Oh, the hypocrisy of liberals such as
Mr. Damon somehow they can barefacedly support
Barack Obama, whose sole leadership experience consists
of being a community organizer, yet criticize the
experience of Mrs. Palin who is a governor and former
Amusingly, for liberals, being a governor
and former mayor is not enough leadership experience
to be the vice-president; yet, being a community organizer
is by some means sufficient experience to be the next
president of the United States.
What's next are liberals going
to be for abortion and against the death penalty?
Barack Obama has largely run a campaign
based on speeches and dreams. His campaign has capitalized
on high-sounding slogans such as 'hope' and 'change'.
Of course, many of us correctly understand that these
are mere words used to hide the freshman senator's inexperience.
However, to a multitude of liberal devotees, these empty
words have achieved some ethereal meaning.
Consequently, if Barak Hussein Obama were to name Hillary
Rodham Clinton as his vice-president, he would neither
be embracing change nor hope - but rather be accepting
the old regime and its corruption. By doing so, he would
risk bursting the collective bubble of his democratic
dreamers - for to his idealists, she represents the
antithesis of change. However, it should be noted that
too many of his followers are blind fanatics and would
support him even if Donald Duck was on the ticket. Thus,
the risk is negligible amongst his sycophants, but damage
could be done amongst independents - who are important
in the swing states.
Now, what does Mrs. Clinton bring to the table? Certainly
not experience - despite her claims to the contrary.
Some would argue women voters - but, how many more women
would she bring that he would not get himself. Some
women, such as Harriet Christian, have already stated
they would never vote for Obama - regardless of whether
Clinton's name is on the ballet or not - while others
are likely to come around in time anyway. Hence, it
seems that Mr. Obama has little to directly gain by
offering the vice-presidency to Mrs. Clinton.
In addition, Mrs. Clinton's presence may
not only not bring the desired result, but in fact may
actually work to activate independents and the Republican
base in way in which Sen. McCain has thus far been unable
to do. Simply imagine how Mrs. Clinton's words will
be used, over-and-over again, against Obama if she were
to be his vice-president.
A Clinton Supporter's
Reaction After Being Tossed From The Democratic Rules
Poor, May 31, 2008
This is what happens after years of affirmative
action and liberal political correctness. Self-named-progressives
should sleep well in this bed of nails that they made
for themselves. This is your Democratic party America.
Michael Pfleger's Racist
Rant at Barrack Obama's Trinity United Church
Poor, May 30, 2008
Either Barack Obama has been ignorant about
Trinity United Church for the past twenty years, or he is
lying - worse yet, it may be the case that Barak Hussein
Obama and his wife actually believe this diatribe and were
never offended by the rancorous hate speech of Trinity United
Church. Perhaps, this would explain why Michelle Obama has
never once, in her adult life, been proud of her country
prior to a few months ago.
Moreover, the reaction of the audience clearly
demonstrates that racism is still strong in America, but
sadly it is the kind of explicit racism that is rarely,
if ever, chastised, or challenged, in America today.
In addition, it is important to note that
the building where the Trinity United Church stands is not
a Christian church at all, but rather a bigoted-hate factory
and it is inconceivable that it would take a rational individual
twenty years to discover this truth.
Wow, yet another sad day in American History
– not because Paris Hilton is in jail, but rather because
the alleged reverend Al Sharpton, and other unscrupulous men,
have managed, yet again, to crawl their way into the American
He, and other supposed civil rights activist, purportedly
spoke out against Paris Hilton in the name of civil rights
- I say he spoke out against Paris Hilton for only two reasons;
her name and her skin color. Make no mistake; had Paris Hilton
been either non-white or a non-celebrity, Mr. Sharpton - and
others of his ilk -would have never bothered to get involved.
Where was Mr. Sharpton’s righteous indignation against
Crystal Gail Mangum (1) who effectively
destroyed the lives of those wrongly accused young men from
Duke University and their families? Where was Mr. Sharpton
virtuous fury against O.J. Simpson who got away with murder?
Did he lament that that outrageous verdict was a prime example
of celebrity justice? No. Apparently, celebrity justice is
only egregious when it applies to white celebrities.
In the end, Paris Hilton herself is rather inconsequential
in regards to this matter, but the legacy of Al Sharpton's
dirty morality has forever stained the vestige of the American
Few have done more to destroy the true meaning of civil rights
in America than the slimy Al Sharpton [and Jesse Jackson among
others]. It is truly sad that these men, who have so strenuously
endeavored to divide America in order to line their own polluted
pockets while simultaneously stepping on the backs of those
they purport to be fighting for, are not in jail - but Paris
Unleashes $40 Million Ad War
Poor, September 4, 2006
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or AFL-CIO, is America's largest federation
of unions, made up of 53 national and international (including
Canadian) unions (1). Or, in other
words, they are a very large faction one whose sole
purpose is to disproportionably affect change by manipulating
the American political system. When framing what would become
the Constitution of the United States, our sagacious forefathers
predicted, and feared, the rise of these types of factions.
That is to say that they feared the probable, and inevitable,
growth of lobbyists, unions, special interest groups, and
corpulent grass-root factions. The fact that they actually
prescribed a solution, to this disease of democracy, serves
as a lasting testament to their rational suspicions of large
lobbies. Further, more evidence of their cognitive apprehension
is clearly established by their own words when they discussed
'the mischief of factions' in the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles
which were in part penned to advocate for the ratification
of the Constitution; these epistles were written to elucidate
the Constitution and make it more palpable for the masses
to understand. These series of articles and arguments were
written under the pseudonym of Publius by the Constitutional
author James Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton and
John Jay. These three men, along with Thomas Jefferson,
all had significant influence on the intent and wording
of our Constitution. Federalist No. 10 and
Federalist No. 51 are generally regarded as the most
influential of the 85 articles (2).
Their trepidation regarding the dangers of factions, as
they were then known, or unions and lobbyists as they are
contemporarily known, was entirely valid as is evidenced
by the undue influence special interest groups have over
our political system today. Fortuitously, our erudite forefather
prescribed several cures to this detrimental infection they
appropriately dubbed the mischief of factions.
Federalist No. 10 proposes two remedies for the
mischief of factions; either stop the causes of factions
or control their effects. They astutely reasoned that one
may obstruct the causes of factions by either destroying
their long fought for liberty or by giving everyone the
same opinion which consequently would amount to the
same thing; namely the death of liberty. Thankfully, neither
was of these solutions were deemed favorable by the esteemed
authors. Thus, they looked for the means by which to effectively
control, or curb, the effects of special interests groups.
They proposed that the mischievous effects, caused by fat-grass-root
factions, could be effectively neutralized by either spreading
out the density people or by dispersing out the extent of
the federal government. Since, during their time, America
was relatively diminutive in size, they could readily afford
to push the country westward, thus successfully allaying
the mischief of lobbyists for a time while
at the same time expanding the frontiers of our nation.
Today that solution is unlikely to work, unless America
is willing to annex Mexico. Therefore, it seems unlikely
that we will expand beyond our current borders and hence
we must look toward their alternate solution expanding
the size of the federal government.
It should be made clear that this solution does not equate
to granting the federal government increased powers, rather
it espouses that their existing power should be further
dispersed, thus making it more difficult for special interests
to buy congressional power. If lobbyists had to pay off
a several hundred candidates as apposed to merely a few,
it would greatly weaken their influence and increase the
likelihood that not all of the candidates would willingly
go along with them thus, in point of fact, abating
their unwanted influence over our government. Unfortunately,
the size of our government has not grown with our population
over the years, largely due to our misgivings about large
governments, and consequently factions such as the AFL-CIO
have capitalized on this trend by buying our politicians.
Last week, the labor cabal of the AFL-CIO or faction
leaders announced their plans to spend $40
million on 80 targeted races in 21 states (3).
They are planning to give money only to those politicians
(democrats) who are willing to acquiesce to the factions
voting demands. This guarantees that their politicians will
no longer be faithful to their voters, but rather to the
AFL-CIO, whose money allowed them greater access to financial
resources and success. Their money just about assures the
victory of unscrupulous politicians over their outspent
opponents who would not kowtow to the AFL-CIO faction.
However, it is noteworthy to mention that the AFL-CIO does
not spend $40 million on their own members. After Katrina
devastated the Gulf Coast, the union raised
(only) $1.5 million to aid Katrina survivors (4).
Remarkably, in light of their small donation, they are currently
waging a $40 million war against republicans (5),
yet they could not extend that much wealth out of their
own flush coffers toward their own members. Furthermore,
the $1.5 million did not even come out of their own treasury
they bled the funds from their own beleaguered membership
by raising the money!
The truth of the matter is that they care little for the
actual wellbeing of their own members in as much
as they already have procured the union dues of their members
and their obedient vote. If one desires to know why manufacturing
establishments are looking elsewhere namely, China,
Mexico, South America, or, in short, anywhere but America
to ply their trade, one need look no further than
to the corpulent faction known as the AFL-CIO. It is clear
this faction and many others are more interested in the
accumulation of influence rather than in their own members.
The AFL-CIO cabal is exactly what our forefathers feared;
a mischievous faction group which is no not representative
of the vast majority of Americans and yet wields disproportional
influence on our government. Presently, their sway is extremely
strong, primarily due to the fact that they need to nuy
only a relatively select few in order to maintain control.
In order to defeat them, and other similar types of factions,
we must make it more expensive for them to purchase candidates.
In essence, we need more political offices than they can
afford to buy. Regrettably, for too long, the numbers of
special interest groups have risen, while our congressional
numbers have not. As a direct result of this imbalance,
their power and influence have progressively escalated,
leaving us, the beleaguered American citizenry, with an
impotent government - one which is at the perpetual mercy
of special interest groups. Our forefathers prescribed a
cure to the AFL-CIO and other factions - it is now incumbent
upon us, the American people, to administer it.
It has been supposed by many would be pundits and others
that the key to eliminating terrorism lies not with destroying
their arms, but rather with the creation of a prosperous
state - and to this end, they frequently propose economic
solutions, or economic opportunities, to allay the problem
of rampant violence. This egocentric-economic resolution
is commonly purported to be a valid long-term solution to
fanatical terrorism. However, this remedy is predicated
upon three erroneous assumptions: firstly, that murderous
terrorists are somehow rational actors who are willing to
accept a common peace; secondly, that the said terrorists
will not exploit the profit garnered from the increased
economic opportunities afforded to them to generate even
more terror; and thirdly, that these murderers will readily
lay down their bombs in favor of paychecks. The recent violence
which erupted in Lebanon, due to Hezbollah's abduction
of two Israeli solders, clearly delineate the fact that
the egocentric-economic solution is gravely flawed.
In recent years, following their 1975-1991 civil war, Lebanon
had steadily experienced continued economic growth and opportunity.
"Since 1991 Lebanon's economy has revived; annual inflation,
about 500 percent in 1987, was manageable by the mid-1990s
and low by the start of the 21st century. Gross domestic
product (GDP) totaled $21.8 billion in 2004, with the GDP
expanding by an average of 4.4 percent annually in the period
2000-2004" (1). Furthermore,
due largely to foreign investment, "Lebanon has rebuilt
much of its war-torn physical and financial infrastructure"
(2). In fact, there had been so much
economic prosperity in recent years that Beirut, had made
significant strides in regaining its venerable title, as
the Paris of the Middle East. According to the egocentric-economic
solution, terrorism should have either been acutely weakened
or, at best, been completely ousted by the increased economic
opportunity in Lebanon. So, the question remains, how did
Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, survive during
such economic prosperity?
The answer is that Hezbollah did not merely survive
during the Lebanese economic revival; rather they thrived
because of it. It is seemingly asinine to assume that terrorists
will not prosper when their host country prospers. In fact,
it is only logical to expect that they will use the increased
prosperity in a two-pronged attack: first, they will apportion
some of their increased wealth to buy more support for themselves
by creating numerous social and cultural institutions; and
second, they will siphon off significant amounts of money
from their increased wealth and deploy that toward their
military wing, which consequently leads to even more violence
- not less. This bilateral approach is evidenced by Hezbollah's
(3) actions since 1991 and stands in stark contrast
to the egocentric-economic model.
While foreign investment fueled an economic revival in
Lebanon, "Hezbollah established a network of
educational and cultural institutions, as well as health
and social welfare services. The latter included an Islamic
health authority that operated pharmacies, clinics and even
hospitals where thousands of people were treated every day.
Hezbollah also established a construction company
that not only built houses, mosques and schools, but also
paved roads and even supplied water to Shi'ite villages.
Particularly prominent in all of this was its contribution
to the reconstruction of thousands of houses damaged in
the battles with Israel in south Lebanon. Such activities
bought the loyalty of the local population. Hezbollah,
like the PLO and Hamas, also maintained a
Martyrs' Fund" (4). This
is the first part of their approach; where they prey upon
increased economic aid, provided by generous contributions,
to buy more support from the local population for their
terrorist organization. It is not surprising, in light of
this tactic, that Hezbollah has not only taken part
in elections, but currently holds, "nearly a fifth
of the seats in parliament" (5).
While doing these seemingly altruistic deeds, Hezbollah
was also busy conducting more nefarious actions - funded
again, partially by the increased economic affluence presented
to them in Lebanon. Hezbollah in 1991 was responsible
for "52 attacks, as compared to 19 attacks the organization
carried out in 1990 (before they had the necessary funds).
In 1992, Hezbollah launched 63 attacks and in 1993,
158 attacks, when during the course of 'Operation Accountability'
they fired hundreds of Katyusha rockets into the Security
Zone and (into) Israeli territory. In 1994 a total of 187
attacks by Hezbollah were recorded. There
were 119 instances of artillery fire, 31 detonations of
explosive charges and two frontal assaults on IDF positions.
In 1995 a total of 344 attacks against Israeli troops and
positions by were recorded. There were 270 instances of
artillery fire, 64 detonations of explosive charges and
2 frontal assaults on IDF positions." (6)
As one can clearly see, there is a proportional correlation
between the rising economic opportunities created in Lebanon
and the increased number of attacks.
The assertion that increased economic opportunities in
terror infested regions will somehow diminish their strength
and fortitude is clearly false. In contrast, the egocentric-economic
model of dealing with terrorism is an enabler of terrorism
- not an inhibiter of terrorism. It is clearly evident that
if a terrorist organization is embedded within a given country
and if monies begin to flow into that country, that money
will eventually and inevitably pour into the infixed terrorist
Has any corrupt country, business, or association ever
collapsed due to too much economic wealth? Has increased
funds ever made an irrational actor, rational? Will zealous
murderers willingly put down their guns and surrender their
power at the prospect of a minimum wage check? Did the increased
economic aid given to Germany prior to World War II appease
Hitler? More recently, did the Soviet Union collapse because
of increased economic wealth? The answer to all these questions
is a resounding, NO! If money is power and if absolute power
corrupts absolutely then it follows that increased money
is increased corruption. The egocentric-economic model is
fundamentally flawed for the reason that it takes into account
an abnormal-altruistic view of man, rather than the real
view of terrorists (7).