phone calls from Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean to an untraceable phone in Afghanistan. The voice on the phone appeared to be Osama bin Ladin. In the call, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, pleaded with bin Ladin not to stage any attacks during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, saying that such an attack would help the Republicans win the White House—again. “I plead with you, bin Ladin, if you are going to stage an attack, please do so when it will have the maximum possible damage to the Republicans, not us,” Howard Dean was heard saying on taped transcripts leaked to the national press corps.
This was not the first time Democrats have justified attacks on innocent Americans. After September 11, for instance, Michael Moore, intellectual scholar of the left in America, was overheard saying that the attack was absurd because, well, New York City voted for Gore. (Mr. Moore was unable to grasp that terrorists hate Republicans and Democrats equally).
Later that day Howard Dean protested President Bush’s once secret NSA wire tap program, saying that these secret wire tap programs unjustifiably interfere with the rights of Americans to have well-informed discussions with terrorists such as Osama bin Ladin. “How can a decent citizen hope to be able to make contact with such individuals if the government is listening in? This is big brother! Plus, well, I am sure that there are some good citizens who have some good reasons for speaking with a terrorist. I can’t think of one at the moment, though. Yeahhhhh!”
Meanwhile, President Bush’s advisors told him that releasing Howard Dean’s transcripts with Osama bin Ladin would be unwise since Democrats would scream foul and claim that this is an underground right-wing coup against the leader of the Democratic National Committee. Bush accepted the advice of his counselor and decided not to release such transcripts. “I’m sick of hearing the Democrats complain when I do the right thing. I still have the ringing sound of Nancy Pelosi saying “tax cuts for the rich” every time I’m trying to fall asleep,” Bush said.
(The following was satire).
Monday, December 26, 2005
Despite America’s appetite for aggressive efforts to attack al Queda, Democrats have done nothing but stand in the way and demand additional rights and safeguards for terrorist detainees. U.S. Senate Democrats have decided that their constituencies -- aging 1960s liberals, university professors, international celebrities – are in line with the terrorists. Despite cries from across the country to get tough on terrorism, Democrats have sided with the terrorists’ interests.
Every time the terrorists attack American soldiers or innocent Iraq citizens in Iraq, you can count upon the Democrats to argue to “pull out” of Iraq (didn’t the Democrats learn anything in their sex-ed class: premature pull outs are not effective strategies!) Certainly the Democrats, especially the professoriate class, are able to understand that there must be some inherent reason that the terrorists have headed to Iraq. Would reason could that be? Surely the terrorists did not enter Iraq with the intent of creating a peaceful country that will be allies with the world community.
Even if the Democrats do not support the war against Saddam Hussein, perhaps because they believe that Mr. Hussein was an honorable statesman in the mold of George Washington, they should not continue to disparage the war effort. For one thing, the terrorists continue to attack the troops, not because they intend to win on the battlefield, but rather because they hope that this will cause the Democrats to speak more loudly against the war, hoping for a withdrawal. This is not in the national interests of the United States. If we did withdraw prematurely, the terrorists would not only take over Iraq and establish a terrorist state, but terrorists would continue to strike against America’s interests in the hopes that wimp Democrats would support a withdrawal. Democrats who continue to speak out against the war, hoping for a withdrawal, obviously hate America and have sided with our terrorist enemies.
Democrats have to realize that they are weak on national security and should focus on their strengths—whatever that may be. National polls taken over the last few decades have shown that the public has consistently given Democrats poor marks for their stance on national security issues. It is therefore quite surprising that Democrats have chosen to continue to focus on this issue. In life, one must narrow one’s focus towards those things that they are able to accomplish. Democrats have never won a national election based upon their stanches on national security. Isn’t it time that the Democrats withdraw from this particular issue?
The constituency within the Democratic Party that cares about national security positively scares the public. When the public at large sees protests from Democratic activists groups—such as A.N.S.W.E.R. (an international, extreme, left-wing anti-war group that has never condemned a dictatorship in its entire existence)—the public becomes fearful. The public rightly things that such individuals would not be proper representatives of the public at large. Even more unfortunate is that the Democrats have to be accountable to these irresponsible individuals. The main reason that formerly “mainstream” Democrats have to listen to these malcontents is because the malcontents, lead by party chairman Howard Dean, actually represent the base of the party. And the base of the Democratic Party clearly hates America, resents our standard of living, and wishes to send the United States back to a period of time where we were a third-world nation. Unfortunate, but true. Therefore, the public can only protect America by opposing the Democratic Party, which clearly hates America.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Individuals classified as having parasitic personality disorder are very selfish, but they are quite successful in portraying themselves as being in favor of the public interest, which is quite contrary to fact and wisdom. Governmental-school teachers, for instance, are parasites because their principal reason for being a teacher (in the vast majority of circumstances) is based on a desire of having a fairly easy job for life. Not having to worry about being fired, they do not have to try at all. Some teachers sleep in class. Hey, why wake me up when I can get paid to sleep in class? Yet the class of individuals with parasitic personality disorder only seems to grow.
Parasitic personality disordered individuals have been able to con the vast majority of voters in California into feeling sympathy for them. This is unhealthy. In America, voters should never have any more sympathy toward its "workers"--the looting governmental workers who steal our money--than it should towards its own employees. Suffice it to say, an employer would never bankrupt itself in an effort to "sympathize" with its workers. But this is exactly what is happening here in California: with all of the governors' proposals failing in the polls, the only lessen to learn is that the government has done a masterful job in brainwashing the citizenry into voting against society's best interests. Normal, average workers should say, "I have not been offered a job for life, why the hell should these lazy governmental workers be offered a job for life?" No, instead people weep and feel sorry for the lousy governmental school teachers. Well, I don't. I say it's time to be more aggressive and tell the truth about these lousy workers -- and that we shouldn't only "reform" the system by making it easier to hire good teachers and fire bad ones, but that we ought to privatize in total the entire school system. That is the only cure to parasitic personality disorder.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has not done enough to cure individuals with parasitic personality disorder. He ought to fire all of these governmental workers: this is the only cure. Faced with the realization of how life actually works -- for instance, that one does not usually obtain a job by creating a mob scene in the street while screaming epithets at high-ranking governmental officials, perhaps these parasites may actually learn how to be productive to society. Until that time, parasitic personality disorder will continue to be an expensive deadweight in America.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Friday, October 21, 2005
- The illegal alien problem is pressing and urgent: Los Angeles schools are overcrowding to the max; Mexican gang members are engagnging in domestic terrorism everyday, and we're doing nothing to deport such individuals.
- We need to send the Mexican illegal aliens back because their cultural attributes are not Western and they do not hold our values. Mexican majority cities are dirty, do not maintain the same standards as other cities do, and their school systems are dysfunctional.
- Further, as Mexican illegal aliens become a larger part of the population, corporations will not hold to the same high standards as they once did since they will actually cater to the tastes and wishes of Mexican illegal alien nationals -- people with whom do not hold to the same high standards that assimiliated Westerners do. It has taken a long time to develop certain Western values in the United States.
- We cannot continue as a great nation if the individuals coming across the border each day illegally subscribe to inferior third-world nation's values, which Mexico certainly is. Since corporations follow consumer preferences, corporate standards will only remain high so long as its customers maintain high standards. Mexican nationals are used to a lower level for quality and standards for products and services. These lowered expectations could effect corporate behavior to the detriment of U.S. citizens.This is a time period when draconian laws are necessary to protect the national security of the United States.
- Some civil liberties of illegal aliens may have to be curtailed. I would support banning Mexican civil rights organizations from enganging in any political action since such organizations are likely facilitators of treason against the United States.
- We should prohibit the sale or purchase or Spanish language newspapers,
- ban licenses for Spanish-language television or radio programming.-
- We should build the wall around the United States and Mexico as high as possible with barbed wire and the national army ready to shoot any invaders.-
- We should impose taxes on these wire transactions to Mexico at a rate of 45% to 60% at all banks, wire transfer facilities, bank cashing facilities. This would reduce the amount of money that is sent back to Mexico that props up that corrupt country.-
- Employers ought to be fined $50,000 per day, per illegal alien worker, along with all profits derived from hiring an illegal alien over an American citizen, permanent resident, or other valid visa.
- - Illegal aliens should not be provided any healthcare (even if they are able to pay), education, or any other welfare benefit.- All property owned by an illegal alien shall be transferred, without compensation, to the Department of Homeland Security.--
- Further, we need to counter the immigration from Mexico with immigrants from nations that do subscribe to our values. As a result, I, as a future Congressman, would allow for an unlimited number of immigrants (and provide them with very rapid citizenship) from the following nations: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, England (Muslims will be excluded), New Zealand, and Japan.
There is no evidence at all that Miers has ever seriously thought about important constitutional issues prior to this nomination. We're tired of lame-brain Justices such as Souter and Stevens and Kenned. We won this election--it is time we Republicans nominated someone who will vigorously argue the constitutional theory of originalism. For these reasons, we urge the Senate to reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Many conservatives have criticized the plan, calling it similar to communism. House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) called it a “power grab by a few socialists in the House.” Rep. Henry Waxman angrily responded: “If we don’t impose this new tax of 100% on every American’s income, we will never be able to provide seniors a prescription drug benefit, Social Security modernization, and affordable daycare.”
Some Americans have looked at the plan with skepticism, but Democrats said that most Americans do not understand the plan yet. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that “this plan is a bit more complicated and it is premature to criticize the plan.” He also added: “I am troubled by the amount of criticism this plan has received.”
University professors have been some of the most avid supporters of the tax plan. Robert Smith, Ph.D., a professor of political science at an east coast Ivy League school recently told a class that this “100% tax rate will help bring about a more cooperative, less hierarchical and better managed livelihood of our economic sphere.” Most students sat quietly and took notes.
When asked why he keeps most of his money abroad in tax-sheltered accounts, Smith defended this practice by saying that he was conducting important research and could not be bothered, as everyone else will under the plan, of having to lobby Congress to get a stipend for personal usage. “My research,” Smith later said, “has to do with Marxist philosophers who live in clubs sipping champagne in
Thursday, September 29, 2005
We will do our best to try to obtain top-secret Democratic memos showing that they intended for these high gas prices all along. It is one reason why they stopped the building of new refiners; drilling for new oil; and other common sense efforts to explore for more oil. After all, the Democrats hate this country, and the best way to harm it is by raising the cost of energy, which effects every transaction on the marketplace. We wonder if Osama bin Ladin has sent a check to the Democratic Party recently.
Friday, September 16, 2005
We agree with the Democratic members that there needs to be some "sacrifice" in
But Democrats continue to hate America, so they would never support these sensible policies.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Democrats believe that citizens in Alabama should not be able to write laws that left-wing latte drinkers in California and New York oppose. Such a position reflects the thinking of the englightened class of individuals who wish to rule by force rather than consent.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
The House yesterday passed an anodyne resolution commemorating the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. It extended sympathy to the victims and survivors; honored the military, first responders, and others who helped; thanked foreign leaders for their support; declared that America is not waging war "on any people or any faith"; reaffirmed a commitment to the global war on terrorism; and vowed "never [to] forget the sacrifices made" on 9/11 or to "bow to terrorist demands."
No one could disagree with that, right? Not quite. The House vote for the resolution was 402-6; here are the six far-left Democrats who voted "no":
- John Conyers (Mich.)
- Barbara Lee (Calif.)
- Jim McDermott (Wash.)
- Cynthia McKinney (Ga.)
- Pete Stark (Calif.)
- Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
There is evidence everyday that the Democrats hate America and the institutions for which she was born.
Some people have chosen to see it differently. Robert Scheer, in the LA Times, wrote:
What the world has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.No Robert, what we saw was what happens when one part of the country depends upon the government for decades and decades. Let's hope the rest of the country sees that such a political experiment is far too risky.
Monday, September 05, 2005
President George W. Bush has done an incredible job of securing this nation and we are proud that he is the commander of chief. We believe that if John F. Kerry were president, he would not understand how to properly treat terrorism as an act of war rather than a common, garden-variety criminal act.
We welcome contributions to help fund the operations of this site. Please submit donations to email@example.com through the Paypal service.