All we have to do is get together with 15 or so of our biggest military allies, go to the "Dear Leader" (Kim Jong Il) and tell him to hand over the nukes or prepare to die, because we won't have insanely churilish genocidal maniacs threatening the world with WMD or starving millions of people to death. The only problem with that solution is that we don't have 15 big military allies; in fact we don't even have one ally, big or small, who would help us militarily solve the "Dear Leader" problem. As incredible as it is, despite being the world's most successful nation ever on many levels, freeing millions and millions of people in other countries through two world wars and the Cold War, being the world's policeman, and always offering to do more, we do not have any allies. On top of that, the world's newspapers are filled with virulent declamations against America, and George Bush in particular, and virtually none directed toward the genocidally insane "Dear Leader"? Go figure!
This is a man who has been quite content to starve a whole nation to death and leave those adults still living 2-3 inches shorter than they would be with a less homicidal nutrition regimen. The whole world is now filled with neurotic loons who have tremendous passion and certainty about hating America and George Bush, but very little for the whack bird Dear Leader Kim Jong Mentally IL. Isn't that surreal? How on earth can it be possible?
How can the world be turned so upside-down? Actually it's not. With the exception of Republican America, human gov'ts throughout history have always engaged in war, slavery, totalitarianism, and genocide as their major activity. In fact, virtually all nations on earth were formed as a result of wars whose termination demonstrated nothing whatsoever but who won the war, and, to a far lesser extent, who had the most bloodthirsty soldiers and most productive economy. Might made right, and there was no debating about it. All of them, then, owe their evolved, genetic predispositions to war, slavery, totalitarianism, and genocide; so we should anticipate their declination of the freedom we seek to spread as they remain enamored of and take strange comfort in their long standing and deadly normalcy.
To make matters worse, not only do they have a genetic predisposition toward hatred, war, and the powerful gov'ts necessary to implement these sad predispositions , but on top of that they have a great shame about having been saved by America from certain death at each other's bloodthirsty hands throughout the 20th Century. To add further humiliation, America seemed to be propelled, not only by a capitalist based and superior military, but also by the philosophy of freedom, which sadly was and to this day remains mostly impregnable to their limited conceptual Old World IQ's. It seems the cultural, economic, artistic, and personal benefits of freedom were and are very hard for them to reconcile with their failed traditional ways.
America had the audacity to challenge their homicidal, deadly status quo, save their lives, give them a rational gov't, an economic system, and way of life. But with such hubris, shame and resentment were mass produced. Yes, they were ambivalently happy that we took care of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao for them but still these were men who to a large extent represented them, and rose to power in large part with their help. Their rule was to a real extent all in the family; a family into which America intruded. When we took out the Hitler-like Saddam Hussein it was not seen as another pure act of American goodness, but rather another reminder of their failed homicidal past. When Bush said "mission accomplished" and it seemed that the mission was indeed accomplished they were humiliated by America's superior goodness once again, and when the war went badly it was their dreamed for opportunity to indulge their darker side by pretending that America motives and American freedom were somehow not so good after all.
Even if one acknowledges that George Bush has been relatively less modest about American greatness and responsibilities than his predecessors, in the scheme of human history his hubris is infinitely trivial compared to that of the men they accepted as their own abjectly totalitarian "Dear Leaders". America and Bush , essentially, do what freedom compels them to do; the hubris or lack of it with which it operates is perfectly irrelevant in an intellectual sense, although obviously not irrelevant to those with guilt ridden or confused psychologies, and intellectually weak minds. America did not seek to kill, enslave, exploit, or annex those it defeated. Instead, it sought to help, rebuild, and respect; to share its wisdom. America gave money, and a constitution to copy, so they too could enjoy the obvious benefits of freedom. Indeed, America turned the tide of human history from war to love, and asked for little more in return than a place to bury its dead.
Never in human history had such a thing happened. But still it was and is greeted mostly with suspicion by those who suspected or needed to believe America's motives were like theirs always were, rather then purely American. It is not Bush's hubris that offends them, it is the very idea of a saintly, superior America, founded by its outcasts no less, that deeply offends them.
The consequences of this immaturity are incalculable. The civilized world is fractured and so speaks with many preoccupied and weak voices to the third world. This continuously opens up safe havens in places like Rwanda, Sudan and The Congo for local genocides free from what could be the interfering currents of the developed world. Imagine what the world might be if the civilized world joined us in promoting what is known to work, i,e., law and order, family values, capitalism, and Jeffersonian constitutional democracy? Real nation building and a real world court would be possible; liberal totaltitarian schemes would not be. The true cost to civilization from immature resistance to American values can be measured in million and millions of dead bodies.
More importantly, the deadly liberal plague that has always affected mankind so horribly is now affecting America (the last best hope for freedom-as Ronald Reagan so famously pointed out) in important ways; in the form of Democrats. When Jefferson disrupted all of human history to fire that fateful American shot for freedom heard around the world it really did not echo as loud or as far as it should have. Yes, freedom from gov't became the primary American principle that made America the greatest in history, especially until Marx and the Marxist inspired Democratic New Deal, but since then the primordial call to liberal gov't and the evil it has always brought forth has grown and grown here at home where the soul and source of freedom resides.
Accordingly, the Democrats, and their allies around the world, can't be too emphatic about the Dear Leader being a little too aggressive with the uses of gov't because he is, in part, one of them. They all exercise primordial gov't power for themselves as nanny, king, tyrant, fascist, socialist, or Dear Leader; in an endless stream of various ways and under infinite guises but never, in all of human history, with Jeffersonian results. Yet, in their egomanical minds they matter; not the absent results? To the naive, the distance between Democrats and the Dear Leader looks so great as to suggest a perfect difference, despite the perfect reliance on gov't to which both aspire. Our Democrats of course, like all their brethren throughout history, believe their gov't is good gov't, as does the Dear Leader and those who follow him. Hitler thought his gov't was good gov't too while Stalin's was bad. To Jeffersonian Republicans they were all the same. The differences appear to be great to liberal Democrats but they are so only to the extent that the human beings running them are different. In reality, they are all similarly liberal and tyrannical to those who understand that freedom is the opposite of gov't.
If American Democrats believed in Stalin and his powerful gov't, and spied for him, why can't they reserve a place in their hearts for the Deal Leader which makes them want to look the other way or contain him as they wanted to do with Communism? If Democrats don't see that when Hitler rose to power he did not initially say he was going to kill every Jew on earth and militarily attack every major country on earth, what can we say about them? Chamberlain, for example, saw Hitler as complex; as beyond good and evil. He could be dealt with; even successfully appeased. To really understand who our gov't loving American Democrats are we have to ask, "who might they be if they got their way; if they were not met at every turn by patriotic Jeffersonian Republicans who believe in freedom above preposterous and egomanical gov't schemes?
In fact, the American gov't, as Jefferson feared, has grown more powerful every day since it was formed in 1789. And what is it that the Democrats stand for above all else in the beginning of the 21st Century: more and higher taxes to make the gov't even more powerful and the people less powerful? They have not said where it will stop; if it will stop. It is a good guess that their leviathan will never stop, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, until it is somehow killed. When their new, higher taxes don't lead to the promised result, they will merely claim, in their addicted way, that even more taxes are needed when in fact, with a 10 year lag, they have gotten 5 times more tax revenue than they said they wanted in every election in each year of American History. In fact , the American Socialist agenda of the 1920s is long since enacted. But still it does not end? More taxes and more gov't are perpetually needed, for some strange reason.
When Jefferson ran against the Federalist Democrat, Adams, it was Adams who in is royal coach was accused of being a monarchist or royalist who wanted to bring the gov't of European Kings and Queens to American gov't. When the Democrat Andrew Jackson was elected he sought to subvert the Constitution by expanding suffrage to less and less qualified voters knowing full well that the less qualified a voter was the more likely he would be to vote for the promised Democratic tax and spend free lunch. Today, the process continues as Democrats seek to register felons, illiterates, and illegal immigrants who are willing to sell their votes for that illusive Democratic free lunch. When the Republican Lincoln freed the slaves it was the Democrats who shot him. When the Great Depression hit it was the Democrats who wanted to fix it with gov't; not freedom, thus causing a World War. When Civil Rights became important it was the Democrats who attacked Black freedom with genocidal-like gov't welfare programs that destroyed Black families, criminalized Black men, and illegitimized Black children. When Communism and terrorism threatened America it was the Democrats who spied for them or resisted every attempt to fight them.
So what else would Democrats do to America if it was not necessary to compromise with Jeffersonian Republicans who have opposed them at every turn? They would give us what humanity has always given us; their comminatory leviathan would eventually not look that much different from the Dear Leader's.
wed403
Ted Baiamonte
bje1000@aol.com
10.01.2006
The Clinton Melt Down Explained
Bill Clinton was asked on Fox News why he hadn't done more to get Osama Bin Laden at which point he had an extreme emotional melt down while he very angrily explained the little he had done. Of course if he had been able to say, "I'm sorry you're so mistaken, I did realize the threat OBL represented early on, I did kill him and many of his followers, and thereby did prevent 9/11," there would have been no melt down. As it turned out Clinton slept for 8 years ignoring exactly 10 opportunities to kill OBL (as reported by Michael Scheuer, the CIA operative who gave him the ten opportunities) in the face of repeated attacks and did nothing which apparently makes him very angry, frustrated, defensive, and quasi-violent.
When Clinton was asked by Chris Wallace of Fox why such a simply question was not legitimate, Clinton was taken aback and literally sat back in his chair, defensively; then quickly blurted out, "you didn't ask the Bush administration that question did you?" He was conceding despite his outburst that ok maybe it was a legitimate question after all but that it should have been asked of the Bush Administration too. That impetuous argument quickly fell apart though when Fox instantly produced tapes of Rumsfeld fielding the same question, and in a civilized manner too. Clinton ventured further into the realm of desperation by suggesting that his best argument for sleeping after the USS Cole was attacked was that the CIA and FBI would not "certify" that the attack had been carried out by Al Qaeda. But that argument instantly fell apart too, almost as it left his lips, as everyone immediately wondered why on earth he needed them to certify exactly who or what group had bombed our ship and killed many American sailors. FDR didn't need certification to declare war on Germany when their ally, Japan, attacked us in 1941 and Bush didn't need certification to attack Afghanistan and Iraq when Al Qaeda attacked us?
After 9/11 one of Clinton's first and most narcissistic public utterances had to do with how nothing as significant as 9/11 had happened while he was President and therefore he wouldn't have the opportunity to be among the pantheon of great American Presidents who had been called upon to act during times of great international emergencies. With Wallace's question and the recent ABC News movie, (endorsed as substantially accurate by the Chairman of "The 9/11 Commission), which dramatized Clinton's impotence during his eight years in office it was beginning to look not as if Clinton was going to look neutral in history, but rather, dangerously inept and even asleep at the stick as the nation blindly plummeted toward 9/11.
One might guess, even pray in my case, that as Hoover and the Republicans took much of the blame for the Depression because they occupied the White House when it started (although it was caused by monetary illiquidity created by the independent Federal Reserve System), that the Democrats will take the blame for 9/11 because they were in the Whitehouse and did absolutely nothing during 8 long years of attacks that clearly led to 9/11. One might also suspect and hope that while the Democrats prolonged the Depression for 10 years with tax and spend stupidity and then turned it into a world war that killed 60 million, but still tricked the country into liking them, that George Bush, despite almost completely blowing the war on terrorism, might be able to accomplish the same trick. Certainly Bush has a good start in that he has prevented any further attacks on the continental United States since 9/11 while the Democrats have reflexively opposed every measure taken.
When Clinton got to the Fox interview he was concerned from the get go. He had just had a very successful week with his "Clinton Global Initiate" (CGI) which focused on third word issues. The Fox interview was to be 50% devoted to his success there because Clinton could not negotiate a better deal that would have been 100% public relations for his CGI charitable work; so he reluctantly accepted the 50% deal. Once Clinton's inaction prior to 9/11 came up in the interview it seemed to him that the ABC movie and then the Fox interview were making a mockery of his Presidency and, by close association, even his Global Initiative. It must have been very disconcerting indeed. He was angry and frustrated and so just had to lie to us again. In fact, we haven't seen his long index finger used so forcefully since he angrily shook it at us in the course of stating that "I never had sex with that woman - Ms Lewinski".
As importantly though was what was not criticized directly, namely, The Global Initiative itself. Clinton got a free ride there. As Clinton slept through one terrorist attack after another during his eight years in office and in so doing encouraged each of the next attacks, his "Global Initiative" has painful similarities. Clinton and the Democrats love to hallucinate that they can be all powerful and all wonderful with their tax and spend schemes, one of which is the CGI, although the money is mostly charitably given rather than taxed.
The truth is that America is the most prosperous nation on the face of the earth and became so in only the last 200 years while the third world has remained largely unchanged for 10,000 years. Why such an incredible and stark contrast? Is it because we received repeated rounds of charity which encouraged us to always expect the next round or because we received from Jefferson and the Republicans a belief in law and order, family values, and capitalism, i.e., the exact principals Democrats stand perfectly against?
Clinton's megalomaniacal and mistaken schemes for the third world are not intended to help as much as they are intended to feed his Democratic hallucination that he can have the kingly legacy his deformed ego so badly needs. If he was capable of helping them rather than himself he wouldn't need to assiduiously ignore the obvious lessons of history. It's tempting to suggest that the alleged rape of Juanita Broderick, the trysts with Monica and Paula, and the long time affair with Jennifer Flowers are evidence of an ego in great need or an ego willing to take any risk to find the comfort that is so desperately missing from an abused childhood, but this would not explain all the other Democrats who, to a lesser extent, feel much as their hero on steroids does.
So what about Democrats in general? The only plausible explanation is they too are dumb and or/have too big egos that make them hallucinate about themselves as engineers, through their gov't, of tax and spend schemes that can turn the world into a DisneyLand for all. Some egos, like Clinton's, are so strong that despite very high intelligence, they are prevented from absorbing the wisdom of Jefferson that the American laboratory makes so clear. Other Democrats have more normal egos that lead them to need to do good too but they lack the intellect to see what to them is the very complex wisdom from the American laboratory; so they must settle for tax and spend or donate and spend. If you doubt that Democrats can be so blinded by ego and ignorance consider that they stand foursquarely against law and order, family values, and capitalism, i.e., the Jeffersonian innovations that created civilization on earth in America, while the Democrats and the rest of humanity seem determined to be a part of the bloody non-Jeffersonian tragedy that has marked the remainder of humankind before and after Jefferson.
Ted Baiamonte
comments: bje1000@aol.com
sun648
When Clinton was asked by Chris Wallace of Fox why such a simply question was not legitimate, Clinton was taken aback and literally sat back in his chair, defensively; then quickly blurted out, "you didn't ask the Bush administration that question did you?" He was conceding despite his outburst that ok maybe it was a legitimate question after all but that it should have been asked of the Bush Administration too. That impetuous argument quickly fell apart though when Fox instantly produced tapes of Rumsfeld fielding the same question, and in a civilized manner too. Clinton ventured further into the realm of desperation by suggesting that his best argument for sleeping after the USS Cole was attacked was that the CIA and FBI would not "certify" that the attack had been carried out by Al Qaeda. But that argument instantly fell apart too, almost as it left his lips, as everyone immediately wondered why on earth he needed them to certify exactly who or what group had bombed our ship and killed many American sailors. FDR didn't need certification to declare war on Germany when their ally, Japan, attacked us in 1941 and Bush didn't need certification to attack Afghanistan and Iraq when Al Qaeda attacked us?
After 9/11 one of Clinton's first and most narcissistic public utterances had to do with how nothing as significant as 9/11 had happened while he was President and therefore he wouldn't have the opportunity to be among the pantheon of great American Presidents who had been called upon to act during times of great international emergencies. With Wallace's question and the recent ABC News movie, (endorsed as substantially accurate by the Chairman of "The 9/11 Commission), which dramatized Clinton's impotence during his eight years in office it was beginning to look not as if Clinton was going to look neutral in history, but rather, dangerously inept and even asleep at the stick as the nation blindly plummeted toward 9/11.
One might guess, even pray in my case, that as Hoover and the Republicans took much of the blame for the Depression because they occupied the White House when it started (although it was caused by monetary illiquidity created by the independent Federal Reserve System), that the Democrats will take the blame for 9/11 because they were in the Whitehouse and did absolutely nothing during 8 long years of attacks that clearly led to 9/11. One might also suspect and hope that while the Democrats prolonged the Depression for 10 years with tax and spend stupidity and then turned it into a world war that killed 60 million, but still tricked the country into liking them, that George Bush, despite almost completely blowing the war on terrorism, might be able to accomplish the same trick. Certainly Bush has a good start in that he has prevented any further attacks on the continental United States since 9/11 while the Democrats have reflexively opposed every measure taken.
When Clinton got to the Fox interview he was concerned from the get go. He had just had a very successful week with his "Clinton Global Initiate" (CGI) which focused on third word issues. The Fox interview was to be 50% devoted to his success there because Clinton could not negotiate a better deal that would have been 100% public relations for his CGI charitable work; so he reluctantly accepted the 50% deal. Once Clinton's inaction prior to 9/11 came up in the interview it seemed to him that the ABC movie and then the Fox interview were making a mockery of his Presidency and, by close association, even his Global Initiative. It must have been very disconcerting indeed. He was angry and frustrated and so just had to lie to us again. In fact, we haven't seen his long index finger used so forcefully since he angrily shook it at us in the course of stating that "I never had sex with that woman - Ms Lewinski".
As importantly though was what was not criticized directly, namely, The Global Initiative itself. Clinton got a free ride there. As Clinton slept through one terrorist attack after another during his eight years in office and in so doing encouraged each of the next attacks, his "Global Initiative" has painful similarities. Clinton and the Democrats love to hallucinate that they can be all powerful and all wonderful with their tax and spend schemes, one of which is the CGI, although the money is mostly charitably given rather than taxed.
The truth is that America is the most prosperous nation on the face of the earth and became so in only the last 200 years while the third world has remained largely unchanged for 10,000 years. Why such an incredible and stark contrast? Is it because we received repeated rounds of charity which encouraged us to always expect the next round or because we received from Jefferson and the Republicans a belief in law and order, family values, and capitalism, i.e., the exact principals Democrats stand perfectly against?
Clinton's megalomaniacal and mistaken schemes for the third world are not intended to help as much as they are intended to feed his Democratic hallucination that he can have the kingly legacy his deformed ego so badly needs. If he was capable of helping them rather than himself he wouldn't need to assiduiously ignore the obvious lessons of history. It's tempting to suggest that the alleged rape of Juanita Broderick, the trysts with Monica and Paula, and the long time affair with Jennifer Flowers are evidence of an ego in great need or an ego willing to take any risk to find the comfort that is so desperately missing from an abused childhood, but this would not explain all the other Democrats who, to a lesser extent, feel much as their hero on steroids does.
So what about Democrats in general? The only plausible explanation is they too are dumb and or/have too big egos that make them hallucinate about themselves as engineers, through their gov't, of tax and spend schemes that can turn the world into a DisneyLand for all. Some egos, like Clinton's, are so strong that despite very high intelligence, they are prevented from absorbing the wisdom of Jefferson that the American laboratory makes so clear. Other Democrats have more normal egos that lead them to need to do good too but they lack the intellect to see what to them is the very complex wisdom from the American laboratory; so they must settle for tax and spend or donate and spend. If you doubt that Democrats can be so blinded by ego and ignorance consider that they stand foursquarely against law and order, family values, and capitalism, i.e., the Jeffersonian innovations that created civilization on earth in America, while the Democrats and the rest of humanity seem determined to be a part of the bloody non-Jeffersonian tragedy that has marked the remainder of humankind before and after Jefferson.
Ted Baiamonte
comments: bje1000@aol.com
sun648
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)