Wednesday, October 26, 2005


Check out this test, which lays bare the hypocrisy of just about every major liberal you can think of. It's a great teaching tool for kids, including law students.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Here is a copy of an email I sent today to The Capital Times socialist editor John Nichols:

An interesting turn of events on Madison-hero and liberal icon George Galloway.

Here's a clip of your 9/17/05 story quoting your shining knight:

"I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis, most of them children. Most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to be born at that time."

Here's a clip from today's Financial Times:

More than $600,000 raised from allocations of Iraqi crude oil was deposited into accounts for the wife and campaign charity of George Galloway, the British member of parliament (MP), a Senate subcommittee investigating the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal alleged yesterday.

Documents, including wire transfers, as well as interviews with top officials of the Saddam Hussein regime show Mr Galloway "personally solicited and received lucrative oil allocations from the Hussein regime", the committee alleged.

Can you detect the gap between the rhetoric and the truth?

Monday, October 24, 2005


This picture was taken from the RevCom website, which is dedicated to furthering the Communist movement. Please scroll down.


This picture was taken from the Democratic National Committee website.

The thin red line has ceased to exist!

Sunday, October 23, 2005


Check out these rantings, from the wacko who runs revcom.us, about Communism and Democracy:

In a world marked by profound class divisions and social inequality, to talk about “democracy”—without talking about the class nature of that democracy and which class it serves—is meaningless, and worse. So long as society is divided into classes, there can be no “democracy for all”: one class or another will rule, and it will uphold and promote that kind of democracy which serves its interests and goals. The question is: which class will rule and whether its rule, and its system of democracy, will serve the continuation, or the eventual abolition, of class divisions and the corresponding relations of exploitation, oppression and inequality.
If you undrestand this, you're probably a Communist.

Here is a copy of an email I sent to CBS this morning:

I would like to lodge a complaint about the CBS Sunday Morning Journal segment covering the Toledo race riots, and yes, they were riots, although you wouldn't know that from the coverage. Your reporter's coverage of the event was dismally politically correct, as evidenced by the limits of its scope.

The story began, appropriately enough, by covering a white resident's building of a fence to keep out his black neighbor's children, his regular videotaping of black youths, and his myriad complaints about the same youths to police, whom he thought were "suspicious." Eventually, he received the support of American Nazis, who then in turn protested Toledo. So far so good.
Just when the real story had begun to develop, the plug was pulled to avoid any suggestion of political incorectness on the part of the reporter. The sad fact was that the Nazis, for all their ideological fallaciousness, were PEACEFULLY PROTESTING. Their peaceful protest was responded to with VIOLENCE, LOOTING, and ARSON on the part of some of Toledo's black residents, who your reporter completely exonerated by blaming the Nazis for inciting them. In fact, the report barely even touched on this aspect of the story at all, which, unfortunately, was not at all surprising.

It would have taken guts to accurately cover this story, and the fact that some of Toledo residents completely lack tolerance for the OPINIONS of others. In our society, we are all legally obligated to respect the opinions of others. In fact, it's written into the First Amendment. For example, veterans of the Iraq war are obligated to respect Cindy Sheehan's right to protest the war; Jews are obligated to respect the right of Louis Farrakhan to express anti-Semitic beliefs; and on and on it goes. Likewise, blacks are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to respect the expression of beliefs by others, no matter how stupid. By letting certain members of the public off the hook when they egregiously violate the rights of others, your news organization becomes complicit in the same sort of "tolerance" that accompanied violent reprisals against certain forms of speech in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. In your silence, you become more like your ideological enemies than you would ever be brave enough to admit.

Another troubling aspect of this coverage is the suggestion that black Americans just can't control themselves, and therefore can't be blamed for their conduct when incited in any way. This same attitude is expressed, unfortuately, in the low expectations of may public school and correctional systems throughout the nation, which assume, without saying so, the same thing. Low expectations, I believe, are the cause of low school performance and deviant conduct. As long as people like you are reinforcing these stereotypes, it will be almost impossible to make any improvements in our society. Not that you would care, as long as the ratings keep coming in.



Jeffrey C. Marty

Monday, October 03, 2005

Check out the above photo and caption. I found that on this website, which attempted to predict the direction of the Court post-2004. Not too far from the truth! Except that Kerry didn't even need to get elected. If this goes through, I will forever question why we are even bothering to vote Republican anymore.


Saturday, October 01, 2005

If liberals practiced what they preach for others--that abortion is a "sacred right"--maybe they would have more of them and slowly eradicate their idiotic ideas from the American lexicon. Does that idea make sense? Maybe. If liberalism is caused by inherited personality traits and bad parenting. On the other hand, maybe liberalism is caused by something else: mainstream media bias, the curriculum taught in public schools and universities, MTV, bad hygiene, inflated egos, hypnotic drum circles, the color red, a desire to identify with "industrial workers" (while not working), racial animus, a desire to "stop war and end racism" (but support terrorism), etc.

If so, then aborting liberals wouldn't solve the problems caused by liberalism. Which brings me to Bill Bennett's comments this week about aborting black babies (or should I say, encouraging black women to "choose"). Here is the statement Bennett made on his radio show that has caused all the righteous indignation:

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

Prior to this comment, a caller had been arguing that legalizng abortion has led to fewer social security revenues. The point of his argument was that but-for Roe v. Wade, more babies would have been born and the workforce would have been larger, therefore leading to more revenues to support social security, which is strained because there is a huge population of retiring baby boomers and not enough workers to support them.

Bennett argued in response that such "economic" arguments in favor of the pro-life position are stupid because you can use them in exactly the opposite way, hence the comment about blacks, abortion, and crime. Using current crime rates, which are much higher for blacks per capita than other races, and projecting those rates into the future, you could plausibly argue that aborting black babies would reduce crime--largely because the black population would decrease, therefore decreasing the higher-than-average number of criminals included in that group of people. Ceteris paribus (if all remains equal), Bennett's point makes perfect sense.

BUT THAT WAS NOT HIS POINT!!!! His point was that abortion is morally wrong, and should be argued from that standpoint, not an economic one. After saying that aborting blacks would reduce crime, he immediately qualified the comment by saying such a plan would be "morally reprehensible." That is the part all the grandstanding liberals intentionally ignored.

The perfect irony here is that liberals are the ones who dance on the graves of aborted black fetuses on a regular basis. They're the ones who try to paint black people as "victims" of racism and poverty, thereby justifying liberal support of government sponsored abortions. Bill Bennett is saying just the opposite, that abortion is wrong no matter what race is having one. The race-baiting liberals of today, in deed, are exactly what they claim to preach against.

If the press were less biased or more intelligent, or both, this would be a non-story. As it stands, there were 425 stories on Google News this afternoon. How tragic.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?