It's the socialism, stupid.

There’s a political saying that I believe originated around 2000: “it’s the economy, stupid”. And while it is true in many respects, it is, in many respects, a deception. Anyone can use it to justify whatever government policy they believe will work. And therein lies the rub. For the truth of our current morass lies not in the economy anymore than one’s illness lies in a cough. It is the cause, stupid. The cause of the bad economy is what matters. And in the case of the bad economy, the cause is socialism. That cause has been gradually increasing for over 50 years, and it is now hitting a tipping point. In the past, the cure has been a reduction in the speed at which we move toward socialism. But this time, the opposite is true. We have sped up the move to socialism, and we will reap its benefits. We will not see any recovery. Things will get undeniably worse, and the numbers will crash. The solution will then become a redefinition of “economy”. Economic numbers will be revised, and their criteria will change to make socialism look beneficial. But the depression that will come, as Dick Morris terms it, the catastrophe will not be hidden behind numbers. And the end result will be mass social disorder, and the ultimate end of the current system.

Sen. Boxer warns of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass bill...

What should be evident to all is that the cast of characters that make up the majority in the federal government are utterly incapable of solving any problem. Indeed, they are thieves and robbers who intentionally create problems, and even murder both nationally and around the globe. But now they have a new tool. It’s a rhetorical tool created by Obama and his gang, and Senator Boxer is the latest to use it.

Drudge is reporting that Boxer is warning of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass bill. The bill is the massive tax increase known as the global warming bill. It’s designed to tax the very molecular reactions of life. It is designed to tax the tiny portion of them directly used by man in commerce. And by using the rhetorical tool created by Obama, Boxer will be able to claim that the law helps even after it hurts. By Obama’s own logic/pretence even failure is success. Why? If he fails, he simply says we would have failed more miserably if he didn’t do what he did.

I don’t think this rhetorical tool is very promising. It will not hide the inevitable and massive -- catastrophic negative consequences socialism will have on the small margins that elected him to office. But hey, who knows, maybe socialism in the US will work. Maybe all those failed socialist nations failed not because of socialism, but because of their cultural background, skin color, religious belief, funny mustaches, or lack of proper football teams. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Is Jackson going to jump out of his casket?

I've been wondering about whether this is a huge publicity stunt ever since he died-- or maybe died. Now that the casket is going to be on stage at his funeral/concert, I'm wondering even more. It would fit with his "thriller" video early in his career.

[UPDATE]
I guess not.

Why Maureen Dowd’s “Now, Sarah’s Folly” is all about Michael Savage

When Matt Drudge reported that Maureen Dowd was going to “trash” Sarah Palin in her upcoming op-ed piece, I couldn’t wait to read it. I knew it was going to be a second-rate imitation of Camile Paglia’s masterful trashing, nay, thrashing and slabberdashing of Katie Couric. But without Dowd’s piece, I had no proof. So I waited anxiously, half hoping the New York Times wouldn’t go out of business before the piece was published. It didn’t go out of business. One half of me was glad.

The piece was what I expected. But I did not recognize the big story until after meticulously parsing the article. What I discovered is supremely funny. It is one of the funniest things to have occurred in all of journalism. It’s like the emperor has no cloths-- or, less disgusting in this case, the emperor has egg all over her face.

In the piece, Dowd cites a Vanity Fair reporter named Todd Purdum. He, according to the piece, traveled to Alaska and learned that “the governor’s erratic and egotistic behavior has been as source of concern for people there.” “Several (Is it so surprising that there is more than one lesbian in Alaska) told me, independently of one another (this is what is so impressive to Purdum and Dowd, the independent nature of the concern) ,” Purdum writes, “that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – ‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, in fantasy or behavior, need for admiration, and lack of empathy’ – and thought it fit her perfectly.” I’m not making that up (except for my parenthetical comments), that is in Dowd’s piece.

So I was about to blog on the absurdity of insulting Sarah Palin because of the seemingly inexplicably coincidence of several unnamed people (lesbians, no doubt) of unknown credential or background supposedly telling [Purdum] independently (of all things) that they “had consulted”, not just looked up, mind you, but “consulted” the “definition of ‘narcissist personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”. It’s the independent consultation of the manual that strikes both Dowd and Purdum as noteworthy. This is where it gets hilarious.

It seems I've heard of the diagnosis before. But I couldn't immediately put my finger on it. Then it hit me. The mass “consultation” of the manual has nothing to do with any remarkable symptoms of mental illness displayed by Sarah Palin-- symptoms so outstanding that they trigger the primordial mass urge to "consult" a medical dictionary-- symptoms so severe that they bring an instant yet obscure diagnosis to mind to "several independent people". It’s not proof that Sarah Palin is crazy. It’s not even evidence—even slight. No, the mass “consultation” of the manual is due to one thing, and it has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. It is Michael Savage. He has been saying that Obama has ‘narcissist personality disorder’ for months now. And he tells his audience that it is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. And because the liberals listen to Savage, but don’t want to admit it, they looked the disorder up— Sorry, I meant to say they “consulted the definition” in the manual. Maureen Dowd’s article is but a lame attempt to imitate Camile Paglia’s superb trashing of Katie Couric, but more than that, it is absolute and accidental proof that vast numbers of liberals listen to Michael Savage. And it is proof that Dowd is ignorant on a number of levels.

Are liberal blogs fake?

How hard would it be for a multi-billion dollar racketeering organization to set up and run fake liberal blogs complete with fake commenters, and fake article writers who do nothing but degrade anything that might stand in their gay way, and make it look like there are millions of people in excruciating agony over the fact that gays are looked down upon? Obama's Internet "grass roots movement" has proven to be fake. His money came from the usual donors. I knew that all along. Could it be that racketeers run the major networks and put onto the national airwaves talentless talking nimrods who tow the party line like Katie Couric? A website is cheap compared to that. Third rate, drunk and miserable failures, especially those who have murdered their own children before birth, will write for practically free--especially when all it takes is insults, threats, and sarcasm. But you know, liberalism is more subject to sarcasm. Indeed, it can be cut in two with sarcasm because it is so utterly wrong.

I don't believe the liberal blogs are real. Yes, there are idiots out there, but something is beginning to smell fishy, and I'm wondering what other schemes such stolen wealth can operate. I've been experimenting with various user names, and have been parsing, extrapolating, and analyzing the hit data, and I've come to the conclusion that it must be orchestrated. I'm sure there is the occasional real liberal commenter who floats accidently by, but I think they are in the extreme minority. We are dealing with an organization whose agenda is entirely anti-humanity.

They have blood on their hands, and blood stained stolen money in their bank accounts.

Joan Walsh is a wierd, Goldman Sachs brownshirt

One of the liberal blogs- one that I believe is funded by Goldman Sachs, and manned by professional brown shirt liberals that insult and threaten anyone who disagrees with the the neo-Marxist regime, has called Sarah Palin “weird”.

The person who wrote the article, Joan Walsh, is supposedly a writer. But she is actually a liberal hack who is at times incoherent, especially when she responds to someone late, late at night when her guard seems to be down for reasons beyond the scope of this post. If you read the articles on her "blog", you will notice that most of them are simply insults of individuals based on their physical appearance, or conclusory allegations of stupidity-- rank, base insults. Theirs is a world -- a delusion, really, where people who disagree with them are stupid per se. Many of the regular brown shirts hope Rush Limbaugh dies of kidney disease-- after, of course, that sick thought was encouraged by Whitehouse "humor". Many commenters threaten to "kick the shit" out of conservative commenters. They routinely use the most vulgar of four letter words -- nothing is off limits. And Joan herself goes into a late night dark mode where she writes incoherently as if to say, watch it, you are messing with the insane. But I don't read it that way. I see it as messing with someone who likes a glass of wine at night-- the proverbial glass. Her "commenters" are concerted in insulting anyone with a differing view, and they routinely make death threats against those who disagree with them. This is to make it look as though the neo-Marxists have more support than they actually do.

Joan isn't anywhere near as popular as her comments make her appear. Most of the comments are a small group of individuals who argue inanely back and forth over nothing. I've demonstrated many times to friends how easy it is to hijack any thread by simply imitating them-- but with talent, and the opposite point of view. It drives them crazier. Almost none of the comments have anything to do with the article-- many of the posts that are not insults or threats are spelling and grammar wars-- this among people who "LOL". I've yet to hear that any of her commenters are being prosecuted for making violent threats across state lines, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happens in the near future. The great thing about them is that when they are at their most threatening state of mind, they are least capable of legal travel. Driving while intoxicated can cost you your professional and financial future.

When I read her article calling Sarah Palin “weird”, I couldn’t help but laugh. Walsh is a woman who is pro-late term abortions-- she really likes them, especially for medical reasons when "the mother's life is in danger". You know, the situations where, just before birth, the only thing that can save the mother is to stick the baby in the head with scissors and pull its brains out, then the rest of the body piece by piece. It's a rare condition. The medical term is called statutory rape by a powerful liberal.

Walsh calls the late term abortionist, multi-multimillionaire, dead murderer Tiller her “hero”. She is pro-homosexual sodomy, and she cares not about the health of those she might encourage into that deadly behavior. She is, therefore, pro-syphilis, and pro-Aids, and pro anal cancer. She is for higher medical costs. She is pro-homosexual marriage.

And She has the gall to call Sarah Palin weird.

Maybe she means it as a compliment.

Joan, you are weird, and you have blood on your hands. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Hey, take it as a compliment. I'm sure your hero had blood on his hands every day.

Why the obsession with Sarah Palin?

Palin is hated by "feminists" because she demonstrates that true feminism is not gay. It doesn't murder its young. And it isn't self-absorbed, neurotic, and alcoholic. It isn't in competition with men, it works with them. It's not anti-family. It does not derive its sense of worth from typing lying briefs for corrupt law firms in boringly tall buildings. True feminism is a bit deeper than that. It's past the stainless and steel. It's past the stinky skyscraper carpeting and drafty elevators. True feminism is not a lawyer at all. Virtually all lawyers have perfected the art of deceit, feminism is not one of them. True feminism can beat the torturing Obama, the corrupt Goldman Sachs mouthpiece lawyer, the Goldman Sachs that may very well own and control Salon and Hufpo (see current issue of Rolling Stone Magazine). The same one that may well encourage the brown shirt, beer brawling commenters that populate blogs and routinely verbally assault, threaten to kill, swear at, and intimidate those who disagree with the neo-Marxist regime that is defrauding, robbing from, and destroying the American people.

Helen Thomas questions shameful Obama press conferences

Helen Thomas is an 89 year old Whitehouse correspondent. She strongly objects to Obama's "[shameful]" control of the press conferences. She says Obama is worse than Nixon-- much worse, Nixon never did this, she says. Read the article here.

What's really wrong with Hillary?

I remember years ago reading an article stating that broken hips in the elderly were not caused by falls, but, rather, the falls were caused by broken hips. The hips would break because of some disease process, and the person would fall. Hillary is at an age where disease would beset her. And with Bill's past, she could have almost anything.

Disease and death is the great equalizer. Those who want to believe and follow the folly of liberalism accomplish several things that conservatives would never even attempt against them. They contribute to their own early deaths and disabilities, and they abort their young.

Government healthcare is inherently divisive

We have enough to hate each other over; do we really want to add to those things the question of what diseases get cured? what diseases get ignored? what behavior disqualifies one for health care? who gets health care and who doesn't? who lives and who dies? What do we do when political biases cause corruption that goes beyond mere theft, but actually causes the death or injury to those who don't agree with the bureaucrats in power? Along with all its other obvious problems, government healthcare is inherently divisive. It's bad enough dealing with government getting your car registered, imagine dealing with that same personality when it involves your health.

Seven abortion clinics shut down

According to a Worldnetdaily.com article, seven abortion clinics in El Paso, Texas are shutting their doors for lack of funding. This is one great thing about the impending collapse of the economy, liberalism is expensive, and it will be the first thing to go when the economy collapses. "Gay rights", abortion, "feminism", "women's rights", all take a back seat when survival and food become the issues. It wouldn't surprise me if the current regime brings about a depression so deep that the country reverts to a religious, tribal rule.