More love from the left

The left displayed their love and compassion once again when Chris Matthews... on the air... declared that he would love to see Rush Limbaugh blown up.

To be fair matthews just wanted to blow up Limbaugh's head.

What a hypocritical leftard.

I now understand why the left confuses themselves by calling Fox News biased when they mean Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly who are opinion hosts. Because the left, the sole audience for MSNBC, sees how Matthews and Olbermann have muddied the opinion/news landscape that they think Fox News does the same.

It also explains why when arguing with a liberal they will cite Op-Ed and editorial pieces as proof as they cannot distinguish between journalism and opinion. Most likely because liberalism is a belief system and not rooted in any factual basis at all, so the truth is anathema to liberals because it never helps them further their agenda.

That evil, rotten, dirty Christopher Columbus

Forget whatever you may have learned about Christopher Columbus.

Our newest crop of "educators" have begun introducing their version of reality in describing the man who we recognize the second monday of every October as being the man who started European exploration and settlement of the land to be known as The Americas.

They tell their students how mean and bossy he was. They point out how he stole indigenous people's property, wealth and land. They point out how the trade routes he established brought diseases from Europe that the indigenous people had no defenses against and killed large numbers of the natives.

I am not going to debate whether their new take on facts is factual or not. I will not get drawn into arguing minutiae such as this and ignoring the root cause of the problem.

Changing perspectives of historical figures, even iconic ones, are a normal part of a society maturing. But to focus on the bad and ignoring, or downplaying, the possitive accomplishments does not serve Columbus, history, or our future.

Rather this is a coordinated effort by the left to serve their ideological agenda and does not belong in the classroom. The left are masters at revision of history, since their ideology has not basis for supprt other than their belief in it they cannot allow things such as facts, historical or otherwise, get in the way of them forwarding ti at all costs.

To address them revising the history of Columbus is to get lost in the noise, the issue is they are altering the history of America. And it works on two levels, one is to further their tactic of race politics, playing one race against another, in this case it is every one against the Europeans. The other, and more insidious part of their agenda, concerns rewriting the istory of America.

The left is following the standard marxist revolutionary playbook page by page. Destroy religion, destroy the family unit, sow mistrust between neighbors, and promote individualism and the importance of self, while downplaying self reliance. This serves to make reliance on the state the strongest relationship in an individual's life.

A key to getting this done is through indoctrination... such as is occurring in schools every day. In this case the indoctrination by historical revisionism and villifying a national icon.

The left is using the schools as a weapon against the country. And if allowed to go unchecked our most valuable resource, our future generations, will be lost.

Case in point: the elementary school class cited int he story that held a mock trial and sentenced Columbus to life in prison for his "crimes".

B. Hussein Obama, Nobel Laureate

When I heard this my initial impression was that I caught a comedy sketch as I tuned into Imus in the Morning. When I got to work and signed onto my computer I was horrified to learn that it was not a joke. Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace prize for... wait for it... inspiring hope.

I had to do my basic research on the matter, because I had not felt that Obama had done much for peace in his first 262 days in office. By then the facts were already being gathered, for instance the deadline for nominations was February 1, 2009, a mere 10 days after moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And in fairness perhaps he did something prior to his Presidency to convince the world's self proclaimed arbiters of peace that Obama was their man. He had promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but by the end of the nominating process, and repeatedly before the day his prize was announced, Obama backed off that position.

Obama also announced we were fighting the wrong war in Iraq and that we would pull out of there as soon as the Iraqi government requested we do so. No exactly a ringing endorsement for a prize designating him a peace maker.

There is also the awkward statements he made saying that we need to double down in Afghanistan and consider taking the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban hiding in Pakistan. I fail to see how waging one war and indicating plans to escalate it, and announcing a desire to open a third front in the Global War on Man Made Disasters is worthy of a lifetime recognition of a man of peace.

In Obama's speech this morning even he expressed his surprise at winning, not to mention winning this award.

So here is the deal.

We know the Nobel prizes are awarded for ideology. The Nobel committee is comprised of one world government Marxists, the awards go to fellow travelers first, and others when there is no like minded alternative.

Obama further said he sees the award as a "call to action."

Call to action? Using that logic lets award the Mets the 2010 World Series now so they feel compelled to win more than 70 games next year.

No. This is not a call to action. This is not an award for peace.

The Nobel Marxist Society gave the award to their poster boy Obama because they know his hubris will not allow his to do the right thing and turn down this undeserved award. It also makes him obligated to push their agenda.

According to Nobelprize.org Obama won the peace prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

To date B.H.O. has been all talk no action, affirming my contention that the award is ideological, not practical. And I thought that the low point in the award's history was given to Al Gore and the IPCC for their roles in raising public awareness to the global scam known as global warming.

Why Corzine will win again. And why (other that the obvious) that it sucks

As many of you may or may not know, I am neither a Democrat or Republican, but rather I describe myself as a Libertarian. Although since the Libertarian party in NJ, like in many states, is held hostage to liberals whose only memory of the 70s and 80s is the old LP plank supporting legalization of drugs, I end up voting GOP.

In the summer Chris Christie held a commanding lead over Jon Corzine, one of the more inept public officials to disgrace the NJ statehouse. But recently the legacy media outlets have marvelled over how Corzine closed the gap to the poll's margin of error. Since most NJ political reporters use the AP wire as their source of information we are treated to the same liberal views repeated ad nauseum, or in those rare cases where actual new writing is taking place it filtered through an editor who is mandated to maintain the MSM liberal skew on the pages.

I feel confident I can say this as not one feature piece has bothered to point out why Corzine will win and we, the taxpayers of New Jersey will lose.

That reason is named Chris Daggett.

"Who?", you ask.

"I don't know!", I respond.

Aside from an August nod from the Sierra Club I can find no discernible notes of interest. But don't let the endorsement of the über-liberal environmental group, or that he worked for Corzine's DEP fool you, much of his career has been spent in the public sector working for Democrats and Republicans alike, usually serving in environment related endeavors.

Don't get me wrong, even I maintain that it is essential that we be good stewards of our environment, just without the confiscatory practices usually endorsed by the Sierra Club.

So how exactly is a Daggett candidacy as an Independent going to get Corzine elected?

In NJ there is about 5,000,000 registered voters.

• 1.8 million Democrats



• 1 million Republicans



• 2.5 million unaffiliated



• 2500 "other"

True to form most registered voters fail to exercise their constitutional right to chose their leaders and stay home the first Tuesday of November, so the number of registered voters pales to actual voters.

In that respect NJ is similar to the nation as a whole with 40% being straight ticket Democrats, 40% being straight ticket Republicans, and roughly 15% pretending not to favor either party while still voting for the party they always do. That leaves us with approximately 5% of the actual voters, which is far less than registered voters and a mere fraction of the state's population being the independents that will have the biggest say in who will be calling Drumthwacket home for the next four years.

Which usually means the Democrats win because, and only because, they have a more organized on the ground effort to get people to vote... namely the unions. Between the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, NJEA and the SEIU they get the votes out by encouraging their members to vote and encouraging their spouses and other family members to vote for their party of choice... the Democrats. Organized labor in NJ has people on their full time payroll cruising blogs, message boards, and related websites to get their message out and to drown out any dissenters. These same people make phone calls to members and their spouses to make sure they know who to vote for.

But 2009 promised to elect another Republican to the statehouse, partially out of contempt for Corzine, who has demonstrated his contempt for us. And partially as backlash for the Democrat debacle in Washington.

But the voters needed to put Christie over the top will be casting their ballots for Daggett as an expression of disgust for both parties... a sentiment I heartily agree with... but not today.

Daggett will play the spoiler, like Ross Perot, splitting the truly non-committed voters, those who would be voting against Corzine, rather than for Christie or Daggett.

And the stakes are real for New Jersey folks. Not only will Corzine continue to tax and spend for four more years, the reason this election is so important, to Obama, the DNC, and the megalomaniac Corzine, is much more important than the state confiscating what the federal government hasn't already taken from our paychecks.

Following the 2010 census there will likely be redistricting in NJ, in part due to a likely loss of a House seat. One of the most important jobs a governor has is to be in office for this redistricting. In NJ the state head of the party to which the Governor belongs gets to appoint 4 of the 13 seats to the "non-partisan" redistricting board and the Governor gets to appoint one "non-partisan" member... and this on top of the 4 members already representing their party assigned by the Assembly and State Senate.

Stacking the deck 9 to 4 could only be considered non-partisan in New Jersey.

So rather then praise Daggett for his attempt at tilting windmills as an unknown candidate content not to publicize his candidacy he should be scorned for contributing to the DNC's effort at permanent control over the US House of Representatives.

And though this may qualify me for a tinfoil hat I would not be surprised if Corzine himself sent a check (or checks) to Daggett for his campaign. I went to Daggett's website to test out my theory since one of the reforms Daggett wants to enact is that candidates publicly post that names of contributors and the dollar amounts. I thought he would have posted it on his website as an example for others, but I was wrong.

Why the Hollywood elite hearts Roman Polanski

Aside from the obvious reason of why I am glad that Roman Polansky was arrested (to repatriate a confessed pedophile and rapist) there is another reason I see hope in this event.

By the Hollywood elite running to his defense they may just have finally "jumped the shark", to borrow a Hollywood phrase, as far as their ability to influence people outside of their own elitist sphere of existence.

This guy was 44 years old and invited a 13 year old to another actor's house act as a model for him. After having a few drinks he decided it would be appropriate to have sex with her. She said no so he fed her some quaaludes. She still said no, and so as not to take her virginity he sodmized her by forcing her to have anal intercourse.

Now to be fair it is not all of the Hollywood types that have spoken out in favor of the pedophile, but a vast segment of the Hollywood leftard elite have stood up to defend this despicable criminal.

They say the crime is so old and that he hasn't committed a similar crime so he should be pardoned or his sentence reduced. They point out his victim has since forgiven him, yet fail to point out how that makes him any less culpable. And unbelievably a number of female members of the Hollywood elite say that this incident should not even be considered a crime because "it's what happens in Hollywood," or "you have to understand Hollywood." But my favorite reason of all cited by the Hollywood leftards, reminding us all that they are hired for their looks, not their brains, is that he was convicted unfairly and, if repatriated, should get a retrial -- content to ignore that not only was he granted a fair trial... he confessed to the crime.

We were also not spared by the standard assault by the main stream media hopping on the "Free Polansky" bandwagon. And they were more aggregious in their approach to it because they not only reported these occurrences, in many cases they named the (now adult) woman who was the victim of Polansky's attack. Not only is naming a victim of rape almost as reprehensible an act as the one Polansky committed, it serves no purpose other than to name her.

And why would they want to name her? It affects the story not one iota, it is an unecessary fact that just adds noise to the debate. The reason is simple... to revictimize her.

You see the liberal elite media, like the liberal eleite Hollywood crowd immediately circle their wagons when they perceive another liberal to be in distress or under attack and they respond, justified or not, by attacking anyone who has the audacity to stand up to them or one of their own.

In this case one of their own, a director of acclaim although I cannot recall a single one of his movies, was arrested for raping a 13 year old who resisted his assault.

It makes me wonder if they would feel the same way if it was one of their teenage daughters who was drugged and sodomized.

For me I know where I stand on the issue, as a father of two daughters I can assure you I'd pray for him everyday... but I'd never disclose the location of the body.