Full-blown Liberalitis

As most of Michael Savage's listeners know, to quote the title of one of his recent Best-Sellers, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."

Having spent my advanced schooling years and then most of my career in a "creative" field surrounded by liberals, I can vouch for Savage's diagnosis.

But there's more. I don't mean to frighten anyone, but this mental disorder is communicable. Over the past few years, I have been studying this closely. I have witnessed this with my own two eyes. I have been shocked to see how some we used to think of as conservative contracted this debilitating mental disorder. I warn you, this is ugly.

For example, for years we thought of Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, didn't we? He was Dirty down to his skivvies. But he got a little older and hadn't won any major Hollywood awards, so he figured he'd change his style. Running for Mayor of Carmel was the first hint that he might have contracted the disorder. Once it got a foothold - perhaps I should say a brain-hold - it quickly progressed. Dirty Harry was turning to Sensitive Harold right before our eyes. I thought the disorder had gone into remission when he starred in and directed "Unforgiven"... a killer of a Western. But, he also did the sound track for this film - a track opening with a spectacularly "sensitive" theme and closing with one of the darkest, almost Shostakovichian programmatic opuses I can recall. I have to admit it was so perfect it gave me goose-bumps and still does upon re-viewing this great Western. Clint was a sort of good bad guy in this film, went way out of his way to be nice to the whores, the black guy (Morgan Freeman) and others. "Sensitive." But we all know where composing "sensitive" music leads... straight to patent leather pumps, and hugging other men wearing bow ties and cummerbunds. Then there was that Bridges of Madison thing. Say no more, say no more.

Anyway, along came "Million Dollar Baby" and now "Flags of Our Fathers" and Clint is screaming to Hollywood's "elite" that "Hey, I've contracted full-blown Liberalitis! I'm one of you now." Well, if it was that simple, maybe it wouldn't be a mental thing. But we men are supposed to start out liberal and end up conservative in our old age. Clint's confused. He's got it backwards. Or he's just doing it to be loved and embraced (there's that hugging thing again) by those he wants to cuddle up to. Now doing something to be embraced by people you formerly hated... well, that's just plain mental. You can note that on his medical clip-board and close the case. Like a Pop Tart left in the toaster one too many cycles, he's done.

I have been noticing the same disorder beginning to infect Bill O'Reilly. Bill has been one of my favorite, reliable go-to conservative guys for years now. But he has contracted Liberalitis. It's not full-blown yet, but all the symptoms are there. The need to be "fair" to people who are unable to root for the home team. The need to be more "sensitive" to every point of view and every religion and every sexual preference, no matter how antithetical to common sense American ideals. He feels a great need to engage in discourse with those so far left they have passed the margin and fallen off the page. But, Bill gives them a friendly platform with which to trash us conservatives and our President. Which leads me to my final example.

I'm afraid to report that President Bush has contracted full-blown Liberalitis. It has affected his hearing so the cries of those who elected him go unheard. He now has (just as his daddy had) a deep need to be accepted by the liberal "elite." He finds comfort in cozying up to the Clintons (excuse me while make a deposit in this barf bag I keep by my computer just for moments like this). Perhaps GW has figured out it is only the liberal elite who "count" as far as written history goes. Or as far as his "legacy" is concerned. The rest of us can eat cake.

He listens to all those softies surrounding him. Sadly this includes our First Lady, his dad and his mom, and many of those in his Administration. He listens to all the "sensitive" people who want to be seen as tough on terrorism but don't want to hurt or be mean to anyone. Let's not get too tough in Iraq, they tell him, we don't want to offend anyone. Let's give them more time. More time to learn how to steal and cheat from us, to pretend to be a democratic government while they pledge their allegiance to the jihadist brotherhood.

Have you heard Condi Rice-a-Roni lately? She sounds like she is mentoring a group of slow-learners on how to be "sensitivite" and polite to those who want to hack your head off. They tell us we are in a war. But this is the positively worst way to fight a war; the worst way to deal with America's southern border, and all the other problems plaguing our times.

President Bush needs a shot of anti-libiotics, he needs to immunize himself from those around him before he starts scribbling "redrum" all over the Oval Office walls. He needs to unleash our military boys so they can kill the bad guys in Iraq and get this damned debacle over with. And if he is too wobbly to do that, then he should tell the Iraqi's to get stuffed, bring the boys home, and figure out how to rationalize all that treasure, in both gold and blood, America has spent over there.

President Bush, sir... right now, at this moment in history, we need Dirty Harry not Sensitive George. Once you're out of office, you can be as sensitive as you want on your own time. But on our time, while you're still in office, if you really want to represent the majority of us out here and protect America's interests, you need to draw that gun metal black Magnum, cock the hammer, put it to the heads of Middle Eastern thugs - including the ones that pretend to be on our side - and say "Go ahead, Muqtada, make my day..."


Choose Your "No-no"

Recently revised

Those of us old enough to remember when "I Love Lucy" was in its original tv run will recall network standards dictated that Lucy and Dezi had to sleep in separate beds. In those days there were certain words considered “impolite” or “off-limits” in the family living room. They were no-no’s, uh-uh’s banned from tv by strict network censors. In fact, George Carlin did a very funny stand-up routine about the list of infamous words you couldn’t say on tv.

Instead of respecting the ban, the secular-progressive poo-poo boys in the entertainment industry pushed and pushed and finally succeeded in so marginalizing network standards that censors were, in effect, banned! As a result, words and phrases once written only on men’s room walls are puked all over tv cable shows and other “entertainment” media.

Later, stand-up comics of the merde school dragged stand-up all the way down into the cesspool. Watching some of their “comedy” routines was like watching your momma lick the doedorant cake in an old-fashioned men’s room urinal. But to no one’s shock, large segments of the tv audience couldn’t get enough. Sad commentary on America’s level of taste and sophistication.

Some winced, and still do, at the debasement of our culture. Parents found themselves blushing in their own or somebody else’s living room, watching tv with children or other sensitive people in the room, embarrassed at the sudden, unexpected language and images on the screen. On the other hand, we all laughed unabashedly at stand-up stand-up comics and sitcoms which proved bright comedians and writers don’t need Carlin’s list of “no-no” language to rise to the top of their craft.

If you publicly objected to the new age of base language which was infecting our everyday discourse, liberal types would try their best to embarrass you fuddy-duddies, going on about “...they’re just words... words can’t hurt you”... or other variations of the old “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never harm me” nonsense. Incredible nonsense.

The heights of hypocracy have been reached as these very same liberal language folks, the progressive “let it all hang out baby” types who blunted the censors’ pen, have come up with their own new list of “no-no’s.” They turn a deaf ear when one of their own champions of comedy gets up in front of a camera and rails on with streams of stinking epithets, often aimed at conservative, gun-toting, privileged white men. But let a well-known conservative use one of the Left’s “no-no’s” like “you people,” or maybe “faggot”... or (horror of horrors!) he might whisper “Jesus is our Savior” in a public place, and these same liberals gasp “Bigot!” “Racist!” “Homophobe!” Or worse, alert the DHS, he’s a “dangerous religious fanatic!” To copy their own language style, the politically correct folks have become totally Tom-o-phobic, heterophobic, and christophobic.

Perhaps you recall awhile ago, in a fall-down drunken state, actor-director Mel Gibson blurted out “Jews” are this-and-such: then in another incident, some sports coach in a fit of anger used a locker-room word in of all places... a locker-room! Hollywood “elites” (code for secular-progressive) spun out of control, calling for retribution, boycotting and criminal charges. Wait a minute! What happened to “words can’t harm you?” Are they allowed in Hollywood films but not in real life?

“Hateful” speech, modern weenies call it. So what if it is? Is Mankind not allowed to hate anymore? Does Mankind need to be forced to take drugs to repress perfectly natural feelings? Can Mankind repress emotions without creating neuroses? Hate is one of Mankind’s great panoply of emotions, part of our nature, like the rush of adrenalin we feel when startled or with fear, provided by nature for reasons of survival. Can we not express hate for evil? Can we not express hate for the hurting of children, or anyone or anything for that matter? Can we not hate terrorism? Can we not hate attempts to bring down, by a thousand cuts, the greatest nation the world has ever known?

Liberal “elites” are the very same hypocrites who fill our airwaves with Christian-bashing invectives, pumping low-level “entertainment” into America’s living rooms... with much of cable tv show dialog unable to sustain itself without using one of Carlin's “no-no’s” at least five times per thirty seconds. Then they get red butts over some trite comment about “macaca.” Most of us don’t even know what it means, and why should we care... it’s “just a word.” It’s so perfectly liberal, and if it weren’t so transparently hypocritical, it would be funny. What progressives are saying is, “Don’t tell us what millennia of traditional discourse dictate we can or can’t say... it’s our new secular world now, and we’ll tell you what you can or can’t say.

Not long ago, a school kid who used one of Carlin’s “no-no’s” was assured a one-way ticket to the principal’s office where his parents were summoned for mortification; and swift punishment for the poopy-mouth followed. Today, that kid can call his teacher much worse with nary an ear noticing. But let some kid utter something about God or Jesus, and his parents (more likely just one parent nowadays) are in for some mortification.

“Naughty” magazines and books, once covered in “plain brown wrappers” or hidden away in the dark corners of book stores, are now proudly displayed in plain sight in bright light. Now it’s The Bible which has been relegated to the shadows.

Exactly who in the progressive universe is sitting around deciding which words or thoughts you and I can or cannot speak or think? Does it not strike these idiots that they are now the censors? It’s just like them, isn’t it? They spend 50 years breaking down the nation’s cultural code, only to replace it with their own twisted code.

The “sophisticated” Left would have traditionalists smile and simply accept their twisted agenda without question – the new normal range of progressive mores. Traditionalists reply (insert your favorite previously-banned George Carlin “no-no” here).



I have experienced the terms of thirteen different U.S. presidents – starting with FDR. Troubling observation: each new president spends a good deal of his term attempting to right what his predecessor did wrong. The remainder of his term is spent making his own mistakes. His successor inherits the mess, and the cycle repeats.

Among other things this suggests there are few if any presidents wise enough to actually know, in the broadest sense, what in hell they are doing. When viewed dispassionately, the primary reason becomes obvious. Presidents are figureheads, enslaved by their own ideology, or that of their own close advisers, donors, and fellow travelers; hacks elected and appointed.

If a president doesn’t even have enough sense to gather the best, or at least competent, people around him, he or she is doomed to fail – a victim of consequences which hacks and journeymen have no foresight to anticipate. If ideology and political debt, rather than intelligent foresight (or at least clever chessmanship) guide a president’s decisions, these decisions are bound to produce unforeseen and unintended consequences of the worst kind, ultimately leading to failure. Most of the thirteen presidents I have seen have failed in this regard.

Of course, there are few decisions in this life which won’t lead to at least some unforeseen and unintended consequences. It’s a matter of how dire the consequences. Even smart advisers, those not ideologically driven, may fail to foresee the long-term consequences of what, at the time, at least to them, seemed like prudent decisions.

Critical decisions. Truman’s WWII-ending tactic. On the plus side, it brought WWII in the Pacific Theater to a quick end. On the other hand, it ushered in the horrors and fears of the Atomic Age. JFK’s decision as to how to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis? Reagan’s strategy in ending The Cold War? Perhaps Nixon’s opening up of relations with China seemed like a great decision at the time – but today’s China makes me think Nixon opened up a Trojan Horse.

Presidents before my time have brought about some terrible consequences. Instead of heeding Churchill’s admonition to “Love the Hun and kill the Bolshevik,” Woodrow Wilson inadvertently helped the Marxist take-over of Russia, which in turn brought the Iron Curtain thudding down on the USSR. Communist ideology spread like wildfire across the grasslands of the world, causing the deaths of tens of millions. FDR brought us his own vision, or perhaps the vision of someone close to him, of socialism; a somewhat unique American brand of welfare. Expanded dramatically by Lyndon Johnson, it changed Americans’ culture of self-reliance from what it was to what it is now; a quasi-socialist state in which a majority of voters would prefer subsidization to self-reliance, and are okay with submission to their government’s whims in return for subsistence and empty promises.

Which explains why President Bill Clinton made the kinds of popular decisions he did. And why George W. Bush made those he did, and why Barack Obama is still making the kind of decisions he is making.

But now we have this very serious situation involving Iran and nukes, which calls for decisions dictated not by a president’s ideology but by his and his advisers’ ability to foresee the full consequences of his decisions. Of course there will be some, unintended for sure, no matter which decision he makes. But as suggested earlier, it’s a matter of how dire the consequences might be. Decision “A” may work short-term, but may result in far worse consequences down the road than if the president went with plan “B.” Or “C” or “D.” For if anyone in the thrall of caliphate dreams is soulless, with the steely nerve of Harry Truman, the world may wake up one terrible morning to more Hiroshimas. One consequence of our President’s stubborn, ideological decision to essentially “do nothing” by kicking the can further down the road, leaving an even more impossible situation for his successor, may be a mushroom cloud over an American city, and a swath of radioactive death spreading across our land. Maybe across the city you live in.

Have you ever faced a bully? Let me ask you this; did “do nothing” ever work in dealing with a bully? If you haven’t, the answer is no. Bullies beg for confrontation. If you don’t want to get your ass handed to you by the bully, you must hand his ass to him. With prejudice. That bully will think twice, next time. And one unforeseen consequence may be that you actually gain his, and others’ respect.

President Obama is not likely to stop listening to whomever is advising him. He is not likely to set aside his hackneyed ideology. He is not likely to confront any of our enemies, or any of the crime and rebelliousness erupting on our own inner-city streets. His nature is to dread rejection. Bad press in England and Germany. Scorn from France. Humiliation in the eyes of UN “elites.” Anger toward him and his decisions by the muslim world. But at this point, regardless of which way he decides, he will get it all anyway. So he might as well do what needs to be done. After all, what’s the worst the rest of “the world” is going to do? Shake its trembling fingers at the U.S.? But Obama won’t do what needs to be done. He is unable. He doesn’t know how, and doesn’t have advisers who will tell him. He is on the glide path to be judged by history among the worst of our presidents; his only claim to immortality his election as America’s first black president.

If all negotiations fail to stop this nuclear weaponization, our next president, whoever he or she may be, does have a powerful military-diplomatic tool at their disposal. Plausible deniability. A terrible “accident” in the nuclear facilities of a nation warned about its efforts to become a nuclear power. Catastrophic. Messy.

When the alignment of our antagonists see (to quote Condi Rice) this “regrettable accident,” when they see the advancing of the evil cloud caused by their own illicit experiments, when the bullies see other irradiated leaders with blistered faces and singed hair glowing in the dark, you can count on one thing... without any physical proof they will know who made it happen, and they will rethink their ways.

Undoubtedly there will be many unintended and unknowable consequences to such a decision, but they are likely to be far less harmful to America than Obama’s strategy of loudly and proudly doing nothing.


Daffy Duck

Let's get away from politics for awhile, shall we?

I don't watch a lot of tv, I haven't for many years. But recently I have had cause to see a lot of cable tv shows - those endless, endless home improvement type shows, the girls' make-overs and that sort of vomitous pap some call entertainment. I am struck by a couple of things.

First, with regard to men, it seems these cheap cable shows are overrun by homosexuals. Okay, it's a whole new genre, a whole world of employment previously unheard of. Bob Vila and Norm from "This Old House" would probably not be real comfortable letting these guys anywhere near their tools.

Well, since men are hopeless anyway, let's just go to my personal favorite; girls. And by that I mean females. I can no longer call them women. Yes, there it is, that's just the point. They may be over 18, they may be fully grown and fully employed, maybe even wealthy. But somewhere along the way, the female gender underwent a strange, almost alien change.

I still remember the graceful women of yesteryear, with their slow moves and sultry voices. What we seem to have today is an entire generation of adult little girls. Their speaking voices have moved from their throats up into their sinuses. They all - and I mean all -sound like they went to the Daffy Duck Voice Coaching School. Add to this the bizarre "modern girl speaking style" where every sentence ends with a question mark - "I came in the front door?" - "The make-up I use?" - "The guys who installed my kitchen?" It's enough to make you scream? Add to this the almost-whisper, where the amount of air they push through their voice box is just barely enough to produce a sound, so it trails off at the end of a sentence with a sound that reminds me of a death rattle.

Since I was a kid, I've been in awe of gracious, intelligent, good-looking women. It's in my blood. But today's chicks!? Today, with all their discretional income, and all that's available in fashion, almost any woman can make herself more than attractive. Downright sexy. But they seem to think attractiveness ends with fashion. It doesn't. An elegantly dressed, beautifully coiff'd, exquisitely made-up woman may be a feast for the eyes, but when she opens her mouth and that nasal Bugs Bunny "aaaya" assaults your senses, it's enough to make a man's ears hurt and his testicles shrivel like California raisins.

And what's with the gargoyle Rosie O'Donnell types!? They dress in lesbo brown jackets with collared blouses, make themselves up like mortician cosmeticians, and everything they say and do is as ugly as their faces. No doubt it's their inner ugliness, the ugliness of the mind, oozing up through their endodermis and finding its expression in their faces. I see it in Hillary Clinton for example. Here was a really beautiful young woman, bright, ambitious - but her ambition, her twisted philosophy - her inner self - finally made its way up and out and now shows on her face like a twisted witch's mask. No, don't give me that baloney about women lose their looks when they get older. That's total bull. Many mature women never lose their attractiveness, because their inner beauty shines through and makes them glow. Only immature men can't see it.

If you are old enough to remember how women were in the 1940s and 1950s, you'll know what I mean. Oh sure, for every Arlene Dahl or Kate Hepburn or Julie London or Janet Leigh there was a ditzy Lucille Ball or a Marilyn Monroe (both of whom, by the way, were real "dolls" when they were younger). By and large the girls in those years were emulating the Hepburns and Sandra Dee types. Ever since Cindy Lauper made it fashionable with "Girls just wanna have fun," and Madonna taught the sleaze factor to grammar school girls twenty years ago, we have grown a generation of lacey-edged, midriff-baring tarts with annoying voices. I dare you, just listen to average schoolgirls today. Your neighbor's kids, the kids in any mall, kids on tv, scurrying up and down the supermarket aisles with cell phones. Those Bugs Bunny voices would be considered torture by the Islamoes down in Gitmo.

If you are a mother of a young girl, don't get upset with me, ma'm. Your energy will be better spent looking at who your daughter is emulating. Paris? Jessica? Is this all we have left in America for young girls? To want to grow up to be like THEM? Ma'm, your girls need to be sent to charm school. No wonder American boys are the way they are. They'd rather get themselves a mail order mate from Tailand or Manila, or even walk on the wild side with a guaranteed-to-have-sex gay boy, than to have to put up with these girls and their whiny, nasal demands.

I don't know... maybe you know... eh, what's up doc?


Foley, Foley, Foley

Okay, what can I say?

What you are witnessing here is the complete meltdown of Congress.
Good. I for one am happy.

Representatives and Senators get away with murder, grand larceny, treason and no one makes a big deal about it. But some prancing fop gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar of a boy intern (who I am sure exhudes the same snow white innocence as Anna Nicole Smith) and the Democrats and their lap dog liberal media go off like a rocketful of Viagra. How boring these clock-work October surprises have become. Of course, being clueless as usual, the Republicans reel in horror - Oh my God, he's gay! I let him drink out of my mineral water bottle! - trying to distance themselves from Foley and the inconvenient facts. "I was too busy fixing the Katrina thing down in New Orleans." Yeh, and a nice job you did down there, too.

But keep this in mind. To know who is responsible for all this mess - or for that matter any political or financial machinations - look to who profits most from it. Aha.

But who among us is surprised? No one.
Who among us doesn't think Foley was "October Surprised?" No one.
Who among us doesn't think Foley deserves to have his well-greased butt handed to him? No one.
Who among us doesn't think this is the tip of a very very smarmy iceberg? No one.
Who among us thinks there are still "honest" and moral leaders in Washington DC? No one.
Who among us doesn't think Conress is the greediest bunch of corrupt self-infatuated shits this country has ever spawned? No one.
Who among us doesn't want them all to be tarred, feather and rode out on their fat pampered arses? No one.
Who among us doesn't want a third party to break up the monopoly this bunch of hypocrites has had on the system for as long as we can remember? Well?

If you vote for anyone in either of these two parties, you are perpetuating their game of three-card monty. The American voter is being played for a sap. If there is no alternative, then it doesn't matter which of them gets elected. They are reflections in a mirror - opposite but exactly the same. Two flavors of poison. Take your pick.

Somewhere in this big wonderful country there must a handful of good people who can lead us out of this mess. Where are you? Certainly not in politics! Please, come forward and let us see you. Your nation cries out for you. We can't take these dimwit high school class presidents and Marxist high school newspaper editors anymore. It's not funny anymore. They have gone amok and the country is plunging into a hell where government corruption is no longer measured in the tens of thousands, but in the tens of billions. Like, who will profit most from this 700-mile border fence that won't stop anybody? The fence builder? The fence material supplier. The manufacturer? Or the politician getting 15% of the cost funneled to him under the table?

It is time to clean house on both sides of the aisle.