The Fascists of the Left

So, what does Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg think about Roe v. Wade? In her own words:

"Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Yes, Folks! You read that right. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once believed that abortion on demand was legalized to rid ourselves of undesirable people. In an interview to be published in the Sunday New York Times Magazine she, in fact, expands upon this theme:

"...Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the Court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”

This is absolutely stunning! A veritable demi-goddess of the American Left has actually come out and stated unequivocally that the original intent for Roe v. Wade was to actually pay poor and other undesirable women to kill their babies, thereby reducing the populations of those "that we don’t want to have too many of."

Of course, anyone familiar with Montag's World would know that this was the original intention of Planned Parenthood, as evidenced by the writings of its founder, Margaret Sanger. For the full details, please see Real Racism and its Lethal Consequences. Reading the writings of Ms. Sanger and her compatriot, Lothrop Stoddard, one cannot escape the conclusion that Justice Ginsberg really wasn't all that far from the mark.

There really are no two ways about it: Planned Parenthood and Justice Ginsberg are all about ridding the world of the minderwertig -- German for "shoddy" or "inferior" or those "that we don't want to have too many of."

And what was the McRae decision that Justice Ginsberg lamented? This decision upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid funding for abortion. So, what she has a problem with is that folks who have fundamental moral and ethical difficulties with abortion don't have to pay for the abortions for poor women -- women among those "that we don't want to have too many of".

Yes, you see, those morally priggish Pro-Lifers who don't want to be a party to wholesale slaughter have made abortion available only to the wealthy! Basically, what Justice Ginsberg is saying is that, despite your moral or ethical qualms about abortion, you should still have to pay for it.

The modern Left is all about choice, you know. So long as that choice is the death of innocents. They don't believe in choice when it comes to smoking, guns, driving your car, managing your own land, what "charity" you want your taxes to go to, what radio show to listen to, how much carbon you consume, etc.

It is even getting to the point where if you merely disagree with a Liberal you are engaging in "hate speech"

• Global warming skeptics are called "deniers", as if disagreeing with a questionable prediction was tantamount to defending the Reiche.
  
  
• The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, an example of misleading advertising, would make the sermons of conservative preachers criminal, while offering protection to all types of sexual deviancies listed by the American Psychiatric Association. Democrats in Congress flatly refused to omit pedophiles from the protections of the bill. Indeed, Attorney General Eric Holder testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that ministers, priests, soldiers and most other Americans would get no such protections. What is being legislated is speech and thought.
  
  
• Although there is no formal effort to reinstate the much maligned Fairness Doctrine in its original form, there is a big push to empower local activist groups, almost exclusively on the Left, to implement "community standards" and encourage "diversity in ownership". In true Orwellian fashion, these innocuous sounding policies would force radio stations to give up their most profitable and popular programming: Conservative talk radio. In short, we have censorship without ever using the word.
  
  

What is truly ironic about all of this is that it is the Left that keeps accusing Conservatives of fascism. Truth be told, their policy ideas are far more in tune with fascism than anything from the Right. And can you imagine the breathless outrage and gnashing of the teeth were Justice Ginsberg a Conservative? I can just imagine Keith Olberman's head exploding!

Apparently, though, even Eugenics is part of their agenda! Could the American Left be indulging in projection?

copyright July 11, 2009 by Gregory Indelicato

REAL RACISM AND ITS LETHAL CONSEQUENCES

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
--Margaret Sanger

With the arrival of the first post-racial candidate, Saint Obama, America seems to have embarked upon yet another "conversation" about race. Of course, the Sainted One wasn't talking about that until we found out what a racist loon his pastor and his grandmother, at least by Obama's reckoning, are.


Still, the call is out to bring Americans together and to try to bury this ugly spectre from our sordid past. Or, at least, that's what the Left is claiming. Truth be told, they would never voluntarily let go of racsim and the power it bestows.


It's remarkable how little attention is paid to the intimate connections between the Left and the Democrats and things like eugenics, segregation, Jim Crow, and slavery. Trent Lott says some nice things about a nonagenarian who once was a segregationist, and he finds himself pilloried. Meanwhile, no one says boo about Robert Byrd, a grand wizard from the Ku Klux Klan, who never renounced his allegiance to that sorry organization.


But this isn't about the pernicious double standards of the day. This about institutional racism and the attempt to breed away black Americans. This campaign was spearheaded by that champion of progressive ideals, the feminists' uber feminist, that stalwart pioneer of women's reproductive rights, Margaret Sanger.


Recent discoveries, thanks to an undercover investigation, have shown shown that, as recently as 2006, Planned Parenthood offices in several states, were eager to accept donations from actors who portrayed themselves as bigots. They said that they wanted their donations to go to only aborting black babies. The worst criticism of these remarks came from an administrator at Planned Parenthood, Lisa Hutton, who smirked and said, "Whatever!" Other officials were even less upset. You can see the video made about this investigation here.


In 2004, World Net Daily reported that several black male employees of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles had filed racial and gender discrimination suits against the organization. It seems that white women were harassing and firing the black men. An attorney for two of the claimants said it's "unfortunate to find out that PPLA, as a chief promoter of 'tolerance and diversity' is engaging in what appears to be a most primitive form of hate against its own employees."


Is it surprising? Well, if you really believe that Planned Parenthood is all about "tolerance and diversity", I find that not only surprising, but disturbing as well.

Planned Parenthood is America's largest provider of abortions. That they also provide for other women's health needs is beside the point. It is a statistical fact that most Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority and urban neighborhoods.


It is probably not surprising that the Almanac of Policy Issues finds that "The abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births)." That is a stunning figure, given that the Infoplease.com almanac puts the total percentage of the American black population at 12.7% as of 2002.


For an organization as involved with "tolerance and diversity", this is especially telling. Of course, if anyone was at all familiar with the history of Planned Parenthood, its parent (for lack of a better word) organization (The American Birth Control League) and its founder, Margaret Sanger, there would be no surprise at all.


Margaret Sanger was one of eleven children, born of a devout Roman Catholic mother and a socialist activist father. After an unhappy marriage, she began working on birth control issues, ultimately founding the American Birth Control League in New York City with Lothrop Stoddard and C.C. Little. While Little's career seems to be benign, the same cannot be said for Sanger and Stoddard, both of whom were outspoken proponents of eugenics, the process of improving the human race by weeding out the "lesser" breeds.


Sanger often spoke out against the unbridled reproduction of the poor, the mentally and physically deficient and the insane. Of course, she was also including blacks and Jews in that list of deficient gene donors. Of blacks she said: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Of birth control, she said its purpose was "to create a race of thoroughbreds."


Sounds rather Klan-ish, doesn't it? Of course, throughout her career, Margaret Sanger was a speaker much in demand at chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, although she herself thought they were rather dullards. Still, they supported her plans to "purify" the race.


In 1939, Sanger founded the Negro Project, garnering support from many of the black churches of the day, despite the sub rosa element of eugenics and the elimination the blacks. Said Sanger about getting black doctors and clergymen on board with the Negro Project:

"I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people

"The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Lovely sentiments, no? If you think dear Margaret was beyond the pale, you should get a load of Lothrop Stoddard. This guy's writings were avidly read (and tragically implemented) by Adolph Hitler. Eventually, they became the basis for the philosophy of Pan-Aryanism, which has since been embraced by the White Supremacist movement.


These are the philosophical underpinnings of Planned Parenthood: racism, ethnic purity, white supremacy, forced sterilizations, sneaking their murderous schemes under the noses of the very same black intellectuals that they used as their cover.


And their efforts continue to this day, as evidenced by the opening of this essay. It's hardly surprising that the eugenicists were closely allied with the socialists, the conservationists, indeed, every group that, today, would be called Left wing.

Consider issues beyond birth control and abortion. Al Gore and his Global Warmists would deny modernization to the Third World "to avoid the catastrophe" that industrialization would bring to the world, thereby oppressing blacks and other minorities to squalor, starvation, disease and death. Consider that America's drug laws were largely supported with such racist headlines as "Nine out of Ten Rapes Against White Women in the South are the Direct Result of the Coke Crazed Negro Mind". Consider that, the minimum wage was originally touted as a way "to keep the brown and the Chinese people out of our jobs". Look at affirmative action, which tells minorities that they can't possibly make it in this world without white Liberals to give them extra perks.


Yes, the list just goes on and on. But that's just point. When Liberals call Republicans in general, and Conservatives in particular, racist, they are engaging in the most base projection. They are looking at us, seeing themselves, and blaming it on us.


Yup! The Democratic Party and the Left! The Once, Present, and Future Home of Racism in America!


Copyright April 9th, 2008

BIG OIL VERSUS BIG GOVERNMENT

Much to do has been made over the profits of Big Oil -- a phrase that is spoken in a way to highlight the apparent Eeeevilll inherent in the engine of our prosperity and our Liberty.

You see, to Liberals, Big Oil (or Big Medical, Big Pharmaceutical, or Big Food) is, without a doubt, the truly besetting Evil of the Modern World. Ossama bin Ladin and Hugo Chavez may be pesky, but it is the world of Big Business (again spoken in ominous tones) that is truly the threat to Life, Liberty, Truth, and the American Way -- provided you define "American Way" as Liberalism run amok.

This week sees executives of the the largest oil producing corporations being interrogated by people in Congress. These Congressmen, given the current majority of the Democrats, have no real knowledge of business nor of the oil industry.

Ah! But they look at the current oil prices, the fact that, as Rep. Eward Markey (D. Ma) says "With gas prices at $3.29 per gallon, the poorest 20 percent of American households are spending nearly 10 percent of their income just on gasoline.'' He also belabors the record profits of Big Oil and the relative little they invest in "alternative energy sources": "Your companies and the Bush administration must support, not oppose, legislation that will unleash the renewable revolution we need to become energy independent and cut global-warming emissions.''

So what is the reality? Gas prices are very high. Oil profits are correspondingly high. Liberals are calling for a "windfall profits tax" to punish oil companies for being successful. It all sounds good, doesn't it?

Reality check: no business, whether a multinational oil company or a Mom-n-Pop corner grocery, pays taxes. I know, I know! They have to fill out all sorts of tax forms, they have to hire all sorts of tax accountants and attorneys to satisfy the bloodless, demented gods of the IRS bureaucracies, and they have to send in checks, amounting to billions of dollars to the government.

But the fact remains: these businesses aren't paying the taxes at all. You, the consumer of the goods and services provided by these businesses, are paying those taxes.

How can that be? Consider what the price of a product includes: the cost of producing it, the cost of materials, the cost of transportation, the cost of labor, and the cost of the taxes levied upon the business that produced that product.

You can't get around it, folks! If you call for a "windfall profits tax", all you're going to get is even higher prices at the pump.

So, then, why don't we forbid Big Oil from passing along the costs of those higher taxes? This way, we'll cut those profits and we won't have to pay the tax!

Sure, we can do that. But can we force any business to remain open if they don't get as much profit as they'd hope for? What if we confiscate all of Big Oil's profits? Where would we get the oil and fuel for our cars, our homes, our economy?

Fine, you might say. Well what about alternative, renewable resources? Why aren't we demanding that Big Oil do something about that?

Let's see... Big Oil is in the business of selling oil. Let's get Big Oil to fund the research that, if successful (which is highly questionable. See It's the Energy, Stupid!) would remove the very reason Big Oil is in business for in the first place.

I'm sorry, but does that really make sense to anyone who isn't an all-out Marxist?

Like it or not, the energy we need to continue as an economic powerhouse is oil. Of course, we could look to some alternatives, but the ones that make the most sense (wind and nuclear, for instance) are fought tooth and nail by the Left. Nuclear power has been libeled by the Left for decades, to the point that we'll build nuclear plants in North Korea (thanks, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright!) but no new plants have been built in America since the 1970's.

And don't get me started on Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms off the coast of Nantucket, where they would make the most sense.

Also, we have the Liberals' steadfast opposition to searching for and acquiring our own oil reserves here in the United States. Unless, of course, we're talking about Occidental Oil, founded by infamous Stalinist and Friend of Al Gore, Armand Hammar. As long as Al Gore still gets his cut of new oil sources and profits that only Occidental can extract on American soil, he'll be free to make sure we all live in a 19th Century lifestyle to prevent Global Warming.

The fact is, we are sitting on untold oil reserves here in the United States. The only reason we need to import foreign oil is the Democratic Party and its ideological masters in the radical environmental movement. As a result, only Occidental can drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. China, in partnership with Cuba and Venezuela, can drill off the coast of Florida, while we can't. And it's been more than three decades since a new refinery has been built in the United States.

And the Democrats, who created these problems in the first place, want to blame Big Oil?

There are two reasons why the price of gasoline and heating oil have risen so high. Neither of them have anything to do with the War in Iraq or Big Oil.

The first reason is simply supply and demand. In the last decade, we suddenly have two extremely populous nations -- India and China -- that are modernizing. They are coming out of their (relatively speaking) primitive stages and are becoming fully industrialized nations, with all the energy demands that inevitably ensue.

Meanwhile, here in the US, we are always demanding more energy, both for transportation and for our infrastructure. This is as it should be, for if we do not expand our energy sources and our consumption, we will descend into squalor.

Or, as Al Gore would prefer to phrase it, we will have achieved a sustainable economy.

In any economic system, increase demand must be met with increased prices. Couple that with the Left's refusal to back sensible alternatives -- wind and nuclear -- or to expand our own domestic supplies of oil, we naturally get hit at the pump.

But then, there's the other reason, the most pernicious reason, for our massively high gasoline prices. We hear daily harangues about Big Oil and their "obscene" profits. But almost no one mentions an organization that reaps far more profit, about twice as much as Big Oil. And this organization drills for no oil, buys and sells no oil, refines no oil. And it makes about twice as much on a gallon of gasoline as Big Oil.

This organization is none other than Big Government. According to The TaxProf Blog we find the following datum:

"[F]ederal and state taxes on gasoline production and imports have been climbing steadily since the late 1970s and now total roughly $58.4 billion. Due in part to substantial hikes in the federal gasoline excise tax in 1983, 1990, and 1993, annual tax revenues have continued to grow. Since 1977, governments
collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period."

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s say you ran a lemon ice stand. But I, whether through legitimate taxation or strong arm tactics (but I repeat myself!) force you to give me twice as much of the money generated by sales than you get to keep in profit. Wouldn’t you be a bit upset? Wouldn’t you be forced to pass that added cost of my larceny onto your customers? Why is this any different than taxing Big Oil at confiscatory rates?

Only Liberal can find a way around these simple facts. And his “solutions” would only make matters far worse than they already are. The demand for oil and energy is at historic levels. Never before have so many people wanted so much energy, which translates into higher prices due to the demand.

But even worse, Big Government (please note the ominous tones as I write those words) – which produces absolutely no oil, which refines absolutely no oil products, which transports absolutely no oil, which sells absolutely no oil, which impedes and prevents the development of domestic oil supplies – extracts twice the “profit” from a gallon of gasoline as all of Big Oil combined!

Friends, regardless of what the Legacy Media and the Democratic Party tell you, Big Oil is not the enemy. They are truly our friends and they are being slandered by our leaders for the sake of political advantage and economic power.

The real enemy, the 500-pound gorilla in the living room, is Big Government!

Copyright April 1st, 2008

LIBERAL VERSUS CONSERVATIVE.

Recently, my e-mail address was added on to some sort of mailing list for Liberals. Each day, would bring me the latest Leftist screeds. Occasionally, I'd ask these people, who were they and how did they get my e-mail address? But they'd just ignore my queries.

But then, I did something that they could not just let stand. I responded to their harangues and their polemics. None of them actually rebutted my points. No, that would not be playing by the rules of the Angry Left. What I got back were accusations, obscenities, vitriol, invective, and virulent denunciation.

In short, they responded the way a monkey in the zoo would to provocation: they hurled their own feces at me.

One of these Liberals thought to ask me what I thought a Liberal was. I'm sure she was trying to make some point about my ignorance or something, but I took the challenge and made a list of some twenty five points describing a Liberal.

This was promptly followed by a challenge to define a Conservative, with the smug suggestion that I would be unable to do so. Within a few minutes, I fired off twenty five points describing a Conservative.

I now await the monkeys and their hurled feces. Good thing I've got a good rain coat!

At any rate, I'd thought my readers might enjoy a glimpse into the workings of my thoughts. Therefore, listed below, are the twenty-five definitions of a Liberal and of a Conservative, with my thanks to Jeff Foxworthy, since I sort of borrowed his style. Enjoy!

You might be a Liberal if:

1. 
   You believe that woman's right to choose trumps a baby's right to live.
2. 
   You believe that the only choice to allow an individual is to kill an unborn child or to choose a sexually deviant lifestyle.
3. 
   You do not believe in the right to choose to keep and bear arms.
4. 
   You do not believe in the right for an individual to keep the money he earns without it being confiscated through the tax system and redistributed through the welfare system.
5. 
   You believe that government is the answer to all mankind's problems, not the source of most of them.
6. 
   You believe that Marxism has gotten a bad rap.
7. 
   You believe that the only reason Islamo-fascists hate us is because we support Israel.
8. 
   You believe that Islam is a "religion of peace" but Christians are murderous cretins.
9. 
   You believe that Democrats never lose elections, they have them stolen from them.
10. 
    You believe that the only rational response to someone who disagrees with you is to curse him out, question his motives, or call him a fascist.
11. 
    You think that limited government equals fascism.
12. 
    You believe that government should stay out of the bedroom, except to mandate what light bulbs and what toilets we can use.
13. 
    You believe that there is no difference between an animal and a human being.
14. 
    You believe that your ideology automatically makes you a better person.
15. 
    You believe that guns and poverty cause crime, rather than immorality, criminal coddling courts and unarmed citizens.
16. 
    You believe it is charitable to confiscate property and wealth from those who've earned it and who own it in order to give it to those who have done neither.
17. 
    You believe that it is morally superior to clone aborted babies for their stem cells rather than to use adult stem cells, even though the only cures discovered thus far came from adult stem cells with no dead babies.
18. 
    You believe it is more proper to send our troops into places that have no national interests at stake than to actually defend American interests. Oil, by the way is the engine of our prosperity and, therefore, a national interest.
19. 
    You think that the ideal population of the world should be about 1/5th what it is, and that the rest should die, leaving enlightened Liberals to live as they think they should.
20. 
    You think that the Pope and Evangelical Christians are more of a threat than the Islamo-fascists who want to bring us back to the 6th or 7th Century through rape murder and intimidation, all with the approval of the Qu'ran.
21. .
    You think that Muslim terrorists are freedom fighters on a par with George Washington, even though they reject every aspect of freedom.
22. 
    You actually believe that John Kerry was a war hero, and that Ted Kennedy has the moral authority to condemn waterboarding. Here's a little joke for you: What's the difference between John Kerry and Ted Kennedy? Ted Kennedy has a confirmed kill!
23. 
    You think that No Child Left Behind was a Conservative scam, even though it was largely written by Ted Kennedy.
24. 
    You think that Bill Clinton was railroaded, but Larry Craig should be hung.
25. 
    You think that the Constitution really doesn't mean what it says, that we can make it say whatever we (by "we" I mean Liberals) want it to say. This is otherwise known as "The Living Constitution". Try playing a game of Monopoly, for instance, if the rule book is suddenly "living". You won't get very far, would you?

Now then, what does it mean to be a Conservative?

You might be a Conservative if:

1. 
   You read the Constitution in the plain English it was written in, rather than the legalese preferred by folks like Souter, Breyer, Kennedy, and Ginsberg.
2. 
   You think that government is far too big and intrusive, and mostly in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
3. 
   You believe charity is only virtuous when it is with your own money and voluntary, rather than someone else's confiscated through the tax code.
4. 
   You look at America, recognize its faults and the errors of its ways, and still believe that America is the best damn country to have ever appeared on this good Earth.
5. 
   You believe that the only proper gun control law is the one that repeals all gun control laws.
6. 
   You believe that keeping the government out of the bedroom doesn't mean we have to give equal time to deviant sexual behavior.
7. 
   You believe that health care is a product, not a right, and that the free market is the only way to bring down health care costs.
8. 
   You look to real scientists (Robert Felix, Roy Spencer and Tim Ball come to mind) for information about climate change, rather than the bitter loser of a very close election who tried to use the courts to steal the White House.
9. 
   You understand exactly why the Constitution provides for the Electoral College, and you approve.
10. 
    You know the difference between amending the Constitution and violating it through creative readings by the Supreme Court.
11. 
    You look at a tax rate (anyone's, at any income level) and think it's just too high.
12. 
    You understand that bureaucrats serve the same role in society that parasites do in Nature. The suck of the life essence of the host and return nothing -- NOTHING -- of value.
13. 
    You hear Chuck Schumer talk about his "passion to legislate" and all you hear are your Liberties going down the tubes.
14. 
    You know that the things Liberals think are torture are only things that many people derive deviant sexual pleasure from, and you don't understand why one is torture and the other is merely a "lifestyle choice".
15. 
    You believe that an unborn child has more claim to the right to life than a condemned murderer.
16. 
    You recognize that there is, indeed, a difference between "killing" and "murdering", and that one is immoral and the other is sometimes necessary.
17. 
    You look at America's meat industry, and marvel that it is able to feed so many millions of people for so little expense.
18. 
    You know that mankind is just not big enough to impact the Earth in any serious fashion, and, even if we can, we're not doing anything different than any other species that evolved on Earth: change the environment, wipe out some species, make new homes for other newer species.
19. 
    You know that, if you want to save an endangered species, advertise that it tastes good. (See "America's meat industry")
20. 
    You truly believe in choice: choice of what light bulb to use, choice of what to eat, where to live, what to drive, how much energy you use, what to own and use to defend yourself, what to do with your own property, where to send your kids to school, what your schools teach your kids, what charities you want to give to, what to listen to on the radio, what to read, etc.
21. 
    You believe that Freedom also means you have to put up with things you don't like -- Liberals, for instance. Liberals, on the other hand, think that disagreeing with them is hate speech and should be made illegal.
22. 
    You know that racism is both wrong and stupid, and that's why you oppose affirmative action.
23. 
    You know that "separation of church and state" really isn't in the Constitution and that the Establishment Clause was meant to protect religion from government, rather than to protect government from religion.
24. 
    You don't confuse the Boy Scouts with a right wing paramilitary group with tendencies toward fascism.
25. 
    You can actually have a debate with a Liberal without once cursing him out, questioning his motives, or calling him a fascist.
    

Well, that's it for tonight, folks! Who knows what tomorrow will bring. As you know, we here at Montag's World pride ourselves at goring more sacred cows than a drunken cab driver in Mumbai!

Copyright March 31st, 2008

WAR IN PERSPECTIVE

The Legacy Media -- by which, I mean, ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. -- have been waiting for more than a year for this week's big story. Now they are pounding us over the head with it.

We are told that we have achieved "a grim milestone", according to ABC News. Voice Of America tells us that both Bush and Congress "Respond With Grim Messages to US Military Death Toll In Iraq". MSNBC, meanwhile, tells us that President Bush remains resolute, while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi frets that “Americans also understand that the cost of the war to our national security, military readiness and our reputation around the world is immense and that the threat to our economy — as the war in Iraq continues to take us deeper into debt — is unacceptable."

All of these "news" stories are told in a way that purposely slants the message to the Left, toward the anti-war, toward the un-American and the unpatriotic. They are told in a way that is designed to make us believe that none of this is worth our time, money or blood. But is that an accurate picture?

Let's try to put things like war and peace into perspective. Let's look at what America represents and what we have done for the world. And let's examine how our Liberal friends denigrate our towering achievements.

First, by way of disclaimer, I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the United States Armed Services. I was just too young to be drafted for Viet Nam. When I was young and irresponsible, I led a young and irresponsible life. With the coming of the Gulf War I was too old to serve.

However, despite claims to the contrary from the Left, I am capable of forming an opinion on the matter and I see no reason not to share it with you, the reader. After all, most folks have no experience with being a murderer, yet they have opinions on the subject of murder. Half of all people will probably not get pregnant, but they have opinions on abortion. Most folks don't take drugs, but they have opinions about drug laws. Therefore, I will offer my opinions on war and peace.

No one who is sane actually wants a war. Wars should only be fought when our American interests are involved, either directly or through threats. At the same time, America cannot afford to back down from a fight, especially in these times of Islamo-fascism and international terrorism.

We will not debate here the justification for going to war in Iraq. I know the old shibboleth "Bush Lied People Died", and the constant refrain "So Where's the WMD's?" I won't belabor the point made by the 9/11 Commission Report's twenty three paragraphs detailing Iraq's cooperation with al Qaeda. Nor will we look at Kenneth Timmerman's excellent investigative reporting about Iraq's WMD's in his book, Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender . Nor will we consider George Sada, whose book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam detailed how Saddam hid those WMD's, with the help of Russia and Syria.

No, what we will look at is the Iraq War in the context of past American wars. The principal question asked will be "Why is the Iraq War death toll considered so important?"

It's easy enough to search the Internet and find out just how many Americans died in past wars. Wikipedia alone has a detailed accounting, from the Founding to today:

• The Revolutionary War: ~25,ooo
• The War of 1812: ~20,000
• World War I: 116,615
• World War II: 405,399

But the number that really jumps out a grabs you is that for the Civil War. That war, which only lasted four years, killed approximately 625,000 Americans. This is a stunning death toll, especially considering that the Union, which ultimately won that war, lost far more than the Confederacy.

Contrast that, if you will, with the Iraq War. We had just past the five-year mark of hostilities in Iraq and we have just reached the death toll of 4,000. How can anyone be other than thankful that our death toll is so low?

To be sure, no one wants dead American soldiers. The fact that the death toll is so low should not be used to minimize the sacrifice of those fallen soldiers. What we need to remember though, is that we are winning a war while keeping the risk to our soldiers at an absolute minimum.

Meanwhile, our friends on the Left are bemoaning the high number of wounded in Iraq. This sounds suspiciously like the new reports about air bags in cars, reducing the death rate from accidents, but increasing the injury rate. Obviously, given advances in modern medical treatments and advances in rapid transportation of the wounded, the ratio between the dead and the wounded will be much different than in past wars.

Let us also remember that this time around, as opposed to almost every war in our past, our military is completely volunteer. These men and women, on their own accord and with full knowledge of what they are getting into, put themselves in harms way. They do this for America, for American interests, and also for the betterment of their fellow Man, regardless of his nationality.

For despite the official reasons given for going into Iraq, there is also an ancillary benefit that has appeared. Iraq, and also Afghanistan, have, for the first time in their long and bloody history, elected governments. As a result of President George W. Bush and his efforts to defend our nation, and especially thanks to our brave men and women in our Armed Services, fully 55 million people actually had a say in their governance. And those people went to the polls to participate in spite of the threats from the Islamo-fascists that made the invasion of their nations so necessary.

The American Left may belittle these brave warriors. They may try to claim that they were stupid, or they were duped. They may try to make the case that they were so poor that they had no choice. The Left may claim that President Bush got us into the wars under false pretenses or, even worse, staged the attacks on 9/11 to justify the invasions.

These lies, however, will never besmirch the honor of the American soldier and his commitment to Liberty, both here in America and abroad.

So, although one death in combat may be too many, in the context of what America represents to the world -- Liberty -- 4,000 war dead really isn't that much, considering that not only America remains free, but that 55 million other human beings now have a chance for that very same precious, God-given commodity.

We, here at Montag's World, are proud to be Americans!

Copyright March 25th, 2008

LOOKS LIKE HIS HALO IS SLIPPING!

When one is bestowed with mythical, near messianic, status, one had better make sure he's got all his ducks in a row. Such is the case for Barak Hussein Obama, the new Saint of our age.

Since his speech in the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he has garnered a reputation with his fine oratorical skills, his mouthing of pious platitudes, and his squeaky clean good looks. Just Google the words Obama messiah. You'll come up with 274,000 hits. We are told daily how he will unite our fractured nation, how he will transcend race and political party, how he will restore hope to our troubled masses.

Then, reality strikes. We start examining his proposals (just the same old neo-socialist Liberal agenda, hidden beneath the flowery rhetoric of "hope" and "change") and we start to learn about the folks around him, the folks who have shaped and molded his philosophies, and with whom he seems to agree.

Previously, in It's An Obama-nation! we examined such luminaries of Saint Obama's life as Frank Marshall Davis, Abongo "Roy" Obama, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and his pastor and spiritual advisor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I think it's incumbent on us to look a little closer at these and other characters.

Bill Ayers serves on the board of the Woods Fund, as did Saint Obama. This charitable foundation, as you'd probably imagine, tends to donate to Left of Center causes. During Saint Obama's tenure with the foundation, funding was granted to an organization called the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

Fox Business.com, sourcing the story to Aaron Kline, reports thusly:

The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as
a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a
controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a
"catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing
drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens, according to Aaron Klein,
Middle East correspondent for WND.com.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western
terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

OK, then! Not only did Saint Obama serve on a board with a confessed terrorist bomber, he arranged for funding for Prof. Rashid Khalidi, who supports and has worked with terrorists. And he even accepted donations raised by this unapologetic anti-semitic Islamist!

No matter how you cut it, this is more than guilt by association, as many on the Left have been trying to claim. It is apparent, from the exchanges of funding, that both Prof. Khalidi and Saint Obama are at least reading from the same chapter, if not the same page.

And they have a history that goes back some years besides. Khalidi, before being bestowed the Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies at Columbia University, taught at the University of Chicago, where he met Saint Obama. We are not talking here about casual acquaintances.

It took long enough, but at long last, the Legacy Media has caught up to the story of Saint Obama's spiritual leader, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Only now, four years after Saint Obama became a household name, do we learn that the Rev. Wright said this, the Sunday following 9/11:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have
supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans,
and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been
brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to
roost."

Now I know many on the Left actually believe this bilge, but I sincerely doubt that most Americans do. To say such nonsense about America, the single most important force for good in the world, is, to my mind, unconscionable. Worse, he has damned America in God's name, as can be seen in this video clip.

Finally, Saint Obama has decided to disavow the racist, anti-semitic, and anti-American preachings of Rev. Wright:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the
statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically
denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us
from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

Well that's just wonderful! But Saint Obama had been a member of the Rev. Wright's congregation for twenty years. Yet he makes the ludicrous claim that he had only become aware of his despicable preachings last year:

"I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama
said. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because
of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife
and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to
leave the church."

Well, that's wonderful! But what did Saint Obama really have to say about his pastor? Something to the effect that he was like a beloved, albeit eccentric, uncle who was prone, now and then, to spouting out things that were a bit outrageous.

Outrageous? A bit? Geez! I'd hate to see the Rev. Wright on a really bad day!

Thanks to the New Media (talk radio and the Internet) these things have been
brought to the fore of our national awareness. Otherwise, we'd only find out
years later, when the damage is already done.

Hopefully, the Legacy Media will get its collective butt in gear and start asking some real questions of the presidential candidates. The electorate deserves to know just who is in each candidate's Rolodex.

Hopefully, too, enough Americans will pay attention to those Men Behind the Curtain.

Copyright March 14th, 2008

SALVADOR DALI, PLEASE CALL YOUR OFFICE!

There's an old joke: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb? A fish.




Whenever you think that politics has gotten as weird as it can possibly be, things just get weirder. The Democratic Party and its sycophants are a perfect case in point.



For starters, consider how Democrats and Leftists in general immediately head for the grassy knoll whenever things don't go the way they wanted:

• Al Gore's loss in 2000: Well, even though it was Gore's attorneys who started all the litigation and even though the Supreme Court came to the right decision (albeit with the wrong Constitutional citations) The GOP just had to have stolen the election. After all, it's impossible for a Democrat to lose!


• The folks who think that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, or otherwise somehow staged by the government are almost all Liberal. They are also the kooks who think there was someone on a certain grassy knoll 45 years ago.


• They think that the elections of 2004 were stolen from them as well, citing irregularities in Ohio. Of course, we are not to consider how dead people become Democrats immediately upon assuming room temperature, especially in Chicago
  

That's right, folks! There's a conspiracy out there for everything. Everything, that is, except the occasional Democratic electoral victory. Doesn't it seem odd that the Democrats, who had majorities at the federal and local levels for decades before 1994, never got around to setting up the nefarious networks the Republicans managed in only six years? Please! Don't try telling me it's because the Democrats are better people, 'cos dat dog don't hunt!

Now we have a new conspiracy out there. It seems that, despite his rather disgusting appetites, former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was targeted for political assassination by the Bush Administration. That, at least, seems to be the implicit, if not explicit, gist of Scott Horton's piece in Harper's Magazine:

So here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case:
(1) The prosecutors handling the case came from the Public Integrity Section.
(2) The prosecution is opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. You read
that correctly. The statute itself is highly disreputable, and most of the high-profile cases brought under it were politically motivated and grossly abusive. Here are a few... [I'll leave out the history lesson.]
(3) The resources dedicated to the case in terms of prosecutors and
investigators are extraordinary.
(4) How the investigation got started. The Justice Department has yet to give a full account of why they were looking into Spitzer’s payments, and indeed the suggestion in the ABC account is that it didn’t have anything to do with a prostitution ring. The suggestion that this was driven by an IRS inquiry and involved a bank might heighten, rather than allay, concerns of a politically motivated prosecution.

Well then! It's obvious! I'm sorry, I just can't take these conspiracy theorists seriously. What Scott Harper is trying to do is defend the indefensible by casting doubt on the motives of the investigators. What he is leaving out is that pesky little fact that Elliot Spitzer has been patronizing the oldest profession for a decade, spending to the tune of $80,000, and concealing his activities from the New York voters, all the while crusading against, among other nefarious no-good-niks, prostitution rings.

What ever the motivations of the investigators, the fact remains that Elliot Spitzer was caught red handed by the very same laws he used to prosecute Wall Street executives and high class pimps.

By that same logic, wouldn't it be fair to ask Client Number Nine what his motivations were when he prosecuted those Wall Street firms? Or when he threatened them with prosecution? Wouldn't it be fair to ask if he had any financial incentive? Oh, I don't mean personally! I mean, the revenue generated by the state government would be quite a feather in the cap for the up and coming politician, wouldn't it?

Meanwhile, back in the fever swamps, we have Geraldine Ferraro making news again. This morning, she tendered her resignation to the Hillary campaign, saying, "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you." Of course, she is denying that she had anything as gauche or racist as we little people might think. She was actually paying Saint Barak Obama a compliment!

I'll let you decide what this comment is supposed to mean:

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very
secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be
hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Now, from my understanding of basic English, she was clearly saying that only Hillary can be a white woman who can be nominated, and that Obama is only getting attention because he was a black man. After all, the only possible reason anyone could dislike Hillary is because she is a woman. This is demeaning to all voters, since it assumes their inate misogyny and racism.

On Good Morning America, Ms. Ferraro made an impassioned defense of her comments, telling Diane Sawyer to "Hold it for a minute..." repeatedly as she rudely overran the interview. You can see a video of the encounter here.

And what was Ms. Ferraro trying to say? ABC News reports: "Ferraro said she was saying that "the black community came out with ... pride in [Obama's] candidacy. You would think he would say 'thank you' for doing that. Instead, I'm charged with being a racist."

There is no truth to the rumor that Saint Obama replied, "Uh... Thanks!... uh, I think."

This, of course, is just par for the course with Liberals and Democrats. They aren't guilty of anything they might do. It is those Evil Republicans, who can't help but trip over the Left's intranigence, that are to blame for even noticing their peccadilloes. Remember Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"? That's another one for the books!

At any rate, that's enough slogging through the Liberal Fever Swamps. I think I'll take a long, hot shower, disinfect my keyboard, and start a course of antibiotics.

I sure hope I don't catch whatever the Kook Fringe has!

Copyright March 12th, 2008

DON'T BELIEVE IN ELF'S!

What with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, the War on Terror, bombing raids in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, as well as various covert operations around the world, it would be quite easy to forget that, here in America, we have our own homegrown terrorists.

Some of them are radicalized Muslims. Tim McVeigh is often blamed on the Right, although not even the militia movement would have him. And Liberals and other Pro-Choicers love to point to the two or three cases where a Pro-Lifer shot an abortion doctor or planted a bomb in an attempt to prove it is the Right that is violent.

These cases, however, pale before another loosely affiliated group. This group is estimated by the FBI to be responsible for more than 1,200 "criminal incidents (vandalism, terrorism, theft, destruction, etc.) with damage estimates into the tens of millions of dollars. Indeed, this group is regarded by law enforcement and Homeland Security officials to be the leading domestic terror organization in the country. In fact, just this morning, they made the headlines once again with the destruction of five luxury homes in Woodinville, northeast of Seattle, Wa.

This group is none other than the Earth Liberation Front., or ELF. I really don't know why, but when you Google ELF you have to follow a link for Viagra. So please ignore the ad at the top of their site.

Begun in England as an offshoot of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the terrorist organization quickly spread throughout Europe, eventually arising in North America. The organization is very loose, with individuals or cells working independently and rarely seeking public attention. This is to avoid scrutiny and surveillance by the authorities.

Although there has yet to be a fatality attributed to ELF, that is merely a matter of pure luck. They are known to drive spikes into trees meant for harvest as lumber, jeopardizing the life and limb of the poor lumberjack who hits said spike with his chainsaw.

Arson and explosives are also a favorite weapon of these "eco-terrorists", as they have become known. Car dealerships that offer SUV's, ski lodges, fur farms, laboratories, almost anything that they can claim is injurious to the Earth and its inhabitants, can be a target. The term they use for their vandalism and violence is "monkeywrenching".

Early acts were rather small: gluing the locks on a neighborhood McDonald's while defacing the property with their mottoes. Spiking trees soon followed, as did actually living in the trees to prevent their harvest. Laboratories were trashed as their animals were "rescued", setting back years of medical research. In one case, dozens of minks were released into the wild, the Elves, as they call themselves, not realizing that the minks would turn on each other resulting in painful death for most of the animals they "saved".

The began to set their sights on bigger targets as time went by. Car dealerships are destroyed on a regular basis. In 1998, they burned down a ski resort in Vail, Co.

They tageted a 200-plus unit condominium in San Diego, Ca., leaving behind posters saying "If you build it, we will burn it" and "The ELF's are mad". This act caused some $20 million of damage and required the heroic efforts of more than 100 firefighters. As noted before, it was only a matter of luck that no one was injured or killed.

The blaze today northeast of Seattle, Wa, comes as Briana Waters' trial for eco-terrorism begins for her role in the destruction of the Center for Urban Horticulture, at the University of Washington's Tacoma campus. Not only are these enviro-weenies dangerous, they aren't too terribly bright. Apparently, they were under the mistaken assumption that the lab they destroyed was engaging in genetic modification of trees for an urban environment. They mistook breeding for gene modification.

The Woodinville homes were showcases of luxury homes that are actually friendly to the environment. They were "Built Green", as the practice is called, using technologies such as water permeable sidewalks, extra insulation, and recycled materials. Unfortunately for the Northwest division of Centex Homes, the builder of the destroyed homes, that wasn't good enough for ELF, which left behind a banner reading ""Built green? Nope black! McMansions in RCD's [an acronym for "rural cluster developments"] r not green. ELF"[sic]

Not only are the ELF's environmentally conscious, they are also only semi-literate.

One thing that should be noted is that firefighters were kept away from the burning homes for fear of booby traps. Again, it is only a matter of luck that no one has been hurt yet by these vicious idiots.

It should come as no surprise that these eco-terrorists are Leftist anarchists, closely related to ideologically to the sort of Marxist bombers represented by Bill Ayers, a friend of Saint Obama (see It's An Obama-nation!) Indeed, their goals are almost identical: the destruction of American economic power, the radical redistribution of wealth, and the institution of socialist Utopian ideals.

Nor should it be news to anyone that their acts of arson and violence are usually more destructive of the environment than their targets themselves. After all, how much worse is a raging inferno, pollution wise, than a McMansion or an SUV left unmolested?

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh coined the term "watermelons" to describe the modern environmentalist movement. For, you see, just like the favorite summer snack, the modern environmentalist is green on the outside, but red on the inside.

Truer words have never been said!

Copyright March 3rd, 2008

IT'S AN OBAMA-NATION!

Many years ago, Dennis Prager said something to the effect (and I paraphrase here) "You don't vote for the candidate so much as you vote for his Rolodex." This truism is still valid today.

It is almost inevitable that Barak Hussein Obama will become the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States. His record is thin, at best, and his rhetoric is strong on charisma, but short on substance. We've already explored some of his ideas and their extreme Leftist philosophical underpinnings.

But what of Obama's Rolodex? Who are the folks who've most influenced him? Who would he be likely to call on for advice? Let us explore just three of his primary influences.

Frank Marshall Davis:

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Barak Obama describes a man, identified only as "Frank" who became something of a mentor to the young Obama growing up in Hawaii. Now, Obama has admitted to attending "socialist conferences", even having contact with Marxist Literature. But he poo-poohed any suggestion that he was a hardcore Marxist, as had been suggested by Alan Keyes in his Illinois senate race.

"Frank" was an old man the youth had befriended who wrote poetry and gave career advice. So just who was this "Frank"?

Cliff Kincaid, in an essay on Accuracy In Media, identifies "Frank" as one Frank Marshall Davis. For the most part, Mr. Davis was famous for his poetry and for his journalism. He'd written many books of poetry and had been an editor and reporter for many publications around the country. However, in 1951, he was identified as a member of the Communist Party USA, which was nothing but a front group for Stalin and the Soviet Union. This was from a report from the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, so let's not bring in McCarthy here.

Obama writes glowingly of "Frank", who brought "hard earned knowledge" and advice. He also claimed to be a contemporary of other noted Communists, Richard Wright and Lanston Hughes.

Admittedly, "Frank" has been dead for twenty years. But is this the kind of influence we want in a President? Does America really need someone who belonged to a group funded and influenced by the Kremlin under Stalin?

Just asking, is all!

The Reverend Jerimiah Wright:

There have been attempts to stick Obama with being a Muslim. Both his natural and his step fathers were Muslims and he spent his early childhood in Indonesia. Indeed, his older brother, Abongo "Roy" Obama, is an Islamic Marxist in Kenya. However, it is apparent that Obama is a Christian. Although, precisely what kind of Christian we must explore.

Barak Obama belongs to the Trinity United Church of Christ, a Chicago church headed by Rev. Jerimiah Wright. If that were the whole story, there would be no essay here. However, that is far from the whole truth.

A visit to the Trinity United Church's web site offers a rather disturbing glimpse into the radical "liberation" theology that has plagued the Americas for the last half a century. Rather than focus of Christ's teachings, they use those teachings to foster a black separatist message, laced with Marxist tendencies toward wealth redistribution and "economic justice".

Once again, we have an unabashedly Marxist mentor to the would-be President of the United States. Worse, he is a separatist as well, pitting Americans against one another on the basis of skin color. And he tries to conceal this harmful worldview under the rubric of Christianity.

Tell me what's so Christian about statements such as these, all by the Rev. Wright:

• The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.



• "In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," "White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just `disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."



• "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
  

So, it should come as no surprise that the Trinity United Church, through its Trumpet Newsmagazine, gave noted racist and antisemite Louis Farrakhan an award. The Rev. Wright had this to say about Farrakhan:

"He is one of the 20th and. 21st century giants of the African American religious experience. When Minister Farrakhan speaks, black America listens. His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest. His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change, and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

It should also come as no surprise that the Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan made a pilgrimage, of sorts, to Libya for a visit with Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi. Upon their return, Col. Gaddafi make a video presentation to the Nation of Islam's Saviour's Day Convention in which he pledged to provide weapons for a black army to destroy white America.

Quite the Christians, aren't they?

Obama has rebuked Farrakhan for his antisemitic rhetoric. He has also tried to distance himself from the Rev. Wright, according to whom Obama said: "'You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public.'"

Yet, Obama is still a member of his church for more than twenty years. And he has had the Rev. Wright in his circle, behind the scenes, at least.

Oh, and lest we forget, the title of Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, was lifted right out of one of the good reverend's sermons.

Are we concerned yet?

William Ayers:

William Ayers was a violent revolutionary, a member of the Weather Underground. He has never recanted his violent militism. Nor has he paid any sort of debt to society. All charges against him were dropped, thanks to the ineptitude of the federal authorities who were searching for him throughout the 1970's.

In National Review, Jonah Goldberg notes that this quote: "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.” appeared in the New York Times as they published a paeon to the counter cultural guerrilla. What made that even more poignant was that this was on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001. The New York Times also quoted Mr. Ayers about his days as a mad bomber: "''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.''

Today, Mr. Ayers is, beyond all reasonable expectations, a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. This, presumably, might explain many of the problems in American schools today.

It turns out that both Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund, a charitable organization that purports to help the disadvantaged, where they served together for a number of years.

Look back to 1995. Ben Smith, of the Politico, reported that Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer had a sort of "coming out"party for her chosen successor to her seat in the state legislature. That successor was a young Barak Obama. The party was held at the home of one William C. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, also a member of the Weather Underground.

A question for all those concerned with America's security: Doesn't a clear association with an unrepentant terrorist raise any flags of warning? Is this the sort of person we want to have access to the President of the United States?

I still believe that, at this moment anyway, Barak Obama will beat John McCain in November. However, before we elect this unreconstructed socialist and radical, we ought examine his Rolodex. So far, we've found a liberation theology pastor, an avowed Communist mentor, a Marxist Islamist brother, and a violent terrorist.

These are not the sort of folks we need running around the White House or influencing the President.

Copyright Feb. 29th, 2008

MAYBE HE SHOULD ASK FOR CLEMENS-Y?

Have we in America lost our collective mind? Why is Congress, tellingly controlled by the Democrats, wasting our time and money (I know! That's what they do!) investigating steroid use in Major League Baseball? More to the point, why are we Americans standing for this happy nonsense?

Of course, baseball is America's Sport. Baseball players are supposed to be clean cut, true blue avatars of what a good American citizen is supposed to be. But let's get a reality check here. Using steroids isn't what I would call a pressing, urgent matter for our elected officials to investigate.

On the one hand, it seems to be a gross misuse of their power to drag baseball players, their trainers and their officials -- all of them private citizens, not government employees -- and grill them endlessly, hoping for that one gotcha moment.

But then, at least they aren't planning the next round of tax hikes, over regulation, and other insults to our Liberties. There may be silver lining to all this, but I still don't like sacrificing one element of the private sector to deflect attention from my own.

Now, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell has his "big fish". He has enlisted the FBI to investigate possible perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Roger Clemens, one of the most famous players in baseball. All of this stems from Mitchell's twenty month investigation into steroid use among professional ball players.

This is the most pressing problem facing America today? Forgive me, but I don't see how this should be a federal matter, let alone a matter for government at any level.

The FBI case arose from hearings several weeks ago, in which Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and trainer Brian McNamee all testified. Congressmen, mostly Democrats, chided all the witnesses, saying that they didn't know what to believe.

Now we have an ongoing investigation into matters that add up to less than a molehill.

Look, I don't advocate the use of steroids or human growth hormones (HGH) but what's the big deal? Baseball, as big an industry as it is, is not a make or break thing for the American economy. It's not a matter of national security. Baseball is merely part of the circuses that keep Americans happily distracted from things like the presidential race, terrorism, the return of the Cold War, and the fact that Saint Obama isn't really the Second Coming.

Tell me, someone, what is the difference between using steroids and HGH and better training and exercise to improve performance? Why should Congress even think about looking into these matters? I've just paged through my copy of the Constitution, and it doesn't have anything to say about baseball and Congressional oversight.

Of course, the Constitution does have the Tenth Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but to me, in layman's terms, this says: "If it ain't in the Constitution, Congress can't do it!"

Anyone who has known me or has read my posts here at Montag's World or elsewhere on the Internet know that I'm a strong advocate for repealing any and all of America's drug laws. The Tenth Amendment is one principal reason, as is the lesson of Prohibition. You might recall that Prohibition did nothing to curtail alcohol consumption, but it did empower organized crime and vast, abusive governmental bureaucracies which survived the repeal of Prohibition, and which trample on our Liberties today.

The use of steroids and HGH in professional sports, in my mind, falls into the same sort of category. Whatever protocol of detection and enforcement the bureaucrats come up with, there will always be someone who finds a way around it. The effort to avoid these work arounds will inevitably reduce your Liberty. There really is nothing but our own will to hold the line between a just government and tyranny.

Some folks will, undoubtedly, claim that I am too concerned with millionaire sports figures, who earn seven and eight figure salaries for "playing a game", and not concerned enough for the "little guy". Well, I am concerned with every one's Liberties, regardless of wealth, color, creed, social status, gender or career path.

It is a truism that, when one person's Liberties are violated, all our Liberties are violated. Steroids and HGH aren't matters important enough for Congress to get involved in. Nor is Congress permitted by the Constitution to oversee the chemical purity of America's Pastime.

Little by little, even baseball has fallen under the boot of Liberal authoritarianism!

Copyright Feb. 28th, 2008

COLD WAR? I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING!

No, this isn't about the climate change nonsense. Although, I must point out that NewsMax reports that the Arctic has regained almost all the ice lost over the past year and the Antarctica has a third more ice than in the past. Then again, the Drudge Report notes heavy snow in Greece and Jerusalem, so maybe we can work out the Global Warmism angle after all.

It is, however, becoming apparent that the announcement of The End of The Cold War was a bit premature. The signs are ominous as they are almost omnipresent.

• Kosovo has just declared its independence, prompting Russia to try and block said independence in the UN, with an emergency closed-door meeting of the Security Council.


• Russia's premier, Vladimir Putin has been quietly ratcheting up his belicose rhetoric while simultaneously clamping down on the rights of the Russian people.


• China has been playing chicken with American fleets, at one time surfacing a submarine in the middle of a US carrier fleet. Russia has recently taken to buzzing our operations with their aircraft.


• China has been launching large numbers of missions into space, including the planned destruction, last year, of one of their own satellites. Clearly, they are planning for a potential war in space.


• The American announcement that we will shoot down one of our own satellites has been met with concern from both China and Russia, who, after China's demonstration of this capability, now want the US to ban all research into militarizing space.


• Russia has been aiding and abetting Iran's nuclear development, as well as selling large amounts of conventional weaponry to both Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, both Russia and China are blocking all attempts to isolate Iran for their intransigence.

These are just a few data points, but the trend is clear: both China and Russia are gearing up to blunt American influence in the world. China and Russia, despite the efforts of Richard Nixon, are teaming up again. Both are looking to increase their sphere's of influence. And both have taken stances in opposition to the United States.

Many of my Friends on the Left would say that this is a good thing. Many of them actually believe either a) that we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 or b) the attacks were an inside job by a president who never really won the election.

But those of us in the Real World know that the world is a dangerous place. There really are folks who would do us harm, just because our system of governance, our national interests, and our cultures are different from theirs. We, in the Real World, also understand that if America doesn't stand up for herself and for our allies, there really isn't anyone else who will.

Of course, our Friends on the Left will say that we can't be the policeman of the world, that we have no right, that it will only fan the flames of hatred for America.

That, put plainly and simply, is utter nonsense. The surest way to open America up to attack and retreat is to adopt the defeatist attitudes of the Left. Do you need Real World examples? Well then, here are two, both within the lifetimes of many of us:

• With the wholesale retreat from Viet Nam and the collapse of the Republican Party following Watergate, the US adopted the retreat and appease policies of Jimmy Carter. Simultaneously, we had the radicalization of Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Only the latter was corrected (by Ronald Reagan) and we are still paying the price of Carter's fecklessness in Iran today.


• Bill Clinton's pitiful performance vis a vis Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda. First, he sent the message, by retreating from Somalia, that we will cut and run when things get tough. Then, despite repeated al Qaeda attacks, he refused to actually treat bin Ladin's actions as the acts of war that they were. Indeed, he refused several opportunities to take bin Ladin into custody and, somehow, he was always unavailable to give the go-ahead to our operatives to assassinate him.

I'd give more examples by -- THANK GOD! -- the Left hasn't had so many opportunities to undermine our nation. Of course, should the election in November go the way I suspect it will, we'll see a repeat of these glorious days of Liberalism run amok.

And just how do we know that these things will come to pass? Consider Michelle Obama who said yesterday, “Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life [ italics are mine], I am proud of my country." Does this mean that she and, by extension, Barak have been ashamed of America until now? And how can we expect a president who isn't proud of America and all we've done for the world, to defend us, since we, ostensibly, don't deserve to be defended?

Yes, Friends! The world is indeed a very dangerous place. And there is only one nation that folks can turn to for Liberty, wealth, and defense with no strings attached. That nation is the United States. No, we never asked to become the "policeman of the world". But we did have that responsibility thrust upon us. We dare not turn our backs on that responsibility.

I do not, honestly, know enough about military and diplomatic matters to formulate a cogent opinion as to solutions to the conundrum we face. But I do know that we retreat at our own peril.
Almost 2000 years ago, the Roman Empire turned its back on much of the world, allowing much of civilization at the time to collapse, all in an attempt to keep the last sparks of Empire alive. Well, the barbarians came anyway, and first Rome then Byzantium were destroyed.

The barbarians will come for us as well, should we turn our backs to the world. Do we dare repeat the insanity that was Rome?

In the 1980's there were three people who stood tall against Communism: Ronald Reagan, Pope John-Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher once famously said to Reagan, "Don't go wobbly on us, Ronnie!"

Timely advise for us to remember in the 21st Century.

Copyright Feb. 19th, 2008

SUPER DOOPER!

I write this as Monday turns to Super Tuesday. There are now 43 primary constests in 22 states. This is the day that makes or breaks Mitt Romney. For the Democrats, the slogging goes on until Feb. 12, and then we'll see what's what.

We all know where I stand on the races. John McCain would be like voting for Democrat-Lite. As near as I can tell, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Barak and Hillary. Huckabee wants to vice president under John McCain. And Romney is the only Republican who is actually Conservative and has had any real world experience.

John McCain, as was explained last week in The Elites Choose a Candidate, is the choice of the Establishment Rockefeller Republican elites, or RINO's. These Jurrasic era bluebloods look to McCain as the Republican most likely to win in November. Indeed, if some of the early polls of a match up between McCain and Hillary are to be believed, he has a slight lead, at least for now. That lead, though, is likely to evaporate should he become the Republican nominee and the Legacy Media bring out their knives.

That apparent lead, also doesn't take into account the simple reality that, without the Conservative base, the Republican Party would be in permanent minority status, as it had been before Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, it seems aren't quite ready to drink the Kool-Aide for McCain, nor are they likely to just hold their noses and go along with their RINO leaders. And it's not just Montag's World that is decrying the apparent McCain juggernaut. Here are just a few examples

• Sean Hannity has endorsed Mitt Romney.


• Rush Limbaugh, who claims that McCain will mean the destruction of the GOP.


• Mark Levin, who frequently writes of McCain's apostacy from Conservative principals.


• Evan Sayet on his blog is quite critical of McCain and has endorsed Romney


• Ann Coulter has gone so far as to threaten to campaign for Hillary, should McCain get the nomination.

These are just a few of the Conservative luminaries, the brain trust if you will, who are vehemently opposed to a McCain candidacy. Should McCain sweep Super Tuesday, as the conventional wisdom says he will, rank and file Conservatives such as myself are left in a quandry: Do we support the Establishment candidate who has opposed our ideals for more than twenty years, or do we sit out the election, ensuring a Democrat in the White House. Actually, the choice isn't all that stark, since a McCain administration would look a lot like a Democratic administration, although a wee bit stronger on the War on Terror.

In The McCain Mutiny I wrote of a McCain nomination "...even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice." Now I'm starting to rethink that. For what possible reason would any Conservative stay with the Republican Party if our own elites reject us? What good is it to support a RINO just because "he's not as bad as those Democrats"? For all I can see (based on RINO's in New York and both Bush Administrations) we're still heading for the same destination, just at a slower pace.

Dennis Prager once said that you don't vote for the candidate, you vote for his Rolodex. In other words, who will he appoint to his Cabinet, his advisory staffs, or the courts? Generally, most RINOs have been OK on these matters, but there are some extreme exceptions. Although Bush the Elder chose well with Clarence Thomas, David Souter has been a nightmare. And we still have John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, another RINO. Even Conservatives give us a clinker now and then, Reagan having given us Anthony Kennedy, another Liberal judge.

So who's in McCain's Rolodex? One need only to look to Michelle Malkin to find out that he has advisors like Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, of the radical group, La Raza. Lest anyone doubt La Raza's radicalism, they oppose all immigration enforcement, favor immediate citizenship for all illegal aliens, and support the creation of Aztlan, the apocraphyl legendary home of the pre-Columbian Mexicans. Human Events, in an essay penned by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R. Ga) deftly traces the relationships between radical, anti-American "immigrants rights" groups and their ultimate goal of having the entire America Southwest annexed to Mexico. These aren't the kind of folks I'd like in my president's Rolodex!

Of course, in an age where the electorate tires of the bitter partisanship in Washington DC, is it any wonder that maybe a John McCain, who has proven he can "reach across the aisle" to Democrats, would be welcom change? But is the purpose of a Republican president to reach across the aisle and become a "Me too!" Democrat? Or is it to convince the Democrats to move more to the Conservative point of view? The RINOs, it seems would prefer the former.

No, Friends! The answer isn't to redefine Conservatism as Democrat-Lite. That way lies madness and defeat. I'm still hoping and praying for a Romney come back. California is beginning to look promising, as John Zogby points out. Although the premeir pollster is still confident in an ultimate McCain victory.

And yet, I believe in miracles. Just last night, I was talking to a few people about miracles and my belief in them. One of them said "It'd be a miracle if the Giants won the Superbowl." Well, guess what? The Giants did indeed win the Superbowl!

McCain, like Hillary, may be the presumptive winner of the nomination. But, again like Hillary, the conventional wisdom might be wrong, as it so frequently is, once again.

Here's to Mitt Romney! May he prove the RINOs wrong, just as Ronald Reagan did in 1980!

Copyright Feb. 4th, 2008