Eastern European countries under control of Soviet Union were, nominally, democracies. The governments there were elected by the popular elections, freedom of speech was guaranteed by their constitutions, and opposition parties did exist and were represented in state legislatures.
But these were all flimsy “democracies” run by ideologically coherent clique of devout “do-gooders”: the clerics of Marxism-socialism.
The elections were controlled by propaganda, political intimidation, and control of the nomination process.
Freedom of expression had so many exceptions and restrictions that virtually no politically tainted comment qualified as a protected speech.
Sierra Club just took on San Onofre, Calif., nuclear power plant, urging the residents to demand cutting public funding for its operation and maintenance. (A letter from a Sierra Club Task Force chair is at the end of this column.)
Sierra Club already opposes coal-powered electric plants because they pollute. It’s logical. After all, Sierra Club is and environmental organization.
Sierra Club also opposes hydroelectric plants because they disturb wildlife. While the validity of Sierra Club’s objections seems controversial, it is, arguably, still within rational. After all, Sierra Club pledged to defend the wildlife.
As I watch the Liberalism attacking our country like AIDS on several fronts, as I witness unprecedented gun grab, importation of permanent class of angry disgruntled fast-breeding takers, election fraud and other means (indoctrination, propaganda, intimidation, forced contributions to the Left) of seizing political power in order to impose the “social justice” system that was conceived in defective minds, the mass preemption of the fruits of work of the makers, which the unions are the main driving force of, and Obama incompetence and unparalleled selfishness that amplifies and speeds-up the damaging effects of all of the above, I deeply regret that I have no time to write.
If I could, I would write two columns a day on the most burning issues that our nation faces these days.
I would write how electing a Liberal, no matter how well meaning and benevolent, is always a grave threat to our free Republic…
Clashes between Western and Eastern civilizations had had their impact on theory of warfare. During their early medieval raids to Europe, Mongolian warriors used captives of the conquered nations, preferably women and children, as human shields when they launched assaults on fortresses and strongholds. The success of this particularly uncivilized tactics was based on the presumption that humane feelings and compassion of the attacked towards their countrymen would prevent them from using a deadly force while repelling the assault. The barbarism of this tool of war must have been clear to Western military who showed some reluctance towards adopting it from the Mongols. Beside being a clear-cut case of a blackmail, it was an insult to the Western sense of war fairness since now the Barbarians were telling the civilized: “If you guys don’t give up you will prove you are Barbarians, and that will be despicable“.
The amount of absurdity in “Liberal” anti-gun hysteria that was prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre is beyond imaginable. It’s like if the “Liberals” tried to follow Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels’s doctrine that a big lie repeated often and authoritatively enough becomes the truth in the eyes of low-informed masses. Now they look and sound as if they were really up to delivering the final kill to Americans’ freedom to keep and bear arms. Yet the co-called “conservative” wing of the establishment and media is acting as if its leaders were getting ready to surrender to the “Liberals’” assault, desperately trying to find “reasonable restrictions” on freedom in order to make us all safer and happier.
As you can imagine, this whole brouhaha did not make me sleep any better. So I decided to call a spade a spade and expose “Liberal” falsehoods and fallacies in hope that the truth would deliver a fatal blow to their well-concerted attack against our most fundamental individual freedom: the freedom to self-defense with a deadly weapon.
The tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary left 28 innocent people dead, their families in pain and grief, and the nation shocked. A derailed maniac, after killing his own mother, took a small arsenal of guns and ammo to a school for a shooting spree. In addition to killing, he hit our national most vulnerable spot as 18 of his 28 victims were children. One can hardly imagine something more tragic and heart breaking. Not that killing adults is somehow less barbarian than killing kids, but when children lose their young lives our sensitivity to human suffering is offended more than with anything else.
There is no life event more traumatic then surviving one’s own child. And no words can bring comfort to the parents of the 18 pupils of Sandy Hook Elementary that were killed on that day. I wish I knew the words that could.
There is an on-going debate whether Susan Rice lied in public when she announced that the attack on American consulate in Benghazi 9/11/2012 was a result of a spontaneous demonstration that was triggered by a YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims“. We all know that what she said was false but she and her defenders maintain that she did not know that when she made those announcement. And the masters of spin, including the so-called “mainstream” media, add to the confusion, blaming a lack of credible intelligence and an on-going investigation, with the obvious intent to make the subject so murky that no one would know anything anymore for sure.
We may never know if she lied. However, at least one thing is clear. Susan Rice has deceived the American public. By making categoric assertions and inferences with no hesitation whatsoever, she made people believe that her false claim about spontaneousness of the attack was as factual as that two plus two is four.
Dear U.S. Congressman, currently not taking orders from the liberal-neocon establishment:
If nothing else seems simple and true enough for you to serve as your moral or political compass in these turbulent times, remember the Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment.
Despite the liberal and neocon fury that it caused, it was a statement of fact that a typical member of that “47 percent” is predisposed to vote for a typical Liberal Presidential (or Congressional) hopeful. So, unless your goal is to submit our country to the dictatorship of the liberalism, you should oppose every action that is likely to grow the percentage of working-age Americans who, due to Robin-Hoodian taxation, live of other people’s work, and support at least some of those actions that are likely to shrink it.
Whenever I hear anyone on the Left offering a “friendly advice” that the Republican Party must revise its “rigid” stance on illegal “immigration” and stop opposing it (“embrace Hispanics” is a code-phrase often use in this context) in order to attract the Latino vote, it makes my blood boil.
To make it worse, some G.O.P. strategists (professional losers would be a more descriptive attribute here) and other “analysts” concur with the Left, which makes me doubt whether they are bona fide strategists or merely implants of the Liberal fifth column.
I keep asking myself: is this really true or am I just hallucinating? For the level of absurdity in the standard “rationale” for this kind of “advices” compares only to what one can find in “Alice in Wonderland”.
Nakoula Nakoula, Barrack Obama, or … Louis Farrakhan?
In this commentary, I argue that it was President Obama’s unwillingness to enrage (again) the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that paralyzed American defenses against the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi.
Whom to blame for the U.S. Ambassador death? This burning question may have an easy answer.
Clearly, the “folks” (this is how the President Obama characterizes them while talking in public) who killed the Ambassador and three other Americans are responsible for their deaths. But a bunch of rebels, even if armed with submachine guns and mortars, might not have succeeded in their barbaric attempt if the U.S. authorities lived up to their ostensibly topmost priority of protecting lives of the American diplomatic personnel abroad.
You are a fine man. Unlike so many other politicians, you are committed to truth and not to ideology, you know well what you are talking about, your statements are meaningful, sound, and do not contradict each other, and you know how to carry yourself politely and with respect to your adversary. I don’t find in you any arrogance so common for some elected buffoons who cover their ignorance and a lack of intellectual sophistication with rudeness and intimidation, or empty laughter if the other two are not enough of a cover-up.
Unfortunately, your virtues won’t take you far in this political reality where narrow-minded bullies seem to enjoy enthusiastic support of nearly half (some say, 47 percent) of the American electorate, big part of that group being dominated by militant lefto-liberal activists and thuggish bosses of public sector labor unions. (Not that all public sector union bosses are that way.) This is hardly surprising as many of them insist on electing government officials that look like them and act like them. After all, birds of feather flock together.
Warning:This may be a shocking read for some. I will not try to sugarcoat the facts that I am about to present. So, get ready for a thrilling ride, and reserve your judgment until you are done with the reading the entire article.
Let’s face it. America was made what she is, a free, prosperous, and safe country, by whites. I am not saying that others did not contribute, in many cases significantly and with personal sacrifice, to the betterment of this nation. No one denies those contributions. Nor am I implying that there are no evil doers and social parasites among us. But without whites, America would not be the land that offers its inhabitants unsurpassed liberty, high living standards, and endless opportunities for the pursuit of happiness.
The recent fiasco of President Obama and his administration’s new Middle-East policy provides a perfect insight into the quality of presidency that those who elected him brought on our heads. Although the Secretary of State Clinton and virtually all “liberal” media were quick to blame a videotape posted on YouTube earlier this month for the recent eruption of anti-American violence across the Arab countries, what we see here is a direct consequence of amateurish efforts of the “liberal” government desperately trying to apply their naively fallacious ideology to the real world.
Well, these efforts failed, and their effects were truly disastrous – a good illustration of the conventional wisdom that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
On the coming 11th anniversary of the national tragedy that took more that three thousand innocent lives and turned the New York’s Twin Towers into rubble, a question keeps popping on my mind. How much more damage and waste must this great nation endure before absurd political doctrines are recognized as such and put to rest? When I listen to those who control my country and its airwaves, as they surpass each other in inventing even absurder claims after absurd claims that were supposed to justify their failed ideology, I have very little hope, if any, that they are mentally capable of seeing the nonsense in their manic visions and plans that they push down our throats.
After nearly a one year writing hiatus, we welcome Mr. Dwyer back to the pages of the Federal Observer. (Ed.)
“That amnesty for illegal immigrants should allow them to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, just like the amnesty for thieves would allow them to keep the property they stole.” – Mark Andrew Dwyer, Idiot’s Guide to Illegal Immigration
A few days ago, June 15, 2012, President Obama announced during a press conference in Rose Garden that he had instructed the Department of Homeland Security to not deport the illegal aliens who could have benefited from the so-called “DREAM Act” rejected by the U.S. Congress earlier this year.
My jaw dropped. Here comes the administration that in its ostensible zeal to enforce the border and the immigration law had claimed, and repeatedly so, the federal supremacy (see the FURTHER READINGS section for more information) over the rights of the states to protect the citizens from the million-man invasion (euphemistically referred to as the “demographic change”) of Mexican violators of the U.S. border, and yet they are so fast to declare the dereliction of their sworn duty that they so vigorously defended as their monopoly just a few months ago. As if the role of the Executive Branch of our government were to guard the interest of Mexican nationals (in the name of accommodating the supposedly inevitable “demographic change”) against any infringements, actual and hypothetical, by the American People and the Legislative Branch that the People have elected.
The tax (or borrow) and spend “liberals” and the Democratic Party that they control are at it again: they threaten America that if the U.S. House of Representatives doesn’t push our country deeper into debt then the Obama administration will cut social security checks to the elderly, stop payments to the military fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere, default paying interest on national debt, and do other nasty things that would inflict even more damage to our already already ailing country. The TV adds that the “liberal” elites are airing (I just saw one of Fox News) these days threatens that our children will suffer if they (the “liberals”) don’t have their way.
Many, although not all, public sector unions became organized groups of extortion that use Liberal/Democrat lawmakers under unions’ influence and protection in order to deprive, via progressing taxation, hard-working Americans of the fruits of their work for the benefit of the unions’ members. The Liberal/Democrat lawmakers have no interest in resisting unions’ demands and just keep imposing more an more taxes on the public that apparently has no collective right to resist such a rip-off, or if the resistance against the tax hikes is stronger than the urge to tax, the lawmakers keep borrowing money in order to feed their unsustainable generosity for the public sector employees.
The “Liberal” media once again showed their true colors, and these are not the American colors despite the fact that many of them are waving red, blue, and white in a wake of the losses the “Liberals” incurred in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Take, for instance, Tucson, Ariz., shooting that left a U.S. congresswoman critically wounded, and 19 others injured or dead earlier this month.
In case you wonder while boarding a plane, where have your Constitutional rights gone, I have the answer for you: they have been redistributed.
You have to “voluntarily” submit yourself to humiliating procedure that borders with sexual assault as a precondition to your exercise of your right to travel. Your genitals may be inspected, a TSA agent may wander with her hand under your wife’s skirt, and even your kids may be exposed on what you thought was child molesting.
Somehow, when I watched President Obama delivering his post-election speech on November 3, 2010, I felt sorry for him. To all bad things that he has done to our country, that I wish he didn’t, I couldn’t help liking him as a person and a fellow American. I know it is never going happen, but I would be delighted if he were my friend, even though we disagree on so many issues that are dear to my heart.
When I was reading the news about world-wide protests of Muslims against a threat by a Florida church pastor to burn koran on the anniversary of 9-11 attacks, illustrated with pictures of angry Middle-Easterners desecrating and burning our flags, their fists waving in the air, I thought I was Alice in Wonderland. The absurdity of the situation, when these narrow-minded people were already retaliating against us for “atrocities” that we had not committed yet (and, according to their cheerleaders, we had no right to commit although they did this kind of things to us on a regular basis), was mind boggling to the point that it was infuriating.
About every time I hear someone praising the benefits of immigration, which sort of eulogy is a typical point of departure for concluding that unrestricted immigration is the best thing that ever happened to America and about everything that obstructs it is bad, I cannot help seeing a striking similarity between the alleged “anti-immigration hysteria” and measures that protect us from violent forces of nature.
As I watched an interview with one of the spokesmen for the Muslim community in the U.S. on the Fox News yesterday regarding the “ground zero” mosque controversy, I asked myself this question. Why do we allow all those who are in an obvious contempt of our culture, religion, and laws to come to and live in America? Wouldn’t we be better off if we kept all the actual and potential troublemakers on the other side of the border?
Ever since late Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson imposed his “Great Society” program on America in mid-1960ties, bad things have been happening to our country.
His “Civil Rights” initiative brought the curses of multiculturalism and diversity on our heads. (If diversity were strength then we should be one invincible and booming economy on Earth, leaving everybody else in dust. Which, unfortunately, we are no more.)
~ Quotables ~
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. ~ Neal H. Ross