It only reasons that this coddled lawyer and career politician "President" would whine about everything not being his fault. 

Has he had any job with any significant responsibilities? (Rhetorical question, of course not.)

That person who kept the impeccable and comprehensive list of "casus belli" of the Iraq war should take on a new assignment:

Research the number of times in his first year that Obama has blamed or referenced the problems that he "inherited."

This pathological behaviour has to set a Presidential record. I bet that he has blamed the previous administration for problems he has had to deal with more than Bush I, II Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon combined.

 This is disgusting.

Worse, 47% of Americans (who believe Obama is doing OK) believe the MSM slant and bias, and think it is ok that a leader/President constantly lay blame on a previous President. Would this behaviour be ok with their kid's school teacher, or sports coach or an employee? 

I have no respect for any Democrats that find nothing wrong with the constant finger pointing of their party and President. 

This is not acceptable in any professional work or leadership situation, why should it be acceptable in poltics and governance (I use that word loosely with this corrupt Chicago hack group) and particularly for the President of the US.

Where are the Presidential Historians. This has to be unprecedented in our Presidential history.

This is a complete and utter failure of leadership. Obama=immature, inexperienced, lacking focus and creativity. (ie lets throw some money and bailouts at a problems and give money to corrupt unions--give me a break)

We have got to send this community organizer back to his community, so he can screw up only Chicago, and not the rest of the US--this job is way too big for this coddled ACORN lawyer. 

If a male member of Congress said they could get more done if women and other assorted minorities were sent home since these tend to be the demographics that tend to think the government owes them a living even if they could provide it for themselves, we'd never hear the end of it.

If Leftists are going to constantly make a hullabaloo over the propagation of stereotypes, one of the inferences of Rep. Carol Shea-Porter must be addressed.

In her remarks she insinuates that only the female members of the legislative body have been responsible for taking care of family.

It should be pointed out men that go out to work each day are also taking care of their families.

Anyone that argues otherwise should support the abolition of child support laws along with government welfare handouts and see just how long children thrive without any kind of material and nutritional sustenance.

This brings us to yet another observation.

It is safe to say that most of the female members of Congress did not come from the ranks of scrubwomen earning minimum wage.

As such, many no doubt possess professional backgrounds where they actually placed their careers over and above that of their children.

Rep. Shea-Porter (with her hyphenated last name indicating that her identity derived from her role as wife and mother is not sufficient for her) can pull the public leg all she wants; however, it is most likely the babysitters and nannies that have taken care of the children of the female members of Congress.

Thus, when this November rolls around, we should toss out both genders also irrespective of how the plumbing is hooked up.

By Frederick Meekins

To all of you who are fond of the word "retard" or the variation "libtard."

From Sarah Palin:

"Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those
with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a
strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our
president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s
recent sick and offensive tactic," she wrote.

"Just as we’d be
appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the "N-word"
or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children
with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love
them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/02/2010-02-02_sarah_pal...

Spin away how your use of its "ok."

Edit: Here is a more complete look at what Palin said about the word "retarded."

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=278672843434

The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling
them, “F---ing retarded,” according to several participants, as
reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever
used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on
all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and
the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.

A patriot in North Andover, Massachusetts, notified me of Rahm’s
“retarded” slam. I join this gentleman, who is the father of a
beautiful child born with Down Syndrome, in asking why the Special
Olympics, National Down Syndrome Society and other groups condemning
Rahm’s degrading scolding have been completely ignored by the White
House. No comment from his boss, the president?

As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s
about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent
and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country
free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous
insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better...
Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Now this is what she said about Rush's use of "retards"

http://atlanticwire.theatlantic.com/opinions/view/opinion/Transcript-Bre...

PALIN: I'm not politically correct. I am not one to be a word police. ...

WALLACE:
OK. But Rush Limbaugh weighed in this week. And he said this: "Our
politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's
taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. ...
I mean, these people, these liberal activists are quote, kooks." Should
Rush Limbaugh apologize?

PALIN: They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh
was using satire to bring attention to what this politically correct --

WALLACE: But he used the "R" word.

PALIN: Using satire. Name calling by anyone -- I teach this to my
children, you teach it to your children and your grandchildren, too.
Name calling by anyone, it's just unnecessary. It just wastes time.

WALLACE: But you know what some people are going to say, Governor,
and have said. They say, look, when it's her political adversary Rahm
Emanuel, she's going to call him out, he's indecent, apologize. But
when it's a political friend like Rush Limbaugh, oh it's satire

PALIN: I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he
did not agree with "F-ing retards." And we did know that Rahm Emanuel,
it's been reported, did say that. That's a big difference there.

 

 

Now I wonder if the patriot in North Andover, with the beautiful child born with Down's syndrome, the one who thinks its about decency and not politics, justifies two sets of rules for the word "retard" depending who says it?

I join this gentleman, who is the father of a
beautiful child born with Down Syndrome, in asking why the Special
Olympics, National Down Syndrome Society and other groups condemning
Rahm’s degrading scolding have been completely ignored by the White
House. No comment from his boss, the president?

vs

Using satire. Name calling by anyone -- I teach this to my
children, you teach it to your children and your grandchildren, too.
Name calling by anyone, it's just unnecessary. It just wastes time.

Not political? It sure looks political.

If asked by the National Down Syndrome Society, Special Olympics and other groups, would Palin join them in condemning Rush's shtick? If not, Sarah Palin has an enormous problem. She has been outed as a liar.

Obama certainly looks down his nose in a condescending manner. Why do I hear "KNEEELLLLLLLLL BEFORE ZOD!!!" from Superman II in my ear?

In opening the State of Union, Obama mentioned the Speaker of the House, the Vice President and the American people. What, no acknowledgement of illegal aliens? Obama apparently is not as tolerant as made to appear.

Isn't Chris Matthews forgetting that Obama is Black more offensive then Harry Reid saying "negro dialect"?

By invoking Bull Run & the Bloody Sunday of the civil rights movement in the State of the Union, Obama implies disagreement with him is racist.

Obama claimed he took office amidst growing government debt. It's getting even worse under him.

Biden certainly seemed gleeful about hosing the banks. Biden looked like a bobblehead the way he couldn't keep his neck still.

Guess we’ll see at tax time if Obama is blowing smoke up our rears about not raising taxes.

If Obama is supposedly one of the greatest orators of world history surpassing Bush’s limited elocutionary abilities, why did he use the word “cops” rather than “police”?

President plans to toss $30 billion here; $30 billion there. Reminds me of the Simpsons bit about Internet stock.

And what if the job bill Obama demands “without delay” is delayed?

I guess all that clean energy technology China is inventing was the cause of all that smog at the Beijing Olympics.

Will Obama really allow offshore drilling or is this a phantom promise like clean-coal technology?

Pelosi’s grin is scarier than the Joker’s.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplotano applauds like a lethargic Walrus.

Why does Obama pronounce “Colooombia” with an Hispanic accent?

If everyone needs a college education since Obama decrees that high school is no longer enough for career success, won’t college become as worthless when the government “gives” it to everyone?

Why should future government workers have their student loans forgiven sooner than those in other occupations?

Obama promised to make mortgages more affordable. Didn’t steps like this cause the housing and banking crisis to begin with?

Frau Obama is to lead a purge against childhood obesity. May start out as pleas to exercise more, but will likely end with the government monitoring what youngsters eat, threatening to remove from parental custody those not within established guidelines, and eventually the program will be expanded to include adults. As a former porker now out to change the world, Huckabee will likely endorse this as he also thinks your weight is the government’s business.

If Bush’s prescription drug program was expensive, wouldn’t Obamacare be even more so?

If we are freezing government spending with the exception of outlays related to national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, is that really freezing any government spending at all?

Why is $250,000 considered ostentatiously rich?

Obama's said "The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away." This really means that to disagree with Obama is subversive. Look for more attempts at resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine in the name of diversity, national security, and assorted communitarian drivel.

Are Obama's comments about pundits spreading cynicism "respectful". Why don't these "turn people away from the process"?

It is claimed that the military will be out of Iraq by the end of August. Expect the next Iraqi uprising to begin the first of September.

When Obama's claims the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination, does this include cases on behalf of White people whose rights in the workplace are trod asunder? If the case of where the charges of voter intimidation were dropped against Black Panthers threatening White folks on election day 2008, it is highly doubtful.

While our values "allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe", those values did not originate from every corner of the globe. Like it or not, those are largely Western in that they are predominately Judoe-Christian and Greco-Roman.

Obama should be ashamed if he accepts the donation to Haiti from the 8 year old boy. Notice how Obama did not recommend people send their charitable donations through a private organization instead.

America still faces a potential Obama dictatorship. His attitude towards the Supreme court is quite chilling. Now leftists are condemning Justice Alito for not taking his rump kicking with a "Please sir, may I have another."

Congress needs to get a handle on this presidential executive order thing irrespective of the administration issuing these decrees or our Republic is through.

In the Republican response, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell used "her" as a universal pronoun. If one is not using designations for both genders, "him" is the grammatically correct one to use.

Fox News counted 86 rounds of applause. I tabulated 93 instances of clapping. Some of it seemed more subdued than in previous years.

Karl Rove claimed Obama said "I" 96 times. Reminds me of that scene in the series finale of the original Prison. In my college days, one usually got points deducted for overuse of the first person personal pronoun. At least Bob Dole had the decency to begin his sentences with "Bob Dole".

by Frederick Meekins

and career policians--thats what we really need--Obama and Biden would be a great start.

We can't afford their egos, salaries and drifting focussless agendas.

These turds need to go back to Delaware and Chicago before they sink the US. (Well, Biden the "common, blue-collar man" needs to retire--he has been in the senate since Nixon was around.)

Any liberals reading this, ever wonder why all the liberal Democrats look like Skeletor --  Soros, Byrd, and Biden, and all the Republicans look young like Scott Brown, Jason Chaffetz, and Michelle Bachman.

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

Churchill

Those still not convinced should ask themselves before they run off and join such groups how much control they want to cede over their lives to the beneficence of the collective. For once one signs over the very right to ownership to one’s dwelling and possessions, where does it end?

Willing to relinquish rights to the conjugal affections of your spouse to the group? Don’t snicker.

In many cults, those not willing to surrender their spouses to the group are labeled as being insufficiently devoted to the group or "too individualistic" in orientation. Interestingly this allegation is invoked increasingly in the churches of today as they totter ever closer to the edges of apostasy and unbelief.

Those enamored with their own smug progressivism will claim such excesses are more characteristic of the religious mindset. Secularists would never stand for such outrages and the infringement on the most basic of relationships?

Think so do you? Though he might have started off religious, before the last drop of Kool-Aid was slurped, Jim Jones' position on the Scriptures and the beauties of socialism had more in common with the National Counsel of Churches than Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition. And for those that think Marx is the cat's whiskers, what do they have to say about this thinker's proposal that the individual family and private marriages should be abolished?

And even if one happens to have a proclivity to these bizarre living arrangements without all the kinky wifeswapping and such, on what grounds does one object when these compounds lay claim to your children? Some of these COMMUNITIES conspire to undermine familial bonds between parents and offspring in a group setting or by minimizing the time parents spend alone with their biological progeny.

Yet one does not have to be locked away on some dope-smoking commune to be influenced by this kind of childrearing mentality. The perspective is already prevalent throughout the social welfare establishment that children do not belong to the parents but rather to the COMMUNITY as manifested by the state. If anything, a child enjoys a status barely above that of a library book since the parent is granted permission to enjoy the child for a time but forced to surrender the youngsters to the state on the terms of the state as evidenced in laws establishing lower and lower ages for mandatory preschool and bureaucratic homevisits.

With America's relative prosperity, citizens are pretty much able to ignore such kooks. But what will happen when these lunatics acquire more and more power unto themselves and connive to impose their cherished deprivations upon the rest of us?

For if these neo-primitives have their way, you won't even be permitted to procure the same quality of sustenance to which you and your family are accustomed. Rather, you will be compelled to gnaw on the twigs and shrubs beneath your very feet if you are fortunate to be deemed worthy enough of the privilege of continued existence.

For a while now, it has become popular in eco-socialist circles to whine incessantly about how far food must be transported to reach the masses of humanity. Instead of marveling at the bounty and variety of food available year round and in the most hostile of climates, environmentalists lament this fact.

Anybody that is anybody these days has a website (I wonder if the ones run by these people function on moonbeams and fuzzy thoughts since the rest of us are suppose to cutback on electricity), an organization, and a cadre of propagandists to spread the message. The mass starvation racket (or the inconvenient food syndicate) is no different.

One such outfit fomenting this hooey is Slow Food USA, described as “supporting and celebrating the food traditions of North America.” Let me point out they are not referring to a burger, fries, and a Coke.

The organization’s executive director Erika Lesser (“lesser” is the amount of food you’ll be eating if her organization has its way) gave a lecture titled “Live Slow: On The Path To A Delicious Future”. Those in attendance were invited to “Join the slow food table on biodiversity issues and the benefits of good, clean, and fair food." This ought to be considered because, "Education in taste is the first step towards transforming consumers into co-producers who can help safeguard food traditions and the health of the environment. By choosing wisely and eating with pleasure, you --- as well as your community and the planet --- can reap the delicious and healthful rewards of responsible coproduction.”

From that litany, the primary thing that stands out is how the consumer will be “transformed” (New Age socialistic euphemisms meaning revolution imposed from above whether you want to participate or not) into a “coproducer”. In other words, it is the intention of this to drag you out into the fields for a little conscripted labor.

For some reason, upon reading about being transformed into being a coproducer, I can’t get out of my head images of what I’ve read about the placards that use to hang on the gates of the concentration camps run by the Nazis reading “Work shall make you free” or how the Khmer Rouge use to march the people out to labor in the rice paddies. You know, the entire reeducation through labor bit (or as it is called today, “community service”).

Though slow food fronts disguise themselves in an agrarian or proletarian cloak, as with most that make playing unscrubbed revolutionary their life’s work, the movement is quite elitist in nature. For example, on the website the organization laments the advent of low-cost chickens consumed by the masses.

Rather, the group advocates more expensive breeds. Most likely since the consumption of meat will be limited to the revolutionary vanguard whereas those of us deemed to possess a consciousness of insufficient awareness and sensitivity will be compelled to simply piddle in the dirt for a root or a grub; but we will probably be forbidden that as well since disturbing the soil to even a miniscule extent will be an example of the butterfly affect that could lead to an erosion-based environmental disaster.

As with most of the other groups mentioned in this epic epistle, Slow Foods USA has a phobia about people doing things by themselves. This is for pretty much the same reason the Nazis did not want people listening to the radio alone. When you are alone, you are more likely to be critical since in that context you are more apt to pay attention to the message rather than taking cues on how you are to respond from those around you.

Rather than eat alone, the socially responsible are obligated to join and take their gastronomical orders from a group called a “Convivium”. Since everything to these people is group and movement oriented, if food is now to go in one end in the presence of the group, I guess it won’t be long until one will be obligated to have the remnants emerge at the other end in the presence of the COMMUNITY. After all, only those with something to hide want privacy we are constantly reminded by the radical communalists.

Use to be, one ate meals with one’s family. Maybe if these hags had not aborted themselves into sterility, supper time would not have had to be turned into an act of COMMUNITY service measuring one’s devotion to the good of the cause.

Slow Food USA prides itself on being everything fast food is not. Thus, one good thing about the movement is that the shrill biddies comprising the membership might be forced back into the kitchen where hussies with too much time on their hands belong and won’t have enough energy to undertake their idiotic activism.

As stated, left to themselves and cordoned off from the rest of us, these radicals would not present all that much of a problem. However, as with other useful idiots manipulated by the elites, these halfwits play a vital role in bringing an end to life as we know it when they form strategic alliances with the other mouthpieces of perdition for the purposes of getting the American people to surrender their freedom with a wink and a smile.

To the regular American blissfully ignorant of the ideological struggle being waged all around, television news outlets and correspondents exist to convey in an objective manner information of use and importance to concerned citizens. However, often these communicators and the interests they represent are as partisan as those blatantly seeking to persuade you as to the veracity of a particular opinion.

Prominently featured in the top half of page 10 of the 2006 edition of the Green Festival program was an advertisement for a panel discussion conducted by WRC-TV news personality Wendy Rieger. From the text, the reader learns that Rieger’s “Going Green segment features green lifestyles and products.”

However, had Rieger earned a reputation for grilling adherents of this movement and exposing the fallacies in the arguments endangering the nation’s very standard of living, it is doubtful she would be given a place, the promotional literature categorizes, as on the “main stage”. Furthermore, if Rieger is snuggling under the mulch with environmentalists, how can we be sure the remainder of her reportage is not as slanted?

Would the Green Festival allow a correspondent more critical of the celebration’s claims to ascend the rostrum such as John Stossel or Rush Limbaugh? Tolerancemongers will snap, “But its a private function and the organizers are not required to invite anyone they don’t want.”

And they are absolutely correct. Perhaps we should remind them of that as these Reds drag out notions such as the Fairness Doctrine in the attempt to silence Conservative talk radio.

Conversely though, if we are suppose to trust some dyed-blonde newsgirl in the green movement's pocket, would those having no problem with that be as quiet if some newsgal was in Jerry Falwell’s back pocket getting chummy with the Moral Majority gang at one of those kinds of shindigs? The aging beatniks do not consider what they believe to be a bias as anyone that does not believe as they do will be carted off to electroshock therapy once they ascend to unrivaled power.

Some will dismiss this clarion warming, claiming it has gone all over the map and too far afield. However, Francis Schaeffer once pointed out that a shortcoming of the Judeo-Christian mind and thus the conservative worldview as an extension of that perspective is the failure to view reality as a single comprehensive unit.

As such, if the free peoples of the earth give a foothold to these Communitarians in one area, by curtailing our innate liberties in that particular area, it won’t be that long in terms of the totality of history until we will have surrendered all the areas that make life worth living. If today we allow these so-called “guardians of the earth” to alter driving patterns and the like, what will prevent them in the future from coming back to take our cars and even our homes away all together?

by Frederick Meekins

Those still not convinced should ask themselves before they run off and join such groups how much control they want to cede over their lives to the beneficence of the collective. For once one signs over the very right to ownership to one’s dwelling and possessions, where does it end?

Willing to relinquish rights to the conjugal affections of your spouse to the group? Don’t snicker.

In many cults, those not willing to surrender their spouses to the group are labeled as being insufficiently devoted to the group or "too individualistic" in orientation. Interestingly this allegation is invoked increasingly in the churches of today as they totter ever closer to the edges of apostasy and unbelief.

Those enamored with their own smug progressivism will claim such excesses are more characteristic of the religious mindset. Secularists would never stand for such outrages and the infringement on the most basic of relationships?

Think so do you? Though he might have started off religious, before the last drop of Kool-Aid was slurped, Jim Jones' position on the Scriptures and the beauties of socialism had more in common with the National Counsel of Churches than Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition. And for those that think Marx is the cat's whiskers, what do they have to say about this thinker's proposal that the individual family and private marriages should be abolished?

And even if one happens to have a proclivity to these bizarre living arrangements without all the kinky wifeswapping and such, on what grounds does one object when these compounds lay claim to your children? Some of these COMMUNITIES conspire to undermine familial bonds between parents and offspring in a group setting or by minimizing the time parents spend alone with their biological progeny.

Yet one does not have to be locked away on some dope-smoking commune to be influenced by this kind of childrearing mentality. The perspective is already prevalent throughout the social welfare establishment that children do not belong to the parents but rather to the COMMUNITY as manifested by the state. If anything, a child enjoys a status barely above that of a library book since the parent is granted permission to enjoy the child for a time but forced to surrender the youngsters to the state on the terms of the state as evidenced in laws establishing lower and lower ages for mandatory preschool and bureaucratic homevisits.

With America's relative prosperity, citizens are pretty much able to ignore such kooks. But what will happen when these lunatics acquire more and more power unto themselves and connive to impose their cherished deprivations upon the rest of us?

For if these neo-primitives have their way, you won't even be permitted to procure the same quality of sustenance to which you and your family are accustomed. Rather, you will be compelled to gnaw on the twigs and shrubs beneath your very feet if you are fortunate to be deemed worthy enough of the privilege of continued existence.

For a while now, it has become popular in eco-socialist circles to whine incessantly about how far food must be transported to reach the masses of humanity. Instead of marveling at the bounty and variety of food available year round and in the most hostile of climates, environmentalists lament this fact.

Anybody that is anybody these days has a website (I wonder if the ones run by these people function on moonbeams and fuzzy thoughts since the rest of us are suppose to cutback on electricity), an organization, and a cadre of propagandists to spread the message. The mass starvation racket (or the inconvenient food syndicate) is no different.

One such outfit fomenting this hooey is Slow Food USA, described as “supporting and celebrating the food traditions of North America.” Let me point out they are not referring to a burger, fries, and a Coke.

The organization’s executive director Erika Lesser (“lesser” is the amount of food you’ll be eating if her organization has its way) gave a lecture titled “Live Slow: On The Path To A Delicious Future”. Those in attendance were invited to “Join the slow food table on biodiversity issues and the benefits of good, clean, and fair food." This ought to be considered because, "Education in taste is the first step towards transforming consumers into co-producers who can help safeguard food traditions and the health of the environment. By choosing wisely and eating with pleasure, you --- as well as your community and the planet --- can reap the delicious and healthful rewards of responsible coproduction.”

From that litany, the primary thing that stands out is how the consumer will be “transformed” (New Age socialistic euphemisms meaning revolution imposed from above whether you want to participate or not) into a “coproducer”. In other words, it is the intention of this to drag you out into the fields for a little conscripted labor.

For some reason, upon reading about being transformed into being a coproducer, I can’t get out of my head images of what I’ve read about the placards that use to hang on the gates of the concentration camps run by the Nazis reading “Work shall make you free” or how the Khmer Rouge use to march the people out to labor in the rice paddies. You know, the entire reeducation through labor bit (or as it is called today, “community service”).

Though slow food fronts disguise themselves in an agrarian or proletarian cloak, as with most that make playing unscrubbed revolutionary their life’s work, the movement is quite elitist in nature. For example, on the website the organization laments the advent of low-cost chickens consumed by the masses.

Rather, the group advocates more expensive breeds. Most likely since the consumption of meat will be limited to the revolutionary vanguard whereas those of us deemed to possess a consciousness of insufficient awareness and sensitivity will be compelled to simply piddle in the dirt for a root or a grub; but we will probably be forbidden that as well since disturbing the soil to even a miniscule extent will be an example of the butterfly affect that could lead to an erosion-based environmental disaster.

As with most of the other groups mentioned in this epic epistle, Slow Foods USA has a phobia about people doing things by themselves. This is for pretty much the same reason the Nazis did not want people listening to the radio alone. When you are alone, you are more likely to be critical since in that context you are more apt to pay attention to the message rather than taking cues on how you are to respond from those around you.

Rather than eat alone, the socially responsible are obligated to join and take their gastronomical orders from a group called a “Convivium”. Since everything to these people is group and movement oriented, if food is now to go in one end in the presence of the group, I guess it won’t be long until one will be obligated to have the remnants emerge at the other end in the presence of the COMMUNITY. After all, only those with something to hide want privacy we are constantly reminded by the radical communalists.

Use to be, one ate meals with one’s family. Maybe if these hags had not aborted themselves into sterility, supper time would not have had to be turned into an act of COMMUNITY service measuring one’s devotion to the good of the cause.

Slow Food USA prides itself on being everything fast food is not. Thus, one good thing about the movement is that the shrill biddies comprising the membership might be forced back into the kitchen where hussies with too much time on their hands belong and won’t have enough energy to undertake their idiotic activism.

As stated, left to themselves and cordoned off from the rest of us, these radicals would not present all that much of a problem. However, as with other useful idiots manipulated by the elites, these halfwits play a vital role in bringing an end to life as we know it when they form strategic alliances with the other mouthpieces of perdition for the purposes of getting the American people to surrender their freedom with a wink and a smile.

To the regular American blissfully ignorant of the ideological struggle being waged all around, television news outlets and correspondents exist to convey in an objective manner information of use and importance to concerned citizens. However, often these communicators and the interests they represent are as partisan as those blatantly seeking to persuade you as to the veracity of a particular opinion.

Prominently featured in the top half of page 10 of the 2006 edition of the Green Festival program was an advertisement for a panel discussion conducted by WRC-TV news personality Wendy Rieger. From the text, the reader learns that Rieger’s “Going Green segment features green lifestyles and products.”

However, had Rieger earned a reputation for grilling adherents of this movement and exposing the fallacies in the arguments endangering the nation’s very standard of living, it is doubtful she would be given a place, the promotional literature categorizes, as on the “main stage”. Furthermore, if Rieger is snuggling under the mulch with environmentalists, how can we be sure the remainder of her reportage is not as slanted?

Would the Green Festival allow a correspondent more critical of the celebration’s claims to ascend the rostrum such as John Stossel or Rush Limbaugh? Tolerancemongers will snap, “But its a private function and the organizers are not required to invite anyone they don’t want.”

And they are absolutely correct. Perhaps we should remind them of that as these Reds drag out notions such as the Fairness Doctrine in the attempt to silence Conservative talk radio.

Conversely though, if we are suppose to trust some dyed-blonde newsgirl in the green movement's pocket, would those having no problem with that be as quiet if some newsgal was in Jerry Falwell’s back pocket getting chummy with the Moral Majority gang at one of those kinds of shindigs? The aging beatniks do not consider what they believe to be a bias as anyone that does not believe as they do will be carted off to electroshock therapy once they ascend to unrivaled power.

Some will dismiss this clarion warming, claiming it has gone all over the map and too far afield. However, Francis Schaeffer once pointed out that a shortcoming of the Judeo-Christian mind and thus the conservative worldview as an extension of that perspective is the failure to view reality as a single comprehensive unit.

As such, if the free peoples of the earth give a foothold to these Communitarians in one area, by curtailing our innate liberties in that particular area, it won’t be that long in terms of the totality of history until we will have surrendered all the areas that make life worth living. If today we allow these so-called “guardians of the earth” to alter driving patterns and the like, what will prevent them in the future from coming back to take our cars and even our homes away all together?

by Frederick Meekins

Those still not convinced should ask themselves before they run off and join such groups how much control they want to cede over their lives to the beneficence of the collective. For once one signs over the very right to ownership to one’s dwelling and possessions, where does it end?

Willing to relinquish rights to the conjugal affections of your spouse to the group? Don’t snicker.

In many cults, those not willing to surrender their spouses to the group are labeled as being insufficiently devoted to the group or "too individualistic" in orientation. Interestingly this allegation is invoked increasingly in the churches of today as they totter ever closer to the edges of apostasy and unbelief.

Those enamored with their own smug progressivism will claim such excesses are more characteristic of the religious mindset. Secularists would never stand for such outrages and the infringement on the most basic of relationships?

Think so do you? Though he might have started off religious, before the last drop of Kool-Aid was slurped, Jim Jones' position on the Scriptures and the beauties of socialism had more in common with the National Counsel of Churches than Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition. And for those that think Marx is the cat's whiskers, what do they have to say about this thinker's proposal that the individual family and private marriages should be abolished?

And even if one happens to have a proclivity to these bizarre living arrangements without all the kinky wifeswapping and such, on what grounds does one object when these compounds lay claim to your children? Some of these COMMUNITIES conspire to undermine familial bonds between parents and offspring in a group setting or by minimizing the time parents spend alone with their biological progeny.

Yet one does not have to be locked away on some dope-smoking commune to be influenced by this kind of childrearing mentality. The perspective is already prevalent throughout the social welfare establishment that children do not belong to the parents but rather to the COMMUNITY as manifested by the state. If anything, a child enjoys a status barely above that of a library book since the parent is granted permission to enjoy the child for a time but forced to surrender the youngsters to the state on the terms of the state as evidenced in laws establishing lower and lower ages for mandatory preschool and bureaucratic homevisits.

With America's relative prosperity, citizens are pretty much able to ignore such kooks. But what will happen when these lunatics acquire more and more power unto themselves and connive to impose their cherished deprivations upon the rest of us?

For if these neo-primitives have their way, you won't even be permitted to procure the same quality of sustenance to which you and your family are accustomed. Rather, you will be compelled to gnaw on the twigs and shrubs beneath your very feet if you are fortunate to be deemed worthy enough of the privilege of continued existence.

For a while now, it has become popular in eco-socialist circles to whine incessantly about how far food must be transported to reach the masses of humanity. Instead of marveling at the bounty and variety of food available year round and in the most hostile of climates, environmentalists lament this fact.

Anybody that is anybody these days has a website (I wonder if the ones run by these people function on moonbeams and fuzzy thoughts since the rest of us are suppose to cutback on electricity), an organization, and a cadre of propagandists to spread the message. The mass starvation racket (or the inconvenient food syndicate) is no different.

One such outfit fomenting this hooey is Slow Food USA, described as “supporting and celebrating the food traditions of North America.” Let me point out they are not referring to a burger, fries, and a Coke.

The organization’s executive director Erika Lesser (“lesser” is the amount of food you’ll be eating if her organization has its way) gave a lecture titled “Live Slow: On The Path To A Delicious Future”. Those in attendance were invited to “Join the slow food table on biodiversity issues and the benefits of good, clean, and fair food." This ought to be considered because, "Education in taste is the first step towards transforming consumers into co-producers who can help safeguard food traditions and the health of the environment. By choosing wisely and eating with pleasure, you --- as well as your community and the planet --- can reap the delicious and healthful rewards of responsible coproduction.”

From that litany, the primary thing that stands out is how the consumer will be “transformed” (New Age socialistic euphemisms meaning revolution imposed from above whether you want to participate or not) into a “coproducer”. In other words, it is the intention of this to drag you out into the fields for a little conscripted labor.

For some reason, upon reading about being transformed into being a coproducer, I can’t get out of my head images of what I’ve read about the placards that use to hang on the gates of the concentration camps run by the Nazis reading “Work shall make you free” or how the Khmer Rouge use to march the people out to labor in the rice paddies. You know, the entire reeducation through labor bit (or as it is called today, “community service”).

Though slow food fronts disguise themselves in an agrarian or proletarian cloak, as with most that make playing unscrubbed revolutionary their life’s work, the movement is quite elitist in nature. For example, on the website the organization laments the advent of low-cost chickens consumed by the masses.

Rather, the group advocates more expensive breeds. Most likely since the consumption of meat will be limited to the revolutionary vanguard whereas those of us deemed to possess a consciousness of insufficient awareness and sensitivity will be compelled to simply piddle in the dirt for a root or a grub; but we will probably be forbidden that as well since disturbing the soil to even a miniscule extent will be an example of the butterfly affect that could lead to an erosion-based environmental disaster.

As with most of the other groups mentioned in this epic epistle, Slow Foods USA has a phobia about people doing things by themselves. This is for pretty much the same reason the Nazis did not want people listening to the radio alone. When you are alone, you are more likely to be critical since in that context you are more apt to pay attention to the message rather than taking cues on how you are to respond from those around you.

Rather than eat alone, the socially responsible are obligated to join and take their gastronomical orders from a group called a “Convivium”. Since everything to these people is group and movement oriented, if food is now to go in one end in the presence of the group, I guess it won’t be long until one will be obligated to have the remnants emerge at the other end in the presence of the COMMUNITY. After all, only those with something to hide want privacy we are constantly reminded by the radical communalists.

Use to be, one ate meals with one’s family. Maybe if these hags had not aborted themselves into sterility, supper time would not have had to be turned into an act of COMMUNITY service measuring one’s devotion to the good of the cause.

Slow Food USA prides itself on being everything fast food is not. Thus, one good thing about the movement is that the shrill biddies comprising the membership might be forced back into the kitchen where hussies with too much time on their hands belong and won’t have enough energy to undertake their idiotic activism.

As stated, left to themselves and cordoned off from the rest of us, these radicals would not present all that much of a problem. However, as with other useful idiots manipulated by the elites, these halfwits play a vital role in bringing an end to life as we know it when they form strategic alliances with the other mouthpieces of perdition for the purposes of getting the American people to surrender their freedom with a wink and a smile.

To the regular American blissfully ignorant of the ideological struggle being waged all around, television news outlets and correspondents exist to convey in an objective manner information of use and importance to concerned citizens. However, often these communicators and the interests they represent are as partisan as those blatantly seeking to persuade you as to the veracity of a particular opinion.

Prominently featured in the top half of page 10 of the 2006 edition of the Green Festival program was an advertisement for a panel discussion conducted by WRC-TV news personality Wendy Rieger. From the text, the reader learns that Rieger’s “Going Green segment features green lifestyles and products.”

However, had Rieger earned a reputation for grilling adherents of this movement and exposing the fallacies in the arguments endangering the nation’s very standard of living, it is doubtful she would be given a place, the promotional literature categorizes, as on the “main stage”. Furthermore, if Rieger is snuggling under the mulch with environmentalists, how can we be sure the remainder of her reportage is not as slanted?

Would the Green Festival allow a correspondent more critical of the celebration’s claims to ascend the rostrum such as John Stossel or Rush Limbaugh? Tolerancemongers will snap, “But its a private function and the organizers are not required to invite anyone they don’t want.”

And they are absolutely correct. Perhaps we should remind them of that as these Reds drag out notions such as the Fairness Doctrine in the attempt to silence Conservative talk radio.

Conversely though, if we are suppose to trust some dyed-blonde newsgirl in the green movement's pocket, would those having no problem with that be as quiet if some newsgal was in Jerry Falwell’s back pocket getting chummy with the Moral Majority gang at one of those kinds of shindigs? The aging beatniks do not consider what they believe to be a bias as anyone that does not believe as they do will be carted off to electroshock therapy once they ascend to unrivaled power.

Some will dismiss this clarion warming, claiming it has gone all over the map and too far afield. However, Francis Schaeffer once pointed out that a shortcoming of the Judeo-Christian mind and thus the conservative worldview as an extension of that perspective is the failure to view reality as a single comprehensive unit.

As such, if the free peoples of the earth give a foothold to these Communitarians in one area, by curtailing our innate liberties in that particular area, it won’t be that long in terms of the totality of history until we will have surrendered all the areas that make life worth living. If today we allow these so-called “guardians of the earth” to alter driving patterns and the like, what will prevent them in the future from coming back to take our cars and even our homes away all together?

by Frederick Meekins

 If you want to know what the 'Semantic Web' and 'Internet of Things' are really all about, then I suggest you read the following three articles.

An Orwellian world for Big Brother http://bit.ly/6cm9fT

The World Government Global Database http://bit.ly/8aeM6Z

Union Now, the U.N. and World Government http://bit.ly/8kAp7G

You can also follow info regarding the semantic web at Twitter.       http://bit.ly/4yWysv 

From an Israeli webstie:

When I watched these remarks form Ben Stein I
was simply outraged. I am sick and tired of the fact that everyone that is
against a blind continuation of the “War on Terror” being labeled as anti-
Semitic. Ron Paul is a brave crusader for freedom and liberty and I have never
heard a word come out of his mouth that is even slightly of anti-Semitic racist
nature.

The fact one wants to stop the war in Iraq
doesn’t make him anti-Israel or anti-Semitic

The fact one wants to stop the war in
Afghanistan doesn’t make him an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic

The fact one wants to stop foreign aid doesn’t
make him an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic

The fact one is for a policy of non
intervention doesn’t make him an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.

The fact one wants Israel to leave the West
Bank doesn’t make him an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic

I am a Jewish Israeli so I fell quite sure that
no one can blame me of being anti-Semitic and I say to you very loud and clear:
I support Ron Paul (See: Ron Paul Israel)

Saying that the occupation in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the West Bank is motivating terror is a simple fact and not a
justification of the actions of the terrorists. Here is a simple fact: money
printing and inflation bring poverty that makes crime more likely. By saying
that am I supporting crime? No. Anyone that does a crime needs to go to jail and
terriosts that murder innocent people deserve to die but fighting endless wars
only encourages them and doesn’t help by any means to stop terrorism. When you
print money like crazy and impoverish the low and middle class don’t be
surprised if you wake up with crime rates like in Brazil, Zimbabwe or Argentina.
And when you carpet bomb villages don’t be surprised if you find out that
millions worldwide have now become your new enemies.

Full story: Ron
Paul is NOT anti-Semitic

http://israelfinancialexpert.blogspot.com/search/label/Ron%20Paul

This thread is meant to create a list of questions you would like to ask an Intellectual and guess Ben Franklin's response.  They can be timeless like:

Can you reduce oppression by increasing the size of government? 

or topical:

Who would you rather have on your campaign trail now, Palin or Obama?

 Be thankful your not in Saudi Arabia... Read the last line.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com - mind boggling site-pass on to family and friends

Saudi Arabia: 80-year-old man marries 11-year-old girl

"There
is no law that prohibits the marriage of a girl under 18," says the
randy old goat, and he's right. After all, Muhammad did it:

Incredible Article. Forward to all Family and Friends.

The following is a list of Conservative positions on various social and political topics, in cooperation with the forum topic "What Liberals Think...and Why," by choselife3x, which can be found here:

http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/what-liberals-think-why-3...

As with the "Liberals" forum, this is not meant to imply all Conservatives share all of these beliefs, or that these positions are all true.  This is a list of positions that liberals believe conservatives hold true, and the forum is open to corrections by anyone interested in an honest, polite debate.  Hopefully this will be as fun as the "Liberals" forum - let's see... 

EDIT: In addition to agreeing or disagreeing with these positions, please explain WHY you take these positions.  Otherwise the thread will take on an entirely different meaning. 

PLSD. Post Liberal Stress Disorder. (Like PTSD)

This is no joke (well, sort of, but not really.)

I have a
liberal friend, and he is seriously having anger and depression because
of the fall of Obama. (And global warming, and peace in Iraq, and a
dying liberal mainstream media, and a renewel of terrorism against the "changed" US.)

I thought it might just be him, because he is kind of a candy-ass ivy leauge writer type,

but then I heard a Physciatrist in San Francisco saying that they were getting tons of

patients that had this same problem.

(That
would probably be the same people that went to Physciatrists because
they were depressed that polar bears were dying from global warming--no joke.)

Just
be on the lookout for your liberal friends or family that may be
suffering from this disorder. Signs are: anger, depression, cynicism,
acting out or transference (particularly on all things Bush or Cheney.) One usual symptom is linking supernatural phenomina or "acts of God" on Bush or Cheney. Earthquake in Peru, Cheney and Haliburton are behind it. Sunspots, surely a result of a Bush Administration policy.

The original thread where lotr and I were having this discussion was locked so we've decide to move it here. In addition to discussing gay marriage, it's also turned into a discussion about what definitions are.

Homosexual Marriage
January 12, 2010 - 02:14 ET by Norto

is a contradiction in terms and a misnomer. The agenda is to get society
to validate sexual immorality-which it really has already done for the
most part. 

Unfortunately, what the Bible says on the issue will likely be
irrelevant in the case, and considering the people of the State of Ca
will not be represented by the State of Ca, hard telling where this
will go. 

Norto, "Homosexual
January 12, 2010 - 09:38 ET by hydrodynDM

Norto,

For decades, American motorists have been subjected to propaganda insisting that they either need to drive less or give up safe, comfortable automobiles in favor of what amount to motorized coffins in order to preserve natural resources and environmental quality.  Now that this policy goal is pretty much on the road to being implemented, the elites running our lives are not content to sit back in the glow of their accomplishment but are rather laying the groundwork for the next phase in their grand dream of limiting the free movement of the American people.

One would think the increasing popularity of electric and hybrid automobiles would please transportation planners and social engineers.  However, as most realize somewhere along life's journey, getting what you want is not always what you expected.

For while hybrid cars might cut back on emissions and fuel consumption, they also take a bite out of gas tax revenues.  But instead of tightening their belts and learning to make due with less as they counsel you when you complain about rising fuel costs, government planners are now conniving to pass the hardship on to you by altering the way transportation taxes are assessed.

Albert Mohler's sidekick Russel Moore denounced the Obama Effigy as "Satanic". Was this theologian as outspoken in condemning similar outrageous attacks against other political figures such President Bush and Sarah Palin? More importantly, would he now care to speak out against the Founding Fathers for similar protests against King George during the Revolutionary War, or is this form of protest only immoral when directed against a Black person?

New York City health officials in a pamphlet are teaching junkies the proper method for shooting up dope. Yet it must be pointed out that this is the jurisdiction where scholastic bakesales are on the verge of prohibition and where, if city officials had their way, table salt would be frowned upon apparently more now than hard narcotics.

French thought police plot to invade private homes. This is to be done in the name of preventing "psychological violence" by criminalizing robust domestic verbal disagreements. However, what advocates of this law might not be telling you is that, to the left-leaning man-haters out there, this offense consists of little more than simply disagreeing with a woman, verbally boring into a woman during a spat started by a woman, or merely speaking to one when they've basically told you to shutup.

Albert Mohler's sidekick Russel Moore denounced the Obama Effigy as "Satanic". Was this theologian as outspoken in condemning similar outrageous attacks against other political figures such President Bush and Sarah Palin? More importantly, would he now care to speak out against the Founding Fathers for similar protests against King George during the Revolutionary War, or is this form of protest only immoral when directed against a Black person?

New York City health officials in a pamphlet are teaching junkies the proper method for shooting up dope. Yet it must be pointed out that this is the jurisdiction where scholastic bakesales are on the verge of prohibition and where, if city officials had their way, table salt would be frowned upon apparently more now than hard narcotics.

French thought police plot to invade private homes. This is to be done in the name of preventing "psychological violence" by criminalizing robust domestic verbal disagreements. However, what advocates of this law might not be telling you is that, to the left-leaning man-haters out there, this offense consists of little more than simply disagreeing with a woman, verbally boring into a woman during a spat started by a woman, or merely speaking to one when they've basically told you to shutup.

in the Obama administration tremble at these three names:

Krauthammer, Ajami and Hanson. 

 Great Article -- Pass along to Family and Friends

There are already two fine websites doing this sort of thing [1][2], but they aren't being updated, so as the saying goes, "you've got do it yourself if you want to get anything done" [3] I'm pretty sure none of these have been done elsewhere.

This list is meant to express the social/political ideology held by the average Democrat/liberal. It is not meant to imply that all Democrats hold all of these views, or that the reasoning behind the views (liberal doctrine, so to speak) is set in stone to the same manner and degree for all Democrats. It is simply an overview of liberal tenets as I understand them. Another Dead Kennedy (feel free to jump in, Jer and Jason) will review and correct as necessary in the comments to make liberal ideology absolutely clear.

Then Teddy will lay out conservative tenets as he understands them and I'll review for clarity. 

(I shall endeavor to avoid all sarcastic inflection and refrain from airquotes and eye-rolling, but I'm only human, Teddy!) Here goes..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Liberals are pro-choice. They believe that women should not be forced by law to bring a pregnancy to term if they do not so wish. Laws against abortion are viewed as a sort of forced slavery that deprives women of control over their own bodies.

I am interested in learning your POV. Hope you can fill me in on what you thing about this site after lurking for 2 years.

I did not want to create another thread, so I just changed the title of an old one, so that is why the other comments are on here, this thread used to be called conservative prudes at one point :-)

Make no Mistake.

She frightens them. This is an attempt to document why...

• Over 120 candidates have asked Sarah Palin to campaign for them
• Over 950 requests have been made for Sarah Palin to speak

Sarah Palin's other Interviews (not the highly edited Couric & Gibson ones)

Even the most casual observer will notice that I am not the only one around here creating comprehensive lists. We have a large number of motivated individuals who have, at their own time and expense, taken it upon themselves to document things that the MSM (and liberals in general) seem to deny or be unaware of.

Knowing how time-consuming creating a comprehensive list can be, I have decided to create the "Free Stinker Comprehensive List Award" to be granted for exemplary work in compiling topical information in an easy to use format. (i.e. - a list that we can smack down ignorant liberals with)

I've put the linked lists in this topic header to make them easier to find when someone needs to reference them.